The URL can be used to link to this page

11-03-08 Agenda Reg ëØÖÈÑÜËúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏðØØÉÔÏÖ ëèñøê÷îëíèûñôúíüëéôúôíüéôîï ðÎÏÙÜÄïÎÇØÐÛØË íèûñôúúîððøïé éÕØÍÈÛÑÔÚÔÊØÏÚÎÈËÜÖØÙÉÎÎ××ØË ÚÎÐÐØÏÉÊÆÔÉÕÉÕØÎËÙØËÎ×ÍËØÊØÏÉÜÉÔÎÏÛØÔÏÖÜÊ×ÎÑÑÎÆÊúÔÉÄêÉÜ×× ëØÖÈÑÜËðØØÉÔÏÖ ÍÐ ÍÈÛÑÔÚÚÎÐÐØÏÉÊúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÙÔÊÚÈÊÊÔÎÏÜÏÙÎ××ÔÚÔÜÑÜÚÉÔÎÏúÔÉÄ íÈÛÑÔÚõØÜËÔÏÖÊ ÍÐ úÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÐØØÉÔÏÖÊÜËØÛÈÊÔÏØÊÊÐØØÉÔÏÖÊÜÏÙÉÕØËÔÖÕÉÉÎÑÔÐÔÉ ùØÑËÜÄûØÜÚÕúÔÉÄõÜÑÑöØÏØËÜÑÑÄËØÐÜËÒÊÛÄÜÏ ÙÔÊÚÈÊÊÔÎÏËØÊÉÊÆÔÉÕÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏ ÔÏÙÔÇÔÙÈÜÑÆÔÑÑÛØÑÔÐÔÉØÙÉÎÉÕËØØÐÔÏÈÉØÊÎËÑØÊÊ éÕØðÜÄÎËÎË ÍËØÊÔÙÔÏÖÎ××ÔÚØËÕÜÊÙÔÊÚËØÉÔÎÏÉÎÜÙÓÈÊÉÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ×ÉÔÐØÜÑÑÎÚÜÉØÙ ü íÈÛÑÔÚõØÜËÔÏÖÊüÏÄÚÔÉÔÃØÏÔÊØÏÉÔÉÑØÙÉÎÊÍØÜÒÎÏÔÉØÐÊÈÏÙØË ÉÕÔÊÊØÚÉÔÎÏ û úÎÐÐØÏÉÊÜÏÙôÏÌÈÔËÔØÊÎÏïÎÏüÖØÏÙÜôÉØÐÊ×ËÎÐÉÕØíÈÛÑÔÚ üÏÄÚÔÉÔÃØÏÔÊØÏÉÔÉÑØÙÉÎÛØÕØÜËÙÚÎÏÚØËÏÔÏÖÜÏÄÐÜÉÉØËÆÔÉÕÔÏ ÉÕØÊÚÎÍØÎ×ÓÈËÔÊÙÔÚÉÔÎÏÎ×ÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÈÏÙØËÉÕÔÊÊØÚÉÔÎÏ éÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÐÜÄÆÔÉÕÕÎÑÙÚÎÐÐØÏÉÎËÙÔËØÚÉÉÕØúÔÉÄ ðÜÏÜÖØËÉÎÉÜÒØÜÚÉÔÎÏÎÏËØÌÈØÊÉÊÎËÚÎÐÐØÏÉÊ ú ëØÖÈÑÜËüÖØÏÙÜÜÏÙ÷ÔËÊÉëØÜÙÔÏÖôÉØÐÊíÈÛÑÔÚÔÏÍÈÉÎÏ ÜÖØÏÙÜØÙÔÉØÐÊÎÉÕØËÉÕÜÏÉÕÎÊØÉÕÜÉÜËØÊÍØÚÔ×ÔÚÜÑÑÄÊØÉ×ÎËÜ ×ÎËÐÜÑÍÈÛÑÔÚÕØÜËÔÏÖÊÕÜÑÑÛØÜÑÑÎÆØÙÆÕØÏÜÖËØØÙÛÄ ÚÎÏÊØÏÊÈÊÎ×ÉÕØúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏ êôöïôïêõøøé íËÔÎËÉÎÉÕØÊÉÜËÉÎ×ÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏðØØÉÔÏÖ ÔÏÙÔÇÔÙÈÜÑÊÆÔÊÕÔÏÖÉÎÜÙÙËØÊÊÍÈÛÑÔÚÕØÜËÔÏÖÎËÏÎÏÜÖØÏÙÜØÙÔÉØÐÊ ÊÕÎÈÑÙÊÔÖÏÔÏÎÏÉÕØÊÕØØÉÑÎÚÜÉØÙÎÏÉÕØËÔÖÕÉÊÔÙØÎ×ÉÕØÙÜÔÊô×ÄÎÈ ÜËØÏÎÉÜÛÑØÉÎÙÎÊÎÍËÔÎËÉÎÉÕØÊÉÜËÉÎ×ÉÕØÐØØÉÔÏÖÄÎÈÐÜÄÊÉÔÑÑ ÜÙÙËØÊÊÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÎÏÜÏÜÍÍËÎÍËÔÜÉØÔÉØÐéÕØÍËÔÐÜËÄÍÈËÍÎÊØ Î×ÉÕØÊÔÖÏÔÏÊÕØØÉÔÊÉÎÜÊÊÔÊÉÊÉÜ××ÆÔÉÕËØÚÎËÙÒØØÍÔÏÖéÕØËØ×ÎËØ ÆÕØÏÄÎÈÚÎÐØÈÍÉÎÉÕØÍÎÙÔÈÐÉÎÊÍØÜÒÍÑØÜÊØÚÎÐÍÑØÉØÉÕØÊÔÖÏ ÔÏÊÕØØÉÔ×ÄÎÈÕÜÇØÏÎÉÜÑËØÜÙÄÙÎÏØÊÎ üùùëøêêôïöéõøúîððôêêôîï üÉÉÕØÜÍÍËÎÍËÔÜÉØÉÔÐØ ÍÑØÜÊØÊÉØÍÈÍÉÎÉÕØÍÎÙÔÈÐÜÏÙÊÉÜÉØÄÎÈËÏÜÐØÜÏÙÜÙÙËØÊÊ×ÎËÉÕØ ËØÚÎËÙüÑÑÚÎÐÐØÏÉÊÐÈÊÉÛØÜÙÙËØÊÊØÙÉÎÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÜÊÜÛÎÙÄ ÜÏÙÏÎÉÉÎÔÏÙÔÇÔÙÈÜÑÊüÏÄÍØËÊÎÏÐÜÒÔÏÖÔÐÍØËÉÔÏØÏÉÎËÊÑÜÏÙØËÎÈÊ ËØÐÜËÒÊÎËÆÕÎÛØÚÎÐØÊÛÎÔÊÉØËÎÈÊÆÕÔÑØÜÙÙËØÊÊÔÏÖÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏ ÊÕÜÑÑÛØÛÜËËØÙÛÄÉÕØÍËØÊÔÙÔÏÖÎ××ÔÚØË×ËÎÐÊÍØÜÒÔÏÖ×ÈËÉÕØËÈÏÑØÊÊ ÍØËÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÉÎÚÎÏÉÔÏÈØÎËÜÖÜÔÏÜÙÙËØÊÊÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÔÊÖËÜÏÉØÙÛÄ ÜÐÜÓÎËÔÉÄÇÎÉØÎ×ÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÐØÐÛØËÊÍËØÊØÏÉ üííøññüéøíëîúøùèëøê íÑØÜÊØÛØÜÙÇÔÊØÙÉÕÜÉÔ×ÜÍØËÊÎÏÙØÚÔÙØÊÉÎÜÍÍØÜÑÜÏÄÙØÚÔÊÔÎÏÐÜÙØ ÛÄÉÕØúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÆÔÉÕËØÊÍØÚÉÉÎÜÏÄÐÜÉÉØËÚÎÏÊÔÙØËØÙÜÉÉÕÔÊ ÐØØÉÔÏÖÊÈÚÕÍØËÊÎÏÆÔÑÑÏØØÙÉÎØÏÊÈËØÉÕÜÉÜÇØËÛÜÉÔÐËØÚÎËÙ ÔÏÚÑÈÙØÊÉÕØÉØÊÉÔÐÎÏÄÜÏÙØÇÔÙØÏÚØÈÍÎÏÆÕÔÚÕÉÕØÜÍÍØÜÑÔÊÛÜÊØÙ éÕØúÔÉÄÏØÔÉÕØËÍËÎÇÔÙØÊÏÎËÍËØÍÜËØÊÊÈÚÕËØÚÎËÙ éÕØúÔÉÄÆÔÑÑ×ÈËÏÔÊÕÜÈÅÔÑÔÜËÄÜÔÙÊÜÏÙÊØËÇÔÚØÊÉÎÜ××ÎËÙÜÏ íÕÎÏØ ÔÏÙÔÇÔÙÈÜÑÆÔÉÕÜÙÔÊÜÛÔÑÔÉÄÜÏÎÍÍÎËÉÈÏÔÉÄÉÎÍÜËÉÔÚÔÍÜÉØÔÏÜÏÙ ÷ÜÅ ØÏÓÎÄÉÕØÛØÏØ×ÔÉÊÎ×ÜÊØËÇÔÚØÍËÎÖËÜÐÎËÜÚÉÔÇÔÉÄÚÎÏÙÈÚÉØÙ ÛÄÉÕØúÔÉÄúÎÏÉÜÚÉùÎÈÖêÐÔÉÕÜÉ ÕÎÈËÊÍËÔÎËÉÎ ÉÕØØÇØÏÉÔÏÎËÙØË×ÎËÉÕØúÔÉÄÉÎÜÚÚÎÐÐÎÏÙÜÉØÄÎÈËËØÌÈØÊÉ üÙÜÍÉÔÇØÑÔÊÉØÏÔÏÖÙØÇÔÚØÊÜËØÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ÎËÐØØÉÔÏÖÊÔÏÉÕØ úÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏúÕÜÐÛØËÊ ëøöèñüëðøøéôïöüöøïùü ëîññúüññ ôïçîúüéôîï íñøùöøî÷üññøöôüïúøéîéõø÷ñüö üöøïùüüííëîçüñ üííëîçüñî÷ðôïèéøê îÚÉÎÛØË ëØÖÈÑÜËðØØÉÔÏÖ ü íëîúñüðüéôîïê üïîïø íëøêøïéüéôîïê óÈÏÔÎËéØÏÏÔÊéÎÈËÏÜÐØÏÉ§ôÇÜÏûÜËÎÏ ü úÜËÎÑÄÏöÕÎÑÊÉÎÏ§ðÈÑÉÔúÈÑÉÈËÜÑ÷ØÊÉÔÇÜÑ û úîïêøïéüöøïùü úÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØËëØÚÎÐÐØÏÙÊüÍÍËÎÇÜÑ ÷ôïüñíñüéüííëîçüñëøöôîïêûüïòüÍÍËÎÇØÜ×ÔÏÜÑÍÑÜÉ×ÎËëØÖÔÎÏÊûÜÏÒÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉ ü ÉÕ êøêÉËØØÉ ëøêîñèéôîïïî éüåøåøðíéôîïëøìèøêé÷îëøñôöôûñø û ôðíëîçøðøïéê ïüêêüèêéëøøéüÍÍËÎÇØÜÉÜÅØÅØÐÍÉÔÎÏËØÌÈØÊÉ×ÎËØÑÔÖÔÛÑØ ÔÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊÉÎÉÕØÍËÎÍØËÉÄÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉ ïÜÊÊÜÈêÉËØØÉÆÔÉÕÔÏÉÕØïÜÊÊÜÈíÜËÒõÔÊÉÎËÔÚ ùÔÊÉËÔÚÉÜÏÙÜÍÍËÎÇØëØÊÎÑÈÉÔÎÏïÎ üúúøíéüïúøî÷ëôöõéî÷æüäùøùôúüéôîïúîððèïôéäëøùøçøñîíðøïé ú ÉÕ üöøïúäúëüêæ üçøïèøíëîíøëéôøêüÍÍËÎÇØÜÏÙÜÚÚØÍÉÜËÔÖÕÉÎ×ÆÜÄÙØØÙ ÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØúÔÉÄÜÏÙÉÕØúÎÐÐÈÏÔÉÄëØÙØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉüÖØÏÚÄúëü×ÎËÙØÙÔÚÜÉÔÎÏÎ×ÜÙÙÔÉÔÎÏÜÑ ÉÕÊÉ ËÔÖÕÉÎ×ÆÜÄ×ÎËÉÕØÜÑÑØÄÍÜËÜÑÑØÑÉÎÜÏÙÎÏÉÕØÆØÊÉÊÔÙØÎ×êæ üÇØÏÈØÛØÉÆØØÏêæ ÜÏÙ ÏÙ êÉËØØÉÊ ù úîïéëüúéúñîêøîèéúîïî÷ôïüñéîéüñìèüñôéäúîïêéëèúéôîï êøëçôúøêôïúüÍÍËÎÇØÜúÎÏÉËÜÚÉúÑÎÊØÎÈÉúÕÜÏÖØîËÙØËïÎ÷ÔÏÜÑÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÜÏÙ×ÔÏÜÑÍÜÄÐØÏÉÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÉÎéÎÉÜÑìÈÜÑÔÉÄúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏêØËÇÔÚØÊ ôÏÚ×ÎËÉÕØÚÎÐÍÑØÉÔÎÏÎ×ÉÕØùØÑËÜÄêÆÔÐÜÏÙéØÏÏÔÊúØÏÉØËæØÊÉíÜËÒÔÏÖñÎÉíËÎÓØÚÉ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖ ÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ ëØÚËØÜÉÔÎÏôÐÍÜÚÉ÷ØØ÷ùúÜÍÔÉÜÑîÈÉÑÜÄêÆÔÐéØÏÏÔÊ íÜËÒÔÏÖñÎÉ úîïéëüúéúñîêøîèé÷ôïüñíüäðøïéðÚúüûøûëîéõøëêúîïêéëèúéôîï ø ôïúüÍÍËÎÇØÜúÎÏÉËÜÚÉúÑÎÊØÎÈÉÜÏÙ×ÔÏÜÑÍÜÄÐØÏÉÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÉÎðÚúÜÛØ ûËÎÉÕØËÊúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏôÏÚ×ÎËÚÎÐÍÑØÉÔÎÏÎ×ÉÕØíÎÑÔÚØûËÔØ×ÔÏÖëÎÎÐÜÏÙëØÍÎËÉëÎÎÐ ëØÏÎÇÜÉÔÎÏíËÎÓØÚÉ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ öØÏØËÜÑúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏ ÷ÈÏÙûÈÔÑÙÔÏÖðÜÔÏÉØÏÜÏÚØ üðøïùðøïéïî éîéõøôïéøëñîúüñüöëøøðøïéíüñðûøüúõ ÷ úîèïéäñôïéîïûîèñøçüëùûëôùöøéøïùøëõîèêøüÍÍËÎÇØüÐØÏÙÐØÏÉïÎ ÉÎ ÉÕØôÏÉØËÑÎÚÜÑüÖËØØÐØÏÉÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØúÔÉÄÜÏÙíÜÑÐûØÜÚÕúÎÈÏÉÄØÅÉØÏÙÔÏÖÉÕØÚÎÐÍÑØÉÔÎÏÉÔÐØ ×ÎËÉÕØ×ÜVÜÙØËØÏÎÇÜÉÔÎÏÊÉÎÉÕØñÔÏÉÎÏûÎÈÑØÇÜËÙûËÔÙÖØéØÏÙØËõÎÈÊØ ÷ôëêéüðøïùðøïééîôïéøëñîúüñüöëøøðøïéíüñðûøüúõúîèïéä ö êõøëô÷÷«êî÷÷ôúøüÍÍËÎÇØÉÕØ÷ÔËÊÉüÐØÏÙÐØÏÉÉÎÉÕØôÏÉØËÑÎÚÜÑüÖËØØÐØÏÉÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØ úÔÉÄÜÏÙÉÕØíÜÑÐûØÜÚÕúÎÈÏÉÄêÕØËÔ××«Êî××ÔÚØ×ÎËèËÛÜÏüËØÜêØÚÈËÔÉÄôÏÔÉÔÜÉÔÇØèüêôöËÜÏÉ íËÎÖËÜÐØÅÉØÏÙÔÏÖÉÕØÚÎÏÉËÜÚÉÍØËÔÎÙÉÎóÈÏØ üðøïùðøïéïî éîéõøúîððèïôéäùøçøñîíðøïéûñîúòöëüïé õ úùûöéøùúøïéøëüöëøøðøïéüÍÍËÎÇØüÐØÏÙÐØÏÉïÎ ÉÎÉÕØúÎÐÐÈÏÔÉÄ ùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉûÑÎÚÒöËÜÏÉúùûöüÖËØØÐØÏÉÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØúÔÉÄÉÕØùØÑËÜÄûØÜÚÕúÎÐÐÈÏÔÉÄ ëØÙØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉüÖØÏÚÄúëüÜÏÙéÕØúØÏÉØË×ÎËéØÚÕÏÎÑÎÖÄøÏÉØËÍËÔÊØÜÏÙùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉôÏÚ éøùúØÏÉØËØÅÉØÏÙÔÏÖÉÕØÚÎÏÉËÜÚÉÍØËÔÎÙÉÎêØÍÉØÐÛØË üÔÙÊ ôïôéôüéôîïî÷úîðíëøõøïêôçøíñüïüðøïùðøïé ÷ÎËÐÜÑÑÄÔÏÔÉÔÜÉØ ô úÎÐÍËØÕØÏÊÔÇØíÑÜÏüÐØÏÙÐØÏÉ ÍÈËÊÈÜÏÉÉÎêØÚÉÔÎÏ Î×ÉÕØñÜÏÙùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉ ëØÖÈÑÜÉÔÎÏÊ ëøêîñèéôîïïî üÍÍËÎÇØÜÏÙÜÙÎÍÉëØÊÎÑÈÉÔÎÏïÎ ÊÈÍÍÎËÉÔÏÖÜÏÜÐØÏÙÐØÏÉÉÎ ó ÷ÑÎËÔÙÜÊúÎÏÊÉÔÉÈÉÔÎÏÉÎËØÌÈÔËØÉÕØ÷ÑÎËÔÙÜñØÖÔÊÑÜÉÈËØÉÎÎÍØËÜÉØÈÏÙØËÉÕØ÷ÑÎËÔÙÜêÈÏÊÕÔÏØ ñÜÆÊ êíøúôüñøçøïéëøìèøêé÷ôëêéïôöõé üÍÍËÎÇØÜÊÍØÚÔÜÑØÇØÏÉËØÌÈØÊÉÉÎØÏÙÎËÊØ ò ÉÕ ÉÕØ üÏÏÈÜÑ÷ÔËÊÉïÔÖÕÉ ØÇØÏÉÎÏùØÚØÐÛØË ×ËÎÐ ÍÐÉÎÐÔÙÏÔÖÕÉÖËÜÏÉÔÏÖ ÜÉØÐÍÎËÜËÄÈÊØÍØËÐÔÉÍØËñùëêØÚÉÔÎÏ ÷×ÎËÉÕØÈÊØÎ×úÔÉÄËÔÖÕÉÊÎ×ÆÜÄÜÏÙ×ÜÚÔÑÔÉÔØÊÜÊ ËØÌÈØÊÉØÙÜÏÙÉÎÜÈÉÕÎËÔÃØÊÉÜ××ÊÈÍÍÎËÉ×ÎËÉËÜ××ÔÚÚÎÏÉËÎÑÜÏÙÊØÚÈËÔÉÄÊÔÉØÚÑØÜÏÈÍÜÏÙÉËÜÊÕ ËØÐÎÇÜÑÛÜËËÔÚÜÙØÊØÉÈÍÜÏÙËØÐÎÇÜÑÊÔÖÏÜÖØÚÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏÜÏÙÔÏÊÉÜÑÑÜÉÔÎÏÜÏÙøðêÊØËÇÔÚØÊ ëøçôøæî÷üííøüñüûñøñüïùùøçøñîíðøïéûîüëùüúéôîïêüÚÚØÍÉÉÕØÜÚÉÔÎÏÊ ñ ÜÏÙÙØÚÔÊÔÎÏÊÐÜÙØÛÄÉÕØñÜÏÙùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉûÎÜËÙÊ×ÎËÉÕØÍØËÔÎÙîÚÉÎÛØË ÉÕËÎÈÖÕ îÚÉÎÛØË üæüëùî÷ûôùêüïùúîïéëüúéê ð úÎÏÉËÜÚÉÜÆÜËÙÉÎæØÊÉúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏôÏÚÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÉÕØðÔÑÑØËíÜËÒ ôÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊíËÎÓØÚÉ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ öØÏØËÜÑúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏ ÷ÈÏÙîÉÕØËôÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊ íÈËÚÕÜÊØÜÆÜËÙÉÎíËÜÅÜÔËôÏÚÔÏÜÏØÊÉÔÐÜÉØÙÚÎÊÉÎ× ×ÎËÉÕØÍÈËÚÕÜÊØÜÏÙ ÙØÑÔÇØËÄÎ×ñÔÌÈÔÙúÜËÛÎÏùÔÎÅÔÙØúî×ÎËÉÕØæÜÉØËéËØÜÉÐØÏÉíÑÜÏÉ×ËÎÐîÚÉÎÛØË ÉÕËÎÈÖÕêØÍÉØÐÛØË ÎÐ æÜÉØËêØÆØË ÷ÈÏÙúÕØÐÔÚÜÑÊ íÈËÚÕÜÊØÜÆÜËÙÉÎíçêéØÚÕÏÎÑÎÖÔØÊôÏÚÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÉÕØÍÈËÚÕÜÊØÜÏÙ ÙØÑÔÇØËÄÎ×ÑÔÌÈÔÙÜÏÙÙËÄ÷ØËËÔÚúÕÑÎËÔÙØ×ÎËÉÕØæÜÉØËéËØÜÉÐØÏÉíÑÜÏÉÜÊÏØØÙØÙ×ÎËÉÕØ ÍØËÔÎÙÎ×ïÎÇØÐÛØË ÉÕËÎÈÖÕêØÍÉØÐÛØË ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ æÜÉØËêØÆØË÷ÈÏÙúÕØÐÔÚÜÑÊ íÈËÚÕÜÊØÜÆÜËÙÉÎîÉÉÎæÜÊÉØêÄÊÉØÐÊÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÉÕØÍÈËÚÕÜÊØÎ×ÕÎÉ ÊÉÜÐÍØÙÖÜËÛÜÖØÚÜËÉÊÆÔÉÕÑÔÙÊÜÏÙÆÕØØÑÊÉÎÛØÎËÙØËØÙÜÊÏØØÙØÙ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ úÎÏÉËÜÚÉÜÆÜËÙÉÎüÔËùÈÚÉüÊØÍÉÔÚÊÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÐÎÑÙËØÐØÙÔÜÉÔÎÏ ÊØËÇÔÚØÊÜÉÉÕØíÎÑÔÚØùØÍÜËÉÐØÏÉ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ öØÏØËÜÑ úÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏ÷ÈÏÙëØÍÜÔËðÜÔÏÉØÏÜÏÚØêØËÇÔÚØÊûÈÔÑÙÔÏÖðÜÔÏÉØÏÜÏÚØ ëøöèñüëüöøïùü ÊÉ ü æüôçøëëøìèøêé üçøïèøúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÆÜÔÇØËËØÌÈØÊÉÉÎñÜÏÙùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉ ëØÖÈÑÜÉÔÎÏÊñùëêØÚÉÔÎÏ úÜÉÎÍØËÐÔÉÉÆÎÍÜËÒÔÏÖÊÍÜÚØÊÆÔÉÕÔÏÉÕØËØÌÈÔËØÙ ÊÉ ×ËÎÏÉÊØÉÛÜÚÒÑÔÏØ×ÎËÉÕØÍËÎÍØËÉÄÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉ ïæ üÇØÏÈØì ÈÜÊÔóÈÙÔÚÔÜÑõØÜËÔÏÖ æüôçøëëøìèøêéðüëëôîééõîéøñúÎÏÊÔÙØËÉÕËØØ ÆÜÔÇØËËØÌÈØÊÉÊÉÎñÜÏÙ û ùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉëØÖÈÑÜÉÔÎÏÊñùëêØÚÉÔÎÏÊ ÜªõØÔÖÕÉ© ü ÜÏÙ ü ªçÔÊÔÛÔÑÔÉÄÜÉôÏÉØËÊØÚÉÔÎÏÊ©ÜÊÊÎÚÔÜÉØÙÆÔÉÕÉÕØúÑÜÊÊôçÊÔÉØÍÑÜÏÐÎÙÔ×ÔÚÜÉÔÎÏ×ÎËÉÕØùØÑËÜÄ ðÜËËÔÎÉÉøÅÍÜÏÊÔÎÏÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉÉÕØÏÎËÉÕÆØÊÉÚÎËÏØËÎ×êÉÜÉØëÎÜÙü üÜÏÙøÜÊÉüÉÑÜÏÉÔÚ üÇØÏÈØì ÈÜÊÔóÈÙÔÚÔÜÑõØÜËÔÏÖ üííøüñî÷õôêéîëôúíëøêøëçüéôîïûîüëùùøúôêôîï ïîëéõîúøüï ú ûîèñøçüëùúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÏÜÍÍØÜÑÎ×ÉÕØõÔÊÉÎËÔÚíËØÊØËÇÜÉÔÎÏûÎÜËÙ«ÊÙØÏÔÜÑÎ×ÜúØËÉÔ×ÔÚÜÉØÎ× üÍÍËÎÍËÔÜÉØÏØÊÊúîü×ÎËÜÏÜÚÚØÊÊÎËÄÊÉËÈÚÉÈËØÉËØØÕÎÈÊØÑÎÚÜÉØÙÔÏ×ËÎÏÉÎ× ïÎËÉÕîÚØÜÏ ûÎÈÑØÇÜËÙ÷ÎÏÉÜÔÏØ÷ÎÅõÔÊÉÎËÔÚêÔÉØ ìÈÜÊÔóÈÙÔÚÔÜÑõØÜËÔÏÖ ëøóøúéôîïî÷ûôùêëøöüëùôïöéõøéîæôïöë÷íüïùüèéõîëôãüéôîïéî ù ëøûôùüÍÍËÎÇØÉÕØËØÓØÚÉÔÎÏÎ×ÜÑÑÛÔÙÊËØÚØÔÇØÙ×ÎËÉÕØÆËØÚÒØËÉÎÆÔÏÖÊØËÇÔÚØÊë÷í approve an Interlocal agreement with the South Florida Regional Planning Council. B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/VISTA DEL MAR, L.L.C. (FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): Consider a development agreement with Vista Del Mar, L.L.C. and associated Class V Site Plan for the property located at 64 South Ocean Boulevard. C. ORDINANCE NO. 51-08 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): An ordinance amending Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.3.4, "Base District Development Standards", Subsection (,I), "Height", Paragraph ~), "Increases to Height Regulations", Subparagraphs ~) (ii), (iii) and (ivy, "Allowances", to clarify the workforce housing requirements regarding height increases. If passed, a second public hearing will be scheduled for November 18, 2008. D. ORDINANCE NO. 52-08 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): An ordinance amending the Land Development Regulations, Section 4.4.13, "Central Business (CBD) District", Subsection ~), "Performance Standards", to provide additional options regarding Workforce Housing; Article 4.7, "Family/Workforce Housing", Section 4.7, "Findings" Subsection ~), to provide regulations regarding increased height and density Section 4.7.1, "Definitions", to provide a definition of "Workforce Housing Trust Fund", Section 4.7.2, "Applicability", Paragraphs 4.7.2 B. and C. to provide additional options regarding workforce housing; Section 4.7.3, "Provision of Workforce Housing Units", to allow workforce housing in additional locations; Section 4.7.4, "Density Bonus Program for the Southwest Neighborhood Overlay District, the Carver Estates Overlay District and the Infill Workforce Housing Area", Paragraph E. to provide for contributions to the Delray Beach Workforce Housing Trust Fund; and Section 4.7.6, "Rental Housing Units", to provide clarification regarding moderate income requirements. If passed, a second public hearing will be scheduled for November 18, 2008. E. ORDINANCE NO. 41-08 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC HEARING): City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.3, "Submission Requirements", Subsection 2.4.30, "Standard Plan Items" and Subsection 2.4.3(M~, "Credentials for Preparation of Certain Submission Items"; Amending Section 4.6.8, "Lighting", to revise and clarify requirements for on-site lighting. F. ORDINANCE NO. 48-08: An ordinance amending Chapter 96, "Fire Safety and Emergency Services", Section 96.66, "Emergency Medical Transportation Fees", of the Code of Ordinances to adjust the fee schedule for emergency medical transportation in accordance with the National Ambulance Fee Schedule. G. ORDINANCE NO. 49-08: An ordinance amending Chapter 71, "Parking Regulations", of the Code of Ordinances by amending Section 71.060, "Parking Meter Permits", to provide for a change in fees charged for parking~ermits. 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. ORDINANCE NO. 50-08:Consideration of a proposed ordinance by enacting a new Chapter 74, "Civil Traffic Enforcement", of the Code of Ordinances, by enacting new Sections 74.01 through 74.16,~roviding for "Intent", "Use of Image Capture Technologies", "Definitions", "Adherence to Red Light Traffic Control Signals", "Violation", "Review of Recorded Images", "Notice of Violation/ Infraction", "Vehicle Owner Responsibilities", "Appeal to Hearing Officer", "Vehicle Owner Affidavit of Non-responsibility", "Penalty", "Administrative Charges", "Collection of Fines", "Exceptions", "Appeal of Order", and "Enforcement", to provide for the use of a code enforcement mechanism for intersection safety. If passed, a public hearing will be scheduled for November 18, 2008. B. ORDINANCE NO. 53-08: Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Community Redevelopment Plan amending Section 3.11, "Required Findings", sponsorship of City tennis tournaments. If passed, a public hearing will be scheduled for November 18, 2008. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: A. City Manager B. City Attorney C. City Commission STATE OF FLORIDA ®ffi~e of t~~ Q~o~iPr~o~ THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0001 CHARLIE CR1ST GOVERNOR Ms. Chevelle D. Nubin 100 N.W. 1St Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Dear Ms. Nubin: www.flgov.com 850-488-7146 850-487-0801 fax December 10, 2008 RECEIVED ~~,~o~ CITY CLER This letter is in response to your resolution regarding state legislature operating under the Sunshine Laws. This is an issue that has been raised previously with the Commission on Open Government Reform. In the August Commission on Open Government Reform Meeting, action was taken to work toward reforming our Open Government Laws. The recommendation for legislature stated: "suggest that the house and senate review current rules regarding access to legislative records and meetings and amend such rules to better reflect current access polices under Florida's open government laws." The Commission will issue a report to the Governor, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate in December of 2008. Thank you for taking the time to write. Sincerely, Jessica Kassees Executive Assistant . ~ ~ ~ .Office of Open Government ... .., .; .t~ ,. OCTOBER 21, 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, October 21, 2008. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Gary P. Eliopoulos Commissioner Fred B. Fetzer Commissioner Woodie B. McDuffie Commissioner Mackenson Bernard Mayor Rita Ellis Absent - None Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk 2. The opening prayer was delivered by Reverend Linda Mobley with Cason United Methodist Church. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. 4. AGENDA APPROVAL. Mayor Ellis noted the addition of Item 8.L.4., Purchase Award to Florida Bullet to the Consent Agenda by addendum. Also, Mayor Ellis stated there has been a request that Item 9.D., Appeal/Site Plan Review and Appearance Board ActionsBoston's Restaurant be postponed to November 3, 2008. The City Attorney requested that Item 10.A., Development A~reement/Vista Del Mar, L.L.C. (First Public Hearing) be postponed to a date certain of November 3, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Eliopoulos requested that Item 8.K.F., Delray Marriott Hotel (Review of Appealable Land Development Board Actions) of the Consent Agenda be moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 9.A.A. and Item 8.K (last item under HPB) for Marine Way be moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 9.A.A.A. 10/21/08 Mr. Bernard requested that Item 8.H., Final Subdivision Plat Approval/Villa~e at Delray of the Consent Agenda be moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 9.A.A.A.A. Mr. Fetzer moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Eliopoulos moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 7, 2008, seconded by Mr. Bernard. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos - Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. McDuffie moved to approve the Minutes of the Special/Workshop Meeting of October 14, 2008, seconded by Mr. Bernard. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Bernard -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 Arts and Humanities Month -October 2008 Mayor Ellis noted that this proclamation will be mailed. 6.B. Families Reading Together Month -November 2008 Mayor Ellis read and presented a proclamation proclaiming November 2008 as Delray Beach Families Reading Together Month. Janet Meeks, Education Coordinator, came forward to accept the proclamation and gave a few brief comments. 7. PRESENTATIONS: 7.A. S.P.LRLT. (Service, Performance, Integrity, Responsibility, Innovation, Teamwork) Committee Quarterly Awards Presentation Alberta Gaum-Rickard, Project Coordinator/Parks & Recreation, presented the July-September 2008 quarterly S.P.LR.LT. award to Betsy Ring Staff Assistant IUParks & Recreation and Yvonne Walker, Financial/Compliance Officer/Finance Department presented the July-September 2008 quarterly S.P.LR.LT. award to Venice Cobb, Executive AssistantBoard Liaison/City Clerk's office. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. -2- 10/21/08 8.A. ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER EASEMENT DEEDS/SOUTH COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER: Approve and accept a 12-foot water easement deed and a 12-foot sewer easement deed for South County Mental Health Center, located at 16158 South Military Trail. 8.B. CONTRACT CLOSEOUT (C.O. NO. 1/FINAL)/ALL-RITE PAVING CONTRACTORS, INC./S.W. 8t'' AVENUE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: Approve a Contract Closeout (Change Order No. 1/Final) in the amount of a $13,104.45 decrease and final payment in the amount of $10,523.30 to All-Rite Paving Contractors, Inc. for completion of the S.W. 8th Avenue Roadway and Drainage Improvements. Funding is available from 334-3162-541-65.34 (General Construction Fund/Capital Outlay/S.W. 8th Avenue-S.W. 11th Street-S.W. 10th Street) and 448-5461-538-65.34 (Storm Water Utility Fund/Other Improvements/S.W. 8th Avenue-S.W. 11th Street -S.W. 10th Street.). 8.C. AGREEMENT/GOVDEALS/DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS CITY ASSETS: Approve an agreement with GovDeals for the sale of surplus City assets on the GovDeals.com Internet site. 8.D. RESOLUTION NO. 53-08 (SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR OSCEOLA PARK SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT): Approve a resolution setting the public hearing date as December 9, 2008 for the establishment of the Osceola Park Special Assessment District, and providing for the mailing and publication of required notices. The caption of Resolution No. 53-08 is as follows: office.) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE OSCEOLA PARK SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE REGARDING THE PUBLIC HEARING; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Resolution No. 53-08 is on file in the City Clerk's 8.E. RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD: Approve and ratify the reappointment of Mr. Peter Perri as a regular member, and the appointment of Mr. Jimmy Weatherspoon as an alternate member to represent the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition, to the Parking Management Advisory Board for a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2010. -3- 10/21/08 8.F. RESOLUTION NO. 56-08/FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES: Approve and adopt Resolution No. 56-08 recognizing the "Building Citizenship in the Community: Back to Basics", initiative of the Florida League of Cities, Inc., and pledging support for this statewide effort. office.) The caption of Resolution No. 56-08 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, RECOGNIZING THE "BUILDING CITIZENSHIP IN THE COMMUNITY: BACK TO BASICS" INITIATNE OF THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC., AND PLEDGING SUPPORT FOR THIS STATEWIDE EFFORT. (The official copy of Resolution No. 56-08 is on file in the City Clerk's 8.G. ANNUAL PROJECT HOLIDAY/YOU ARE NOT ALONE ORGANIZATION: Approve a request to endorse the 3r Annual Project Holiday sponsored by the You Are Not Alone Organization and authorize City and staff support to assist with mailing packages to armed services personnel. 8.H. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 9.A.A.A.A. 8_I. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT/ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES: Approve an Amendment to the agreement between the City and the Achievement Centers for Children and Families (ACCF), to include funding in the amount of $37,255.00 providing for a total grant amount of $622,516.00 for fiscal year 07/08. 8_J. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/DELRAY AFFAIR: Consider approval of a special event request from the Chamber of Commerce to endorse the 47th Delray Affair to be held on April 17-19, 2009, contingent upon the staff recommended conditions, receipt of a certificate of general liability insurance, liquor liability insurance, and a hold harmless agreement. 8.K REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period October 6, 2008 through October 17, 2008. 8.L. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Purchase award to Chaz Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $50,000.00 for Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation under the terms and conditions of the current annual contract. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-63.82 (Water/Sewer Renewal & -4- 10/21/08 Replacement Fund/Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation). 2. Purchase award to Line-Tec, Inc. in the amount of $25,000.00 via the City of Boynton Beach, Bid #027-2821-07/JA for the Water Service Relocation Program. Funding is available from 442-5178- 536-49.33 (Water and Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund/Other Current Charges/OB Water Service Relocation). 3. Purchase award to Poolsure of South Florida in the amount of $60,870.00 for the purchase and delivery of Sodium Hypochlorite for an estimate quantity of 40,580 gallons at $1.50 per gallon. Funding is available from 441-5123-536-52.21 (Water/Sewer Fund/Chemicals). Mr. Fetzer 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; Mr. Bernard -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9. REGULAR AGENDA: 9.A.A. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period October 6, 2008 through October 17, 2008. from the dais. Commissioner Eliopoulos declared a conflict of interest and stepped down Mr. Bernard moved to approve and file "F", seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0. 9.A.A.A. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period October 6, 2008 through October 17, 2008. from the dais. Commissioner Eliopoulos declared a conflict of interest and stepped down Mr. Fetzer moved to receive and file the last item regarding Marine Way, seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer - Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.A.A.A.A. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL/VILLAGE AT DELRAY: Approve a final subdivision plat for Village at Delray, a 31.18 acre residential development containing 264 apartment units, located on the east side of Auburn Avenue south of S.W. 4th Street. -5- 10/21/08 Commissioner Bernard declared a conflict of interest and stepped down from the dais. Mr. Eliopoulos moved to approve Item 8.H (now Item 9.A.A.A.A.), seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Mr. Eliopoulos moved to approve the remainder of Item 8.K., seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. At this point, Commissioner Bernard returned to the dais. 9.A. CONDITIONAL USE EXTENSION REQUEST/ THE YACHT CLUB AT DELRAY BEACH: Consider a request to extend the conditional use to construct a new yacht club with facilities pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.4(F)(1) and (3), "Extensions", to be known as The Yacht Club at Delray Beach located on the west side of MacFarlane Drive south of Miramar Drive at 110 MacFarlane Drive. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) Mayor Ellis read the City of Delray Beach procedures for aQuasi-Judicial Hearing into the record for this item and all subsequent Quasi-Judicial items. Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who gave testimony on this item. Mayor Ellis asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte communications. The Commission had no ex parte communications to disclose. Paul Dorling Director of Planning and Zoning, entered the Planning and Zoning Department prof ect file #2006-062 into the record. Mr. Dorling stated this is a conditional use extension request for a plan which showed the construction of a new yacht club with facilities. On March 6, 2006, the City Commission approved the original conditional use and the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approved the associated site plan on April 26, 2006. The Site Plan included a 3,600 square foot clubhouse and 44 boat slips. The Yacht Club included a dock master office, social hall, exercise room, men's and women's locker rooms/restrooms, sundeck & pool and will be part of a larger redevelopment which also included 20 condominium units. The site is located off MacFarlane Drive. At its meeting of March 4, 2008, the City Commission approved an additional conditional use extension request and at its meeting of March 12, 2008, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) approved the Class V site plan -6- 10/21/08 extension request for the entire project (yacht club and residential units). The applicant requested a 24 month extension for both the conditional use and the site plan, and thus, the extension requests are valid through March 6, 2010 for the conditional use, and through April 26, 2010 for the Class V site plan. The applicant is now seeking refinancing for the project and the lenders are seeking assurance that all current entitlements (approvals) are in place when the market rebounds. To this end the applicant is seeking a longer approval window and has requested an additional two years extending the approval to April 26, 2012. Mr. Dorling stated the required findings in the LDR talk about assessing the project if it is not being constructed as it relates to the current LDRs and there are no LDR changes which would negatively impact the existing development. Therefore, the original findings of concurrency and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan can be made at this time. Mr. Dorling stated this is not the only development that the Commission will see come in for this sort of thing if it involves a refinancing issue because banks are not comfortable lending money and are looking for additional security. Mr. Dorling displayed the landscape plan and the elevations. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use extension request. Mr. Eliopoulos asked if this project was on the Planning and Zoning Agenda. Mr. Dorling stated this is an extension of the approved plan that was going to change and replace the existing Yacht Club. He stated the Yacht Club request before the Planning and Zoning Board which was postponed (going to Planning and Zoning in November and then coming to the Commission) is actually a request to reopen the facility that existed on site in the interim while they are waiting to market this facility. Mr. Dorling stated this is the same property but a different item. Mr. Fetzer asked if Mr. Dorling would anticipate more conditional use extension requests based on the current market conditions. In response, Mr. Dorling stated if a project is nearing its approval date or approval expiration a bank may not be comfortable if they have to refinance. He stated they are guaranteed an entitlement for a new development for six months, eight months or a year, and may be asking that in anticipation that there is not going to be much changed with the market in a year; maybe we want to make sure that the Commission has approval for a little bit longer. Mr. Dorling stated staff has a letter from the bank indicating that this is something that they are going to require if they are going to refinance this project. Mr. Fetzer stated he is very sympathetic to the fact that we are in some very difficult economic times and feels we have a responsibility to do what we can to help with these issues. However, Mr. Fetzer expressed concern over this possibly setting a precedent. The City Attorney stated the City has to treat people that are similarly situated the same so if the same factual scenario comes up you need to treat them the same. Mr. Eliopoulos stated he is fine with granting extensions; however, expressed concern when it is one extension request after another especially one that is so far off in the distance. He stated he would support them reopening the Yacht Club restaurant should they go that route. Mr. Eliopoulos stated vacant property or unused property is one of the worse things that Delray can have. -7- 10/21/08 Jason Mankoff, Attorney with Weiner, Aronson &Mankoff, P.A., 10 S.E. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, stated the Commission will be seeing more requests like this one and noted that in other jurisdictions the same issue is going on. Mr. Mankoff stated those extensions are going forward where they are a year or two out still for their expiration and in today's market with the financial crisis these lenders want as much security and confidence that they can have. He stated this is why the Planning and Zoning Department is supporting this but at the same time they have the same concern as Commissioner Eliopoulos that the City does not want to leave these vacant lots just left sitting. Mr. Mankoff stated the extensions going forward in the future now for open vacant lots are with conditions of approval (i.e. that the property be seeded, fenced, or landscaped). He stated they were supposed to go to the Planning and Zoning Board yesterday and noted that they are trying to make use of the property. Mr. Mankoff stated that unfortunately there was a notice issue and they had to delay the matter 30 days to the next Planning and Zoning Board hearing. He stated they are looking to re-establish that type of use at the current site and noted that these are high market units. Mr. Mankoff stated the bank is not comfortable without having this outside date of 2010. Mayor Ellis stated if anyone from the public would like to address the Commission regarding the conditional use extension request, to please come forward at this time. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding the conditional use extension request, the public hearing was closed. There was no cross examination or rebuttal. Mr. Bernard asked if the property is being refinanced. Josh McAlees stated the property is not being refinanced and noted that they are staying with the current lender which is extending the loan date. Mr. McAlees stated the loan is coming up for renewal November 30, 2008 so they are just extending it. 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). Mr. Fetzer moved to adopt the Board Order as presented, seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos - No; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard - No. Said motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote, Commissioner Eliopoulos and Commissioner Bernard dissenting. 9.B. APPOINTMENT TO THE DELRAY BEACH HOUSING AUTHORITY: Appoint one (1) regular member to the Delray Beach Housing Authority to serve an unexpired term ending July 14, 2012. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment recommendation will be made by Commissioner McDuffie (Seat #3). -8- 10/21/08 Mr. McDuffie moved to appoint Joseph Hepp as a regular member to the Delray Beach Housing Authority to serve an unexpired term ending July 14, 2012, seconded by Mr. Eliopoulos. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.C. APPOINTMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL: Appoint two (2) regular members (one member each for Zone 1 and Zone 2) to serve three (3) year terms ending July 31, 2011. Based upon the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Commissioner McDuffie (Seat #3) and Commissioner Bernard (Seat #4). Mr. McDuffie moved to reappoint Ria Santos as a regular member (Zone 1) to the Neighborhood Advisory Council (NAC) to serve a three (3) year term ending July 31, 2011, seconded by Mr. Fetzer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. Bernard moved to appoint Mary-Elizabeth Cohn as a regular member (Zone 2) to the Neighborhood Advisory Council (NAC) to serve a three (3) year term ending July 31, 2011, seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos - Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.D. APPEAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD ACTIONSBOSTON'SRESTRURANT: Consideration of an appeal regarding the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's approval of a Class V Site Plan for a Hotel located at 64 S. Ocean Boulevard. (BECAUS'E OF THE COURT'S ORDER DATED JULY 11, 2006, THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM). Commissioner Eliopoulos declared a conflict of interest and stepped down from the dais. Mr. McDuffie moved to postpone Item 9.D. to a date certain of November 3, 2008, seconded by Mr. Bernard. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. At this point, Commissioner Eliopoulos returned to the dais. At this point, the time being 6:40 p.m. the Commission moved to Item 11, City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. -9- 10/21/08 11.A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. The City Manager stated at the last meeting, Mr. Weiner made some inquiries about the beach cabana bid and noted that the City Attorney will respond to this. The City Attorney read a letter into the record responding to Michael Weiner's statement regarding bids for rental of beach equipment. 11.B. From the Public. 11.B.1. Michael Weiner, 10 S.E. 1st Street, Delray Beach, Attorney with Weiner, Aronson & Mankoff (speaking on behalf of Westway Heavy Transportation Towing, Inc.), stated this has to do with the storage and towing bid and they received a memorandum from Brian Shutt speaking to the 14 errors and inaccuracies that are in that particular bid. Mr. Weiner stated the memorandum admits to typographical errors and it states that all errors could have been explained at a pre-bid meeting. He stated they attempted to describe these exact same matters to the Commission regarding the cabana bid and the Commission reached the opposite conclusion and that is that typographical errors could not be reconciled and that the pre-bid conferences should answer all questions. Mr. Weiner stated they are now on the third addendum for the towing and storage bid and this was issued in response to other bidders who did not attend apre-bid conference. Mr. Weiner urged the City Commission to re-bid the towing and storage bid and to treat people fairly and equally that are similarly situated. 11.B.2. Kevin Piller, Vrchota Towing Corporation, 2141 N.W. 1st Place, Boca Raton, stated he too would like the opportunity to bid on the RFP 2009-02. He stated he was made aware recently that there is only one company bidding for the franchise and feels it would be more advantageous for the City to take multiple bidders. 11.B.3. Stephanie Stante, Boynton Beach, representing Beck's Towing, stated they currently have the towing contract with the City of Delray Beach with no problems. She stated there was a mandatory meeting on October 1, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. that everybody knew about. Ms. Stante stated the pre-bid meeting was advertised in the newspaper and the pre-bid meeting stated that it had to be mandatory so that you could get all the paperwork and ask questions. She stated she put the contract together in one week and for any questions she had she called and asked the Purchasing Department and never had a problem. She stated everyone who is now fighting and wants this to be rebid was not at the pre-bid meeting. Ms. Stante stated her bid is set to be opened tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m. and if the City decides to rebid it then she does not want her bid read. At this point, the time being 6:47 p.m. the Commission moved to the First Readings portion of the Agenda. 12. FIRST READINGS: -10- 10/21/08 12.A. ORDINANCE NO. 48-08: An ordinance amending Chapter 96, "Fire Safety and Emergency Services", Section 96.66, "Emergency Medical Transportation Fees", of the Code of Ordinances to adjust the fee schedule for emergency medical transportation in accordance with the National American Fee Schedule. If passed, a public hearing will be held on November 3, 2008. office.) The caption of Ordinance No. 48-08 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 96, "FIRE SAFETY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 96.66. "EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION FEES", SUBSECTION 96.66(A), TO ADJUST THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL AMBULANCE FEE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 48-08 is on file in the City Clerk's The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. The City Manager stated this is our annual adjustment and fees and it is in accordance with the national schedule. He stated the City has also compared it with our neighboring jurisdictions. Mr. Eliopoulos moved to approve Ordinance No. 48-08 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mr. Fetzer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 12.B. ORDINANCE NO. 49-08: An ordinance amending Chapter 71, "Parking Regulations", of the Code of Ordinances by amending Section 71.060, "Parking Meter Permits", to provide for a change in fees charged for parking permits. If passed, a public hearing will be held on November 3, 2008. The caption of Ordinance No. 49-08 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 71, "PARKING REGULATIONS" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES -11- 10/21/08 BY AMENDING SECTION 71.060, "PARKING METER PERMITS", TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN FEES CHARGED FOR PARKING PERMITS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. office.) (The official copy of Ordinance No. 49-08 is on file in the City Clerk's The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. McDuffie moved to approve Ordinance No. 49-08 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mr. Bernard. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 12.C. RESOLUTION NO. 50-08: Approve Resolution No. 50-08 authorizing the indebtedness by the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $500,000.00 to pay the cost of Brownfields cleanup activities and costs of issuance, and approve an Interlocal agreement with the South Florida Regional Planning Council. If passed, a second public hearing will be held on November 3, 2008. The caption of Resolution No. 50-08 is as follows: office.) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE INDEBTEDNESS BY THE DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $500,000 TO PAY THE COST OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND PAY COSTS OF ISSUANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Resolution No. 50-08 is on file in the City Clerk's The City Attorney read the caption of the resolution and on November 3, 2008, there will be a second reading and public hearing on the resolution. The City Attorney stated this resolution concerns a loan that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) seeks through the Regional Planning Council and the Strand decision prohibited the three year payback terms previously but the City has had a good Supreme Court rehearing decision that would allow it. The City Attorney explained that staff has a provision that if the Supreme Court rules otherwise that the maturity terms would be amended. -12- 10/21/08 Mr. Bernard moved to approve Resolution No. 50-08 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer - Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. At this point, the time being 6:52 p.m. the Commission moved to Item 13, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 13.A. City Manager The City Manager stated on Friday, October 17, 2008, he attended the Florida League of Cities Legislative Committee Meeting and noted that he still serves on the Urban Administration Committee. He stated a couple of years ago the Legislature passed a law which limits liability for street lights being out and there are certain conditions that have to be met before either the utility or if it is a municipal owned system, the City is liable. The City Manager stated now someone is proposing that we do the same thing for sidewalks. He stated the City of Tampa has paid out quite a bit for sidewalk claims and they are asking the Legislature to define what would constitute conditions that would cause the City to be liable. The City Manager stated the way the court decisions have gone when somebody slips and falls on your sidewalk there is a presumption that you did something wrong. He stated this looks like one of the things that the Urban Administration Committee will suggest as a priority and if it goes through it may save the City some money. The City Manager stated they are proposing some drastic standards and they were saying that there would have to be a two inch deflection before the City would be liable. He stated this could be helpful to the City of Delray Beach as well as other cities. 13.B. City Attorney The City Attorney stated they had a meeting this week regarding the Old School Square retail space and noted that the Chamber of Commerce would like to be relocated on the northwest corner. She stated the square footage may be revised if this can be worked out between the City, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and the people who are developing the old Library site because the City has a tri-party agreement. 13.C. City Commission 13.C.1. Mr. Fetzer Mr. Fetzer expressed concern that a couple of the City's bid processes have caused some controversy. He stated he would like to make sure that we have extremely clear procedures for the bid process and that everyone has an understanding. Mr. Fetzer stated the City Attorney's response tonight was very good but he is not sure if this will solve all the problems as the Commission tackles this in the future. Mr. Fetzer -13- 10/21/08 stated he feels the City has the responsibility to make the bid process very clear and precise. He asked for a reply from the City Attorney and the City Manager as to what we can do both as a City staff and a Commission to make sure that we do not run into these kinds of controversies again with future bids. 13.C.2. Mr. Eliopoulos Mr. Eliopoulos stated he believes we need to be consistent regarding the bids. He stated he felt with the cabana bids that it was more of a legal thing where the Commission actually had a problem with the way it was written. He concurred with comments expressed previously by Ms. Stante that if the City does do something else with the towing she feels that her bid should not be out in the open because it is not fair to the process. Mr. Eliopoulos stated the City needs clear direction when going out for bid as to what they really want. Mr. Eliopoulos stated he has been contacted about why are we doing a contract like this and why is the City not doing a rotation system and why are we taking a fee that is going back to the citizens who have accidents and they are paying the brunt of the fee that the City is taking. Mr. Eliopoulos stated it was brought to his attention that Boynton Beach and other cities do not take a fee and they just have a rotation where there is more flexibility. He stated if this one group the City hires happens to be having contracts all over the community and we are expecting 24-hour service and they are the only person, now you are waiting for someone to show up with a truck. He stated it appears that this is a bid document that the City has had for several years and some of the language in it is quite dated. Mr. Eliopoulos expressed concern over the bid process and in his opinion, feels when you submit the bid you submit it and whoever wins the bid, if the City wants to offer them something, then you go to that person because they won the bid. Secondly, he asked if the City can contact Waste Management because they have a recycling bin in front of his office and for three weeks now the regular trash and the recycling gets picked up by the same truck Mr. Eliopoulos stated he would like to make sure that recycling is being done and urged staff to look into this matter. He stated in the bids the City talks about auditing and inquired as to whether the City actually audits the contracts to see if things are being done per the contract(s) and would like to make sure that this is looked into as well. 13.C.3. Mr. McDuffie Mr. McDuffie echoed comments expressed by Commissioner Eliopoulos regarding the bid process and stated we are entering a period where things are going to be much more competitive. Mr. McDuffie stated in many cases this is to the City's benefit because as the City's revenues decline with the housing market and financial market we are finding that we can actually get more with less. He stated the Miller Park bid was way over budget and we now have multiple bidders under budget. Mr. McDuffie stated by opening it up to many more people the City wound up with a far better price than they had as they bid it to begin with. He stated the City needs to take a look at all of their contracts to make sure that they are up-to-date and commented that he was shown an -14- 10/21/08 ordinance in the City's bid that was 17 years old and it had been replaced by another. He stated we need to find those things and make sure that we do not have documents like that that are out of date and suggested that we take a look at the overall purchasing process and make sure that it is more open and more transparent than it has ever been. Mr. McDuffie stated the economy calls for it and political conditions in this county and across the United States call for transparency in everything that we do. He stated the City needs to make certain that the residents are trusting of everything that we do and that the bidders are treated equally. He stated it is better for the bidders and much better for the City if we open the competition up so that we get better products for a cheaper price. Secondly, Mr. McDuffie stated he and Commissioner Bernard had the opportunity to spend some time at the Hamlet Country Club Grand Opening and noted that the new facility is gorgeous. Mr. McDuffie stated he spoke to the Hamlet and thanked them for their endowments to the City such as their financial gifts as well as the number of their residents who sit on the City's Advisory Boards. 13.C.4. Mr. Bernard Mr. Bernard stated with regard to the bid process the City has to make sure the bid process is fair and inquired if the City Attorney's office reviews these bids before they are sent out. In response, the City Attorney stated that their office does not typically review these before they are sent out although in the past the towing bid has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office. The City Attorney stated the pre-bid conference is mandatory for a reason and it is to answer questions and clarify things and it states in the bid documents that it is "mandatory" and that your bid will not be considered unless you attend. The City Attorney stated Mr. Weiner presents the facts a little different and this is not the same as the cabana bid because Mr. Weiner is representing someone who did not come to the pre-bid conference. The City Attorney stated the bidding process can always be looked at and improved. Mr. Bernard stated if there is any outdated material with regard to the terms of the bids he hopes that we can take a look at the bidding process and make this as fair as possible so that we do not have these problems in the future. 13.C.5. Mayor Ellis Mayor Ellis stated we are in an era where the Commission is going to be seeing a lot of things that they have never seen before. She concurred with comments expressed by Mr. McDuffie and feels the more we can do the transparency issue the better off the City will be. At this point, the time being 7:07 p.m. the Commission moved to the duly advertised Public Hearings portion of the Agenda. -15- 10/21/08 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/VISTA DEL MAR, L.L.C. (FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): Consider a development agreement with Vista Del Mar, L.L.C. and associated Class V Site Plan for the property located at 64 South Ocean Boulevard. from the dais. Commissioner Eliopoulos declared a conflict of interest and stepped down Mr. McDuffie moved to postpone Item 10.A. to a date certain of November 3, 2008 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Mr. Bernard. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis - Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. At this point, Commissioner Eliopoulos returned to the dais. 10.B. ORDINANCE NO. 41-08 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC HEARING): City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.3, "Submission Requirements", Subsection 2.4.3(B), "Standard Plan Items" and Subsection 2.4.3(M), "Credentials for Preparation of Certain Submission Items"; Amending Section 4.6.8, "Lighting", to revise and clarify requirements for on-site lighting. The caption of Ordinance No. 41-08 is as follows: office.) 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 2.4.3, "SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS", SUBSECTION 2.4.3 (B), "STANDARD PLAN ITEMS" AND SUBSECTION 2.4.3(M), "CREDENTIALS FOR PREPARATION OF CERTAIN SUBMISSION ITEMS"; AMENDING SECTION 4.6.8, "LIGHTING", TO REVISE AND CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ON-SITE LIGHTING; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 41-08 is on file in the City Clerk's The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. -16- 10/21/08 Paul Dorling Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this amendment provides clarification for on-site lighting standards in the City and it brings our lighting more consistent with those countywide. At its meeting of August 6, 2008, the Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) recommended approval of the proposed text amendment; at its meeting of August 11, 2008, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) recommended approval of the proposed text amendment; at its meeting of August 13, 2008, the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) recommended approval of the proposed text amendment; at its meeting of August 14, 2008, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) recommended approval of the proposed text amendment; at its meeting of August 18, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board made several suggestions that have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance and the Board voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval. The Planning and Zoning Board had a couple of recommendations and the CRA had some concerns with respect to increasing lighting and energy in times of energy conservation. Mr. Dorling stated the ordinance does not state that one cannot be more efficient in the lighting from an energy point of view. Therefore, he stated staff recommends approval. Mayor Ellis declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding Ordinance No. 41-08, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Eliopoulos stated under parking garages and structures there is the entrance area with regard to the foot candle requirements and stated during the day the minimum should be 50 foot candles and at night should be a maximum of five. Mr. Eliopoulos suggested putting in the City Code "within the entrances to these that is the requirement for the first 66 feet of it." Mr. McDuffie moved to continue Ordinance No. 41-08 (Public Hearing) to a date certain of November 3, 2008 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Mr. Bernard. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Bernard -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to vote. 10.C. ORDINANCE NO. 46-08: City initiated rezoning from RM (Residential Medium Density) in part and OSR (Open Space Recreation) in part to CF (Community Facilities) fora 3.64 acre parcel located on the south side of S.W. 6th Street, west of Auburn Avenue and east of Catherine Strong Park. (Quasi-Judicial) The caption of Ordinance No. 46-08 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) -17- 10/21/08 AND OSR (OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION) DISTRICT TO CF (COMMUNITY FACILITIES) DISTRICT; SAID LAND BEING A PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SW 6TH STREET AND WEST OF AUBURN AVENUE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, APRIL 2007"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 46-08 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated this is a quasi judicial hearing. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Commissioner Bernard declared a conflict of interest and stepped down from the dais. Chevelle D. Nubin, 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. The Commission had no ex parte communications to disclose. Paul Dorling Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is a rezoning from RM (Residential Medium Density) in part and OSR (Open Space Recreation) in part to CF (Community Facilities) fora 3.64 acre parcel located on the south side of S.W. 6th Street, west of Auburn Avenue and east of Catherine Strong Park. The portion that is being rezoned on the east side used to be part of a retention area for Auburn Trace Development across the street. Mr. Dorling stated the future development proposal is to construct a 19,000 square foot Head Start building to be constructed by Palm Beach County and the rezoning of that property would accommodate the facility as part of an agreement that the City Commission has with the County. At its meeting of September 15, 2008, the City Commission recommended approval with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. Dorling stated positive findings are made in the staff report to Sections 3.1.1, 3.2.2, and 2.4.5(D)(5) of the Land Development Regulations. Staff recommends approval at this time. Mayor Ellis stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the request, to please come forward at this time. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. -18- 10/21/08 There was no rebuttal or cross-examination. Mr. Eliopoulos moved to adopt Ordinance No. 46-08 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 10.D. ORDINANCE NO. 47-08: Amending Chapter 52, "Water" of the Code of Ordinances by enacting Section 52.06, "Prima Facie Evidence of Violation of Section 52.05", and by amending Section 52.99, "Penalty", to clarify what will be considered evidence of tampering with a water meter and the penalty that may be imposed. The caption of Ordinance No. 47-08 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 52, "WATER" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY ENACTING SECTION 52.06, "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 52.05 ", AND BY AMENDING SECTION 52.99, "PENALTY", TO CLARIFY WHAT WILL BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF TAMPERING WITH A WATER METER AND THE PENALTY THAT MAY BE IMPOSED; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 47-08 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Mayor Ellis declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding Ordinance No. 47-08, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McDuffie stated he wanted to make sure that this is spelled out as to what the City considers Prima Facie Evidence just so something such as vandalism would not be considered tampering with a meter. The City Attorney explained that all the new language in the ordinance is in Section 52.06 -Prima Facie Evidence of Violation of Section 52.05. -19- 10/21/08 Mr. McDuffie moved to adopt Ordinance No. 47-08 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Eliopoulos. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Bernard - Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. There being no further business, Mayor Ellis declared the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. City Clerk ATTEST: 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 October 21, 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. -20- 10/21/08 i~ IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA EXTENSION REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS GRANTED TO THE YACHT CLUB AT DELRAY BEACH ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 1. The above named conditional use extension request has come before the City Commission on October 21, 2008. 2. This conditional use extension request comports with the future land use element, is concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the conditional use extension request for the Yacht Club at Delray Beach. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case. Required findings are made in accordance with LDR Section 2.4.4(F)(1) and (F)(3). 4. Section 2.4.4(F)(1) requires certain preliminary requirements to be met, such as: A written request submitted at least 45 days prior to the expiration date; The request must set forth the basis and reason for the extension; The request must be considered by the same body that granted the approval; The extension, if granted, shall be for a term of 18 months unless otherwise stated. Have the preliminary requirements of Section 2.4.4(F)(1) been met? Yes 4 No 1 5. In making a determination under LDR Section 2.4.4(F)(3) the Commission shall consider the following: (a) The project shall be evaluated pursuant to the land development regulations in effect at the time of consideration of the extension request and shall comply with such current requirements; (b) Additional submittal information including a new application and copies of previously submittal material may be required; i~ .. (c) The granting body must make findings pursuant to 2.4.4(6); (d) The granting body may impose additional conditions of approval pursuant to 2.4.4(C) to insure compliance with any applicable changes to regulations or changes in circumstances which have occurred since the previous approval. Have the requirements of Section 2.4.4(F)(3) been met? Yes 4 No 1 6. The comments and -notes set forth in the staff report are hereby incorporated herein. 7. The City Commission has applied the LDR requirements in existence at the time the conditional use extension request was submitted and finds that its determinations set forth in this Order are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. 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. 9. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves X denies the conditional use extension request to allow the previous conditional use approval, subject to the original conditions of approval, to be valid until April 12, 2012. The City Commission hereby adopts this Order this 21St day of October, 2008, by a vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. Ri a Ellis, Mayor ATTEST: ~o_ ~ ~~~ Chevelle Nubin City Clerk 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Trade M. Lutchmansingh, P.E., Assit. City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL/REGIONS BANK ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Commission approval of the Regions Delray plat for the Regions Bank located at 555 S.E. 9th Street. This project is a re-plat of Block 6, Rio Del Rey, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 84, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, lying in Section 21, Township 46 south, Range 43 east, City of Delray Beach Palm Beach County, Florida. BACKGROUND This plat was processed as a minor subdivision; therefore, it is forwarded directly to City Commission for final action. No other Board review or action was required. A reduced copy of the proposed plat is attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. olipl w o ~ _ = I~~ 1= oa ~~ <~~6~1~~~ m~° ~ m ~~ t W p~Hk j ~ j k= °``~ = I m;e I a €W~ ~ i o~ aY'^W ~~.f Ian `~~;=~`3 Ian p ~~~~ a I~- "~~~.~~~ op ~amQ~ Wx Is~~ ~a~ ~~o= ;~H~ ~~ke ~~~ '~~~~ ~~ ~°~°a ~~N~W~pW 0 a~ a~ ~~ '6~~~ ~Fp' I €~ I ~~m z W <,a j ~~ I !~ gm~ k~$~ ~z~a~~m ,= &~ IW Ig ~~ Im=o :F°a = I 1=~ ; !` .!z I"~ j~ W m U W W ~ ma I !~ ~~ I~ I~ ~"< i ~ ~~ >z~'`°s~ I Icy I m I.< i' x~~ '~ W N ~~ ~ W E I to i i I I; Tw Ua F IWaa~~~ I °~ lei i i I la ~f ~~~ a a _ ~__ ~~ I8m°W=- o°~~ i ~ ie IW Ik ~~~ o ~ < ~ko jo~=~:a I a i' i ia= i3 m~~ _ W w~ m€W W~ j~a~p~a ~ z„ Is i~ ~ iao IV i~ O a F ~WNO4 ~~~o~ ~~~ _s=~a.; a a: - ~~;~ ~ ~;< ~a~ u w v ~~y F=~ W<a~ a~ zz m8- N ~~ ~ ~ z z U z°= .~=i~~`I' b m rri ~i X34:; ~S~Rd Qtl$83 Z - ~~ 'gEko $_ ~o~ ~ _~~~ '~ffp _ ~ off - J ya. €~~is'°``W'i~ p 8 ~ Ep =5F`W'. S as ~N is=-„m $e-~€oe€g~ o d .,y~ ~;o~ ma I e~ _~~ ~ ~~~= as~o~~k'- a ~ ~ ~~ aN~U a~ e~ I I ~ ~==a= ~ I I ae=ff m;pka~.sao ~ a& g~~~ a$ W~~ lad ~~`a=ao I~ I ~s €~o~~~-~ _ ~ ~ r m~a ~a W j Ia~ IaW~„z a I' I` mk~~ a~~W:gQ~g ~ ~ ~ ;': o~ F s ~ ~ NY3~p] ~ u mz iN'z Y~ z ~ $k~ = m aNblltl !< ~o ~n~~ p ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~' ] §m akakW~k N ~ ~~ W ~ ~~ oa ~a~ r'rwoa iris k~a ~a°~`€a=~~ S ~ ~~ ~~ `<~d~ <~ ~8j ~~~~~~ W ~m ~=-.SW.~;° W ~ ~ ~ ~~ I I ~k,=off '~MayMlY1S aam>d = '"=~aW im Qa W~ Y~ ~z ~z F~ ` v<o `-' i rwriaw ~~'`., ~ ~~ k a ~~s ~o~„~~~~~ ~ ~m Ws W~~ ~ ~ jo jsa~ t i Q ~~~_ ~apsar~~ m ~ W~ WWWW ~ j IW p ~ ~~ W ~aNnoeN. ~~ ~€~u ~~~ ~~~~Wg ~~ ~'s ~~ z~~z ~~ W I° Ni= I; I~ I~WW a aN~oaN.~os ~ sN ~ o ~ : tFecs' =aim;„e = ~. ~ ~z °W~~ ~y a la ~; ~~ k~ to N ' a ~ a s " ~~€aa ~a~S~~a.~a a ~n ~aa ~€ a~ a~w~a €a ;~~ `~~~ ma~l~~~ ~ cn 4 0~€ ~6 ovoairoaN ~ " ~ - isrw isva vo r I N Ig°' I ~ I ~ ~~ & js o~ x s~ 6 $ Q~ ~~ z~ A csiz-ola swva z ~wce ngu 4v4a) aaN W`E ate„ .:~ ~~~ S° c W ~ `~Y ~ _ ~ ~ . ,.o.-eo~ .a Pe'Eai •'S~~9G40 s N: ~ °z6,°a~ °~~,~` =S SW~3a „ ~ ~ W (1tl1e130N31tl 9'3'5 (ONf109HLNON 4 4YOLl 31Y15) ' To ~ q a ` Sg~~p~>3 4?] p~p8.~" m$~ . ~ g$i ~ LAYMFgIX 5 A $ ~ ° VR~~ $ ~ d~€~4 ~Z V ° ~ e~;~p~ 1-IV~N is eL $ xn vM-n-~x9iass A m VMz ~i°'~Ili ~$b~W ~~_~ .stlff~Y,3 E.S~ m WR ~ Fl'fZl M.B l,B0.005 bz~~8o'~° i'4~k~G`' s ~es~ U ~`z 8," a;~s~~a~°smm~ " -_ ° ` / `3_.4J ,tl~x ss 6N qy ' ° ~ e =8~`N .405E .40 3 X a S~ ~a O~u s [i z2 w n$ fEga n_m~ _ 1 in w ao-5~ 8u" "~~ ~ `v~zw ~~ j ~ _~tl ~ ~ z ~qi ~ ~~ / I ~z w ~~i 4 A i ~`"~ l v S ~ a n x yy ~ ~ r r m m O ~x a° ~ . ~~ _ ~ \ ~ ~ P\ 9 O ~n.Sry _ _ ~ ~~_-6_ _ ~ _ oo ~y ~ ~~°a. ~~ ~W ~Um ~ ~ \ ~ ° gm~ ~s~ Ng ~~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ -~ ~E a ~ ~ W ~~~ a d £ m~ a~ 4~ I ~' of sz ° e ~am ~ ~ Y ~ ~- 4 W W _ _ rc cc~~~~ u J ~ No~€ °z a 30 = mZS ~ni s W Q _ 8 m Q( c'a~ 330 W J a{ $I aa~ ~ ~ o z z 8 a _ ~ ~ _ ~~~ ~ Na -~°s~t °o p°~c : 4 z4m $ S ~ W u m~ ~ wut pF '°"'~~~~ ~ ~ i ~i~ <zsa ~ O m U m p °8 b$ €°` ~m ~a ~ ~=~SsB~ ,W om~a g~: r $~sa~~~ - c X34 a'ol 3Nisevia3i3s ` J .oo5a o'sz ~mg F~~p z~y W ~ -- -- -~----- ,nNarse --- .o ~a~ I 3xn Avn3eo `i~e~SN3 _ ~ '~$ g _. m8N ~ 'gl ~~ .. mg R c`~~ ~~r ~bSm° $~i " ca~z-ova s34oe z x 4H ,e 4tl4a1 °~~ Ems' S ~ a: ~ g ~~ 0 ~ ~ gg .tl.-,~ .a. ~~W 1 ,~ ~ _ - ~ ` - ..404 00 B` ~ - - ~ (4tlle) •vxx4ix 3ixq / 34N31~v x '3S (QNLIOBFLLf10S Z QYOII 31Y1S) ~ ~ . 4 L AYNFk11H 5'A \6$ N ° ' - (4ia4) aesssz ~ mia4) 3.m ~ ,moos ~ ° ~'"~ ~ ~ n \ N ~z xou43s eo inn is \ m g ~~~° w~ ~ k ~~~~ °u~a ^ g 1 % ~~~ ~tlzsW« W~k W$°~«'~" e,~'~ g~a sRoEa="S:% ~a W E'S Y~ 8W~ ~ ~~ ~ °O€8R ~ ~~:°~z$N~~ _F`~$ ~`3x~.$W a~$~~S~d 3Y mW~ ><m W'~` t ~: a ~$dzW W g koz~=v.«;~~£'yi8q~°~~= ~m~d --:k~`sWg NbW ~`~a ~«°5 d$ °~~ age p~~aff S°yz_ sk~a"° .° a oho E~ _ °g is~bW Wz`~ ~ ~~ ~~~ Sd ~ WS~~§I'~m>SSa ~~_fm . ~ ~d 'ua ~ ~~o ~~~~„5:~: mE ~ :g'.° '"f s ~ m~a a~ a ~ zK~ ~E ~ o ~~`' °a. m °` °- `` ~~ x ~ 3~rm ~ 3 .€n ~ He ` gu ~€~ ~~~ Y `~SffW~. a= s Wb>Eo~ <~~.~ ~ y ~~ ~°~3 '- ' "z` Q ~~° o~ S~~ ~ ~ ~ oE~m ff~ -mq °~w:W ~ ~, ~ ~ _ ~ .~ad< a K'~k R m ~S{~a~ pm~~°.$6`=`pW °W~~S'Sa °-~0~:~~5 NoeW ~a~pW &W~CC. o g~~zYga°«tlN:~b~~tl`z~~~~~~~ZY€~z s~=~€W~~E~ : gaff o5o ~k ~kz S=~ tle ~ ° ~ . N€C~~WSp_~Y~~~k::8$Wz$z5~~~a a~~~~~$~~m~o'a~ootla ° \ a~„5~`x«°md€d:"acS`z_«==S<m =_k^ NF°tlda~`z~~o~~ap~ K z ~ `C 'd~3 ~~ n .x . ~ .e rd ~~ ~~~ - _ ~~~n Fn O .~ N t < W _ Q° ~= ~ M r' ~~ _ -~~ ~o ~ . /~ ~_ C~ U (~ N m N O O N M r r 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: October 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 RESOLUTION N0.54-08 (TAX EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS/1104 NASSAU STREET) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is approval of the tax exemption request for improvements to the property located at 1104 Nassau Park within the Nassau Park Historic District. The development site includes East 30 Feet of Lot 11, Lot 12, and West 25 Feet of Lot 13, Nassau Park, and is located on the southeast corner of Nassau and Gleason Streets. BACKGROUND Prior to the improvements, the subject property consisted of a 2,218 square foot (under a/c), wood frame single-family residence built in 1935, with both aone-story and two-story component. At its meeting of May 17, 2006, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved a COA (2006-135) which included partial demolition of the garage/storage area and removal of the rear deck and second- story balcony, construction of a 1,412 square foot, two-story addition and loft tower, renovation and alterations to the existing structure, landscaping improvements (not eligible towards the tax exemption), and a variance request to reduce the front (west) setback requirement from 25' to T along Gleason Street. The improvements, both interior and exterior, are complete, and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued on Apri12, 2008. The applicant is now applying for tax exemption status for those improvements. The HPB considered the tax exemption request at their October 15, 2008 meeting and recommended approval of the Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application Parts 1 and 2. The tax exemption will apply only to the difference in assessed value before and after the eligible property improvements. The applicant is now before the City Commission for final approval of the exemption request. If approved, the request will be forwarded to the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's Office and the Palm Beach County Planning and Zoning Department for recording and final appraisal of the improvements. Additional background and an analysis of the request are provided in the attached HPB Memorandum Staff Report. ANALYSIS The request contains qualifying improvements under LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(5)(a)(i)-(iv) and is compliant with the City's Land Development Regulations, the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(10), the "Final Application/ Request for Review of Completed Work" was submitted within eighteen (18) months of the CO. The Final Application includes documentation of all costs incurred during the project, and the Historic Preservation Exemption Covenant. The City's Community Improvement Department has verified that the work has been completed, passed the final inspection, and the Certificate of Occupancy was issued on Apri12, 2008. As mandated by LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(10), the Historic Preservation Board reviewed the Final Application at its meeting of October 15, 2008, and determined that the completed improvements were in compliance with the previously approved request. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(12), upon approval of a Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work by the Historic Preservation Board, the Final Application shall be placed by resolution on the agenda of the City Commission for approval. The expenditures for the qualifying improvements total approximately $500,000. The tax abatement will be limited to the increase in assessed value (as determined by the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser) and result in an abatement of taxes for a period of ten years from the date of approval. RECOMMENDATION Approve the tax exemption request, "Final Application Request for Review of Completed Work" for site improvements to the property located at 1104 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic District, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(M)(5)(a)(iii) and (M)(5)(b) and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. RESOLUTION NO.54-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COM1Vi<SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING AN AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION TO WILLIAM 1VL & LIZABETH KUJAWA SOLD FOR THE HISTORIC REHABILITATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1104 NASSAU STREET, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED HEREIN; DETERMINING THAT THE COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION (LDR) SECTION 4.5.1(M)(5); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Program of the City of Delray Beach, Florida (the "City"), is designed to preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate resources which represent distinctive and significant elements of the City`s historical, cultural, social, economic, political, archaeological, and architectural identity; and/or serve as visible reminders of the City`s culture and heritage; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Florida amended the Florida Constitution, Article VII, Section 3, to authorize counties and municipalities to grant a partial ad valorem tax exemption to owners of historic properties for improvements to such properties which are the result of the restoration, renovation, or rehabilitation of the historic properties; and WHEREAS, LDR Section 4.5.1(Nn provides for an ad valorem tax exemption for the restoration, renovation, and/or improvement of historic properties; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax exemption is one means of offering a financial incentive to increase interest in restoring, renovating, and improving the City`s historic structures; and WHEREAS, LDR Section 4.5.1(M) provides that on completion of the review of a Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work, the Historic Preservation Planner shall present such Final Application in a regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Preservation Board and shall recommend that the Historic Preservation Board grant or deny the exemption; and WHEREAS, the property owners filed a Preconstruction Application and received preliminary approval from the Historic Preservation Board on October 15, 2008, for an ad valorem tax exemption for the historic restoration, renovation, and improvement of the property located at 1104 Nassau Street; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed the Completed Work Application on October 15, 2008, for a determination that the completed improvements were consistent with LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(5) and recommends approval to grant an ad valorem City tax exemption to William M. and Lizabeth Kuj awa Sold for the restoration, renovation, and improvement to the property located at 1104 Nassau Street. NOW, THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED SY THE CITY COM1Vi<SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Commission hereby determines that the completed improvements to the property located at 1104 Nassau Street, as described in the application for ad valorem tax exemption filed with the City, mere consistent with LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(5). Section 2. The City Commission hereby approves an ad valorem tax exemption to the property owner, William M. and Lizabeth Kujawa Sold for a ten year period commencing on 1 /1 /09, from that portion of ad valorem taxes levied on the increase in assessed value, between the years 1 /1 /09 - 12 /31 /18, resulting from the renovation, restoration, and rehabilitation of the properly located at 1104 Nassau Street, which properly is legally described as follows and which improvements are described in HPS Certificate of Appropriateness No. 2006-135: The E ast 30 feet of Lot 11, all of Lot 12, and the West 25 feet of Lot 13, Nassau Park, Delray Beach, Florida Section 3. Prior to the ad valorem tax exemption described herein being effective, William 1VL and Lizabeth Kujawa Sold, shall execute and record a restrictive covenant in a form established by the State of Florida, Departrr~ent of State, Division of Historical Resources, requiring the qualifying improvements be maintained during the period that the tax exemption is granted A copy of the recorded covenant shall be provided to the Cites Historical Preservation Planner. Section 4. This resolution shall take effect in accordance with law PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on the day of , 200_. ATTEST: MAYOR City Clerk HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Applicant/ Property Owner: Liz and Bill Bold Property Address: 1104 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic District HPB Meeting Date: October 15, 2008 File No: 2008-257-TAX ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission on the request to approve Parts 1 and 2 of a Tax Exemption application for improvements to a contributing property located at 1104 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic District, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.5.1(M). _BACKGROUND7 PROJECTDESCRIPTION The subject property consists of the East 30 Feet of Lot 11, Lot 12, and West 25 Feet of Lot 13, Nassau Park, located in the Nassau Park Historic District and zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-A). Prior to the improvements, the subject property consisted of a 2,218 square foot (under a/c), wood frame single-family residence built in 1935, with both aone-story and two-story component adjoined by a space approximately four feet (4') wide. At its meeting of May 17, 2006, the HPB approved a COA (2006-135) for the following: • partial demolition consisting of approximately 30 square feet of the garage/storage area and removal of the rear deck and second-story balcony; • construction of a 1412 square foot, two-story addition and loft tower; • renovation and alterations to the existing structure; • landscape plan, and; • variance request to the front (west) setback requirement. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in the attached HPB report. In addition to the components associated with the approved COAs noted above, all interior improvements are also eligible for the exemption. The applicant is now before the Board for review of Parts 1 and 2 of the Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application for the improvements stated above as approved with 2006-135. The tax exemption would apply to the expenditures associated with the above exterior and interior site improvements (excluding landscaping) which total $500,000. Although the landscaping associated with the COA was approved, landscaping is not permitted as a legitimate expenditure as it is not interpreted as a "site improvement" pursuant to the Florida Administrative Code 1A-38. Part 1 is the initial evaluation of the property and also of the improvements included in the application regarding their eligibility for the tax abatement. Part 2, "Final Application/ Request for Review of Completed Work," requires that the Historic Preservation Board conduct a review at a regularly scheduled public meeting to determine whether or not the completed improvements are in compliance with the work described in the Construction Application. 11 ~~ Nas;~~k ~~r`=L Tex xcn~~r €~ ~~;~;; ~~. 2CJC°-2 ~ -r~X ~y~~~ I`~~~'E?~ki7x"~ ~G~G'i~c:f ~;;; i?'via 5-43~~i .G' f3T :. Based on State regulations, an Ad Valorem Tax Exemption can be approved for a project before, during, or after it has been undertaken. The applicant therefore requests consideration of an ad valorem tax exemption as the project is complete. ~ AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION LDR Section 4.5.1(M), Tax Exemption for Historic Properties Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(1), Tax Exemption for Historic Properties, the City Commission hereby creates a tax exemption for the restoration, renovation or rehabilitation of qualifying historic properties designated. Qualifying properties shall be exempt from that portion of ad valorem taxation levied by the City of Delray Beach on 100% of the increase in assessed value resulting from any renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the qualifying property made on or after the effective date of this ordinance. LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(2), clarifies that the exemption does not apply to the following: (a) Taxes levied for payment of bonds; (b) Taxes authorized by a vote of the electors pursuant to Section 9(b) or Section 12, Article 7 of the Florida Constitution; or (c) Personal property. LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(3), explains the duration of the exemption: (a) The exemption period shall be for ten (10) years, beginning January 1st following the year in which final approval is given by the City Commission and the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser has been instructed to provide such exemption. However, the City Commission shall have the discretion to set a lesser term. (b) The term of the exemption shall be specified in the resolution approving the exemption and shall continue regardless of any changes in the authority of the City to grant such exemption or change in ownership of the property. To retain an exemption, the historic character of the property and the improvements which qualified the property for an exemption must be maintained. in their historic state over the period for which the exemption was granted. LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(5)(a-b), provides the parameters for qualifying properties and improvements. The subject property qualifies as it is considered contributing within the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The following, (5)(b), identifies qualifying improvements: (b) For an improvement to a historic property to qualify the property for an exemption, the improvement must: (i) be consistent with the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended; (ii) be determined an improvement by the Historic Preservation Board as established in rules adopted by the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, FAC 1A-38, as amended which defines a real property improvement as changes in the condition of real property brought about by the expenditure of labor and money for the restoration, renovation, or rehabilitation of such property. Improvements shall include, but are not limited to: modifications, repairs, or additions to the principal contributing building and its associated accessory structures (i.e. a garage, cabana, guest cottage, storage/utility structures, swimming pools), whether existing or new, as long as the new construction is compatible with the historic character of the building and site in terms of size, scale, massing, design, and materials, and preserves the historic relationship between a building or buildings, landscape features, and open space. The exemption does not apply to improvements made to non- contributing principal buildings or their non-contributing accessory structures. (iii) be consistent with Section 4.5.1(E), "Development Standards" of the City's Land Development Regulations; and (iv) include, as part of the overall project, visible improvements to the exterior of the structure. (9~= !ass,ai€ ~-~~,u "`rax xcn^~^r ftp;„~ n. 2GQ•.°.: ;':;~-T,~~ STAFF COMMENT: The project meets criteria (i) and (ii) through previous approval by the Board of the associated improvements outlined above which constituted its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as well as the rules of Florida Administrative Code 1A-38, promulgated by the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. The development project meets criterion (iii) per the COA approvals which applied the LDR Development Standards in the assessment of the proposal. Finally, the project meets criterion (iv) as the project encompasses visible improvements to the exterior of the building and related LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(7), Application for Exemption, provides that Part 1, Construction Application, may be submitted before, during, or after qualifying improvements are intitiated, and Part 2, the Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work, shall be submitted upon completion of the qualifying improvements. STAFF COMMENT: The qualifying improvements were completed prior to submittal of Parts 1 and 2 as the Certificate of Occupancy was issued on April 2, 2008. LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(8)(a), Part 1, Construction Application, requires that the submitted application contain information concerning the estimated cost of the qualifying improvement and be accompanied by a copy of the most recent tax bill from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser for the property. STAFF COMMENT: The submitted estimated cost of the qualifying improvements has been calculated at $500,000. The most recent tax bill has been submitted which notes a payment of $5,903 16 LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(9), Review of Construction Application by the Historic Preservation Board, requires that the Historic Preservation Board review the Construction Application within 60 days of the Historic Preservation Planner's determination of eligibility, and; that if Part I of the Construction Application is submitted after the project has been completed, the application must be submitted within 18 months from the date of issuance of a CO. Further, if the HPB determines that the work as proposed is a qualifying improvement and is in compliance with the review standards contained in Section 4.5.1(E), the Construction Application and, if applicable, the COA shall be approved by the HPB. However, if the HPB determines that the work as proposed is not a qualifying improvement or is not in compliance with the review standards contained in Section 4.5.1(E), corrective measures shall be prescribed by the Board. STAFF COMMENT: As previously noted, the property received a Certificate of Occupancy on April 2, 2008 which was within eighteen (18) months of the application submittal date. Therefore, the project is eligible for review and, if the Board deems the request to be in compliance, it is recommended that the application be approved. LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(10)(a-c), Part 2, Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work, provides criteria for review of the final application: (a) If the Historic Preservation Board determines that the work is a qualifying improvement and is in compliance with the review standards contained in Section 4.5.1(E), the Board shall approve the Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work and the Historic Preservation Planner shall issue a written order to the applicant. (b) The Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work shall be accompanied by documentation of the total expenditures of the qualifying improvements. Appropriate documentation may include, but is not limited to, paid contractor's bills, AIA Forms 702-704, canceled checks, copies of invoices, and an approved building permit application listing the 11 ~4 ~dass~t~ Strc~~;: Trax xcn~p;,^€~ ~p;;I ~. ?(~G°-f'..:~7-~"ia}~ cost of work to be performed. Upon the receipt of a Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work and all required supporting documentations, the Historic Preservation Board shall conduct a review at a regularly scheduled public meeting to determine whether or not the completed improvements are in compliance with the work described in the Construction Application, approved amendments, if any, and Section 4.5.1(E). After the above mentioned review, the Historic Preservation Board shall recommend that the City Commission grant or deny the exemption. (c) If the Historic Preservation Board determines that the work as completed is either not a qualifying improvement or is not in compliance with the review standards contained in Section 4.5.1(E), the applicant shall be advised that the Final Application has been denied. The Historic Preservation Planner shall provide a written summary of the reasons for the determination to the applicant. STAFF COMMENT: The "Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work," Part 2, has been submitted as the work is complete. The final application includes copies of the invoices for the work performed. The City's Community Improvement Department has confirmed that a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was issued for the property on April 2, 2008. LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(12), Approval by the City Commission, notes that the approved Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work by the Historic Preservation Board shall be placed by resolution on the agenda of the City Commission for approval. The resolution of the City Commission approving the Final Application shall provide the name of the owner of the property, the property address and legal description, a recorded restrictive covenant as provided in Section 4.5.1(M)(13) in the official records of Palm Beach County as a condition of receiving the exemption, and the effective dates of the exemption, including the expiration date. STAFF COMMENT: Should the HPB make a recommendation to approve the subject request, the item will be placed on the November 3, 2008 City Commission agenda for approval and subsequently forwarded to the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's Office and the Planning and Zoning Department for recordation. LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(13), Historic Preservation Exemption Covenant, explains the covenant required in order to qualify for the exemption: (a) To qualify for an exemption, the applicant must sign and return the Historic Preservation Exemption Covenant with the Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work. The covenant as established by the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, shall be in a form approved by the City of Delray Beach City Attorney's Office and applicable for the term for which the exemption is granted and shall require the character of the property and qualifying improvements to be maintained during the period that the exemption is granted. (b) On or before the effective date of the exemption, the owner of the property shall have the covenant recorded in the official records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and shall cause a certified copy of the recorded covenant to be delivered to the City's Historic Preservation Planner. Such covenant shall be binding on the current property owner, transferees, and their heirs, assigns and successors. A violation of the covenant shall result in the property owner being subject to the payment of the differences between the total amount of the taxes which would have been due in March of each of the previous years in which the covenant or agreement was in effect had the property not received the exemption and the total amount of taxes actually paid in those years, plus interest on the difference calculated as provided in Sec. 212.12(3), Florida Statutes. LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(16)(a-d), Revocation Proceedings, provides guidelines to revocation of the tax exemption upon violation of the recorded covenant. 11 ~4 ~asy~~€ Sren* "i"~x ~xcr~ ~~;`.W€~ A~,,nli n, ~Ct~° a ;. -TfaX F' tti~~eiinc~ ~ct~°U~ .~ W. ~G'~$ 6'<3i;u* ~ ~r' o (a) The Historic Preservation Board may initiate proceedings to revoke the ad valorem tax exemption provided herein, in the event the applicant, or subsequent owner or successors in interest to the property, fails to maintain the property according to the terms, conditions and standards of the Historic Preservation Exemption Covenant. (b) The Historic Preservation Planner shall provide notice to the current owner of record of the property and the Historic Preservation Board shall hold a revocation hearing in the same manner as in Section 4.5.1(M)(10), and make a recommendation to the City Commission. (c) The City Commission shall review the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board and make a determination as to whether the tax exemption shall be revoked. Should the City Commission determine that the tax exemption shall be revoked, a written resolution revoking the exemption and notice of penalties as provided in Paragraph 8 of the covenant shall be provided to the owner, the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser, and filed in the official records of Palm Beach County. (d) Upon receipt of the resolution revoking the tax exemption, the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser shall discontinue the tax exemption on the property as of January 1st of the year following receipt of the notice of revocation. The Sections noted above regarding the "Restrictive Covenant" and "Revocation Proceedings" are provided to demonstrate that the tax exemption is binding, and if violated, the property owner would have to comply with the consequences. ANALYSIS The tax exemption request complies with the criteria contained in LDR Section 4.5.1(M) as the Board approved the associated improvements by making positive findings with respect to the applicable LDR Sections, Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Therefore, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(M). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Recommend approval to the City Commission of the complete Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application, including Parts 1 and 2, regarding file 2006-135 for improvements to the property at 1104 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic District, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(M). C. Recommend denial to the City Commission of the complete Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application, including Parts 1 and 2, regarding file 2006-135 for improvements to the property at 1104 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic District, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(M). (Motion to be phrased in the affirmative. See above RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval to the City Commission of the complete Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application, including Parts 1 and 2, regarding file 2006-135 for improvements to the property at 1104 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic District, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(M). Report Prepared by: Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner Attachments: • Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application • Photographs of Before and After • HPB Staff Report of May 77, 2006 DOS Form No. IIR3E101292 Revised 09/03/00 Read the attached instructions carefully before completing this application. Your application cannot be evaluated unless it is complete and all required supporting materials are provided. In the event of any discrepancy between the application form and other supplementary material submitted with it (such as architectural plans, drawings and specifications), the application form shall take precedence. Type or print clearly in black ink. If additional space is needed, attach additional sheets. GENERAL INFORMATION (To be completed by all applicants) 1. Property identification and location: Property Identification Number (finm talc records): /' ~ - y/.3 ' '%~~ ' /G -~ 7Attach legal description of property ~~ ~, '~ Address of property: Street l/ ~ `/ //i~.~5 .9-v 5~ ~ ~' T City ~ t c ~2 ~ ~ ~ off cef County f~~~ c ir-~ /~ F~~ ~~° Zip Code 3 ~ ~ 3 ()Individually National Register listed (~{ Locally designated historic property or landmark* () In a National Register district () In a locally designated district * For applications submitted to the Division of Historical Resources, attach a copy of the local designation report for the property and the o„~Iciad co/rrespondence notifying the property owner of designation. Name of historic district /V .~S,S,g c..> ^ /~s rai2ic ~,s rr~ ~ c T For locally designated historic properties or landmarks, or properties located in locally designated historic districts, provide the following additional information: Name of local historic preservation agency/office ~iSTd~2~ C ~~°fS~'~~Ai~o,./~/ ~©t.~2~ ~ ~~c •2/~-;~ ~~~~ Mallin Address e >~~srv-~-.og~s~-.e v..~r~~+~/ ~1~~ $ ~//~i~/n///y!r ~ ~Nis~!(r ~ "~R2Tlyli/~~ ,~~' /c90 ~(/ vZls~ ,iQv~', City `~CGf1~-Y .~~A cf/ State Telephone Number ~~ ~G ~ R ~ D /~ Zip Code ~33 ~ y/ ~/ 2. Type of request: Exemption under 196.1997, F.S. (standard exemption) ()Exemption under 196.1998, F.S. (exemption for properties occupied by non-profit organizations or government agencies and regularly open to the pubic) If applying under s. 194.1998, F.S., complete Question 9 on page five. 3. Owner information: Name of individual or organization owning the property l i ~ ~ ~; // ,~~-~ Mailing address //O ~ // j.I,SS',gc> d~~ ~~' City ~~.e,~Y ~} F'AC/,/ State ~L o.e~,o,q Zip code ~3 ~~3 ~~ Daytime Telephone Number (~,[, ~O y' - ~ J/ Co If the property is in multiple ownership, attach a list of all owners with their mailing addresses. .~ SEP ~ `~. 2~j~:7 ~~I ~ii _._ __. ~ GENERAL 1NFORMATNION 1. Legal description: NASSAU PARK LT 11 (LESS W 25 FT GEASON ST 8c N 5 FT NASSAU ST R/WS), LT 12 (LESS N 5 FT NASSAU ST R/W) 8~ W 25 FT LT DOS Form No. HR3E101292 Property Identification Number /' ~ - N3 ' y~o ~ ~~ ` a ~ - d °4 ^ -~~ ~ ~ / Property Address // ~ ~ /~/~<SS 1~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z yh'~'Y '~ ~'9 ~ ~/ /' L J' 3 ~~~' 4. Owner Attestation: I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct, and that I own the property described above or that I am legally the authority in charge of the property. Further, by submission of this Application, I agree to allow access to the property by representatives of the Division of Historical Resources or the Local Historic Preservation Office ,where such office exists, and appropriate representatives of the local governmenrt from which the exemption is being requested, for the purpose of verification of information provided in this Application. I also understand that, if the requested exemption is granted, I will be required to enter into a Covenant with the local government granting the exemption in which I must agree to maintain the character of the property and the qualifying improvements for the term of the exemption. ~/ X771/ out ~ ~" ~ - f~ ~' Name i ature~ Date Complete the folio if signing for an organization or multiple owners: Title Organization name EVALUATION OF PROPERTY ELIGIBILITY (To be completed oniv for properties in historic or archaeoloeical districts): 5. Description of Physical Appearance: S'I't~.'I'EEI~TT 1~ Date of Construction / ~,3 ,~ Date(s) of Alteration(s) Has building been moved? ()Yes o If so, when? 6. Statement of Significance: S`I'AT'EIVIEN`T S'I'ATEMEN'I' A Description of Physical Appearance: This wood frame, two story residence was built in 1935. It has 3 hipped roofs and consists of 2,218 square feet. Previous owners had installed white vinyl siding on the exterior of the house, and plastic blue decorative shutters. Quirky in design, one enters the front door at Nassau Street into a small foyer. Immediately left is a den, sun room and master bedroom. Immediately right are steps that lead upstairs to two bedrooms and one bath. Just before the steps, to the right is the main living area. Pass through this living area to the dining room and then a small 10 X 10 galley kitchen. All The floors are original Dade county pine. Most of the walls in the house are original cypress that have been whitewashed or painted by previous owners. The home still has the original double hung windows throughout the house. A large bay window flanks the living area to the north and lets in a lot of natural light. In 1998 the HPB approved the enclosure of a screened porch on the east elevation along with a wrap around porch. In 2000, the cedar shake roof was replaced with architectural shingles. Then in 2001 the board granted a variance for a built in swimming pool on the east side of the properly along with a fence and gazebo. In 2003, HPB approved the lovely white picket fence that is in place today along the historic elevation, Nassau Street. STATEllBElmTT B Statement of Significance: The Nassau Historic District consists of 17 one and two story Cape Cod Colonial Revival cottages. Most of the homes on this street have the signature horizontal clapboard siding with the wooden double hung windows. The street was platted in 1935. This is also the date that the home was originally built. DOS Form No. HR3E101292 Revised 09/03/00 . ~ 7 - OOD - O/// Property Identification Number ~~ ~/~ - /~ - l ~ a Property Address // O ~/ /~/.~55/3v S'~~ ~~ .~ ~~Pgy i3 e=AcN ~'L ~ ~ `~~,.3 7. Photog~'~ihs and maps: Attach photographs and maps to application. Map of Nassau Historic District Exhibit 1 Photo number 1 North Elevation Photo number 2 Northeast Elevation Photo number 3 East Elevevation Photo number 4 South Elevation Photo number 5, 6, 7 10X10 galley kitchen Photo number 8 Bedroom 1 Photo number 9 Bedroom 2 Photo number 10 Bedroom 3 Photo number 11, 12, 13 Living area Photo number 14, 15, 16 Living area Photo number 17, 18 Stairs looking up from foyer Photo number 19 Stairs looking down from upstairs ~_ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of yo ~ ., Z'- 3 _ 3 `` ~ r r~~ 3~ h IW I ~ r~ ~~ G7 ~' O . . ,. S ~`~ ~~ - I- OC ~~ -. I-1 ~, U, .~... VV J I I ~ ~ T.Q CL,Q _'~l ~ 7:. G ~~~ _ G _ _ :IWO~IJC1 I _ cr ~ r ~j I C. Z ~ I ~s ~ ~- Y G` ,r -_ - ~ - ~ GJ ~ - ~ ~ ~~ H _ ~~~ - a C .:'~ I ~: ~I S .~E iJ S L x _ ~- i N .. _ _ _ - } l Ste. I ~_ - ~ III '1 G_ ~, ~ ~ - __ _ _ , ~ ~ YLL~hl3r~ -- - „U ~. 'v'1 ~ ail - - - .s" Lil ~. 'C r _~ Y y' s CEO ~ i~ ~ - ~ -~ ~ - 11 ¢_ ~z ~,,y 173 = V ~ -_ V 4.M ~, ~ J O .~-. ~ a ~___.._ r W - - `C ~L V Ji -. ~' II~~ w .. -- I I ..~ .-_ _~ _~ - ~~~,_ a_ III -- I III ~ - ~I 7 - ,, -- I ~I ~ ~ _ ~__ I'I I. i ~ ~~ I~ Iv .. V e ~ h .I I ~I I I _ - r I,~ ~~ I. ~ ,. .I II -~ ~ ~ I I~ ~ iI~ I ~ ~3 ~ ON U -- - d c~ _~~°~ .` '~~~ F YTS a DOS Form No. HR3E101292 Revisec109/03/00 Property Identification Number / a ~ 5~3 - 510 °-llo _ a 7 - d ~ n ' o ~/ ~ Property Address l/ D5~ ic/~95,5/}v ST.~~ ~a` D ~'~Rf~Y ,~jgf1 G~/, F~ ~'35~~'-3 Feature_.~ fJiT7 0 ~/ Approx. date of feature Describe existing feature and its condition: SEE STATEMENT C-1 Describe work and impact on existing feature: SEE STATEMENT C-2 I3~Fo~2 fAt'TC/<' ~oicrv2~S Photo no. Drawing no. ~ 5-- _ ~~, an- Feature L%X7~rI>c~i2 G'' c=~~,9~ // Approx. date of feature ~ 9 3 S work and impact on existing feature: Describe existing feature and its condition: SEE STATEMENT D-1 SEE STATEMENT D-2 Photo no. Drawing no. Feature CAKE ®[AS~7G Sh~vnC-rtS Approx. date of feature > X3.5 Describe existing feature and its condition: SEE STATEMENT E-1 Photo no. Drawing no. Describe work and impact on existing feature: SEE STATEMENT E-2 _~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~- '. ~ .~~<~si r _ ~: ~Ci~~i~ (To be completed by all applicants): Complete the blocks below. Include site work, new construction, alterations, etc. DOS FormNo. HR3E101292 Revised 09/03/00 Property Identification Number /a ' ~ 3 ' y(~ ' /!r~ - a 7 - O o ~ ~ n ~~ ~ Property Address / / d ~/ /~f,~9 ~ S A~ ~ ;,~ ~~ , a gL/ai9 Y $ ~ eq ct y ~ t 33ya'3 Feature d`z/~-iiv.~[. u~Jnio©w Sic cS Approx. date of feature I ~/3S Describe work and impact on existing feature: Describe existing feature and its condition: SEE STATEMENT F-1 SEE STATEMENT F-2 Photo no. Drawing no. Feature oil i~~i.i/.~ t Gv ~e~r Ci m o,p S Approx. date of feature { y 3,~ Describe existing feature and its condition: SEE STATEMENT G-1 Photo no. Drawing no. Describe work and impact on existing feature: SEE STATEMENT G-2 Feature Ec~cmic Gv/rl/NG- !, Approx. date of feature / ~~3, j' Describe work and impact on existing feature: Describe existing feature and its condition: SEE STATEMENT H-1 SEE STATEMENT H-2 Photo no. Drawing no. .~5 ' .S9 DOS Form No. HR3E101292 Revised 09/03/00 Properly Identification Number /~ - ~~ -- yG ' ~~ - a 7 - 0 00 ^ o l / ~ Property Address ~J©f 1~/l3S.S ~y ~7d2~' ~!~ ,(~~~ ~2f~~~ ,~L--plc%i ~[ 33~~~ Feature 2iVTC-i2>n/1 ~'AG L~,~1~, E'J~ ~na~ Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approx. date of feature J 9'3S Describe existing feature and its condition: SEE STATEMENT I-2 SEE STATEMENT I-1 Photo no. Drawing no. D Feature p,eilri~y~ c Lc~~7'c-K /!~£T~cM I Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approx. date of feature 7 Describe existing feature and its condition: SEE STATEMENT J-1 Photo no. Drawing no. SEE STATEMENT J-2 Feature Approx. date of feature Describe existing feature and its condition: Describe work and impact on existing feature: Photo no. Drawing no. STATEMENT C-1 Site work: The southwest corner of the property was prepped for a concrete foundation for a two story addition that was added to the home. This elevation is considered the back and side of the property, and is not the historic elevation that faces Nassau Street. The first floor was constructed of concrete block and the second floor was wood frame. When the shell was built to the addition, the roof went up and tied into the old house. After the roof was on, the south wall of the original home (now inside the house) came down to connect the two buildings. STATEMENT C-2 Because the addition was built independent of the original home, the existing structure was not compromised in any way during construction. With the exception of the small demolition, the original structure stayed intact. The floors and walls were not exposed to the elements, and as you can see in the before and after pictures, the home's original interior looks the same. S`J;A`J E;N1~~N`L' ~.~~ ,;;t~ri~~ Q,1 ~c~rr~~ i~ Cgverac~ tip: ¢7'c~ da~e~~~~ ;siding `Xha~.~,ic~es, ~~e c~!rg~ir~a~~ red~r, I~nkirig~ Nail ~ho~cs covcz at~.~ ~t~u~ ax~c~da3nagccl atxd roft~ wood is a~pare~~; ,~"~__hTEI~T'~'~" ~e ~~.A.'~ME~T ~t~z~e act fake, pi~~strc ~c~aratiyc, inop~xa~b~e uttersi wt3x nor ,~;ar~w~~c. ~!~ '~'~ i i ~, STr1TE1vtFItiT ; ~Jriginal~ wu~dc~w sills urk~er~ eu~,ta accQmmc~date ~i~y~. siclin~ that cave~,t~ kious T~1:T1;tit~N~ .`u C~ 'fie ~ri~;inal ~ac~e ~unt~~ ~~in~: flours ~n the diving x~an~, dni~gro~~xr~ ~psta~,rs «,ay~, h;~.~roctrns ups~aars ~d ttte~ Qr~~~n~ ir~~ds lea~:~ng ~~sfairs ~ha~~d be refz>~si~ed~ ~~'A'C~Iv~E~7[' G ~~ ~he:~z~ina~ ~r~~n~%vas dangerai~ fr~rr~ aid ~~~~riea~ ~ta~~:t.., 'e 'hume~ a1,~ ~Yz~; o~ginal wir~zr~~~'rvrn 19.35 and was a fire ~rawar~. Tie o~cl wire was ~z-tt);~ aaac~ in,sonae irtstar~ces. fell ~}~17-t ~ yvus hand. ,the electri`ciar,~s ~v'orkirt~ it the house ~t~vs~ecl us to stave the. origina3 tic~rxae;xevv~re~, ~Trh~'~ ti~CN'~ ~~- ,~ ~~} ~~, °~'h~,z~t`~c south wad, ~v~s takes t~p~!L1 ta, ac f:~ie 3additior7, ~b.e ori~na~ cc;daa-.~vas r,~ i~xaae~ =uu~l5r~v~. i _~_ ~~~ ^1 ~I ~~ water iin~ ~e~iu~~ the.~uuse from ~#~ maim: `city titre vuas so c~id anti corroded °kh~a~ 6~ake ~dwrn~'the cast©ra~an process. "1'1~~'~IvIEN'~ ~~~~~ m , ~,~ ,~~r~r~ r~r,,~rEas /Yl r~~ Ll r ~ ~. r i~ DOS Form No. IiR3E101292 Revised 09/03/00 Upon completion of the restoration, rehabilitation or renovation, return this form with photographs of the completed work (views of site improvements, exterior and interior work for buildings) to the Division of Historical Resources or the. Local Historic Preservation Office, as applicable. These photographs must provide a comprehensive description of the completed work. They should be the same views as the before photographs included in Part 2 of the application. Type or print clearly in black ink. The final recommendation of the Division of Historical Resources or the Local Historic Preservation Office, as applicable, with respect to the requested historic preservation property tax exemption is made on the basis of the descriptions in this Request for Review of Completed Work. 1. Property identification and location: Property Identification Number: ~~ ~ 5/~ " 5/G ' /~ - a 7 - 4 d O ` O/// Address of property: Street //O f~ ///fSS /~-v S T.t?~ ~T ~ ,C7 ~ L k'/1 Y ~3 ~'AcN City ,~~~2r3Y i3Egc~,~ County /'fIL/!'7 ,C3~AC~'/Zip Code ~~~'~3 2. Data on restoration, rehabilitation, or renovation project: Project starting date ~~/~~ a C:O 7 Project completion date: /JIA12G' /~/ o~ OO T 1' Estimated cost of entire project: $ R /JP,~o y i m~ r~'1 ~ ,~70, O O ~ Estimated costs attributed solely to work on historic buildings or archaeological site: $ 7~, ~~ O a X07 3. Owner Attestation: I hereby apply for the historic preservation properly tax exemption for the restoration, rehabilitation or renovation work described above and in Part 2 of the Historic Preservation Property Tax Exemption Application (Application) submitted for this project. I attest that the information provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct, and that in my opinion the completed project conforms to The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitatiog Historic Buildings, and is consistent with the work described in Part 2 of the Application. I also attest that I am the owner of the property described above or, if the property is not owned by an individual, that I am the duly authorized representative of the owner. Further, by submission of this Application and Request for Review of Completed Work (Request), I agree to allow access to the property by representatives of the Division of Historical Resources or the Local Historic Preservation Office, where such office exists, and appropriate representatives of the local government from which the exemption is being requested, for the purpose of verification of information provided in the Application and this Request. I understand that, if the requested exemption is granted, I will be required to enter into a Covenant with the local government granting the exemption in which I must agree to maintain the character of the properly and the qualifying improvements for the term of the exemption. I also understand that falsification of factual representations in this Application or Request is subject to criminal sanctions pursuant to the Laws of Florida. Name a Date Complete the following if gning for organization or Itiple owners (See next page for additional owners): Title Organization name Mailing Address City State Zip Code Daytime Telephone Number MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: R. Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: City Attorney DATE: October 23, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED/CRA/S.W. 14TH AVENUE PROPERTIES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The attached right-of-way deed provides for dedications of right-of-way from the alley parallel to and on the west side of S.W. 14th Avenue between S.W. 1st and 2nd Streets. BACKGROUND The City requested the dedication of certain right-of-way due to the development occurring on these properties. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. Meeting Date: October 16, 2008 Agenda Item: Summary SW 14T" AVENUE PROPERTIES (WEST ALLEY) -RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED In 2006 the CRA processed a site plan application for the townhouse development that was previously proposed on the east side of SW 14t" Avenue (12 lots total), between SW 1St and 2nd Streets. The townhouses were to have vehicular access off of the alley, and a 2' alley right-of-way dedication was provided to increase the width of the alley. Due to financing issues the project was ultimately discontinued. The lots are now under contract to be developed by the Delray Beach Community Land Trust, along with 5 CRA-owned properties located on the west side of SW 14t" Avenue (Lots 16, 17, 18, 22 & 23, Block 2, Priest's Addition to Atlantic Park Gardens). The 12 lots located on the east side of SW 14t" Avenue will contain detached single family homes. The DBCLT has proposed townhouse units and a tri-plex for the lots on the west side, however, they may be modifying their proposal to construct single family homes there as well. In conjunction with the redevelopment of these properties, streetscape improvements are proposed along this section of SW 14t" Avenue along with the construction of the unimproved alleys. The residences on the west side will also be designed with vehicular access to garages from the abutting alley, and must also dedicate 2' of right of way pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(3) (Additional Width). In discussions with the DBCLT and City staff it was determined that the right of way should be dedicated prior to transferring the lots to their ownership. The Assistant City Attorney has reviewed the right-of-way deed for legal sufficiency and form, and determined it to be acceptable. Recommended Action: Approve the attached Right-of-Way Deed for the west 2' of Lots 16, 17, 18, 22 and 23, Block 2, Priest's Addition to Atlantic Park Gardens (SW 14t" Avenue properties). Submitted By: Jeff Costello, Assistant Director 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 3rd day of November, 2008, between DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, with a mailing address of 20 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach FL 33444, 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 PARTY OF THE FIRST PART in the presence of: (Name printed or typed) (Name printed or typed) STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing 200_, by me or has produced as identification. Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida By: (Name printed or typed) (Address) instrument was acknowledged before me this day of who is personally known to 2 EXHIBIT "A" Land Description: The West 2.00 Feet of Lots 16, 17, and 18, Block 2, Priest's Addition to Atlantic Park Gardens, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 70 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Together With: The West 2.00 Feet of Lots 22 and 23, Block 2, Priest's Addition to Atlantic Park Gardens, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 70 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Said lands situate, lying and being in the City of Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. 3 i r~ V L- ,,,y~ K+7 N N ~' Q O ~ ~--' r ;~ f ~--+ ~ J N 1d-. N"~ ~° U- O ;m ~-.~ ~~ _~ C9 U CCS m (~ ~o 0 0 N_ ti 4V O MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Carolanne Kucmerowski, Construction Management Technician Richard C. Hasko, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 24, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 CONTRACT CLOSEOUT (C.O. #2/FINAL)/TOTAL QUALITY CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a Contract Closeout (Change Order No. 2/Final) in the amount of $2,842.24 and final payment amount of $24,006.05 to Total Quality Construction Services, Inc. for the completion of the Delray Swim and Tennis Center West Parking Lot Project #2006-011. BACKGROUND The project scope consisted of the rehabilitation of the west parking lot at the Delray Swim and Tennis Center; to include parking area modifications, tree root removal, asphalt patching, 1 inch asphalt overlay, concrete curbing, pavement markings, signage, concrete sidewalk, new parking lot lighting, and landscaping improvements. The change order includes plus and minus quantity adjustments, liquidates the residual from contingency allowances, and additional services required to complete the project. 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 Funding is available from 117-4133-572-65.57 (Recreation Impact Fee Fund/Capital Outlay/Swim & Tennis Parking Lot). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Contract Closeout (Change Order No. 2/Final) in the amount of $2,842.24 and final payment amount of $24,006.05 to Total Quality Construction Services, Inc. for the completion of the Delray Swim and Tennis Center West Parking Lot Project. CITE' OF DELRAY BEACH CHANGI/ ®RIIER ~'® ®RIGINAL C®NTItACT CHANGE NO. ZfFinal (Contract Closeout) PROTECT NO. 20f16-f1I I DATE; PROTECT TITLE; Delray Swim and TCn?:~is Center West I'arlting Lot TO CONTRACTOR: Total Quality C©nstruction Services, Inc. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROTECT AND TO PERFORM THE WORK ACCORDINGLY, SUIiTECT TO ALL CONTRACT STIPULATIONS AND COVENANTS. TUSTIFICATION: Complete changes to project per the attached Schedule "A". SUMMARY Op' CONTRACT AMOUNT/CHANGI?S ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES PREVIOUSLY ORDERED ADTUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES THIS ORDER ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER PER CENT INCREASE THIS CIIANGT~ ORDER + 1.81% TOTAL PER CEI~rT INCREASE TO DATE + 8.48% $156,727.'74 $ 10,455.45 $167,183.69 $ 2,842.24 $170,025.93 CERTIFIED STATEMENT: I hereby certify that the supportixag cost data included is, in Iny considered opizzio~~, accurate; that the prices quoted. are fair and reasonable. Total Quality Construction Services, Inc. {Contractor to sign & seal} TO BE FILLET) OUT BY DEPARTMENT INITIATING CHANGE ORDER Funding is available from account: 917-4133-572-65.57 DEPARTMEN`T' Envu•onmental Services DI;LRAY BEACH, FLORIDA by its City Commission RECOMMEND: APPROVED: City Attorney FUNDING By: Mayor ATTEST: By: City Clerk S GngAdmisiiProjecesl2{1t16~200G-0t I10FFICIAC~CO 2 Final TQC5 GC L t0308.doc CERTIFIED BY SCHED[7LE "A" TO CHA~'mTGE ORDER NO. 21 FINAL TOTAL QUAI,i.TY CONSTRL1CTiON SERVICES, INC. DELT2AY SWIM & TENNIS CENTER WEST PARKING LOT PROJECT ~200b•OTl CON'T'RACT AWARD CONTRACT TO DATE 1TE1Y7 1vo. ,.,.~.,_, DESCRIPTION IIN1T EST. TY. ~~, IJIVTT PRICE EXTENDED TOTAL PRICE ACTiTAi. QT~'~ UNIT PRICE EXTENDED TOTAL PRICE QIIANT ADJ. + 1- 1 Mobilization LS 1 $2b,071.83 $ 26,071.83 1 $ 26,071.83 $ 26,071.83 $0.00 2 MOT LS 1 $1,714.50 $ 1,714.Sfl t $ 1,714.50 $ 1,714.50 $4.00 3 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $5,858.04 $ 6,858.00 1 $ 5,858.00 $ 6,858.00 $D.40 4 Concrete Curb FDOT type "U" 1.F 887 $12.58 $ 11,158.46 801 $ ]2.58 $ 10,076.58 ($1,fl81.88} 5 Pavement Markings and Signage LS 1 $4,784.03 $ 4,784.03 1 $ 4,784.03 $ 4,784.03 $,0,04 6 I"C3verlayAsphalt SY 2;380 $10.53 $ 25,061.4fl 2,180 $ 10.53 $ 22;955.40 ($2,106.00) 7 1 - 1.12"' Asphalt SI' 420 $13.72 $ 5,7b2.4D 420 $ 13,72 $ 5,762.40 $0.04 8 8"Linremckl3asc SY 320 $23.72 $ 4,390.40 295 $ 13.72 $ 4,047.40 ($343.00) 9 12" CaFnpacted Base (For Patches On SY 100 55.72 $ 572.00 100 $ 5.72 $ 572.00 $0.00 1.0 12" Stabilized Sub ade SY 400 $b.85 $ 2,74Q00 375 $ 6.85 S 2,Sfi8.75 ($171.25} 11 5' Wide Concrete Sidewalk - 4" "f hick LF' 220 $14.29 $ 3,143.80 220 $ 14.29 5 3,143.80 $0.00 12 Root Pawning LS 1 $3,429.00 $ 3,429.00 1 $ 3,429.Ofl $ 3,429.00 $0.00 13 SingleServiees 13A 1 $1,743.00 $ 1,143.00 0 $ 1,143.OD $ - ($'1,143.04) 14 Parking Lot tzrigation System F'A 1 $5,143.50 $ 5,143.54 1 $ 5,143.54 $ 5,143.50 $11.40 15 10" Tap Soil $F 460 $236 $ 1,085.60 460 $ 2.36 $ 1,085.60 $OAO 16' Utility Allowance i.S 1 $4,000.04 $ 4,000.00 0.48 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,905.75 ($94.2>} 17 Video Allowance LS 1 $604.00 $ 640.00 1 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $o.4a 18 Indemuificatian LS 1 $10.fl0 $ 10.00 1 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $0.04 i 9 Parking Lot Ligh#in LS 1 $44,005.40 S 40,045.44 l $ 40,005.00 $ 44,DOS.flD $0.04 20 Foxtail Fern 1 Balton EA 53 $4.00 $ 212.00 53 $ 4.4(3 $ 212.00 $fl.04 21 Goldmound 3 gallon EA 103 $7.43 $ 750.43 141 $ 7.43 $ 750.43 $0.40 22 Green Buttonwood 3 anon JuA $0 $7.43 $ 594.40 84 5 7.43 $ 594.40 $0.40 23 I3warfFirebush 3 gattrn EA 27 $7.43 $ 204.b1 27 $ 7.43 $ 200.111 ${7.00 24 Green Island Ficus 3 gallon EA 106 $7.43 $ 787.58 146 $ 7.43 $ 787.58 $0.00 25 Du=ar1.'Foxahatche Grass 3 gallon EA 65 $7.43 $ 482.95 65 $ 7.43 $ 482.95 $f1.00 26 Gumba Limbo 12' EA 7 $205.74 $ 1,440.18 7 $ 205.74 $ 1,440.18 $0.00 27 Live Oak 12' EA 9 $188.59 $ 1,697.31 9 $ 188.59 $ 3,697.31 54.413 28 Pitch Apple 12' EA 3 $27432 $ 822.96 3 $ 274.32 $ 822.96 50.40 29 Flnri Muich CY 27 $43.20 $ 1,166.44 27 $ 43.20 $ 1,156.40 $0.04 30 St Augustine Floratam 5F 3,040 $0.30 $ 900.0{I 3,000 $ 0.30 $ 940.00 $D.04 TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT" AWAitb $ 156,727.74 $ 151,788.36 (54,939.38) CHANCE ORDER NQ. 1 Sawcul and remove existing asphalt I and limerick base SY 1 $ 663.60 $ 663.b0 L $ 663.6D $ 663.64 $0.00 Re-grade area-haul away excess fill in 2 Vass area west of nEw handicap spaces to match grade EA 1 $ 1 ~b0.00 $ 1,260.00 1 S 1,260.04 $ 1,264.00 $0.00 Additional Surveying for elevation 3 changes EA 1 $ 250.04 $ 250.40 1 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $0.40 A Lower existing pipes under rock base EA 1 $ 805.00 $ SOS.OD I $ 845.00 $ 845.00 $0.00 5 1Z" stabilized sub grade SY 135 S 6.85 $ 924.75 135 $ 6.$5 $ 924.75 $0.40 6 S" Lirnerock Base SY 135 $ 13.72 $ 1,852.20 135 5 13.72 $ 1,852.ZG $0.00 7 Add'1, 1 112" Asphalt SY 135 $ 13.72 $ 1,852.20 135 $ 13.72 $ 1,852.24 $0.00 Additional sod in re-graded area west 8 of new handicap parking SP 1,344 5 0.30 $ 403.20 1344 $ 4.30 $ 403.20 $0.00 9 Raise (2) catch basin collars EA 2 $ 1,OSD.00 S 2,100.00 2 $ 1,050.00 S 2,100.00 $0.00 1 D Relocate (3) exiscini; sable palms due to con#lict with proposed D Curb EA 3 $ 115.00 $ 345A0 3 $ 115.00 $ 345,00 $0.00 TOTAL CHANCE ORDER N{}, 7 $ 70,455.9,5 $ 9©,455.95 $0.(3fl SIJB-TOTAL INCI,IIDING CHANGE 77RDET2 NO. 1 S 767,183.G9 $ 162,244.37 $ (4,939.38) Page 1 SCHEDC7LE "A" TO CHANGE ORDER NO. ~ !FINAL TOTAL QUALITY CONSTRI7CTION SERVICES, INC. DELRAY SWIM & TENNIS CENTER WEST' PARKING LOT PRO.IECT #2~OG-Ol l CONTRACT AWARD CONTRACT TO DATE ITEM UNIT EST. UNIT EXTEP~DED ACTUAL UNIT EXTENDED QUANT NO. DESCRIPTION Ty, FRICE TOTAL PRICE QTY, FRICE TOTAL FRICE ADd. +/ - r.€a~e~vr.~. nr~D>Yu stn ~. 1 lteznove c~: replace (.1) catch basin collar _ EA 0 SO.flO $4.00 1 $ 892.50 $ 892.50 $892.50 Add Electrical Contractor for $ite 2 Lights 1/A 0 $0.00 $0.00 I $ 497.Sfl $ 997.50 $997.50 3 Etemave (1) Olive tree due to conflict with edge of pavement & "D" Curb EA 0 $O.Ufl $0.00 1 $ 977.5€l 5 477.50 $977.50 Reroute existing water line & trim 4 down fence posts at tennis court due I:A 0 $O.OU $fl.OD t $ 775.33 $ 775.33 $773.33 to conftict with sidewalk 5 Addl. Sod required for camptction SP 0 SU.UO SU.OU 4756.25 $ 0.3fl $ L,429.88 $1,429.88 5 Additional 1.5 Aspbalt Required 9Y 0 $O.Ofl 50.00 79 $ 13.72 $ 1,083.88 $1,083.88 7 Additional 12" Stabilszed Sub,~-ade SY 0 50.00 54.0(7 79 $ 6.85 $ 541.15 $541.15 8 Additional $" Lirnerocl: Base SY 4 50.00 50.00 79 $ 13.72 $ 1,083.88 $1,083.88 l V 3. Hfl l.ttHtV lit'. Vi<.Ui'.ti PV V. L 7,781.SZ 9 7,78LGZ TOTAI, INCLUDING CIIANGE ORDERS NO. 1 & NO.2 $ 167,183.69 $ 17U,025.93 $ 2,842.24 ®riginal Contract Award $ 156,727.74 Previously Approved Chao7ges $ 10,455.95 Total AwardlApproved to Date $ 167,183.69 Final Caratract to Date $ 970,025.98 CFIANGE ORDi=R NO.21 FINAL $ 2,842.24 Page 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Carolanne Kucmerowski, Construction Management Technician Richard C. Hasko, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 24, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 CONTRACT CLOSEOUT/FINAL PAYMENT/MCCABE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a Contract Closeout and final payment in the amount of $3,401.56 to McCabe Brothers Construction, Inc. for completion of the Public Safety Facility Briefing Room and Report Room Renovation Project #2007-056. BACKGROUND The scope of the project consisted of renovations to the briefing room, report writing room, and mail room. Renovations included selective demolition of flooring, wall finishes, existing built-ins, acoustical ceilings, grid, light fixtures, and diffusers. New finishes were installed to include flooring, painting, millwork, acoustical ceiling, electrical, and mechanical devices. The closeout spreadsheet includes plus and minus quantity adjustments and liquidates the residual from contingency allowances. The project is complete and all closeout documentation has been received. FUNDING SOURCE There are no changes to the original contract amount. A closeout spreadsheet is attached for your reference. Funding is available from 334-2111-521-46.10 (General Construction Fund/Repair & Maintenance Services/Building Maintenance). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Contract Closeout and final payment in the amount of $3,401.56 to McCabe Brothers Construction, Inc. for completion of the Public Safety Facility Briefing Room and Report Room Renovation Project. CONTRAC'T` CL®~EOUT ~PRIEADST~3EET ~Vl[CCABI/ BIZ®TI~ERS ~`®NS'I'RU~'TI®~, INC. PUBLIC SAi'E'1[`Y FACILITY BRIEFING R®Oll~ & REP®RT RO®~VI Ri/N®VATI®N PIN 2U07-€!56 I7`EM DESCRIPTION UNIT NO. 1.a Mabilization L.S. I.b Bond & Insurance L.S. Lc Demolition L.B. l.d Painting L, S. l.e Carpentry L.S. l.f Ceiling GridlTile L.S. ~. l"140rin L. ~. ].h vlechanical L, S. l.i Electrical L.S. 2.0 Conliaagency Allowance L.S. 3.0 lnde~nni ~ catian. L.S. CONTRACT AWARD EST. QTY. UNIT .PRICE EXTENDED TOTAL PRICE 3 $4,481.66 $4,481.66 1 $4,4$l.bb $4,481.66 1 54,481,66 $4,4$1.66 I $4,481.66 54,481..66 1 513,445.0.0 $13,445.OU 1 54,48L66 $4,481.66 1 $2,240.83 52,240.83 I $2,240.83 52,240.83 1 $4,481.6b $4,4$1.66 1 510.000.00 $ i 0,000.00 1 $10.00 5]0.00 CONTRACT TO DA'I'S ACTUAL QTY. UNIT PRIC E EXTENDED TOTAL PRICE 1 $4,481.66 $4,481.66 1 $4,481.66 54,481.b6 1 $4,481..66 $4,481.66 ] $4,481.66 $4,481.bb 1 $13,445.00 513,445.fl€J 1 $4,481.66 $4,481..66 1 $2,240.83 $2,240.83 1 $2,240.83 $2,240.83 l $4,481.66 $4,481.66 ] $10,000.00 $10,000.00 1 $]O.Of} $10.00 QUANT AI),I. + I $0.00 $O.OD $0.00 SD.00 50.00 $ 0.00 5D.U0 ~o.oa SD.00 $D.00 $0.00 TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT AWARD $54,826.62 ®riginai Cpntract Award $54,826.62 IPrevipusiy Approved Changes $0.00 ~"ptal AwardlApprarred to bate $54,826.62 Finn! Cpntract to bate $54,826.62 CFiA~iG~ AMOUiVT $0.0(3 $54,826.62 $O.U© S:1EngAdminlProjects1209712007-0561OFFICIALIContract Ctoseout5preadsheet McCatue GC 11Q308.xis r ~~ ~;` . E~'~! ~~~~~ it _ ~_ _ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Bob Diaz, Construction Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager Richard C. Hasko, Environmental Services Director DATE: October 24, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/PALM BEACH COUNTY/LINTON BOULEVARD BRIDGE TENDER HOUSE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve Amendment No.l to the Palm Beach County Interlocal Agreement No. R2006-0952 extending the completion time for the facade renovations to the Linton Boulevard Bridge Tender House (P/N 2004-064). BACKGROUND Palm Beach County and the City of Delray Beach executed an Interlocal Agreement in the fall of 2006 in a joint effort to improve the aesthetic appearance of the Bridge Tender House. Said agreement contains conditions regarding the reimbursement of documented construction related expenses to City of Delray Beach to a maximum of $100,000.00 dollars. Amendment No.l will extend the completion time through May 30, 2009 allowing sufficient time for the City of Delray Beach Finance Department to comply with the Palm Beach County refund protocol. A copy of the Palm Beach County Amendment #1 is attached for your reference. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Amendment #1 to Palm Beach County Agreement Interlocal Agreement No. R2006-0952 regarding the facade renovations to the Linton Boulevard Bridge Tender House. AMENDMENT TO iNTERI..®CAL AGREEiiAENT THE CITY OF DE1,,,.RAY BEACH LMTON BOlJLEVAR® BASCULE BRIDGE T;F~IDER HOUSE THIS AMENDMENT is made tp the Inter-local Agreement (82€}06-0952} dated June 6, 2006 with the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, apolitical subdivision of the State pf Florida hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and the CITY OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BALM BRACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" ~iiTNE55ETH WHEREAS, on June 6, 2gg6 the CITY and the COUNTY entered into an lnter- local Agreement (R2gg6-8952} to provide funding to the CITY far the upgrade of the bridge tender house for the Linton Boulevard bascule bridge in an amount not to exceed ONE HUNDREi3 TI~OI]SAIvlD DOLLARS ($'#OO,OQO.E}0) and; WH1=R1=A5, the CITY has requested modification of the Agreement extending the time of completion from f3ecember 31, 2008 to May 30, 2009; and WIiEREAB, COUNTY as~d CITY desire tp amend the fnterlocal Agreement (R2006-0194} to extend the time of completion to May 3q, 2009. AJOW, T~IEREI~=ORE, in cor~sideratian of mutual covenants, prorr~ises, and agreements herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Inter-local Agreement dated June 6, 2006 by and between the COl1NTY and CITY is hereby amended to revise paragraph 9 as follows: 9. All installation of the improvements shah be completed and final invoices submitted to the COUNTY no later than May 3q, 2gt79, and the COUNTY shall have na 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. 2. It is the intent of the parties hereto that this Amendment shall not became binding until the date executed by the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County. 3. All other provisions of the inter-Incas Agreement (82006-0952) dated June 6, 2806 not specifically amended herein shall remain in full force and effect. EIV UVI7~J1~55 WHERE®1=, the parties have executed this Amendment and it is effective an the date first above written. THE CITY OF DI~LRAY BEACH PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS CITY OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Ghair ATTEST: By: Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFF[GIENCY By: CITY Attamey Date: By: Chairperson ATTEST: SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK by: Deputy Cleri< APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFF[ClENCY by: Assistant County Attorney Date: APPROVED AS TO PERMS AND CONDITIONS By: Date: MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Sharon L'Herrou, Administrative Officer Anthony W. Strianese, Chief of Police THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The Delray Beach Police Department (DBPD) seeks approval of an amendment to the agreement with Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office, Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Program (U.A.S.L). This amendment extends the grant period to June 30, 2009. All other terms and conditions remain the same. BACKGROUND The interlocal agreement between the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office and the City of Delray Beach for U.A.S.I. was approved by the Delray Beach City Commission 4/17/07. Funding in the amount of $13,500 was allocated for the DBPD to purchase a dry suit and equipment for the Department's underwater search and recovery team. Funding has been expended according to the grant requirements. The extention is needed to remain in compliance with contract time-lines. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is provided by the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office U.A.S.I. grant program. RECOMMENDATION The Police Department recommends approval. " - II ~ ~ L :~wT II ` {' ~~ F 7~ I1 + 1 ~Y ~ d ! ~~ 7 r ^ + .~ v ti ~i ^ ~ ~ x ~ - x ~ ~ II ~ n ri m ^ h J '2 I R 9 ^ 1-~ IQ ti 1 R ti 7 V ~; II ~ ~: _„r_ __ ' n - • - _ ~ ^ ~ ATTEST: By: Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY SHERIFF OF PALM BEACH COUNTY By: Ric L. Bradshaw By: Colonel Joe Bradshaw, Esq. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director Elizabeth Alpert, Neighborhood Services Administrator THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: October 15, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.H. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CDBG/TED CENTER AGREEMENT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval is requested to execute Amendment No. 1 to the tri-party agreement between City, the CRA and the Center for Technology, Enterprise and Development (TED Center). BACKGROUND At the February 5, 2008 meeting, Commission approved a tri-party agreement between the City, the CRA and the TED Center to provide business incubator and technology services to residents and businesses located within the CDBG target area &CRA District. The agreement covered services provided to eligible TED Center clients for FY 2007/08. In contrast to the 2006/07 tri-party agreement which fully subsidized the cost of services, last year's agreement required that eligible TED Center clients pay a 25% fee for business incubator and technology services. The remaining 75% of the fee is paid by the City and CRA. The City and CRA contributed a total of $55,000 ($25,000 and $30,000 respectively) to cover services provided. Due to a significant slow down in local business start-ups requesting business incubator services, the TED Center was unable to spend the entire allocation from the City and CRA during the 07/08 FY. To date, the TED Center has invoiced the City for a total of $19,207.25, leaving a remaining balance of $35,792.75. The TED Center has requested that the FY 07/08 funding agreement be amended to allow the remaining funds be use during FY 08/09. Other terms of the agreement, including eligibility requirements, applicable services, and fees will remain the same. FUNDING SOURCE Community Development Block Grant 118-1966-554-83.01 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 1 to the tri-party agreement between the City, CRA and TED Center. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, THE DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY, ENTERPRISE, AND DEVELOPMENT INC. THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Community Development Block Grant Agreement dated February 22, 2008 between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, hereinafter referred to as "City," the DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, hereinafter referred to as "CRA", and THE CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY, ENTERPRISE, AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., hereinafter referred to as "the Service Provider," is hereby amended this day of , 2008. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City, CRA and Service Provider entered into an Agreement dated February 22, 2008 (the "Original Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement until September 30, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2. The City, CRA, and Service Provider agree that Article III, "Funding and Method of Payment", Paragraph 3.1, and Article IV, "Term of Agreement" of the Original Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: ARTICLE III FUNDING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT 3.1 The maximum amount payable by the City (contingent upon receipt of 08-09) CDBG funds under this Agreement will be up to Twenty-Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($25,000.00). The maximum amount payable by the CRA under this Agreement will be up to Thirty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($30,000.00). If any of the Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($55,000.00) allocated under the annual contracts for Fiscal Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 has not been encumbered prior to September 30, 2009, then the unused portion must be returned to the City and/or CRA. The Service Provider shall not charge the Client under any circumstances for services paid for by the City or CRA listed in Attachment "A". ARTICLE IV TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from October 1, 2007, to September 30, 2009. 3. All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement not in conflict with this Amendment Number One shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS OF THE FOREGOING, the parties have set their hands and seals on the day and year written above. WITNESSES: Print Name: Print STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH THE CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY, ENTERPRISE, AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. By: Print Name: Title: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2008, by (name of officer or agent, title of officer or agent) of (name of corporation acknowledging), a on behalf of the corporation take an oath. (state or place of incorporation) corporation, He/She is personally known to me or has produced (type of identification) as identification and did (did not) 2 Signature of Notary Public -State of Florida ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: Print Name: Title: DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Print Name: Title: H:\2006\060018 DBCRAWGMT 2008Wmendment No 1 to TED Center Agmt.doc 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Ronald Hoggard, AICP, Principal Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: October 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.I. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 INITIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2009-1 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is initiation of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2009-1. Pursuant to LDR Section 9.2.1, amendments to the Plan must be formally initiated by the City Commission. BACKGROUND By Florida State Statutes, the City is allowed to process two Comprehensive Plan amendments each year. This amendment represents the first amendment for the year 2009. The amendment includes three (3) privately-initiated text amendments and one (1) privately-initiated Future Land Use Map Amendment. A brief description of each item suggested for inclusion in the Plan Amendment is listed below: PRIVATELY -INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS: • Future Land Use Element -Modification of the description of the GC (General Commercial) Future Land Use designation to increase maximum density for residential uses from 12 units per acre to 25 units per acre and decrease the maximum intensity for non-residential uses from an FAR of 3.0 to 0.75, within the proposed Silver Terrace Courtyards Overlay District. • Future Land Use Element -Modification of the description the CMU (Congress Avenue Mixed-Use) Future Land Use designation to include provisions for the creation of a Regional Activity Center on the Office Depot property. • Future Land Use Element -add an objective and policies to support the creation of a Regional Activity Center at the Office Depot property on Congress Avenue. PRIVATELY-INITIATED FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT • Future Land Use Map amendment for the approximately 6.15 acre Floranda Mobile Home Park property located on the west side of south Federal Highway, north of the Plaza at Delray, from TRN (Transitional) to GC (General Commercial). The tentative schedule for processing Plan Amendment 2009-1 if the State does not issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report is as follows: October 1, 2008 October 20, 2008 November 3, 2008 November 17, 2008 December 9, 2008 January 15, 2009 February 3, 2009 Submittal Deadline Initiation by Planning and Zoning Board Initiation by City Commission Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing City Commission Transmittal Public Hearing Receipt of Compliance Ltr - No ORC Report City Commission Adoption The tentative schedule for processing Plan Amendment 2009-1 if the State issues an ORC Report is as follows: October 1, 2008 October 20, 2008 November 3, 2008 November 17, 2008 December 9, 2008 February 14, 2009 March 16, 2009 March 17, 2009 Submittal Deadline Initiation by Planning and Zoning Board Initiation by City Commission Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing City Commission Transmittal Public Hearing Receipt of ORC Report P&Z Adoption Hearing (ORC Response) City Commission Adoption REVIEW BY OTHERS The Planning and Zoning Board considered the initiation request at its meeting of October 20, 2008. There was no discussion by the public and the Board unanimously recommended approval by a 6-0 vote (Miller absent). RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve the initiation of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2009-1, containing the material stated in this staff report. Q Q ¢ ~ Cfl W ~ ~ N z > ~ W W Q TH ST. S~E~ 7TH 3 v~ 0 0 = z ~ r N M a S.E. 8TH ST. S T. ¢ Z ¢ ~ S.E. 8TH S T. N o z ~ w z ~ ~ TH N COURT ~ s.E.em 3 ¢ CT. ~ r r ~ ~ ~ vi v~ vi = = Q ~ ~ S.E. 9TH ST. ^ ~ S.E. 9TH ST. W J J ~ Q Q ~ ~ Q SWINTON GARDENS DR. W W vi ~ ~ L~ L~ s.E. 1orH sr. N. LONGPORT CIR. ~ w ¢ rc ~ r U ~ ~ ~ O ~ U ~ ~ ~ STONE ~ m a o H WAY ~ Q ~ z 3 w Z ~ aY o ~ POI I o_ m _ - S. LONGPORT CIR. WILSON AVE. REIGLE AVENUE ~ J ~ Q CENTRAL AVE. SE 12TH RD. ~ P Q 2 O ~ COLLINS AVENUE ~ U B Q ~O. ~ W ~~ ~ X ~ z o Q o` J U 4i RHOUES ~ BANYAN ~Q' TREE LANE ~~ UEL-HAVE ~ v O ~~Q' ~~ L I N T O N B O U L E V A R D -- D/GITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: S:\Planning & Zoning\DBMS\File-Cab\Z-LM 1001-1500\LM1093_Silver Terrace (Layout-2) N PROPOSED SILVER TERRACE ~ SUBJECT PROPERTY COURTYARD OVERLAY DISTRICT PLANNING AND ZONING Q DEPARTMENT LOCATION MAP ~ •r~e ~WW LmuJU L.~ O ~„v, s so' ~ PROPOSED REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTER CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT D/G/TAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM952 > ~, ¢ ¢ Q ST. 7TH O 0 0 = z s ~ N M a O~ S.E. 8TH ST. ST. w Z ~ Q ~ S.E. 8TH S T. N z ~ w ~ N COURT ~ ~ s.e.ani ¢ cT. ~ ~ ~ w w w 7j ?~ Q vi vi vi = _ 9TH S T. ~ O ~ S s.E. eiH sr. W J J ~ Q Q ~ ~ Q SWINTON GARDENS DR. W W W Q W W . LONGPORT CIR. ; i OS Q rc ~ ti~ ~ ~ U ~ O U ~ ~Q ~ TONE m ~ AY ~ ~ n z ~ ~r o POINSET z _ a > a m a MD S. LONGPDRT CIR. T WILSON AVE. I L AV NU g J ¢_ ~ OV ~ Q LEWI CENTRAL AVE. S.E. 12TH BD. Q z O ~o i S AVENUE ~ (> BROOKS ~ Q ~O. ~ CMR W ~~~ k ~ Z ~ _ WHI ~~ J' DES -VILE ~ BANYAN ~F' TREE LANE \~~ DEL- N ~ Pv GC ~~~~~ ~ L I N T O N B O U L E V A R D -- D/GITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM1093 N PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT ~ NEW CENTURY COURTYARDS CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT © PROPOSED CHANGE FROM TRN (TRANSITIONAL) TO GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: City Manager DATE: October 30, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.,T. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 RESOLUTION 57-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the Commission is Resolution No. 57-08 supporting an amendment to Florida's Constitution to require the Florida Legislature to operate under the Florida Sunshine Laws. BACKGROUND The Florida League of Cities passed a resolution at their annual conference supporting an amendment to Florida's Constitution to require the Florida Legislature to operate under the Florida Sunshine Laws. A similar resolution that would show support from Delray Beach on this issue is attached. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Resolution No. 57-08 supporting an amendment to Florida's Constitution to require the Florida Legislature to operate under the Florida Sunshine Laws. RESOLUTION NO. 57-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, SUPPORTING AN AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA'S CONSTITUION TO REQUIRE THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO OPERATE UNDER THE FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAWS. WHEREAS, Florida's Government -in-the-Sunshine Law, enacted in 1967, established a right of access to most meetings of boards, commissions and other governing bodies of state and local governmental agencies; and WHEREAS, Florida Governor Charlie Crist recently proclaimed March 16-22, 2008, as Sunshine Week for the citizens of the State of Florida and stated, "The role of Florida's government is to serve the people of Florida and open government gives the people the tools they need to hold their elected officials accountable"; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2007, Governor Crist issued Executive Order 01-107, creating the Commission on Open Government Reform to review, evaluate, and issue recommendations regarding Florida's public records and public meeting laws; and WHEREAS, the Commission on Open Government will compile its findings and present a final report to the Governor, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by December 31, 2008, to include specific recommendations, including proposed legislation, rule changes and modifications, if any, to Article I, Section 24, of the Florida Constitution; and WHEREAS, our counties and municipalities live by this law and thereby assure that government business is conducted in the open for all people to see; and WHEREAS, all Florida government is better served when all elected officials live in the Sunshine. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Delray Beach urges the Commission on Open Government propose and the Governor support a constitutional amendment that requires state legislators to operate under the same Sunshine Laws under which city officials operate. Section 2. That the City of Delray Beach will provide a copy of this resolution to the Chair of the Commission on Open Government, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, the Palm Beach County Legislative Delegation, the Palm Beach County League of Cities, and the Florida League of Cities. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on the day of October, 2008 MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk Res No. 57-08 -2- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 29, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.K. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/FIRST NIGHT 2009 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to endorse the 11~' Annual First Night 2009 event to be held on December 31, 2008 from 4:00 p.m. to midnight, to grant a temporary use permit per LDR's Section 2.4.6(F) for the use of City rights-of-way and facilities as requested and to authorize staff support as requested. BACKGROUND First Night is a City sponsored non-alcoholic event featuring local artists and entertainers. The event procession will begin this year again at Veterans Park and proceed to the Tennis Center. More of the children activities will be focused in and around the Tennis Facilities with the children's finale being held in the stadium. We will also extend activities on Atlantic Avenue to the Library. Button prices for this year's event will be $10 and $15 on the day of the event 12/31/08 and more activities have been designated as button venues. In addition, this year we are again running a special promotion of $5 per button for a giveaway to elementary school children. I have attached a copy of the event permit, site plan, the approved budget and other required information. Certificates of Insurance are being obtained through Risk Management for the use of the Library, Old School Square and the Court House Parking Garage. The estimated overtime costs for this event are $31,600 and barricades rental costs are $3,700. This is a City sponsored event. Per our event policies and procedures, there are no charges for City services; however, per the budget, First Night will pay the General Fund $7,000 for City Services. Barricade rental will be paid from the First Night budget. Staff support is requested for traffic control and security, site cleanup and trash removal, barricade set up and removal, signage construction and installation and EMS services. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends endorsement of the event, approval of the temporary use permit per LDR's Section 2.4.6(F) for use of City rights-of-way and facilities as per the site plan and approve staff support as requested. .City of Delray Beach UELRAY BEACH _ ~~ ~ Special Event Permit ~~ Application ji '-~'~~ ~ PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ~ 1993 ^, ._ ... i 2001 Event Name/Title: -First Night- 2009 Event Date(s): 1213110$ Times: 4:00 p.m. - midnieht Event SponsorlProducer: Cit of Delra Beach Event Contact/Coordinator: Name: Robert A. Barcinski Address: 100 NW 15t Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 Telephone Number: 243-7011 Cellular Number: 704-2780 E-mail Address: Barcinski(a~ci.delray-beach.fl.us Event Description/Purpose: Nan alcoholic New Year's Eve Celebration featuring local artists and entertainers, children's games, children and adult fireworks. Brief History of Event (If applicable): This is the 11th year for this event. Planned Activities (outline of activities/number of activities, i.e. entertainment, children's rides, games, other programs): Fireworks displays, entertainment, art exhibits-and projects, children's games, food vendors. Number of Individuals Served Previous Year (if applicable): 12 000+ Describe the targeted population and expected attendance: All ages 12,000 + Describe how the program or project addresses community needs: Provides non alcoholic event for arents and children not held an where else in South Flarida. Describe your MarketinglPromotions Program (How will you marketlpromote, i.e. TV, radio, posters, flyers, web sites, other): see attached .Will use TV Radio Ma azine News a ers and Internet. Sponsor Category (please check) City Non-Profit/Charitable a Private ^ Co-Sponsor -~ Non-Profit/Private ^ (If Non profit attach proof of 50.1 c(3}, c(4}, c(6), C(10), or c(19) or (d} Event Location (Describe area boundaries of eventllocation): Atlantic Avenue, Swinton to Veterans Park Veterans Park Old School S uare Worthin Park Tennis Center Libr Communit Center NE 1St 2"a 4th Avenue North of Atlantic and SE l St 2"a 3 `a and 4th Avenues, Atlantic to alley. , _ Site plan attached: yes X no (Site plan required for entire event site. Include locations of tents, stage, portalts, dumpsters, portable lighting, and barricade location if applicable.) Rental of Old School Square: yes X no (If yes, attach proof of approval) Private Property Use: yes no X (If yes, attach letter giving authorization from property owner) Event budget attached: yes, X no (Required for all events) Previous year Revenue/Expense, summary attached: yes X (Required for all events} Do you have cash sponsors for the event: yes X_ no. (Indicated on budget) Do you have inkind sponsors for the event: yes X no (Indicated on budget) (Separate attachment) no U:IwwdatalFirst NightlFirst Night 20D9 Special Event Permit Application.dvc Serving or selling alcoholic beverages: yes no X (If yes, copy of license and alcohol liability insurance required two (2) weeks prior to event) Event certificate of insurance attached: yes no NIA Cit S onsored Event (Required two (2) weeks prior to event naming the City as additional insured, also required far vendors) Playing of amplified music: (Waiver required) yes X no Will there be entertainment: yes X_ no_ (If yes, attached list of Performers and/or DJ's) To be provided. If yes, sponsor agrees all entertainment will be family oriented and contain no obscenities: yes X no_ Requesting Police assistance: yes X no (traffic control/security} Will supplement with private security: yes X no (If yes, need plan attached) 2 at Tennis Center, 1 at each of the button venues Requesting Emergency Medical assistance: yes X no Requesting barricade assistance: yes X no (If no, how are you handling?) Requesting trash removal/clean up assistance: yes X no (Will be billed to sponsor) Requesting trash boxeslcontainers and liners: yes X no Requesting stage use: yes X no (If yes, check type) Large stage (14' x 3b') ~. Small stage (i6' x 21') ^ Half small stage ($' x 21'} ^ Requesting signage: yes X no Type: 4'x4'Event sign Parking Signs X_ Banner hanging X ~~ Indicate dates required by 12123 (Waiver required if more than one (1) week prior to event) Requesting City Portable Generator: yes X no (If yes, size & power) Food and beverage vendors: yes X no If yes, approximate number 1 Vendor 10 Booths (tents) (Health Department approval required) yes no X U:IwwdatalFirst NightlFirstNight 20119 Special Event Permit Applicatian.doc Other vendors: yes X no (Indicate type) 1 Vendor 5 Tents Souvenirs Tents: yes X If yes, How many What size or size required (If yes, tent permits and fire inspections may be needed) {2} 20'x20' (2) 20'x40' (3} 10'x10' (2) 30'x60' Will the event include amusement rides: yes no X (If yes, type and location and copy of liability insurance required, also requires state license and inspection.) Will the event be gated: yes X no. (Show on-site map) Buttons to get into certain venues Will there be a charge for the event: yes X no (If yes, indicate ticket prices) $10 Per Button, $15 on 12131 /07 and $5 special elementary school children promotion Will there be fireworks or other pyrotechnics: yes X no (If yes, contact Fire Marshal to obtain and complete permit application) Will there be cooking with compressed gas: yes no X (If yes, contact Fire Marshal for inspections) Will you be providing port-a-lets for the event: yes X no (If yes, locate on site map. If no, indicate how you will handle restroom needs) Is reserved parking requested: yes X no (If yes, indicate locations and purpose for use) Event Permit Attachments: X_ RevenuelExpense Budget X Revenue/Expense Recap Last Years Event X Site Plan X_ _Letter Requesting Noise Ordinance Waiver N/A Letter Requesting Waiver Consumption Alcohol Beverages NIA .Proof ofNon-Profit Status NIA General Liability Insurance Certificate NIA Alcohol Beverage Liability Certificate X_ Proof of Rental Agreement or Authorization Letter from Private Property Owner NIA Hold Harmless Agreement Submittal Date Requirements: • Minor Event 45 days prior to event • Intermediate Event 90 days prior to event • Major Event 120 days prior to event • Neighborhood Block Party 30 days prior to event U:lwwdatalFirst NightlFirstNight 2p09 Special 8vent Permit Applicatian.doc no Event Contractor/Coordinator Please print: Robert A. Barcinski ~p~a~~~ Date Please enclose the appropriate ndn-refundable application fee payable to the City of Delray Beach, 100 N.W. 1St Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444. Required with permit application. For Staff Use Only Date Received Application fee received $ NIA _~ City Sponsored Event U:lwwdatalFirst NightlFirst Night 2009 Special Event Permit Applicalion.doc r W {~ O m H z ~_ LL O ° ° ° ° o ~ o o o o ' b ~ o 0 0 0 m ° ° ° ° ~ p u i o u -~ o o a ~ _ _ r ti ~ N M ~ T Q QQ~ o a o ~n 0 ~ ~ O ~ ~N O ( LR d4 di 69 to if! Q O Q Q O O r O 0 0 0 0 O O a O Q O Q Q O x-000 r O O ~ N N ~ ~ ~ tl3~G9~eA~? N 03 C ~ a:~ r. N ~ cam Q. c.~ ~ ~'Z cw~ ~' ~ Q 3 C taUlim~UU p ..~ .....~ ..~ ~..~ O O M ~ 0 0 0 ocoooo of r o .ti cp o ~~ L~ Ln L(~ u7 N7 e~ O 1~ I~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' Z Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ o o C o O C d 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ r r T~ T T T O ~/ LL / Q T T T T T P L r ai 0 m r Z rn CO m N L y~ iy Zy G Q C m ~ Y ~ # W m N ~ W y Z Z W ~a Nx ~ W LL O d '~ a~ Q ~ a OI O } L1. a O O LL a ti O ti r •' G G ~y ~ 3 v ~. 4 0 0 O O OG]O ~ ~ ~ G ti O ~ N ti QO ~ ~ O N 69 69 69 69 69 69 V? O 4 O O i i ~ ~ ti ~ ao ~ rn ai r ~~~~~~~~ ° ° O O ~ O M M 4 'i a0 a] Ir b9 63 EA fig b9 b41 M 0 ° e ~i 0 M 4+ ~_ • ~ _ ^~^' L C ~, .~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~U o V ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ J ~ ~o~m'o 0 ii Uraaac~ F °o ~ c °o ~ °o 0 0 Q Q O O O O O O N] O O O ~ M00N N O 69 E9 69 69 E9 w 0 0 0 O Q O O M O M O ~ fC ~ O 1~ ~~ o ~ ~ Mf~N N +D 69 ag 69 EA b91 M OO~NOO OOi p~cDN00 e!i ON+-ttNM '~ ~DI~Q11~0~ M I~N~N. GO ft! t9 et! M! fH tfil M '~ ~ C L ~ U rn ~ a a t ~ '~ nj ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ o c ~ ~mF~aaU ~ 0 0 0 0 Q O O O O pO 0 0 1 0 0 O od N O O O N 00 N ~ A r 69 6f? 69 64 691 w N cD Ca N Q7 M f~ ~ W G I~ O ~ GO f~ N aD M o0 O O O ti N aD ~ C"7 1~ r ~~~~~~~ M M O N ~ ' ~ ' lil O ~ ~ O 69 69 64 69 E9 N Y W f0 v ~ ~ ~ ~.. m ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '0 G rn `~ d c N ~ Z - J o o ~ ~ 3 O °~am~ a 7 fG rn= a Q ~ g _~ Z w 8 t z Q N ~ ~~ '° ~ ~ 00 00 0 000 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 ' oa oa o oao o n on na o a o ~ C ~ oc p¢ co Q Q 0 O oco O N O o N ~ oc oc O O O In M o DO c O o O , Q m o C r[7 o YJ ao 0 00 0 0 ~r ~t r~ Y! a o d ~ M c~i e~ t= v ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ti ~ as o W ~ ~~ ~~ w rflfAfA r- eses~~fAfts~~~ v- ~ w ~ ~ o 0 0 0 o ao o ao ~ o o ti ~ as u~ o ' r~ o ~n o ~0 0 0 0 r i i e r r 0 m ~N~pp ~ ti M f p C~1 ~ 0~0 M ~ ~ ~ a ~ ' I ~ W ~ C! QO 00 { Z f~ CJ M C] M ~ ~ c7 Q = ~ r N ~ r N ~ C 7 - r i ^ !! Z }r V LL Z W N ~ W ~ ~ oo oa r-oo =aa 0 o or~o oo~c ~ ~ ~ No N o o as v o o ~ ~. ~ a o v rn o~n ~ 4° ~~~rn °~ ~i(°p a°.i e°o .°n ti ~ c o c Y~ ~ CD ~ d~ 00 r CrJ I"'! ~ p ~ N~ N N M O N ~ ~ . LL !R fA ~ f+9 ~ ~ fR 69 f!} Y1 64 b4 fA dg ff? fA b9 69 ~H ~ L N U N N ; o ~ ~ a ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Uj 7 G~ ~ Y 7 t i V • ~ m _ ~v ~ ~ U O c O L Z ~ ~ ~~~ for ~ a ~O ~' v ~ ~ c t a~.~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ , a~ ~~ ' ~ r~ o a~ u~ ~g~, n m ~~ n C7 g ~ ~1~ c N ~' _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' .. o `''N ~ ~ L ~i Rq ~ N p rn rn ~ w~ ~ ~, ~~~ ~ ra r~~ r" ~ Z ~ Z G Q~ ~ °3~"r ~ N Z ~ +~ ~ O C L ~ ~ ++ C ~ O C r +.' ~ qy ~ ~ ~ p U ~ ~ ~ 41 Q N ~ c w ~ ~ ~ ~ ()'-U ~ ¢ c J ~ ~ r ~d J ~'C , LL Ii. cH~IJ..(.~LLU J ~~ ~ o~ p ot ' ~ O ~ ~n~ 7 a F- o ~ 00o ~ a F` p E oc7 ~°oac~aa.o OE N¢MN NO a H or 0 F om ti ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ E w_ O v ~ ~ ~ r ti O Ci n'~ T ~ p ~ a f O v ~~ O ~~ as + two 5v ~ a~ rNl M~~ ~ as r~- a N o Ncr7r~~~,nr~rn ~ a~ r ~~ m ~ ~o m ° ~ N ~ M O> ~ } _ W ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ m 2W ° o ~ Z W r _ Z W H ~ ~ ~ . ~ N O O O O O G O _ ~ LL ~1 1: c'~ Oo ~fi ~Ii nl ~ h r ~ ~ N ~~ ~0 O OO i c D A ~ ~ NGicpr-I N o t V- !A b} 6F} 69 d3 64 V- Tt of a +~ v m L _~ Z 00 I~ CO u] M ~ 44RQ~N ~ o~oc`~ioo ~~~~~~ r a ~ ~~~~~~ ' z ~~~~~~~ ~ c z ~~~~~~ ~ammmmm a ~~ ~ vvv~ av cccccc F' `L' y ~ ~ ~i ti ti ~i ~i u . ~ r ~' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Jasmin Allen, Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: October 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.L. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 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 taken by various Boards during the period of October 20, 2008 through October 31, 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: . The item must be raised by a Commission member. . 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 - Meeting of October 20, 2008 1. Approved (6 to 0, John Miller absent), a request for a determination of similarity of use between an artist studio and the fabrication of materials category allowed as a conditional use for property that is zoned GC (General Commercial) and located within the North Federal Highway Overlay 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. 2. Recommended approval (4 to 1, Paul Zacks dissenting and Joseph Pike stepped down), of a conditional use request to allow a building height in excess of forty-eight feet (48') and to accommodate a proposed building height of sixty feet (60') for three of the six buildings within Atlantic Plaza II, a proposed mixed-use development, located between NE 6th Avenue and Veterans Park and between East Atlantic Avenue and NE 1st Street. 3. Recommended approval (6 to 0), of an amendment to the Land Development Regulations Section 4.3.4(J) "Height" clarifying the requirements for workforce housing units to be provided with increases in building height. 4. Recommended approval (6 to 0), of an amendment to the Land Development Regulations amending Article 4.7 "Family Workforce Housing" to clarify the options available to meet the workforce housing unit requirements for increases in density and height; and, to specify that in-lieu contributions for workforce housing units shall be made to the City of Delray Beach Housing Trust Fund instead of the Community Land Trust. 5. Recommended approval (6 to 0), of the initiation of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2009-1. 6. Recommended approval (6 to 0), of a proposed amendment to the Community Redevelopment Plan amending Section 3.11: sponsorship of City tennis tournaments. Site Plan Review and Appearance Board -Meeting of October 22, 2008 A. Approved with conditions (5 to 0, Andrew Youngross and Jerome Sanzone absent), a Class II site plan modification, landscape plan and architectural elevations associated with the construction of a 90- foot high stealth telecommunication tower at Barwick Park, located at the northeast corner of Barwick Road and Lake Ida Road (735 Barwick Road). B. Approved (5 to 0), a Class III site plan modification associated with the conversion of double suites to two studio suites resulting in an increase from 32 to 36 rooms for the Marriott Residence Inn, located at the northeast corner of East Atlantic Avenue and Seabreeze Avenue. RECOMMENDATION By motion, receive and file this report. Attachment: •Location Map N SPRAB A. BARWICK PARK B. MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN ~~~~~~~~~~ CITY LIMITS ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ONE MILE ~ GRAPHIC SCALE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 2008 MAP REF: S:\Planning &Zoning\DBMS\File-Cab\CC-DOC\11-3-08 --olslraLeasEMaPSVSrEnn-- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Bob Diaz, Construction Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager Richard C. Hasko, Environmental Services Director DATE: October 23, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM M.1. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 CONTRACT AWARD/WEST CONSTRUCTION, INC./MILLER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a Contract Award in the amount of $5,436,917.00 to West Construction, Inc. for the Miller Park Improvements, P/N 2006-052. BACKGROUND West Construction, Inc the apparent low bidder will provide all labor, material and supervision necessary for the renovations to the Miller Park Facility. Improvements will include, four new ball fields (3 little league & 1 major league) with applicable sports lighting, a two story concession stand building housing the press box, meeting room, equipment storage and restroom facilities. Additional amenities include a skinned practice field, pitching wall, batting cages, pitching mound, pavilion, parking lot, irrigation, fencing and landscape improvements. An Interlocal agreement executed in the fall of 2007 by the City of Delray Beach and Palm Beach County will provide reimbursement for construction related expenses up to a maximum of $250,000.00 (PBC R2007-1557). In addition, a fifth base ball field with concession stand and restroom facility specifically for the Miracle League of Delray Beach will be constructed adjacent to the existing Sergio Ball Field. The league has pledged a maximum of $300,000.00 towards construction expenses. Bid tabulation (Schedule "A") and location map are attached hereto for your reference. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is proposed from account 334-4173-572-63.90 (Gen. Constr. Fnd. Pks & Rec.Othr Imprv) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Award of Contract in the amount of $5,436,917.00 to West Construction, Inc. for the Miller Park Improvements, P/N 2006-052. H Z wU Q W w Z ~ m O a¢~ LL a0°- ~}m w~ J U p O N ~ M O O O O O O M N N N N ~ O N ~ O ~ O O I~ M r N r M O O 47 r O O O O O M ~ N O M V N O O N C ~ C .J N O ~ (O OJ N 63 O N EA O ONJ EA N M - ~ I~ M O 63 O OJ O EA 0 ( (O ~ OJ ~ ~ EA O ~ N ~ ~ EA H ~ ~ fA N r ~ N ~ N ~ C O U V ~ a O N r M O O O O O O m N N N ~ O N ~ I~ O O N N O r r O N r M O O 47 N r O O O O O O N ~ r m m 0 N 0 m ~ M cn O ~ r m ~ m ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ _ ~ N EA EA EA - EA 63 EA N EA O_ O U C 0 0 o o 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O - ~ N N F OJ I~ EA N N EA N ~ - EA OJ N EA N ~ N 63 ~ EA M 63 M EA (O EA I~ O EA N W fA O O O ~ C O U d c y o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Y y U a 00 O N 00 O O 00 O O 00 O N 00 O N 00 N E 00 O O °o O N 00 O (V 00 O O 0 00 O N 'C 7 ~ N N ~ N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O EA EA EA EA y ~ p C U ~ 0 F O O M M (O O (O O ~ O O O O O O N N EA O O N N (O N OJ ~ EA O O O N N ~ r EA O O N (O M N OJ H3 O O N A I~ I~ EA O O O N N O O EA O O N M 47 N EA O O O O (O O N EA O O O O O O O EA O O I~ N N N N OJ Uj ~ O O r N W H M 1~ ~ ~ O O N ~ d d ` F» u c O U tp y U '- o o (rJ M (O 0 0 O O O 0 0 N N (O 0 0 O N ~ 0 0 N (O M 0 0 M N M 0 0 O N N 0 0 N M ~ 0 0 O O (O 0 0 O O O O O T d ~. ' ~ O (O O ~ EA O N N EA N OJ ~ EA N ~ I~ EA N OJ 63 C ~ EA O (O EA OJ N EA O N EA O (O EA N ~ Fp C O - V N N O ~ O O O O O OJ N N EA O O O O O O N N O O O O O OJ ~ EA O O O O O OJ N EA O O O O O OJ N O O O O O OJ N O O O O O OJ (O EA O O O O O N M EA O O O O O ~ N EA O O O O O O (O EA O O O O O M N OJ EA O O O O O M M 1~ fA O O O O O O O c p U O) C m U o o o O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 N N 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 O m r C ~ ~ N EA ~ EA ~ ~ EA N ~ EA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O EA 0 0 N O 0 0 O O 0 0 I~ N 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 N ~ 0 0 N ~ 0 0 N ~ 0 0 OJ m 0 0 N ~ 0 0 O O 0 0 N N 0 0 N H O. N O N O N I~ 47 N M N (O O N H Q O U y O .C H 47 N (V EA N N ~ N 47 ~ O M ~ N EA N ~ N EA N EA EA O EA r N N EA N f0 H fA Z O (,~ d f U O O N O O O O O OrJ O O N O O ~ N N ~ O O M O O O O O ~ O O O 0- '- d O N O O N N ~ I~ O 47 r ~ N M 47 N ~ (O O O Q = LL 'C ~ ~ N EA N ~ m ~ ~ EA ~ ~ ~ ~ EA ~ Z O O O O O O O O ~ O O M O O O 0 O O N O O O O O N O O O O O O O O I~ O O r } O O O C N O ~ I~ O O N N ~ N ( 0 47 ~ O ~ W ~ N ~ N O O OJ (O A (O' Z O O O C O ~ O N EA ~ EA O - N 63 N EA ~ ~ EA ~ (~O ~ N W ~ ~ C7 F» i» N F» H w ~ O ~ N C 0 O O 0 O O 0 O ~ 0 O M 0 0 O 0 0 N 0 0 O 0 0 N 0 O O 0 O O d ~ ~ O O U N V a m O N ~ (00 N ~ ~ ~ N O 0 d ~ z O °o N m ~ N O N N r ~ ( 0 Q O ~ _ . O ~ ~ O EA EA EA EA K O 3 C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 LL '~ ~ ~ J¢ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ J¢ 0 ~ J o z O m ~ H a ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ U mQ W a w ~ ° a o ~ °' ~i~ m m ='~' °' °J m w ~~ w o oYm = rn yo rn ym~ LL ~ ~ W ~ ° m~` ~~~, °' ~~ ° ~ > o a g r ~ ~ -O E Q ~ d E s d L N m LOL r0 ° N d o .- m ~ p ~ U W w H N U Z = p LOL U> - N N > N m O ~O O N O s O O~ Z C N> ~ O m ' W N a iy N m ~' O N N U J Q~ H O LL~~ O N - d N ° i N L ' ~(n (n Q O ~ ~'~N N J L ~ p C O U d Q O d J H Z O N N Q ~ ~ ~ 3 m m~s ti~ m `m ~ m mo o ar ~ m" - m~ Q ~# ~# -o ~ N Q N ~ N 7 m LL O ~ o N m N N N N "O YJ N N ~ Q Q N ~ °~ ¢ U H Q ~ N m~ j m Q ¢LL ¢ Q ~ a O ~aO i Q ~ E m r Z N M ~ N <O I~ N 47 O Q ~_ 07 ' ~I - -.-- vaiao~e 'r+ov3a ;.vaa3a wo. - ~ ~wi ne a3 Z50-900Z'ON 1O3fOad ~o~~l ~SWVPue ~~~~~ a3e "° n na a ry NVId 311S llb2i3n0 Hav3a nvao~a ~o uia ~~ WOH'~elwDl ~~~ e3rv~N ~ ~~~ a3ioN cos 1RiVd 213~~IW ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ° ~' m ~ ~ m ~ ~ . ~ ~, ~ i ; ~~, ~ Q ~ooo~ o I z - I'g ~i I _ ~ Q Q i %~ w _~ \ I ~- ~o - ~ ~ _ _ ~~-----2 ~ ~ ~ ~~, i, w i ," ~ ~ ~~~ ~1 ~ I ~ J 4 N ~a # ~ ~ a ~ I _ ~^~_ - ~ ~ ~ m i i ~ ~ w ~ wo o w a '~ x w ~ ~ _ ~„~ ~ ~ ~ ~ col ~~ a ~ \~ o ~ ~ i o ~ ~ 6R ~ ~n ~ - vat ~~ "' ~ ~ a ~ °~ ~ ~ i w ° a _ a a ~~ .~~ _ I ~ w a ca ~ ~ w a - o a 0o r - - -~- - -~----~ - --- ° I o ~ ~ ~ /~\ ~o I 1 N°aa ~ ~) ~i ~Fo ~o ~ ~ _ f a- ~ o~z ow ~ ~ - aw ,o~ ~ 6 a =io - Qomo ~~ , i ~ ~ ,~ w O i I'{ ~ O ~ n .~` > ~~ ~~''~ ~_ 1 ~~ ~ ~~ Illlfflol~~ll' ~ ~ ° ~ O `~ ~~ awe ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' - - o ~ . ,~,~ ~p Q ~.. ~~Y ,E~EE~ ~w a ~~ - _ ~w ~~ ~ o ~Q wz a ^ ~ ~ °~ -- -- Q ~ -~,~ - - ,~ & z . i _ ~ ~ ~~ --- ~ ~ o z ~ ~~ ~ ~o~ ~~ ^ ~ ~ ;~~ ~Q~~_ ~' ~ ,~ Q ° ~ ~i ~ ~~~ ~ - ~o~ i~ - _ ~ -_ -A ~a w - Ali ~ ~I ~ oQ _, LL i o ri r j a naa„na,sa,p~o'~a"was~.zROaz,z,no ,d~H~d.~M.,nbMP~~~s-~;~~~ seea~~~d~~b`~,~~n~na„sn,n~,a~~,w se ~~u;~;„°.awn~~b~,,n,~ ~..vl 1 I ~I ~~1,....f-1~~ II~~P'$6..rf-3 ~ NViRC~N~E~'TAL. SERVICE s ©~PARTMEfVT ~~~.~.~~ ~A{~~ flATE:09/30/20D8 LOCATION MAP N0.1 ~ 2998-209\Park klaps Cs 434 ~lTfhi SWiVTON AVQ~, DB.,E'1AY BEACH, F~..A 33444 PUBL.IG PARKS, RECREATIQN C~NT£RS & SCHOQLS ~ Q- ~~ ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Joseph Safford, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: October 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM M.2. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 PURCHASE ORDER/PRAXAIR, INC ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The City Commission is requested to approve a blanket purchase order in the amount of $100,000 for the purchase and delivery of liquid carbon dioxide (C02) as needed from Praxair, Inc. The blanket will cover a period of November 2008 through September 30, 2009. BACKGROUND This purchase is for use of C02 at the Water Treatment Plant. The lime softening process raises the ph of the water to a base or alkali level during treatment. In order to prevent water quality issues in the system and to remain compliant with regulatory limitations on ph levels in the drinking water system, the ph must be brought back down to a neutral level prior to leaving the plant. This is done using carbon dioxide dosing. In 2006 and 2007 the City Commission approved the purchase of liquid carbon dioxide from Praxair, Inc. via the City of West Palm Beach bid renewal Agreement #SB# 00/01-51 which is no longer in effect and will not be renewed. Chemical pricing at this time is not stable and providers are reluctant or unwilling to enter into a term pricing contract. With the escalating cost of this product the Purchasing Department has obtained product cost comparisons. Air Liquide America LP is the only other vendor that will provide the City with a set price at this time. Praxair, Inc. is the City's current vendor for liquid carbon dioxide. Liquide America LP $190.00/ per ton Praxair, Inc. $190.00/per ton Regulatory compliance charge (RCC) of $22.50 per delivery is not included in the per ton cost. FUNDING SOURCE 441-5122-536.52-21 OPERATING SUPPLIES /CHEMICALS RECOMMENDATION The Water Treatment Plant recommends a blanket purchase order in the amount of $100,000.00 to Praxair, Inc. for the purchase and delivery of Liquid Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to be ordered "as needed". . =. ~~ PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS „ u In this Agreement, the terms Buyer, Buyer's Location°, "Prices", "Product," "Specifications", "Basic Term° and "Supply System" will have the respective meanings set forth in this agreement. City of Deiraty Beach_(Buyer) 100 N.W. 1 Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Re: Purchase Order #: TBA Purchase Order Date: TBA Product: Liquid Carbon Dioxide Buyer's Location(s): Delray Beach, FL We acknowledge with thanks your order far delivery by Praxair, Inc. (Seller} of the following: Your total requirements, in gaseous and liquid form, of Product to Buyer's Loca#ions(s) for the period commencing October 15, 2008 and terminating Oc#ober 14, 2009. (Basic Term) Prices: Supply System Charge per ton Monthly Service Charge Effective Identification of Product on installation of Su I S stem 30-ton $190/tan $0.00 Customer owned tank Seller wilt invoice Buyer and Buyer will pay Seller a regulatory compliance charge (RCC) of $22.50 for each delivery of Product to the location(s) specified above. The RCC is in addition #o the Prices specifed above Specifics#ions: z 99.8% assay Enclosed are Safety Precaution Booklet(s) P-15-073-A and Product Material Safety Data Sheet(s) P4573-C & P4574- J. ,OUR AGREEMENT TO SUPPLY PRODUCT IS EXPRESSLY COND1710NED UPON THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Page 1 of 4 Page 1 of 1 Nadal, Patsy From: Williams, Amanda [Amanda.Williams@airliquide.com~ Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:08 PM To: Nadal, Patsy Subject: Carbon Dioxide Quote Patsy, l spoke with John and he confirmed that it is actually 100,000 Ibs. That would make more sensei We can also quote you a price of $1901 ton. Let me know if I can be of any more help. Thank you, .Amanda L. Williams Inside Sales -Southeast Region air Licluide Industrial U.S. I..P {225) 75~-0658 10/21/2008 Page 1 0~ i Nadal, Patsy From: Bullard, John Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2048 2:92 PM To: Nadal, Patsy Subject: Recommendation for Praxair Patsy Nadal, I am recommending that we continue to purchase carbon dioxide from Praxair, Inc. You have found ouf that the only comparable competitor, Air Liquide, is quoting the same price per ton that we are paying with Praxair. Praxair has provided excellent service and a consistently goad product since we have been with them sa there would be no advantage to switching companies. Thank you for yaur assistance in this matter, John Bullard WTP Manager 243-7319 10/28/2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Joseph Safford, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: October 29, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM M.3. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 PURCHASE ORDER/PVS TECHNOLOGIES INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to approve a blanket purchase order in the amount of $200,000.00 for the purchase and delivery of liquid ferric chloride as needed from PVS Technologies, Inc. The blanket will cover a period of November 2008 through September 30, 2009. BACKGROUND Ferric Chloride is needed to reduce organic properties in treated water. The treatment with the ferric chloride solution enhances the reduction of resistant organics in water. PVS Technologies, Inc has submitted a quotation dated August 15, 2008 for the unit price of $1.199 per pound of iron or $770 per dry ton. This unit price is valid for the period of October O1, 2008 through September 30, 2009 and is subject to a quarterly review and mutual consent at which time PVS Technologies will issue another firm pricing in accordance with market price value. There are two (2) other vendors who can supply this product. One product is not as consistent and has more impurities and the other is produced and shipped from the Midwest with the transportation cost being a large factor in the actual cost of the delivered product. In 2005/2006 testing of several liquid ferric chloride solutions was completed by the Water Treatment Plant and the ferric chloride from PVS Technologies tested with fewer impurities in the solution than the other two tested suppliers' mixtures. FUNDING SOURCE 441-5122-536-52.21 WATER AND SEWER/CHEMICALS RECOMMENDATION The Water Treatment Plant recommends the purchase and delivery of Liquid Ferric Chloride from PVS Technologies to be ordered "as needed" at $1.199 per pound or $770 per dry ton as quoted August 08/15/2008 for an estimated usage of $200,000.00. r xeexa~.uvr arrxrerc+~ca S nc Ms. Amy Robinson City of Delray Beach Purchasing 100 N.W. 1~ Ave. Delray Beach, FL 33444 Via Email Dear Ms. Robinson, ~'`~! Fc O,o` 8/15/2008 i am pleased to offer the following pricing on PVS Technologies Liquid Ferric Chloride: Prodact: Ferric Chloride 37% - 42% Price: 10/1/1/2008 - 9/30/2009 $1. I99 per pound of Iron (or $'~70 per dry ton of Ferric Chloride) Subject to Quarterly Review and Mutual Consent as outlined in the attached document. F.U.S: Delivered- City of Delray Beach Water Treatment Plant .Package: Bulk Tank Tnick- 45,000 pound minimum ''Terms: Net 30 Days ~Cor#..d~ions: Demurrage- 2 hrs_ Free, $SO.flO~r. thereafter Weekend/Haliday delivery $1001$150 Contract Period: As specif ed above and in the attached document Sincerely, ~~. Jose M. Gonzalez Director of Technical Service PVS Technologies Qffice and Fax- 607-859-2543 Mobile- 313-510-6238 Cc::John Bullard, Delray Beach WTP v1 PVS TL~'CHNOLOGIES ~~ August 15, 2008, ~~~` ~o Amy Robinson I~`i City of Delray Beach Via Email Re: Ferric Chloride Contract Pricing PVS Technologies greatly appreciates the opportunity to be your ferric chloride supplier. Your continued business is very important to us and we therefore need to ask for your consideration in reviewing the contract process for awarding fine supply of liquid ferric chloride. Historically raw materials to produce ferric chloride were plentiful and prices were relatively stable. Freight costs had also been relatively stable enabling PVS to commit to annual and even multi-year f`~xed priced contracts for the supply of ferric chloride to municipalities, regulated water utilities and independent water suppliers and operators of waste water treatment facilities. This has no# been the case since 2005 and it appears that the supply chain has been altered pem~anently. Price f#exibifity has become critical in order to offer the most competitive pricing. PVS Technologies can no longer assure our customers that 'l-year fixed pricing will be available nor the best option. That will be determined by market conditions at the time of your bid. If we are required to offer 1-year fixed pricing, a premium will have to be guilt in to the price to cover existing market risks. This would result in paying a higher price for ferric chloride #vr the entire contract period, even if costs remain stable or decrease. PVS Technologies respectfully requests that you change the 2009 femc chloride contract process allowing quarterly price adjustments. A flexible price management contract enables PVS Technologies to adjust pricing as changes in raw material and freight costs occur. It also provides the opportunity for price decreases should costs decrease. Since there is no market index that accurately tracks changes in the costs of producing ferric chloride, we suggest a mutually agreeable quarterly price adjustment established 30 days prior to the next contract quarter. PVS Technologies would provide market information supporting increases or decreases in raw material and freight costs. In the event na mutual agreement on price can be reached, either party would have the right to cancel the contract with 3()-day notice. . The recent volatility in raw material and freight costs has generated new challenges to chemical customers and suppliers. We thank you for your considerations in making a change in your ferric chloride contract process. Sincerely, Jose M .Gonzalez Director of Technical Service PV8 TECIiNQ1.OGIES,INC 10900 HARPER AVENUE, DETROIT, MI48213 (313) 571-1104 FAX 571-6765 Purchasing Division Memo TO: John Bullard, Water Treatment Plant Manager FROM: Amy Robinson, Senior Buyer G~ DATE: September 30, 2008 SUBJECT: Ferric Chloride New Pricing Quote-PVC Technologies The current Ferric Chloride contract pricing expires on September 30, 2008. The new pricing structure per PVS Technologies letter dated August 15, 2008 is as follows: October 10/01/2008 - 09/34/2449 $1.199 per pound of Iron (or $770 per dry ton of Femc Chloride) Please review the attached letter from PVS Technologies far more details. If this pricing structure is acceptable please sign below and return to Purchasing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, you may reach me at ext. 7163. _ Thank you. Approved: ~ ~° ' f ` ° ~ (Signature) (Date} cc: Richard Haska, Director of Environmental Services _ Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager Page ~ o~ ~ Nadal, Patsy From: Bullard, John Sen#: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:27 AM To: Nadal, Patsy Cc: Majtenyi, Victor; Hasko, Richard Subject: Ferric Chloride Contract Pricing Patsy Nadal Senior Buyer Purchasing Patsy, I spoke with Victor Majtenyi and we are in agreement to accept the request for quarterly price adjustments and the initial price increase outlined in the August 15, 2008 letter from Jose M. Gonzalez with PVS Technologies. Thanks. John Bullard WTP Manager 243-7317 9/5/2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Joseph Safford, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: October 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM M.4. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 PURCHASE AWARD/OTTO WASTE SYSTEMS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The City Commission is requested to approve a blanket purchase order in the amount of $60,000.00 for the purchase of hot stamped garbage carts, lids and wheels to be ordered "as needed" from Otto Waste Systems as a sole source provider. The blanket purchase will cover a period of 10/01/2008 through 9/30/2009. BACKGROUND Otto Environmental System was approved on 11/01/2005 by City Commission as a sole source vendor for the purchase of the hot stamped garbage carts that are provided to the citizens of Delray Beach. The sizes of garbage carts required by the City of Delray Beach are 95 gallon @ $52.00 each; 65 gallon @ $46.00 each and 35 gallon @ $34.00 including lids and wheels per quote dated 10/23/2008. The carts has a forest green body, black lid, rubber tires and are hot stamped with City Logo seal and serial numbers. Garbage carts are ordered and shipped in full truckload quantities for cost savings and in various sizes as needed. Freight pricing per truckload is $1,869.00. FUNDING SOURCE 433-3711-534-49.35 SANITATION FUND GARBAGE/SOLID WASTE CART RENEWAL & REPLACEMNT RECOMMENDATION Department recommends a blanket purchase order in the amount of $60,000.00 for the purchase of the garbage carts with lids and wheels from Otto Waste Systems as a sole source vendor to be ordered "as needed". OTTO Environmental Systems (NC), LLC 72700 General Drive Charlotte, North Carolina 28273 Telephone (704)588-9797 Facsimile (704)588-5250 October 23, 2008 Mr. Danise Cleckley City of Delray Beach 10U NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, l:~ 33444 Dear Danise: Thank you for your request for a quotation for Otto's MSD-95C, MSD-65C "Classic" and 35EV rollout carts. These carts are designed to be handled with equal ease by either semi-automated or fully- automated collection equipment. ^ Otto 95 Classics (Truck load 448] $52.00 each ^ Otto 65 Classics (Truck load 588] $46.00 each ^ Otto 35EV (Truck load 1050] $34.00 each ^ Freight per Truck Load $1,869.00 each Pricing is subject to any applicable taxes. Pricing in this quotation is subject to review after 30 days. Shipping, as quoted is only an estimate, Actual freight charges will be billed. Thank you for your consideration of the roll-out carts manufactured by Otto. I will follow-up with a phone call, but if there are any questions or if i can be of additional service, please call me at 704- 582-1531. ~a~e~ia ffe~~tin Area Manager Otto Environmental Systems {NC), LLC 704-582-1931 {Mobile} MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Sharon L'Herrou, Administrative Officer Anthony W. Strianese, Chief of Police THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 13, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM M.S. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 CONTRACT AWARD/AIR DUCT ASEPTICS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The Delray Beach Police Department seeks approval to enter into an agreement with Air Duct Aseptics for mold remediation services in the amount of $29,600 (attached). BACKGROUND Enviro Team conducted an assessment of the air ducts for one of the recently replaced rooftop HVAC units on behalf of the Police Department in order to evaluate suspected mold. The attached portion of their report includes the Executive Summary and photos. They found that the return duct was in good condition, but found visible debris and/or mold growth in the supply air duct. Enviro Team is recommending remediation of the air supply receiving chamber and associated supply air ducts of the unit. Also attached is a proposal from Enviro Team for apost-remediation review of the supply duct work. Air Duct Aseptics has performed work for the City at Fire Stations #1 and #3. The City was well satisfied with their performance. Enviro Team and Air Duct Aseptics are working together on this project. Therefore, Air Duct Aseptics is able to provide services based on the Enviro Team assessment. Further, Enviro Team's December 2007 report indicates that the contents of their report are not to be used or relied on by other parties without Enviro Team's consent. While Enviro Team does not have an exclusive relationship with any contractor, as the lead entity on our mold remediation project, it would be important to have them on hand during any walk-through visits with other vendors prior to their quoting the job. Since it is a detailed, technical job, it would be necessary for a vendor to view the site prior to providing a reliable estimate. This occurred already with Air Duct Asceptics. Since it would be necessary to bring Enviro-Team back on site for each vendor walk-through, we would have to pay Enviro Team for that additional service and time. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available in account number: 334-6112-521-46.10. RECOMMENDATION The Police Department recommends approval of the mold remediation agreement with Air Duct Asceptics. . ~Rr~.J~~:tJ:l~E ~~ ~rS4' =.:_'G~-'~,:r.3Y~-a`.?, r.~2i1.-f'..~ •.. ~~...-~:.1~E -rm-?wC . _ ~ .'..•~~.=J_'cJ -_ -:~~~%-~v5'E'.•aTC'34•aCG.t'eS.-~r: ~x - ~.-r^ r~~~.~ .--..-a~ v~.2-~ -e.. .: .~/ -.... .... _~ .. ... -. .~-.=-~-:cco`2?L''.C.Z±`~-v~.-~ _~•.~-fir,.:. web ~y IS'-""--3.`x}5-~~~a-~ :~'. k .~ h . :. ~ .':.. ~ .: ... Y ~. ...... 3i~....:... ~ ~ :..: .: ~. _ ill .. .. ~~• - ` 1 1'- ` ~ ~ '' ~..~ ~l ~~ ~r~~ ~1 ~~ i~ ~ r iii - - ~ ~~ _. _ __ _ __ . w ~ r ~ i . ti n~?„ ~ i~ - ii ~ 1 _ i~ ^ r u.~~ A ~~ rwr ~r s i 4! _ ... L ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.~ .., . ,~ ~ ~ ' ~` ~, ~ ~ x ^ V a is ^ 3 ~ I~ v _ 4 n K Q •~ I N ~ C, } I. 1 r Ya ~: N _ ~ ;~ ri II 4: X I A• YS as ~ ire rr c~ 1 u i n ri 0 ^ ~: ^ r u ~' ~e ti ,~ ~; :, u ~~ r ~ _ rn a t •r. u r N a x a x ~ u ^ 7 Y a U'-' •~ I ^ ~ r 1 3F ti :~ ~~ 1 t 1 II ti Yi ^ r} ~~ 1 -: ~ ~, ^ 1 1 :~I • ^ 1 I ~, F 4 ~c• r .: -;~ ,- r _ ~~ _ ~5: ~.- ~.y ~]F 1 _1 ~1 n z 1 II C :~: ~ N - 1 ~ .. ~ ~I 1 1 R 1 x _ ^ L _ 7 1 ~ R 1 ~i 1 - 1 n 1 - . . _ x G __ ti r ti _ -_ ~ ~ [ S 13 ti 1 Y~ II !R 1 I/ Y 1 f ~ Jk 1 J T pl II ~~ 1 A 7 '~!C 1 •7 i ti L ~1 i~ 3. 6 L T _ ~ a ~ ~4 ^ ti G"-~ a ~ 4 !{ II II 1 d 1, 7 If i 511 1 x 1 _ :1 1 li 1 1 II R 'F. .y II ~~ 1 a r si 1 ~r r o i• ~ ~ ^ I Y ^ 1 ^ ~ 1 ~~ 1 1 J 1 91 1 i r 1 ^ 1 ~11 a r. ~ I I :~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~i II 1 ^ 1 1 F V 1 ~ '- r 1 - _ _ _ r r t I~ _..~,__..~....-_.",~. y .. ._ f ~G I4 s ~;, w: _ r ~2iv~l~ t _ 7 li .. ~ II, .... - 4 ' l d, . r I 'w ~ - - r~ i :. ~„ 0 0 w t ,... .. ., .. ` r ... ~~ . s r r u 1 U e r, •- - - ~. _ .e .. .. .. _. ... t. .. .. _.. 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: October 29, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 WAIVER REQUEST/321 N.W. 1ST AVENUE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is approval of a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(a), which states that no required parking space may be located in a required front or street side setback. The waiver would allow the required parking to be located 9.5' from the front property line. BACKGROUND At its meeting of October 15, 2008, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) considered and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior alterations to the existing non-contributing structure, and additional site improvements associated with landscaping and hadscaping. The HPB considered the waiver request concurrently with the COA request and recommended approval on a vote of 6-0. The applicant has revised the parking configuration addressing concerns raised by both Staff and the HPB. The revisions provide access to the new parking spaces from the internal driveway loop rather than backing out directly on to NW 1st Avenue. The revised plan will maintain the existing curbcut and eliminate the possibility of gravel running into the right of way. Further, the existing hedge along the west property line will be maintained and will provide screening of the parking area. WAIVER ANALYSIS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(a), no required parking space may be located in a required front or street side setback. Therefore, the waiver is required as the proposed parking area encroaches 15.5' within the front setback. 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 location of the parking within the front setback is supportable in that it will be relocated from in front the existing structure (albeit outside of the 25' front setback) to a less prominent location, and, as noted on the revised site plan, will be screened from the right-of-way as it will be located behind the existing hedge along NW 1st Avenue. Therefore, the granting of the waiver will a) not adversely affect the neighboring area, as the improvements will enhance the property and the historic district as a whole; b) will not diminish the public facilities; c) will not create an unsafe situation; and d) is not a special privilege, as it is necessary to accommodate the required parking for the property. Therefore, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). RECOMMENDATION Approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(a), which requires that required parking be located outside of the front and side street setbacks, to permit the location of two (2) parking spaces within the required front setback, as noted on the attached and revised site plan, based upon positive findings with respect to the LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA WAIVER REQUEST FOR 321 NW 1St AVENUE PROPERTY ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 1. The waiver request to allow two parking spaces to be located within the front setback has come before the City Commission on November 3, 2008. 2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the waiver request from the property owner of 321 NW 1St Avenue. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsection I. I. WAIVER: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(a), no required parking space may be located in a required front or street side setback. The Applicant has requested a waiver as the proposed parking area is located 15.5' within the front setback. 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. Does the waiver request to Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(a) meet all 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. 1 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 waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(a). 6. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission hereby adopts this Order this 3rd day of November, 2008, by a vote of in favor and opposed. ATTEST: Rita Ellis, Mayor Chevelle Nubin, City Clerk 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Applicant/ Property Owner: Michael Singer Property Address: 321 NW 1St Avenue, Old School Square Historic District HPB Meeting Date: October 15, 2008 File No: 2008-245-COA ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) and waiver requests for 321 NW 1St Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F). BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of Lots 8 to 10, Block 57, Town of Delray and is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). Located within the Old School Square Historic District, the property contains anon-contributing ranch style, single-family residence constructed in 1975. There are no COAs on file for the subject property. The subject application requests approval for the following: • Remove existing concrete circular driveway; • Replace garage door with sliding glass doors; • Replace single hung window on south elevation with sliding glass doors; • Replace single hung window on east elevation with sliding glass doors; • Install additional sliding glass doors within screen porch along east elevation; • Install Chattahoochee loose gravel parking area at north of property. While the plans note proposed landscaping changes, these have been permitted by the City's Senior Landscape Planner and are not under consideration. The subject application is now before the Board for consideration of the aforementioned alterations and improvements and waiver request. ANALYSIS 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 application/request. LDR Section 4.5.1 (E) Historic Preservation Districts and Sites -Development Standards (E) Development Standards: All development regardless of use within individually designated historic properties and/or properties located within historic districts, whether contributing or noncontributing, residential or nonresidential, shall comply with the goals, objectives, and policies ::! i P~IS1`J 'f " ~L-v~:.€G. ~:i i1ES-L4r^,-t.>C.tn, r~F'C3 ~Ilr'efi~g ~?Ct~3r:~:' 1 W, 21.E°~w of the Comprehensive Plan, these regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (2) Maior and Minor development: For purposes of this section, major and minor development standards shall be applied as noted in the following table: Review Type by Use and Zoning District g Modification of Modification of Non- D strict Use Construction Contributin Structures Contributin Structures Under 25% Over 25% Under 25% Over 25% OSSHAD Single Family/Duplex Major Minor Major Minor Major STAFF COMMENT: Pursuant to the chart above, the subject development proposal is considered "Minor Development" since there is no expansion of the existing floor area of the buildin . (3) Buildings, Structures, Appurtenances and Parking. Buildings, structures, appurtenances and parking shall only be moved, reconstructed, altered, or maintained, in accordance with this chapter, in a manner that will preserve the historical and architectural character of the building, structure, site, or district: (b) Parkin_g: Where feasible, alternative methods of meeting minimum parking standards contained in Sections 4.6.9(C)(8) and/or 4.6.9(E), as applicable, shall be explored to avoid excessive use of historic properties and/or properties located in historic districts for parking. Parking lots shall strive to contribute to the historic nature of the properties/districts in which they are located by use of creative design and landscape elements to buffer parking areas from historic structures. At a minimum, the following options shall be considered: a. Locate parking adjacent to the building or in the rear. b. Screen parking that can be viewed from the public right-of-way with fencing, landscaping, or a combination of the two pursuant to Section 4.6.5. c. Utilize existing alleys to provide vehicular access to sites. d. Construct new curb cuts and street side driveways only in areas where they are appropriate or existed historically. e. Use appropriate materials for driveways, such as concrete poured in ribbons. f. Avoid wide driveways and circular drives. STAFF COMMENT: The required parking is located at the front of the property, yet set to the side, and not in front of the main elevation. While the existing parking configuration is typical of the development period for the property, the proposal is not incompatible as it is set to the side and is less prominent. The proposed parking is further analyzed within the Waiver Analysis contained within Appendix A. (5) Standards and Guidelines. A historic site, building, structure, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall only be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or othe-wise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, as amended from time to time. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. (Standard 7) 3~1 hJi~~! 1'` Av~nac. 2:!Ei-2~_i,Cir"F ~'~~~ 3 ~y The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. (Standard 2) (8) Visual Compatibility Standards. All improvements within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. In addition to the Zoning District Regulations, the Historic Preservation Board shall apply the visual compatibility standards provided for in this Section with regard to height, width, mass, scale, facade, openings, rhythm, material, color, texture, roof shape, direction, and other criteria set forth elsewhere in Section 4.5.1. Visual compatibility for minor development as referenced in Section 4.5.1(E)(2) shall be determined by utilizing criteria contained in (a)-(m). (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 prevailing historic architectural styles of similar buildings within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of windows and doors among buildings shall be visually compatible within the subject historic district. (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building and/or hardscaping shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic buildings and structures within the subject historic district. STAFF COMMENT: A review of the Visual Compatibility Standards was made and the proposed site improvements were found to be in general compliance with their intent. While the existing garage door is a defining feature of the structure, its removal and replacement with additional sliding glass doors is not inappropriate. The additional sliding glass doors proposed on the south and east elevations are also appropriate for the structure. While the use of loose Chattahoochee gravel is appropriate, its installation within the parking area should be reconsidered. The attached plans depict the use of pavers within the apron along NW 1St Avenue, and then Chattahoochee gravel within the parking area. The use of pavers or turf block within both the apron and parking area for the entire space would be preferred as the transition would be more unified and eliminate the potential for the gravel to spill onto NW 1St Avenue. Therefore, this material revision is noted as a condition of approval. There is a note on the submitted plans for an entry gate. However, information regarding the gate has not been submitted. Therefore, the submittal of the entry gate detail has been noted as a condition of approval. The proposed parking area measures right to the wall of the residence, where a hedge is currently located. This green space should be maintained to avoid any collisions with the residence, while also softening the appearance. Should the parking be placed further into the setback, the waiver request should be amended to reflect the measurement change. Nevertheless, the maintenance of the existing green space is noted as a condition of approval. With the aforementioned revisions, the subject request meets the intent of the review regulations. Therefore, positive findings can be made subject to conditions. LANDSCAPE REVIEW The subject application has been reviewed for technical compliance by the City's Senior Landscape Planner and was found to be in compliance with the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.16. The plan incorporates Florida native material. Once established, the environmentally friendly plan will assist in reducing water consumption. u<i Lfv 9`'`P.tiu'uC. 2~;t"s-2~u-~~~~^. ~t"S Fs~ te~~ell~y ~cYc ~~~` i w: ~'E.~v3 3" r~.~'~ v ~~ ~Y J ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the request for the Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-245-COA) for the property located at 321 NW 1st Avenue, 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 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. C. Move denial of the request for the Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-245-COA) for the property located at 321 NW 1st Avenue, 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 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. (Motion to be phrased in the affirmative. See above.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION By Separate Motions: Certificate of Appropriateness Approve the request for the Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-245-COA) for the property located at 321 NW 1st Avenue, 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 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 conditions: 1. That a detail of the proposed entry gate be submitted; 2. That the existing green space at the westernmost wall, adjacent to the proposed parking area, be maintained; 3. That the Chattahochee loose gravel at the parking area be revised to either paver blocks similar to those used for the apron or that the apron and parking area be revised to turf block; and, 4. That the plans be revised to illustrate all conditions of approval and certified prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Waiver-LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(a) -Parking Requirements for Single Family Residences Recommend approval to City Commission of waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(a), to permit the location of two (2) parking spaces within the required front setback, based upon positive findings with respect to the LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Report Prepared By: Amy E Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner Attachments: • Appendix A -Waiver • Waiver Request Statement • Site Plan • Landscape Plan • Floor Plan • Elevations L t t~`V ~:,; !~L•" i~i,EC. ~C,v'Z>-lbw-Co t,l~. ('<=ce a car` APPENDIX A ', Waiver Requests ~! Waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(a) -Parking Requirements for Single Family Residences Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9( C)(2)(a), two spaces are required per dwelling unit. Tandem parking maybe used provided that in the Single Family (R-1 District) or RL District, no required parking space maybe located in a required front or street side setback. The applicant has submitted the following statement in support of the requests: "...There is an existing right-of--way that is 25' from the roadway surface; therefore the vehicle parking is actually 38.5' from the road bed...The change minimizes reflective hard surface and heat island of a driveway and parking area. By relocating the parking area and driveway away from the enclosed courtyard with south and west exposure, airflow is increased to reduce exhaust fumes next to the living quarters of the house. Finally by removing the concrete drive and replacing it with plantings there is a reduction of 1155sf of impermeable surface which impacts the quantity and quality of stormwater run-off. Removing the circular courtyard driveway and replacing it with densely planted native vegetation enhances the tropical aesthetic of the historic district. The existing circular driveway courtyard built in the 1970's reinforces the suburban aesthetic and automobile culture. The proposed plant-screened driveway and parking area at the northwest corner of the property, where the street ends, is designed to have a 35' walkway through the topical garden to the front door, as opposed to the current condition of the car parked at the front door. By moving the driveway and parking to the northeast corner of the property it will no longer be the central element and focus of the property. The new driveway and parking will be at the end of N. W. 1 st Ave across from City property that contains a sod lot of unmasked pipes. " Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the granting body shall make findings 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. Analysis The relocation of the required parking spaces within the front setback is supportable in that it would be located to the side of the property and in a less prominent placement in relation to the structure. It is noted that the request does not place the parking into the right-of-way. The placement of the structure on the property requires that the property owner either relocate the parking to the south side of the property, outside of the front setback, and remove existing green space along; or, place the parking where proposed, reducing the amount of green space to be removed. Further, the proposed removal of the existing driveway removes the parking from directly in front of the window and opens up the streetscape view. Therefore, positive findings can be made with respect to the review criteria noted above as a) the waiver will not adversely affect the neighborhood, rather it has the potential to improve it; b) it will not diminish the provision of public facilities; c) will not create an unsafe situation in that back out parking is permitted for single-family residences, and the street is not heavily traveled; and d) is not considered a special privilege as this is an isolated circumstance, that could be supported for a different property. ~~ ~ n Michael Singer PO Box 682 Wilmington, VT, 05363 Regarding Property at: 321 NW 1st Ave. Delray Beach, Florida To: Attn: City Commission City of Delray Beach 100 NW 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 561.243.7284 RE: Waiver Request 09.24.08 I am requesting a waiver to provide parking within the front setback of 321 NW 1 S~. Ave in Delray Beach. This waiver is in relation to Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(a) of the codes describing the requirements for residential uses. Please see the attached drawing which describes this request. I put forth the following reasons for this request: 1. Set back -The request is to allow up to 2 vehicles to be parked (rear end) at 13.5' set back from the property line instead of 25'. There is an existing right-of-way that is 25' from the roadway surface; therefore the vehicle parking is actually 38.5' from the road bed. 2. Environmental -The change minimizes the reflective hard surface and heat island of a driveway and parking area. By relocating the parking area and driveway away from the enclosed courtyard with south and west exposure, airflow is increased to reduce exhaust fumes next to the living quarters of the house. The airflow will also reduce solar gain heat build-up. This change allows for the existing large driveway space to be planted with shade trees in the current south west courtyard- significantly reducing heat gain and glare from the south and west exposures. Finally by removing the concrete drive and replacing it with plantings there is a reduction of 1155sf of impermeable surface which impacts the quantity and quality of stormwater run-off. 3. Aesthetic -Removing the circular courtyard driveway and replacing it with densely planted native vegetation enhances the tropical aesthetic of the historic district. The existing circular driveway courtyard built in the 1970's reinforces the suburban aesthetic and automobile culture. The proposed plant-screened driveway and parking area at the northwest corner of the property, where the street ends, is designed to have a 35' walkway through the topical garden to the front door, as opposed to the current condition of the car parked at the front door. By moving the driveway and parking to the northeast corner of the property it will no longer be the central element and focus of the property. The new driveway and parking will be at the end of N.W. 1 st Ave across from City property that contains a sod lot of unmasked pipes. The property on the north side of the parking area is the Church parking lot. Also, the west side of N.W. 1st Ave, across from 321 NW 1st Ave is not in the historic district and does not comply with the parking set backs on the east side of the street. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. SEP 2 9 2008 Michael Singer PLANNING & ZQNING 0 7 c0 O N 4 QJ m a ~ v a ~ ¢~ QI ~ s _ C C G °' ~ T } n ~. S C C 4 Z Ql m ` 03 of c c ~ N ~ a O O 4' S C C __ C C L ~y fU S S L ~ N Q' U (J u7 0 n, r ~ u i1 u z •~*~+l+f~-ip~- z WOOD ~o ~~P o ~`' z O~~/ \ C,~ W ~ ~~~~~ z W N.E. 5TH Q w z z 0 z N.E. N.W. 3RD ST. 1 w J > w Q a 0 ~ z ~ N S S ~ - H D_' n ~ M MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DRIVE o ~ z ~ N Q W C~ W J Z Q W Z_ D_ ~ ~ ~ z z Z N F 1ST ST. N SUBJECT PROPERTY 321 NW 1ST. A~/ENUE 1 PLANNING AND ZONING 12-43-46- 057-0080 LOCATION MAP DEPARTMENT -- D/GITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: S:\Planning & Zoning\DBMS\File-Cab\Z-LM 1001-1500\LM1094_321 NW 1ST. AVENUE L A K E I D A R O A D MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: CANDI N. JEFFERSON, SENIOR PLANNER PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: October 29, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 WAIVER REQUESTS/DELRAY MARRIOTT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is consideration of three (3) waivers from the following Land Development Regulations associated with the Class IV site plan modification for Delray Marriott Expansion: 1. LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(1)(a), which requires that the overall height of buildings be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25' ). 2. LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(1), which requires a 20-foot visibility triangle for the area on both sides of an accessway formed by the intersection of each side of the accessway and the public right-of-way (i.e. Andrews Avenue). 3. LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2), which requires a 40-foot visibility triangle at the intersection of Andrews Avenue and East Atlantic Avenue. BACKGROUND The subject property has a detailed land use history. Its historic use has been a hotel. The 4.64- acre site currently contains the existing 271 room, five-story Delray Marriott hotel inclusive of an existing 117,473 sq. ft. covered garage and two (2) surface parking lots. On October 14, 2008, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) approved a Class IV Site Plan Modification for the Delray Marriott Expansion which includes construction of a two-story hotel addition containing nine (9) cabana suites, expanding the existing restaurant, adding a retail and commercial component, constructing afour-story hotel addition with twenty-seven (27) suites along the south property line (i.e. fronting on East Atlantic Avenue), adding a kitchen to better accommodate existing banquet rooms and expansion of the existing pool deck. The Board considered the waivers identified above at this meeting and recommended approval of all three (3) waivers. These three (3) waivers arenow before the City Commission for 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. MinimumBuilding Height: A waiver is being requested to allow new construction at a minimum height of 22'5", instead of the minimum 25' height required, pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13 (F)(1)(a). The applicant has provided the following justification statement regarding the waiver request: "We are requesting a waiver because this is an existing nonconforming hotel in which the ground floor height proposed ceiling/roof is at 14'-0" with a parapet height of 3'6" which comes to 17'6". The existing second floor hotel is at 18'-6" and we are trying not to block off the existing ocean room views, in addition it is our opinion that for the exterior elevations to read well, that the proposed ground floor/roof structure should not encroach into the existing horizontal lines of the hotel which is setback from Atlantic Avenue. " Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13 (F)(1)(a), the overall height of buildings shall be a minimum of twenty- five feet (25') and a maximum of forty-eight feet (48') in height. The applicant's position is that the additional 2'7" poses an obstruction to the existing 5-story hotel structure by blocking views. Specifically, the waiver to LDR Section 4.4.13 (F)(1)(a) to allow a minimum 22'5" building instead of the requirement 25' minimum height does not affect the neighboring areas, nor does it create an unsafe situation. Granting of the requested waiver will not diminish the provision of public facilities, and will not result in the granting of a special privilege. Consequently, positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5) can be made. 20' Sight Visibility Triangle: A waiver has been requested to reduce the 20' sight visibility triangle to 10' on the south side of the proposed ramp and 9'7" on the north side of the proposed ramp pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(1). The applicant has provided the following justification statement regarding the waiver request: "At the South West side of the site along Andrews Avenue and at our proposed new service ramp, we are requesting a reduction from the required 20'-0" to 10'-0" on the South side of the ramp and a reduction from 20'-0" to 9'-T' on the North side adjacent to the existing parking garage, as per LDR Section 4.614(A)(1).(Note: Edge of roadway is additional 6'-T' away from building). " Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(1), the area on both sides of an accessway must provide a 20' sight triangle. The applicant proports that the edge of the roadway is an additional 6'7" away from the building, thus suggesting that ultimately the line of sight from the right-of-way to the building will be 16'7" on the south side of the ramp and 16'2" on the north side of the ramp, resulting in less than a 4' reduction in visibility from the right of way. The anticipated traffic in and out of the garage onto atwo- way collector, Andrews Avenue, is minimal. The 40' visibility triangle required to the south for Atlantic Avenue reduces the ability to shift the ramp further south and the location of the existing building (i.e. garage) to the north also limits the ability to comply with this requirement. Under these circumstances, the waiver is deemed appropriate for the 20' visibility sight reduction to the north. Further, since the traffic flow for a right turn (northbound Andrews Avenue) is minimal and there is clear visibility coming from Atlantic Avenue, the negative affects from the south will be reduced. Granting of the requested waiver will not diminish the provision of public facilities. Likewise, it will not result in the granting of a special privilege. Consequently, positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5) can be made in the reduction of the 20' sight visibility triangle to 10' on the south side and 9'T' on the north side of the proposed service ramp. 40' Sight Visibility Triangle: A waiver has been requested to reduce the 40' sight visibility triangle at the corner of Atlantic Avenue and Andrews Avenue to 21' 11" pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2). The applicant has provided the following justification statement regarding the waiver request: "At the South West side of the site, along Atlantic Avenue and Andrews Avenue at our proposed covered exterior walkway, we are requesting a reduction from the required 40'-0" to 21 '-11 " as per LDR Section 4.614(A)(2). (Note: Edge of roadway is additional T-0" away from property line and (3) columns are what encroach into the sight triangle). " Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2), a forty (40) feet visibility triangle is required. The applicant proports that the edge of the roadway is an additional TO" away from the property line, and three (3) columns is all that encroaches into the sight visibility triangle. Considering that there is no actual building obstructing the view and there will be ample spacing between the three columns, the waiver is supportable. The approval of the waiver will not negatively affect the neighboring area nor create an unsafe situation. Granting of the requested waiver will not diminish the provision of public facilities and will not result in the granting of a special privilege. Consequently, positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5) can be made in the reduction of the 40' sight visibility triangle to 21' 11" at the intersection of Andrews Avenue and Atlantic Avenue. RECOMMENDATION By separate motions: 1. Approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(1)(a), which requires that the overall height of buildings be a minimum of 25 feet, based on a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5). 2. Approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(1), which requires a 20-foot sight visibility triangle for the area on both sides of an accessway formed by the intersection of each side of the accessway and the public right-of-way (i.e. Andrews Avenue), based on a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). 3. Approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2), which requires a 40-foot sight visibility triangle at the intersection of Andrews and East Atlantic Avenue, based on a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Attachments: Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) Staff Report of October 14, 2008 Public Comments from Citizens SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: October 14, 2008 ITEM: 10 North Ocean Boulevard (Delray Marriott Expansion) -Class IV Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations associated with constructing a twa- story hotel addition containing nine (9} cabana suites, expanding existing restaurant, adding a retail and commercial component, constructing afour--story hotel addition with twenty-seven (27) suites along the entire south side of the existing hotel structure fronting on Atlantic Avenue, adding a kitchen to better accommodate existing banquet rooms and expansion of the existing pool deck. GENERAL DATA: OwnerlApplicant ...................... Ocean Properties, Ltd. Agent .................................. Eliopoulos Architecture, Inc. Address ................................ 10 North Ocean Boulevard v Location ...................................... On the north side of E. Atlantic Ave. located between Andrews Ave. and State Road A1A (N. Ocean Blvd.} Property Size .............................. 202,180 sq. ft. (4.64 acres} Existing FLUM ................ ( } ........... ommercia ore Proposed FLUM ......................... No Change Current Zoning ............................ CBD (Central Business District} Proposed Zoning ........................ No Change Adjacent Zoning ................North: CF (Community Facilities); and RM (Multifamily Residential-Medium Density) East: NIA (Atlantic Ocean} South: CBD (Central Business District) West: CBD (Central Business District) Existing Land Use ...................... Delray Marriott Hotel Proposed Land Use .................... Delray Marriott Hotel Expansion Water Service ......................... Existing on site Sewer Service ........................ Existing on site _ ~ ~. ~ ~T~NI BEFU~~ T#~EBC~A(2D,.: ~~ ~ w.. `_ The item before the Board is the approval of the following aspects of a Class IV site plan request far Delray Marriott Expansion, pursuant to Land Development Regulations {LDR) Section 2.4.5{F): O Site Plan; ~ Landscape Plan; O Architectural Elevations; and, O Waiver Requests The subject property is located an the north side of East Atlantic Avenue located between Andrews Avenue and State Road AIA {Ocean Boulevard}. ~ ~ ~ BA~~RUUN~ MATt4~+l' _ ~ a r.. The subject property has a detailed land use history. Its historic use has been a hotel. On July 14, 1980 the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the Seacrest Hotel conditional use request to allow a 168 room hotel in a six-story structure. The Planning & Zoning Board approval was subject to the condition that a time limitation of 18 months be set for development of the project. On October 28, 1980, the City Council {later renamed City Commission) ,approved the conditional use request subject #o the applicant providing 16 parking spaces in the southwest corner for public parking. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant was also required to enter into along-term lease with the City at the rate of $1.00 per year with a termination elate 99 years from October 28, 1980. This condition of approval was no# to take .effect until the applicant received written approval from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT} regarding elimination of ten (10} spaces on the south side of Atlantic Avenue between Gleason Street and Bronson Avenue, as well as, the removal of thirteen (13} spaces on the north side of Atlantic Avenue between State Road A1A and Andrews Avenue. The condition of approval also established a time period of 12 months to obtain FDOT approval or the approval would be rendered null and void and a new conditional use request would need to be processed and approved. Upon FDOT approval, the time limitation for development of the project would be 18 months. FDOT approval was not received and the conditional use approval expired. On July 20, 1981, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the revised Seacrest Hotel conditional use request to construct a 5 story, 150 room hotel. The City Commission voted to approve the conditional use request for Seacrest Hotel on August 11, 1981 and stipulated that 18 parking spaces located in the southwest corner of the site be made public to reduce the impact on the merchants that were to be affected by the elimination of 23 parking spaces located along Atlantic Avenue between Gleason Street and State Road A1A. However, FDOT did not approve the proposed road improvements along Atlantic Avenue and the 23 spaces were not removed. The Seacrest Hotel nonetheless proceeded with their plans to include an 18 space public parking lot in the southwest corner of their site, in the event of eventual FDOT approval. To dafie, FDOT has not approved any proposed road modifications on Atlantic Avenue for the Delray Marriott. Thus, the original parking configuration containing 19 paralle! spaces on the south side of Atlantic Avenue and 21 parallel parking spaces on the north side of Atlantic Avenue between Venetian Drive and State Road A1A has not changed. On Apri[ 10, 1984, the City Commission approved the construction of a rooftop restaurant as a sixth floor on the existing hotel. On February 23, 1988, the City Commission approved a waiver of the rezoning fee and final boundary plat fee with a City land exchange for the parking lot (Parcel 1) along the north property line for public beach access and Fire Station #2. The final land exchange agreement between the City and Ocean Properties {owner) was approved by the City Commission on April 11, 1989. On June 28, 199D, the Board of Adjustment approved a variance for a fifty space parking reduction to run in perpetuity with the site via petition #861. On July 16, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of a conditional use modification request for the hotel renamed to Camino Real Holiday inn on an expanded site {from 2.62 to 4.fi4 acres), with a revised proposal #o construct afive-story, 100 room hotel addition, two tennis courts and 87 additional parking spaces. The City Commission approved the conditional use on July 24, 1990. The subject property was initially zoned Limited Commercial (LC). After October 1, 1990, with the city-wide rezoning, the subject property was rezoned to the Central Business District (CBD) zoning district. SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10/14/08 Delray Marriot# Expansion -Class iV Site Plan Page 2 On January 21, 1992, the City Commission approved a conditional use modification extension request associated with the Camino Real Holiday Inn hotel expansion. On February 23, 1994, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) approved the site plan associated with the approved conditional use modification for the Camino Rea! -Holiday lnn Expanslon. Two subsequent site plan extensions associated with the hotel expansion were approved an July 26, 1995 and February 5, 1997. On March 19, 1997, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) approved three (3) waivers associated with the beach public parking lot bordering the north property line of the hotel site. The waivers were with regard to the following: 1) the provision of a 20' stacking distance if A1A is widened in the future [LDR Section 4.fi.9.D.3.c.1], 2) the allowance of a reduction in the perimeter landscaping width from 5' to 3'/z' along the south property line of the City property containing the parking row adjacent to the building [LDR Section 4.fi.16.H.3.d], and 3} the provision of only a 5' landscape strip along the east property line where tree plantings were required, adjacent to A1A [LDR Section 4.fi.1fi.H.3.a]. At its meeting of April 16, 1997, SPRAB considered two design layouts for the Camino Real Holiday Inn hotel expansion to accommodate a 5-story addition with 100 roams. One site plan combined the beach parking lot with the proposed hotel parking area adjacent to the north property line, and the second plan maintained the previously approved separation of the two parking areas. The site plan combining the parking areas was approved, while the associated landscaping and elevations were continued. The Manor House Condominiurrl Association appealed the April 16, 1997 SPRAB approval of the site plan challenging the use and accessibility of a public parking iat located within a commercial establishment. This appeal was heard at the City Commission meeting of May fi, 1997 and was denied, thus maintaining the original SPRAB approval. At its meeting of June 25, 1997 SPRAB approved the architectural elevations for the project. The revised landscape plan was approved by SPRAB an July 9, 1997. On December 17, 1997, SPRAB approved minor modifications to the approved plans for expansion of the hotel. These items included redesign of the main entry from an elliptical to a circular drive, redesign of the proposed pawl area, relocation of garage entry along Andrews Avenue, elimination of one tennis court and floor plan changes which resulted in an 85 sq. ft. increase in total building area. The associated landscape plan was approved on January 21, 1998. On February 17, 1998, the Seacrest Hotel Final Boundary Plat (ORB 6fi0 PG 4} was approved which included the hotel, fire station #2 and beach parking lot. At that time, an access easement for Parcel 1 (City Parking Lot) was established with Ocean properties which called for payment of $50,000 to the City. A landscape maintenance easement agreement for this lot had already been established and approved on February 3, 1998. On September 16, 1998, a site plan modification was approved to convert the penthouse restaurant to hotel suites and construct a restaurant addition, which included payment of in-lieu parking fees for the proposed restaurant additionally required parking. The adjacent property owners along Atlantic Avenue between Venetian Drive and Seabreeze Avenue appealed the September 16, 1998 SPRAB approval of the site plan, due to concerns about the parking requirement associated with the restaurant addition. This appeal was heard at the City Commission meeting of October 20, 1998 and was granted, thus reversing the original SPRAB approval. On January 29, 2001, a Class I site plan madii'ICation request to change the elevations of the hotel to provide stealth telecommunication antennas was approved. On August 4, 2008, the applicant submitted a Class IV Site Plan Modification for the Delray Marriott Expansion which includes construction of a two-story hotel addition containing nine (9) cabana suites, expanding the existing restaurant, adding a retail and commercial component, constructing afour-story hotel addition with twenty-seven (27) suites along the entire south property line (i.e. fronting on East Atlantic Avenue), adding a kitchen to better accommodate existing banquet rooms and expansion of the existing pool deck. This proposal is now before the Board for approval. SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10/14/08 Delray Marriott Expansion -Class iV Site Plan Page 3 P~ROJ_ECTAESC~ T:~ = ~ ~ .. ,. ~.. . The development proposal consists of the following: • constructing atwo-story hotel addition containing nine {9) cabana suites • expanding existing restaurant • constructing a 4-story hotel addition with twenty-seven (27} suites • adding a retail and commercial component on firs# floor of 4-story hotel addition • adding a kitchen to better accommodate existing banquet rooms • expansion of the existing pool deck • relocating existing cooling towers • construction of a delivery ramp off of Andrews Avenue • creation of a courtyard entrance along Atlantic Avenue • provision of two parallel parking spaces along Atlantic Avenue • constructing a open pavilion facing North Ocean Boulevard • removal of existing fountain along North Ocean Boulevard • elimination of twenty-four {24} existing parking lot spaces • elimination of two (2) volunteer parking spaces • elimination of two {2) handicap parking spaces • elimination of four (4) parallel parking spaces adjacent to the pool deck • removal of two (2) existing hotel suites • provision of one (1 }additional handicap space • provision of one (1 }bike rack along Atlantic Avenue • associated landscaping 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 applicationlrequest. LDR Section 4.3.4 K Develo ment Standards Matrix --Nonresidential Zonin Districts: On Atlantic Avenue, the proposed development (new construction) meets the required setbacks with respect to t_DR Section 4.4.13(F){4) for lot frontage {see tables below). ~~ ~:.. ' `~' ~ ~`- _ ~~ ` ~ F~etray Marriott Expansion ~ ~ . _:-_ = - - Road! ~ °~ Building - RE: SEE Pr ~ ~uildinq _ - ireri Bt~il~i ~ - ~ oposo_ 'w LDR? ~- 1 ` ~ 6uiid~n S~d~ ~ - . a~Hei ht ~ ~y _ t `F outage, (min/rEiax) setback Fta : e° ' ~ Builrti: ~ Fronta~.~ ~>_ ~- ~ ~ ~ ck~ a ° ~ ._. - ~ ~ - "~Aflla~n~ ~ Finished 283'6" ~~~~=-•-=Ue ~~L-O~1141~R ~ grade to ' 70% 19D% 1 D' max. 278' 135T (7i .4%) 37 L) 39T Lot 10% 130% ' ' ' 114' ~=~• Fronta a 9 (Remaining 15 min. 40 1119 {i2 3%) _- m__ length) . SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10114!08 ©e[ray Marriott Expansion -Class IV Site Plan Page 4 Delray Marriott Expansion ~Roadl ' uilding °/a Building equired f Required Building proposed -. Com wl LDR Buiiding , Height Frontage Setback Frontage Euiiding .Side (m~nlmax} 1=rcntage ~ at Setback.. - __: Y N Atlantic ~ Avenue 37' to 48' 70% 190% 15' min. 278' 1357' 357, {90%) (UPPED 39T Lot LEVEt~} Frontage 10% 130% 40' (Remaining 5' min. 40' 1 119' (10%) len th The following tables indicate that the proposal requires waivers from LDR Section 4.4.13(F}(4} as it pertains to the required setbacks far the Central Business District (CBD} zoning district on State Road A-1-A and Andrews Avenue: Delray Marriott Ex~ ~badl % Building 3~uif~ii7 Building Required 3 Height Frontage Setback aide (minlmax} nsion ~~~ ~ Finished grade to 7D% 1 90% 10' max. 392' 1504' 0' (0%} i~o~d - =- =A 2T2" with A 1 560' Lot 10% I30% 560' Frontage (Remaining 15' min. 56' 1168' (100%} len th Delray Marriott: Expansion -- ..... Finished ,i2, Andrews grade to 70°10190% 10' max. 54' 170' (15 6%) Avenue : - .__ 42'11" 7T 4 718" 10% 130% i F~onta e (Remaining 15' min. 7' 123' (34.4%} g len th As shown in the above tables, the proposed development does not meet the required setbacks with respect to LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(4) for lot frontage along Andrews Avenue and State Road A1A. The applicant has requested a waiver to this requirement. An analysis of this waiver request is provided below: SPRAB Report: Meeting of 101'!410$ Delray Marriott expansion -Class IV Site Plan Page 5 Waiver Analysis: 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 ar owner. An analysis of the applicable waivers is provided in the following sections. Waiver #7 (Front Setbacks) A waiver has been requested to allow construction of the new structure to exceed the 10' maximum setback from the property line along State Road A1A and Andrews Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13 [F)[4). The applicant has provided the following justification statement regarding the waiver request: "We are requesting a waiver from LDR Section 4.4.13 (F)(4) because (here is a preexisting condition which prevents this side of the property from ever confom~ing to this requirement called The Brockway Line; which is the same as a `Coastal Construction Contra! Line' which prohibits any construction beyond that point." Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13 (F){4)(b)(1}, for new buildings constructed from the ground floor to thirty-seven feet (37'), a minimum of 70% and a maximum of 90% of the building frontage shall be set back no greater than ten feet {10') from the property line. The remaining length of the building shall be setback a minimum of fifteen feet {15'). Along Andrews Avenue, the waiver of the requirement to construct at least 70% (54') of the building frontage to allow 12' is supportable because a portion of the building consists of a ramp and the sight visibility triangle reduces the available lot frontage needed to satisfy this requirement. Conversely, pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4{H)(6){a), along Ocean Boulevard (State Road A1A), a twenty foot {20') setback shall be provided from the `Brockway Line", as shown in Plat Book 20, Page 4, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Within this special building setback, no structures shall be altered, erected or reconstructed. ]n such case, the proposed new open pavilion at 36' 6 118" does not encroach upon the required 20' Brockway Line setback. Since the LDRs conflict with the Brockway line setback requirement, the waiver to LDR Section 4.4.13 (F){4) is justified. The waiver to LDR Section 4.4.13 {F}{4)(b){1 } to allow a setback of 36' 6 1I8" for the pavilion on State Road A1A does not affect the neighboring areas ar create an unsafe situation. Granting of the requested waiver will not diminish the provision of public facilities or result in the grant of a special privilege. Consequently, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(6){5) in the reduction of the required setback along State Road Al A. SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10/14/08 Delray Marriott Expansion -Class IV Site Plan Page 6 Open Space: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(F}{2}, east of the Intracoastal Waterway there is no minimum open space requirement. As demonstrated in the table below, the applicant currently has 10% open space on-site and is increasing the existing open space by 1.3%. The proposed total open space is 11.3%. Open SAace: j 0% ~ 10% ~ 11.3% Building Height The site has an existing nonconformity with respect to building height. The height of the tallest existing structure on-site is 53'2", where a maximum of 48' is allowed. The height of the shortest existing structure on- site is 17`3", where 25' is required. However, since no improvements are proposed far these existing structures, the nonconformity shall remain. However, all proposed structures must meet the minimum and maximum building height requirement of twenty- five feet (25') and forty-eight feet {48'} respectively. The required, existing and proposed development standard for the Delray Marriott site is as indicated in the table below: Building Hei, hcLf.~ ~ Min. 25' 1 Max.48' ~ 1T3" 153'2" ~ 22' 5" 142'11" As demonstrated above, the tallest proposed addition meets the maximum 48' height requirement at 42'11". However, the shortest proposed addition does not meet the minimum 25' height requirement. The applicant has requested a waiver to address this issue. An analysis of this waiver request is provided below: Waiver #2 (Minimum Height) A waiver is being requested to allow new construction at a minimum height of 22'5", instead of the minimum 25' height requirement, pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.93 {l=}(9}{a}. The applicant has provided the following justification statement regarding the waiver request:: "Vt/e are requesting a waiver because this is an existing nonconforming hotel in which the ground floor heighf proposed ceiling/roof is of 74'-Q" with a parapet heighf of 3'6" which comes to 7 T6': The existing second floor hotel is at 78'-6" and we are trying not to block off the existing ocean room views, in addition it is our opinion that for the exterior elevations to read well, that the proposed ground floor/roof structure should not encroach into the existing horizontal lines of the hotel which is setback from Atlantic Avenue. " Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13 {F}(1){a}, the overall height of buildings shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25'} and a maximum of forty-eight feet (48'} in height. The applicant's position is that the additionaE 2'7" poses an obstruction to the existing 5-story hotel structure by blocking views. Specifically, the waiver to LDR Section 4.4.13 (F)(1)(a) to allow a minimum 22'5" building instead of the requirement 25' minimum height does not affect the neighboring areas, nor does it create an unsafe situation. Granting of the requested waiver will not diminish the provision of public facilities, and will not result in the granting of a special privilege. Consequently, positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7{B)(5) can be made in the reduction of the required 25' minimum building height to 22'5" for the new structures. SPRAB Report: Mee#ing of 10/14/08 I]elray Marriott Expansion -Class iV Site Plan Page 7 ~Aer_l.evel Floor Area The site also has an existing nonconformity with respect to upper level floor area. The upper level floor area, inclusive of the five-story existing structures on-site is 66,478 sq. ft. {84.37%). The proposed improvements for the four-story addition will increase the existing upper level floor area nonconformity to 72,397 sq. ft (97.87%}. However, the increase in ground float area shall decrease the existing nonconformity as demonstrated in the table below: Re uired: Exlstln Pro osed: Upper Leve! Floor Area: 70% max. of ground floor 1Q7.33% 91,81% (above 3Thrgh) 55,190.8 sq. ft.178,844 sq. ft. 66,478 sq. ft.161,934 sq. ft. 72,391 sq. ft.178,844 sq. ft. Minimum Floor Area: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3(M){1), each sleeping room shall contain a minimum required floor area of 325 square feet including closets and baths. The smallest of the proposed new hotel rooms is 384 square feet. Thus, the proposed development complies with the minimum room size, Floor Height: Pursuant to Section 4.4.13 (F)(1)(c), hatellmotel and all suite lodging shall have a minimum floor to ceiling height of eight feet six inches (8'6") for all floors, provided that the lobby and all public rooms shall have a minimum floor height of ten feet {10'). The building sections for the four-story addition indicate that the height from finished floor to finished ceiling will be 8'2" an the third and fourth floors. The building sections for the cabana suites indicate that the height from finished floor to finished ceiling will be 8'4" on the second floor. The applicant ascertains that the proposed plans will meet the minimum height of $'6" (at 8'8"} from floor to Hoar (as apposed to from finished floor to finished ceiling}, and claims this meets the intent of the LDRs. An analysis of this waiver request is provided below: Waiver #3 (Floor Her_ght) A waiver has been requested to allow a minimum floor height of less than 8'6" from finished floor to finished ceiling pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13 {F){1}(c). The applicant has provided the following justification statement regarding the waiver request: "We are requesting a waiver because this is an existing hotel in which all upper floors are at 8'6'; floor to floor and it is our opinion that for the exterior elevations to read well, that all proposed floors should line up in order for all doors and window headers to match." Pursuant to Section 4.4.13(1=)(1}{c}, of the LDRs hotellmotel and all suite lodging shall have a minimum floor height of eight feet six inches (8'6"} for all floors, provided that the lobby and all public rooms shall have a minimum floor height of ten feet {10'0"). A waiver to this requirement has been requested to allow a height of 8'2" as opposed to 8'6" from finished floor to finished ceiling. The applicant asserts that the proposed height is necessary to maintain proportionality between the proposed and existing structure. Also, aligning the proposed buildings to correspond with as-built conditions increases the aesthetic value of the structure at completion. Staff agrees that in order to provide coherency between the proposed and the existing structure, the floor height should be adjusted according. Thus, the waiver request is deemed appropriate. Specifically, adjusting the floor height to a minimum of $'2" finished Haar to finished ceiling does not affect the neighboring areas or create an unsafe situation. Likewise, granting of the requested waiver will not diminish the provision of public facilities or result in the grant of a special privilege. Consequently, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(6}{5). SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10/14/08 Delray Marriott Irxpansion -Class IV Site Plan Page 8 LDR Article 4.6 -Supplemental. District Regulations: Parking Requirements: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C}(7)(e), hotels and motels shall provided 0.7 of a space far each guest room plus 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to ballrooms, meeting roams, restaurants, lounges and shops. For 300 guest rooms, the site is required to provide 210 parking spaces. For 32,926 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to ballrooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, lounges and shops, 330 parking spaces are required. Therefore, a total of 540 parking spaces are required and 549 parking spaces are proposed. However, a fifty {50) space variance for the site was approved on June 28, 1990 by the Board of Adjustments which rums in perpetuity with the site. Thus, the parking spaces provided along with the variance satisfies the parking requirement for the site. Bicycle Parking: LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1){c) requires that bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in a designated area and by a fixed or stationary bike rack. Such facilities have been located adjacent to Atlantic Avenue in (rant of the proposed 1-story restaurant. Thus, this standard is met. Lighting: Pursuant to LDR 4.6.8 (Lighting), pole mounted site lighting must be provided an-site with a maximum height of 25 feet. Existing site lighting locations have been identified on the site and a photometric plan has been provided. The photometric plan provided demonstrates that the proposed parking lot will meet the 4.0 maximum foot candle requirement in parking areas. The applicant asserts that the pedestrian walkways are allowed higher illumination levels. In such case, a maximum foot candle of up to 11.8 is proposed along the walkway and drop. off area on Atlantic Avenue. Although the Planning & Zoning Director's interpretation of the cads is such that the maximum foot candle allowance shall be applied to the entire site, in consideration of pending LDR text amendment which would allow a maximum foot candle of up to 12.0, the proposed illumination standards seem reasonable. Based upon this determination, this requirement has been met. 20' Sight Visibility Triangle: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A){1), a 20' sight visibility triangle is required to be provided at the intersection of a driveway and the property line. Thus, a 20' sight visibility triangle is required at the intersection of the driveway on the west property line. This twenty foot {20') sight triangle has not been provided. The applicant has requested a waiver to this requirement. An analysis of this waiver request is provided below: Waiver #4 (20' Sight Visibility Triangle) A waiver has been requested to reduce the 2a' sight risibility triangle to 10' on the south side of the proposed ramp and 9'7" on the north side of the proposed ramp pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14{A}{1}. The applicant has provided the following justification statement regarding the waiver request: `At the Soufh Wesf side of the site along Andrews Avenue and of our proposed new service ramp, we are requesting a reduction from the required 20' 0" fo 1 D°-0" on fhe Soufh side of fhe ramp and a reduction from 20' 0" fo 9' 7" on fhe North side adjacent fo the existing parking garage, as per LDR Section 4.6.74(A)(1).(Nofe: Edge of roadway is additional 6' 7"away from building)." Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A){1 ), the area on both sides of an accessway formed by the intersection of each side of the accessway and the public right-af--way line with two {2) sides of each triangle being twenty (20) feet in length from the point of intersection and tl~e third side being a line connecting fhe ends of the other two {2) sides. A waiver to this requirement has been requested to reduce the 20' distance to 10' on the south side SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10/14/08 Defray Marriott Expansion - Class IV Site Plan Page 9 and to 9'7" on the north side of the proposed service ramp off of Andrews Avenue. The applicant proports that the edge of the raadway is an additional 6'7" away from the building, thus suggesting that ultimately the line of sight from the right-of-way to the building will be 16'7" on the south side of the ramp and 16'2" on the north side of the ramp, resulting in less than a 4' reduction in visibility from the right of way. In fact, however, the 20' line- al-sight visibility triangle, measured from the property line is being reduced by 50% or more. The anticipated traffic in and out of the garage onto atwo-way collector, Andrews Avenue, is minimal. The required 40` visibility triangle reduces the ability the shift the ramp further south and the resulting negative impacts on the building frontage further limit the ability to comply with the 20' sight visibility triangle. Under these circumstances, the waiver is deemed appropriate far the 20' visibility sight reduction to the south. However, the 20' visibility triangle to the north may pose more of a significant impact on the visibility of a vehicle exiting the ramp. However, since the traffic flow far a right turn is minimal and the on-comer from the opposing traffic will have clear visibility, the negative affects will be reduced. Specifically, the more than 50% reduction in the 20' sight visibility triangles on both sides of the proposed service ramp may negatively affect the neighboring areas by posing more traffic flow delays and create an unsafe situation. Granting of the requested waiver will not diminish the provision of public facilities, however, it may result in the granting of a special privilege. Consequently, positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7{B}{5) can be made in the reduction of the 20' sight visibility triangle to 10' on the south side and 9'7" on the north side of the proposed service ramp. 40' Sight Visibility Triangle: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2), a 40' sight visibility triangle is required to be provided at the intersection of two or mare public rights-of-way. Thus, a 40' sight visibility triangle is required at the intersection of Andrews Avenue and East Atlantic Avenue. This forty foot (40') sight triangle has no# been provided and the triangular area is obstructed and does not provide cross-visibility at a level between three (3) feet and six (6} feet. The applicant has requested a waiver to this requirement. An analysis of this waiver request is provided below: Waiver #5 (40' Sr_ghf Visibrlify Triangle) A waiver has been requested to reduce the 40' sight visibility triangle at the corner of Atlantic Avenue and Andrews Avenue to 21'11" pursuant to LDR Section 4.6,14(A)(2}. The applicant has provided the following justification statement regarding the waiver request: 'At fhe South Wesf side of fhe site, along Atlanfic Avenue and Andrews Avenue at our proposed covered exterior walkway, we are requesting a reduction from the required 40' 0" to 27' 71 " as per LDR Section 4.6.14(A){2). (Note: Edge of roadway is addifional TO"away from properly line and (3) columns are what encroach into fhe sight triangle}." Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A}(2), the area of property located at a corner farmed by the intersection of two (2) or more public rights-of-way with two {2} sides of the triangular area being forty (40}feet in length along the abutting public right-of-way lines, measured from their point of intersection, and the third side being a line connecting the ends of the other two {2} lines. A waiver to this requirement has been requested to reduce the 40' distance to 21'11' at the intersection of the Andrews Avenue and Atlantic Avenue public rights-of way. The applicant proports that the edge of the raadway is an additional 7'0" away from the property line, and three (3) columns is all that encroaches into the sight visibility triangle. This suggests that ultimately the line of sight tram the intersection of the two rights-of-way at the property line will be 28'11", resulting in only an 11'1" reduction in visibility. In fact, however, the 40' line-of-sight visibility triangle, measured from the intersection of the two property lines is being reduced by nearly 55%. Considering that there is actual building obstructing the view and there will be ample spacing between the three columns obstructing the Gne of sight, the waiver is deemed appropriate. Specifically, the nearly 55% reduction in the 40' sight visibility triangle at the intersection of Andrews Avenue and Atlantic Avenue will not negatively affect the neighboring nor create an unsafe situation. Granting of the requested waiver will not diminish the provision of public facilities and will not result in the granting of a special privilege. Consequently, positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(8)(5} can be SPRAB Report: Meeting of 901'14108 Delray Marriott Expansion -Class IV Site PEan Page 10 made in the reduction of the 40' sight visibility triangle to 21'11" at the intersection of Andrews Avenue and Atlantic Avenue. Site Pian Technical Items: While revised plans have accommodated most of staffs concerns, the following items remain outstanding and will need to be addressed prior to site plan certification: 1. A digital copy of the revised plans shall be provided on CD. The digital copy must be in a PDF format and shall be prepared at a size of 8'/z" x 11" or 11"x 17", depending upon legibility. This item is required and shall be provided with the submittal of revisions. 2. On the site plan, amend the East Atlantic Avenue site data chart which calculates the "Building Frontage Height Setback" to include the upper level requirements pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(F){4}(b){2). 3. Remove the reference to the previously proposed gazebo along A1A and previously configured pavilion from all drawings {i.e. A2.00-A2.01 }. Engineering Technical Items: While revised plans have accommodated most of staff s concerns, the following items remain outstanding and will need to be addressed prior to site plan certification: 1. FDOT permits are required far this project. Submit copy of FDOT pre-application letter. 2. Indicate lacatian of existing sanitary sewer cleanout. 3. Provide signed and sealed calculations indicating current and proposed estimated flows into existing or proposed lift station and force main. Obtain approval from Deputy Director ofi Public Utilities that City's system has sufficient capacity to treat proposed flows. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16 (C)(1)(a), prior to the issuance of a building permit for a structure or a paving permit, compliance with the requirements of Section 4.6.16 shall be assured through the review and approval of a landscape plan submitted pursuant to Section 2.4.3 (C). A revised landscape plan has been submitted and evaluated by the City Landscaping Department. Landscape Technical Items: The following Landscape Plan item remains outstanding, and will need to be addressed prior to site plan certification. 1. Sheet L-2 of the landscape plans appears to have an error in the callout of one of the symbols. In the top view, just to the left of the matchline, there's a symbol that should be a Jatropha, but is called out as a Veitchia (VM). Please correct this and update tabulations. Based upon these findings, the proposed development can be found in compliance with applicable requirements of LDR section 4.6.16, with the above Landscaping Technical item attached as a condition of approval. 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 far building permits. If the following criteria are not met, the application shall be disapproved: SPRAB Report: Meeting of 94/94/48 Delray Marriott Expansion -Class IV Site Plan Page 11 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, 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. Additionally, LDR Section 4.6.18(8)(14} contains specific standards for buildings in the downtown CBD area. This includes requirements for roof design, treatments of blank walls, accessory structures, parking garages, arcades, columns, windows and doors. The proposed elevations meet or surpass these development standards as indicated in the following analysis: The proposed elevations will be similar to the five-story hotel currently existing on-site and will not cause the nature of the environment to depreciate in appearance or value. The architectural design #or the 27-room, four- story building addition wil[ include stucco for the body of the building and brick bases on the protruding portions of the building south elevation. The upper portion of the protruding portions of the building will be a copper-like tone (Farmer's Market #054), while the recessed remaining portions of the building will be a lighter brown (Puppy Paws #1156). The protruding portions of the building will be complimented by White Dove (#OC-17) decorative quoins to match the architectural design on the existing five-story structure. The proposed elevations for the two-story cabana suites addition will have a slight variation in architectural design and color: White column features will be added on the second floor balconies and along the outdoor arcaded walkway of the first floor. The exterior stucco on the second story will be painted Edgecombe Gray (#HC-173) with a brick base far the first floor. Stripped canvas awnings will accentuate the ground floor protruding portions of the building. Hanson roof the (Antigua - #A-5013, Paradise Blend) will match the existing roof of the five-story hotel and will provide an elegant finish to the structure. The proposed architectural features will correspond well with the existing architecture. The buildings are designed to be architecturally integrated with surrounding structures within the existing Delray Marriott development. Therefore, the architectural elevations are found compatible and harmonious with the surrounding properties and positive findings can then be made with regard to the criteria listed in LDR Section 4.6.18(E). Pursuant to LDR Section 3.1.1, 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 nn 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: I.DR Section 3.1.1(A) -Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a zoning designation of Central Business District (CBD) and a Central Core (CC) Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13 (A), establishment of the CBD is consistent with and implements, in part, Objective C-4 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, Policy C-4.1 calls for encouraging rehabilitation and revitalization which shall include, but not be limited to accommodating parking needs through innovative actions, family oriented activities, allowing and facilitating outdoor dining and elimination of side yard setback requirements. Based on the aforementioned, apositive finding can be made with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map designation. SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10/14/08 Delray Marriott Expansion -Class IV Site Plan Page 12 LDR Section 3.1.1(6} -Concurrency: As described in Appendix "A", a positive finding ofi Concurrency can be made as it relates to water and sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, solid waste, and schools. LDR Section 3.1.1 (C) - Consistency: As described in Appendix "B", a positive #inding of Consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. LDR Section 3.1.1(D} -Compliance with the land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDR can be made when all outstanding items attached as conditions of approval are addressed and if the proposed waivers are approved by the Board. Re aired Findin s: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(1=)(5), the approving body must make a finding that development of the property pursuant to the si#e 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 indicates the zoning and land use of the properties surrounding the subject property: Adjacent Zoning North CF (Community Facilities); and RM (Multiple Family Residential -Medium Density) South CBD (Central Business District} East NIA (Atlantic Ocean} Adjacent Land Use Fire Station #2; and Manor House Condominiums Visitor Information Center; and retail shopping strip Public beaches West CBD (Central Business District}; and RM (Multiple Family Residential -Medium Density) Caldwell Banker; and Grave and Beach Cabanas Condos The proposed Delray Marriott expansion will complement the existing fabric of the neighborhood. The subject property is adjacent on the north side to CF (Community Facilities} and RM {Multiple Family Residential Medium Density) zoning districts. Whereas, the fire station and Manor House Condominiums have coexisted adjacent to the existing Delray Marriott, no adverse affects are anticipated. Likewise, on the south, the adjacent zoning district is CBD (Central Business District} and contains the Visitor Information Center and a retail shopping strip. These properties are separated from the proposed improvements by the eighty foot (80') Atlantic Avenue right-of-way and no adverse affects are anticipated. On the east, across sixty feet (60') of right-of-way for State Road A1A, are the public beaches and the Atlantic Ocean. This area is not zoned for development and na adverse affects are anticipated. On the west, the adjacent zoning is CBD (Central Business District) and RM (Multiple Family Residential -Medium Density) which contains a Coldwell Bank office location and two (2} condominium developments (i.e. Grove and Beach Cabanas} respectively. Since these adjacent properties are separated by ffty feet (50') of right-of-way on Andrews Avenue and have coexisted with the existing hotel use, there shall be no adverse effects on the adjacent properties anticipated. Overall, the subject site contains an existing hotel, thus, the proposed hotel expansion will be a continuation of the current use of the site. Thus, there will not be any adverse affects on the surround properties. Based upon the above, a positive finding can be made with regard to LDR Section 2.4.5{F)(5) that the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties. Comprehensive Plan Policies: SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10/14/08 ©elray Marriott Expansion -Class 1V Site Plan Page 13 A review of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives and policies are noted: Fu__ture Land Use_Element Objective A-9: Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so That fhe future use and intensify is appropriafe and complies in terms of soil, Topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacenf land uses, and fulfiAs remaining land use needs. There are no special physical or environmental characteristics of the land that would be negatively impacted by the proposed development, and the proposed land use will be compatible with the adjacent land uses. As noted above in the compatibility analysis of LDR Section 2.4.5(F)(S}, positive findings can be made with respect to the compatibility of the proposed development with the adjacent properties and with respect to Future Land Use Element Objective A-1. Future Land Use Elemenf Objecfive C-4: The Cenfral Business district (CBD) represents the essence of what is Delray Beach i.e, a "village like, community by the sea': The continued revitalizafion of fhe CBD is essential to achieving fhe overall fheme of the Cify's Comprehensive Plan of "A Cify Sef Apart In South Florida': The following policies and activities shall be pursued in the achievement of this objective: Future Land Use Element Policy C-4.1: The CBD zoning district regulations shall facilitate and encourage rehabilitation and revitalizafion and shall, of a minimum, address fhe following: ^ Deletion of inappropriate uses; ^ Incentives for locating refail on the ground floor with office and residential use on upper floors; ^ Accommodating parking needs through innovative actions; ^ Incentives for dinner fheaters, playhouses, and ofher family orienfed activities; ^ Allowing and facilifating outdoor cafes; ^ Incentives for mixed use development and rehabilitation; ^ Elimination of side yard setback requirements; and ^ Allow sfrucfural overhang encroachments info required yard areas. The development proposal will provide 36 new hotel rooms of various floor plans and sizes, new retail and commercial floor area and an expanded restaurantlkitchen area within the downtown area. The provision of these facilities will allow and facilitate outdoor cafes, restaurants, and generate incentives for and other family oriented activities. The patrons and users of the proposed hotel will be able to walk to shops, restaurants, cultural areas and parks. They will interact on a regular basis with storekeepers and employees. They will get to know and enjoy the downtown area. They will play a major role as participants in, and contributors to, the downtown area community. The Delray Marriott Expansion development proposal is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy C-4.1 as it will facilitate the continued and dynamic revitalization of the CBD zoning district. Transportaation Element Policy D-2.2: Bicycle parking and facilities shall be required on all new development and redevelopment. Particular emphasis is fo be placed an development within the TCEA. As mentioned in the site plan analysis of the report, a bike rack shall be provided adjacent to the Atlantic Avenue right-of--way in front of the restaurant expansion. Thus, positive findings can be made with respect to Transportation Element Policy D-2.2. Housin_g Obiective A-92: To assist residents of fhe Cify in maintaining and enhancing their neighborhood environment, the City shall take steps to ensure thaf modiflcafions in and around fhe neighborhood do not lead fa its decline, such as those described in the following policies. Housin_g Element Policy A-92.3: In evaluafing proposals for new developmenf or redevelopment, fhe Cify shall consider the effect thaf fhe proposal will have an the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10/14/08 Delray Marriott Expansion -Class IV Site Plan Page 14 odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their patenfia! to negatively impacf fhe safefy, habifability and stabilify of residenfial 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 discussed above, the proposed hotel will be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood provided the conditions of approval outlined in this report are met. The project is consistent with this policy in that it will not result in a degradation of the neighborhood. Coastal Managemenf Elemenf - .Goal Area "C": Development and redevelopment in the Coastal Planning Area shall be compatible with fhe exisfing character of the area, and shall provide for a sensitive balancing of fhe needs for economic development, redevelopment, and environmental protection. Coastal Managgemenf Element - Obiecfive C-3: The developmenf of vacant and under-developed land on the barrier island shall occur in a manner which does not change fhe character, infensity of use, or demand upon exisfing infrastrucfure in the Coasfal Planning Area, as dictated in fhe following policies: Coasfal Management Element -Policy C-3.2: There shall be no change in the intensity of land use within fhe barrier island and all int<!1 development which does occur shall connect fo fhe City's storm water management system and sanifary sewer system. The development promotes economic growth in the downtown and is consistent with the character of the tourist-oriented commercial development within this area of the Central Business District. It will provide needed hotel rooms within the City, which will serve the local beach community and tourists. The project must comply with the City's site fighting restrictions in order to protect the beach area used for turtle nesting and hatchings. This site has a Commercial Core land use designation and no change in the intensity of land use designation is proposed. Due to the property`s location, there is not an opportunity to connect to the City's storm water management system. However, the project will be connected to the City's sewer system. Communify Redevelopment Agency tCRA) At its meeting of September 11, 2008, the CRA reviewed the proposed site plan far Delray Marriott Expansion and recommended approval. Downtown Developmenf Authority IDDA) At its meeting of September 23, 2008, the DDA reviewed the proposed site plan far Delray Marriott Expansion and recommended approval subject to the condition that the existing twenty {20} space public parking lot in the southwest corner of the site be retained ar the twenty {20} spaces be relocated to comparable location and retained for public use. Courtesy Notices: Courtesy notices have been provided to the following homeowner's associations andlor civic groups: ^ Casa La Brisa ^ Manor House ^ Via Marina ^ Barr Terrace ^ Delray Summitt ^ Alliance of Delray ^ Neighborhood Advisory Council ^ Chamber of Commerce SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10/14/DS Delray Marriott Expansion -Class IV Site Plan Page 15 D Beach Properties Owners Association Letters of objection, if any, will be presented at the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) meeting. The development proposal is for expanding the existing Delray Marriott hotel along the entire south side of the existing hotel structure fronting on Atlantic Avenue. Changes include constructing atwo-story hotel addition containing nine (9) cabana suites, expanding existing restaurant, adding a retail and commercial component, constructing afour--story Note[ addition with twenty-seven (27) suites, adding a kitchen to better accommodate existing banquet rooms and expansion of the existing pool deck. Whereas the existing use is a eve-story hotel, the proposed expansion will not pose an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. The historic use of the adjacent site is consistent with the proposed hotel use. Thus, there are no incompatibility issues with the proposed uses of the subject properties, when compared to how the property has been utilized in the past, and as related to the surrounding land uses. The proposed site plan has requested 5 waivers which have been evaluated in the staff report. The waiver to the required 8'6" floor height from finished floor to finished ceiling is supportable since allowing 8'8" floor to floor compliments the existing structural elements and architectural aesthetics. The waiver to the setback requirement along A1A is supportable so long as the required Brockway line is not encroached. Thus, the plans shall need to be revised to show no structures within 20' of the Brockway line. Additionally, there are no objections to the requested reductions in the sight visibility triangles. Upon meeting the conditions of approval, the proposed development will be consistent with required findings under Chapter Three and Section 2.4.5(F) (5) of the Land Development Regulations, as well as, the Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. A. -Move postponement of the Class IV site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations for Delray Marriott Expansion, by electing to continue with direction. B. Move appro~at of the Class IV site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations for Delray Marriott Expansion, 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}(5) and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the attached conditions of approval. C. Move denial of the Class IV site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations for Delray Marriott Expansion, 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}(5) and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations. By separate motions: Waiver #1 {Front Setbacks Move to approve for waiver to LDR Section 4.4.13 (F)(4){b)(1), for new buildings constructed from the ground floor to thirty-seven feet {37'}, a minimum of 7D% and a maximum of 90% of the bolding frontage shall be set back no greater than ten feet (10'} from the property line far required setback along State Road A1A, subject to no building being constructed within 20' of the Brockway line, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consisfenf with the SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10/14/08 Delray Marriott Expansion -Class IV Site Pian Page 16 Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set Earth in Sections 4.3.4(H)(6){a} and 2.4.7(8}(5} of the Land Development Regulations. Waiver #2 (Minimum Height] Move to approve the request for waiver to LDR Section 4.4.13{F}(1)(a), requiring a minimum building height of twenty-five feet (25'), by reducing the 25' minimum height requirement to 22'5", by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does meet criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(8)(5) of the Land Development Regulations. Waiver #3 (1=1oar Height] Move to approve the request for waiver to Section 4.4.13(F}{1 }(c) of the LDR's requiring that hotellmotel and all suite lodging shall have a minimum floor height of eight feet six inches {8'6") finished floor to fnished ceiling for all floors, by allowing 8'8" from floor to floor for all floors, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistenf with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(8){5) of the Land Development Regulations. Waiver #420° Sight Visibility Triangle] Move to approve the request for waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14{A)(1), #or the area an bath sides of an accessway formed by the intersection of each side of the accessway and the public right-of-way to be twenty (20) #eet in length from the point of intersection, by allowing a distance of 16' on the south side and 9'7" on the north side of the proposed service ramp off of Andrews Avenue, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does meet criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7{B}(5) of the Land Development Regulations. Waiver #5 (40' Sight Visibility Triangle Move to approve the request for waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2), the area of property located at a corner formed by the intersection of two (2} or more public rights-of--way being forty {40) feet in length, by reducing the 40' distance to 21'11' a# the intersection of the Andrews Avenue and Atlantic Avenue public rights-of--way, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff repork, and finding that the request and approval is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does meet criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(6)(5} of the Land Development Regulations. Site Plan Move to approve of the request for Class IV site plan modification for Delray Marriott Expansion, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consisfenf with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5{F}(5) and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. FDOT permits are required for this project. Submit copy of 1=DOT pre-application letter. 2. Indicate location of existing sanitary sewer cleanaut. 3. Provide signed and sealed calculations indicating current and proposed estimated flows 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 flows. SPF2AB Report: Meeting of 10/14/08 pelray Marriott Expansion -Class IV Site Plan Page 17 4. A digital copy of the revised plans shall be provided on CD. The digital copy must be in a PDF format and shall be prepared at a size of 8%2' x 11" or 11"x 17", depending upon legibility. This item is required and shall be provided with the submittal of revisions. 5_ On the site plan, amend the East Atlantic Avenue site data chart which calculates the "Building Frontage Height Setback" to include the upper level requirements pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(4}(b}(2). 6. Remove the reference to the previously proposed gazebo along A1A and previously configured pavilion from all drawings (i.e. A2.00-A2.04). Landscape Plan Move to approve the request for landscape plan modification for Delray Marriott Expansion, 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 Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1. Sheet L-2 of the landscape plans appears to have an error in the callout of one of the symbols. In the tap view, just to the left of the matchline, there's a symbol that should be a Jatropha, but is called out as a Veitchia (VM). Please correct this and update tabulations. Architectural Elevations Move to approve of the architectural elevations for Delray Marriott Expansion, 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 4.6.18(B)(14) and 4.6.18{E) of the Land Development Regulations. Report prepared by: Candi Jefferson, Senior Planner Affachmenfs: Location Map, Archifecfural Elevations, Landscape Plan and Site Plan SPRAB Report: Meeting of 10/14/08 betray Marriott Expansion -Class [V Site Plan Page 18 - - _. _ CONCU R~ ~ R~tCY FCN~ - : ` ~ . ~' ~ ~ ~. ' ~ `~ Pursuant to LDR Section 3.1.1(B), 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: Wafer and Sewer: 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 fior 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: The proposed development is located in the Traffic Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA}, thus it is exempt from this requirement. However, the applicant has provided a trafhc statement which indicates that there are 25 net external am peak trips, 98 net external pm peak trips and 1,171 total net daily trips anticipated to be generated by the hotel addition. Parks and Recreation Facilities: Park dedication requirements do not apply to non-residential uses. Thus, the proposed development will not have any impact with respect to this standard. The development will however pay park impact fees at a cost of $500 per room for a total of $18,000 for 36 new rooms. Solid Wasee: The existing hotel (312,735 sq. ft.) generates 734.927 tons of solid waste per year. The proposed 351,145 sq. ft. of total floor area will generate 825.190 tons of solid waste per year. The increase in solid waste generation for the proposed additional 38,410 sq. ft. will be 90.263 tons per year. Thus, the development proposal will result in a 90.263 ton increase in solid waste generated annually. The Solid Waste Authority has indicated that its facilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate all development proposals until 2021, thus a positive finding with respect to this standard can be made. Schools: School concurrency findings do not apply for non-residential uses. Thus, the proposed development will not have any impacts with respect to this standard. Drainage: There are no problems anticipated in retaining drainage on site. SPRAB deport: Meeting of 10/14/08 Delray Marriott Expansion -Class 1V Site Plan Page 19 .. - ~.~ APPENpI ,~ ~ 5 - . STAND/IRDSFw~R~~S1Ti - '~ Q' r ~ ~ ~ '_ ~ .' A. Building design, landscaping and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibilify as if pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objecfives D-? and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent T C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-7 of the Open Space and Recreafion Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X 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. !f it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimenfal and result in a degradation of the neighborhood, the project shall not be permitted. Nat applicable Meets intent of standard X 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 F. Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the fufure 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 SPRAB Report: Meeting of 1b/1410$ Delray Marriott Expansion -Class IV Site Plan Page 20 G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in fhe provision of a variety of housing fypes which shall confinue fo accommodate the diverse makeup of fhe City's demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identified in fhe Housing Element. This shall be accomplished through the implementafion of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Elemenf. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on fhe sfability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dusf, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their pofential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residenfial areas. if it is determined fhaf a proposed developmenf will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent 1. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such developmenf would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an exisfing situation causing it #o become a high accident location, withouf such developmenf faking actions fo remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreafional areas, serving children from toddler fo feens, shall be a feature of al! new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requiremenf maybe waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area, and for int!!1 projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Daes not meet intent ~~ z ~ ~ ~ ww ~~~~ ~ ui° w N d~ ~w ~ rcw" > J ¢ m ~ F Z J ~°°_ o Z=_ m O w_ ma=o s d y o wm z ~_~°' Q O F= ~ d~ v5„R j r a¢ J~ o~ ~ y~ °~~°p ~~~~~ sP F d a T- B - ~ 2 ~ g€ w ¢<oa "ss~? _ ~ a a a ~ ¢ ¢ °o ~ ~a °a 3W a~~~~ a a rn a~ Q e -... w, -, _ ,i aaru~3iir~av so,nodona ao wissiuaaa rlaiiiaT art irariim vawrooa sine ~ =_sn aanio ao rou~nooadaa riots»ssod .vv ar,o aa.,a3ssa sav sir~ia „v aan.~aiir~av eo~nodon3 ~ uasdoad 3na si .r3un~oa sire -'~ '~ ~6 ioa~~Q~s~~~~ ~~~ ~9 $~ ~ i~ Z y ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a ~a as tl as a~~~=o ~ ~ ~ as~, a~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ .~., ~~ ~ tl ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ a a~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~_ \ ~'S'& ad :~a ~ $ ~~` 3$E $~~ ~ ~ nag ~$ 3 ~~, . a 3. ~~ ~ @~ ~e y s s s ~s gk .R 'w~ ~ ~ ~ 'd T~ to §~r~ ~35ea pc $~ $ ~ ar $' oa E ~ ~x*a ~~ ~ a y <k ~ ~'~ d &°~ °~d a §~ J § ~ ~ - -~ t y $ 3 ~ ~ $@ €~~~ ~ " o ~ o ~„S 3a ~~a easa ~c $ S y < 4 L ~~~ _. ~k °~ ~ & , ~3 ~~d8 OF ' ¢ 3 ~ 339 y ~ 33 ~$ ~~ ~.?g~~~'° ~ `~ ~nH e~~° pN ~a dw f~dm .w~N~~~ ~ „ ° °W ° u ~~ o ~ k'g~ "9 ~ r ~'l ~ 4 ~~ # X~ g °'~3 z ' ~ ~~ O k' ~~~~ O U - w Y + ew F $ k ~ E $~ ~§~ ~,~op~.~ ~ ~~ ~~ to v a §~ ~~~¢ ~-a 00 ° I 3 ~, 3 g~g ~Y g~ ogaoo 'k~ yk. 3 ` ~ ~ ~ 8 gWgR ~~ SR ~'~w~~y W ~ u ;Y a YZP Y 4 ~L 4__ i c7 ~ ~P'~~'? ~~~re :;e1 ~ ~ %tl ~4~~.8 aa ~ ' H ~ ~$~~.~sa :'~$a ~'~ g: ~o ~. ~ .~ > £w www w~ .--~ ~J 9< o ~ 'e n ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ a T g ~` P°, 5Yo se 5 ~ ~a ~~ ~~ a §2 ~j a 9 _ ~~~o ' ~ d S~3q R3 ~ s i ~ ~ ~~~o _ ' C ~ ~ ~~~~d ~~~` ~ ~ ag 9p 9 o ~ ~'~~ r z S ~~~ t ~ eaz@ ~e$ ~ g~ ~ -p $ ~ $& ~ - ' ~ W §§ Y°.y ~2~8 z O e ~g~vg€F ~ e ~~~d88~ 86~ j ap apeg ~tl~?~4 ~E $g3 p ~ a$ ~ 6 ~ ~~~ ffi ~ w ~ ~~ N m 8 g @P E 'a da Q I(~ a - \ 1 $1i a _ 4 ~ o- Iw i I ~ J b ~ ~~_-_ ~~~ d ~ b I _-_ -__ I \_ ~ F i .. - ii - -_ r1 1 I I I I f I I < ~ _ - -~__.u,r_ - - .-..__ ~ ~ \ ~~ ~ I I I I I I I I .~`T ,. __ .. _ I I I I I I _ j ' .,. ~~ ~~ I z J r..: : _.... n. ~ _ I6 ~ SI ? V O I I OI i I ~-~-,.- -----~ al A I _.. ~ ~ I i ~... ~ a ~ ,I 4 4 m° 4 g~~ 2 WI a II I _ -. -, - ~ , , z = - ~ =1° ' ,_~~. ~~~ '~ x. ~~~ .Q - ~, ~ ~ , a I ~~; ~ I ; I a ~~- _ 9 - ~ - - ~ ' ~ a a \ 4 ~ ~~ a ~ I I nl 0 ~~ 9`- i e Xg 43 y _ ~p a@ e ~~YS ~ 4 1 g~ ~ ~~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ $~ ~~ ~ s, §~ ~ 9~ ' ~ a~ ~ $ ~ \~ $ g~ e$ ~ ~ l a ° b ~~ Yb d E i ~5~ y 3 ~ $ $ beg ~~ __ ~ ~ C ~ 2 B 3 ~ ~ o ry ~ ~4 ~~ ~~ ~ e S 9 oa CP f~ . 8+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Si ~i i n 4 9 _z w ea .. § ~'~~~ l h zo F o s ~ 8° ~~ ;~ 5 a ° a 26~ o ~x Y ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ & a ~ .o ~II 3P ~~~ ~6 ~~a~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~g° ~W~ S ~ ~9 gs ~h~ ~ ~n g d• s ~ re fee wy $~ ~ s ~ ~~ € 9 sE ? §~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ a v i 9. 9Kx . y. eo~~ ~ ~ 03 0/ Y tl :~ e~ ~~ ~ 4 a ~~I~~~ ~ ~NWr ~~.".~0~~ ~ ~ 1J0 \~ r ~ W - ~ ~ a __._ .., iii ,~ ~ ~ ~ " ~~ p ~ ~ ..., o ~ ~ I O w X tr - t- ~ - ~ a 0 _ ~ I - - - ~~ ~ _ v ; i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --fir---- . _~ ~,. . 4.~TST __-_ __..__~ _.-- __ - ~ ~ ~ I yo -~~ 84 ~ N ~?~ ~~~ ~ N :-~ ~ ~ a N H Cl gg zfy f~~,l`j °4C 7J Z u Cw w~~ ~ cxa 9 w'~ fly 3$ y ~o °e © ~ ~ ~ ry ~ Z v €=~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ 0 d 2~ >A• ~~$" ~ O N m z ~~^ Ys ~~ to ~ ~' ~ p O i t 5rr F ~ p~ Z s s ~~ ~'gg~~ gP ~ d ~ m eN `: C7 ~ ~• r ~ 1s'.{ v. ~aa~~ 3~-~ e e c ~ a ¢ ~ o z°~~ „0~4 ~ O w ~ ~ ~ Q W _.,,._i,,.,,~.~ a2~~ ~a~~ _ m~ s a~ w o a ~ Q ~~~~~ ~ o a w a ~ 0311®iliotld 61 ~Ni 3tln1~31ihrsly 6o~ncdo~l3 i~ HoIHBiI-Pl3d Na111M'n 3ii11roMlim 1H3um~04 91H1 ~0 35n a'3H10 UO i+~ll~ndo~3d"1~15S3SSCd xrvV oNV a3nL3S3e a'V 61H91J llV 3tln1~3iifi~V Bo~l~o.-~pli3 do 1itJ3doad aHl 611H3un~oO 6iH1 R o e~ P~ 7~~ ~9¢E MF ®®pp a~ ~ ! ~ "s-p i'_6 A 3~~~aip~ ~£ y C~i ~~a ~~i 2 ~ S ~~s ~~6~~~a~~~$~~~~~~~~+~~1 4~ ~~~ ~~ s~~• ~~ ¢ ~ a@~ r ~ yP ~S i xfjp~3 a ~ yeg ~ ~ gEe~ ~~ _ ~fitCCll¢ i~iSi\[[I_~h~ d ~~a ¢~3 ds~ ~ gg 8 w ~~f~~ ~a ~ ~~€~~a~%3~~f6~3%z ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ e8sa R€$~a§ee ~€~E x i~~ fit[ ~~ _O i qq ~5 S ~ F~ F9p$i4q ~53F ~~f~lgi i ~~ii 2 w ye g~~ ~ q~ea69 ~~g ~~~33~aE g $°~~@~: ~ ~ ~ O Z ' 9 ®' ~ ~ O ~® 4 v ~ > I ~~ ~ w . ~ ~~ f~~ fir` ;! ~ ~ ~_ ~ a ,.1 ee ~ ~"~®q ~ d' 4 She 2~ ]°° ~ d y Z ~Ed~~~~~ ~ ~~€ ~~ f ~ t a ey p ~ @9 e ~ 9.P:< ~ l9€ e ~ ¢ h, ® ~ ~ ~ I C]A ~~ ~® 66eS ~ ~ - } {{ ~ ~~~~ ~3 ~i3~ ~s~$ ~~ ~~4i~~~~ _ ~4 is .. ~, y ggg~,s ~ f~ ip ~o ~71e~~~~ 0 h .,.:. ~ DLL ~ W . i € .+r l a q i'~ ^ o ~ ~ € yd5 e4 a ~ - ®p O ® ''~..i .3 a' ~ a 4 e ~ % tr ~ €p~@~ y~ C~p€~~ ¢3 2~ ~¢g •~R•~p~pG~G y~99 ~i ~~p~ ®~` _ ~_~ ~ p ~ i 2 x ~ y ~5 y ~~ qd yy ~9 ~g+e ~~3~ iE8 =343 ~~ P9 6f B$$~ 3iA ~~ I i m µ 4 ° a i a yp e? F$ 9 ee ~ I ~F:~py 1 ~,~ ~ ~ a ~ R2J ~~ ~~ E~aa S~$ a$~ P~~ it d~4~~8 ®i~o ®oo®o ® 3 g~ r ~ e~~=p ~+4 W ~sa~~: ~16 e$ ~3i~ES~i ~~ ~e~4~ ~ : m [ , ~1 W ~ ~ o 0 000 ®o y ~~ i ~~ a ~@e~ 9 x °~ ~ ~ Zm - 7 a .r lY ~'~ Yf e~ g € ~9 . i ~ ~ '~ W I Q 111y¢ AAP@ ¢ 4 B ~ q~~ g y FR~Y¢ ~5! $~S~@ ~~2~ ~~ ~~ ~'~ ~' ® i ~ -~ ~ ~ ~F~~ ~ 4 tY a I G I U ~~ ~ {'s 3°e%~~8p s~ a~ ~~~' R~ ~ ~ Fd a y ~° I ~ ~~t ppp a%S in o~€ 0 iY~ `i^~Ee O ~~ tOG O n rv o ~ d ~- _ P~~3~ ~ i ~~ W ~ ` F 0 ~ ~g ~ ~xE~ ~g~~3 3°~~s ~g ~ ~p~~~ ~s~~tl r~ ~s' B~ 4 8gls 3 ~s 5 6¢~a ~ €g ya Fg ~ ~ ~g# ~ ~ ~) s g ~ ~g ~ ~g ygyg ~ ~' ~g~~ ~~{ ~l+g~ i ~€ l~t~ ~~+3 \ °~i ~° !~' ~~~ C~~Fg~83a 99~Pd~e§~ \ / ai ij ~a ~: ~~; ~~-' gf: CyF ~~a, d m o Y e Fy p ~~e~~ Y lee ]A5 3~~ ~ 3 f 5" ~g t~ s f R as r; 4E:91 t$~e F ~ SZ ~~t~ 3~4 ~ -~~ 4 ~~ 0 0 0 000 0 U O ° ~ "- z ~s ~~~ [' K~ ~ LL $~ ~^ S N be ~ ~ ~y~ so ~ ~ p a ,~3 $~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ M a ~ E ~ ~ 3° - ~ o rn m 3 ~g€ ~a~. N ~ - O W ~~-d r,~3 x4.,a o' ~$~"x e ~ aX ~ a~d~ ~n s¢J ~N ~ Q O ~ ~d ~ ~s~~ a ~ s ~ ~ w o g ~ 4 ~~~~~ ~P ~ a w s ~ ~ '031101HOad BI'olJl 3an1~311H~av eolrodOll3 i0 Nolesilsl3d N3llIaT 3H11roHllin 1N34rcx~o slHt ~0 39n a'3Hlo ao rnlio1}no~daa'uoisa3ssod +NV aM' oY~a353a 3av $1H91a nnv 3an1o311HOav Bonncdolna ip +ul3doad 3H1 el iN3urr~o eIH1 d qq3 4 6eype > 5 a a g > ~ e~ @. ~ aw ~ }Bd `7~[F3 ~ [t 8a 6~"~e~ ~ g~> B$~ g$° Y~5 ~$~ ~€ °ae°~"°~ ~f``9 - ~ i$ E6t !p°lgLg6Sig a 6[~Q~ a gF Gp g€ gg~ '€~~~,' a'Y ~ ~ $ @ g¢[ J 14t~~4$t3a1~~.~~~~~5 [ 2~~ ~~~ l~eJ C~b ~e~ $S ~$ a3 ion ~ [ i ©®©®©©©mo6r~~a~ ~ - ee~~~ ~~ p ~ ~~ 3 ~ ~ ~$! - 4~6 y e ~~ ~ls~~ ~E ~ .I - ~;~~ I I~~~ tW- Sg ei q y~~g9~€~gg~~ °~6i a38~~~~~ ~ ~~~[ I ® ~ W e[[Re ~ °7$. $Bp~~~~ ~ ~~~~ee~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~y$ ~~P ~3 ~ ~~~~$} as ~ ~~.~~~.~~~~~~~ $ ~Eyg ~~~~uc ggt 3 tt 4g p $ °e ~.~~ ..,: F- ~~1 ~~e y3f eepg~,!pp16¢I) ~p~.~se ~.y ~a¢i~ pg$~$ $~ °~ c 171 ~ ~~e ES~ `! 5~~6gcits f~~.~ ~~~~9g ~~b[ °~~~a ~: 4 Eu a ~1c~i ~ o - ~ ~' L o~ r a ti /" ~~~~I ~~; ~~ ~; iE~~~~9~6 ~ Et; ~~ Z '~~r` ~~ 2i~ ~ I$999pp~ Ss~ 0 /~/~ ~ a a ~~1 y3 a ~~gg 9@G : j ~+,°> ~8A ~$$ 4$? ~' ~5 ~ ~.i ~$t£$ ~k i8~~~~~ ~~ ~Ya~ Yg~ a g ; 04g pp e~.2 ° °~ a ~i~ e ~ E~, e ~ ~ I s ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ a Fa pal ~3a e`& t ~ ~[ ¢p![ ~73j~R~€te 3~~~$ 3~ ~~7[ ~~[~ k~E keE~~d~s ~L N 4 ~ 1.. 1 [~ '~~i a o co o a o o Yg$ y ® 1 ~ > ~ $ ~ p, ~ I a 0 00 ®ooo o ® 1~ a ~ ? a O z p ° uWi a o e~~ ~ 3p~3[~g~ a~ r, ¢ ( a m ~ a a ~'~B~ ~~~ ~a ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ' ~ a a s qgg tt gg y .~ ! ~~ Ea. ~ ~ J ~eBPa H3~ t~ ~9dl~sS~ §~ ~e~4~ ~ .~ a y i 0 000 ®o I y °, ~~~ ~~ ~~ep ~~~~ ~~ ~~~i ~~ ~~' $e 9 p ~ sg [~ ~~~' 9~ 0 0000000 ~ a[ e @ aa @@ @3 4 4I:4~ [~6° $4~~E ~ ~ ~~e. ~~4~~ 0 0 0 oao 0 Page 1 of 1 From: Mary l-Eubler [mailto:mhubler7421@Charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:19 PM To: PZmail@MyDelray[3each.com Sub,~ect: Marriott Expansion Site Plan Review l am an owner at the Grove, located at 30 Andrews Avenue. lam concerned that delivery trucks will be stopping further north on Andrews creating a safety hazard for walkers, bikers and cars. I hope the site plan includes an off stree# delivery ramp so trucks can pull off Andrews #o make deliveries to the Marriott. Mary Hubler Owner #3 and #7 file://S:1Plarining & Zoningl3effersanlBoard Approved PrajectslDelray MarriottlPubliclM... 10/28/2048 Page 1 of 1 1From: 6.3. reilly [mailto:bjreilly@snet.net] Sent: Wednesday, October X5, 2008 4:13 PM To: Pzmail@mydelraybeach.com Cc: Robin Lindner; Carol L/Bob V; Carol Cucci; Hubler, Mary; Pat G. Reilly Subject: Proposed additions renovations, Marriott, Delray Beach Dear Sirs: My name is Barbara J. Reilly, SecretarylTreasurer of the The Grove Condominiums located at 30 Andrews Ave. on the west side of the Marriott Hotel. I have reviewed the proposed additionslrenovations suggested for the Marriott. Currently deliveries are made to the hotel from Andrews Ave., drivers park on the street blocking street and sidewalk traffic. It looks like the new plans call for the entrance #o be further away from Atlantic Ave. but the design is the same. I am requesting the board take consideration in suggesting a ramp be built to allow service drivers pull into the drop off area, leaving the sidewalk and street free of obstruction. Right now it is causing a non-safe condition which can be easily fixed. Thank you, Barbara J. Reilly SecretarylTreasurer file)/S:1Planning & ZoninglJeffersonlBoard Approved ProjectslDelray MarriottlPubliclM... 1 012 812 00 8 Page 1 of 1 From: Carol Cucci [mailto:ccaraiceo@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 1:07 PM To: PZmail@MyDeirayBeach.com Subject; marriott addition Dear Sirs: The traffic on Andrews Ave is constantly backed up by the trucks on that street going to the Marriott. In addition to the traffic hazard the people going to the beach are always at risk because of the back up. Please take into consideration those of us who live on Andrews. Ave. Sincerely Carol Cucci President The Grove @ 3p Andrews Ave. file://S:1Planning & ZoninglJeffersonlBoard Approved ProjectslDelray Mar~riottlPubliclM... 10/28/2008 IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA WAIVER REQUESTS FOR THE DELRAY MARRIOTT HOTEL ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 1. These waiver requests regarding site visibility triangles and minimum height requirements have come before the City Commission on November 3, 2008. 2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the waiver request for the Delray Marriot Hotel. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsection I. WAIVERS: (A) Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(1)(a), the overall height of buildings must be a minimum of 25'. The applicant has requested a waiver to allow the minimum height for the new construction to be 22'5". (B) Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(1), a 20' visibility triangle is required for the area on both sides of an accessway formed by the intersection of each side of the accessway and the public right-of-way (i.e. Andrews Avenue). The applicant has requested a waiver from this section to reduce the sight visibility triangle to 10' on the south side of the proposed ramp and 9'7" on the north side of the proposed ramp. (C) Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2), a 40' visibility triangle is required at the intersection Andrews Avenue and East Atlantic Avenue. The applicant has requested a waiver from this section to reduce the sight visibility triangle to 21'11". 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. Does the waiver request to Section 4.4.13(F)(1)(a), minimum height requirement, meet all the requirements of 2.4.7(8)(5)? Yes No 1 Does the waiver request to Section 4.6.14(A)(1), 20' visibility triangle, meet all the requirements of 2.4.7(8)(5)? Yes No Does the waiver request to Section 4.6.14(A)(2), 40' visibility triangle, meet all 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. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves denies the waiver requests to LDR Sections 4.4.13(F)(1)(a), 4.6.14(A)(1) and 4.6.14(A)(2). 6. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission hereby adopts this Order this 3rd day of November, 2008, by a vote of in favor and opposed. ATTEST: Rita Ellis, Mayor Chevelle Nubin, City Clerk 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Terrill C. Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney DATE: October 23, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 APPEAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD DECISION/610 NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Appeal of the September 4, 2002 decision of the Historic Preservation Board ("HPB") denying a Certificate of Appropriateness ("COA") for an accessory structure (treehouse) located in front of 610 N. Ocean Blvd. BACKGROUND In 1989, Ordinance 70-89 was enacted. This ordinance designated certain property on the City's local historic registry. The property subjected to this designation includes the following: approximately two and a half (2.5) acres of land consisting of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Ocean Apple Estates Plat and the South 10 feet of Lot 3 (lying east of A-1-A) of the Palm Beach Shores Acres Plat. Associated with the property is a 1,184 square foot cape cod style cottage, which was constructed in 1936 of Florida Cypress. The house was designed by the renowned architect, John Volk, and occupied by Fontaine Fox who was the artist for the "Toonerville Trolley" cartoon strips. The house is located on Lot 2 along with three (3) guest houses and an accessory structure (treehouse). All three (3) lots are zoned R-1-AAA Single Family Residential and are collectively listed as a historic site in the City of Delray Beach as established by Ordinance 70-89. In 2002, Plaintiffs filed an application for a COA for an existing accessory structure constructed in a tree (treehouse) located in the front (east side) of the Fontaine Fox House at 610 N. Ocean Blvd. HPB denied Plaintiff's application on September 4, 2002. In December, 2002, Plaintiffs appealed HPB's denial to the City Commission, which voted 2 in favor of and 2 against the appeal. Plaintiffs filed a Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court, Appellate Division and the Court remanded the case to the City Commission to vote again, stating that the tie vote resulted in no action. The McKinney's third lawsuit, entitled Frank and Nilsa McKinney v. City of Delray Beach, which was filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Palm BeachCounty in 2006, which requested Declaratory and Injunctive relief from the Court regarding the City's LDR Section 2.4.7 (E) regarding "Appeals" has delayed the rehearing of this appeal. The item is before you for reconsideration pursuant to the Court's Order dated January 12, 2004, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney's Office recommends City Commission discretion. EXHIBIT ~~A" IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA FRANK MCKINNEY and APPELLATE DIVISION (CNIL) N1LSA MCKINNEY, CASE NO.: 502003AP001062XXCTAY Petitioners, v. C1TYY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal corporation,. Respondent. Opinion filed: ~~~~ ~ ~ o ' .,. .. ~ ~, . .s: _ ~ -, ~ ~~ .: ~, ` ~, ~~„ P sr,~. .~ 4,. Petition For Writ of Certiorari from the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, For Petitioner, Rebecca L. Henderson, Esq., Boca Raton, FL. For Respondent, R. Brian Shutt,. Esq., Delray Beach, FL. For Respondent, Susan A. Ruby, Esq., DelrayBeach, FL. PER CURIAM Petitioners, Frank and Nilsa McKinney,. filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to this Court challenging the decision of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, FIorida, Respondent. Petitioners argue that Respondent failed to follow its own provision in the City of Delray Beach's Charter while Respondent argues that its process complied with Robert's Rules of Order, which is fhe minimum procedure that it must follow. The p=_-ovision in question is Section 3.12(e} of the City Charter, which requires an affirmative vote of three commissioners to take an action. Respondent cites Battaglia Fruit Co. v. Cite of Maitland, S30 So. 2ct g40 (FIa. 5th DCA 19$'8}, in support of its az~ument, but Battaglia can be distinguished from the instant RECEIVED ~ ~~ JA~r ~ ~ ~~.~~- ~ CfTY ATTORNEY matter because that court held that the provisions of Robert's Rules of Order would only apply in the "absence of a formal rule." See id'. at 942. The City's Charter operates as a formal rule in this matter. This Court disapproves of Respondent's argument that three votes were needed to approve the appeal, as opposed to derrl~ing the appeal. There are consequences to decisions rendered by local city camxnissions, however the question or process is framed. The. instant matter is no different. The City's Commission's refection of the appeal .from the City's Historic Preservation Board operates as an action that created a consequence far Petitioners. Based upon the above, the Petition for Vi~rit of Certiorari is GRANTED and the final decision of the Respondent's City Commission is QUASHED and the matter is REMANDED to the Respondent's City Commission to act in conformance with this opinion. WROBLE, M>:LLER, and BRUNSON, JJ., concur. l~En-DE~.Sv r! ,scr ~ 7"~ Zoo E' , /fp c..e ,c w ~~ F ~ ~ ~`~ ~/ ~flci~-b y~,/,~Y . . Z ~ a ..~_ c~ . ? sf~ vE, IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA FRANK McKINNEY AND NILSA McKINNEY, Appellants, v. THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 610 N. OCEAN BLVD., WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AT ITS SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 MEETING 1. This Appeal has come before the City Commission on November 3, 2008 as a result of the Order of the Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, which remanded this case in order that the City Commission could resolve the tie vote and vote again in accordance with Section 3.12(c) of the City's Charter which requires an affirmative vote of three (3) Commissioners to take action. 2. This is an appeal of the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness of an existing accessory structure located east of the main historic dwelling at 610 N. Ocean Blvd. consisting of afree-standing structure measuring 10' x 12' and 23' high. I. LDR REQUIREMENTS: A. LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), "Development Standards", provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. (See, LDR § 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k) attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). Are these guidelines met? YES NO 1 McKinney v. City of Delray Beach II. DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES: Section IV. New Additions to Historic Buildings Locating the appendage [to a structure] at the rear or an inconspicuous side and limiting the size and scale in relationship to the existing structure is essential. If new additions such as balconies are being considered, they should be on non-character defining elevations. Additional levels should be set back from the existing structure wall plane, and be placed as not to radically alter the historic appearance of the building. Have the overall objectives of the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines pertaining to new additions to historic buildings been met? YES NO III. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION: The applicable Secretary of the Interior's Standards are attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Have the overall objectives of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation pertaining to building sites been met? YES NO IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: A. 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. B. Housing Element: Policy A-10.1: This objective will be implemented in accordance with standards and criteria of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations, Historic Preservation Sites and Districts. C. Coastal Management Element: Objective C-1: The retention, rehabilitation, and protection of historic resources as provided for in the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance shall continue to be applied in the Coastal Management Planning Area. 2 McKinney v. City of Delray Beach Will the granting of the Certificate of Appropriateness be consistent with and further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan? YES NO 4. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LDR requirements that were in existence on September 4, 2002 and finds that its determinations set forth in this Order are consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. 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. 6. 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 hereby adopts this Order this day of November, 2008, by a vote of in favor and opposed. ATTEST: Rita Ellis, Mayor Chevelle Nubin City Clerk 3 EXHIBIT "A" Section 4.5.1 (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standard's for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of anon-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non- contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configurations, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. (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 Facade Proportion: The front facade of each building or structure shall be visually compatible with and be in direct relationship to the width of the building and to the height of the front elevation of other existing structures and 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 facade of a building or structure will be 1 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 facade 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 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 mass 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. 2 EXHIBIT "B" Building Sites Non-significant buildings, additions, or site features should be removed which detract from the historic character of the site. The introduction of new construction onto the building site which is visually incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, materials, color, and texture or which destroys historic relationships on the site should be avoided. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: October 27, 2008 SUBJECT: REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 2008 APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S DENIAL REGARDING AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 610 NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD, THE FONTAINE FOX HISTORIC SITE. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is an appeal of the Historic Preservation Board's (HPB) denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an as-built accessory structure (treehouse) located at 610 North Ocean Boulevard, "The Fontaine Fox House." The subject property is an individually designated property on the Local Register of Historic Places, and is located south of George Bush Boulevard on North Ocean Boulevard. BACKGROUND At the September 4, 2002 HPB meeting, a COA for an as-built accessory structure (treehouse) located at 610 North Ocean Boulevard was denied based on a failure to find positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7) & (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Objective A-10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The HPB action was then appealed to the City Commission on September 12, 2002 by Rebecca Henderson, attorney for Frank and Nilsa McKinney, property owners. The appeal was heard at the regular City Commission meeting of November 19, 2002, where a vote of 2-2 to approve the request was made. The 2-2 vote was interpreted to result in a denial. An appeal was then filed with the Circuit Court which found that the vote resulted in no action, pursuant to our City Charter. Therefore, the case has been remanded back to the City Commission. The subject COA requests approval of an existing accessory structure (treehouse) that was constructed in 2001 without permits. The treehouse is located east of the main historic dwelling and in front of the historic structure. Four large wood posts support the treehouse which also contains a wood staircase that leads from ground level to the main entrance. The free-standing structure measures 10'x12' and is approximately 23' high. Built of frame construction with a wood shingle exterior, intended to match the extant historic home, the structure displays a gable roof with wood shakes and a balcony and is connected to the main dwelling via a rope suspension bridge. The structure was constructed within a stand of sea grape trees. Dense landscaping of sea grape trees surrounds both the perimeter of the property and the structure. The September 4, 2002 HPB Staff Report noted that "the scale and size of the structure, as well as its location in front of the extant residence, is out of character and obstructs a significant portion of the historic cottage. Although dense foliage and landscaping make it difficult to view the extant main dwelling and associated accessory structure from the right-of--way, the current location of the outbuilding is less than desirable. Further, the existing vegetation can be altered or removed in the future to make the additional structure more visible and the retention of the vegetation cannot be ensured in the future." The Staff Report emphasized that in order "to ensure compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and Objective A-10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the structure should be relocated from the east elevation, in front of the structure and the rope bridge should be removed altogether. The structure should be razed or relocated to the far north or west side of the property ensuring that no architectural attributes of the front fagade of the historic structure are in any way obscured or irreparably damaged. " Additional background and an analysis of the request are provided as an attachment in the September 4, 2002 HPB Staff Report. APPEAL The submitted appeal request notes that "the basis for the appeal is that the request meets the criteria set forth in": • LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k); • The Delray Beach Design Guidelines; • Objective A-10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan; • The Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Therefore, the applicant asks "...that the City Commission reverse the decision of the Historic Preservation Board and approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the tree house. " REVIEW BY OTHERS During its meeting on June 5, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed a COA request for the existing accessory structure. This action was continued along with a request for additional information including as-built drawings for the structure. The item was reconsidered on September 4, 2002. Upon further analysis of the structure, the Board found that the scale, massing, and particularly the location of the structure, directly in front the extant historic dwelling, were inappropriate. Staff's recommendation was that the extant accessory structure (treehouse) be relocated as specified; however the Board recommended denial (6-0). RECOMMENDATION Approve the request for an extant accessory structure (treehouse) at 610 North Ocean Boulevard, The Fontaine Fox House, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), & (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Objective A-10, Policy A- 10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation subject to the accessory structure (treehouse) being relocated from the east elevation of the front facade of the extant historic dwelling to either the north side of the property, or to the west elevation, behind the historic dwelling within sixty (60) days. I~® 1993 2001 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORADUM STAFF REPORT Agent: Rebecca Henderson Project Name: Fontaine Fox Tree House Project Location: 610 N. Ocean Boulevard ' I~® 9993 2001 ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a COA for an accessory structure at 610 N. Ocean Boulevard also known as the Fontaine Fox House, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND The property at 610 N. Ocean Boulevard consists of Lots 2 and 3 of the Ocean Apple Estates Plat. The property is located approximately 900' south of George Bush Boulevard between Andrews Avenue and N. Ocean Boulevard. Associated with the property is a 1,184 square foot Cape Cod cottage, which was constructed in 1936 of Florida cypress. Inspired by the trolley made famous in Fontaine Fox's "Toonerville Trolley" cartoon strips, the Cape Cod style cottage is located on Lot 2. The lot also contains three outbuildings, one of which is a recently constructed free-standing structure which has been referred to in the application as a "tree house." The property has an extensive land use history. The following background relates to the recently installed accessory structure: In 2001, the applicant constructed afree-standing accessory structure referred to as a tree house in front of the historic Fontaine Fox house. Due to the fact that a building permit is not typically required for the construction of a tree house, no permit or prior HPB approval was sought. However, the structure is more elaborate and detailed than a typical tree house being free-standing (similar to a guest cottage) and is therefore considered an accessory structure which requires Board approval. As such, the applicant is required to obtain a building permit and now seeks approval of a COA from the Board. Consideration of the COA for the accessory structure was first brought before the Board during its meeting on June 5, 2002. Upon review of the project, the Board found that adequate information had not been presented in order to make an informed decision and the item was tabled (5-1 vote) and continued to the first scheduled meeting in July. The Board requested that the applicant submit as-built construction documents for the accessory structure for the Board to review. The applicant was unable to submit plans for the July meeting and the requested plans are now before the Board for review. Meeting Date: September 4, 2002 Agenda Item: II.A. 610 N. Ocean Boulevard, tree house Individually Listed Property Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION /ANALYSIS Project Description The applicant is seeking approval of apre-existing accessory structure that was constructed last year. The accessory structure is currently located east of the main historic dwelling along the front facade. The structure is supported by four large wood posts and contains a wood staircase that leads from ground level to the main entrance. The free-standing structure measures 10'x12' and is approximately 23' high. Built of frame construction with a wood shingle exterior, intended to match the extant historic home, the structure displays a gable roof with wood shakes and a balcony and is connected to the main dwelling via a rope suspension bridge. Fenestration consists of modern, 1/1 single hung sash, single light windows, and an ocular window. A hatch door and French door allow access into the structure and to the balcony on the west elevation. The structure was constructed within a stand of sea grape trees. Dense landscaping consists of the sea grape trees which surround both the perimeter of the property and the structure. Analysis Development Standards LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. as amended from time to time. (E)(7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of anon-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non-contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. 610 N. Ocean Boulevard, tree house Individually Listed Property Page 3 Based on LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(8)(a-k), the accessory structure must meet requirements in relation to height, proportion of the front facade, proportion to openings, rhythm of solids to voids, entrance and porch projections, relationship to materials, colors, and textures, roof shapes, scale and orientation (see appendix A for a detailed list). Currently, the structure does display a continuity of design in relation to fabric, texture, color, roof shape, solids to voids, and massing. However, in order to ensure compatibility with the extant historic structure, the height, scale, orientation, and location must be evaluated. Delray Beach Design Guidelines Section IV. New Additions to Historic Buildings Locating the appendage [to a structure] at the rear or an inconspicuous side and limiting the size and scale in relationship to the existing structure is essential. If new additions such as balconies are being considered, they should be on non-character defining elevations. Additional levels should be set back from the existing structure wall plane, and be placed as not to radically alter the historic appearance of the building. Secretary of the Interior's Standards (Department of the Interior regulations, 36CFR Part 67~ Building Sites Non-significant buildings, additions, or site features should be removed which detract from the historic character of the site. The introduction of new construction onto the building site which is visually incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, materials, color, and texture or which destroys historic relationships on the site should be avoided. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Comprehensive Plan Consistency The following applicable objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan relate to the proposal: 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. 610 N. Ocean Boulevard, tree house Individually Listed Property Page 4 Housing Element: Policy A-10.1 This objective will be implemented in accordance with standards and criteria of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations, Historic Preservation Sites and Districts. Coastal Management Element: Objective C-1 The retention, rehabilitation, and protection of historic resources as provided for in the City's Historic preservation Ordinance shall continue to be applied in the Coastal Management Planning Area. Conclusion As required by the development standards, the design of the accessory structure is in keeping with the Cape Cod style cottage of the extant historic dwelling with its natural frame construction, clapboard siding, wood shingle clad, gable roof, and modest detailing. It is also differentiated from the original structure as it displays modern fenestration and detailing. However, the scale and size of the structure, as well as its location in front of the extant residence, is out of character and obstructs a significant portion of the historic cottage. Although dense foliage and landscaping make it difficult to view the extant main dwelling and associated accessory structure from the right-of- way, the current location of the outbuilding is less than desirable. Further, the existing vegetation can be altered or removed in the future to make the additional structure more visible and the retention of the vegetation cannot be ensured in the future. Therefore, to ensure compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and Objective A-10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the structure should be relocated from the east elevation, in front of the structure and the rope bridge should be removed altogether. The structure should be razed or relocated to the far north or west side of the property ensuring that no architectural attributes of the front facade of the historic structure are in any way obscured or irreparably damaged. If the Board approves relocation, it should occur within 60 days, which appears to be an adequate time frame for revisions to be made to the plans and permits to be obtained. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve 2002-164-COA-HPB for an accessory structure at 610 N. Ocean Blvd, the Fontaine Fox House, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7) & (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Objective A- 10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards subject to conditions. 610 N. Ocean Boulevard, tree house Individually Listed Property Page 5 C. Deny approval of 2002-164-COA-HPB for an accessory structure at 610 N. Ocean Blvd, the Fontaine Fox House, based on a failure to find positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7) & (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Objective A-10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards with the basis stated. RECOMMENDATION Approve the COA for the accessory structure located on the property at 610 N. Ocean Boulevard based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7) & (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Objective A-10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards subject to the following condition: 1) That the accessory structure be relocated from the east elevation of the front facade of the extant historic structure to the north side of the property, or to the west elevation, behind the historic dwelling, within 60 days of the Board's approval. Attachments: Survey, Photos, Site Plan Report Prepared by: Wendy Shay. Historic Preservation Planner Tree House 610 N. Ocean Boulevard CITY OF DEIRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY I BOUNDARY OF THE FONTAINE FOX HOUSE HISTORIC SITE - IKy, -- DlG/TAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP RFF IMSRS : I I 610 N. OCEAN BOULEVARD I C~ ~_ CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION TO: THROUGH: `_~ FROM: ~y~SUBJECT: DA . T. DE C~TY MANAGER . . PA L DQRLIN , DI TOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING WENDY SHAY, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER `BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS - .:The action requested- Qf the City .Commission is that. of cpnsfderation of an appeal of the Historic ..Preservation Boartl's denial of an ' exisffrtg accessory • structure associated with a Certificate of Appropriateness. locafed at 610 .N. -Ocean Boufevard~ the. Fontaine f=ox ..Historic Site. The subject - property is ioeateel' approximately 900' south of -George-Bush `Boulevard between North Ocean Boulevard and Andrews Avenue. The Historic Preservation Board. action was taken on September 4; 2002 and appealed on September 12, 2002 by Rebecca l-fer~der~on, attorney for 1=rank,and Nilsa Mef<inney, owners of the property. The appeat is being processed-pursuant to :L,DR Sections 2.4.7(E) and 4.5:1(IVI)(42). The appeal was originally scheduled for consider~tfon by tfie City commission on October 1, 2002, .however, based on -, the'applECant's request; the meeting was postponed anti[ November.-~, 2002 fn order to submit the necessary building permit appticattons. A sepond postponement request was submitted at the request of the Chair,of the Historic l're$ervaton Board due to concerns regarding an election night impact on c~t`izen participation;: As.the original postponement was 'set as a`date,certa'n. of November 5, 2002, the item remained on the agenda and a formal' postponement` to November 19, 2002 was made at that meeting. - The development. proposal is a request for approve! of apre=existing, accessory structure that was construct`ed`. fast year. The accessory structure is currently located` east of the main historic dwelling along the font facade, The' structure issupported by four large wood' posts and contains a wood staircase that leads from ground level to the main enfr`anpe. The free-standing structure measures 10'x't2' anet is approxfniately- 23` high Built of frame construction with a wood shingle exterior, intended to match>the extant fiistorfc home, tf~e structure displaXs a gable [oof with wood shakes and a balei5ny;and is connected fo.-the retain dwelffng.vfa;,a rppe suspension bridge..The structure was constructed, with~rr.a stand of ..sea grape trees., Dente landscaping consists of the sea grape trees which surround botF~ the perimeter of the property and the structure. Additional background and an analysis of the request are provided in the attached staff report. ~ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CONSIDERATION During its .meeting. on June 5, 2002, the Historic .Preservation Board reviewed a COA request for the existing accessory structure. phis actron way continued; along with a request for additional information.ineludng as-built drawings for the structure, The item was reconsidered on. September 4;, ZQE}2. Upon further analysis of the structure, the Board found that the scale, massing, and particularly the location of the structure, directf}r in front the extant historic qfl City Commission Memorandum, November 19, 2002 Fontaine Fox Historic Property Page 2 dwelling, was inappropriate. Staff recommendation was for the relocation of the extant structure, however the Board recommended denial (6-0). APPEAL Qn September 12, 20Q2, the Historic Preservation Beard's action was appealed by Rebecca Henderson; attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Mel<inney, owners. "The basis for the appeal is that the request meets the criteria set forth in: ~ LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4); (E)(7); and (E)(8)(a-k); The Dei~`ay Beach Design Guidelines; ~ Objective A-10, Policy A-10;.1 of the Housing Element and Objective C-1 of the Coastal IV(anagement Elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan; `The Secretary offhe Interior's Standards. Based.: on this analysis, the applicant .ask that.the City Commission reverse the decision of the Historib P"reservation Boai=ct and approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the tree house." ALT`ERN`ATIVE ACTIONS A. ,Approve the; request for ~n extant accessory tructure. at 610. N, ocean .Blvd, the Fontaine Fox Ffouse based, upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4:5. t(E)(4)', (E)(7), & (E)(8)(a- k), the :C~el~ay Beach Des%gn Guidelines, Objective A 10, Policy A-10:1- of the Mousing Element, artd Objecttve C 1"of.the Coas'tat Maragernent Element in tie City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secr=etary of the Tnteriar's Standards for Rehabilitation. B Approve. the request,for an extant accessory structure at 610. N, Ocean Blvd, the Fontaine Fox ;. Haase, f~esed upon positive findings with respect fo LDf~ Section 4 5;10)(4), (E)(7), & (E)(8)(a- - k) the. Qetray Beach., Design Guideline, Objective' A 10; .~'olcy A 't4;1 of the Housing Element, and Ot~ective C.'I_ of the Coastal Management Elernent.'rri the.City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary." of., the Interior's Standards for. Ref~abtlitation su6jeet to the accessory structure being relocated from' the: east elevatior> of the front fa~ad~e of the extant historic dwelling to either the nortfi side of the property, onto the west elevation, behind the historic dwelling. C. lJphold.,the Historic Preservation Board's action and deny, the request for an extant accessory s#ructure at 610 N. Qcean Btvd the Fontaine Fox House,. based. on' a failure to find positive findings with respect'to LDR Section 45 1(E);(4), (E)(7}; $ (E)(8~(a-k); the. Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Obtective A-'f Q, :Policy _A-10 't ot'; the. Housing Element, and Objective C-1 of the Coastal :Management Element in the City's Coiprehensive Plan; and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards with tfie basis stated. .RECOMMENDED ACTION City Commission's Discretion. Attachment: HPB Staff Reports of June 5, 2002 and September 4, 2002 ~t ~ ~'"'` ELK, BrANKIER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP SANCTUARY CENTRE SUITE 200E 4800 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY BOCA RATON. FLORIDA 33431 BOLA RATON 561.368.8800 FAX 561.384.3699 WEBSITE: VUW W.E6CLAW.COM P~ RECEIVED 9/~a~o~ . CITY CLERK NORTXBRIDGE CENTRE SUITE 2125 515 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401 REBECCA L. HENDERSON September 12, 2002 Ms. Barbara Garito City Clerk City of Delray Beach, Florida 100 N.W. 1st. Avenue, 2"d Floor Delray Beach, Florida 33444 RE: 610 N. Ocean Boulevard 2002-164-COA-HPB Dear Ms. Garito: PALM BEACH 86!.820.0006 FAX 561.394.3699 Reply to: Boca Raton Via Hand Delivery On behalf of Frank and Nilsa McKinney, and pursuant to Section 2.4.7 (e) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, we hereby appeal the September 4, 2002 decision of the Historic Preservation Board denying the request fora Certificate of Appropriateness for the tree house. We believe that the tree house meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)4,(E)7and(E)8(a)through(k), DelrayBeachDesignGuidelines,ObjectiveA-lO,PolicyA-10.1 of the Housing Element and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as The Secretary of the Interior's Standards. We ask that the City Commission reverse the decision of the Historic Preservation Board and approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the tree house. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Written notification of the Board's decision is appended hereto for your file. Sincerely, f ELK, BANKIE CHRISTU izr BY: e cca L. Hen er sq. RLH:kan cc: Frank and Nilsa McKinney Encl. \\ebpo•serverl\users\RL1LMcKinney\Cruitoltrwpd ~.a E>ELRAY eEACy ~ ~~~ ~ 'I~Lm ,993 2U0'I HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORADUM STAFF REPORT Agent: Rebecca Henderson Project Name: Fontaine Fox Tree House Project Location: 610 N. Ocean Boulevard DELRAY BEACH uwAo~c~ ~~~~~,r 1993 2001 ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The,item.before.: he Board is consideration of ~ CQA for an accessory structure at 610 N. Ocean Boulevard also known as the Fontaine Fox. H"ouse, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND The. property at 610 N. ocean .Boulevard consists of Lots 2 and 3 of the Ocean Apple Estates Plat, Th°e, property is located approximately :900', south of George Bush Boulevard between Rndrews.;Avenue end ,(~F. 't~cea..n Boulevard. Associated with the property his a 1,18 square foot Cape hod cottage,. which .was constructed in 1936 of Ffonela ,cy~r~ss. (nsplred`by the trolley made famous in Fontaine Fox's "Toonerville Trolley""cartoon. strips, the Cape .hod stjrte cottage:. is Located on Lot 2. The lot also contains ,three outbuildings; one of which. is`.,a recently constructed free-standing stri~.cture:_wtlch has been;;referred .t© in the application as a "tree house." The property has:;' an extensive lands-'use liistory. The following backgrourfd relates to the recently iristallecf accessory structure: In 2001, the, applicant constructed afree-standing. accessory structure referred to as a tree horse fn from€` of the:~his~cric ~or~taine Foy house. Due to the' fact that a building permit is;;. not typically required- for ttie oonstruction of a ,tree house, no permit or prior H~'B,ap~Zrovalwas.soughf. HoweveF; the s#ructure ~s more elaborate~and detailed than a ` typical free. ~,houSe bung free:=stand~irig (similar ° to "a gr.~est cottage) and is therefore "considered _.an accessory structure whiet~ requires Board approval. As such, the `''appttcanf is required to obtain'a btaldi~ng permit and`now-seeks approval of a COA from 'the Board. Consideration of the. COA for the accessory structure: was first brought before the Board during its meeting on Ju:rte 5,.2042. ltpan .review ©f the' pra~ect, the Board found that adequate. information hart not. been. presented I,p o~cler tQ make an informed decision and the item :was tebfed (5-1 vote] and continued. to tho first _scheduled meeting in July. -T'f'~e_ Board ~regr~ested that-the`appficant submit as built construction documents for the accessory structure fog the Beard. fo review. The applicant was unable to submit plans for tie July meeting-and tfe ra~uesfed plans .are now before the Board for review. Meeting Date: September 4, 2002 Agenda Item: II.A. 6.10 N: Ocean Boulevard, tree house Individually Listed Property Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION /ANALYSIS. Proiect Description The applicant is seeking approval .of a :pre-existing accessory structure that was constructed:. last year. ~Fhe accessory structure is .currently located east of the main hisfonc dwelling along the front fa.Cade. The structure; is stapported by four large wood posts ai,d contains' a wood staircase that leads from ground level to the main entrance. Thy free=stsndm~g .structure measures '10'x12" and; is approximately 23' high. Built of frame eonstruction..with a°wood shingle exferior, intended fo match the extant historic home, the structure displays a gable roof with wood shaken and a balcony and is connected to the main dwelling via _a rope `suspension bridge.. Fenestration consists of modern, 1I'I, single hung sasFt; single light windows, and an ocular window. A hatch door and French door allow. 'accass into ' the structure` .and to. the= balcony on the west erevatio.n. Tne stricture was; constructed':.wlthin a _stand of sea grape trees. Dense landscaping. consists of the sea grape trees whicl° surround both the perimeter of the property and the structure. Analysis Development Standards `, LQR Sectwn 4 5 1 ~E)(4), (E)(:7), aid. (~)(8)(a Ic) "Development Standards" provides gui~tetines in, evafuat~rtg ~ert~f~cates o€ Appropriateness. for the alteration or addition of ` exfertor sirchitectural features:. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4);: A histonc site, or building; stru,.cture, site,, improvement, or appurtenance within a histor~e 'd~str~ct shall be elte~ed, restored, preserved, .repaired, relocated, demolished; or `otherwise changed. fn accordance with the Secretary of the - Inferior's standards for Rehab~lifatiorr; as'amended from time fo time. (E)(7). The-constrbcfion of new buildings or structures, Q~ the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or rnamtenance of anon.-contributing building or sfructur`e within' a designafed h-stot-rc distf~cf-shall meet-:the same compatibility standards''~s any. material change m;fhe exterior appearance of an existing non-contributing building: Any material change in the exterior appearance if any, existing non-contributing- building, _sfructure; or appurtenance in a .designated h~s~orie district shall ~ be generally compatible with the form, `proportion, mass, con .figuration, building material,. texture, color, and location of historic bu~idfdgs,: structures, or sites adjoining. or reasonably approximate to the nori=contnbtxting building, structure, or site. (E)(8) All ~mproverri_ent fo. buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated h~staric dis#ricf shall be visually. compatible Visual compatibility can include but is: not Irmlted t~: consistency in relat~o~ .ta .materials;. texfure, and color of the facade of ~a building in assoeiafion vvifh the predominant material used in ~- surrounding historic:sites and structures vvifhn the historic district. 610 N. Ocean Boulevard, tree house Individually Listed Property Page 3 Based on LI]R Section 4.5.1 (E)(8)(a-k), the accessory structure must meet requirements in relation to height, proportion of the front facade, proportion to openings, rhythm' of sohds..to voids, entranc~''and porch prolectio:ns, relationship to materials, colors; and textures, roof:. shapes, scaie~-and orientation (see appendix A for a detailed list). Currently, the structure does display ~ contmt~#y of design in relation to fabric, tex#ure, color,_ roof shape, solids fo voids, and .massing..However, .in. order to ensure corrmpatibility with the extant historic structure; the height, scale; orientation, and location must be evaluated. Delray Beach Design Guidelines Section lV. New Additions to Historic Buildings t_o~ating the appendage [to a structure] at the rear or an inconspicuous side and limiting the=size and scale in relations~`i:p to the.exisfing;atr~acture is essential. If new additions such as ba.Econtes are being'".consid'ered ~the}r Should be. on- nan-character defining ~elevatioris Additional Levels slyou~d ,ge set back-from the existing- structure wall plane, and be placed as-not to radically al#er the historic appearartee of the building. Secretary .of the In#erior's Standards (Department of the Interior regulations, 36CFR part 67~ Building Sites Non-signi~cant,_ buildings; additions, or site features should be removed which detract `fi-otn the historic character of the site. The introduction of new eonstcuction ontq the building site.which is visually incompatible in terms of size, scale, desigrE, materials, color; and texture or which destroys historic .relationships on the site should be avoided. . The historic character of .a property: shall be retained and:. preserved. The removal of F~istpric materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Comprehensive Plan. Consistency The following applicable objectives .and policies of the City's Comprehensive PEan relate to the proposal: Housinct dement:. Objective A-10 The. City shall support the conservation and rehabilitation : of. historically significant E~ousing, especially whera such housing is an identifjring characteristic of a particular neighborhood. 6.1.0 N. Ocean Boulevard, tree house Individually Listed Property Page 4 Housing Element: Policy A-10.1 ...This objective .will .be implemented. irf accordance: with standards and criteria. of Section 4:5.1 of the Land development Regulatibrts, Historic Preservation Sites and Districts. Coastal Manageme.nt:Element: Obiective C-1 The _ retention, rehabilitation;. ,and protection of historio resources as provided for in the City's. Historic preservation ESrdinance shall continue to be applied in the Coastal Management Planning Area. Conclusion As .required by the development standards; the.,design of the accessory structure is in keeping with-the_Cape Cad styte cottage of the~_extant historic dwelling with.its natural frame construction,, clapboard:::; siding, wood shmglQ- clad; gable roof, and modest detailing.: It is' a(so differentiated :from- the o~i~mal strt.ieture as=. it displays modern fenestratii~n and detatllnq. However,. the scale :and atze of the structure, as well as its :: .. location tt front of the extant residence,- is out .af character :end obstructs a significant podton of the hFStorc cottage ~Cthough dense fglfage artd landscaping make it difficult to view the extanfi main: dv~eltirtg and asscseiatad acpessory striaeture from the right-of- way, th:e currEnt location of the outbuilding is fens than desiYable: Further, the existing - - vegetation can be altered or removed ~tn,the fu#ure to matte the additional structure more visible and the retention of the~wegetation cannot be ensured in the future. Ther..efore,. to :.ensure compliance, with the Secretar)r.of, the. Interior's Standards, the . Delray BeaeFi Design Guidelines, and Ohaect~ve A'1Q, Pot~cy A-10.1 of the Housing Element; and Objective G 1 of the Caastat .;Management Element in the City's Comprallensve Plan, the str~tctire should .fie relocated from the east elevation, in front of tie structure and the rope bridge. should be removed altogether. The structure should be razed or relocated fo ` he -far north or wesf"side of the' property ensuring that no architectural: attributes of ,the.. front facade of the .historic structure. are in any way obscured,. or irreparably.. damaged,,. lf. tl~e Board approves. relocation; it should occur w~tti.n ~0 days, which appears to'be.an adequate time frame for revisions to be made to the plans and'permits to be obtained. C ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve 2002=1C4-COA HPB for an accessory structure.at 610 N. Ocean Blvd, the Fontaine: -Fox House, based ,upon posrtive findings with re$pect to LDR Section 4 5:1:(E)(4}, (E)(7) & (E}t8)(e k) the C3~elray ;Beach C~esign Guidelines, Objective A- 10, Policy A-10.1 of= tha Housing Efemett, artd :Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in .the City's Comprehensive Klan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards subject to conditions. 610 N. Ocean Boulevard, tree house Individually Listed Property Page 5 C. Deny approval of 2002-164 CQA-HPB for an accessory structure at 610 N. Ocean ~hrct, tfie Fontaine Fox. House, based on a faCtare to find positive findings with respect to LDR. section 4.5 1(E)~4), (E)(7) & (E)(8)(a-k}, the Defray Beach Design Guidelines, Ob~ecfiive A 1:Q, Policy ~t=1 Q.1 oi' the:: Housing Element, and Objective ,~ . . C-1` of the: Goa~tal Man~gemen,# Element in tfte City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the~fnterior's S#a~rtdards with the basis stated. RECOMMENDATION Approve the COA for if~e accessory. structure located on the property at 610 N. Ocean B`QUlevard based uppn positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7) & (E)(8)(`a I~), the Qelray Beach.,Design ~uidelici~ , Objective A-1 Q, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing, Element,. and Ob1ecfiive~ C'~'i of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards subject to the . following condition: 1) That the accessory tructure be relocated.;from tfi:e. east elevation of the front facade of Elie extant historic structure. to the north side 'of the .property, or to the west elevation, t~ehind the historic dwelling`; within 60 days of the Board's approval. Attachments: Survey, Photos, Site Plan Report Prepared by: Wendy Shay. Historic Preservation Planner (FLAT BOOK _ _ - .-= 2-. 8~ ~ .. ~ ~I I - ... +6~2 'uP.Y ~" L ~ I~ °fJRCFI,~/ ~ I.r ~. ,Ca1DENCc CHlM1EY J J . -\ '•i ~ ~:iv P.E. _ --: ° a ~.1 'CRE_NED - _ PpP,C:i/ ~ DECK ?°- - SUM1 DECK ~ ~ `~ ~~ .naVa !CQN1C.i -1 +- ~ C:.Ni,PY i .- C3R:C<? I '_ _ -~IMNE" _ _ _ =iC _ - . __ __ ' _~ i ~_ ~ - - `_,~ .< _ _ ~LA- - ~ , °RC~OANE ' Q' ~~ - TANK " ' ( `t. RE'ADV~ILG I •. ".`~""'---xrs~-:a"-;.L ~ r- ~~ ' ' ~•-3RrJKEN_ Sf( .2b F, ,-.c:.e"-'>;i ' _ i . ~.~~vODD DES n -0.36 C&':;; . VALL .y. r! ~ :v 1RnN R.Ir D. b p~ c-w - 1 ~ " _ `.; - 5' r~ .:: Sb':o _ _ _ - ~rO ~ L9 ''.14.8 - 1 t. :.DNCJ. r ~('~ ti D - Q ~ - CONCRETE M@iUMENT P,= VISEB FLT".-, _--~..%• ~~&_ {FLAT BGO~: -.. -:_ _~` - LC' I 5, c-- _ - o: + c 1 •v I . _. _.._- _ ~,, - i I ~: 3C.Y -1 I' •~~. ~ . -~i001'~ - V I ~ I. "BALCLIa+`-' .mil` I W ~•. ~ .S ' i 1~ ~ ~ X _. ~ { ( _ ~Za c ~ " ~ G , c :~ . n ~ r, ~ ~ i ~`~~~ ~ .-. C 'J . M ~ I ~ r. `-' 1 u LP: v ~ ' r f r i ) ~ C C ,.~ ~ r. - + -, ~ :,I r .:•I~ :_{ = ' - =.~ •1 YI 3~ :~: ~ ~ i 4 = .- C~NGtE7E l~1UlL4T ~ 1 I~~- e: ~~ Renner, Bur r 4th Ave., S Y~ LY i 51 ~ I ~ ~ 1 ---- _.._. _.._ ~ ~;` 1 vest Aaln Fax .~ V ;i~E,~~ mop ~uj Lw~lN~w ~~~;1~: W < a ~ tt ~ ~ ~ ~ ! i i I `:, ~ ! L ~ ~ ! d voj s16sgRU0 ti1~8•~~ B~Iia!=3 : tti» : - ` e ~ 3~ ; i ~ ~ I i I I I ~ I i - .s -tt ft !t~ . it t :i ~ i ~n {:"_ . •- ; ,~'~~ Si ~•~ fl L ~~~ ; N~ ~~. ~: - ~, ------------ ~ Z, • ---=- ~~ ~~ •~ ~ .~ ~~ gj ' `~[ 6t ~; ~f I Z~ ; V ' =1i ,~ F I j~ L t ~esit its zi=f ~ s iI' i I ;f~:~~' cl~(etAz~ii~0!` =. it: ~ ~. •, - ~', , ~ . ~ .. t I s ~ I ; - *. ~ ~` f - , ~' I~ r ~ Illlf )Il ltlttllf, ~` ,~;- ~~~~i, ,\ ~ ~ ~, :. ~; L 6 Lt ':~ 1~ ~t t, ~ ~t ~ ~ t J { i= t - -t F F ~ i; E,r$ L_ ~j ~ ~~ ~ t ~ e 11 i ~~s ; , ~[ : i - - r~: E~= t. E ; x~ a ~;: f ~ i E i ~.. ~~~ t~ .~ I i ~ ~ E 3S i ( ^x t~ t. t e~ ~ Fi(E t V' TSB v, ~ ~~ / ' N .Y u.. iI ~F i eF.F e ` t• it E f,~ F ~ ~ r ~, c; *EF ~~ I i ~ t I e ~~ ~~. ~' \ i ~? ' 'c'` _,. ~ z:= a t CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA DEFRAY BEACH CITY COMMISSION CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a Political subdivison of the State of Florida v. FRANK McK:INNEY AND NILSA McK1NNEY CITY COMMISSION HEARING NOVEMBER 3, 2008 @ 6:00 P.M. EXHIBITS FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD RUDEN McCLOSKY SIMON SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue Suite 800 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Ph 561-838-4500/Fax 561-838-4545 ERIC C. CHRISTU F'L Bar No.: 434647 DEVON G. COUGHLAN FL Bar No.: 0015776 Attorneys for Frank McKinney and Nilsa McKinney ~~ '.ub.,~~~ ~1a~. -~_q,C- 1113108 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, CASE NO.: 4D04-1919 L.T. NO.: 502003Ap001062XXCTAY Appellant/Petitioner. vs. FRANK MCK:INNEY AND NILSA MCKINNEY, Appellees/Respondents. APPENDIX TO ANSWER BRIEF/RESPONSE TO CITY OF DELRAY BEACH'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI APPENDIX TAB PETITIONERS' RESPONSE TO CITY OF DELRAY BEACH' S MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION ....................................................... A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI........••••••••••••••••••••••••••••""' B APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ............................................................ C OPIlVION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ................................... D INDEX TO APPENDIX ORDER OF DENIAL 1 APPLICATION 2 STAFF REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 3 CRITERIA FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 4 SITE PLAN 5 PHOTOS OF JOHN VOLK HOMES 6 SEPTEMBER 6, 2002 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD DENIAL - 7 GUIDELINES FOR APPELLATE PROCEDURES 8 PHOTOS OF THE TREEHOUSE 9 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 STAFF REPORT 10 NOVEMBER 19, 2002 TRANSCRIPT 11 DELRAY BEACH MiJNICiPAL CHARTER 12 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA IN RE: Fontaine Fox Property (tree house) An Order of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Appellant, Frank McKinney, filed an appeal from the decision of the Historic Preservation Board to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for afree-standing structure (tree house) located on the Fontaine Fox Property. The City Commission held a quasi judicial hearing on November 19, 2002 to hear the appeal pursuant to Land Development Regulation 2.4.7(E) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach. The City Commission clarified its November 19, 2002 decision on December 3, 2002. Based on -the record, testimony and evidence presented at both hearings, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appeal is denied and the Certificate of Appropriateness is denied. ORDERED this day of ~~ , 2002. ATTEST• ~ DELRAY BEACH" CITY COMMISSION By: ~ By:,~ ~ . ~ ity Clerk David Schmidt, Mayor . ._._tYt.. n tam ~Z: je.'~l~ Rr., f .. .~-.... .. ~ ...~ .~ ~ ... ~ , . ~ ... ... ....~ :.. ..~. ~•..a` .~.' b m.Jw ~ '~ 1. `~..i' 1. ~ Ji ~\j..~. ~iv' Jr`. ~:! ~ fi ~ ~ 1..~ ~:.. ' APPLICATION ..®/- . HIS~`ORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Address of Property: ~ ~ n nt _ ~ oa n Rnu,l ~va~a __ _ ~ _ ~ _ r_nn N~ Applications for may be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department at any time between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday. The Historic Preservation eocru (HPB) will act on an applicatian at the text availably m6@ti~ ~g. The coi ~ipletad application must be filed 21 days prior to that meeting. The application must be accompanied by the X25.00 processing fee (make checks payable to the. City of Delray Beach). Please print or type all of the required information, and ensure that the application is complete and accurate. It is necessary that an owner, or an authorized agent, be present at the Board meeting when the COA is reviewed. tf a property owner wishes to designate a representativelagent, please execute the "Owner's Consent and Designation of Agency° form found on Page 7. Pursuant to the City's Land Development Regulations' Section 2.4.6(J)(2)(b) no application for a COA will be accepted by the HPB unless it contains all required and pertinent information. Apre-application conference with a member of the Planning staff is strongly recommended, and can be scheduled at vour convenience. We will be glad to assist you in any way possible. 9/D1 I:UA NO Date Received ['r•V ~~ 1G?'~ ~~ ('` ' t P,-~-! tP` A Ate F,t Po!"~ r'r;E-tt APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATENESS If approved, a COA is valid for 78 months from the date of approval. Project Name: Trt~t~hnttca - Address or General Location: 610 N. Ocean Blvd. , Delray Beach, FL 33483 PART ONE -APPLICANT INFORMATION: APPLICANT Name: Frank E. McKinnev. III and Nilsa C McK'nnav Address: Same as above Telephone Number: 561--36;8-$800 .. AGENT .- ... _ ._....., _ ._.~.: M... _d.: - _. _. .. w .... _._ .. - Ne'tne: 'Rebecca""~ 7.. H nd rfin~~~ . . ~ . Address: 4800 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200E Telephone Number.~~1 /36g-gaoo OWNER (if other than ao~ficantl Name: Lama a c a~nl ; nnn Address: - Telephone Number: Applicant is: Owner [x J Lessee [ ]Other -2- PART TWO -PROPERTY INFORMATION: ~rop~ry Cc;~~~t;~af !"~umu~~: r 2-~3-4G-G~-UOG-Ou20 Legal Description (attach separate sheet if necessary): Lot 2 , Ocean Apple Estates , according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 65, at Page 100 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida Historic District or Historic Site: Fontaine Fox xouse Zoning Designation: X3_1 -AAA Existing Use of Property:- Sincrle Family Residential Proposed ~aJse'of Property: Single Tarn=i.lv Residential- -. Proposed Changes (refer to DESCRIPTION OF WORK Pages 4 ~ 5): Construct a tree house in a tree located in the front yard Attach separate sheet if necessary and all necessary pictures to show work areas. Label each picture to ,describe what is to be done in each area. -3- D~t~'T T:.~'~~'~ nrfV'!~'r?(~%'~I~f:E ~r= ~R,~(~"-.',• ~j 1C> ~~~~I...ljfhD_.f 1 ~'S+ ~.."'v~A~'~ t'C Q~VI~Ll~ [Check Appropriate Item(s)) ~ 11 ^ Maintenance or Repair: The act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity and material of a building or structure and the' existing form or vegetative cover of a site that requires a building permit. It may include initial stabilization work, where necessary, as well as on-going maintenance and repair. ^ Restoration: The process of accurately recovering the form and details of a properly and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of later work or by the replacement of missing earlier work. ^ Renovation: The process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural and cultural values. ^ Landscapin4: The process of improving the landscape features which includes, but is not limited to, subsurface alteration, site regarding, fill deposition, paving, landscaping, courtyards, and exterior lighting. - ^ Si_ 'anaae: The process of installing or altering signs, billboards, advertisements or any other signage. ~ ~ . _~. _, ...__.. a. Excavation: The: process of performing an archeological dig to., recover .artifacts, __._ ._ _w __., historical materials or other archeological features. ~L..M1 ~ _ . .,~. ..: v. .,. ~: .. ~ .. . .:i'1 ~ ;. ^ Demolition: The process of destroying or tearing down a building or structure or a part thereof, or the process of removing or destroying an archeological site or a part thereof: ® New Construction: The process of constructing a building or structure that has never existed at the location. . ^ Relocation: The process of moving a building or structure from its current foundation to another site. ^ Walls, Fences and Sidewalks: The process of making any material change in existing walls, fences and sidewalks, or construction of new walls, fences and sidewalks. ^ ChanQe of Color. The process of changing the color of the exterior of any buildings or structures, walls, fences, .sidewalks, or any other architectural features. -4- Explain the chronology, of the work involved .and describe all new construction, excavation, demolition and relocation that will be required. If complete or partial demolition is involved, also complete the. demolition section of this application. (Attach separate sheet if necessary.) ' The work has been completed. A tree house was placed in the tree located in the front yard of the residence. DEMOLITION (If Applicable) Explain why the proposed demolition should occur. (attach separate sheet if necessary.) N/A The Delray Beach Historic Preservation reviewing requests for demolition: Board will consider thA following factors in A. Is :the structure. of such interest or quality that it would reasonably fulfill criteria for designation on the National Register? ' B. Is the structure of such design, craftsmanship or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty and/or economically unviable expense? C. Is the structure one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, City or designated historic district? D. Would retaining the structure promote the general welfare of the City of Delray Beach by providing an opportunity to study local history, architecture and design, or by developing an understanding of the importance and value of a particular culture and heritage? E. Are. there definite plans for immediate reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carved out, and what effect will those plans have on the character of the surrounding area? F. Would relocation of the building be a viable alternative to the proposed demolition? G. Would the Board's action on the requested COA cause undue economic hardship to the applicant? -5- ruGrour -atc i~rils. ) D Site Plan and/or Survey ^ Continuation Sheets ^ Elevation Plan ^ Landscape Plan ^ Floor Plan ^ Other Plans ^ Color Chips ^ Architectural Drawings ^ Sketches or Artistic Renderings ® Photographs* ' ^ Samples of Building Materials ^ Engineering or Other Reports ® Other Photographs which Support this Application ^ Published Materials, Documents and Bibliographies ^ Other ® $25.00 Fee Payable to the City of Delray Beach ® Executed Agent Authorization Form ., * Photographs of all elevations of each .building or structure on the subject property must be attached. If the subject property is vacant, photographs of the entire site must be attached. PART FOUR -SIGNATURE(S) OF.OWNERSlAPPLICANTS The undersigned owner(s) and/or applicant(s) certifies under penalties of perjury that all the statements contained in this ap ~ipn, including any statement attached to the application or any papers or plans s bmitted .herewith are true and correct. Owner's Signature "..-.. ~-''~ ;~ - ~'FRANK EX MCKINNEY, Owner's Signature -'~ - ~ ~ _ NI~SA MCKZfiiNF'Y THE . VI Y THE Applicant's Signatures . ~ % -- - L FRANC "E'. MCKINNEY, ...,.~.. Date ~- ;~,>~ -- l I 1t `,; ~.~- Date - ~y' ,::' ,~' _ ~~/ SEA, LLC / Date _ ~ ~.~ ~ _-%~ ~- III ~ ~ ~ Applicant's Signature ~ Date -s- (This form must be completed by ALL property owners) r^ '; I ~ ,the fee simple owner of the following (Ovmers N me) described property (give legal description): ~ ~ pA~ ,p ~~ ~'!~~ r +.• ~ ~ hereby petition to the City of Delray Beach for certificate of appropriateness approval for (Project Name) ~ p,~j~/~5~ and affirm that /i~l~v~~.c , 1. .~o~cn~-, .~ ~ is hereby designated to act as agent on my behalf to accomplish the above. I certify. that I have examined the applicaticn and that all statements and diagrams.. submitted are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Further, I understand ~- that this application, attachments and fees become part of the Official Records of the _ City of Delray Beach, Florida, and are not returnable. ~ ~ _ wwners.aigna u_re) ~ l /` _'• ; The fore oing instrument was acknowledge6 before me this '`--'~ ~- , day of 20 r,2 by _, who is e~ally nown to me or s produced (type .of identification) as ~ en on and who did take an oath: _ • (Printed Name of Notary Pubiic) Commission # i nature of No ry tic) My Commission Expires (I~JCTAR`^S SEAL) ~~~'~,,~ Rebecca L Henderson • **My commission CC781484 •~an~ Expires October 7, 2002 J -7- ~a,", ~~~••~:;~`~.:i'~~;i ~'.N l~:t l.:'k•.I~ry:, l..Ti{~~' Flu : i:?1T. i }.: 1 •'i~. ~.1 11 , . . ~•~~. I •• ~t~itr??i;:1?':jig;"'~Li,~'i'•il•:~',':~~,.... •' ~A~' ` ,.,r .i .1~.' ~ :L..: ._ ..:vi~~ ..~, .. .: ~ •. C1 ELkAY ECACH I~ I~~I® 7993 ?Ip1 .. J`.., !..... C .:, ; - .~ XE ! ~! ~! t ~'~ ~f .i wE Z ! ~r f ;:! ~ ~~t 5~~, ''~fR ,, DECI:ny'6EACH ~d:~t~4,d ~3"~y. y ~gwlF¢7r j!,7 { c ap,;tfl ~! Tt,. ,a Iy~i&j as}:. ~~= k!}'{'"E f g 4! j}<'>. nrT >~>~tc~JS t7i!y ~rvRyhS~J'y sQi~~ ~ ~r p ~.h7 ,~' ~ 8,~wi~;~R~1, J r q~s a tT ~~R!t ~ f2'f ,+ !r k ~, ,C yC. Y ~ r3I .~ I~ ! ~ I~~ ~ t u yy~. ~ re ~~ LD~ ~~~'~/~ ..,a { ~~'W urn's i ~ ,,r ~l v o~ h rest ~i 'Sy +t' ~'~n 4~. ~ ~I^ ~: , n' t ~ ~ ~ ~~'a, ~' "~! ' h ~ ~. u..t i tr ' 1N' ~ 1"r ~ 1 ~+k~ Y'r ~, I I q ~I ~h~'~ ttL ry~h~ °~ >~,~.t ~ ~~ ~i ~gp ~ g ~~~ b ¢ '3 '~r~'~''~j~~t1< ~i;,~~,: I ~y~ :7• . `}.. {3. a F ~~" ! I1; ~' ytr. '9 , .9 1 TA:~t t n }ii~,. ~~ ~~ r.. I` ~ ,r .. ~ {7' ~'' 1993 rr, ,>t~H~r~~~.~:ftz'v'.~~: ;9 ,~ft~,'',~t., C.~r~,.~r"yy~'.y ~`rt'~:}'~y:~.~:P 3~~S~~, te~.'S~~t,~a`[~:,1+r~;~~i,~,rau Y~}.sJ; t' _ ~~r.lq:~. ~a;: ~r4!" ~ .;t' ? 3W1 :.1'<•:~ tt 5,.. ,: rStY' ixz'i~r; ~7f IX+(- yet rl Yet yy~r.T~:r,;f>,kF:Ci~~r..~ 4 }e,,~~ '!~ h5.~ '~{. ?,n~'r;T.P"s+!~.. ~r~,'~.''., 'f,'.$`r.:'Ji., ,.i}. . s ~+f.'.nn.e.~d~t.i w,,:'~4.£ux(r'.u''~'r.7.."K"LFn!i ~'hYr~~ !!. i ~TI.:`~ ,e"':'3Ai`£w~~a 'e ~S''n1Y"-~.kw.~+i Agent: Rebecca Henderson Project Name: Fontaine Fox Tree House Project Location: 610 N. Ocean Boulevard .t, .~.; ~i ~M ~ K a 4K"'~J ~iij' ~, W (;?'..; hrr a;.tii+,"'t1A"r'.!r.'~ i~{2j r'i:„r{ r~ rr'.. ,~~; ~!:.':• , F;t~' "'y c t ,,Ar'> ~! ~.;,',~~y5xq~a~x,a i fp [qq. R~}+, ~ /~ ~.~;~~ < .,.t,~ r t,~'} lif>'k ;~ ~slAt$.. ~t ;~i 7 p ~~!~yt.~~~,r ~~(~~~~t,!~rl ! •.•iM~aak,~q'~~.S~h;,i 1,~~G<'~~ ~7V ,.~`~. (' a •^ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~: r ~i ~`~ 3'Yl;~dy, ~'•'qt;s:+t:t'~ Uri l' '~` pp~~ !''. I ~: '{ 'g i MY :~,(I~ Id J, R5' ';'f'I ,a ', r' .!. ,~..~~.i7r v i..:.1! r,C~: Yaar sti ~} v! ~Y~ld I J4'!fs. a., ,! =~!m,t n,,,.. ,ee!. w. e;. ~ .,i~~h;:r ~,•s>.E !Mtt7. t~,h:~ p`+.~5: ~, ~ 1.'^f. ,e~,;> .. ~', d I[,).~ 1.~!.: The item before the Board is consideration of a COA for an accessory structure at 610 N. Ocean Boulevard also known as the Fontaine Fox House, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). ,,., ,", .'. ~'.1 ... .. '.. ~~.: .. .. ~ .. .. ~. :" •c+.' i - . 1'~J.'4' % l1'.r 'd\. f%':;". q> ^ l~tr~:4s f i :.ipnt M.yl is E ..!. a. a' a. .a0:5!' ~ "~~y'~ ~+."d',di$t~`~f !ts ` f ,. ~>~ qc:, i;,:k~f'trSl' =:g,i'a.rn;er.. 1. .'St .ryi 1ti I. n•;>~rt,'gd-s Tet~...!< a'~:~:~ 1~ p ,'1-~:p'Se,~.d..;~~tY?!,.~.µr p:°-in.`f;~~,M ,4i?'q~t~. `~,,..,...,;tit~*„'~:,' ''4^~;, ~,! !?r.:.l,.,i•':'S r.s l ~ ~,.~ Ji";,'lj~+'ryf a Y !~„'R,.r,:' ;.der . {1'7~;~ t~ . .:f~~ ,~ .~ ~r~d '~41,. „~ "~!Y~ JW% .~,. .e... 7~rr !.s 1 '~r. ! S v f , , ,.,:. „ rem '~7 ,>~ ~'..>':,a.t: r c .. , ~ r.!~' f~+~x.,-0 .~ ~ c. I i,n.n «{,,r~r:1'i. G, r."''v~l~,, r`, f~; a;~i~:#r.~n~['~k;~'~Y„ ~. 4N' .. ,,.•o..:'J ., ;•,;t. .... >..r ,al.u;r~S: •.': m.::~',ifl ~~rk'5...,~,. I. ora>.911.Lp>_d aao.a. +. y ~..+1 .1..r> ..7 .. .*a,. The property at 610 N. Ocean Boulevard consists of Lots 2 and 3 of the Ocean Apple Estates Plat. The property is located approximately 900' south of George Bush Boulevard between Andrews Avenue and N. Ocean Boulevard. Associated with the property is a 1,184 square foot Cape Cod cottage, which was constructed in 1936 of Florida cypress. Inspired by the trolley made famous in Fontaine Fox's `Toonerville Trolley" cartoon strips, the Cape Cod style' cottage . is located on Lot 2. The lot also contains three outbuildings, one of which+ is a recently constructed free-standing structure which has been referred to in the application as a "tree house." The property has an extensive land use history. The following background relates to the recently installed accessory structure: In 2001, the applicant constructed afree-standing accessory structure referred to as a tree house in front of the historic Fontaine Fox house. Due to the fact that a building permit is' not typically required for the construction of a tree house, no permit or prior HPB approval was'sought. However, the structure is more elaborate and detailed than a typical tree house being free-standing (similar to a guest cottage) and is therefore considered an accessory structure which requires Board approval. As such, the applicant is required to obtain a building permit and now seeks approval of a COA from the Board. Consideration of the COA for the accessory structure was first brought before the Board during its meeting on June 5, 2002. Upon review of the project, the Board found that adequate information had not been presented in order to make an informed decision and the item was tabled (5-1 vote) and continued to the first scheduled meeting in July. The Board requested that the applicant submit as-built construction documents for the accessory structure for the Board to review. The applicant was unable to submit plans for the July meeting and the requested plans are now before the Board for review. Meeting Date: September 4, 2002 Agenda (tern: II.A. 610 N. Ocean Boulevard, ' house Individually Listed Property Page 2 1 ) F ~I 1 ~ J IC ~ ASS +`y , it t • l~~,~~`V ~y~Y~~~• ~~li\3~1 l~}/.{i~ J~1~~ ~~`~ ~I ~ ~~ I~Lj ~yI.4Pj~" A4{r A ~I ~ f ~,~I,,f~ I,rl a.,s ,t`F, ~~jd~, M..4~ tay.:kk,..t~..~..:.,.t,,.n'rmr.ilwr ~r.....rrE,~~,...cma,o-,rdk,,..a~.{r~~',~..,,.,.r...~..~:.„+~~xc«~Pj7 i~.xcwa~x.ah.~.y nm-.t.i:.., niNn id.,.~_~~.. r~ik7n;'~''`'lJ~.kS ~,~{~,'~n+i,~~M' Project Description The applicant is seeking approval of apre-existing accessory structure that was constructed last year. The accessory structure is currently located east of the main historic dwelling along the front facade. The structure is supported by four large wood posts and contains a wood staircase that leads from ground level to the main entrance. The free-standing structure measures 10'x12' and is approximately 23' high. Built of frame construction with a wood shingle exterior, intended to match the extant historic home, the structure displays a gable roof with wood shakes and a balcony and is connected to the main dwelling via a rope suspension bridge. Fenestration consists of modern, 1/1 single hung sash, single light windows, and an ocular window. A hatch door and French door allow access into the structure and to the balcony on the west elevation. The structure was constructed within a stand of sea grape trees. Dense landscaping consists of the sea grape trees which surround both the perimeter of the property and the structure. Anafvsis Development Standards LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior .:architectural ,features. The applicable standards are as follows: - ~~ - , (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site; improvement, or appurtenance within a historic districf shall be altered, ~ restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished; or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of fhe .Interior's Sfandards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconsfruction, or major repair or mainfenance of anon-contributing building or structure wifhin a designated historic districf shall meet fhe same compafibility standards as any material change in 'the exterior appearance of an existing non-contributing building. Any material change in .the .exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, strucfure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with fhe form, proportion; mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and locatibn of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or sife. (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designafed historic disfrict shall be visually compafible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited fo: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building in association with the. predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. 610 N. Ocean Boulevard,' house Individually Listed Property Page 3 Based on LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(8)(a-k), the accessory structure. must meet requirements in relation to height, proportion of the front facade, proportion to openings, rhythm of solids to voids, entrance and porch projections, relationship to materials, colors, and textures, roof shapes, scale and orientation (see appendix A for a detailed list). Currently, the structure does display a continuity of design in relation to fabric, texture, color, roof shape, solids to voids, and massing. However, in order to ensure compatibility with the extant historic structure, the height, scale, orienfiation, and location must be evaluated. Delray Beach Design Guidelines Section IV. New Additions fo Historic Buildings Locating the appendage [to a structure] at the rear or an inconspicuous side and limiting the size and scale in relationship to the existing structure is essential. If new additions such as balconies are being considered, they should be on non-character defining elevations. Additional levels should be set back from the existing structure wall plane, and be placed as not to radically alter the historic appearance of the building. Secretary of the Interior's Standards (Department of the Interior regulations, 36CFR Part 671 Building Sifes ~.:~::;: Non-significant .buildings, additions, o_ r site features should be removed which .detract_ _ from the historic character of the site. .~ ~ ~~~ ~ . The introduction of new construction onto the building site which is visually incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, materials, color, and texture or which destroys historic relationships on the site should be avoided. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Comprehensive Plan Consistency The following applicable objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan relate to the proposal: Housin4 Element: Obiective 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. 610 N. Ocean Boulevard, ! house Individually Listed Property Page 4 i .y. ...tu',..i i.. ~~.~.c~..y E" ~i U.1 This objective will be implemented in accordance with standards and criteria of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations, Historic Preservation Sites and Districts. Coastal Management Element: Obiective C-1 The retention, rehabilitation, and protection of historic resources as provided for in the City's Historic preservation Ordinance shall continue to be applied in the Coastal Management Planning Area. Conclusion As required by the development standards, the design of the accessory structure is in keeping with the Cape Cod style cottage of the extant historic dwelling with its natural frame construction, clapboard siding, wood shingle clad., gable roof, and modest detailing. It is also differentiated from the original structure as it displays modem fenestration and detailing. However, the scale and size of the structure, as well as its location in front of the extant residence, is out of character and obstructs a significant portion of the historic cottage. Although dense foliage and landscaping make it difficult to view the extant main dwelling and associated accessory structure from the right-of- way, the current location of the outbuilding is less than desirable. Further, the existing vegetation can be altered or removed in the future to make the additional structure more visible and the retention of the vegetation cannot be ensured in the future. ... . Therefore; to ensure compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the = ~~=_ _, _, Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and Objective A-10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing.. ; _. Element, and .Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the structure should be relocated from the east elevation, in front of the structure and the rope bridge should be removed altogether. The structure should be razed or relocated to the far north or west side of the property ensuring that no architectural attributes of the front fagade of the historic structure are in 'any way obscured or irreparably damaged. If the Board approves relocation, it should occur within 60 days, which appears to be an adequate time frame for revisions to be made to the plans and permits to be obtained. A. Continue with direction. B. Approve 2002-164-COA-HPB for an accessory structure at 610 N. Ocean Blvd, the Fontaine Fox House, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7) & (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Objective A- 10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards subject to conditions. 610 N. Ocean Boulevard, t .house Individually Listed Property Page 5 V. i.:i;:;;y" a~.i~.IilJVi:+~ vi GUUG°-'iU~t-LrlJri-t'"i~'U {t:)i' iai•1 GCC+r55UPj/ SfUCfUf@ at 6`i~/ ~i. t1GE.'all' Blvd, the Fontaine Fox House, based on a failure. to find positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7) & (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Objective A-10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the Interiols Standards with the basis stated. ,4Y !'rt«. ynT'. ' onv,..a.,~,.::;>,,.£.,;y.~ru e:,r,:r.`m~,r.. ~, Ia.e~~..,, }~+ i t. ~u Irv ,+~w yy ._t ~1; V.j rui.~Y .t.1:~.~~`.f ~~~ rf~~jtti~0:°~(~~i'Mry~~ti~l:t `fi'~P:,~iVi S~uFµ l~ 5~~. "',fUPYY~ x:~}" •.~~5:~~~t'~' ~:3y"~.~k^~Ai'F;.~~~~ifd~~~~t '~.. is a~ a '` y ti~R;lrla~t~ ~~. t.:,ryi~,t ~y,~~ ~ ~~ < • i~ . .. ~ ~t ifi p ~.~.;a~~, t ie5 c E;9 '`Pa~l~}s. rrl ~~ 5?: A'~:Jr~ Ai ~'~. .~nr2.~~9~ ~.t'Q~iF.. ~.. .F. !'V.:t~~' .4a ~i ~P'"I~~ ~.N.t tea- ~. fw ,Yvs4~4~~:;6..`..xta~~•i(ti~a.~vl'i.,i.C.U~.k/,~~eH,~~~7al~iui `rT „~.w4 ia~ Approve the COA for the accessory structure located on the property at 610 N. Ocean Boulevard based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.0.1(E)(4), (E)(7) & (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Objective A-1U, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective C-1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards subject to the following condition: 1) That the accessory structure be relocated from the east elevation of the front facade of the extant historic structure to the north side of the property, or to the west elevation, behind the historic dwelling, within 60 days of the Board's approval. Attachments: Survey, Photos, Site Plan Report Prepared by: Wendy Sliav. Historic Preservation Planner .. .. ... ,. .. ... >,; •;T:i:;nk~,•i"il`t';~i:y:,r,4i:~•a;{sl•:•~ ~~,•.1•a~i~Cy .:s~ 1,, ~,. ,. .. ,.~ ; ;; ,~,;1~ :~: ;.~., ., . ~ :~; ARTICLE 4.5 ARTICLE 4.5 OVERLAY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS The Districts described in this Article do. not establish uses or categorize uses. These Districts, however, do regulate allowable uses in a manner to mitigate adverse impacts of such uses upon the natural or man-made environment; or regulate development so as to mitigate potential dangers to the use of such developed land, or to otherwise implement policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Overlay and environmental management districts need not be shown on the Official Zoning Map. Section 4.5.1 Historic Preservation Sites and Districts: (A) Gee 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. (B) Criteria for Designation of Historic Sites or Districts: .: .. .. . (1) To qualify a§ a historic site, or historic district, or historic interior, individual _ properties, structur.~.s, sites, or buildings, .or groups of. properties, . struc#ures,. sites:, or buildings must have significant character, interest, or value as part of the historical, cultural, aesthetic, and architectural heritage of the city, state, or nation. To qualify as a historic site or historic district, the property or properties must fulfill one or more of the criteria set forth in division (2) or (3) below; to qualify as a historic interior the interior must fulfill one or more of the criteria set forth in division (2) and meet the criteria set forth in divisions (3)(b) and (3)(d). (2) A building, structure, site, interior, or district will be deemed to have historical or cultural significance if it meets one or more of the following criteria: (a) Is associated in a significant way with the life or activities of a major person important in city, state, or national history (for example, the homestead of a local founding family); (b) Is the site of a historic event with significant effect upon the city, state, or nation; 4501 SECTION 4.5.1 (B) (2) (c) "; y'~ ...tit G it. '.Ji .i.~.., ,~. ~. r~ti::1 t:.~ 'd.~iCJ ~. .~., cultural, economic, social, military, or political; (~ (d) Exemplifies the historical, political, cultural, economic, or social trends of the community in history; or, (e) Is associated in a significant way with a past or continuing institution which has contributed substantially to the life of the city. (3) A building, structure, site, or district is deemed to have architectural or aesthetic significance if it fulfills one or more of the following criteria; except that to qualify as a historic interior, the interior must meet the criteria contained within divisions (3)(b) and (3)(d): (a} Portrays the environment in an era of history characterized by one or more distinctive architectural styles; (b) Embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, or method of construction; (c) Is a historic or outstanding work of a prominent architect, designer, landscape architect, or builder; or (d) Contains elements of design, detail, material, or craftsmanship of ~~ .. , . _ . outstanding quality or which. represented, in:.its time, a signifca.nt . innovation or adaptation to the South.,Florida environment. (4) A building, structure, site, interior, or district will be deemed to have historic significance if, in addition to or in the place of the previously mentioned criteria, the building, structure, site, or zone meets historic development standards as defined by and listed in the regulations of and criteria for the National Register of Historic Places, as prepared by the United States Department of the interior under the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, A copy of these standards for the National Register is made part of this section as if fully set forth herein. (C) Designation Procedures: (1) Buildings, structures, archaeological sites, or districts which meet the criteria for historic sites or districts set forth in Section 4.5.1(8) may be designated as historic sites or districts, and may be listed on the Local Register of Historic Places. (2) Nominations for historical site or district designation shall be made to the Historic Preservation Board on an application form developed and approved by the Board. i 4502 SECTION 4.5.1 (C) (2) (a) acs} i ati/t.i!i1c.!'~RS Oi° hIJ'i~tiC S{t@ StuiUS (Tiny ~i8 I(1i11Gi~C] uy: (1) The Historic Preservation Board; (2) The City Commission; or (3) The property owner.. (b) Nominations for historic district status may be initiated by: (1) The Historic Preservation Board; or (2) The City Commission. (3) The Board shall conduct a preliminary evaluation of the information provided on each nomination. application to determine if it generally conforms with historic status criteria. The Board shall then prepare a designation report which shall con#ain the following: [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3/26/91] (a) proposed legal boundaries of the historic building, archaeological site, structure, or district; [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3/26/91] (b) any proposed conditional zoning regulations designed to replace or complement existing zoning regulations with regard. to, .but not limited to use, floor area, density, height, setbacks, parking, and minimum lot size; [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3/26/91] . (c) analysis of. the,=historic significance and character of the nominated property; and [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3/26/91] (d) analysis of optional historic interiors for those buildings and structures with interior features of exceptional architectural, aesthetic, artistic, or historic significance. [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3/26/91] (4) Upon completion and formal review of the report, the Board shall set a public hearing on each proposed designation. Notice of said hearing shall be made to the owner of affected property at least ten days prior to the hearing by certified mail. Additional notice shall be given in the same manner as provided for a rezoning action [see Section 2.4.2(B)(1)(b)] and by notice published in the newspaper at least ten days prior to the hearing. [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3126/91] (5) Once the public hearing date is established, no permits shall be issued for any new construction, alteration, relocation, or demolition of the real property included in the nomination. This delay in the issuance of permits will remain in effect until one of the following takes place: [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3/26/91] 4503 SECTION 4.5.1 (C) (5) (a) (a? The Historic Presen~atior, Board denies ;tie nor:;irti~~~iar~ and no a;~z~cal is filed pursuant to Section 2.4.7(E); or, [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3/26/91] ~~ (b) The City Commission formally approves or denies the nomination. [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3/26/91 ] (6) After conducting the public hearing, if the Historic Preservation Board finds that the nomination fulfills the proper designation criteria and all procedures have been followed correctly, it shall vote on the designation. A majority of the entire Board, present and voting, must act in the affirmative to transmit the nomination and the Board's findings to the City Commission. The City Commission shall consider the recommendation through its standard ordinance adoption procedures, except that at least three affirmative votes of the City Commission is necessary to make a designation. In the event that a directly affected property owner objects to the historic designation; the Commission approval shall require a super majority vote of four votes: [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3/26/91] (7) After conducting the public hearing, if the Historic Preservation Board does not fnd that the request fills the criteria, no further action will be required and the request will be deemed denied. However, an appeal may be filed and processed pursuant to Section 2.4.7(E). [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3/26/91] (8) The Board will issue an official "certificate of historic significance" to the owner of properties listed individually on the local historic register or judged as'' ~. contributing.,to.the character of a historic district listed on the local historic register. The ,..:.. Director_acti.n.g as City Preservation Officer~.or his appointee, is authorized to issue and ~~--==::=--~-- . place .official signs denoting the geographic boundaries of each historic district listed in ~~ - the local historic register. [Amd. Ord. 30-91 3/26/91] (D) Review and Approval Procedures: Once property is placed within a Historic District or designated as a Historic Site no development order shall be issued without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness (C.O.A.) pursuant to Section 2.4.6(J) from the Historic Preservation Board. Obtaining a C.O.A. is required in addition to any other process which is required for the development application. (E) Aevelopment Standards: (1) For the purpose of this Section, exterior architectural features will include, but not be limited to the following: (a) The architectural style, scale, general design, and general arrangement of the structure's exterior; (b) The type and texture of building material; and 4504 SECTION 4.5.1(E) (1) (c) ~'4) f i,~ t~~~.JL Gl~C stsri~ d.~ all ~UJi:r~ ~~f~i iU~J I~:%v, ~Cri~l J, Gl i(.! '{~CiS. (2) The following shall only be moved, reconstructed, altered, or maintained, in accordance with this chapter, in a manner that will preserve the historical and architectural character of the building, structure, site, or district: (a) Buildings, structures, and appurtenances. (b) "APPURTENANCES" includes, but 'is not limited to, stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, paving, sidewalks, and signs. (3) In considering proposals for alterations to the exterior of historic buildings and structures and in applying development and preservation standards, the documented, original design of the building may be considered,. among other factors. (4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished,~~ or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the. Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (5) Relocation of 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 not consistent with the purposes of this Section or would cause undue economic hardship to the property owner. (6) Demolition of historic sites,. archaeological sites, or buildings, structures, improvements, grid appurtenances within historic d'istricts~ will be regulated by the Historic Preservation Board in the manner described in Subsection (F). (7} The construction of new buildingsaa~,~tructures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance'"ofi'~~a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non- contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance of any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. (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: 4505 SECTION 4.5.1 (E) (8) (a) (a) H~~ic~ht: The height of proposed buildings or rr~odirications shall be visually compatible in comparison or relation to the height of existing ~' structures and buildings. (b) Front Facade Proportion: The front facade 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 Doorsl: 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) Rhvthm of Solids to Voids• Front Facades: The relationship of solids to voids in the front facade 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 facade 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 ContinuitX: Appearances of a building or structure such as walls, wrought iron, fences, evergreen landscape masses, or building 4506 SECTION 4.5.1 (E) (8) (i) 1'aCd~e5, sndii iarm 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 mass 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. (9) Visual compatibility standards will be further discussed in greater detail in the Delray Beach Preservation and Conservation a ua . Said Manual will be developed as a guide to assist property owners as they seek to nominate their properties for designation as a historic site or to designate an area within the city as a historic district. (F) Sestrictions on Demolitions: No structure within a Historic District or on a Historic Site shall be demolished without first receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness for that purpose. The Historic Preservation Board shall be guided by the following in considering such a request. (1) The Historic Preservation Board upon a request for demolition by a property owner, shall consider ~~he following guidelines in evaluating applications for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of designated historic sites, historic interiors, or buildings, structures, or appurtenances within designated historic districts; (a) Whether the structure is of such interest or quality that it would reasonably fulfill criteria for designation for listing on the national register. (b) Whether the structure is of such design, craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty or economically nonviable expense. (c) Whether the structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the designated historic. district within the city. (d) Whether retaining the structure would promote the general welfare of the city by providing an opportunity to study local history, architecture, and design, or by developing an understanding of the importance and value of a particular culture and heritage. 4507 SECTION 4.5.1 (F) (1) (e) `. , `_ ... _ ...._.; i., ;._ : _. c.; ~ . ~... itw ~.iic!`:.~ vl" liii fici:i~a'ii icUSc Gi iflir Ijj U~:it/i~~/ l the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect those plans will have on the character of the surrounding area. (2) No decision of the Board shall result in undue economic hardship for the property owner. The Board shall have authority to determine the existence of such hardship in accordance with the definition of undue economic hardship found in Subsection (H). (3) The Board's refusal to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness requested by a property owner for the purpose of demolition will be supported by a written statement describing the public interest that the Board seeks to preserve. (4) The Board may grant a certificate of appropriateness as requested by a property owner, for demolition which may provide for a delayed effective date. The effective date of the certificate will be determined by the Board based on the relative significance of the structure and the probable time required to arrange a possible alternative to demolition. The Board may delay the demolition of designated historic sites and contributing buildings within historic districts for up to six months while demolition of non-contributing buildings within the historic district may be delayed for up to three months. (5) During the demolition delay period, the Board may take such ,steps as it _ deems necessary to preserve the structure concerned. Such steps may include, but ` are not limited to, consultation with community groups, public agencies, and interested- ~.~ '~--~ - citizeris recommendations for ac_ quisitiori of property by public or private bodies, or ;- :.~` :~-~ agencies, and exploration of the possibility of moving one or more structures or other. features. (6) The Board may, with the consent of the property owner, request that the owner, at the owner's expense, salvage and preserve specified classes of building materials, architectural details and ornaments, fixtures, and the like for reuse in the restoration of the other historic properties. The Board may, with the consent of the property owner, request that the Delray Beach Historical Society, or the owner, at the owner's expense, record the architectural ,details for archival purposes prior to demolition. The recording may include, but shall not be limited to photographs, documents, and scaled architectural drawings. At the Board's option, and with the property owner's consent, the Board .or the Delray Beach Historical Society may salvage and preserve building materials, architectural details, and ornaments, textures, and the like at their expense, respectively. (G) Unsafe Buildings: In the event the Chief Building Official determines that any structure within a designated historic site or designated historic district is unsafe 4508 SECTION 4.5.1 (G) ~,l_lrcE!rri~' it? t!~;~,^.r~n!,r9hfF~ CC~'~ ~F ~r'~'2r1C@S, ~~iE CI~!`~r ~i.111Ci1i1~ ~.'•'~f~~~icl ~'r'ili immediately notify the Board of his findings. Where appropriate and in accordance with applicable ordinances, the Chief Building Official will attempt to have the structure repaired rather than demolished, and will take into consideration any comments and recommendations by the Board. However, the provisions contained within division (A) of this section shall not apply to the Chief Building Official's declaration that a building is unsafe, nor will the Chief Building Official be precluded from taking whatever steps, as may be required by applicable ordinances to protect the public health and safety of the community. The Board may also endeavor to negotiate with the owner and interested parties, provided such actions do no interfere with procedures in the applicable ordinances. (H) Undue Economic Hardship: In any instance where there is a claim of undue economic hardship, the property owner may submit, within a reasonable period of time, prior to a meetirig with the Board, the following documentation: (1) For All Propel: (a) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and the party from whom purchased; (b) The assessed value of the land and improvements thereon, according to the two most recent assessments; ~...- (c) ..Real estate taxes for the previous two years; ;__ ._..... . _ - . (d) Annual debt service or mortgage payments, if any, for the previous two years; (e) All appraisals, if any, obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing, or ownership of the property; (f) Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked, and offers received, if any; and (g) Any consideration by the owner as to profitable adaptive uses for the property, including but not limited to possible fair market rents for the property if it were rented or leased in its current.condition. ' (2) For Income Property (Actual or Potential): (a) The annual gross income from the property for the previous two years, if any; 4509 SECTION 4.5.1 (H) (2) (6) (b) The annual cash flow, if any, for the previous fin~o years; and (~ (c) The status of leases, rentals, or sales for the previous two years. (3) An applicant may submit and the Board may. require that an applicant furnish additional information relevant to the Board's determination of any alleged undue economic hardship. The Board may also require, in appropriate circumstances, that information be furnished under oath. (4) In the event that any of the required information is not reasonably available to the property owner and cannot be obtained by the property owner, the property owner shall file statement of the information which cannot be obtained and the reasons why such information cannot be reasonably obtained. Where such unobtainable information concerns required financial information, the property owner will submit a statement describing estimates which will be as accurate as are feasible. (I) Historic Preservation Board to Act on Site Plans, Landscape Plans and Architectural Elevations: Pursuant to the powers granted in Section 2.2.6(D), the Historic Preservation Board shall act on all development applications, within a Historic District or on a Historic Site, subject to processing under Sections 2.4.5(F),(G),(H), and (I) which otherwise would be acted upon by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board or the Planning and Zoning Board. (J) Historic Preservation Board to Act on Variance Requests: Pursuant to the ~ . powers granted in Section 2.2,6(D), the . H.isfQric Preservation Board shall. act on all variance requests, within a Historic District or on a Historic Site, which otherwise would be acted upon by the Board of Adjustments. In -acting on such variance requests the Board may be guided by the following as an alternative to the criteria normally used by the Board of Adjustments. [Amd. Ord. 12-93 2/9/93] (1) That a variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property through demonstrating that: (a) A variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare. (b) Special conditions and circumstances exist, because of the historic setting, location, nature, or character of the land, structure, appurtenance, sign, or building involved, which are not applicable to other lands, structures, appurtenances, signs, or buildings in the same zoning district, which have not been designated as historic sites or a historic district nor listed on the Local Register of Historic Places. 4510 ~"~F $ r. POOL POOL DECK A~ ' 02 < ~' ~~`~X G :TORY LDING :~~ Y..~..... ~ . WI34.K f4• ~ I J ;i I _ ~`ry, ~ ~ ~ HAMOND`~J OPE TY (PAVED) . T BOOK ~~ AGE 248 ~ (PLA ~12' UTILITY EASEMENT ~ - E. ~',~ ~~~ PALM BEACH SHORE ACRE ~ ~ `~ PLAT BOOK 7, PAG •~s. '°- LOT 4, .'~L.O , ~ ~ ~ ?.ff ' ~ 9~ - CPAVED> ~J ~~~,~ LOT ? ~~ 11.9 ~f~ h , /~ i' EC C~f , ~ TREE f OUSE i j~. ~ ! I ~~~ ~ti r, ~~ ` ~~, , O ~~ '~a. ~~~1 ~~ ' t X , b ~~`~~~: 11.9' DRIVE ~~\ \\ ~ \ ~ \~ r . ~ ~'+~'~ ~ ;SI •...• ~ ?• Sti : }J 57 8' . y ~ - ± Y.Y ~` Q . ~! ;;.-,,::~;; .:_.:• ~:~`"~~~". ° 1 STORY ~; ~ ~, y~'! POOL ~~ i"~',f'''••<'' sa'. ~ GARAGE ~~ y.i,;r;.~.r'a .i+• F'dOL• ;~ ` `tip i'r ~.: ~; -. ~ ~ DECK •. ;•"~ry:;.'~:. ~; •'~.~:~:;:. .s~:i?~j..' (CONC. = 4.0 ~ }C .3 *` 5 .0' S~% 196.35'(P) 196.52'(M) • w S 8 9 ~0 7' 0 9 ~) W (BEARING BASE) FOUND 4'X4' CONCRETE MONUMENT PLAT, BLOCK D&E ACH SHORE ACRES i OOK 7, PAGE 38} T 5, BLOCK E "'~ '~ ` BENCHMARK -`.~ X-CUT IN WALK ~> ( EL.= 16.09 ~1_ Q ~ ~ .~ v~ . ~~ ~ °~ ~N~ wo .~. ~ J w r-~ t.f) ~ ~ ¢ ~ O e 0 m ~ `.:ice p ~ Z ~ • c~ Q `:.~ O (n i ~ v O: a Q o o ~-- ~i<' 'f::.. {9~ ~ 4; _ . ti .•h' e. `4: i : s.. ~.: i~r I .,~, I. ,• Y' o~n .. U %: y~~' r 51." a Y J: ~• Z O~ ~. r ~ ~ `,%' SAM HARRLS RESIDENCE (SECOND) A~ASrArt ROAD, PALM BEACH, JE~.QRIDA The house on Arabian Road in Palm Beach was the second rnmmission that Volk undertook for Sam Harris, the theatrical producer. Harris was associated with George 114. Cohan, Jerome Kern, Oscar Hammerstein, Eddie Cantor, George Jessel,.Irving Berlin, and many others. The first project for Harris had been an extensive renovation in the 1920s on Seabreeze Avenue. This later commission consisted of the entire design and construction, from start to finish. The late Georgian period home is located in the north end of Palm Beach on Lake Worth The two-story structure is broken into athree-part massing arrangement with a tiled hipped roof and dentiled cornice capping the stucco facade. On the front, the central block extends slighdy and features a central entry with balcony above. To the rear, the central block is recessed, providing space for an oval porch overlooking the lake. inside, the entrance hall, dominated by a circular stair, leads into the principle rooms of the house. The residence features a fine living room and dining room, a very large music room, and luxurious second-floor bedroom suites. Interiors are finished with S2 JOHN L. YOLK is . Jot-~•r L. VoLx THE PIANTATTON, BYRON CHANDLER RESIDENCE WELLS Roes, PALM BEACH, FLORIDA In 1936, Volk introduced the white file roof, covered balconies, and green shutters of the British Colonial styl ... ~. ' Palm Beach on a large manor house for 1V1'r: and Mrs. Byron Chandler. The Chandlers desired a suitable residence ... `~tl-ieir extensive collection of fine English furniture and antiques. Volk felt that a Spanish style house would no appropriate and decided that something new was required: I therefore developed a style that I considered would be fora planter who brought with him his possessions from England. Toward this, I envisioned a white roof with balconies and green shutters, a character which I named British Colonial.' The new style was based on the various styles of houses brought to the New World by the British who settle• the Caribbean, namely Bermuda and Jamaica. According to Volk, he and the Chandlers departed for Jamaica to ~ this type of house first hand. Thovgh exact predecessors were not easy to find, Volk did find inspiration in the Colonial Era houses of a ~ settlement Irnown as Spanish Town. There amidst the ruins of other structures that had existed prior to an earthqu Volk found the use of green shutters, simple metal work, and balrnnies all in the character of the Colonial style of ar lecture. The houses•resembled many that are found in Charleston and New Orleans. ' With regard to the white file rood Volk felt the roof would be'in keeping with the: tropics. None existed in P 54 ]OfiN L. YOLK WIlVDSONG ELLSwORTH WARNER RFSmEtvt~ ~ . ... ~ F.t VEDADO Roan, PALM BFacx, IY.ORIDA. _ ' r Volk~designed a lovely, two-story Georgian Revival residence for Mr. and Mrs..Warner of Minneapolis ~ corner lakefront lot that joins E! Vedado Road with the smaller Pelican Lane. The unusual site, ]mown as Jungle. juts out into Lake Worth creating long vistas over the lawn to the water. Here, the position showcases a home in a three-part configuration. The two-story central block is connec pavilion-like wings. Volk's use of the one- columned portico emphasizes the importance ~ formal front entrance. Under the portico is a p: door with fanlight. All of the ornamentation is ba; classical origins with a full entablature resting on ; composite entrance columns, and an Ionic cornice roofline. The design is simple with little other orn: ration except for shuttered windows and their keys To the rear, there is a semicircular loggia and coral 62 buerros aolunnu, Wanrer riurdatn JOHN L. YOLK ., i JnMES A: M~z-r RFSm~rcE Sovrr3 OcEarr Born~vnxn, Pnrat Br_ncx, Fz.oxmn James A. Moffett, the former chairman of the Federal Housing Administration under President Franklin I Roosevelt, and his wife arrived in Palm Beach in the early thirties eager to construct a new beach house. The ~ had very progressive tastes and desired something innovative and unique. They contacted Vollt and discussed wig their ideas for a modern, contemporary residence. Uolk created a structure that not only captured their dream, b• captured the interest of the entire town. With the Moffett residence, Volk introduced the sleek white Art Moderne style to the shores of Palm B. literally. The house was built directly on the sands along the oceanfront No one had built a structure on the itself. It was generally thought that building so near the ocean was impossible, so most houses prior to 1936 wer away from the beach with accessory structures, pools, and gardens being built on the ocean side of the lot The prompted much .commotion.'9 Articles made reference to the house defying the biblical warning of building ~ sands. The soaety section of the Palm Beacb Daily Nemr questioned whether the Moffetts had "taken leave o 66 T-•--.- 7 -~IORSFSHOE PIANTATTON, GEORGE F. BAKER RPSIDENCE LEON CouNrr, Noxi~a oF'rALI.aHASSEE, )HY.oxsA The 1,200-acre plantation of Mr. and Mrs. George F. Baker is located halfway between Tallahassee, Florida Thomasville, Georgia. Mr. Baker had formed a banking empire in New York City (which eventually became Citit and purchased the acreage as a winter home. Unfortunately, the original plantation house had burned >p the gr and Mrs. Baker, wishing to rebuild in the same location, contacted Uolk to design a new house. The location of the residence is one hundred feet above a lake called Baker Lake. I respected this as an axi for their new home; and to the north on a similar axis, I opened along vista through the natural pine forest The house being named "Horseshoe Plantation," my plan followed the shape of a horseshoe. The character of the exterior is the style of Irish Regency, a style not well known trot having 6ne, simple and chaste detail. Mrs. Baker wished the house to be indicative of an old plantation, not provided Witt central heating. Towards this, I provided fireplaces in all the rooms, including the bathrooms. This developer into twenty-four fireplaces and chimneys, resulting in a very interesting exterior. In keeping with the 70 }t~sIDEtacFS of Tt~ 1930s ' ~ G~.ES S. Days RFSmEtvcE SotJrx LnrcE Tnan., Parns BEAQi, ~.onma his elegant two-story classical home was constructed for Mr. and Mrs. Charles S. Davis in 1937 on a magnificent of property extending. from Coconut Row m the lakefront on Pendleton Avenue. Mr. Davis was the president of erg-Warner Corporation. This rnmmission was the first of many from the Davis family. Volk rernrded: I designed for them atwo-story residence in the style of the Adam period. The gardens developed to e west are the most extensive gardens in Palm Beach. Mr. Davis was a perfiectionist and wished every room be carefully designed in detail to reflect the elegance of an English manor house. The result was very fine nnices, fireplaces, afree-standing stairway, beautiful marble and parquet wood floors. The view to the lake was gained from every room. The extensive grounds to the west, a distance of about ght hundred feet, allowed me to design various gardens with reflecting pools and some parterre planting. At e terminus of this long vista I constructed a large green house on axis, flanked by two glass conservatories. A ant Ceiba tree, having a spread of 150 feet with a dramatic trunk and root system, dominates the area; end the , 75 Joy L. troLx. ' ~: G. K. MORGAN RESIDENCE Sovrx ~ACLE1t DRIVE, WEST PALM BEncx, i' WRIDp In 1937 Volk rnnstructrd an imposing two-story, British Colonial Revival style residence for Mr. and Mrs. ~ .Morgan. It was die first time that t7olk had designed a residence in the city of West palm Beach since the compl of his five speculative houses in the Northwood area in the late 1920s. The site was athree-acre parcel overloc Lake Worth on Churchill Road and South Flagler Drive. 78 RESIDEt~tCES of 7I-~ 1930s 85 Jor~r L. VoLx was built in 1938,.:iif:~he same .community. Volk designed another Bermuda style home in Gulfstream, the s _ _,:. . year, for Norris J. Clarke $1,:2918 North Ocean Boulevard. This residence was constructed using brick, an uncom medium for Florida. Yet another unusual design combined French West Indies style with other Caribbean influe to create a stunning residence for Leonard S. Mudge in Manalapan at 3265 North Ocean Boulevard. In Delray Be on the Intrarnastal Waterway at 311 Palm Trail, a small British Colonial Revival style house with Georgian Re influences was built for William Kraus. Mr. Kraus asked Volk soon after to design the Tap Room on Atlantic Ave: 88 crurance arrue, vonala McLoutb retidence, Delray Beacb RFSIDFI•TCFS of T'f~ 1930s 89 • jaFaae,_lem+arn S. Muagr mrdennc, Manalapan . ~aFaac, a.eonara o. muage ruraena, Mano(apgn L. YOLK rj~pe of structure they wanted. Not only would he be called upon for a design, but his clients also would place trust and faith in his hands that he would create just what they wanted and needed. Adept at making almost ~~. a reality, Volk never failed to make a lasting unpression on his clients and .the special ~tecture he created. Seryiet Uliny .. st' .~ ~s\,• . ~.~ i /.:' ~~. ~'~ L ~•;~ • ~, `Yip,} . ~, ~r~. Bali Hai rite plan, Iarmrnn Trbben 108 ____. . t • RESIDENCES of T13E 1950s operty. A miniature garden graces the motorcourt. e, the rooms are spacious with high ceilings. Volk was requested to provide a setting for the modern Kroehler :with a living room and dining room open to each other creating a grand area for entertaining. With the floor k's rambling arrangement of rooms provides unobstructed views of the pool and cabana, terraced gardens, and ~rth. The rnuple later asked Volk to complete the Palm Beach home with additional service areas, gardens, trainment spaces in 1959. X56, Volk was asked to design a second home for the Kroehlers in their hometown of Hinsdale, Illinois, of Chicago. Here, Volk'and the ICroehlers chose a modern interpretation of the Neoclassical Revival style. se is entirely on one floor with service areas and garages set within the slope of a hill and hidden by the front 'the house. The exterior is stucco with decorative quoining and heavy cornices. Tile covers the hipped roof. yway has awelcoming-arm staircase and sidelights and gives access to a small entrance hall and foyer. The elf includes a lovely pool centered between the living room, master suite, and dining room. All of these rooms ected by a large loggia that serves as the main enoertainment space. •; .% , 123 urdence, Patin Beacb vy lintels.. From South Ocean Boulevard, tall white piers mark the entrance to the driveway at the north end Jor~ L. VoLx CasuaRnvn, Nicxoias nu Pour RFSmErrcE Nox'rx OcEnty BOU~vnitn, PALM BFACH, Ftoiunn In Yogue, writer Valentine Lawford described the Nicholas du Pont residence as alight-hearted pavilio: aptly illustrated the trend between the past and present fashions of Palm Beach living." On the northern end Beach, Volk designed for Mr. and Mrs. du Pont an airy, practical house that rnuld accommodate the American outdoor way of life. ' .The house is.on the ocean, open to breeze and.sun and sky, frill of light and reflected light, virtually sha less, with wide walls of glass sliding away into pockets. Fishing,boats and schools of porpoise pass almost a hailing distance of the living room. The property has an unusual high ridge along the beach, with a very al slope to the street. Due td this rnntour, I developed the exterior entrance courtyard, elevated above the s and a series of steps and terrace leading m the front entrance. The exterior is a design and character that I developed for this special house, having beige colored walls, • trim and shutters, and a white roof. The main entrance doorway is one of complete louvers finished in gar leaf green lacquer. The louvers form a design. An elliptical transom graces the full width of the louvered way. Grillwork of metal in a ribbon design enhances the elliptical form, also providing light to the inner enu The windows deserve particular note. The windows are in pairs, glazed with solid sheets of plate glass. slide into pockets, thereby a dear opening is possible with none swinging in or out The enclosure c openings is possible by motorized louvered shutters, the push button control is on the inside of the rooms. 138 e~~w ~ ~~ DELRAY BEACH o ~ o 70~i Tl.1N. 1st AVI:~3iJE • D~LFlAY 6EACH, FLOliIDA 33.444 • 561/243-7000 All-AmericaCity ' ' September 6, 2002 0 1993 2001 Ms. Rebecca Henderson Elk, Bankier, & Chnstu 4800 N. Federal Highway Sanctuary Centre, Suite 200E Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Re: Accessory Structure, 610 N. Ocean Boulevard Ms. Henderson: The Historic Preservation Board reviewed the project referenced above during its meeting on September 4, 2002. Upon fiuthey consideration, the Board denied the - applicant's request for a Certificate of Appropriateness fox the extant accessory structure. If you and/or your client would like to discuss relocation of the structure or to propose construction of a new structure at a different location, please do not,. hesitafe to contact me at (561) 243-7284 or via a-mail at wshay~a delrayplannin~.or>?. Sincerely, f U Wendy Shay Historic Preservation Planner Cc: Community Improvement 2002-164-COA-HPB Prin:eo on Aec9clec' Paper SECTION 2.4.7 (D) (3) (b) (b) 1liifhen Not Associated With Site Plan Review: A request for relief shall be considered on its own merit pursuant to administrative processing requirements. (4) Conditions: Conditions may be applied only as they relate to insuring that the situation under which the relief is sought does not, or will not, change. (5) ~indin4s: Prior to granting administrative relief, the administrative official shall find: (a) That the relief sought is consistent with the specific authorization provided for in these regulations; (b) That the intent of the affected regulation is preserved; and, (c) That the action will not be detrimental to the public health, .safety, or welfare. (E) ea s: An appeal is a request for a review and reversal of any action which if not appealed would be final. (1) Sule: An appeal may be made of an administrative interpretation; or, of any finding made by an~approving body; or, of a decision made by an approving body. The appeal of an administrator shall be appealed to the Board for which such power 'has been granted; an appeal of an approving boards action shall be made to the City Commission. All such actions are appealable unless an appeal is expressly prohibited. An appeal may be made by an aggrieved party. (2) Required Information: An appeal by an aggrieved party must be made in writing, directed to the -City Clerk, and must provide the following information including the appropriate processing fee: [Amd. Ord. 50-97 11/18!97] ' ~ Identification of the action which is being appealed; Identification of who took the action and when it was made; The basis of the appeal; The relief being sought; and, * ~ The name of the appellant and the appellant's interest in the matter. (3) Procedure: The following procedures shall be adhered to in the processing of any appeal: (a) Receipt of the letter of appeal from the aggrieved party, by the City Clerk, within ten (10) working days of the action being appealed. When 2481 SECTION 2.4.7 (E) (3) (a) the appeal is by the City Commission, it shall be made no later than ~ that meeting of the Commission at which the Board's action is reported to it. (b) Consideration of the appeal at the next regular meeting of the body who is to act upon it provided that the appeal has been received in time for proper placement on that agenda. (c) Consideration of the appeal at which time the appeal may be granted, denied, or set for further consideration. (4) Conditions: (a) The granting of an .appeal of an interpretation ~or application of ` regulations is not subject to conditions. (b) The granting of an appeal pertaining to a decision on a development application , may be conditioned in the same manner as the development application may have been conditioned. (5) Findi~a_s: {a) The ~ granting ~of an appeal of an interpretation or .application of (, regulations requires only a finding that the administrative officer was ~incorrect~in the application of the regulation. (b) The granting of an appeal pertaining to a decision on a development application must consider those items upon which a finding is required and the appellate body must. make findings on those items. (6) Stav of Previous Action: ~ . (a) Gee :. Whenever. an appeal is filed, the action being appealed shall be stayed i.e. the development application or appealed part thereof shall be considered neither approved or denied. (b) !Proceeding at Risk:. If an appeal is filed for an action that is precedent for another action {e.g. site plan approval preceding plat approval), the applicant may .proceed with the submittal and. processing of further development applications but only at his or her own. risk. (F) Special Provisions: The following special provisions for obtaining relief from _ compliance with a portion of the Land Development Regulations have been created to handle a singular and unique circumstance and shall be applied accordingly. ~ 2482 sr.r r°,:,r^~Sr`3,._ kK'~i~' . - _ ter'+'~-~ .. _ Via. P' - - ay...: ~-.~ ~~: _. -. =::~;~ - - a •~ ~ .. ~ t} '" w t i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-~_r . ` t ., 11Ra ~~ ~: ~~~~ ~~..~ ;~ _ } . ~~ `.~~' ~. ;~~ .v- ,~ ~ 7: i , i y t ~~n r ~~~ "C t . _: aLt '~ ,~~ ~p~~(~~. l ~4~~ ~~ ~ ~y+.~~_:. :. 'i:t~,ili~~ .. :-.w~~wrw~-Y,.....,. .. y,... .. ~ . . r ..i.y.~ ! ... 7 ,__ ; _N ~r ..~,.. ~ 57~ <~~ .. ly~.~W.ior_ . L fYsy' '4 ~}y s+ L~~ir_~tF..3 . . "~TrJ' '.fir' ... _ .~..~~rY .. ~ _.. ~.Q-'!. ~^~ .. _ ..._.~. ~.uwtZt ~' NOV. 19.2002 1 ~ 50PM CITY OF DELRAY BEACH fYO.1~i4 r. ci:3 ,~:~.~:..w:. MEMOR~N~'C1'~ . ~.n/'' . TO: ' C~~~M SS N,~ FROM: PAUL DORLIN !RECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZpNING DATE: - . NOVEMBER 18, 2002 RE: The following altemati•res are currently fisted in the City Commiss'rvn documentation regarding this proposal: A. Approve the request for an extant accessory structure at 61 o N. Ocean Blvd, the Fontaine Fox House, based upon positive findings with respect to ~,pR Section 4.5,1(E)(4), (E)(7); ~ (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Objective A- 10, Policy A-10.,1.,. of _the Housing .Element, and Objective . G1 of the Coastal Management Element"in tfie City's Comprehensive Plan, and -fihe Secretary of the Interior s Standards for rehabilitation. 6. Approve the request for an extant accessory structure at 610 N. Ocean Blvd, the Fontaine Fox Mouse, based upon positive frndings with respect to 1.DR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), 8~ (E)(8}(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Objective A- 10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective G1 of the Coastal Managerr~e>,t Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation subject to the accessory structure being relocated from the east elevation of the front facade of the extant historic dwelling to either the north side of the property, or to the west elevation, behind the historic dweping (Staffs recommendation to HPf3). C. Uphold the Historic Pn:servation Board's action and deny the request for an extant s~~ accessory structure at 610 N. Ocean Blvd, the Fontaine Fox House, based. on a failure to find positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4,5.1(E}{4), (E)(7), & (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Objecfive A-10, Policy A-10.1 of the Housing Element, and Objective G1 of the Coastal Management Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Secretary of the lnterivr's Standards with the basis stated (HPB's recommendation). NOV. 19.2002 1~51PM CITY OF DELRAY BEACH h0.084 r.:~~:~ Other Alte~ atives: While not listed. in the City Commission documentation, the following additional alternatives are provided for the Commission's consideration: !f Alternative B or C is selected, the Commission can require the removal or relocation to occur after an extended period of time i.e. within 12 months. . • Another alternative to relocating the accessory structure to the north or west side of the historic structure is to allow relocation to the southeast or northeast corners of the historic structure. If this alternative is selected, it would be appropriate for the . item to be n:considered by the Historic Preservation Board and that the relocation could be required over an extended period of i.e. within 12 months. • The applicant has also suggested an alternative to execute a eed restricfi requiring the vegetation tSeagrape trees and Fig tree) along the ea of the property to remain at the current height, which provides a buffer from the east view. In the event the owner voluntarily or knowingly removes or reduces the height of the vegefiatiprl lower than the current height of the buffer that the owner be required to remove the tree house within a reasonable time frame. if the vegetation is removed or reduced in height other than voluntarily and knowingly by the ownet•, that the owner be permitted th replace and/or regrow the vegetation in a reasonable period of time- If the tree house is destroyed by an act of Gvd or hazard, but not by the intentional or voluntary act of others, ' ou not be re ui . e e supports- -would also. be painted to match the tie . ... . ._..... -'`~oimmenf: - If the applicant's alternative is considered it is recommen a ,.~ , . ,.., ~_ ..; rnodi~r~d to state.: = ... If the vegetation were removed, trimmed, damaged by stomp etc. to an extent that would make the tree house and/or mai17 stNCtuie visible from the properfy line, the tree house/accessory structure would be removed. Cyrrently the structure is riot very visible from the property line and this would address the impact of the placement of this structure should it become visible to the general public. It is noted that at a previous MPB meeting if was stated that the Seagrape trees were protected. As the Seagrape trees are located west of the Coastal Construction Une, trimming of them is not subject to permitting by the Florida Department of Bnvirvnmerrtal Protection, Cdr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA DELRAY BEACH CITY HALL I APPEAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD DECISION BEFORE: DAVID SCHMIDT, MAYOR JEFF PERLMAN, VICE~MAYOR ALBERTA McCARTHY JOHN LEVINSON SU5AN A. RUBY, ASS:~STANT CITY ATTORNEY ROBERT BARCINSKI, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER BARBARA CARLTO, CITY CLERK ~. r ~ L Tuesday, November 19, 2002 Delray Beach City Hall Delray Beach, Florida 6:00 p.m. - 8:15 p.m. MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The hearing before the Delray Beach City Council was taken before me, Susan Fannon, Certified Shorthand Reporter, Notary Public, State of Florida at Large, at the Delray Beach City Hall, Delray Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, November 19, 2002. P ROC E E D I N G S THE MAYOR: Appeal of Historic Preservation Board Decision, 9A. ,Let me read the rules for this item and the following item which is also a quasi judicial hearing. "This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with previously adopted quasi judicial rules which allow~~for a maximum time limit of 20 minutes for presentation;s by city staff, the applicant and'any other person that~has obtained party status. After each presentation., cross-examination may occur which shall be limited to two minutes. Only city staff, the applicant or a person who has obtained party status may cross-examine a witness. After the presentations of the case, the public will be allowed to speak up to three minutes unless the person represents an organization or group of people who are present and agree not to speak, that person shall be allowed a maximum time limit of six minutes. After each member of the public speaks, the staff, the applicant or person who has obtained party status may cross-examine MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 through the chair for a period not to exceed two minutes. At the conclusion of the public comments, city staff, the applicant and/or person who has obtained party status may have a two-minute rebuttal period." In the interest of time, I know the commissioners have all gotten a lot of e-mails. If you sent ~us an a-mail and you are here to speak, please don't just repeat what is in your a-mail. 5o first we'll ask anyone who wishes to speak tonight, including the applicant or anyone from the public, to stand and be sworn by the clerk, please. (Witnesses were sworn.) THE MAYOR: Okay. Next we'll have disclosure of ex-parte communicatiori"by the city commission. I have.'... given all my written documentations to the clerk. I did have a phone conversation with Jean Beer and I also met with Mr. McKinney at the treehouse to take a look at it. We'll go around this way. Mr. Perlman. MR. PERLMAN: I have not had an opportunity to print my e-mails, but I have listed the people that e-mail'd me, their names, and I will get that over to you. Phone calls, I spoke to Scott Christenson, Carolyn Zimmerman,-Jean Beer, Tom Lynch. I had 'conversations with Jay Aldrige, Al Wood, Bob Costa. I have spoken to Paul Dorling and Jeff Costello from the city MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 staff. I had phone calls from Frank McKinney, to Frank McKinney, Rebecca Henderson, and that is it. THE MAYOR: Okay. MR. LEVINSON: I printed out my e-mails. I will deliver it to the clerk and also a list of the phone conversations. THE MAYOR: Ms. McCarthy? MS. McCARTHY: I have forwarded all my e-mails to the city attorney and in telephone conversations I received a phone calls from Scott Christenson and I did speak with him. I spoke to Paul Dorling, Frank McKinney and Rebecca -- Henderson I believe is her last name THE MAYOR: Thank you. Paul? NIR. ~ DORLING: First -- MS. RUBY: May I say one thing before we get going. At your places is an a-mail that I received today outlining a proposal by Mr. McKinney. And I just want to call your attention to it. And also we do have four people here. And the charter requires a vote of three for any action to be taken, so I just want to remind you of that. THE MAYOR: Okay. Paul? MR. DORLING: Briefly I have a few cites here and I will go through them quickly to orientate you with the property. This is an aerial view. There are four MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 5 1 buildings total on the site, the larger one being the ~ 2 historic structure, three out buildings, and the yellow is 3 the accessory structure which is in question tonight. This 4 is a floor plan of that structure, 10 by 12. As you can 5 see, it has bathroom facilities, a shower and a central 6 room. Here are just a couple of views of it, planned views 7 of it; and there's a picture there from different angles. g The property is located -- First I would like 9 to enter into the record the project file 2002-164. 10 THE MAYOR: Does that have copies of these 11 pictures in it, Paul? 12 MR. DORLING: I will enter these into the 13 record as well. They are already in there. 14 ~ The property is located approximately 900 15 feet south of George Bush Boulevard between Andrews and 16 North Ocean Boulevard. It contains an 1184 square foot Cape 17 Cod cottage which was constructed in 1932 of Florida 18 Cypress. It was inspired by Trolley, made famous in 19 Fontaine Fox's Toonerville Trolley cartoon strip; and the 20 Cape Cod style cottage is located on lot 2 within several 21 lots. There are three, there's the main building and three 22 out buildings. And then there is a free-standing structure 23 that has been labeled a treehouse. 24 Sometime in the year 2000 the applicant 25 constructed this free-standing. structure in front of the MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 6 historic Fontaine Fox house. There were no permits or prior ~, 1 2 HPB approvals, and the structure is more elaborate and 3 detailed than a typical treehouse. And it actually is a 4 free-standing structure and, therefore, is considered an out 5 building and requires board approval. 6 The free-standing structure is currently 7 located east of the historic main building along the front 8 facade. It is supported by four large wood pines, and 9 contains a wood staircase that leads from the ground level 10 to the main entrance. It measures 10 by 12 and is 11 approximately 28 feet high. The structure is built of frame 12 construction with a wood shingle exterior intended to match 13 the historic home and displays a gable roof with wood 14 shakes,, a balcony, electricity, plumbinq~and is connected to 15 the main dwelling via a rope bridge. 16 After construction of the free-standing 17 structure, the applicant sought a Certificate of 18 Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Board. The 19 board considered the application on June 5, 2002 at which 20 time it was tabled with a request to provide some as-built 21 plans. The item returned before the HPB for consideration 22 at their September 4, 2002 meeting. 23 There was significant discussion about how 24 this related to the required findings of the LDR Section 25 451, E-4, E-7 and E-8. MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E-4 talks or requires the building to be in accordance with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. It also -- E-7 requires the construction of ,new buildings to meet the compatibility standards of any non-contributing structure, and further that they shall be generally compatible with form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color and location of the historic building structures of sights adjoining them. E-8 calls for all improvements to building structures and a pertinence within a designated historic district to be visually compatible with the existing structures. While this."certainly may be visually compatible with respect to design and material, the board found that it was not with respect to scale, massing or location. The board also found that it did not meet the criteria of the Secretary of Interior standards nor was it consistent with comprehensive planned policies, objective A-10 of the housing element which calls for conservation and rehabilitation of the historically significant housing, nor was it consistent with Policy A-10-1 of the housing element which requires it to be consistent with Section 451, which I talked about, E-4, E-7 and E-8 of which it is not. Also they found it to be inconsistent with MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 objective C-1, the coastal zone management element, which calls for the protection of the coastal resources as (provided for in the historic preservation ordinance. One of the items that was brought up during the review at the Historic Preservation Board by the applicant's attorney was that John Volk often provides significant structures in front of his other historic homes. I'd like to enter into the record a memo that ~we received from a senior architectural historian for Janus Research. I will read just a brief part of that. "In the summer of '95 I had the opportunity to study the photographs, plans and written information regarding numerous John Volk buildings. I also conducted field visits to~a large number of~homes and commercial buildings designed in Palm Beach and West Palm to visually inspect the interiors of these buildings. During the course of my research and after reviewing of my thesis, which was on John Volk, the architect, a study of his work in Palm Beach," she found or "I did not come across a Volk designed residential building where an auxiliary building was placed in front of the primary facade of the main building. Volk did design accessory buildings, but in all the. residential examples I looked at these accessory buildings were located in the rear of the property behind the main house." So I would like to enter that memo, again MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 `~.14 -~ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from Amy Grover Steelman, a senior architect for historical -- historian for Janus Research into the record along with her resume'. At this time I'd like to introduce our historic preservation planner just to go over the board's discussion briefly with respect to the inability of ,this structure to meet the Secretary of Interior standards and then briefly summarize what the Historic Preservation Board's final motion was. I would like to introduce Wendy Shea. MS. SHEA: Hello, again my name is Wendy Shea for the record. I am the historic preservation planner. The~Historic Preservation Board upon its review of September 4th, 2002 had come to the findings that there was no positive findings to be made regarding the retention of the historic, the accessory structure in front of the historic dwelling. Based on the Secretary of Interior standings I would like to enter into the record Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation and illustrating guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings, this was established by the United States Department of the Interior for rehabilitating historic structures and its guidelines for state as well as local government's use for MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rehabilitating historic structures. Within these guidelines, one of the Secretary of the Interior standards states .that the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. Removal of historic materials or alterations of features that characterize a property will be avoided. In addition to that guidelines further stipulate that non-significant buildings, additions or site features should be removed which detract from the historic character of the site and the introduction of new construction onto the building site which is visually incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, materials, color and texture or which destroys historical relationships on the site should be avoided. In addition to that in my professional opinion there are some other relevant guidelines that are in this book and they state the following: that it is recommended that locating the attached exterior addition -- this pertains typically to addition structures but, again, I feel it is relevant to accessory structures -- locating the, attached exterior addition at the rear or on an inconspicuous side of a historic building and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building is recommended . Further, attaching a new building, anew MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 11 1 addition to the character defining features of a historic 2 building are obscured, damaged or destroyed are not 3 recommended as well as designing a new addition so that its 4 size and scale in relation to the historic buildings are out 5 of proportion, sustentation and historic character of the 6 building. ~ And, again, those are both non-recommended, 8 not recommended from the Secretary of Interior standards and 9 from the U.S. Department of the Interior. 10 The board itself could not support findings 11 based on LDR Section 4.5.1,E-4, E-7 and E-8; and in a 12 synopsis of their findings found that there was a 13 correlation with the relationship to the fabric, texture 14 color, roof shape, solid structure and massing which are all 15 described in the LDRs. However, there could not be positive 16 findings made in regards to scale, height, orientation and 17 location. And because of this, the board cannot support the 18 current location of the accessory structure. Thank you. 19 MS. RUBY: Wendy, are you putting that in the 20 record? 21. MS. SHEA: I am. 22 THE MAYOR: Paul? 23 MR. DORLING: Again; just in summary,. the 24 board~at their meeting; at their meeting of September 4th 25 did deny the COA for this project based upon the lack or MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 12 1 failure to find positive findings with respect to LDR 2 Section 451, E-4, E-7, E-8 objectives and policies of the 3 comprehensive plan and the Secretary of the Interior 4 standards for rehabilitation structures. 5 THE MAYOR: .Does the applicant have any 6 cross-examination? ~ MS. HENDERSON: No, Mr. Mayor. If you could 8 clarify for us the amount of time we have for our 9 presentation? 10 THE MAYOR: Yes, 20 minutes. 11 MS. HENDERSON: Good evening, commissioners. 12 For the record, Rebecca Henderson, 4800 North Federal 13 Highway on behalf of the applicant, Frank McKinney. 14 -~ - ~~I~. think we~ pretty' well. are briefed on 15 everything: I know that you have had the record to review 16 and you certainly have had the pictures and site plan to 17 review, but I'm going to have Frank speak briefly when I get 18 through here or as part of the public, whichever is the 19 commission's pleasure. 20 We heard a little tonight about the 21 Secretary of the Interior standards. And we certainly agree 22 that the Secretary of the Interior standards govern,. and we 23 believe that this project does meet the Secretary of the. 24 Interior standards. And I will show you later it is a 25 treehouse -- while certainly it is an extraordinary MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC.. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 treehouse -- it is a treehouse. And it is located in what is, quote, unquote, should have been the front yard but is in practicality no longer the front yard. One of the things the Secretary of the Interior standards recognize is that properties change over time. In fact, they recognize that properties change. And they require that those changes become part of the texture of the new project. And it becomes part of the context of the entire property. And tnat•s alrecLly ouL ~~ V11C Secretary of Interior standards that have already been entered into the record for you. Additionally it requires that new additions should not destroy historic characteristics on the property. In this case we have a treehouse, which is located near the historic property, but is not attached to it and in no way destroys it. And that's one of the characteristics and one of the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior standards is that new additions or adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would not be unimpaired. It is one of the hallmarks to always take a. look at new construction to see whether or not if removed it would damage the historic property. This would not be MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 destroyed or damaged if at some point this treehouse no longer existed in this tree. We recognize this went before the Historic Preservation Board twice. And one of the things we thought most critical was actually the staff's own memorandum and their own staff report that they put into the record. And in that most significantly the staff found that the building was actually architecturally, the design was in keeping with the Cape Cod style cottage. Same frame construction, clapboard siding, wood shingle clad, gable roof, modest detailing and that it was also differentiated thereby meeting some the Secretary of the Interior standings as well as your own zoning code requirements. -- - There are two main concerns -w-ith the location -- and I quote out of that memo -- "less than desirable," but certainly not completely unacceptable. Further, the existing vegetation could be altered. One of the things that we proposed is that the vegetation not be altered. So in reviewing the conclusion of the staff's memo in which they're recommending that it be relocated because it's less than desirable and because the vegetation could come down, we've believe we met their concerns. At the end of my presentation we'll go through the rest of those concerns because we also attempted to. meet MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 15 1 some of the concerns of the board. 2 You have already seen the site plans so we'll 3 bypass the site plans. You can tell that the structure is 4 in the front of the home that faces AlA. You've seen some 5 of the sea grapes and how they have now grown to where it 6 disguises part of that, and I will show .you that in just a 7 moment. But one of the things that we did present to the 8 board -- and that should be in your record and I will 9 present a full set for the board but I do have some for the 10 public to view. -- is what we were discussing as part of one 11 of the hallmark features of the John Volk home which is the 12 center feature in the front of this structure. 13 If I can pass that to you. We won't go 14 through them in too much detail, but just to gibe you an 15 idea exactly what we were speaking about. I don't know if 16 there is another microphone. You'll notice quickly that we 17 would have to look to the. side of the building since the 18 vegetation is on the right from the center foliage, which 19 actually the foliage covers up the front of the structure. 20 Once again, this. is also a side view because 21 you cannot get a front view of this house with all of the 22 vegetation in the center island. I might add that these are 23 out of the Volk Homes that was recently published and the 24 historic of that is James Abram research here in Delray. 25 You will note the large vegetation in the front of this home MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as well as in the center that also blocks the front view of this home. You will note what is called the motor court, which is a hallmark of all of his designs. There is a motor court in the front of this home. You will note that this one has a fountain when active also blocks the front of this home. This is a sampling of a large book of the John Volk Homes. What Mr. McKinney has done in this case is taken the tree that actually blocks the view of the front of the home and has placed a treehouse in that home -- a treehouse in that tree -- that does not block anymore than it has already been blocked. I'm going to pass for, the commission's view several recent photos taken of the surrounding properties.: And I will hold them up for the public as I pass them to the clerk to pass around. This is a view across AlA. Again, you cannot see the treehouse from AlA. This is the view from the beach. This is the view from the north neighbor looking south towards the property. This is the view from the west neighbor looking east; and, lastly, the view from the south neighbor looking north, of course there is no view. The treehouse itself cannot be seen from any surrounding property. It is completely contained within the McKinney residence. There's also been a couple.of comments MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 17 1 made about whether or not it is truly a treehouse. While we 2 would agree with staff that certainly it does have 3 air-conditioning and it does have plumbing, we're not going 4 to deny it is quite an extraordinary treehouse, I would like 5 to show you two photographs where .you can notice that the 6 trees actually.do grow through the treehouse. You will 7 notice the branch coming through the structure. So this 8 structure has become one and part of this tree. It, 9 therefore, could not be relocated to any other location on 10 the property. 11 I know that you have had a lot of a-mails and 12 you've had a lot of communications. I would like to put 13 this in the record in case anyone missed this a-mail, and it -1~' was from John Tally. who is the neighboring property, owner,.__ 15 In fact we have the neighbor's support in favor, of this- 16 treehouse. And one of the messages that I will just share 17 with the public and share with the commission is his comment 18 that "Although in the past I appeared before the city 19 commission opposed to changes to Mr. McKinney's property 20 based on the historical designation of this property, to 21 make Mr. McKinney tear down this treehouse would be an act 22 of bad government," and he is in favor. "Thank you for 23 taking the time.to consider it," and he urges the city 24 commission to allow Mr. McKinney to keep the treehouse as 25 is. MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 18 1 And I would just enter that into the record. 2 And we do believe it is important that the one owner that is 3 directly or could be directly impacted by this treehouse 4 voices no objection.' 5 We did recognize: the concerns of the Historic 6 Preservation Board as we listened to some of their comments 7 regarding what would happen in the future if the foliage 8 came down if no one could see it. I would just point out to 9 you that you all got a memo we are willing to make quite a 10 few conditions; that if any property owner ever took down 11 any of those sea grapes and the figs, voluntarily of course, 12 that they would be permitted a reasonable amount -- That if 13 they took it down voluntarily, that they be permitted a 14 reasonable amount of time to take down the treehouse; but 15 certainly if it became visible, that it would come down. As 16 well the property owner would need to leave all of the sea 17 grapes as well as all of the figs. But if something 18 happened so that there was a hurricane or a storm, that they 19 would be required to replace it. And if they did not 20 replace it, of course remove the treehouse. 21 We believe that gives you a great deal of 22 conditions on there so you can be assured that the treehouse 23 would not be visible from any of the other properties. 24 We've offered a couple, one was also to paint 25 the supports on it so that it would resemble the tree MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, ,INC. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 itself. While it seems like a minor issue, it would probably somewhat resolve the concerns that appear when you come into the driveway as well as if it were ever destroyed by' a hurricane or if it were destroyed by hazard, perhaps the property owner, it could be rebuilt. But if it were destroyed by the intentional act of another that -- I've got that reversed. If it were destroyed-by a hazard, if it were destroyed by a hurricane, it would not be rebuilt. But if it were destroyed by the intentional act of others, of course it could. That way if some storm does come along and it is no longer there, then it would not be rebuilt. We believe we've met a lot of the concerns. The Secretary of the Interior standards are very broad. They are, obvi-ously,-as you can see tonight, they can be interpreted in many, many ways; and that is one of the problems in trying to apply them. In applying them though, this is a private residence. When you pull in this private residence -- and I know each of you have had the pleasure of being able to at least drive in and see that property as I think many of the public has -- you will note that you drive in, and the first thing you see is the side of the house. Yau don't drive into the front of the structure. Clearly the side is the most important location on that property. When you drive in, you don't see the treehouse. To relocate it or even consider relocating MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it where staff has recommended would make it the most visible structure on that property. As you pulled in to the right, you would see this treehouse. We believe this more appropriately meets the Secretary of the Interior standards. Because of that, we would ask for your approval. As a side note, we know that there have been issues and comments made regarding the building permit. We believe that is a separate issue that can be handled by the building department. We have applied for a building permit. We will have to meet all of the Building Code requirements. It is not an unusual matter for a building permit to come in after the fact. I believe it has happened over 50 times for each of the past two years. We would ask the building department to fairly review this project under the current Building Code, which we would have to meet. That would be a side issue that we ask you 'not get distracted from the fact that we believe we have met the Certificate of Appropriate standards in your regulations. And then we would reserve some rebuttal, and Frank will go last. And we would open it to the public. I know there's quite a few people here in support of the treehouse. We will, assist the commission if we can help those. groups perhaps pick one person to represent them. And, Mr. Mayor, if you would like our MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . .. :-- i 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 assistance with that, just let us know. THE MAYOR: Okay. We've got about seven minutes left. You want to save that or did Mr. McKinney want to speak at this time? MS. HEDiDERSON: We'll save that. THE MAYOR: Okay. .All right. Okay. Mr. Dorling, do you have any cross-examination for Ms. Henderson? MR. DORLING: No. THE MAYOR: All right. Then .we will open it up to the public. As Ms. Henderson said, the issue before us tonight is the Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Board. That is the issue that's being appealed, not the issue of building permits. So I would ask: the public in making your comments to stick to the one issue, which is the historic issue, and not the issue of the building permits. I know we have a number of people that want to speak so in the interest of time I'm going to ask you to kind of line up by the microphone so we can keep things moving along. So whoever wants to speak first, your time is limited to three minutes If you want to speak, line up at the mike and get started. MR. WARNER: Kevin Warner, private citizen,. MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 22. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2_ 2~ 2_° 248 Venetian Drive. Just a couple of observations for your consideration. Alot of the language I heard tonight from staff about historic preservation sensitivities, concepts with the Secretary of the Interior and so on, I heard that at the last issue that I attended when a decision was being challenged that had come out of historical preservation by a property owner. And the commission at the time chose to side with the applicant and go against the entire historic district within which that property resided. So always in search of consistency as I am, I'm hoping there is going to be a little bit of latitude to look at the overall picture, which to me is what I saw when I went down to the sidewalk opposite the house to see what this was 1-ike. And I couldn't find it. i_thought I was at the wrong property. And at the last second I noticed three or four feet of what turned out to be the top of the, the peak of the roof and some of the shingles. So it's there and, yes, it's visible. Does this detract from the overall importance of this property as a historic asset? I think absolutely not. 'In light of a previous decision that was made on another historic asset in town that was expanded. three or four times in a renovation process during which the historic asset was brought down to bear brick and concrete blocks. So, again, I'm just searching for. MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 23 1 consistency. Mr. McKinney made some major errors with the 2 building department. That's not part of this issue tonight. 3 And he should be dealt with severely in that regard. But I 4 presume you've all looked at the property in question. And 5 I take to heart some of the questions presented by 6 Ms. Henderson. And I've been on the property myself more 7 than once. g You know, the front, the side of the house, 9 the back of the house, I'm not sure where it is. But I do 10 know when I go down there and look at that, it's all the it peace. And I do not feel the slightest intrusion of the, 12 treehouse in terms of being able to appreciate the historic 13 aspects of this structure. It's a beautiful property. 14 On the~other~hand, adhering to the strict 15 interpretation of the Historic Preservation Code, it's clear 16 what you're supposed to do. In your wisdom you're supposed 17 to read between the lines when there are mitigating 18 circumstances. So I don't have to express my view on what 19 you ought to do, but I just want to try to point out my 20 perspective having looked at this. 21 THE MAYOR: Thank you. 22 MS. QUEN: Ruth Ann Quen. I didn't even know 23 that Fontaine Fox's house was in Delray until I read about. 24 the treehouse. And I think we've gotten so much publicity 25 out of it and ali that we really should have it there MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 24 1 because people might come to see the treehouse and 2 Fontaine's house, Fontaine Fox's house. So that is what my 3 feelings are. 4 (Applause.) 5 MS. JAMESON: Mary Lou Jameson, I'm 6 chairperson of the Historic Preservation Board. We based 7 our rulings on our guidelines; and, therefore, I ask you to 8 uphold our city's historic preservation guidelines. Thank 9 you. 10 MR. BULGER: My name is Clemence Bulger. I'm 11 an old friend of McKinney. And what I wanted to say about 12 this guideline, first of all, guidelines guide, they don't 13 rule. That is what I think .about guidelines. 14 -• Second, this place is not a public place. 15 You don't see it from the road or from the street. You 16 don't see it from nowhere. Nobody goes there to look at his 17 house. If you look at his house, you can still do so. 18 Don't look at the treehouse. The treehouse is not changing 19 the historic aspect of that house. I really think being a 20 private property and being a private place of McKinney and 21 his family, I don't think guidelines or we should rule away 22 his treehouse there, which is not really attached to the 23 house, and it's not changing the public's view about Delray. 24 Thank you. 25 M5. BEER: Jean Beer, 2145 Southwest 26th MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Terrace. I would just like to urge you to go along with the Historical Preservation Board decision. I don't believe there is anything in the guidelines that says it's all right not to be compatible and consistent as long as you can't see it. There seems to be a lot of talk about, well, it's all right because you can't see it. The question is, is it or is it not compatible and consistent and how will this effect other decisions of historic property. MS. ZIMMERMAN: Carolyn Zimmerman, 212 Southwest Second Avenue. I don't know. If you, are a contractor, as far as I can remember being a contractor, you're supposed to know that you're supposed to have permits and get permission to do things. You're not just supposed to hide them and not do things right. I had a porch put up, I had five inspections. Are we setting a precedent .that residents can do anything they want to ,because a contractor can? I think we should think about what is right and what is really right for Delray. MS. FINST: Alice Finst, 70 Place Tavant. When this property was originally approved as a historic preservation activity for the city of Delray Beach, .I was on the preservation board that made the approval. Members included Clemmer May, Hugh Packier, David Martin and Spencer Pompey. Never did we consider that this property would be hidden from public view. And in board meetings that I have. MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, LNC. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attended over the last 20, 25 years no one ever said you can build something but we really don't like it so put a lot of stuff in front of it so we can't see it. That was never the plan at any board meeting. Policy has always been in Delray for the best thing you can and don't hide it. And this I think is what has happened here. We're relying on foliage and should Hurricane Andrew revisit us, the foliage may not be there. And what has happened now is going to detract from the historic building that we approved as part of the preservation program. I think you really need to look at this and what was said and honor your board's decision. I think you need to honor the board's decision of almost 20 years ago. ~: We looked at it then. Things haven't changed except for the' structure which is blocking it; and we need to go back and look at the way it was and make sure that it stays the way it was approved. Thank you. MR. BENNETT: John Bennett, President Progressive Residents of Delray speaking on behalf of the organization by authorization of the board of directors. We urge you to support the recommendation of your expert planner and the unanimous decision of your specialized board. Frequently it has come around that the. opinions of ordinary citizens don't matter much in quasi MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 judicial proceedings because they don't constitute substantial evidence; but if you go back to the actual court case, it was essentially that a bunch of neighbors ,came in and the court said unsworn opinions by lay. persons unsupported by substantiated facts don't accomplish the job. So in that light I am going to give you a couple of facts. One, cameras distort the reality. Depends on the location, the camera angle and everything else. I was up on the grassy area east of AlA yesterday morning with my dog -- as I often am -- and low and behold the accessory structure is readily visible as is a small portion of the original historic structure. 'How much more of that structure would be visible if the accessory structure wasn't there? I don't know.. "-~ Two; during consideration of the requests for increased number of building lots on the rest of this property, they variously represented both before the board and here that the Fontaine Fox house or the house was not designed by Volk, was not proven to be by him, no evidence this house was by him. This position was maintained in their position; but before and after that time,. there caused to be circulated advertisement describing 610 the current structure as, quote, "designed by John Volk," unquote, and the adjacent house as, quote, "an authentic John Volk designed home." At the hearing before the Historic Board MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 suddenly they embraced Volk and attempted to establish that Volk would have designed just the structure if he had been asked. You saw a bunch of pictures here tonight of Volk accents. They were all of vegetation and no accessory structures. Why do I tell you this? This demonstrates that the agents tend to say whatever seems to be tactically advantageous. It just means you should weigh the representations with that in mind. There is another example. The Historic Board was told that this treehouse was very carefully picked out from the cartoon to match a clubhouse in the cartoon. The agent also claims that this was just something that started small and grew out of proportion and out of hand. Well, if you picked a design, then how did something grow out of hand? It's not like it was a platform and then a roof, oh, a roof, now we've got walls,. how about air conditioning and so forth. Let's see. Fact five, the applicant says he couldn't do anything to the house without the say so of the Historic Preservation Board. Why didn't he come in then? I believe that was the interpretation, and so it didn't go to the Historic Board ahead of time. Now I would remind you that LDR Section 1.4.4. A. provides failure to comply with any LDR requirement MELANiE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 29 1 is punishable by a fine of up to $500 and/or imprisonment 2 for sixty days. It also provides that each day the 3 violation continues it is a separate offense. So quite 4 apart from any building permits, the failure to have a COA 5 over more than a year could add up. 6 Now, we're not suggesting that Mr. McKinney 7 be prosecuted, but it suggests that it is quite reasonable 8 in this context to apply the authorized sanction requiring 9 the authorization of the state board when it doesn't meet 10 historic standard. 11 Knowing how much you value communications, 12 urging people to contact you to be accurate, I would like to 13 address an a-mail circulated to the friends of the applicant °~ 14 and his family. One statement was it was not visible from. 15 the public domain. This I covered already. 16 Another was this enforcement effort is silly 17 and it's some kind of personal vendetta. I can't speak to 18 ~ anybody else but for my organization and myself personally, 19 personally it is not a vendetta personally. I have had a 20 friendly relationship with the applicant for several years 21 because I am able to separate a likable fellow from some of. 22 his less likable acts. Organizationally we bear no 23 vendetta, but we hold fast the principle, namely the rule of 24 law. 25 This is a very important public interest, MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 30 1 There are regulations and procedures to be followed. The 2 applicant failed to follow those procedures. And in so 3 doing he took a risk that he would get caught and sanctions 4 would be applied. His way after the fact application has 5 been treated with great courtesy and treated as if it was 6 before the fact. And even so, his proposal has been found 7 inappropriate by your expert staff and your specialized 8 board. That is a determination you should uphold. If you 9 don't, why should anyone apply for a Certificate of 10 Appropriateness? 11 (Applause.) 12 For the record, here are certain portions of 13 the pleading and the advertisement in question. 14 THE MAYOR: Anyone else from the public wish ; 15 to speak? 16 MR. FRANCIOSAt Good evening. Jerry 17 Franciosa, 8939 East Street, Delray Beach. I won't go into 18 structure and permits or anything else. I just think people 19 pretty well covered that. I think we all would agree it is 20 a treehouse. It's in a tree, and it is a house. The tree 21 actually grows through it, so I won't get into the primary 22 thing of the treehouse as opposed to an outstructure, 23 accessory building or whatever. But I will read from an 24 article from Dwell Magazine dated August 2002. Treehouses 25 have become very popular. And since we're in the year 2002, MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I remember a treehouse when I was a kid you had a couple of planks on a tree and you climbed up and you had a couple of planks upstairs, and that was your treehouse. But today we get into treehouses with air conditioning and plumbing and what have you. This article is by Deborah Bishop and it's titled "Outbuildings." I will just read a couple of paragraphs to you to just keep in mind. The craving for a temporary private retreat starts soon after leaving the womb. It might begin with camping beneath the stairs or sealing off a swatch of musty attic before progressing to playhouses and forts and on up to treehouses. As we get older, the world becomes an even more awesome place. The wanting a contained escape only grows stronger.- Thee i~s`something about-being a little bit outside of the social order, yet within shouting distance of hot water, cooked meals, a warm bed. It's not so much a question of the exhausted cliche' thinking outside of the box, but rather the act of thinking inside of an entirely different box, one hope would be from one's colleagues, family members and clutter." It continues with the treehouse. It: ends with "There is a freedom in designing an outbuilding," says treehouse architect extraordinare Jeff Ecklemarki. "It's not permanent with a capital P. You can be more expressive." MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And that I think is what we have here. Whether it blocks the front of a historic building, I don't know. I have seen the treehouse. I have been there a couple of times. Someone mentioned it here, I don't, know where the front of that building is either. You already have given permission to build other structures on that historical property so, you know, you will have to weigh this, but thank you. MR. HELM: My name is Monty Helm. I live at 1221 Harbor Drive. Can you hear me? I tell you what, I'm, very upset and disturbed at what I'm hearing tonight. This piece of property is a historically designated site. And what we're talking about here is disturbing because it is the beginning of more to come as far as not taking advantage of the fact that we have a few pieces of property still left in Delray that are worth saving. Joyce and Rod Wilson who owned the home were friends of mine before Mr. McKinney bought the property. And he knew full well when he bought the house ft was a historically designated piece of ground, not just the house, but the ground as well. Now we're talking about adding or we have added a treehouse to the property, which shouldn't have been done No. 1. And, No. 2, he's also trying to get seven more lots added to the number of lots that were agreed to when the property was taken into a historical designation MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 _ ~ ~ 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some ten years ago. So we're going from taking this house and adding a treehouse to it and taking the property that is there that was supposed to have one other lot on it and that was all, and he's asking for four or five lots on it. Now where does this end? And what kind of message are you sending out to other people who may either own historically designated property or who may buy it or those people who may even own it and want to give it to the city or someone, what is going to happen, and who are they going to trust? Can they trust the city? Is the city going to let them do whatever they want to do with it? That's not the idea. So I think we're making a mistake here if we allow people ~to build things on a historical property ,that shouldn't be there; and to in fact divide up the property and just build more houses on it, something like that. Appreciate your time. Thank you. THE MAYOR: Anyone else from the public? We'll conclude the public comments. You have reserved some time for rebuttal so we'll start with rebuttal from the staff. Do we have anything at all, Paul? MR. DORLING: I don't have anything. THE MAYOR: Okay. The applicant? MS. HENDERSON: Thank you. I would just like to address a couple of comments. We've been here before on MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this property and if we could recall the testimony that was given before the Historic Preservation Board to surmise and if staff would like to add it into the record, that would be fine. This property has been around since 1936. If you will recall, the site plan that Paul Dorling put up, there were three buildings that were historic on this structure. The remainder is all new. We heard testimony that one of the owners bumped out the dining room in order to accommodate her twelve dining room chairs. One property owner added the decking around the house because they wanted to be able to sit on the porch. The garage has been added. Historic properties do not suddenly stop in time. There is a recognition they are used for personal residences and those needs and wants may change so long as: the integrity of structure is not destroyed. These are the two guidelines -- And I appreciated the comment that they are guidelines and they are not rules., and .that leaves it up to you to try to interpret them. One of them is the Secretary of the Interior standards which acknowledged that, quote, unquote, most properties change over time and those changes requiring significance can be retained and preserved and that they need to be compatible and that if they could be moved and the historic structure not be harmed. The Secretary of Interior standards MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 35 1 recognizes that historic structures can be modified to 2 accommodate new property owners. We said once that this was 3 a quirky addition, and we believe that it is. It certainly 4 has brought a great deal of fame so-to-speak to the Fontaine 5 Fox house for those who didn't know it before. 5 These are your LDRs. They say that the new 7 construction needs to be compatible. Only one Florida case 8 in our law has really discussed the term compatibility and 9 that is the Life Concepts case, Capable of Living 10 Harmoniously. I don't believe there are any two structures 11 that can live more harmoniously than these two structures. 12 One of the ways we have made it harmonious 13 with the community is buffering, which is a concept that is 14 well accepted in yoar land development regulations. The 15 buffering is there. We didn't put it there. The buffering 16 was already there. We offered to leave that buffering. 17 I would just like to go over those conditions 18 that we had offered that we believe would meet some of the 19 Historic Preservation Board's concerns. 20 One was the deed restriction requiring the 21 vegetation to remain. If it were destroyed knowingly and 22 intentionally by the owner, that the treehouse would have to 23 be removed in a reasonable time. If it was destroyed 24 otherwise, that the property owner be allowed to replace it 25 or allow it to grow, whichever would be the. quickest in a MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 36 1 reasonable amount of time. If the treehouse itself was 2 destroyed by hazard or by hurricane, that it not be. 3 replaced; but if it was destroyed by the intentional actions 4 of others, that it be allowed to be re-built; and the 5 existing supports would be painted to match the tree trunk. 6 We believe that that would be compatible.. ~ Now I'm going to give Frank McKinney a few 8 moments just to give you a little bit of background about it 9 and express hfs heartfelt concerns with his treehouse. 10 MR. McKINNEY: Thank you, Rebecca. It's a 11 pleasure for me to represent my own thoughts. And thanks to 12 everybody who has come out in support of the treehouse; and 13 to those of you who are not supportive, I respect your - 14 opn-i~on.~ 15 I built what has always been a childhood 16 dream of mine and a playhouse for our daughter. We took 17 great pride in the manner in which we constructed the 120 18 square foot treehouse in keeping with our main house. Using 19 old Fontaine Fox cartoon books for design reference. I 20 believe Fontaine Fox would be extremely proud of our 21 rendition and depiction, certain elements of his Toonerville 2.2 Trolley that are now found in architectural elements of the 23 treehouse. 24 What we set out to create grew in scope. As 25 our creativity and imagination grew, so did the amenities r _~~ MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2? 24 2~ contained in the treehouse. In retrospect, it appears as though I had a hard time suppressing the little boy inside of me that kept asking for more. Though he should have known better adage is true. I owe an apologize for those of you who consider the McKinneys as your friends for putting you in an uncomfortable position. I apologize to you as commissioners and to certain people in the building department. While we are here on appeal for only those items found in the HPB recommendation, I hope that the submittal of our plans and permit application show our intent and that you will accept our apology. Prior to building large oceanfront homes, Nielsen and I were very involved in preservation. Bankers Row started because of our efforts in the early '90s. Many houses in the northwest and southwest section for West Settlers District weren't even there, renovated and restored. The Sandoway House Nature Center, we could have built four townhouses there. Instead we sold that to the county for a nature center. We moved quite a few houses rather than demolish them. Matter of fact a couple of our oceanfront projects in Delray were restorations. We have done the best we can to preserve the house at 622 North Ocean to the north. And as far as our own house is concerned, I think the only thing that we've ever changed MELANIE.GROUT REPORTING, INC. 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were light bulbs. The treehouse cannot be seen by the neighbors on the north, south, east or west or from the street in front of the house. If you go out to the beach and you stand on the top of a sand dune on your tippy toes, you might be able to see what Mr. Bennett saw. Our home is private. It's not a public museum. We did not remove a single limb from the strangling fig when building the treehouse. When looking to the east from the living room of the main house, you cannot even see the treehouse, you look right underneath it. The vegetation in place is significant and dense. The vegetation was designed this way by a local landscape architect. It was also a common design in the Volk home. We have lived in the house for five and a half years and have not cut the trees to the ground to date and we have no intention of doing so. There are many ordinances in the city's LDRs that contain reference to site screening with the use of landscaping. To relocate the treehouse is simply not possible. THE MAYOR: Wrap up, please. MR. McKINNEY: Sure. I believe you have the list of suggested compromises in front of you. We would hope that one or more of them is acceptable. And, you know, John, if I need to come up and sit on your lap like the MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 39 1 little girl, I would be glad to do that. 2 MR. LEVINSON: Not necessary. 3 MR. McKINNEY: And I thank you very much for 4 considering a very difficult issue. 5 (Applause.) 6 THE MAYOR: Before we start the discussion 7 with the commission, I did want to ask the applicant, you 8 have made some suggestion of voluntary conditions; and this 9 afternoon we got a memo from staff that is asking us to 10 consider an alternative regarding the vegetation. 11 Your recommendation is that if the vegetation 12 is removed or reduced in height other than voluntarily and 13 knowingly by the owner, that the owner be permitted to 14 replace and/or re=grow the vegetation in a reasonable period 15 of time. 16 Staff's recommendation is that if we are to 17 consider that condition that the language be changed to say 18 if the vegetation were removed, trimmed, damaged by storm, 19 et cetera to an extent that would make the treehouse and/or 20 main structure visible from the property line, the treehouse 21 accessory structure would be removed. 22 And I would like to ask the applicant if that 23 language is acceptable to you? 24 MS. HENDERSON: I just want to ask for a 25 clarification. We had requested that if it be damaged by MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 storm, the applicant be given an opportunity to allow it to grow or be replaced. And I think some of that is an acknowledgement. But certainly I think if it's completely gone, we're going to have the treehouse and the treehouse would also have to be removed. If you're talking about taking off a foot, two feet at which point does it become visible, we certainly would entertain that conversation with the commission because I believe we understand that if it's completely coming down by a hurricane -- which would probably be the only kind of storm that would take that down -- that would obviously trigger the condition that. the treehouse would also come down, if I understand you correctly, Mayor. _: THE MAYOR: I just read the language. I mean, maybe we need to get some input from staff as to what their intent was with the language to the extent it makes the treehouse remain visible from the property line: Because I acknowledge you lose a couple of feet off the top and now it is visible. MR. DORLING: Well, the concern was that you had, you could have a significant amount of time where that structure would be visible if you had some damage in vegetation and depending on the kind of environnnent, salt content, those sorts of things with ,sea grapes, they can grow slowly or quickly. But I can't talk to whether it be MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 41 1 one foot, two foot, three feet. 2 MS. HEATDERSON: I believe that our 3 recommendation was exactly addressing that concern. It was 4 that there be a reasonable amount of time that it had to be 5 where the structure was no longer visible. And that would 6 be up to the property owner. Six months or if they had to 7 go out and buy 30-foot sea grapes, that was their choice, 8 but it had to be buffered immediately either which way. So 9 I think staff and I were trying to address the same concern 10 on this one. 11 THE MAYOR: Okay. All right. Anyone. have 12 any questions for either the applicant or the staff? 13 MR. LEVINSON: No. ],4 MR. PERLMAN: No. 15 THE MAYOR: All right. 16 MR. PERLMAN: Maybe Wendy can help me with I 17 this one. In the back-up report it talks about the board ~ i 18 having a problem with the scale and the mass. We heard a 19 lot about the location. I was wondering if you could 20 address more specifically the scale and mass concerns. 21 MS. SHEA: Yes, basically the issue is the' 22 size of the structure and its relationship to the main 23 dwelling and the fact that this is an independent structure 24 that is 28 feet high in front of a-two-story structure. So 25 the issue is not only the fact of a typical treehouse, MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 42 1 perhaps as a platform, this is an independent structure that 2 basically has been put on a platform. And because of that 3 it is out of scale and the massing is definitely an issue 4 based on the location of the structure at the front of the 5 house along the front facade. 6 MR. PERLMAN: Were any of these concerns 7 maybe tied to our guidelines or codes? g ~ MS. SHEA: They all are. In the LDR 4.5.1, 9 E-8 one of the issues is height, another is scale. I 10 believe the other is massing; and they make some reference 11 to location as well in E-4, E-7 and E-8. And based on that, 12 the board actually did make their decision based on the LDR. 13 It wasn't just based on the fact that we tried to use the 14 guidelines in preservation. Those are in lower land 15 development regulations. 16 THE MAYOR: I guess I can start. This has 17 been a very difficult issue. The lawyer in me says rules 18 are rules and they shouldn't be broken. And I have tried to 19 separate that from issues which I think really don't come 20 into play in this, which is Mr. McKinney's past record or 21 things like Bankers Row. I tried not to muddy this. 22 I do think though now that I have had a 23 chance to glance through the Secretary's standards while the 24 presentations have been made, it gives me a better feel that 25 they are guidelines, they are aspirational, but they are not MELANIE GROUT REPORTING., INC. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rules. I do know that one rule or one guideline that was cited I think has been taken out of context because it deals with rehabilitation of existing structures, and I don't consider this to be a rehabilitation. And that's the bullet item that says non-significant buildings, additions or site features should be removed and not detract from the historic preservation of the site. I had an opportunity to view the structure.. '~,I'm a layman, but in looking at it to me it doesn't appear Ito be outscaled or massed with the house. And I find that the fabric, texture, color, roof shape, they've all worked to try to make this compatible with the historic structure. 5o I personally would support some sort of compromise along. the lines of what=has~been presented by the applicant. I did ask staff to research to see if we had ever had any structures demolished after they were built because of the failure to get a Certificate of Appropriateness or a building permit. And staff has only been able to find two instances of that going back, let me find my memo, approximately 13 years. Let me just read from the information they sent to me. I will enter this into the record. We could not find any instances where improvements were required to be removed. I contacted Jerry Sanzone, former chief building official. There was one instance in 1989 where we MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 required the owner to demolish a foundation in a single-family home and rebuild in the correct location on the lot. In this case the contractor was responsible for the error having put the building addition in the setback. The owner appealed the decision through the Board of Construction, the appeal was upheld. The second instance was in 1991 under our housing rehab. program we found an illegal addition not properly constructed to code. The only way to correct it was to demolish the illegal addition. And I know we have talked about precedents. And I think we would be setting precedents if we required the removal of the building given our record in the past. -- So I am not-going to support that tonight, but I will take comments from the commissioners, see how~the rest of you feel. Anyone else want to jump in? MR. LEVINSON: I've talked to a lot of people. I talked to John Kelly, who was quoted in an e-mail. And I'm not sure that on discussion the a-mail represented his full feelings on the entire issue, but I'm going to support HPB. I think that if you read the findings, which have been quoted in the a-mails and in many of the presentations, they only quote the first sentence of them regarding frame construction, clapboard, siding, gable roof MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and modest detailing. If you continue on in that conclusion where there are discussions it says, quote, "however the scale and size of the structure as well as its location in front of the house is out of character and obstructs a significant portion of the historic cottage." So I agree with them. I think it does. I also tried to, as Mr. McKinney asked me, to look at this as if he were anyone else here in town. So I have discounted all the previous historic renovations that may or may not have been done, but I do believe that it is incompatible. MR. PERLMAN: This has been extraordinarily difficult because I tried to back it down to look at this as logically as possible because for me this was -- There are a lot of emotions with this issue. I wasn't getting anywhere with that so I figured .let me just look at what .the facts are. So I saw it as three issues. The importance of our Rules, the integrity of our Historic Preservation Board and of something that kind of is intangible in Delray, which has been this commission's and prior commission's ability to make decisions that respect Delray's uniqueness as a community and our longstanding policy to try to strive for consensus and to find common ground where possible. And I don't have an answer because it seems like an either/or proposition.. So I have to wrestle with wanting to respect` MELANIE-GROUT REPORTING, INC. 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -14 ~. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Historic Preservation Board, and I would caution the commission that if this was a unanimous decision, it is rare that we reverse the board's decision. It is not unprecedented that we reverse it, but I think it is rare that we take a unanimous decision and throw it out. So I have a problem with that. I have a problem with rules not being followed. We're in this position, this .uncomfortable position, because of the imagination that Frank talked about, the creativity and everything didn't give us a chance to work through the process in a proper way. Had we looked at this with proper permitting and following of the process, I believe we could have had that. The way Delray works is "where we find a way to, we find-a .common ground, and we find:.. something that the preservation community can live with, the neighbors can live with and that also respects the private property rights and the wishes of an owner. So, I mean, there's been a lot thrown at us tonight and there was stuff that came at us this afternoon. I got a list of stuff from alternatives, from staff, I've got five things to consider from the applicant's attorney, and I am wondering if this is something that we ought to remand back to HPB to see if they can come up with a workable solution.- And if they can't, you know, I'm going to support the HPB. But I would like to see them take one MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 47 1 last whack at it and their precedent for us doing that where 2 we have told people hey, work it out with the neighborhood. 3 If you can't do it, we'll weigh in. But I think there is 4 enough new stuff to look at and maybe there is a way that i s 5 escaping me tonight to come up with something that would 6 respect the HPB as a commission. ~ But, again, we're here because the rules 8 weren't followed. So we're in this uncomfortable ,position 9 because we didn't have a chance at the beginning to work 10 through this. it THE MAYOR: Okay. 12 M5. McCARTHY: My perspective on this may be 13 very different than others. I would like to say that I 14 appreciate what the Historic Preservation Board's position 15 is supposed to be and the guidance they are supposed to give 16 us. I would like to state for the record that I believe 17 that the Volk House is just as important in the City of 18 Delray Beach as the old original Parrish House or another 19 historic home that I cited down on Swinton and Southwest 20 Tenth, which I haven't seen come forward on their agendas. 21 I am very disturbed that five homes at least in the West 22 Settlers area have been demolished, and the Historic 23 Preservation Board did not fight for those homes. as well. 24 And I am big on equality, that all people get treated the 25 same, all Historic homes get treated the same. And I MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 48 1 believe that is part of their charge as well. 2 ~ I am going to say, having seen this treehouse 3 as a lay person and a real estate person, that it does not 4 appear to be offensive to the structure that is already 5 designated historic. I would like to state that many times 6 in the city when things happen in peoples' neighborhoods, 7 that I have seen emotional situations over and over again. 8 This is not the first and I am certain it will not be the 9 last. I am going to speak in favor of this treehouse being 10 preserved within the tree with some type of compromise. 11 I do not believe that because you can see the 12 A-frame at the top from standing on the beach on a hill or 13 on your tippy toes that it distracts from the structure. 14 The-..sea grapes are a protected entity as-they are. And I do. .. .. 15 not see it the way that you are presenting it to me, that it 16 is taking away from the house. It is not an addition to the 17 house. It does not touch the house. And most of the words 18 I heard today were about the remodeling, rehabbing of a 19 historic structure. And that is not how I see this being 20 done. I see a treehouse in a tree. 21 So far as the question about the size ;being 22 out of perspective in comparison to the volume that the 23 house makes up, I have not heard any guidelines that say 24 what that volume is supposed to be, how much volume is a 25 distraction to the original house. No one has clearly MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stated that, and I do not see~it as a distraction when I am there or when I have been there. So I am going to speak in favor of keeping this treehouse in the tree located where it is at this time. THE MAYOR: Okay. Susan, from a procedural question based on Commissioner Perlman's comments, since this matter is being appealed to us, do we have the ability to send it back to the Historic Preservation Board at this point? MS. RUBY: I think we have a history of occasionally sending something back to HPB, and it comes to mind more than HPB to see if it could be worked on or conditions could be looked at. So I don't think we're prevented from doing that. You know, if you think .it would give you some word or you would like to hear some sort of direction, at least some of you would like to find a compromise, and see if they could work it out. If not, it would be back to you for a final decision. I think you can do that. In other words, yes is the answer to your question. MR. LEVINSON: One thing that concerned me when I read the material provided to us this afternoon regarding the proposed compromise, I found it to be much too vague in terms of what is considered visible and what is not visible, what is a period of time that is acceptable for it MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . -~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to re-grow. You know, there are a lot of vagueities there, and I would be afraid we or somebody else would be sitting back here some number of years from now with people saying well, you can see 14 and a half inches, and it is going to take two and a half years to grow back or some issue regarding replacement trees and whether they need to be fully in view. So I had a problem with the vagueities of this issue, allowing it to grow back if it's removed and what is visible and what is not visible. That did get pretty vague. I agree with you on that issue there. THE MAYOR: Okay. Well see if we can -- Is there support for the idea of sending it back to HPB to see if they can crack some kind of compromise? MR. LEVINSON: I guess my question is, you know, they had the opportunity to make these offers then, you know. This is not something that has not been discussed for some period of time; and I would only wonder why some of these offers of compromise by the applicant were not made that evening or at the subsequent -- I mean, there was a period of time they went back and got plans and plenty of time went by. They could have certainly made offers of compromise. They knew from the beginning meeting I think the comments that were pretty clear from HPB. I mean, I guess if that is the pleasure of the rest of you, I would support it, but I do have a concern that there certainly has MELANIE GROUT REPORTING,, INC. 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 been plenty of time for these kind of things to be brought forward. MR. PERLMAN: Another issue that goes to our policy is what impact does this have when, you know, what kind of precedent is there when things are done without a COA. And that is a question I would like HPB to look at in addition to whether anything here is acceptable to them. I think that is a very important policy issue. I am concerned about a message that, you know, with an apology, an admittedly beautiful structure and some fines, that all is well. I don't know if that is the message that we want to send. We might be dealing with this all the time. There is nothing to stop someone from doing this, coming back and saying I'm sorry; here's the triple fines,. you know, I would like HPB to take a look at that. issue as well. Because I don't want to be in this uncomfortable position again. MS. McCARTHY: For clarification, I thought I heard that they had gone to get a Certificate of Appropriateness when this started this ball rolling: in front of the Historic Preservation Board, is that correct? MR. LEVINSON: Yes.... MS. McCARTHY: So we would not be saying it is okay to go ahead and do these types of things without the proper Certificate of Appropriateness or without a building permit. MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PERLNlAN: When was that taken out? MR. LEVINSON: After it was built. MS. McCARTHY: Okay. MR. PERLMAN: That is the issue. If it was sought prior to it being built, those concerns could have been raised at the beginning of the process. And the way Delray works we would have worked something out because it wasn't we're stuck up here, you know, having to make everybody unhappy. M5. McCARTHY: Well, Commissioner Perlman, I understand exactly what you are saying and I thought we were here tonight to discuss whether this treehouse met these guidelines and needed to be moved or taken down. I thought -that the Certificate of Appropriateness is something that, is it something you're asking for them to add, modify in their own rules and regulations to make stronger so that if this happened again, that the decision would already be made. It says that if you do not have a Certificate of Appropriateness in a historically preserved home or structure that it is to come down, period, because that verbiage is not followed. MR. PERLMAN: I think the rule is you don't . proceed without one. That is the rule now, but I would like to know what staff's opinion is and HPB on if we go forward here and basically, whatever you want to call it, disrespect MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 53 1 that rule. What impact, if any, will that have on future 2 improvements to historic properties? It is a basic 3 question. It is a simple question. And I think it is a 4 question we need to know. And I would like them to look at 5 the menu of compromises and recommendations given tonight I 6 think out of a matter of respect for the board to see where 7 they are on that. That is all I am asking for, those two 8 things. g THE MAYOR: Is that a motion? 10 MR. PERLMAN: I will make that a motion. 11 THE MAYOR: Okay. Is there a second? 12 MS. McCARTHY: I will second Mr. Perlman's 13 motion. 14 ~ ~- THE MAYOR: Okay. Is there any, discussion 15 further? 16 MR. LEVINSON: For clarification, this is to 17 ask them two questions or to ask them to try to negotiate a 18 settlement on the particular COA; and separate and apart 19 from that what impact they think after the fact requests for 20 COAs have in the future? 21 MR. PERLMAN: Correct. 22 MS. McCARTHY: I would like to state for the 23 record as well; I seconded Commissioner Perlman's motion 24 because even though I do not agree with all the decisions 25 that the Historic Preservation Board has made in our city in MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 54 1 other areas, there are many things they have done that I 2 applaud them for. And I would like them to have the 3 opportunity to take the time to do this, to review .these 4 compromises, to turn around and if the verbiage needs to be- y changed on people moving forward without the Certificate of 6 Appropriateness, that we have that too in place; and that 7 they work with staff in order to make that happen, to write 8 the words of verbiage that we need because I do think that 9 we're at a stalemate as well. I am motivated to make this 10 happen. 11 MS. RUBY: Mr. Mayor, the point has been made ~~ 12 that apparently these conditions were made to the Historic 13 Preservation Board. 14 MS..HENDER5ON: We discussed those decisions 15 with the board as far as leaving the vegetation, making sure 16 the vegetation remained as a buffer, and what would create a 17 hazard in hurricane conditions. So they have been given 18 some opportunity to weigh in on it. This has been going on 19 a while. We would like some resolution. We certainly would 2 0 not like to have a negative vote. We would like to have 21 some resolution. 22 You addressed fate conditions; and, quite 23 frankly, we would leave those conditions and be more than. 24 happy to tighten those conditions as tight as the commission 25 would like to have them tightened. If you're .looking at no MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 55 1 2 3 '4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3' 24 25 visibility for two months and that's it, we would be more than happy to live with that time frame. However tight you would like the conditions, we would certainly be willing to engage in those discussions. THE MAYOR: In other words you are saying it would be a waste of time to send it back to the Historic Preservation Board? MS. HENDER5ON: Staff were pretty well settled. I think you heard tonight how they feel. We did have those conditions, and we would appreciate a full consideration by the commission this evening. I would encourage you not to make this a message. This is one person's application. Anybody who. builds anythng:without a Certificate of Appropriateness takes some chances. That is what happens. They end up with fines, penalties, they pay higher for it. There is a rule never do building without a permit. People do it. They get caught up in fines. We have to engage in that. So there is a strong message here. You're going to have to go through this. I don't think anybody else wants to go through what the McKinneys have been through over the treehouse in the last few months. THE MAYOR: Yes. MR. LEVINSON: Based on that, again, taking. the two pieces of the motion that is on the floor, one, for MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HPB to reconsider what is now the prepared language with regard to some compromise or some future compromise, it sounds like that has already been done or attempted. With regard to the second piece, which is what happens in the future when a COA is not obtained, I am not sure that is an HPB decision as much as a commission decision. And that is an ordinance decision. So, you know, based upon the comments, I am not sure now that sending it back to HPB will assist in the first of those two. It may give us some direction, which we can ask them for anyway. THE MAYOR: I would agree. MR. PERLNlAN: If you don't do this, I mean, the ordinance spells out t-he rules; and if you violate them., what is the penalty? MS. RUBY: You could be fined before the Code Enforcement, fined and levied on your property until you got a COA, and that can accumulate. MR. LEVINSON: I guess one of the things we talked about, Ms. Henderson talked about was if you do it without the particular permits, whether it is a building permit, COA or whatever, she used the words you take some risk. I would classify that in the classic caveat. You take the risk that you may face the death penalty.. You may face whatever you did has to be undone. And whether. that is MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 somebody who adds onto a property without getting a building permit -- forgetting a COA -- I think that is the risk we want people to understand that you need to get permits. So I am not sure that you would always apply the death penalty if there were some issues, but in this case they appeared to have worked with HPB and can't come.up with an acceptable compromise. THE MAYOR: Do you want to proceed with your motion or withdraw it? MR. PERLMAN: Well, it seems like the applicant is not interested in that. My caveat is if I withdraw that, I can't support it. And by my math it is two/two and fails. So I will withdraw it and I-will make a motion that we deny the appeal. THE MAYOR: Is there a second? MR. LEVINSON: Second. THE MAYOR: Any discussion on the motion? Call the roll, please. THE CLERK: Mr. Perlman? MR. PERLMAN: Yes. THE CLERK: Mr. Levinson? MR. LEVINSON: Yes. THE CLERK: Ms. McCarthy?- MS. McCARTHY: No. THE CLERK: Mayor Schmidt? MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ithe tie vote. THE MAYOR: No. So the appeal fails based on (Thereupon, at 8:30 p.m. the proceedings concluded.) MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. 1 59 f 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 5 I, Susan Fannon, Certified Shorthand Reporter, do 6 hereby certify that the foregoing record is a true and 7 accurate Computer-Aided Transcription of my stenographic 8 notes taken before Delray City Council, Delray Beach, 9 Florida on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 to the best. of my 10 skill, knowledge and ability. 11 12' 13 14 15 Su an Fannon, C5R 16 17 - 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. .~ ORDINANCE N0.62-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CHARTER REVISIONS BY REPEALING ARTICLE III, "LEGISLATIVE", AND ENACTING A NEW ARTICLE III, "LEGISLATIVE", TO THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BY REPEALING ARTICLE VIII, "MUNICIPAL COURTS", AND AMENDING REMAINING ARTICLES I, II, IV, V, VI, AND VII TO CLARIFY, DELETE OBSOLETE REFERENCES, CORRECT GRAMMATICAL ERRORS, REORGANIZE AND TO ENHANCE THE CHARTER'S "READABILITY' ; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM; ,PROVIDING FOR A REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission established a Charter Review Committee to review the City's Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Commission sought input from the Community as to potential Charter revisions; and _ WHEREAS, the City Commission, after a review of many proposals, has decided to put the Charter amendments set forth in this Ordinance to a vote of the electorate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA: Section 1. That.the Revised Charter of the City of Delray Beach, which consists of a Table of Contents, Articles 1 through VII inclusive, Pages 1 through 28, inclusive, which is attached hereto and is hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein, Chapter 25786, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1949 and amendments thereto is further amended by adopting the Revised Charter. Tlie Revised Charter repeals Article III, "Legislative", and enacts a new Article III, "Legislative", and repeals Article VIII, "Municipal Courts", and amends remaining Articles I, II, IV, V, VI, VII which shall read as set forth in Attachment "A" hereto. The Revised Charter shall be submitted to a referendum of the electors of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, March 12, 2002. Attachment "A" Section Z. That this ordinance shall not be effective unless and until the same is approved by a majority of the electors of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, voting at the election for the purpose of approving or disapproving this ordinance. If a majority of the electors voting upon such question approve the amendment, then the amendment shall be in full force and effect. If a majority of the electors voting on the question disapprove, then the amendment shall be null and void. The question to be submitted to the electors at such election shall be substantially as follows: Question One CHARTER REVISION CLARIFYING, REORGANIZING, AND ENHANCING THE "READABILITY" OF THE CHARTER. AN AMENDMENT REVISING THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH CHARTER BY REORGANIZING, CORRECTING GRAMMATICAL ERRORS, CLARIFYING CERTAIN PROVISIONS, DELETING OBSOLETE TERMS, AND MAKING THE CHARTER EASIER TO READ; AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE N0.62-01. SHALL THEABOVE-DESCRIBED CHARTER AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED? YES (for approval) NO (against approval) Section 3. That upon approval of this ordinance by the majority of electors voting at the election, all ordinances or parts of ordinances or Charter provisions or parts of Charter provisions in conflict herewith shall be and the same are hereby repealed as of the effective date of this ordinance. Section That if any clause, section or other part of this ordinance shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective upon passage on second and final reading and in accordance with Section 2. 2 ORD N0.62-01 P SSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the .day of , 20Q2. ATTEST: ~ ~ , ~ --_~~, ~G~ MAYOR City Clerk First Reading ' ~~~ a~ Second Reading • ~ ~O 3 ORD NO.62-01 Charter Revision 12/10/O1 /~..r., e. r, •rtrl!'? T ~ mT R" (?T' ('{~*,~'T'1G'1~?TQ Section ARTICLE I -CREATION AND POWERS 1.01 Establishment and Continuation of the City of Delray Beach 1.02 Powers 1.03 Construction ARTICLE II -CORPORATE LIIVIITS 2.01 Corporate Limits 2.02 Boundaries and Territory of Greater Delray Beach Area 2.03 Voluntary Annexation of Territory by Ordinance ARTICLE III -LEGISLATIVE eo"virr6~@~~ aj'6 ~ ' ~1_s~ x- f 3.n' ~____a.._ 0 3 O1 t Form of Government _ ,.., . ,,~`_.._~~.__.__. r.,,.,...,e;r:n„ Fi;oih;hty_ Election. and Terms 3.04 ~ Assiunvtion of Office• Qrganizational Meetin '~ OS Oath of Office 3 06 Mavor Vice Mavor and Deputy Vice-Mavor 3 07 Forfeiture of Office 3 OS Vacancies• Filling, of Vacancies 3.09 ~ Term Limits 3 10 Compensation and Expenses 3.11 Prohibitions 3.12 Procedure 3 13 Commission Investigations ..... ,,,______ __a 7...,:,,~ t2n~rri anA Rnard of Adiu Garter Revision 12/10/01 AYt'l iCt.E Iv - A~IviIIvTST'I~Ti~E-E~:C1u't i~v~; 4.01 City Manager 4.02 Appointment; Removal; Compensation 4.03 Acting City Manager 4.04 Powers and Duties of the City Manager 4.05 Budget Procedure 4.06 Supervision of Departments 4.07 Legal Counsel 4.08 Legal Counsel Appointment, Removal and Compensation 4.09 Duties of Legal Counsel DELRAY BEACH -CHARTER TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE V -ELECTIONS 5.01 Electors 5.02 Types of Elections 5.03 Form of Ballots 5.04 Elections Generally 5.05 Returns of Elections 5.06 .Judge of Election and Qualification 5.07 Special Elections 5.08 Straw Vote Elections 5.09 Recall - - ARTICLE VI -INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM 6.01 Initiative 6.02 Referendum 6.03 'Commencement of Proceedings 6.04 0 of Petitions 6.05. Procedure for Filing 6.06 Referendum Petitions; Suspension of Effect of Ordinance 6.07 Action on Petitions 6.08 Result of Election ARTICLE VII -TRANSITION SCHEDULE 7.01 Continuation of Former Charter Provisions 7.02 Ordinances Preserved 7.03 Rights of Officers and Employees 7.04 Pending Matters 2 Charter Revision 12/10/01 7.05 Obligation of Contracts Preserved 7.06 Deletion of Obsolete Schedule Items DELRAY BEACH CHARTER Editor's Note: This Charter has been amended to reflect and change the name designation of the legislative body from City Council to City Commission and of City Council Members to City Commissioners, pursuant to Ordinance No.56-88, passed. 6/28/88. ARTICLE I. CREATION AND.POWERS Section 1 01 ESTABLISHMENT AND CONTIN'UTATION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY EB ACH. The City of Delray Beach, established and organized by Chapter 25786, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1949, as amended, shall continue as a Florida municipal corporation. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76; Approved at Referendum 2/2%76) Section 1.02. POWERS The City of Delray Beach shall have all governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers to enable it to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76; Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) . Section 1.03. CONSTRUCTION. The powers of the City shall be construed liberally in favor of the City. , '~--~'`°`' " '''~"r - - ... ~....,...,........,-•~ a------- -- - --- -~ ..Special Acts of the Florida Legislature pertaining to the jurisdiction and exercise :of powers by this City shall be considered amendments to this Csharter and ; ,shall be incorporated as official amendments to the Ceharter. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76; Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) ARTICLE II. CORPORATE LI]VIITS Section 2.01. CORPORATE LIIVIITS. The boundaries and corporate limits of the City of Delray Bcach now existing are continued and may be amended from time to time as provided by law. The boundaries and coroorate limits shall be shown on a mao maintained in the Planning and Zoning Department,.. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76; Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) Charier Revision 12/10/01 Section 2.02. DnT"` ~ A D71=crav' c I~ '~ Q~ oD T-o= o=~= ~'~ DELRAY BEACH PI •AN1r'1NG ~- a: t f ~ t s v . The nlanni_n~, azea, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan shall be shown on a may maintained in the Plannine and Zonin 15 artment. Those onions of the Tannin area not now a art of the co orate b:,unda-ies may be included by annexation as provided by law. (Ord. No. 476, passed 2/23/76; Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) *Editor's Note: Ordinance No. 5486, passed on 9/9/86 and approved by the voters at a referendum election held 11/4/86, provides for the passage of the "Deh-ay Beach Enclave Act (Chapter 86- 427, Laws of Florida), "definitions of enclave and of the general boundaries of .the city, and annexation of said enclaves within the boundaries of the City as same existed on February 28, 1986. Section 2 03 VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION_OF TERRITORY BY ORDINANCE Q ...Q c o::m:=c ~e~ ec:::co:iai-z~s~-vi--Qiv s++++ , f f 9~~8~g-9r~'n@~tG'-rS~i@E3v~-H~it~ 1.,1' L, 1.......1 ....~:,,er ~ :~1.:.. st,e !'V~.. „CT~I~.,.. D.,...,1. J J . Voluntary annexation shall occur in accordance with state law. Any s~el3 annexing ordinance shall state that the boundaries of the City of Delray Beach aze redefined so as to include the tract or tracts of land so being annexed. *Editor's Note: See F.S. Section 171.044 Charter Revision 12!10/O1 ARTICLE III. LEGISLATIVE rirv~~~sr,- ~Dr ~s--vi ~~~ ~~k~vzDc ~ tam nrDTrr~~ .~~ ~,~ ~ vnn~ ~YTI~~'L`CCil11L-TnnL•L'iP'L`nL`1-,IAVAD .'~D R~~R'-TC f f f --- - - .. ~ •~ ~ ---~_ V7.. ld......~ ...i e ' v ~ ~ 'ati~~@~A~i-1 ~~1H- .. n ~ ~ ~i ~. ~ ~ .1. • 1.' 1 . 1.' vi :i"vriasr%~zir roirPao~ ~„a al, 1 1 ,, } Cte+T ' e Charter Revision 12/10/01 . , r S~ee•~s~-3•:93: A?'L'i`. ~~~ A ^rrnwt n1a nTi ~ z n-rr ~ ~r-rn~,c ~~~ .~ ~e.~om-aa....~e .e Qe.a-me e.ave~o a:.Qaeo nma~.a«o-m-me o~zosoab __ t.s ;asa ~,.,.t.~r.i.~ :a „r~,.e ..1,.,11_ a~ ......as a.,s:s „r.i.,,;.. zua -caavzsc.-czv~ -vi -azc.u ~ f ~~ i~}~,,,,.~ .,,,_ ~„_ ,, t-~ v~~'-stye .,, ....a.,, t'' •'~, s' a r`,,.,,,.....,..e..* „ra1.e TT..:a a G~~..se.. ..a •1,s c~.,~e ,.rirl..r:a., .,aa„r~t, lO ~ \ ~ '~ ! ~ r a c~ v v.r~+.+~ Yew ~~'~-~~7 ~ f s T sT. 1. a a ' t.:i'+,. t ft,e ~ ,T„~,.,._s, ~.1,,,. .ta ~t.s t7' ' 1,~ .. ~ - c ° ~ o ~~,,,e t., ~.., ~ ..... '~t.e vr'~as~'a x~a'oazisJ-vr'osvz rsaTo•s ~ va -arrvs cz~rc ~•- r r~ v :~z r c t. > > 1 /'1C/OZ A ~ i 4 ~ ~/1 /Q a C Z\ ~ ~ .. ~ .......,.s. ~,i ~e., .,... e _ rJ 6~ ~ • ~ , Cbartcr Revision 12/10/01 See~ie~-3:a5. ~-e€-~~s~e~er~e~e~ie~rL` ^1~a H ^ 1'.T,. r ~.., -9~~ - ~ ~~!$ i ~~ a $~ ~C~--- ~v ss 2F- 6 f $ rE-i-v }l; -v -~v ., //1«.i AT.. A ^l~ .. «.,. i 7 MZ /"T~ A....«.,:.~1_.,f _D .,t «^..'1,..... ~1 /'1 /^/~C. A «, /1...a AT.. 1 t O? .. ..^.7 f ~ s ~ sa ~ .. ~ « „~ ,.' ~~,,~~ :«,. a ,.r,.cr.,,~-YtEH$S}^, ^caz~r, aiTlr'v, «~ ..L..T1 r «F :. 1,: ^cx:,.^ :cam ,.L ..+,.,.^..s« ..a1,e« Fi..,.. .. a1,., ..1~,.^ ^r ~1,^ Ad.,,,.,« e..• „s__~4~s .,1,...^ ^r ., ~ f s Chartcr Rcvision 12/l0/O1 .., ~ ' _ _ - ~~ •1+ P` 1.. ...• ....i s1.~_ ..FI:.,e ..i I A ^r ' 11~f.,....~ ..1,..11 „t.,.,, l.e - ~tC~`_7' , ~ J JZ3ii33 fZ3J 7 nom! ~ /• a 1, 11 l.e c ~ .l.e a.,+:~e , r„a . ......:...... ~~~r r c.l,e >,,r.,..,._+...,,......r + ,.r~,.s > > r ~ f f a0'$Cti'lt~cF~ •1, .t 1.' • t al. 1+' .., a .;l,e 1 1.., .t,s r.,i.,.. ..~' •1,.~ ~ r. r' + • ~ !!1 .7 ~9~'f~'tC~$rJ@C~fZ77`f`tl~'~Fe~~'~"~t S'~Ct~~~S!"i~`L~L7iC; A.... /'1~.1 AT.. 1 A O'2~ ........~.i 1 /'f C 10'2 A .a ~~ w e e ++ f > > i Charter Revision 12/10/01 t,a ,.,,~:a ,,. ~.;,,a;~„_,,,,~e,.....a,...,~a i.....t,,, ..r~..:.,..:,.e ....e ,.r.t,..s„ i~\ n,.........:....:,.-.,.-.. ~n..a ter,. ^1 / 1 R ~ . r ~ ., • ~ , • , . - ~ ARTICLE III. LEGISLATIVE Section 3.01:..FOR•iVi-Ol" GOVERNMENT The Citv of`Delray Beach shall operate under the Ciri Commission-Ciri Manager form of govemmeni. All le 'slative powers of the Citv shall lie vested in the City Commission. • Section 3.02. CITY COMMISSION: COMPOSITION, ELIGIBILITY. ELECTION, AND TER117S ~'or a term of two (2) years in the manner provided in this Charter. elected in an even orodd-numbered year. (c) Length of Mayor's Term. The Mayor shall be elected for atwo-year term, whether by regular-election or election to fill a vacancy in the office of'Iyiavor. ld) Vacancies. In the event of vacancies, successors shall be ag~ointed or elected in the manner.,provided in this Charter. Charter Revision 12/10/01 S~cliaz-~ ~ G3 C~L14~ ;z';~:;~. i~e:G~'`~-; ~~ C.4t'~~ ~,~. h t::~• EI.~~~3i (a) Regulation of Qualifications The Qualifications time manner, and costs of gualifyine as a candidate for Mavor or Commissioner shall be re¢ulated by Chapter 34 of the Cone of Ordinances of the City. !b) Fling of Candidate Petitions All candidate petitions shall be filed with the Ciri .. _. .. . .., . .°------- ---' -- ~_...~ 41..,w ..nnt. nn the cPrnnrl (c) Names of Candidates The Citv Clerk shall deliver the names of all candidates and the offices for which then have filed to the Siroervisor of Elections no later than S:OO p•m• on the first Friday after the close of aualifvine. Section 3 04 ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE; ORGAIVIZATIONALMEETWG (a) Assumption of Office The successful candidates for Mayor and Commissioners shall assume office on the last Thursday in March followin¢ their election. The Commission shall hold an organizational meeting immediately thereafter and shall select from the Commissioners other than the Mayor a Vice-Mavor and a Denuri Vice-Mavor. These two officials shall serve in their respective capacities at the pleasure of the Commission until the organizational meeting of the followins year. fib) Assumption of Office for Appointees A t~erson aut,ointed to fill a vacancy or a --~~~ ':person selected at' a~ syecial election to fill a vacancy shall assume office at the first: regular : . ri~eetino of the Commission after being so appointed or elected.. Section 3.05. OATFI OF OFFICE Before assumins their respective offices the Mavor and Commissioners shall each take and subscribe the followin¢ oath: "I do solemnly sweaz (or affirm) that I will support. protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida and of the City of Delray Beach: that I am duly qualified to hold office under the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter and laws of the Ciri of Delray Beach, and that. I ~elv me God.)" 10 Charter Revision 12/10/01 Section 3.06;_ M.AYOR._~'TCETMAYYOR. AND DEPUTY VICE-MAYOR ia) Duties of the Mavor The Mavor shall preside at meetings of the Commission and represent the City in intergovernmental relationships The Mavor shall be reco~uzed as the head of the City government for all ceremonial pumoses service of process and by the Governor for purposes of military law T'he Mavor shall execute contracts deeds. intergovernmental A?reements and certifications and other documents on behalf of the City but shall have no administrative duties except as required to cane out the fore~oin~ responsibilities. fib) Duties of the Vice-Mavor In the absence or disability of the Mavor, the Vice- Mayor shall serve as Mavor possessing all the powers duties and prerogatives of-the Mavor. {c) Duties of the Deputy Vice-Mavor. -While the Vice-Mavor is serving as Mavor, or in the absence or disability of the Vice-Mavor or should the Vice-Mavor refuse to perform the duties imposed by law the DeQuty Vice~Mavor shall have all the powers. dunes. and prerogatives of the Vice-Mavor. (d) No Veto Power The Mavor Vice-Mavor and Deauty Vice-Mavor shall each have a voice and a vote in the proceedings of the Commission, but no veto power. Section 3.07. FORFEITURE OF OFFICE {a) Forfeiture of Office Anv Commissioner including the Mavor, shall forfeit the office if that Commissioner or Mavor: {1) Ceases to possess the required qualifications; or _. .. _,. ~2} Shall be convicted of a felony: or ~ ~ ` ~~- ~- ~'~ - -` ~~ f 3) Violates any standard of conduct or code of ethics established by law for public officials as determined by a maiority vote of the remaining Commissioners and Mavor, or ~4} Fails to attend four {4) consecutive regular Commission meetings, unless excused- for good cause by a majority vote of the remaining Commissioners and Mavor. (b) 'Declaration of Vacancies It shall be the duty of the remainine Commissioners to declare the office vacant as a result of forfeiture and to fill the vacancy as providedm this Charter. Section 3.08 VACANCIES;FILLIIVG OF VACANCIES The office of a Commissioner including the Mayor shall become 'vacant upon the term shall be filled according to the following procedure. {a) Vacancy in Office of Commissioner In the event of a vacancy other than in the office of the Mavor the remaining Commissioners including the Mayor shall appoint, by a maiority vote a Qualified Qerson to fill the vacancy. 11 Charter Revision 12/10/01 (1) - If fre tern; of office in which the vacancv occurs expires on the last Thursday in March following`the next regular City election, the person so appointed shall only serve until that date. (2) If the vacancv occurs sixty (601 or more davs preceding. the date of the next regular City election, and if the term of office in which the vacancv occurs does not .expire on the last Thursday in March following that election, the person so appointed shall serve until the last Thursday in March and the remainder of the unexpired term shall be filled at that election. . (3) If the vacancv occurs less than sixty (60) davs preceding the date of the next regular City election, and if the term of office in which the vacancv occurs does not expire on the last Thursday in March following that election. the person so appointed shall serve for the entire remainder of the unexpired term. ~4) If a maiority of the remaining Commissioners, including the Mayor, are unable to agree, after two (21 re~lar meetings, upon the appointment of an individual to fill a vacancv: The Convnission shall call a special election to fill the vacancv. The special election shall be held within sixty (60) calendar davs of the second regular meeting. fb) Vacancy in the Office of Mayor. (11 If a vacancv occurs in the office of Mayor, an election shall be held as provided in this Charter. ~2) If there is a -vacancv-in the office of Mayor, the Vice-Manor shall (3) The succession to the office of Mayor by the Vice-Mayor shall create a vacancv in the Commission which shall be filled in the manner set forth in this Charter, and the Commissioner so serving in the Vice-Mayor's old seat shall serve for the entire unexpired portion of the orieinal Mayor's term of office. (4) If the Vice-Mayor is unable or unwilling to succeed to the office of Mayor, then the Deputy Vice-Mayor shall succeed to the office of Mayor. If the Depu Vice- Mavor i~s unable or unwilling to succeed to the office of Mayor, the Commission shall then select the election of the Mayor. 12 her Commission term. if any,part of such term remains unexpired. Charter Revision 12!10/O1 TF' ~ ~...,~•,, nr.. •,•~ ;r }},c n?~re of j'1~,-^~;!~,~ ~7!"F..11~?~~r~T !F,o (`f'*t'?m!SCt,'1?` ~};~~1 ~r1T'lr^'!ire-~nri ? ~.7 1 .li ~'., ~li J~:a Gla u Ill":wv iJ'LyJ '.: y° r l~.C-;t ~i :.'y C., ~i. fc) Extraordinary Vacancies In the event that all members of the Commission are removed by death disability resignation or forfeiture of office, the Governor shall appoint a Commission. including a Mavor with full Commission powers. The interim Commission shall then call a special election as provided under this Charter, to fill the appointed offices. The ~ecial election shall be held not more than ninety (90) days after appointment of the interim Commissioners. Section 3.09. TERM LIIVIITS (a) Term ' Limits Individual Commissioners. including .the Mavor, shall be prohibited from holding office for more than six (6) consecutive years. The term "holding office" shall be defined as serving as Commissioner or Mavor. The term "consecutive years" shall not include any time served as a result of an appointment. ~,b) One Year Hiatus A person who has served the maximum amount of consecutive time allowed by this Charter as a Commissioner or Mavor shall not assume office again until the last Thursday in March of the year following the expiration of his or her term of office. Section 3.10 SALARIES AND EXPENSES dal Salaries The Commission mad determine the annual salaries of the Mavor and (b) Actual Expenses. Commissioners, including the Mavor, shall receive their actual and necessary exgenses incuired in the performance of their duties, as provided by law. Section 3.11. PROHIBITIONS fa) Appointment or Removal of Employees. Neither the Commission, nor any of The Commission or any of its members may. however, express views and fully and freely discuss with the Ciri Manager anything pertaining to the appointment and removal of these officers and employees. (b) Direction to Employees. Except for the puroose of inquiries and investigations, the Commission and its members shall deal with Ciri officers and employees who are'subiect to the direction and supervision of the Ciri Manager, solely through the City Manager. Neither the Commission nor its members shall give orders to any of those officers or employees, either publicly or privately The foregoing does not proiubit individual members of the Commission 13 at least six (6) months. Charter Revision 12/10/01 from closelX_scrutinizine,, by_auesti~ns and c~ersonal._~bserv~tions,_a_*w_asoect, of City_QOVernment V~' ~~ 1 r c.. L L c: `. `~~~: J2 _'.l. .u..- .. ~. :. :J: ~'I1 ~L •J.i... yJ. Recommendations for improvement in City government operations shall, however, be made to and throu the Citv Manager so that he or she may coordinate the efforts of all City departments. (c) FioldinQ City Office or Employment. No former member of the Commission shall within the Cites hold any compensated ~pointive City office or employment with the Ciri until one (1) veaz after the expiration of the tens for which he or she was elected or appointed. Section 3.12. PROCEDURE fa) Meetings The Commission shall meet reaulazly at least twice a month at times and places that the Commission prescribes ~bv rule or otherwise. Special meetines may be held on the call of the Mavoi or of a majority of the Commission. Whenever practicable, there shall be at least twelve (12) hours note^e of a special meetine to individual members of the Commission and to the public. Lb) Rules The Commission shall determine its own rules and order ofbusiness. (c) Voting Votin¢ on ordinances resolutions and motions shall be by roll call and shall be recorded in the minutes Three (3) members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time and may compel the attendance of absent members in the manner and subject to the penalties prescribed by the rules of the ~. Commission No action of the Commission except as otherwise provided in the preceding sentence or in Sections 3 0'~ grid 3 08 of this Charter shall be valid and' bindine unless adopted ' ~ - ~-' b~.the affirmative vote.of.thTee (3) Commissioners. ~ . . - _ ._ .. Section 3.13. COMMISSION INVESTIGATIONS _Upon direction from the Commission the Ciri Clerk shall have the power to issue any writs processes and subpoenas needed to facilitate any investi nation convened by the Commission for a municipal purpose. Section 3.14. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. (a) Planning and Zoning. The Commission has created and shall, in the interest of fib) Board of Adjustment. The Commission has created and shall maintain a Boazd 14 Charter Revision 12/10/01 Section 3.15. ALIENATION OF PUBLIC BEACHES. The Commission shall not in any manner alienate from the public, the uublic beach, lyina between the north and south boundaries of Section 16 Township 46 South, Rance 43 East, or any part thereof. of the City of Delrav Beach, Florida. (Ord. No. 4-76. gassed 2/23/76. Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) ARTICLE rv. ADMIIViSTRATIVE-EXECUTIVE Section 4.01. CITY MANAGER There shall be a City Manager .who shall be the chief administrative officer of the City. He or she shall be responsible to the Commission for the administration of all City affairs placed in his or her charge by or under this Ceharter and such other duties as may be required by the Comnll$S1oII. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2!23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) Section 4.02. APPOINTMENT: REMOVAL: COMPENSATION. (a) Appointment. The Commission shall appoint a City Manager for an indefinite terns by majority vote of the Commission, to serve at the pleasure of the Commission. (b) Removal. The City Manager shall only be terminated by the City Commission upon the casting of: four (4) affirmative votes in favor of such termination. Said vote shall not take place except at a public heating which has been duly noticed seventy-two (72) hours in advance of the meeting at which the vote takes place. (c) Replacement. Upon the death, resignation, or termination of the City Manager, the Commission shall appoint an Acting City Manager and thereafter, within a reasonable Time, appoint a regular City Manager. (d) Compensation. The compensation of the Manager shall be fixed by the Commission and shall not be reduced during this appointment. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76; Am. Ord. No. 8-83, passed 1/25/83, Approved at Referendum 3/1/83; Am. Ord. No. 37-90, passed 8128/90, Approved at Referendum 11 /6/90) ' Section 4.03. ACTIIVG_ CITY MANAGER. By letter filed with the Commission, the Manager shall designate, subject to approval of the Commission, a qualified City administrative officer to exercise the powers and perform the duties of Manager during his or her temporary absence or disability. During such absence or disability, the Commission may revoke such designation at any time and appoint.another officer of the City to serve until the Manager shall return or his or her disability- shall cease. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) 15 Charter Revision 12/10/01 Section 4.04: POWERS ANI3 DITTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER. (a) Powers of the Ciri Manager. The City Manager shall have the following powers and duties: ~ 1. Appoint and, when he or she deems it necessary for the good of the City, suspend or remove all City employees and appointive administrative officers provided for by or under this ~sharter, except as otherwise provided by law, this Cehazter or personnel niles~adopted pursuant to this Ceharter. All appointments and promotions of City officials and employees shall be made ,solely on the basis of merit and fitness demonstrated by examination or other evidence of competence. ~e The City Manager may authorize any administrative officer who is subject to his or her direction and supervision to exercise these powers with respect to subordinates in that officer's department, office, or agency. ~ 2. Direct and supervise the administration of all departments, offices and agencies of the City, except as otherwise provided by this Ceharter or by law. (e) 3. Attend all Commission meetings and shall have the right to take part in discussior~ but may not vote. (~) 4. See that all laws, provisions of this Cehazter and acts of the Commission; subject to enforcement by him or her or by officers subject to his.or her direction and supervision, aze faithfully executed. {e} 5. Submit to the Commission and make available to the public a complete report on the finances and administrative activities of the City as of the end of each fiscal yeaz. ~.6. Make such other reports as the Commission may- require concerning the operations of City departments;-offices and agencies subject to:.his or her direction and supervision. (g) 7. Keep the .Commission fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the City and make such recommendations to the Commission concerning the affairs of the City as he or she deems advisable or as the Commission may require: ~) 8. Sign contracts on behalf of the City pursuant to~ the provisions of this CFharter, provisions of appropriation ordinances and where authorized by ordinance, resolution or by motion (see section 4.09). (~ ~ Perform such other duties as aze specified in this Ceharter or may be required by the Commission. (b) Prohibition. The City Manager shall not adopt and provide ~e personnel policies or personnel rules edep~ pursuant to this Csharter ~-that apply to ~--be ~a~ed-€s~ any of the City's employees who aze covered by a collective bazgaining agreement w that is subject to renegotiation, unless otherwise expressly provided in said personnel policies, personnel rules~or collective bazgaining agreement. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) 16 ~ection~ a.l?5. gTm~~'T Al~?.(?~'~'r12mr Charter Revision 12!10/O1. (a) Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the City shall begin on the first day of October, and end on the thirtieth day of September of the following year. Such year shall constitute the budget yeaz of the City govenament, and whenever the word year appears in this Ceharter it shall --be construed as meaning the fiscal year of the City unless otherwise indicated. (b) Budget Submission. The City Manager shall submit his or her recommended budget for the ensuing. fiscal year to the Commission on or before the fast regular meeting in August. Complete copies of the proposed budget shall be on Sle and available to the public for inspection during office hours in the office of the City Clerk, commencing the following business day. (c) budget Document Requirements.. The budget document shall present a complete financial plan for the ensuing fiscal yeaz. It shall include, at least, the following information: (1) .Detailed estimates of all proposed expenditures for each departiiient and office of the City, showing the expenditures for corresponding items for the last preceding and current fiscal years with reasons for increases and decreases recommended, as compazed with appropriations for the current year; (Z) .Statements of the bonded and other indebtedness of the City, showing the debt reduction and interest requirements, the debt authorized and unissued, and the conditions of the sinking funds, if any; (3). .Detailed estimates of al] anticipated income of the City fiom .sources other than tars and borrowing, with a comparative statement of the -amounts ~ceived by the City froth each of the~same or similar sources for the last preceding and current fiscal years; (4) ' . A statement of the estimated balance or deficit, as the case maybe, for the erid of the current fiscal year; (5) des. An estimate of the amount of money to be raised from current and delinquent taxes, and the amount to be raised from bond issues which, together with income from other sources, will be necessary to meet the proposed expenditures; (6) .Such other supporting schedules as the Commission may deem necessary. . . (d) Public HearinP. A public hearing on the budget shall be held on the first regular Commission meeting in . September of each year. Notice of such public hearing shall be published at least one week in advance by the City Clerk. A condensed copy of the proposed budget shall be published. (e) Budget Adoption/Appropriations. At the second regular Commission meeting in the month of September of each yeaz, the Commission shall, by resolution, adopt the budget 17 ' Charter Revision 12/10/01 for the next fiscal year, and shall, in such resolution, make an appropriation for the money needed for m'~nicipal pu~~oses during the ensuing fisca? year of the City, ~d provide for a Ievy of the amount necessary to be raised by taxes upon real and personal property for municipal purposes, which levy shall not, for the general operating expenses of the City, in any event exceed the mileage limitation as provided by state Iaw on the assessed valuation of all real and personal property subject to taxation in the City. Should the Commission take no final action during said meeting, the budget as submitted, shall be deemed to have ban finally adopted by the Commission. (f) Ezaenditures. No money shall be drawn from the treasury of the CityLnor shall any obligation for the expenditure. of money be incurred, except pursuant to the budget appropriations. The Commission may transfer any unencumbered appropriation balance, or any portion thereof, from one ,department, fund or agency to another. The balance in any appropriation ~ which has not ban encumbered at the end of the fiscal year shall revert to the General Fund and be reappropriated during the next fiscal year. (g) Financial Data. At thw beginning of each quarterly period during the fiscal year, and more often if required by the Commission, the City Manager.shall submit to the Commission data showing the relation between the estimated and actual income and. expenses to date; and if it shall appear that the income is less than anticipated, the Commission shall reduce appropriations, except amounts required for debt and interest charges, to such a degree as may be necessary to keep expenditures within the income. (h) Deuosits/Degositories. The Commission shall designate the depository or depositories for City funds, shall provide for the regular deposit of all City monies, and shall provide for the proper security of all City deposits. (i) udit. An independent audit shall be made of all ,accounts of the City government at least annually, and. more frequently if-.deemed necessary by the Coaunission.- ~`~>-~ ..Such, audit -shall be made.. fey certif ed public accountants experienced in municipal .accounting, and 'who shall have no personal interest, direct or induect, in the fiscal affairs of the City government or of any of its officers: The condensed audit shall. be published within thirty (30) days after receipt of the same: An annual report of the City business shall be made available to .'the public by the City Manager in such form as will disclose pertinent facts concerning the activities and finances of the City government. Section 4.06.! SUPERVISOR OF DEPARTMENTS With the approval of the Commission, the Manager may serve as the head of one or more departments, offices, or agencies-or may appoint one person as the head of two (2) or more of them. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2!23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/7 Section 4.07. LEGAL COUNSEL There shall be a City Attorney and such assistant city attorneys and special counsel as the Commission shall deem nxessary. They shall be responsible to the Commission for all legal matters of the City placed in their chaazge by or under this Ceharter and such other duties as may be required by the City Commission. 18 ~narter Kevision lvloiol (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) .`,scl:livlj4•.iJU.t.F:L.nr':.L~..vtJl'~:.i:~1i.s'1~+..Y~1`~ii~'t.l~~t ~l~a':r ::_i_~.~~.~~ L.~ ,~:~.iti.. _~:'.~.e. (a) Appointment. The Commission sliall appoint a City Attorney, such assistant city attorneys and special counsel as may be deemed necessary. The City Attorney and assistant city attorneys, if any, shall be appointed by Commission for an indefinite term by majority vote of the Commission., .Special counsel maybe appointed as the need arises. (b) Removal. The Ciiy Attorney and special counsel, at all times, shall hold office ~at the pleasure of a majority of the Commission. Assistant city attorneys may be removed with or without cause by the City Attorney. (c). Compensation. The Commission may, from time to time, fix the regular compensation of the City Attorney, and assistant city attorneys, if any, at a sum commensurate with the duties which may be imposed on them by this CEharter and by the Commission; provided, that all special or unusual services required of the City Attorney and assistant city attorneys, if any, maybe specially compensated as the Commission may see fit to provide. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76); Am. Ord. No. 9-83, passed 1/25/83, Approved at Referendum 3/1/83) Section 4.09. DUTIES OF LEGAL COUNSEL. ~a) Duties. The City Attorney with the assistance of the City Clerk shall prepare all .ordinances, all contracts and other instruments in writing in which the municipality is concerned, or shill endorse on each, his or her approval as to form. No contract with the municipality shall be binding upon the municipality until the City Attorney has endorsed his or her approval .thereon,. and this provision shall be strictly construed by aIl. courts of this Sstate. When required by,_the Commission, the City Attorney shall prosecute and defend, fob and in behalf of the City,. • all complaints, suits and controversies in which the City is a par#y. -. fib,) Oainions. The City Attorney shall furnish the Commission, City Manager, and department heads his or her opinion on any questions of law relating to their respective powers and duties; and he or she shall perform such other professional duties as may be required of him or her by ordinance, resolution'or motion of the Commission, by this Charter, or by special acts. ~ Assistant Ciri Attornevs. Assistant city attorneys shall perform those duties assigned them by the City Attorney. Special Counsel. Special counsel shall perform those duties assigned them by Commission. • 19 Charter Revision 12/10/Ol ARTICLE V. ELECTIONS Section 5.01. ELECTORS. Any person who is a resident of the municipality, who has qualified as an elector of this Sstate, and who registers in the procedural manner prescribed. by general law and ordinance of the municipality, shall be a qualified elector of the municipality. (Ord. No. 476, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) Section 5.02. TYPES OF ELECTIONS. Elections to be held in the City shall all be conducted on a nonpartisan basis without regard for or designation of political party affiliation. (a) Date of Nonpartisan Election. Nonpartisan elections shall be held on the second 'Tuesday in March of each year: ~' 4'' ~~ °~°-`:~'- "~-~'" "` •''~ '':''. ""'' " ."'' "'`'"' J (b) Ties. In case of a tie in the nonpartisan election, a second nonpartisan election shall beheld. (c) Special Election. All other municipal elections that may be held by authority of this Ceharter, or of any Iaw, shall be known as special elections. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76; Am. Ord. No. 7-83, passed 1/25/83, Approved at Referendum _3/1/83; Am. Ord. No. 79-91, passed 11/19/91, Approved at Referendum 3/10!92) Section 5.03. FORM OF_BALLOTS. (a) .Arrangement of names':on .ballot. The names. of .the candidates for each. Conunission office seat and for the office of Mayor shall be arranged separately and alphabetically and nothing on the ballot shall be indicative of the source of the candidacy of any candidate. (b) Ballot Title. A charter amendment, initiative petition or referendum ordinance to be voted: on bj- the City shall be presented for voting by ballot title. The ballot title of a measure may differ from its legal title and shall be a clear, concise statement describing the substance of the measure without argument. or prejudice. . q~e~e~r=She-ebe;te-de'sa~c~--E ~;` ~~ Immediately below shall mean the question is approved. The word "no" shall mean the question is not a~~roved. ~~ ,~ 20 Charter Revision 12/10/01 (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/7.6, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76; Am. Ord. No. 99-85, passed 9!24/$5, Approved ~~ r,e`'erPnduxa 1115/85) . Section 5.04. ELECTIONS GENERALLY. (a) Number of votes per elector. Each elector shall be entitled to vote for each of the vacant seat numbers for the office of Commissioner and shall also be entitled to one vote for a candidate for the office of Mayor when there is a vacancy in that office; provided, however, no elector shall be entitled to cast more thaw one vote for any candidate. (b) Highest number of votes to elect in first nonpartisan election. {-}-) In a nonpartisan election, a candidate for each of the seats on the ballot for the offices of Commissioners or for the office of Mayor who receives the highest number of votes even, if it is not a majority of the votes cast by all electors casting ballots for that office shall be declazed to be elected ;provided; however, notwithstanding the foregoing provision, should two or more candidates tie for the highest number of votes from all electors casting ballots for that peat for Commissioner or for the office of Mayor, then the candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared candidates for. the second nonpartisan election. (~ lc~, If One Person Ouaiffies for a Seat. In the event that not more than one person qualifies as a candidate for each of the seats for the offices of Commissioners or for the office of Mayor in the nonpartisan election, then an election shall not be held. Each candidate shall be deemed to have voted for himself or herself ; , I! No Person Qualifies. If no person qualifies as a candidate for any particular seat for' the office of Commissioner or for the office of Mayor, then those seat(s) €+3~--the-e€€~f . shall be declazed vacant and it shall be the duty of the members of'the Commission who are seated following the organizational meeting provided for . in Section.;3-9.3.04 of this CEharter, by majority vote. to appoint a qualified person to.fill the .vacancy. e~t~ The member(sl appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of Commissioner or the office of Mavor~shall serve ~S nrnvided by Sectinn 3.OR of this C'harter_ lww. t~_:,lw,. :w *,~w_,.1, ws,,.,,la .l.w Iww, ~rt,,,.:waw,. r 11 ,.- w 1....wl l.,.l:a w a i}, a - ~_ ,.r~~. Y.aa a as J ~ ilalt_xnir°'; •" ..L,wll 1.w X11.,.7 t ~lew~:.,w wi ~i.w ,.s 1 /~ `t, f wa' w al.., _ :,1 ~ _ 7.. -- _-. iawa a.,. a vY a.+~ ~., `.v aav:z za _ :w .>,:w',,...:,.ts ,.r«l,:w wt,w...e_ r,._ w ~ w .s.w .,#' r*,r .>, . a sva au Yu.a ~uvzr , „"a...,1,s_ w1,w11 we wi:1 i},w lww~ TM.,,_w.iw.r :w 11,fw..n1, 411..,.,. ., •l..e w .,1 _ ~ e ~ .,,,lw_ s ~ n:s.. ele wa:,.w a a .z,.a ~,. 7 , __ _~~~-- _v u,.-~ ~. w_ M.,aa• •-bWW rla., ,i.a,.vN VY iVi Y iYi (s} ~ Candidates for second nonpartisan election. (1) In the second nonpartisan election, there shall be on the ballot those candidates for seats for the office of Commissioner or for the office of Mayor for those offices wherein candidates tied for the highest number of votes from all electors casting ballots for that seat or office in the first nonpartisan election. The names of the candidates to be voted upon at the second.nonpaztisan election shall be the candidates which tie for the highest number of votes in the nonpartisan election. 11 Charter Revision 12/10/01 (~~ ~-:. tj:~. f'"t'E<1~ ~ C~;G1~3f~ GVILi](~Ta~15 G. Gear %Ef~~IE Vii: ~:;Oi~~ £!":i;.~:uii;i:Sl election and leaves only one candidate for each vacancy for a seat for the office of Commissioner or for the office of Mayor to be filled, then the second nonpartisan election shall not be held for that office. Each candidate shall be deemed to have voted fcr himself or herself ~) ~f Method of election in a second nonpartisan election. In the second nonpartisan election, the remaining offices shall be filled by the candidate(s) receiving the highest number of votes for each seat for the office of Commissioner or for the office of Mayor. (C.?rd. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved ~at Referendum 2/2/76; Am. Ord. No. b8-78, passed 9/25/78, Approved at Referendum 11/7/78; Am. Ord. No. 7-83, passed 1/25/83, Approved at Referendum 3/1/83; Am. Ord. No. 99-85, passed 9/24/85, Approved at Referendum 11/5/85; Am. Ord: No. 79-91, passed 1 I/19/91, Approved at Referendum 3/10/92) Section 5.05. RETURNS OF ELECTIONS. (a) Canvassing the Returns. The results of the voting, when ascertained by the Supervisor of Elections, shall be returned in duplicate; one copy to be delivered to the Mayor and the other to the City Clerk, both of whom shall transmit such returns to the Commission at a called meeting to be held not later than three (3) days after such election. At such meeting the Commission shall canvass the retums and, in the absence of a declaration of a contest by any of the candidates in such election, shall declare the results of the election as shown by the returns made by the Supervisor of Elections. (b) Certificates of Election. The City Clerk, not later than .noon the second day thereafter, shall furnish a certificate of election to each person shown to be elected. _, ,(Ord. No. 476, passed 2/23/76 Approved at Referendum 2/2/76; Am. Ord. No. 2-82. passed 1 .... '/26/82. Approved at Refeienduriz 3/2/82) - " Section 5.06. JUDGE OF ELECTION AND QUALIFICATION. The Commissioners shall be the judge of the qualifications of its own members, and the City Clerk shall be the judge of the election and election returns for the office of Mayor and for the offices of Commission seats. (Ord. No. 4'76, passed 2!23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76; Am. Ord. No. 101-85, passed 9/24/85, Approved at Referendum 11/5/85) Section 5.07. SPECIAL ELECTIONS. (a) Special Election Rules. The Commission shall provide the time, manner, and means of holding any special election, provided that no special election shall be called Iess than thirty (30) days following the adoption of a resolution calling for such election. (b) Method and Manner Set Forth by Ordinance. The Commission shall prescribe by ordinance the method and manner of holding all elections in the City, and shall provide when and how special elections shall be called and held which are not provided by the terms of this charter. All elections shall be conducted in accordance with this Ceharter and with the provisions of general law. 22 Charter Revision 12/10/01 (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) Section 5.08. STRAW VOTE ELECTIONS. The Commission is also empowered and authorized to spend public funds for the conduct of straw vote elections upon a determination by the Commission that it is in the best interest of the City to obtain an expression of the people with respect to a particular municipal question. The Commission shall have the right to hold a straw vote election at anytime, and may prescribe limitations relating to the eligibility of those who shall be qualified to participate. The results of said election shall not be binding on the Commission. (Ord. No. 476, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) Section 5.09. RECALL. The wed- voters electors of the City shall have the power to recall and to remove from office any elected official of the City as provided by general law. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) ARTICLE VI. INTTIATIVE, REFERENDUM Section 6.01. INITIATIVE. The qt's electors of the City shall have the power to propose ordinances to the Commission, ate; Iif the Commission fails to adopt an ordinance so proposed without any change in substance, ,the ordinance may be approved or reiected at a City election, if the provisions of this Article are met. n'~^" ~~' ~~'°~a '~ However. no ordinance relating, to or affecting the budget, e~ capital .program, ~ appropriation of money, levy of taxes or salaries of City officers or employees shall be allowed to be brousht forward as an initiative. ; ~. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 212/76) ~. . Section 6.02. REFERENDUM. ~~ The ~ed~ete~s electors of the City shall have power to require reconsideration by 'the Commission of any; adopted ordinance, ~; Iif the Commission fails to repeal an ordinance broueht forward for reconsideredatio ,the issue maybe ,a,~proved or rejected at a City election if the provisions ~ofthis Article are met. However. no issue shall be allowed to be brought forward for reconsideration that relates to or affects the budget, e~ capital program, e~ any emergency ordinance, or ordinance relating to appropriation of money, levy ef{of) taxes, or salaries of City officers or employees. (Ord. No. 476, passed 2/23176, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) Section 6.03. COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS. (a) Petitioners Committee. Any five (5) e~-voters electors may commence either initiative or referendum proceedings by. filing with the City Clerk or other official designated by the Commission (hereinafter both officials shall be referred to as. "Gifu Clerk") an affidavit stating they will constitute the petitioners' committee and be responsible for circulating the petition and filing it in proper form, stating their names, and addresses, and specifying the 23 Charter Revision 12/10/01 address to which all notices to the committee are to be sent, and setting out in full the proposed initiative ordinance or citing the ordinance sought to be reconsidered. (b) Issuance of Petition Blanks. Promptly after the affidavit of the petitioners' committee is e , e ~ er may, at the committee's request, issue the appropriate petition blanks to the petitioners' committee at the committee's expense. Section 6.04. FORM OF PETITIONS. (a) Number of signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by ees electors of the City equal in number to at least fifteen (15) percent of the .total number of eer3 electors registered to vote at the last regular City election. (b) Form and content. All papers of a petition shall be uniform in size and style and shall be assembled as one instrument for filing. Each signature shall be executed in ink or indelible pencil and shall be followed by the printed name, address, ~ precinct number, and date the person signed thepetition. sing. Petitions shall contain, or have attached thereto throughout their circulation, the full text of the ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered. (c) Affidavit of circulator. Each paper of a petition shall have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by the circulator thereof stating that he or she personally circulated the paper, the number of signatures thereon, that all the signatures were affixed in his or her presence, that he or she believes them to be the genuine signatures of the persons whose names . they purport to be, and that each signer had an opportunity before signing to read the full text of the ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered. (~ ~ Time for filing initiative petitions: Initiative petitions.must be filed within sixty (b0) days of the first signature thereon and signatures may not be procured prior to the time.of commencement of proceedings as set forth in Section 6.03. When the petitions have been filed, the City Clerk shall submit the same to the Commission at its next regular meeting and provisions shall be made by the City Clerk for public hearings upon the proposed ordinance. (Ord. No. 4-76. passed 2123/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2!76) ~} ~ Time for filing referendum petitions. Referendum petitions must be filed within sixty (60) days . after adoption by the Commission of the ordinance sought to be reconsidered. Section 6..05. PROCEDURE FOR FILING. (a) Certificate of City Clerk; amendment. Within twenty (20) days after the initiative petition is filed and five (5) days €e~ after a referendum petition is file the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as to its sufficiency- ; ' , ' ,The certificate shall specify the deficiencies and defects ~ and shall promptly send a copy of the certificate to the petitioners' committee by registered mail. Grounds for insufficiency are only those specified in Section 6.04: A petition certified insufficient for Lack of the required number of valid signatures may be amended once if the petitioners' committee files a notice of intention to amend it with the 24 Garter Revision 12/10/01 City Clerk within two (2) days after receiving the (10) nays alter receiving the copy of such certificate. Additional signatures maybe gathered in this ten day yeriod in order to _ meet the minimum required number. of _electors. Such supplementary petition shall comply with the requirements of subsections (b) and (c) of Section 6.04, ead Wwithin five (5) days after it is filed the City Clerk Ce~shall complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition as amended and promptly send a copy of such certificate to the petitioners' committee by registered mail as in the case of an original petition. b~ Final determination of suiiciency by City Clerk. If a petition or amended petition is certified sufficient, or if a petition or amended petition is certified. insufficient and the petitioners' committee does not elect to amend or request commission review under subsection ~ ~ of this section within the time required, the City Clerk 6so~ shall promptly present his or her certificate to the Commission and the certificate shall then be a final determination as to the sufficiency of the petition. ~ ~ Commission review. If a petition has been certified insufficient and the petitioners' committee does not file notice of intention to amend it or if an amended petition has been certified insufficient, the committee may, within two (2) business days after receiving the copy of such certificate, file a request for review by the Citv Commission ,and the Commission's determination of sufficiency of the petition, shall be the final determination. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2!23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) Section 6.06. REFERENDUM PETITIONS SUSPENSION OF EFFECT OF ORDINANCE: When a referendum petition is filed with the City Clerk '. . ;`thy ordinance sought to be reconsidered shall be suspended from taking effect..;- _ . .. Such suspension shall terminate when: (1) There is a final detem~ination of insufficiency of the petition:; or (2) ,The petitioners' committee withdraws the petition:; or (3) The Commission repeals the ordinance;; or (4) After a vote of the City on the ordinance has been certified. (Ord. No. 476, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) Section 6.07. ACTION ON PETITIONS. (a) Action by Commission. When an initiative or referendum petition has been finally determined sufficient, the Commission shall promptly consider the proposed initiative ordinance in the manner provided by general law for passage of ordinances or reconsider the referred ordinance by voting its repel. If the Commission fails to adopt a proposed initiative ordinance without any change in substance within sixty (60) days or fails to repeal the referred 25 Charter Revision 12/10/01 ordinance within thirty (30) days, it shall submit the proposed or referred ordinance to the voters (b) Submission to voters. The vote of the City on a proposed or referred ordinance shall be held not less than thirty (30) days and not more than sixty (60) days from the date that the petition was determined sufficient. If no regular City election or no General or primary election is to be held within the period described in this subsection, the Commission shall provide for a special election, except-that the Commission may in its discretion pmvide for a special election at an earlier date within the described period. Copies of the proposed or referred ordinance shall be made available at the polls, (c) WttLdrawal of petitions. An initiative or referendum petition maybe withdrawn at any tune prioi to the fifteenth day preceding the day scheduled for a vote of the City by filing with the City Clerk ~ ' a request for withdrawal signed by at least four (4) members of the petitioners' committee. Upon the filing of such request the petition shall have no fiuther force or effect and all proceedings thereon shall be terminated. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) Section 6.08. RESULT OF ELECTION. (a) Initiative. If a majority of the gneli~ed electors voting on a proposed initiative ordinance vote in its favor, it shall be considered adopted upon certification of the election results and shall be treated in all respects in the same manner as ordinances of the same kind adopted by the Commission. If conflicting ordinances are approved at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. (b) Referendum. If a majority of the ~~ electors voting on a referred ordinance -` vote against it, it shall ~t9e considered repealed upon certification of the election results. -(Ord. No. " ~ 4=76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) *Editor's Note: This Article VI shall apply to all initiative and referendum situations within the .'City, unless otherwise governed by F.S. Sections 166.031, 171.0413 and 171.051. ARTICLE VII. TRANSITION SCHEDULE Section 7.01. CONTINUATION OF FORMER CHARTER PROVISIONS All provisions of Chapter 25786, Laws of Florida, Special Acts 1949, as amended by special law or otherwise, which are not embraced herein and which are not inconsistent with this Ceharter shall become ordinances of the City subject to modification or rcpeai in the same manner as other ordinances of the City. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) Section 7.02. ORDINANCES PRESERVED All ordinances in effect upon the adoption of this ehapter Charter, to the extent not inconsistent with it, shall remain in force until repealed or changed as provided herein. (Ord. No. 4-76, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) 26 C.3arter Revision 12/1 o/Ol Section 7.03. R.IGH~CS OF OFFIC'E1~S AND EMPLOY~FS. Nothing in this ehepter Charter, except as otherwise specifically provided, shall affect or impair the, rights or privileges of persons who aze City officers or employees at the time of adoption. Elected officers shall continue to hold their offices and dischazge the duties thereof Section 7.04. PENDING MATTERS. All rights, .claims, actions, orders, contracts, and legal or administrative proceedings involving the City shall continue except as modified pursuant to the provisions of this Csharter. All right, title, and interest in property, teal or personal, uncollected taxes due, claims, judicial decrees, liens, suits, actions, and choeses in action held or owned by the existing municipality shall pass and the same are hereby vested in the municipality continued under this revised charter. (Ord. No. 476, passed 2123/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) Section 7.05.. OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS PRESERVED. No debt or obligation of contract of the City shall be changed as a result of the adoption of this Ceharter. All such debts and obligations shall pass to and be binding upon the municipality ~e~i-is hereby continued. (Ord. No. 476, passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) ,...s . .. :,~,,.;;,.,. :.r r ... ~~........,:,a ,;:,.t,. ~.,....a~s,r a,.m..~., icy onn nm .....•~ t. :.. ..t,.......,a ~.:=: ~ «~,~ (Ord. No. 476. passed 2/23/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) ..Section 7.0~ DELETION OF OBSOLETE SCHEDULE ITEMS. The Commission shall have power, by resolution, to delete from this Article VII any section, including this one, when all events to which the section to be deleted is or could become applicable have occurred. (Ord. No. 476, passed 2123/76, Approved at Referendum 2/2/76) 27 Question 1 Rev. l 1/3Q~'01 F~,SOLUTION NO. 71-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, .CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION ON A CHARTER CHANGE TO BE HELD ON MARCH 12, 2002, TO PROVIDE FOR A REFERENDUM ON THE CHARTER CHANGE PRESENTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 62-01; PROVIDING FOR THE TIME, 14LANNER AND MEANS OF HOLDING SAID ELECTION, PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 62-01 amends the City Charter by clarifying, deleting. obsolete references, correcting grammatical errors, reorganizing and enhancing the Charter's "readability'; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach desires to call for a special election on the matter; and WHEREAS, the City Commission directs the City Clerk to take all steps necessary to hold a special election and to provide all notices required in accordance with Article V, "Elections" of the Charter of the City of Delray Beach and General Law; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach directs that the special election on the Charter change proposed in Ordinance No. 62-01 be held on March 12, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF-THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Commission incorporates the "Whereas'.' clauses set forth above as if fully set forth herein. . Section 2. That the City Commission authorizes the holding of a special election on the Charter change presented in Ordinance No. 62-01 Section'3. That the City Commission hereby sets the date of the election to be held on March 12, 2002. Section 4. That the City Conunission hereby authorizes the City Clerk to provide all notices and to take all steps necessary to hold the referendum as hereby provided. ection 5. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of .2002. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk Question 1 Rcv. 11/30/01 NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION The City of Delray Beach, Florida, hereby gives notice, pursuant to Florida Statutes 8100.342, that a Special Election shall be held on March 12, 2002 on the Charter proposed by Ordinance No. 62-01 to wit: CHARTER REVLSION CL~!-RIFYING, REORGANIZING, AND ENHANCING THE "READABII,TTY" OF 1ME CHARTER AN AMENDMENT REVISING THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH CHARTER BY REORGAIVIZIlVG, ~ CORRECTING GRANIlViATICAL ERRORS, CLARIFYING CERTAIN PROVISIONS, DELETING OBSOLETE TERMS, AND MAKIl~IG THE CHARTER EASIER TO READ, AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE N0.62-01 SHALL THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED CHARTER AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED? YES (for approval) NO (against approval) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA Barbara Garito City Clerk 'PUBLISH: The News [This publication shall be made at least twice, once in the fiRh week and once in the third week prior to the week in which the referendum is to be held, at least 30 days prior to the referendum date.J IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Lower Court No.:2002-164-COA- HPB CASE NO. AP03-01062AY APPELLATE DIVISION FRANK MCK:INNEY, an individual and NILSA MCKINNEY, an individual, Petitioners, v. THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Respondent. NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX Pursuant to Notice given in Section VI.B. of the Petition, the Petitioners hereby supplement their Appendix with Appendix 13, the Transcript from the December 3, 2002 hearing. 1 ~ ~ ~; 1.1 Respectfully submitted, Rebecca L. Henderson, Esquire ELK, BANKIER & CHRISTU ~ Counsel for Petitioner 4800 North Federal Highway Sanctuary Centre, Suite 200-E Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Office: 561-368-8800 Facsimile: 561-394-3699 ~~ Reb c a L. Henderson, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 0004642 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent by certified U.S. Mail to the following: Susan Ruby, City Attorney City of Delray Beach, Florida 200 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 this 5th day of March, 2003 ~~ ~ ~_. ebecca L. Henderson, Esq. 2 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing complies with the font requirements of Rule 9.100 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. ,~ ~' /, ~ .; ebecca L. Henderson, Esq. F:\Users\RLH\McKinney\nodcesupplementingappendix 03.05.03.wpd 3 p ~ o- .. ..o N ~. ~ Postage $ 8 p p Certlfled Fee ~. ~/~ p J Postmark p Retum Reciept Fee Here (Endorsement Required) ~. p Restricted Delivery Fee ~ I `~/~~ f7l (Endorsement Required) /) J l~ fl.l Total Postage & Fees ~ i ~~ rlJ O t To or PO Box No. L~~ 1~ ----------------------------~~--1----~::----------------------------- City, sratB, ~~ :,, „ ^ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete - item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. f ^ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the cans td you. ^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. ArticlecAddressepd t'o,: ~J/Q-A~ ~.Lt. Q r ~~~ C~ rz~ ~~' ~~. ,e~~~ ~~02,' J.4 a~ d I-V c~ ~ sr l~fn u,~ ~~Gr~y ~~~, ~ 3 ~}~~ 2. Article Number (Copy from service label) Pi::Received by (Please Print / rly B. Date of Delivery ~~ r.~ 7 ~n~,~ C nature X Agent " " - "-""n Addressee D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ^ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ~o 3. Service Type l~ Certified Mail ^ Express Mail ^ Registered L~ Retum Receipt ferivlereharrtylse ^ Insured Mail ^ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ^ Yes 7DO2 2D3D DDDO ~ ''76 197D PS Form 381 ~ ,July 1999 Domestic Retum Receipt 102595-99-M•1789 y ro V ~. 1 1 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...:: 8 9 10 11 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM "I" 12 CLARIFICATION/APPEAL OF HISTORIC 13 .PRESERVATION BOARD/TREEHOUSE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 City Hall City of Delray Beach 21 100 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida Tuesday, December 3, 2002 22 23 24 25 MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. (561) 659-0330 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: DAVID SCHMIDT, MAYOR JEFF PEARLMAN, VICE MAYOR ALBERTHA MCCARTHY JON LEVINSON PATRICIA ARCHER ALSO PRESENT: David T. Harden, City Manager Susan Ruby, City Attorney Barbara Garito, City Clerk MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. (561) 659-0330 3 1 MAYOR SCHMIDT: Item "I," which is 2 clarification requested by the city attorney 3 on the appeal of the Historic Preservation 4 Board decision in the matter of the McKinney 5 Treehouse. 6 CITY ATTORNEY: That's right. Your ~ Honor, the City charter requires three votes g to take any action, and there is a question g regarding the motion that was proposed was 10 in the negative, a motion to deny. 11 At the time there were only four 12 people present, four commissioners present, 13 and as a result we wanted to clarify what 14 that vote was supposed to mean. 15 And I think under -- the commission 16 has adopted Roberts Rules and under Roberts 17 Rules, the best way I believe to resolve 18 this matter and to obtain the clarification 19 is for a motion to rescind that previous 20 vote so that another vote can be made in a 21 positive motion-to-approve manner in which 22 we can determine more easily whether we have 23 the three votes to approve or not. 24 What we have really here is almost 25 like a double negative problem, a motion to MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. (561) 659-0330 4 1 deny that's not approved, what does that 2 mean? So just for clarification of the 3 record I would recommend that the commission 4 vote to rescind that previous motion and 5 then move in a positive manner to approve g it, and then let the votes be as they are. ~ I've advised Ms. Archer because she g was not here to hear all the testimony g presented that it would be inappropriate for 10 her to vote on this matter from a due 11 process standpoint and I've issued her a 12 letter to that effect. 13 COMMISSINOER ARCHER: So I will step 14 down for the discussion. 15 (Thereupon, Commissioner Archer 16 excused herself from this matter.) 1~ MAYOR SCHMIDT: So the recommendation 18 is to make a motion to rescind the prior 19 decision. Is there a motion to that effect? 20 VICE MAYOR PEARLMAN: So moved. 21 MAYOR SCHMIDT: Is there a second? 22 COMMISSIONER LEVINSON: Second. 23 MAYOR SCHMIDT: Questions or 24 discussion? 25 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: I haven't MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. (561) 659-0330 5 changed my mind, I'm just doing this because 1 we were advised to do this for strategic 2 3 something. ~ CITY ATTORNEY: Procedural. 4 MAYOR SCHMIDT: Procedural. 5 CITY ATTORNEY: It's a procedural 6 ~ matter. MAYOR SCHMIDT: Any questions? 8 9 Call the role please. 10 THE CLERK: Mayor Schmidt. 11 MAYOR SCHMIDT: Yes. THE CLERK: Mr. Pearlman. 12 COMMISSIONER PEARLMAN: Yes. 13 14 THE CLERK: Mr. Levinson. COMMISSIONER LEVIN5ON: Yes. 15 16 THE CLERK: Ms. McCarthy. COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: Yes. 17 18 MAYOR SCHMIDT: Okay, on the 19 recommendation from our attorney then is to 20 make a motion to approve the appeal. And I 21 would note, you should have it in your I received correspondence from Mr. place 22 , 23 McKinney today. I'll just read these into the record. 24 25 It is up to the pleasure of the commission MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. (561) 659-0330 6 1 whether they want to add these conditions. 2 He is suggesting as a compromise that if we 3 approve the appeal, that they would agree 4 that there would be perimeter landscaping on 5 U.S. Highway A1A, a landscaped area, for the 6 purpose of screening the treehouse, shall be ~ maintained on the property line abutting g A1A, which landscaping shall be maintained g at a height of at least 14 feet. above grade 10 current average height of existing 11 vegetation that serves to screen the 12 treehouse. 13 The failure to correct barrier height 14 within 30 days of written notice from the 15 City and the treehouse would have to be 16 removed. 17 Reconstruction. If the treehouse is 18 damaged or destroyed by an act of God, the 19 treehouse would have to be removed. 20 Permitting. The treehouse shall be 21 required to obtain all necessary building 22 permits within two months of approval. The 23 applicant shall pay triple fees for building 24 permits pursuant to the provisions of 25 section 2.4683 of the Land Development MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. (561) 659-0330 7 1 Regulations. 2 And (4) time limit. The treehouse 3 shall be removed from the existing location 4 from within five years of the rendition of 5 this order. 6 Someone want to make a motion to 7 approve subject to those conditions? g COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: So moved. g MAYOR SCHMIDT: Is there a second? 10 VICE MAYOR PEARLMAN: Second. 11 MAYOR SCHMIDT: Okay. Any discussion? 12 Hearing no requests, then call the 13 role please. 14 THE CLERK: Mr. Pearlman. 15 COMMISSIONER PEARLMAN: No. 16 THE CLERK: Mr. Levinson. 17 COMMISSIONER LEVIINSON: No. 18 THE CLERK: Ms. McCarthy. 19 COMMISSIONER McCARTHY: Yes. 20 THE CLERK: Mayor Schmidt. 21 MAYOR SCHMIDT: Yes. So the motion to 22 approve the appeal fails because it did not 23 get the requisite three votes. All right. 24 Let's go on to Item 9-J. 25 (7:07 p.m. the matter concluded). MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. (561) 659-0330 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C E R T I F I C A T E THE STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) I, Patty McCoy, Shorthand Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that. the transcript is a true record. Dated this 25th day of February, 2003. MELANIE GROUT REPORTING, INC. (561) 659-0330 _~ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. APPELLATE DIVISION (CNII,) CASE NO.: AP 03-1062 AY FRANK McKINNEY and NILSA McKINNEY, Petitioners, v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA. Respondent. BY ORDER OF THE COURT: THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Court having reviewed the petition and determined that the petition shows a preliminary basis for relief, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to Rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Respondent shall SHOW CAUSE within forty (40) days of the date of this Order why the prayed for relief in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari should not be granted. Petitioner may serve the Reply within twenty (20) days of the Response. DONE: ~~B 1 ~ 200 ~~: Rebecca LHenderson, Esq., Attorney for Petitioner, 4800 N Federal Highway, Suite 200E, Boca Raton, Fl 33431 City of Delray Beach, %City Attorney, 300 W Atlantic Ave., Delray Beach, FL 33444 l+~ ^ ._._ ~ _ :. .: _..... r 5..• .. .._ ....... .~ _... ,. `~.' ... ~.. a..ii.1 S l~ 8 S:J~1 V l~. l~f: u` t..l J..11 vlf'i M: ~.~.i'l~'v V.l ~ Y• IN AND-FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA FRANK E. MCK:INNEY, III, an individual, and NILSA MCK:INNEY, an individual, Petitioners, vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL) CASE NO.: 50 2003 AP001062 XXCTAY DOROTHY H. JJILKEN CLERK OF CIRCUIT CO! ART CIRCUIT ClV1L DIVISION Respondent. Fc6 0 5.2004 ~ COPY /ORIGINAL RECEIVED FOR FILING PETITIONERS' RESPONSE TO CITY OF DELRAY BEACH'S MOTION FOR REHEARING Alv'D CLARIFICATION Petitioners, Frank McKinney and Nilsa McKinney, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 9.330(a), hereby files this their response to Respondent, The City of Delray Beach's Motion for Rehearing and Clarification and states: 1. The law is very well established in Florida, and particularly within the Fourth Appellate District, that "the filing of Rule 9.330 motions should be done under very limited circumstances; it is the exception to the norm." Lawyer's Title Insurance Corporation v. Reitzes, 631 So.2d 1100 (Fla.4th DCA 1993). The Court in the Lawyer's Title Insurance case enters into an extensive discussion regarding the Page 1 of 4 rarnpaiit auuse of ~~ule ~.3~v a~~d the massive waste of judicial resources occasioned thereby. Citing from Judge Wigginton's opinion in State v. Green, 105 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1~` DCA 1985), cert discharged, 112 So.2d 571 (Fla. 1959), the Fourth District stated that: Certainly it is not the function of a petition for rehearing to furnish a medium through which counsel may advise the Court that they disagree with its conclusion, to reargue matters already discussed in briefs and oral argument and necessarily considered by the Court, or to request the Court to change its mind as to a matter which has already received the careful attention of the judges, or to further delay the termination of litigation. In the case of Goter v. Brown, 682 So.2d 155, 158 (Fla. 4`~ DCA 1996) the Court stated that: Motions for rehearing are strictly limited to calling our attention - -without argument - - to something we have obviously overlooked or misapprehended. The motion for rehearing is not a vehicle for counsel or the party to continue its attempts at advocacy. It should be demonstrative only- - i.e., merely point to the overlooked or misunderstood fact or circumstance. If we want additional argument, we know how to say so. (emphasis in original) 2. The Motion for Rehearing filed by the City of Delray Beach is no more than a re-argument of matters already considered by the Court. Specifically, the City of Delray Beach again repeats the facts regarding the City Commission meetings of Page 2 of 4 rvovenir~er 19, 20t~2 and December 3, 2002, which were previously discussed at length, both within the Petition for Certiorari and the Respondents' response thereto. The City goes on to argue the meaning of the City Charter and what the City perceived as the effect of the voting which took place at the referenced Commission meetings. None of these issues are new. All of them were previously presented to the Court for consideration and previously argued within the prior briefs submitted to the Court. The argument presented within the City's motion represents no more than a request for the Court to reconsider its opinion, in clear violation of Rule 9.330. 3. Based on the fact that the motion for rehearing is procedurally improper, the matters argued therein should not be considered by the Court. However, it should be noted that the repetitive argument offered by the City, which relies largely upon various dictionary definitions, suggests an entirely untenable and tortured reading of the City Code. In short, as in its prior argument, the City is requesting that the Court assume language into the City Code and Charter which does not exist and to hold that a party's appellate, procedural and due process rights can be terminated by a two to two tie vote; despite the fact that there is not any language within the City Code or Charter to support such a conclusion. WHEREFORE, as the City's Motion for Rehearing represents a violation of Rule 9.330(a), based upon the fact that the motion presents no new matters Page 3 of 4 whatsoever for consideration but merely represents a re-argument of and disagreement with the Court's decision, the Motion for. Rehearing should be denied, and the Court is requested to grant such other and further relief it deems appropriate. ELK, BANKIER, CHRISTU & BAKST~ 4800 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200E Boca Raton, FL 33431 561-368-8800(ph)/561-394-3699 (fax) ~ _ ._ Devon G. Coughl FL Bar No.: 0015776 U:~DCoughlanuvlcKinney-CityofDRB~appeal.wpd CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused a true copy of the within to be sent via facsimile and U.S. Mail to the following: Terrill C. Pyburn, Esq., Assistant City Attorney and R. Brian Shutt, Esq., Assistant City, Attorney, City of Delray Beach, 200 N.W. 1 s` Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 this 4`~ day of February, 2004. Attorney Page 4 of 4 FRANK MCK:INNEY, an individual and NII,SA MCKINNEY, an individual, Petitioners, v. THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Lower Court No.:2002-164-COA-HPB CASE N ; .~ APPELLATE DIVISION [This Petition is being filed pursuant to Rule 9.100(f) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.] cCIR K OFC RC~MI`KEN UIT CIVIL DtU~SIpU~ T J'~N ~ ~ 2Qfl3 RECD p1'~ DR- allV,q VED FOR F~~ NC Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ELK, BANKIER & CHRISTU ~'P Counsel for Petitioners 4800 North Federal Highway Sanctuary Centre, Suite 200-E Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Office: 561-368-8800 Facsimile: 5 61-3 94-3 699 M i ' ~-i. ~~~~ ~ ~ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Lower Court No.:2002-164-COA- HPB CASE NO. APPELLATE DIVISION [This Petition is being filed pursuant to Rule 9.100(f) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.] FRANK MCK:TNNEY, an individual and NILSA MCKIIVNEY, an individual, Petitioners, v. THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Petitioners, FRANK MCKINNEY and NILSA MCKINNEY (hereinafter, the "Petitioners") file this Petition for Writ of Certiorari against the CITY OF 1 DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ("City"), and requests that this Honorable Court issue a Writ quashing the Order of the City denying the Petitioners' request that the City Commission ("Commission.") approve their Certificate of Appropriateness ("COA") for a treehouse on their property in Delray Beach, Florida. An original Order from the City is appended hereto as Appendix 1. OVERVIEW The Petitioners applied to the City's Historic Preservation Board ("Board") for a COA granting approval for a treehouse constructed in a tree located on the east side of their home in Delray Beach, which application was denied (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"). The Petitioners appealed the Board's decision to the Commission, which held on November 19, 2002 a de novo hearing on the Application. The Commission ultimately voted on a Motion to Deny, which vote was two votes in favor and two votes against. Thereafter, on December 3, 2002, the Commission voted on a Motion to Approve, which vote was two votes in favor and two votes against. Thereafter, the Order was issued and this appeal ensued. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to Article V, Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution, Section 26.012 of -the Florida Statutes and Rule 9.030(c)(1) 1 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. FACTS I. The Subject Property The Subject Property is located on a barrier island on the west side of AlA in the City, just north of Atlantic Avenue in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Subject Property stretches 500.' from AlA on the east property line to Andrews Avenue on the west property line, which has an address of 610 N. Ocean Boulevard. There is an approximately 1,184 square foot single-family residence ("Residence") on the Subject Property, with a detached garage. The detached garage is located to the southeast of Residence. See .the site plan as Appendix 5. See also testimony by the City's Planning Director, Appendix 11 at page 5. The Subject Property is designated on the City's local, historic registry at the Fontaine Fox Site, which was. designated by Ordinance 70-89 ("Ordinance"). The Ordinance is filed in the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida. II. The Application The Petitioners filed the Application on or about February 20, 2002, requesting that the City's Board grant them a Certificate of Appropriateness for an existing treehouse constructed in a tree located to the east of the .Residence. A copy of the Application is appended hereto as Appendix 2. J B. The City and its Review Process The City is an incorporated municipality located in south-central Palm Beach County, Florida. It is guided by the City's Land Development Regulations ("Code"), which sets forth the criteria and guidelines for historic designation, as well as the process involved in the Certificate of Appropriateness process. A copy of the pertinent regulations is appended hereto as Appendix 4. A property owner must obtain a COA prior to a development order being issued on an historic property. While not defined under the code, a development order is defined in Florida law as any order permitting a building permit to issue on land. § 163.3164 (7) and (8), Fla. Stat. (2002). Accordingly, the Petitioners needed a COA to obtain a building permit for the treehouse. The City has an established Board that consists of seven (7) members, which Board reviews development applications involving property designated as local historic sites or that are located in a historic district. §2.2.6 et seq., Code. In the instant matter, the ~ City required the Board to review the Application in a public hearing and either approve or deny the Application. Any party aggrieved by ..that decision may appeal to the Commission, which considers the appeal in a de novo hearing. See appeal guidelines appended hereto as Appendix 8. The City is governed by a charter pursuant to the powers granted to it by the Florida Legislature. § 163.021 et seq., Fla. Stat. (2002). Section 3.12 (c) of the Charter dictates that "no action of the Commission" ... "shall be valid and binding unless adopted by the affirmative vote of three (3) Commissioners." Appendix 12. IV. The Ordinance Designating the Subject Property The Ordinance identifies the Subject Property as the former residence of cartoonist Fontaine Fox, which was designed by locally known architect, John Volk. V. The Board's Hearing The Board held a public hearing on the Application on June 5, 2002. The matter was continued until the Board's September 4, 2002 hearing date in order for the Petitioners to provide plans. Appendix 11 at page 6. The City's Staff Report resubmitted on September 4,~ 2002 is appended hereto as Appendix 3. The Staff Report recommended that the Board approve the Application, with the condition that the treehouse be relocated to the north or west elevation of the Residence, rather than the east elevation. See Recommendation, Appendix 3. The Board ultimately voted to deny the Application. See letter of denial dated September 6, 2002, appended hereto as Appendix 7. The Petitioners appealed to the Commission from that denial. 5 VI. The Commissi©n's Hearings A. The Commission's First Hearing The Commission's first hearing was on November 19, 2002. 1. Ex-Parte Disclosure At the beginning of the hearing, each of the Commissioners gave a recitation of the ex-parte communications in which they participated prior to the hearing. Appendix 11 at pages 3 and 4. The communications consisted of significant e-mails, telephone calls, letters, a-mails and meetings. The Commissioners did not indicate if they could vote fairly based upon the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing rather than upon the ex-parte communications. 2. The Arguments The City's Planning Director, Paul Dorling ("Dorling") made the initial presentation at the beginning of the public hearing. Dorling provided the Commission with a supplemental Staff Report identifying conditions suggested by the Petitioners that could be placed on the treehouse in order to address any concerns the City might have regarding the treehouse's impact on surrounding properties. A copy of the supplemental Staff Report is appended hereto as Appendix 10. Dorling described the t1'eehouse, noting that it was constructed without "permits or prior HPB (Board) approvals." Appendix 11 at page 6. Dorling testified at length that the Board made 6 findings regarding the treehouse and its compatibility with the Residence. Id. at pages 6-8. Those "findings" are not in the record from the Board, .however. The Commission. engaged in discussions throughout the meeting regarding whether the treehouse's location on the east side of the Residence obstructed the view from AIA, the roadway in front of the Residence, which considerations were set forth in the supplemental Staff Report prepared by Dorling. Appendix 10. The Petitioners placed photographs into the record of the treehouse and views from surrounding properties. The photographs are appended hereto as composite Appendix 9. The Petitioners provided photographic evidence that the treehouse could not be seen from surrounding properties. See Appendix 9. The Petitioners also placed into the record photographs of many John Volk homes, which are characterized by large "islands" in front of the structure obscuring the public's view of the residences. See documentation appended hereto as composite Appendix 6. The Petitioner also placed into the record a letter in support of the treehouse from the adjacent neighbor. Appendix 11 at page 17. The Petitioner, Frank McKinney also testified as the compatibility of the architecture with the existing structure. Appendix 11 at pages 36- 38. 3. Public Testimony In addition to the significant ex-parte communications and letters sent to the 7 City, several members of the public participated in the public hearing. Appendix 11 at pages 21-33. Several members of the public spoke in favor of the treehouse and several spoke in opposition to the treehouse. Kevin Warner, an admittedly outspoken opponent of modifications to this property spoke in favor of the treehouse stating that it "absolutely" did not detract from the historic "asset." Id. at page 22. The remaining public comments were .generalized opinions from speakers not disclosing any special interest in the Application or the Subject Property, such as its proximity to their property or any special impacts to them. 4. The Commission Discussion During the Commission's first hearing, only four (4) of the five (5) Commission members were present: Commissioners Levinson, Perlman, McCarthy and Mayor Schmidt. Commissioner Pat Archer was absent. Mayor Schmidt found the structure to be "compatible." Id. at page 43. Further, Mayor Schmidt found that "it doesn't appear to be outscaled or massed with the house." Id. Commissioner McCarthy found that the treehouse did not "distract" from the Residence and that the guidelines did not provide guidance regarding the size. Id. at Page 48. Commissioner McCarthy spoke "in favor" of the treehouse. Id. Commission Levinson spoke in favor of the Board making a "compromise" with the Petitioners for the treehouse to remain in its existing location. Id. at Page 49 to 50. Ultimately, Commissioner Levinson stated that he would apply the "death penalty" since the Petitioners could not work out an "acceptable compromise" with the Board. Id. at Page 57. Commissioner Levinson never discussed, nor found, that Petitioners failed to meet the COA standards. Commissioner Perlman contemplated several issues in his review, none of which focused on whether the Application met the standards for a COA. Commissioner Perlman focused on whether they needed to uphold the Board's decision out of "respect," whether it should be denied because it was built without permits, and whether it should be denied because no compromise was reached. "I have a problem with rules not being followed." Id. at page 46. Commissioner Perlman wanted the Petitioners to follow the precedent of "working it out with the neighborhood." Id. at page 47. "But, again, we're here because the rules weren't followed." Id. "[W]hat kind of precedent is there when things are done without a COA?" Id. at page 51. In fact, Commissioner Perlman found the treehouse to be an "admittedly beautiful structure." Id. "I am concerned about a message that, with an apology ...and some fines, that all is well. I don't know if that is the message that we want to send." Id. Commissioner Perlman moved for the Commission to remand the Application in order to ask the staff and the Board what their "opinion" was about ,; applicants that "disrespect" the rules regarding COA's and the "impact" of such disrespect on "future improvements to historic properties," as well as to reconsider compromises. Id. at page 53. The Petitioners ultimately informed the Commission that the Board reviewed compromises during their previous hearing. Id. at page 54 and 55. Thereafter, Commissioner Perlman withdrew his previous motion and moved to deny the appeal. The vote was two (2) in favor and two (2) against. B. The Commission's Second Hearing The Commission's second hearing was on December 3, 2002. At that hearing, the Commission addressed the matter as a housekeeping matter to clarify their previous action. A motion in favor of granting the .appeal was made, .which received two (2) votes in favor and two (2) votes against.' The City issued the Order of denial on December 30, 2002. Thereafter, this timely appeal ensued. A.RGUMENT• I. STANDARD OF REVIEW There are three levels of inquiry on certiorari review of a board's ruling: 1) whether due process was afforded in the proceedings; 2) whether the correct law was The Petitioners shall supplement forthwith the Appendix with the transcript from the December 3, 2002 hearing. 10 applied; and 3) whether there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the board's ruling. Board of County Commission of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469, 476 (Fla. 1993); City ofDeerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982); and Martin County v. City of Stuart, 736 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). This standard of review applies to quasi judicial hearings before historic preservation boards and city commissions when it is acting in a quasi judicial capacity. Asset forth below, the City failed to afford the Petitioners due process, applied the incorrect law and failed to rule based upon the substantial competent evidence. The City's Order must be quashed. II. FAILURE TO PROVIDE DUE PROCESS OF LAW A. Failure to Follow Charter Provisions The City is governed by the powers set forth in its Charter. § 166.021, Fla. Stat. (2002). The City's Charter, as revised, was adopted by referendum on or about March 12, 2002. Appendix 12 at page 1. Section 3.12, entitled "Procedure," sets forth the rules for Meetings, Rules, and Voting. Section 3.12 (c), entitled "Voting," sets forth in particularity the voting requirements for votes on ordinances, resolutions, and motions. Id. at page 14. Section 3.12 (c) of the Charter specifically states that "No action of the Commission, except as otherwise provided in the preceding sentence or in Sections 3.07 and 3.08 of this Charter, shall be valid and binding unless adopted by the affirmative vote of three (3) Commissioners." Emphasis added.2 The Charter, in fact, fails to provide a formal rule for tie votes, except the rule that all actions require an affirmative vote of three (3) Commissioners. The City Attorney advised the Commission that a tie vote on a motion to grant the appeal would be a denial in effect. Such advice is not supported by Florida law. See e.g., Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), taus. dismiss., 537 So. 2d 568 (formal procedures must be part of the municipality's organic law, the charter); City ofNaples v. Central Plaza of Naples, Inc., 303 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)(the court specifically footnoted that the petitioner was not challenging a ruling by the Mayor of Naples, based upon advice from the City Attorney, that a request for a special exception failed due to a tie vote). The Court's footnote in the Central Plaza case indicates that the Court took notice of the decision on the tie vote, but would not address its propriety since the petitioner did not request them to do so, as we have done in the instant matter. In the instant matter, the tie votes cast during each of the hearings were not z Sections 3.07 and 3.08 are not relevant to the issue at bar as they concern vacancies and forfeitures of office. 12 effective to constitute any action since any motion, whether a motion to deny or approve, would take three (3) votes to be valid and binding. Accordingly, the Order that denied the appeal was not based upon Florida law. The Order should be quashed for' this reason alone.3 B Failure to Consider Criteria in the Code The Commission was obligated to provide the Petitioners with due process of law. While not considered as formal as a trial, quasi judicial proceedings such as this hearing should be conducted in a matter that affords the parties a fair hearing. In the instant matter, two of the Commissioners failed to make rulings based upon the COA guidelines. The COA guidelines require, inter alia, that new buildings should meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in anon-contributing building. Appendix 4 at page 4505. Rather than reviewing the evidence regarding compatibility between the treehouse and the Residence, Commissioners Perlman and Levinson embarked on a discourse of "compromise" and the impropriety of the Petitioners' building the treehouse prior to obtaining a COA. See Facts,. pages 8 and 9, supra. The COA guidelines set forth in the Code are generally considered to be 3 The Petitioners shall address other issues with the Order without acknowledging the validity of the Order resulting from the tie vote. 13 sufficiently precise to meet the requirements of due process. See, e.g., Estate of Tippett v. City of Miami, 645 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3 d DCA 1994). Even the "compatibility" standard in the COA guidelines has been deemed by a Florida court to be sufficiently precise to prohibit unbridled discretion by the Commission. Life Concepts, Inc. v. Harden, 562 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). However, Commissioner Perlman voted to deny the Application based upon the "lots of emotions with this issue." Appendix 11 at page 45. Further, Commissioner Perlman identified issues to use as criteria in his analysis of the Application, none of which were the guidelines set forth in Code. Instead, Commissioner Perlman was primarily driven by the concern that approving a structure built without building permits would send the wrong message. Id. at page 51. The issues of permitting are squarely within the jurisdiction of the building code. See generally, Florida Building Code. The building code sets the fines and penalties for after-the-fact permits. In fact, there is not provision in the Code for the Commission to consider such factors. Likewise, Commissioner Levinson voted to .deny the Application echoing Commissioner Perlman concerns with the lack of "compromise." As Commissioner Perlman stated, the Commission only likes to weigh in on these matters when the parties cannot "work it out with the neighborhood." Appendix 11 at Page 17. While not perhaps not diapositive, the Petitioners would note that the ~~ only member of the neighborhood with standing whom provided testimony was the neighbor who filed a letter in support of the Application. Appendix 11 at page 17. The Petitioners' also owned the property next door to the Subj ect Property and voiced no objection to their own Application. Accordingly, the Petitioners "worked it out with the neighborhood." Apparently, Commissioners Perlman and Levinson wanted the Petitioners to "work it out".with all the detractors who have no special interest in the Application. ABC Liquors v. Skaggs Albertson's, 349 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Such requirements violate the Petitioners' due process rights as those considerations are not criteria under the Code. In summation, Commissioners Perlman and Levinson did not rule based upon the COA guidelines in the Code. They ruled on other criteria not set forth in the Code. That error cost the Petitioners two (2) votes, when they only needed one additional vote to approve their Application. Accordingly, the Order of the City must be quashed and Commissioners Perlman and Levinson ordered to consider this matter in light of the COA guidelines. C. Ex-Pane Communications Under Florida law, ex-parte communications raise presumptions of impropriety.4 As the Third District Court of Appeals has said, "Ex-parte 4The Petitioners' shall file herewith an equitable action in the circuit court. This argument is presented herewith in an abundance of caution to meet any appellate iJ communications are inherently improper and are an anathema to quasi judicial proceedings." Jennings v. Dade County 589 So. 2d 1337, (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Upon proofthat an ex-parte contact has occurred, the burden shifts to the City to proof that the contact was not prejudicial by "competent evidence." Id. In the aftermath of the Jennings decision, the Florida legislature enacted an ordinance to allow governmental agencies the opportunity to establish procedures to address ex-parte communications so that the inherent prejudice could be avoided. §286.0115, Fla. Stat. (2001). However, the City has failed to enact an ordinance establishing a sufficient procedure to address ex-parte communications to protect the Petitioners' due process protections. Accordingly, the City does not have any procedures that require the public official to disclose the subject and substance of the ex-parte communication, as well as the identity of the person, group or entity with whom the communication took place. In the instant matter, the Commission was contacted by numerous individuals on a matter played out in the press. Despite the appearance of impropriety, the City failed to assure the Petitioners' rights by disclosing the subject and substance of each communication, as well as the complete identity of each person, group or entity with whom the communication took place. The Commissioners simply placed the deadlines that maybe argued. 16 ' communications in the record. The instant matter is similar to the facts in the Jennings case. In Jennings, Jennings discovered that an applicant's lobbyist for a zoning matter conducted ex- parte-communications with commissioners. Jennings brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in the circuit court. The action brought in the general jurisdiction division was transferred to the appellate division and Jennings filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari against Dade County. The circuit court granted Jennings. Petition for Certiorari and remanded the matter to Dade County for an evidentiary hearing that could not be conducted in the appellate division. Jennings v. Dade County 589 So. 2d 1337, (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). As the Court noted, applicants must be afforded fair hearings. If there is a possibility that the applicants did not obtain a fair hearing, it should be closely evaluated by the Court. Florida law does not require that the Petitioners object to the ex-parte communications during the hearings. Jennings, in fact, did not attempt to determine the content of any communication between the lobbyist and the commissions nor challenge the propriety of the communication prior to or at the hearing. The Petitioner addresses this argument solely to preserve any appellate arguments raised by the City. 17 IIL SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE The City may only consider an application based upon substantial, competent evidence submitted during the hearing to the City. The hearing in this matter was devoid of any evidence to support its decision, but was simply an emotional decision against the Petitioners. Under Florida law, "substantial evidence" is such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonable inferred. De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957). It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. See also, Pollard v. Palm Beach County, 560 20.2d 1358, 1359 (Fla. 4`b DCA 1990). Such substantial evidence must also be competent. While the rules of evidence in quasi- judicial proceedings are not as strict as the rules of evidence in a court of law, the evidence submitted must also be sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion reached. De Griot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d at 91'6. The determination is whether there is any substantial competent evidence to support the City's findings and judgment. City of West Palm Beach v. Educational Dev. Ctr., 507 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4`~ DCA 1987). See also, City ofDee~feld Beach v. ilaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982). Accordingly, the City was only required to 18 consider substantial, competent evidence in determining whether to approve the Application. Relevance is the polestar that should guide the Conunission's review. This Commission cannot support a decision with irrelevant or immaterial advice. DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957). Relevant evidence is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a material fact. § 90.4401(2001). The relevant facts in the instant matter should have been facts that tended to prove or disprove whether the Application met the guidelines for a COA under the Code. As the Florida Supreme Court has held: The "substantial evidence rule" is not satisfied by evidence which merely creates a suspicion or which gives equal support to inconsistent inferences, and evidence to be substantial must possess something of substantial and relevant consequence and must not consist of vague or irrelevant matter not carrying the quality of proof or having fitness to induce conviction. Florida Rate Conference v. Flroida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, 108 So. 2d 601, 607-608 (Fla. 1959). The only evidence presented to substantiate the City Staff's position was the Staff Reports Recommendation to approve the Application, but recommending the treehouse be relocated. Appendix 3 and 10. Clearly, City Staff approved of the structure but wanted the location changed to another section of the Subject Property. The City was unable to articulate a reason that the treehouse would be more appropriate or compatible on a side other than the east side of the Residence. 19 The Petitioners provided evidence that significant numbers of Volk-designed homes were designed by the famed architect with obstructed views of the front of the residences. Appendix 6. With the existing tree in front of the house, the view of Petitioners' residence is similarly obstructed as the other Volk-designed homes. The treehouse, therefore, does not obstruct the already obstructed view of the Residence. The Petitioners would note that the photographs of the existing vegetation blocks the view of the Residence and the treehouse from the surrounding roadway and properties. See photographs at Appendix 9. The public comments did not address the specific guidelines in the Code. Further, the individuals testifying placed no evidence in the record that gave them any standing to oppose the Application. City ofApopka v. Orange County, 299 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4`~ DCA 1974). As the Court in the City of Apopka held, property owners' speculation and notions of status quo are not substantial, competent evidence to sustain the Commissions action. Id. at 660. ABCLiquors v. Skaggs-Albertson 's, 349 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Accordingly, their general testimony in opposition will not be addressed in detail except to point out its irrelevancy and lack of credibility. The public's general fears and objection to additional development are just the types of public opposition found to be irrelevant and immaterial. Id. See also, ~~ Polland v. Palm Beach County, Florida, 560 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 4~' DCA 1990)(opiruons of neighbors are not substantial, competent evidence). Kevin Warner, however, a usual opponent of development on the property and a somewhat frequent visitor to the site, found the treehouse acceptable. Appendix 11 at page 23. The competent, substantial evidence regarding the treehouse's compatibility with the Residence was difficult to find in the record. However, the photographs, the Commissioners' own comments, and documentary evidence, supported the Application. Unfortunately, two Commissioners did not rule on the evidence, but on emotion and criteria that are not substantial competent evidence to support their decision. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT The Order entered by the City denying the Petitioners' request for a COA violated the Petitioners' due process rights as it resulted from an invalid vote. Further, they applied the incorrect law and failed to follow the applicable substantial, competent evidence. The Commissioners voting against the treehouse responded to an outcry about the fact that the treehouse was constructed with permits. However, that fact was not a part of the review criteria and should not have been considered. As it is growing more common in these matters in the City, the City is participating in significant and questionable ex-parte communications from local residents. Mindful _~ of the powers of the masses, the City forgot its charge and applied incorrect criteria to an emotional matter and entered an Order not permitted by its Charter. The City's Order should be quashed and the City ordered to grant the Petitioners' request or be order to consider this matter in light of the applicable law. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, the Petitioners respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue a Writ quashing the Order entered by the City of Delray Beach, Florida on December 30, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca L. Henderson, Esquire ELK, BANKIER & CHRISTU ~ Counsel for Petitioner 4800 North Federal Highway Sanctuary Centre, Suite 200-E Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Office: 561-368-8800 Facsimile: 561-394-3699 By: e ecca L. Henderson, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 0004642 z2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent by certified U.S. Mail to the following: Susan Ruby, City Attorney City of Delray Beach, Florida 200 NW 1st Avenue Delra a h, Florida 33444 this y of January, 2003 ;, ca L. Henderson, Esq. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing compliance with the font requirements of Rule 9.100 of the Florida Rules of e to Proc `e. ebecca L. Henderson, Esq. 23 1T7 TT~F. (''TR i(" T TTT r ~1T_TR T (1F T'T-TF r it i i;Lly i ti J iJi~ll,lA 1- ~.1hC;U1 i' 111 AND. FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Lower Court No.:2002-164-COA-HPB CASE NO. ~~' - a ~ 0 6 2 A~ APPELLATE DIVISION [This Petition is being filed pursuant to Rule 9.100(f) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.] FRANK MCK:IlVNEY, an individual and NILSA MCK:INNEY, an individual, Petitioners, v. C~-ERh ~~HY H ~l(.KEN CIaCVIT Cl~ ~ QIVI~IdNRT THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a political subdivision CO ~'~~ ~ ~ Z003 of the State of Florida, _ _, ~ RECE VE pQR1~eN,~L Res ondent. OFZ Fl~~NG P APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ELK, BANKIER & CHRISTU ~ Counsel for Petitioners 4800 North Federal Highway Sanctuary Centre, Suite 200-E Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Office: 561-368-8800 Facsimile: 561-394-3699 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA FRANK MCKINNEY and APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL) NILSA MCKINIVLY, ` CASE NO.: 502003AP001062XXCTAY Petitioners, ~ x _ ..,•~~-~i ';; V _ der CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, `:;. ;, ~ _ ~ a Florida municipal corporation, r` ~=; ~ .;~ ~~~ N ~" Respondent. `_,; ~~~; / `~ Opinion filed: ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, For Petitioner, Rebecca L. Henderson, Esq., Boca Raton, FL. For Respondent, R. Brian Shutt, Esq., Delray Beach, FL. For Respondent, Susan A. Ruby, Esq., Delray Beach, FL. PER CURIAM Petitioners,. Frank and Nilsa McKinney, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to this Court challenging the decision of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, Respondent. Petitioners argue that Respondent failed to follow its own provision in the City of Delray Beach's Charter while Respondent argues that its process complied with Robert's Rules of Order, which is the minimum procedure that it must follow. The provision in question is Section 3.12(c) of the City Charter, which requires an affirmative vote of three commissioners to take an action. Respondent cites Battaglia FYCCit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), in support of its argument, but Battaglia can be distinguished from the instant ~~ .~. 1 j )~_ ir~atter because thai court vela ti~at the provisions of Robert's Rules of Grder would only apply in the "absence of a formal rule." See id. at 942. The City's Charter operates as a formal rule in this matter. This Court disapproves of Respondent's argument that three votes were needed to approve the appeal, as opposed to denying the appeal. There are consequences to decisions rendered by local city commissions, however the question or process is framed. The instant matter is no different. The City's Commission's rejection of the appeal from the City's Historic Preservation Board operates as an action that created a consequence for Petitioners. Based upon the above, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the final decision of the Respondent's City Commission is QUASHED and the matter is REMANDED to the Respondent's City Commission to act in conformance with this opinion. WROBLE, MII,LER, and BRUNSON, JJ., concur. /~E~oEic.Sv r ; ,Su ~ TL Zoo ~ , /fo ~A rc,. fa.J~ ~ L ~ ~`~ 3A S//t~l I ~ /~~~~ ~ . z o o ..~. w. ~ sf~ ~E /.~c-~e.r y ~c.~ ~N, ,~ ~ 3 3 yyy If~T THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICLyL CE2CUTT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA FRANK MCKINNEY and NILSA MCKINNEY, Petitioners, v. THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Respondent. DATE OF: January 12.2004 PANEL: Wroble. Miller. and Brunson AFFIRMED/REVERSED/OTHER PETITION GRANTED PER CURIAM OPIl~TION/DECISION BY: DATE CONCURRING: )DISSENTING: With/Without Opinion ~ ~ - ~- ) ) 6~ i ~ ~ J. ) IZ 0 ) J. ) CASE NO.: 502003AP001062XXCTAY Opinion/Decision filed: Petition from the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida Petitioned: January 29, 2003 Rendered: J J. J. CONCURRING SPECIALLY: With/Without Opinion ) ) J. ) J. ) J• ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT, P.O. BOX 3315, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33402 December 22, 2004 CASE NO.: 4D04-1919 L.T. No.: 502003AP1062XXCTAY THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FLORIDA v. FRANK MCKINNEY AND NILSA MCKINNEY Appellant /Petitioner(s), BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellee /Respondent(s). ORDERED that the petition for writ of certiorari filed May 18, 2004, is hereby denied. See Seminole Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Casselberry, 813 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 835 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2002). I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order. Served: Terrill C. Barton Susan A. Ruby Devon G. Coughlin dl RIL N BEUTTENMULLER, Clerk Fourth District Court of Appeal ~' ~Y.STBI~~. '•, ~~ is art ' s Rt J • -~ r~ ~ i :• ~ ,,,, tip-- .~ ,~'. ~,. ~F DEB ~ ~ 20~ THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA OURTH DISTRICT, P.O. BOX 3315, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33402 February 2, 2005 CASE NO.: 4D04-1919 L.T. No.: 502003AP1062XXCTAY THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FLORIDA v. FRANK MCKINNEY AND NILSA MCKINNEY Appellant /Petitioner(s), Appellee /Respondent(s). BY ORDER OF THE COURT: ORDERED that petitioner's motion filed January 4, 2005, for rehearing/rehearing en banc is hereby denied; further, ORDERED that petitioner's motion filed January 6, 2005, for certification to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida is hereby denied. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order. Served: Terrill C. Barton Susan A. Ruby Devon G. Coughlin cd RIL N BEUTTENMULLER, perk Fourth District Court of Appeal ..~~-.MN h.h `f~~ ~jr~ . F~ • l~' t~ ,fit . ,~ ' y r „~ •~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~F 10/23/2008 13:29 FAX 5612784735 CITY ATTORNEY ~ 002/005 x.. ~ r CITY ATTORNEY'S OFI:ICE DELRAY BEACH i o ^ ~ o aMAiirT~ri October 23, 2008 Ciiyt ~ r ® Devon Coughlan, Esq. 1x93 Elk, Bankier & Christu, LLP zoos Sanctuary Centre, Suite 200-E Boca Raton, FL 33431 '!u1' „ .I ,. ~ ;` ~.1.. I.1. f ~: t~ .',! •~.i !~ i i l!~:i'. 4!JJ .~ i i!~ ,I Iii'. ~Ph! ~..., ~~tli ~ ,!, ~- . -Re: McKinney v. City of Delray Beach Dear Mr. Coughlan: WRITER'S DIRECT LINE 561/243-7090 VIA FACSIMILE ~ U.S. MAIL 1 am writing to confirm that the case of McKinney v. Cify is scheduled for rehearing at the City Commission meeting on Monday, November 3, 2008 in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall located at 100 N.W. 1ST Avenue, Defray Beach, FL 33444, The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. The rehearing shall be de novo but the parameters shall be limited to issues pertaining to the McKinney's appeal of the Historic Preservation Board's decision regarding their application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an accessory structure (tree house") on their property located 670 N. Ocean Avenue in Delray Beach. This item is quasi judicial and therefore you will have twenty (20) minutes to speak as well as two (2) minutes far truss-examination and two (2) minutes for rebuttal. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTQRNEY CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ~y: ~ .~ Terrill C. Pyburn, Esq. Assistant City Attorney TCP:smk PAGE 21§ ~ RCUD AT 1012312008 2.24:40 PM Eastern Daylight Timed k SUR:FTLUVEB111~"DNIS:133 x CSID:36121841~~"DURATION ~mm•ss):02.08 70/23/2008 13:29 FP,X 3612784755 CITY ATTORNEY I~j003/005 SECTION 2.4.7 (d) (1 j (1 } RuIQ: Administrative relief can be granted only for instances in which it is specifically allowed. The Director of Planning and Zoning, or City Manager when specifically designated under applicable LDR sections, are the only administrative officials who are empowered to grant administrative relief. [Amd. Ord. 76-94 10/78/94] (2) Required Information: The following information must be provided in order for administrative relief to be considered: A formal letter of request within which the affected regulations. with reference to section number, are described along with justification for granting of the relief. (3) Procedure: (a) When Associated With A Site Plan Review: A request for relief shall be considered cancunently with the development application with which it is associated and shall be acted upon by the Administrative Official prior to consideration of the site plan. ff the request for relief is denied, it may be considered again when the site plan is acted upon. {b) When Not Associated With Site Plan Review: A request for relief shall be considered on its own merit pursuant to administrative processing requirements. (4) Conditions: Conditions may be applied only as they relate to insuring that the situation under which the relief is sought does nvt, or will not, change. (b} Findings: Prior to granting administrative relief, the administrative official shall find: {a) That the relief sought is consistent with the specific authorization provided for in these regulations; {b) That the intent of the affected regulation is preserved; and, (c) That the action will nat be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. ~ {E) A eals: An appeal is a request for a review and reversal of any action which if not appealed would be final. An appeal shall be conducted as a new evidentiary hearing via de novo review in accordance with the City's quasi judicial procedures and shall not be limited to the record below. [Amd. Ord. 49-08 911,9106] {1) Rule: An appeal may be made of an administrative interpretation; or, of any finding made by an approving body; or, of a decision made by an approving body. The appeal of an administrator shall be appealed to the Board for which such power has 9d_y7 PAGE 315"RCVD AT 1012312008 2.24,40 PM Eastern Daylight Timed ~ SVR;FTL4NE61115 ~ DNIS:3433 z CSID;361278415 ~ DURATION (mm~ss~;02A8 10/23/2008 13:29 FA?S 5612784756 CITY ATTORNEY f~004/006 SECTION 2.4.7 (E) (1) been granted; an appeal of an approving boards action shall be made to the City Commission. All such actions are appealable unless an appeal is expressly prohibited. An appeal may be made by an aggrieved party. (2) Required Information: An appeal by an aggrieved party must be made in writing, directed to the City Clerk, and must provide the following information including the appropriate processing fee; [Amd. Ord. 50-97 11118/97] Identification of the action which is being appealed; * Identification of who took the action and when it was made; '" The basis of the appeal; " The relief being sought; and, The name of the appellant and the appellant's interest in the matter. (3) Procedure: The following procedures shall be adhered to in the processing of any appeal: (a) Receipt of the letter of appeal from the aggrieved party, by the City Clerk, within ten (10) working days of the action being appealed. When the appeal is by the City Commission, it shalt be made no later than that meeting of the Commission at which the l3aard's action is reported to it. (b) Consideration of the appeal at the next regular meeting of the body who is to act upon it provided that the appeal has been received in time for proper placement on that agenda. (c) Consideration of the appeal at which time the appeal may be granted, denied, or set for further consideration. (4) Conditions: (a) The granting of an appeal of an interpretation or application of regulations is not subject to conditions. (b) The granting of an appeal pertaining to a decision on a development application may be conditioned, in the same manner as the development application may have been conditioned. (5) Findings: (a) The gran#ing of an appeal of an interpretation or application at regulations requires only a finding that the administrative officer was incorrect in the application of the regulation. ~a_~s PAGE 41~' RCVD AT 1012312008 2.24;40 PM Eastern Daylight Time) ~ SVR:FTLWE61115 x DNIS,3433 z CSID;3fi12184155 ~ DURATION (mm~ss):02~08 10/23/2008 13:30 FAX 5612784755 CITY ATTORNEY 1005/005 s~cTroN 2.a.7 ~~~ ~s~ {~~ (b) The granting of an appeal pertaining to a decision on a development application must consider those items upon which a finding is required and the appellate body must make findings on those items. (6) Sta of Previous Action: (a) Ge: Whenever an appeal is filed, the action being appealed shall be stayed i.e, the development application or appealed part thereof shall be considered neither approved or denied. (b) Proceedin at Risk; If an appeal is filed for an action that is precedent far another action (e.g. site plan approval preceding plat approval), the applicant may proceed with the submittal and processing of further development applications but only at his or her own risk. (F) S ecial Provisions: The following special provisions for obtaining relief from compliance with a portion of the Land Development Regulations have been created to handle a singular and unique circumstance and shall be applied accordingly. (1) Con Tess Avenue Wldenin Im acts: The City Commission has determined that the widening of Congress Avenue from two to six lanes in the years 1988 and 1989 has created unusual impacts upon previously developed properties and that in order to provide a vehicle for the equitable and efficient processing and approval of development orders it is necessary and appropriate to establish a special land use review and approval procedure for such impacted properties. (a) l.ocational Crit 'a: The provisions of this subsection (F} shall be applicable to any property, the boundaries of which were impacted by a taking of right-af--way or by physical improvements associated with the widening of Congress Avenue as undertaken by Palm Beach County in the calendar years of 1988 and 1989; and which meet the other eligibility criteria of this subsection. (b) Im act Prere uisite: The property must have been impacted by the widening project in such a way as to have created a nonconforming situation or to have made an existing nonconforming situation greater. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the following: Establishment or continuation of uses. Property which was vacant and which is proposed for new development. 2.4 - 79 PAGE 515 ~ RCUD AT 1012312008 2;24;40 PM ~Eastem Daylight Timej ~ SVR;FTLWEB1I15 z DNIS.3435"CSID;S612184155 ~ DURATION (mm~ss),02~08 10/23/2008 13:28 FAX 5812784755 CITY ATTORNEY E~T4~ ~F ~~~~€~4~ E~C[~ r~oo1/005 it ~~ ~~~~: ,~, . ~. CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ~ ., ~ . ~ ~ ~ :, ~ :::' ~,~ ~: ". ~ ~ ~~~:~:~ peuuYBEacH FAX TRANSMITTAL LETTER '" AIWUmMcaCit~ DATE: October 23, 2008 1g93 TO: Devon Coughlan, Esq, tool FROM: Terrill Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney Number of pages (including cover sheet) 5 Message: IF ANY OF THE PAGES ARE NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL 1-561-243-7090 IMMEDIATELY. PAGE 11~"RCVD AT 1012312008 2:24;40 PM ~astem Daylight Time) ~ SUR:FTLWE61113 ~ DNIS:3435 z CSID,3612184153 z DURATION ~mm~ss):0208 r• ~ ~' .~ ~ I~ I • . • ,, ~ •~ ORB :RD:NaA:.E NO. 7;.-E3 ;N 0?.7I*'.AZ1~E OF THE .CITY :~31+II+uSSIODl OF THE CITY :+F DELRAY BEACH. F*..OPZTiA, DESZQtA:'Il1G THE ?RpPFRTY riiO'M1N AS '.'HL FOliTJ,INL FOX HOUSE LOCATED AT 610 N. :3CEAN POULEVARD, WHICH IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 1 TO TBIS •'dRDINAIiCE. lIS A LOCAL H~STOxIC C:TC: PROVIDING FGR CERTAIN REQR1IREl+~'1'S pF DESIGNA- TION; pROVIDZ1iG FOR THE AMEi1DT~0iT OF THE "ZC3~IIIiG I4AF of DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA. 2983" TO SHOW, IN 7di f~VERLAY MAtII~IER SAID DESIGNATION; PROVIDING A HOTT- SEVERABILITY CLI-USEt PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATEt ~ AND PRdVIDIIiG FOR A SUBSET pROVTSI0m1. WAEREAS, Chapter 174 of the City of Code of the Citp of Delray ~ Deach provides foz the designation and protection of historic sites WFIEREAS, the owners of the Fontaine Fox Rouse, a home designed •: by noted South Floridti architect John Volk foz famed cartoonist and City '. of Delray Bench resident Fontaine Fox, have naaniaated the Fontaine Fox House to be designated as an historic site if certain .variances and waivers can be obtained from the City of Delray Beach. WHEREAS, the Historic presercation.8oazd of the City of Delray , i Beach prepared a ~lesignatioa report far the designation of Foatniae Fox ! House as as historic site and held a duly noticed public hearing s.a regard to the designation of the property as as historic site at which ; no member. of the public spoke in opposition to the designation of the ~ property as as historic site] and, WHERE~-S, the Historic Preservatiaa Board of the City of Delray Beach has reeaauoeaded that oa September 2D, 1989 that the Fgntaiae Pox Mouse be designsted sa•histozic site subject to certain variances and waivers proposed by thx ownezlapplieaat in the nomination/designation reports and WHEREAS, the City Comtnissiaa of the City of Delray Beach has ~ conducted a duly noticed public hearing is regard to the designation of the Fontaine Fox Souse as as historic site. NOW, THEREFOR, 8E IT ORDAIITEa BY THE CITY COTR'lISSION OF THE C:TY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Desisrnatioa. The Fontaine Fox House is located at 620 N. Ocean which is legally described an the-survey which is attached +:ad iacozgorated into this Ordinance as Exhibit 1 sad is hereby designated as the Fontaine Fox historic Site is accordance with and under the provisions of Chapter .74 :,f the City Code of the City of Delray Beach, subject to the terms of :his ordinance. Section 2. Requirements o: Designation. Notwithstanding nap provision of the City Code of the City of Delray Beach and any othes provision of this Ordinance, the follawia~ reQuizemeats shall apply to the use and developeaeat of the Fontaine Fox Historic Site: 1) no more than three (3) dwelling waits shall be used cad i developed within the boundaries of the Fontaine Fox Historic Site; j ;nd, 2) no elwe]linq wait used or developed oa that portion o: the ~ Fontaine Fox Historic Site which lies east of State Road A-1-A shall ^ontain more than two thousand and four hundred I2, 400) square feet of moss floot area. i 660 F~ ~. ?3~ _~ i . t ..'~ • `'` ~~~ ~ :~ Oil 6620 Pe ~ 73~ . `` ~~ . C. ._._ i ~~ ^ i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Sec ion 3. ':hat the Planning Director of the City of Delray Beach, Fior a, s all, upon the effective date of this o the saninq map of Delray Beach, Plorida, to show, ~ an ordinance, amend the above desipaation.. y ma,aaer, Sec_ ~.__. Severability. It is the~intentioa of the Cite Cotamisslon of the City of Delray Beach that the Grdiaaace and each ev sidered a part of a single whole and that the o~ °f its terms De eon- and :hat if a court of competent jurisd•ictioa finds theat of be severable this ordinance is unlawful or unenforceable the ~' section of unenforceable in its entirety. Ordinance shall be Sect~n 5• Effective Date. Thin Ordinance shall becooae effective upon adoption oa second ubd final readiap. Section 6. Sunset Provision. This Ordinance shall expire aac~ be of no further legal force and effect sixty {60) days after its affsctivc date unless the ewaer/applicant of the Fontaine Fax Historic site has obtained the following variances and necessary waivers 1. A variation from the minimum lot area requirements of the R-1-AAA zoning district to allow the construction of a Fontaine Foil ~3istoric Site that lies~ut of State Ro~ade A-1-As and 2- a variation ~fram the side yard setback requirements of . the R-1-AAA zoning district to allow the construction of a single family detached dwelling within five (S1 feet of ~ the north prvpertp line acid five (5) feet of the south xittoporic Siteewhich lies east ofaState Road A~1-7-~e Fox I i 3, waiver of the BO foot right-of-way requirement for State Road A-1-A within `the boundaries of the Fontaine Fox Historic Site and the eatablishmeat of a 60 .foot right-of-way requirement' for the purposes of any municipal permit os development order. reading oapthis theme ~~y~of n October session on second and final ~~.1989. ATTEST ~ l4AYOR - ~' C ty er ibis i~sstru4ent vas prepared bp: Fitct Readiaq October 10. 1989 Jeffrey S. Yurtt, City Attorney Second Reading Octo 24 1989 100 N.W, lat Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 i I i / ., . a •.- ::r •o.•t . .,.,: . ~:OAB 6620 P9 ~ X33 e LEGAL DESCRipTION i The South Half;ot Lot 4 ~ West of State Road A-1•A, kss the Wat 4333 Pert thetroL•' t that part od the South 70•teet of Lot 3 and the North half of Lot 4 lyitt5 West of State Rwid A•1-A:' and ~ ~ . Lot 3, leu the South 10 krt thereoi»' Block E, Revised Plat of B1oWa D and E, Palm Beach Shore Acres, Delray Brach, Palm [~,~ Beach County. FYnrida, accordbtQ to the Plat tbrraof recorded In Plat Book 7 at page 3B _~! of the Public Reectrd: o! Palm Beach Cotmty, Florida. 'leas the West 2S feet thereof for t~nad riSht-ofw+ay. A,~1D # thwt pwrt of the South 10 feet of Lot 3 lyitt~ East of the RiSht-ofrway of Siatr Road A- 1-A. F Said land is subject to easements, reservations, restrl etien:, covetwnu nAd rirhts-of~way of • record. ,. ~. .i . t • _~ -.... ' ~~ ~! . .l'HK B. DJldh? ~ ` ,k; .P- ~, +•,~ i l\~ ~ ~Xrr j . .. _ ~-. f ~ 1 'mil _' ~, ' ;, ,,, " -' '~' ,~- f l'~V r ~ r' '~'~_ 'r"~.-`^^'~'~ .^- ~^..~~~~~ •'` ••'L tip' ~ y r ~'----~-•:f = 4 ~ "i k J b ~' S + ,• J ~ J y +'_ '.. ~.. ~. 1. ~arr~T - ,' ~ ~.'~. ':f '~ ~ ~.~ ,. ~ :k: Ss ,M.... ~ ~ ~' ~"~ ~ M ~,] rte[ ~^~', +.., :J ~.Sy; P ~~@ n. .fir _ ~.. ~ ~ _ ~} ''p +' 4 .ems y ~~ r.; '~~ _ .~ ~ f 17 Q~ ~` k ~ J'am'`. _,?~ (~ ~ ~,' '.I ..~ 9t'~'I 4 ~~, may,. ~r.~~;`ne:~ -~'~` ... ~_ ~ _~ ~~~"'TTi ~ p ti sF ~1 ~ 1~ / ., .T" i ~ - .~. } 7 ` -~a r ~ {... ,i Lim `•'~ 'y 1 W a M _ 1 ~,~~ ~ /"!'ice ~~•y~+»~~ti N ~ i•,'O^ :~ ""^""' r'~ ~+~' .f~s~;' ~ `~~,., ~,- "fit ~' - ~~..1 .` ~ •~' ' 6r ~A~. ,~ ~ r" . ,; ~~ ^' ~, p _ r t ~ .j ~ u, ~y, ~;y`_, ~~" a ..'~ ~ `~ ~ ~;:i , ~) . •~ © r t-_i ~: r~~„{~I~ 1°' l~"-~~ .. ~ ` ~ ~^ ,...u ~ ~. - ^ ..rte _:~ -ti t.-. ~ _~ ~ x I F''~. ~'~~ ~:t ! • 'L~ -~ w.' Yom. ~`• c ~ ~ i ~ :~', 3 ~ ~ , ~: ~ J +l.. ' \r}' , ~ ~ 4 I `S , '- . Q L ~ E~ G 1 ~r~ ~ , -`'" u ` l •J~ ~ a 1 i. ~~•~ ti -' 3 f ,.. F~ r`y, • - v~ i f_ +t - ~^ - 1 ~:,+ 2 1. .,Ilr'L,,,~i r s.` '~ S k fi 1 1 ~. ( (° t .~t''Y~ ~ V'r~' ~ C~]~a. ,1 t~ t,~~,-,.j ~~~'*~,. s ~.~~i f.r~+. ~ f 7 '4 ••• ~~•J ~ lb~' ' ,~ '1ii ~yy~, `~ e~ ~+ +. r ~ `~ :J`~ i ~'~ M ^± a v.i `~ .',i_ , ~~ J~,~ ~ •~S~' -,~ •~ ,~'~-~ry-~ '~~j ~,;,.,r'.i^~~'M. f ~ ~r ~t ~~ 1 tt.1 .'. ~~ ~' a : ~:~ 4+! ~~;+'1~r d-t.~'U, ~ ~~'y;~ r't~ hj~ •'~ ~ ~,5_J~ d+ " ~f: `_. ~•r ..i',~,f1 ',f ~~1~#~ !~~u .~asY,~ ~ N r~-J~,.n~~ ~`~~ re~~+~ ~h~~ ~','r~~ ~~I) -,,- ~~F .~ ''r-'~ `~~, Sai ,t ~ ~ j ~1. ~ ~ ti ;1~,~`) ..}.f J~ • . ~` iF' `~' ~, r ! ~ ``~' ', 7 N F ~.'~'' " c l;,.N t. ~ ~ 4f- ri •. v ~. 'nv%t _ !~Y.. 4~ . µi' i M'•4•., +,,., v v'~ 'v~,J~ ~I' i ~ ~' T`''+.. S rJ ~ . .s' , M `~~.;' ti! '~+~~ ~ ~., ~1• ;•~~yJ `'~~ .,ter ~ -~ ~~~~- `'+ ,i~o v ',~,,,..; ~? x;1.3".I `rte YT~~•, .7' ~' ~ ` ~uJ '~ ~'ti aZ. *. ,t~ :~y c• 5~. tai , :, ~ 1, ~~ u . -.. r_. ~^ U c~ _ - , ~y v,1- ~ .,r ~., « ~ 4 ~. f~.~1 ice. +_'l~ F,^ ~4 ~ `~ 1 - ~ ~ ~ W ti tJ _ ' -. ~~ _ .. _ ~ :. .~ ~,' ., ~ ~- ;~lr~ ~~ ~7 u 1 ,~ .a r3 ~ ~ +~ G .r . • v ~"•" ti ~~ ~` .~~. ~ ~~~ 1T ~ _ z V'~~ a a0 ~ '_ ~'~) ~~ :. .~~~:~ ,. .. ~ _ ~. v. ~..~, { 1.. ,,~ "~+a~"r 1. z. J~+ . ~ .. a. ,'~„ ~ ,~ .. •--,_ ~ > - e 7 ~ •~ .. ~4'J F ~~ . .. .. e ~~ • ~ ~M 11 f a / 4'Tt .i Q °1. .4ti , i ~ r t ~ ', 4 ' r ..... ,. . ,. - - n ~4 n a, .' •.. M ~_ a : Y,; ,. ~. ,~ r„ ~ ~ t ~ y r"~~~, ~ ~~, ~, • ~ _~-~. a; -.L..-tom -.~_ _ ~ r'l'~""'~`~'~'«, J ~.. ; ~ k; • ~ h ~ ~~ _-. r'T! j' e" 7 r ^ ;'fir i ~ -+c~'' ~ lam. t~ ~, •'"'r ~ A .~T.~ ' ~.~,1 (~ ~. ~f I ._ '~ y~y. v'. ' S ( • ~ ~ ~ ~• Q J 1'Y 1~ J-..,tea ]~ c 'P. 1 ~ ~c,~. r, p _i. ( ~~ + +.`~V~yi''~ J !~ ~1 ~f ~~ ~ ~~ ^' fC.tiS 3, IM ~ ~, ~~., y ~~ r ;~~e' :. .. .- .. II it ~ ¢ ,~ i l i~C. ~.i I ~ i ~~ i ~r.~ 5 ~''- ~~,., +. i x~u y, ~ ,.~ r~ yi1 , ij `IS ~ r, ~' .= ~ .~ r.~'~ C~ ,~ .~ J; '~ ~ ,~ ~? i w s ~ r n ~ i - ` ' ` ~ .t~. ~~ .'~'~'. '~ ~ d ~a~ cy ~;.. i ~" y~ f ^J~Mj ~ , 1 ~~1 ~ i '~ - .7 ~ ~. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ , Y _ Vr P J SJ ~s~7 '_' ''L ~ ~ - LF. ! .~~ i~ ~ ~ a T ~~ ! .ell.;. . ~ _ '~` .. ~ ® •i ~ 1. - .~.. i'' a+ .. w 4-fr ~ K ,. ..r"` .. ,. 1( t , ~~ 4yi h ~ ., ., l _ 1 rJ ~ ~dy~ - P f . 1 ,.r,,. a..~,~r~ '~,,, .~ `mss _ .- _ ~ _ °a. j` `w ILL ~~t~~"!~+'~~ J,~f.~ ~: h i ~ ~., ~ ~ i Y er. i. . . ~ ~ ~ ~ rn ,,y' ~ _ J"' ~~ , ~ a ~~~ ~ ~; n J. ~ ~ t ~ s , ~~~ ~ ,} ~i ,~~~,.~ ~ -~ . ~< Grp ~~ y ,• ~; '°} ,~ '~ `~ Zf ,~,~ t~ i,~~'' _ . ~ . rt ~'k;~ ~,.t"`' i ~ L ~. - ~t ' .~ 7 I~IY•I p~'~ ~ ,,;-~r..• ,~ ~~-•"~ : ' r `:~ rl - ~, ~ f t'~ ~v (ice ~ ~. " ; ~ _~ hh t,I ti • T • 1 ., \ - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~t ~J v.. n~ ~ k~. ~ ,~.~., • .. ~ ~. .', O` r ,:- _ v R ~ J v. !J L ~ J V If iX- { 1;ffj'fii1~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~-.. f ~ ~~,h I~ r ~ o . ~'+' '~~ l7 'w.'''tiy ';.. ;lv-~Y~1 '~+"~yjy"~~..ilS~~,.~~'r!j7 ,,,~.` v-r ~ "' ,~ ~ L .f ~ a..,y .. - ~~ } J ~ sF ,r,~I i ,~{ ~J ~ S y~1' I'r ~/ tit#a ar..~~~.,` ~• ,~~ y y~~.r•~ y,. 7 ~ ~, R~ •'A` -~^'..+Jy i L ~4,~1 .'1 a r J•rn 3 ~Y •A _f ~1I J~ I \ fir. I n it ~ ~~ .~+~ - }. ~,t{ '~ti: ~'J -.: «'~.... .~ r ~~, 4. rJ ` i '.. r ~'•SJS Yl '1~~J 444 ~ l _ fir... ~ %~ ~ ~~ i=~ '~•' ~ ~.'1 .f .r~ 4 ~ , ,J+ .F { ~ ~.. I~ ~ ~' 'uJ !yam ~" 1~' 1 i ~a'`L y,i -~' ~ ~ rr ~ C,~~tY ,~i ,i'1~ ~ ,., . r ~, .~ .i ~ +a; ~i'~ a "h _ ~,~ 'v , i 4 „~1 ; N i,. `s { i ~' ~~!'°~ ~_3' P, , ~i• . ~•' li , .~~ ~ ~ I yl IJ I i J ~ '. J~ .~I 1.-i'1~ ~.v1-Ji ~'~ . i ~I~~. ~-' , ,, , 4 .) .... ~ ~ ''``' . _ _ _ .-, ~~ , u ~ ~- ~~~ s i• ~ \` ~~ ~. ~ ~' W 1 • /SJ/ yr I $... : ~ i F ~'` v La. ~~- ~~ { ti ~' i. ~ ~ ya' ~~ ~ ,. ~~ -~ ~+~.7 _.,- W ~m: • 3 . c/ ., 'ti ,{ ~i.~y r,. ;.~(' ~a,c,.. ~ , is r. .~ _.. ~: ` ` ,~ti ,.c'r 5 : r Y .~~ ..h JJ . a ~' S `a ~. u.~ +o r n ~ r- ., '~. ~ ` ~ :;y ~ 1 #~ X: r - } 1J~ ~ r. t ~ ~ K'•,. ~- ' ~h1 .,J ~ Y ~~ ~ :yam ~ '~•. ..~ ' ~ i "r.~ ~y,+a r. ~ ,~; t..~ I • is ~ O -,/y ~ ~yP' ,., ' t ,~ x ~ ! r+ ~ t is ~/ } !~~ '~,~ FEB-06-2007 07 04 PM Dale~Co 15615881774 P. 4 S 1' Y1 ~. YYLDL~ ~ r`c( vn~ c~3~'-~ 1n bus e J~ ,tee 1rtic~,.se_ ~nac~ o~losa,"`~`1 S l,rP~~C~e ~ .~V~ i C~ ~ U-'n~ wcoJ~ Cad~s'Fi~c~ . ~,fl ~~} Si f~ i / p/ce /~~el. q FEB-O6-2007 07 03 PM Dale. Co 15615881774 P. 3 EMPIRE FINANCIAL GROUP, IHC. Reliable Service. Personalized Answers. 12/4/07 To Whom It~May Concern, My name is John Kelly and I am the property owner of 1227 Harbor Drive. My property is intmediate~ to the west of the McKinney's "treehouse." The McKinney treehouse cannot be seen from my property, any adjacent properties that I am aware of, or even from the public domain. It compliments the McKinney home. It has withstood 3 hurricanes, and fared much better that many single family homes in our neighborhood. The treehouse is enjoyed by my kids and many of the neighborhood children. It has done much good for the community and it would be a shame to have it removed. I would hope that the McKinney's would not be treated unfairly because of who they are or because they choose to follow their convictions. Since moving into our home in February of 1999 we have had absolutely no objection to or issues with the McKinney treehouse that I understand was originally constructed in 2001. 555 S. Federal Hwy. -Suite 400 • Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561.544.0200 • Toll Free: 866.253.EFGI (3344) • Fax: 561.544.0222 www.®mpfreflnanclalgroup.com Member /VABD ~~ MSRB FEB-06-2007 07 04 PM Dale, Co 15615881774 P. 5 Richard Edick 615 No. Ocean Blvd. Delray Beach FL 33483 7e1561-274-9341 Fax 561-330-2646 December 3, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Richard Edick and live at 615 N. Ocean Blvd, in Delray. I am a property owner immediately to the east and directly across the street from Frank Mcl~inney and his family's "tree house." I've lived here since June 2000, understand the "tree house" was constructed in 2001, and don't have any objection to it. In my personal opinion, it seems to "fit" with the other buildings on the property, probably even provides some additional hurricane protection to the main "historic house", and even makes it a bit more interesting. I hope you can work this out with him. Sinc , ;~ Richard Edick ~~~ 615 No, Ocean Blvd. Delray Beach FL 33483 Tel 561-274-9341 Fax 561-330-2646 FEB-06-2007 07 03 PM Dale, Co 15615881774 -.-.-P_ ? .___ __. ~,-~~- dean lYlQ~.lr~en~ ~-F- ~.. C~ m i 5s t' Drl, '~, . tern. w ~ti-4t -~ ~..~~` kln~~ ~ ~~ ~,~ 1r,~,w~O.a~-~, VY1~c. gc~nd , ~rc~ ~~s ~ ~n ~ e ~~ ~ n~. ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ `''1 ~~~~~~ ~ aQ.1~ rn~ 5ef ~- `~`~~° ~~ ~ ~ ~D~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~- ~ s n at v ~~ s 5 ~..~~ ~ ~ ~Sr~s ,C-In~ ~-~- ~ ~~ I ~~se c~ i ~ yeti ~ ~n~~ ~~ . `~ ~ i ~Q~~ 0~ ~ 1a ~ ~~,~~ ~ ~5 . ~~ ~~ ti ~~ ~ • ,,,~ cti.a._Q~ Y~ • FEB-06-2007 07 04 PM Dale. Co 15615881774 P. 4 S 1'YZ~. ~~ ~ vn~ c7t~v ~n~~ss e ~ ,fie '~,~.a,.~ ~ncz~ caDSal~ cv,» ~ ~ ~~~ ec~e v~n ~'" isSu.Q~ W ~'t-~1 `~-~- /~~ 9 ~ 1 ~ ~'~'2 ~ 'u~V\ i C ~1 T ~1-'n~LPJ~ m~~~ ~-e~1 ~n ~~ ~ wco1~ Can ~ca-~ ~,fl g~} Si n C1ZJ~-~ ~ i~~ ~~. ~ b. a~~ FEB-06-2007 07 03 PM Dale. Co 15615881774 P. 3 EMPIflE FIHANCIA~ GROUP, IHC. Reliable Service. Personalised Answers. 12/4/07 To Whom It~May Concern, My name is John Kelly and I am the property owner of 1227 Harbor Drive. My property is immediately to the west of the McKinney's "treehouse." The McKinney treehouse cannot be seen from my property, any adjacent properties that I am aware of, or even from the public domain. It compliments the McKinney home. It has withstood 3 hurricanes, and fared much better that many single family homes in our neighborhood. The treehouse is enjoyed by my kids and many of the neighborhood children. It has done much good for the community and it would be a shame to have it removed. I would hope that the McKinney's would not be treated unfairly because of who they are or because they choose to follow their convictions. Since moving into our home in February of 1999 we have had absolutely no objection to or issues with the McKinney treehouse that I understand was originally constructed in 2001. 555 S. Federal Nwy. • Suite 400 • Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561.544.0200 • Toll Free: 866.253.EFGI (3344) • Fax: 561.544.0222 www.empfreflnanclslgroup.com Member /Vi~SD 5~ MSRB FEB-06-2007 07 04 PM Dale, Co 15615881774 P, 5 Richard Edick 615 No. Ocean Blvd. Delray Beach FL 33483 7e1561-274-9341 Fax 561-330-2646 December 3, 2007 To 'gVhom It May Concern: My name is Richard Edick and live at 615 N. Ocean Blvd, in Delray. I am a property owner immediately to the east and directly across the street from Frank McKinney and his family's "tree house." I've lived here since June 2000, understand the "tree house" was constructed in 2001, and don°t have any objection to it. In my personal opinion, it seems to "fit" with the other buildings on the property, probably even provides some additional hurricane protection to the main "historic house", and even makes it a bit more interesting. I hope you can work this out with him- Sine , ;' Richard Edick ~~~ 615 No, Ocean Blvd. Delray Beach FL 33a83 Tel 561-27a-93ai Fax 561-330-2646 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: R. Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: City Attorney DATE: October 31, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 RE,TECTION OF BIDS REGARDING THE TOWING RFP AND AUTHORIZATION TO REBID ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval to reject the bids for the wrecker/towing services RFP #2009-02 and authority to rebid the wrecker/towing RFP. BACKGROUND For at least the past 15 years the City has awarded its towing services, for disabled or wrecked vehicles blocking the public right-of-way, to one towing company. This has been done through the bidding process. The City recently issued RFP #2009-02 regarding the wrecker/towing services. At the Commission meeting of October 21, 2008 it was brought up, during public comments, that there were certain inconsistencies in the bid documents. After a review of the alleged inconsistencies it appears that most of the issues are minor typographical issues which could have been explained had the potential bidder attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. However, staff has received updated information regarding addresses of potential bidders and will incorporate those changes in the Purchasing Department's database. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission reject the bids for the wrecker/towing RFP #2009-02 and give authority to staff to rebid the wrecker/towing RFP. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: City Manager DATE: October 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 APPOINTMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before Commission for an appointment to the Neighborhood Advisory Council. BACKGROUND There is a vacancy on the Neighborhood Advisory Council for a student member to serve a partial term ending on July 31, 2009. The Neighborhood Advisory Council was established for the purpose of maintaining broad-based community involvement with the residents, creating neighborhood outreach initiatives, enhancing communication, improving the aesthetics of the neighborhoods and identifying any potential threats to the stability of the neighborhoods. The Council consists of fifteen (15) regular and two (2) student members. Twelve (12) members are residents with two (2) selected from each of the six neighborhood zones, and three (3) at large representatives, who may be selected from a community civic organization or business owner located within a neighborhood zone interested in the enhancement of its surrounding neighborhoods. The following individual has submitted an application and would like to be considered for appointment. Kristen Albanese A check for code violations and/or municipal liens was conducted. The applicant is a student and is not eligible to vote. Based on the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Mayor Ellis (Seat #5) for one (1) student member to serve a partial term ending July 31, 2009. RECOMMENDATION Recommend appointment of one (1) student member to the Neighborhood Advisory Council to serve a partial term ending July 31, 2009. 10/08 NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL TERM EXPIRES DISTRICT NAME & ADDRESS 10/31/10 Zone 1 Gaston Joseph, Vice Chair Unexp Apppt 08/21 /07 Re t 10/16/07 10/31/10 Zone 2 Jennifer Witt Appt 10/16/07 10 /31 /10 Zone 3 Linda Leib Unexp Appt 10/17/06 Re t 10/16/07 10 /31 /10 Zone 4 Harold Van Arnem Appt 10/16/07 07/31 /11 Zone 5 Gail Lee McDermott Unexp 03/03/08 Reappt 10/07/08 07/31 /11 Zone 6 Linda Prior Unexp Appt 02/20/07 Reappt 10/07/08 07/31 /11 Zone 1 Ria Santos Unexp Appt 12/11 /07 Reappt 10/21/08 07/31/11 Zone 2 Mary-Elizabeth Cohn Appt 10/21/08 10/31 /09 Zone 3 Shirl Fields Appt 10/17/06 10 /31 /09 Zone 4 Claudia Flores Appt 10/17/06 10/31 /09 Zone 5 Matthew Hartley Appt 10/17/06 10/31 /09 Zone 6 Joseph Kamarata, Chair Amt 10/17/06 764 Avocet Road Delra Beach, FL 33444 10 /31 /10 At Large Pamela Williairs Unexp Appt 03/21 /06 Representative Re t 11/06/07 07/31 /11 At Large Patricia Westall Unexp Appt 04/19/05 Representative Reappt 10/25/05 Re t 10/07/08 10 /31 /09 At Large Charles Stravino Amt 11/04/03 Representative Re t 10/17/06 07/31/09 Student Vacant 07/31/09 Student Vacant S/City Clerk/Board 08 /Neighborhood Advisory Cotmcil MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Terrill C. Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney DATE: October 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 APPEAL/SPRAB ACTIONS/BOSTON'S RESTATURANT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Boston's Appeal of an August 8, 2001 Decision of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board ("SPRAB"), which Approved a Class V Site Plan (known as Site Plan #4) for a Hotel located at 64 S. Ocean Boulevard (currently the Bermuda Inn). The parties to the Appeal are: 1) Boston's Restaurant, Appellant/Petitioner and 2) Vista Del Mar, Appellee/Respondent (Applicant). This Appeal is Quasi-Judicial. The subject of this Appeal is the SPRAB Board's August 8, 2001 approval of Site Plan #4, which proposes a 48 foot tall, 70-room hotel with private gym/spa and a 50 parking space garage. BACKGROUND A. Background and Description of Site Plans Site Plan #1 (Signed and Sealed April 18, 2001) On October 3, 2000, Vista Del Mar filed a site plan application for the Hotel Project with the City. The first site plan (hereinafter referred to as "Site Plan" #1") called for the demolition of the existing Bermuda Inn 20 room motel to be replaced with a 103 room residence hotel with 2 restaurants and a 110 car automated 2-level parking garage. 2. Site Plan #2 (Signed and Sealed .Tune 3, 2001) VistaDel Mar subsequently modified its site plan (hereinafter referred to as "Site Plan #2") in order to address some concerns expressed by staff. This Site Plan #2 proposed 71 rooms, a private gym/spa, a rooftop swimming pool and a 1,333 square foot restaurant with 59 parking spaces accommodated within the building on the ground floor below grade. SPRAB considered this Site Plan #2 at their June 20, 2001 meeting and voted to continue the item. 3. Site Plan #3 (Signed and Sealed .Tuly 2, 2001) SPRAB considered Site Plan #3 at its July 11, 2001 meeting. Site Plan #3 modified Site Plan #2 and proposed 70 rooms with a private gym/spa; a 1,297 square foot restaurant; and a 56 space parking garage. The SPRAB Board voted to continue the item. 4. Site Plan #4 (Dated August 3, 2001) The SPRAB Board considered Site Plan #4 at its August 8, 2001 meeting. Site Plan #4 modified Site Plan #3 and proposed a 70 room hotel with private gym/spa, no restaurant and a 50 parking space garage. This Site Plan #4 was approved by SPRAB at its August 8, 2001 meeting and was subsequently appealed to the City Commission by a neighboring property owner, Boston's Restaurant. 5. Site Plan #5 (Dated August 3, 2001 and Updated September 14, 2001) In an attempt to get an acceptable Site Plan, Site Plan #4 was modified by removing a single stack of rooms on the northeast corner of the building in an attempt to alleviate some of Boston's concerns. The City Commission considered this revised Site Plan identified here as Site Plan #5 at its October 2, 2001 meeting and voted to deny it by a vote of 3-2. Site Plans #5 was submitted in attempts to address concerns raised at SPRAB and City Commission meetings; however, Site Plan #4 is the only Site Plan currently at issue as this is the Site Plan that was approved by SPRAB on August 8, 2001 and appealed to the City Commission by Boston's. 6. Site Plan #6 This Site Plan modified Site Plan #4 in an attempt to settle the cases; however, this Site Plan was never voted on by SPRAB or the City Commission. Site Plans #6 was submitted in attempts to address concerns raised at SPRAB and City Commission meetings; however, Site Plan #4 is the only Site Plan currently at issue as this is the Site Plan that was approved by SPRAB on August 8, 2001 and appealed to the City Commission by Boston's. B. History of Court Cases There was a series of appeals by Vista Del Mar to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Appellate Division. From 2001-2006 there were approximately three (3) hearings before the City Commission and three (3) subsequent Writs of Certiorari (Appeals) filed. The last Court Order on July 11, 2006, stated: "The Commission is limited to the existing original record and is not permitted to allow new evidence at a new evidentiary hearing. As the SPRAB is a board charged with approving proposed site plans, it is an approval board. A review of SPRAB actions, therefore, would be by the Commission and limited to the existing original record." C. Items Before Commission The item before you now is a Rehearing of Boston's Appeal of Site Plan #4 which was approved by SPRAB on August 8, 2001. The rehearing has been requested by Boston's pursuant to the Court's July 11, 2006 Order and Boston's letter dated September 16, 2008. RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney's Office recommends City Commission discretion. _... ~~,_~3 4~ ~1 r 4 1 1 ~ la 11 ~~ 12 -~ 1 3 14 1 ~$ ~ 16 i 1 '7 ! 18 19 20 t I 21 22. •~ gib. 2 3 ~,~ 24 25 z 1 ~ ~ SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD ~ CITY OF DEFRAY BEACH 3 . i IN RE: i Hotel Vista Del Mar ' {Quasi-Judicial Hearing) WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2001 100 NORTHWEST 1ST AVEN[JE DEL'RAY $EACH, FLORIDA 3444 7:00 - 8:45 p.m. APPEARANCES: William Branning Gary Eliopoulos Debora Dowd Michael. Sneiderman Diane Borchardt Loretta Heusi LEY & MARSAA COIIRT REPORTERS, INC. {561) 686-0400 1 ~~ 1 (Thereupon, the following proceedings were 44~ 2 _ had} ~ 3 ~' - -~ 4 i~IR. BRAL~TNING: It's time for the 5 Quasi-Judicial Hearing for the Hotel Vista Del ~ Mar with the rules as outlined for this hearing. 7 This is a Quasi-Judicial Hearing. We've 8 go.t -- . 9 Loretta, would ou lease ask whoever is Y P 10 going to give testimony before the Board to stand 11 and raise their right hand and .administer the l I 12 oath. 1 13 MS. HEUSST:. Will everybody please stand I4 that is going to testify. 15 THEREUPON, 16 ALL WITNESSES were duly sworn. by the Clerk, in answer to . 17 questions propounded, testified as follows; to wit: 18 SAll answer in the .affirmative.} 15 MR. BR.ANNING: How are you doing, Ron? - 20 MR. HGGGARD: Ol~ay. First of ail, we 2l received three letters of opposition to the 22 project today, and I'm going to pass those out to 23 you. They've been asked to be read into the 24 record, however you want to handle that. Do you 25 want me to do that ar does staff want to do it? LEY & MARSAA~COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561} s85-a4ao i~ i i i i f c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 Y6 17 18 19 20 2Z 22 23 24 25 3 1 MR. BRANNING: You can do it. 2 MR. HOGGARD; When we get to that point. 3 Let me just -give you an overview of what's 4 changed since the last time that we -- that we ~ met to handle some of your concerns that were ~ _ related to compatibility, the. scale of the ~ building and loading requirements on --- .for the project and the -- and the attorney movements and traffic circulation pattern onto A-1-A. The project now has been changed to seventy rooms. The pool in the roof has been eliminated i.n order to maintain the number of rooms because there was rooms underneath that wo~.1d be lost. The restaurant is now gone, so we're down to strictly the seven~.y rooms with the gym and a spa. In terms of capability, the first thing is a building setback, and thatrs that the building Setback in the rear of the building on Selena Avenue was changed to ten feet. Another five feet was added to get the building further away Pram Selena, from the five foot that it was earlier. Also, on the north property, .although a portion of the building is sti11 at the zero LEY-& MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. X561) 686-0400 P -; .~ i f i ~8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 4 1 setback, the majority of the building has been ? set back eight feet, which was all the way an the 3. property line for mast of the building Qn the l north. side earlier. So t-hose are two changes F that were made up on the -- with r•elatianship to the setbacks. The other setbacks are the same as they were earlier; five feet for A-1-A and ten feet far the residential property to the south. The building height i.s forty-eight feet to the flat-roof deck. Several other towers have been removed now. We really only have one tower now with the building and that's the-rear stair tower. We also have some lower furnaces. We have a little elevator shaft tower, an elevator .room and some mechanical equipment. And we haven't been given heights of those yet, but those details will be worked out with the working drawings. And wer11 need the heights an that, and that's going to be contingent on the app roual. Th e open space because of the padded areas an the ---- in the back of the building and on the sides of the building, also the garage underneath LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561) 686-a4aa 1 -~ .~ L the building has been moved in on both sides, so ? now there is actually pervious area. There's... E actual landscaping -- there's actually landscaping, sq we've increased the landscaped area up to 23 percent for the site with this prQj ect . The parking -- now •that we already have ~ the ~ro•om.s, the parking requirement with the one space reduction that this project-came in before that . was changed. The parking requirement is •fort•y--eight. This project puts forty-nine.. There's also two spaces that are for check-in . only, and the-re's also a drop.-ofd space •also in the front.. They have two handicapped spaces. • As I said, the restaurant is gone, and the loading space has been changed. The hotels of this. size require two loading spacesr but thus is' less than half of the range of the hotels that require two, twenty thousand to a hundred thousand, aril we're requesting to --- they're reque-sting to decrease that requirement to one. We support that -- that change given that there • is no restaurant. zn the --•the hotel. has no laundry facilities, arzd the smaller vehicles that will be serving this -- this type of hotel here L E 7 8 10 1:1~ 1.2 J. 3 14 15 16 17 15 ]. 9 . 2Q 21. zz Z3 24 2.5 LEY & MARSA.A.~COURT REPORTERS, xNC. (561) 656-0400 .._,~ i ,~ .~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 ~1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2- 23 24 2 5~ will be able to park in the otYier spaces inside the garage, the drop--off space, the parking , spaces out front. The one space tYsat's inside the building has been changed to fourteen feet wide to accornrnodate the trucks in the building for a single loading space. Before, it was narrower because it had pa~xkin.g spaces on each side of it. It was. only 11 foot by 3-foot space, and it would have been difficult for trucks to rr~ake to-ruing movement. So that space is now acaeptab~le, especially given that we have minimum loading requirements now for, the building other than vending machine type functions. As I said, they added a -- the whole front of the building has been .changed now .• There's only a one.-space drop-off area, and we ask --- and we ask that they mark two of those spaces and convert two of the regular parking spaces opposite- the- hotel to check--in only spaces . ~So. if the spaces up front are taken, we wish. to use the basement of the garage before they can check in. . The stacking distance, they're requesting a waiver of the stacking distance fo.r the rear of LEY & MARSAA COURT~REpORTERS, ZNC. (561) 686-0400 1 .. ~k 7 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17. ], 8 19 20 21 z2 23 24 25 the project because the two ---- the •distance between the Selena Avenue right-of-way and the down part of the ramp going down into the. basement is fourteen feet. Now, actually where you're going to come into the project where you're going to be blocked and make your first turning- movement to go down to the ramp, to go in,.to -the basement., it has more than 20 .feet for that. Tt's just that we measure our stacking distance to the first --- to the .edge of the aisle even though that's going the opposite direction. So by the -- by our definitions, it's only 14 feet, so we need a waiver for that. We need to waive' that. . The visibility of intersections, if you recall, we discussed that a lot last t~,rne. There's.still_waivexs for the visibility. It changed considerably. ,The front of the building now, the visibility is 8 foot on. Ocean Boulevard, the visibility triangle, but that's only because of the columns. Without the columns, there's wide-open visibility. And that's also because of how we measured the visibility from, the edges of the driveway cut. If you measure the visibility from where LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (56~..) 686-0400 1 I i l I 4 5 6 7 9 14 11 12 13 ~. 4 15 z6 i~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 the -- the vehicle is and the travel lane is, it's more than ZO foot on both directions. So -- and on the same similar one -- on Selena Avenue, th.e visibility triangle has been recommended changed down to 1(} feet, and that's for the stair tower into the visibility triangle. Again, that's on the other side of the travel lane where the vehicle is on the exiting lane, he has more than twenty foot on there also. So we're supporting those waivers. The Sidewalk, that's the .same as last time. There's no opportunity to put a sidewalk in the back on either side of this property, so it doesn't make sense to put a sidewalk here. And the right-o~f-way --- with the reduction to the existing right-of-way width, the"bike rack, we"have a bzke rack in front of the " building. Now with the basement moving -- with the redesign, the basement was able to move back a little bit and~is now out of the coastal construction line; sa we don't re-quire the fee permits. That's another change. They have a few minor site plan technical items that we need. The landscaping has been LEY & MARSAA COCJRT REPORTERS, INC. {561") 686-.0400 9 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beefed up quite a bit because now we have the - landscaping on the north side of the building, not an top of the garage. We now have foundation planning up on the north side that we didn't have anything before boarding'the property to the - north. The architectural elevations .were changed quite a bit also, and mainly with -- the elimination of the other towers that we had before and with the change -- and the change in the rear elevation were the. main changes:. The rear elevation facing Selena now has the upper level. As S said, the whole building is set back five more feet now, sa it's 10 feet from .Selena. The upper level sits back another 8 feet, and there's some landscaping in front of the rail. Also, there's an open balcony here in the back. zt gives you more depth in the building so you have -- the back of the building has a lot more room than in the initial design anal is much mare compatible with the surrounding development from where we started this project. • These are the findings that were made last time. They are still the same. We can snake a positive finding with regard to this project, and LEX & MARS,A•A COURT REPORTERS, TNC . {561.} 686-0400 ~_ i i i i i 1 t~ 7 <' 4 5 5 7 8 9 ` 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ]. 9 20 21 22 2 ~3 24 25 10 capability has been -- is better than it was last tune, in fact, and we're recommending approval of the~pro.ject subject to the conditions that are outlined in the report. . Also, T'd like to add the file to the record, too. Okay, MR. BRANNTNG: Thanks, Ron. Will the applicants make. a presentation3 MR. AGUTLAR: Good evening zz~.embers of the Board. My name is Jose Aguilar, an architect with the Currie Partnership, and we're here to visit with you on this wonderful project. Do you want to do anything with the lights or is this okay generally? Tt's up to you. You~re okay with that? Okay. As you know, we've -- we've been here several times. We've made -- and as often as we can, the things that tYze Board was concerned about, we dealt with the issues right from the very beginning. We~w-ere, for the most part in our judgment, in compliance with the various codes. Tt was really more of a compatibility thing that kept coming up. We have continued to refine the plan and refine the drawings azzd at every turn, hEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, 1NC. (561} 686--040D 1 7 l l 1 I I I I I I.1 4 5 6 7 8 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 J. 7 ]. 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 z~ accommodate staff's requests for all. of the things that they felt were necessary ta,make this a more viable project. And ~ think that today you will ,finally agree with us that it's -- it's really --- I mean, there' s j ust -no j ustification for not to go -- not to go this evening.,. Sa what we're just briefly going to dq since we've been here several times- is to -- is to be. brief and j ust tell you how it '. s changed from the last time, Basically what this shows is that- with the original plan, we were from property line to ' property line -- ar a•ctually, we were off 10 feet from the south, but we're on~the north property line. And we're using a prov.En routing system which will allow us to reinforce and then shave off what we needed. We're riot doing that.. We moved the building away further an the south anal 8 feet an the north, which allows us to reduce the parking structure a bit., making the parking structure more efficient. In the alpine, you see that there was same backups towards the driveway. All of that is gone. The turning radiuses are careening into islands as apposed to . parking spaces. There's less parking, so there's. ., i~EY & MARSAA COURT ~Z.EPORTERS, INC: (561) ~8~-a4oo i _~ 1 2 3 4 .~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 2 ~.' 22 2 3- 24 25 12 less traffic, so it's -- its a -- you know, it`s -a cTean~r -- it's a cleaner parking layout that •sh.ould ease that- concern. - - The. other thing that we' ue added. •is we've r reduced the building on the,-- on the east property line as well all.awing, us •to completely .get aw,ay.from the coastal construction, line. ~. That also allowed us to shift it on the ground level a .little bit -- I thinf~ Ron may have ~ - misseel -- so .the building gat sm.aller~ on the east, the west, the xio~th and the youth. ` .When you -look at t•he ground level plan, we have the mast obvious items that we`ve --- we've deleted the restaurant, 5o that should al.levia~te some of the concerns that some of the neighbors may have had with regards to traffic. Traffic that has bee-n generated here is for the -•- is primarily far the hotel's hotel roams. M.R. SRANNTNG: Wait a minute . ~~. (Thereupon, an off-the-record discussion was had. ) .- MR. AGUILAR. Anyway, so we've --- sa we have deleted the restaurant, which reduces. the number~of parking spaoes and thus the traffic. ,- ~ And you. know, the traffic scenario that we've 1. •-~ LAY & MARSAA COURT RE~QRTERS, INC. ~' - {561) 686-0400 . x . •~ 2 3 4 S 6 8 ! 9 l0 11 l2 ~ ....,~ 1 ~ 14 15 k 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 '} 2 4 25 13 used here is allowed 'by Code. It certainly is the one that was used by the Marriott when their parking spaces were counted. .This new plan that we're doing, we've added check-in spaces ,right in front.af the main door .and the drop-off -- right across from the main door and a drop-off. You also notice that theme's a turn-in and a turn-out for orator vehicles, so as you exit, you can only. turn south, or as you enter,. you can only came in •from the north. -5o that should alleviate the triangle .issues, the traffic stacking issues, you know, all the traffic , maneuvering concerns that may have been raised. And of course, by shrinking the building a couple of feet on .the south and $ feet on, the north, we've increased the landscape buffer between the property on the north and south, plus there's a lot more buffering on the east and. west. So our landscaping pervious ar our open space is a pervious. area, so again, it's a lqt cleaner. And yo.u can see from the landscape plan that•the graphic on the left.has some pavers that made it a little bit hard to see, bu•t we -- we've increased the landscaping considerably, as you. know, particularly on the north elevation and on LEY ~ MARSPrA COURT REPORTERS, INC. {561) 6$6-0400 ,, I I I I I I I) I 1 14 1 2 3 •4 5 6 . 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 1$ 19 2a 2 1~ 22 23 24 2 5- the west. •. The other thing that this ane shows is the issue with the .loading that -Ron mentioned, We increased the loading by 2 feet, actually 2-foot-9, io the- maneuverings are a little bit tucked in. the corner as approved by VFI. Yt will be deodorized and air-conditioned, so it should not impact the• neighborhood. On the -- on the second, third and fourth floors, what we've-done is we've set back further from Briton's, and we've -- I'm sorry, we set back from the west side. .We've increased the setback on the west side without effecting any of the -- of the minimum square footage requirements for the rooms. Tt•was an issue that was brought, actually in this xeport.for the first time. Yt was never brought before, which was the concern. .about the room sizes, were they as required by code. The code says they have to be at least three hundred and twenty-five. Our rooms range from three ninety-two to six sixteen, so they're. ample in size. And so you can see by moving our front • .setback back, we've. really cleared the portion. of the one-story element of Boston's, which is what _ LEY & MARSHA COURT REPORTERS, zNC. (561} 58b-0400 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. ~1 22 23 24 25 15 L I'rn pointing-out right now. That portion ~.n red '. _ is the upper balcony, and the part above that ~ that is left is the -- the back of the one-story element, so none of the views are affected. And if you look at what's there today, you'll see that their view is not im.pactad anymore than with that vegetation that they have there today, so-they have nothing to~lose and everything to gain by what we've d-one, by the setback. And we did set that back because of the coastal construction line, s-o-T think that should go a long way to making you feel better. 'The fifth floor then, we even moved it in another 5 feet from two, three and four to allow us to do some exterior balconies on the west property line that we .can landscape. That wou],d soften that facade as well. Plus we've added - more -- 'some full windows on the stairs and some additional windows on the west elevation. So if you look -- not that it's an issue in our LI)Rs, but it's been raised by the Board at a previous meeting that there was a concern that . maybe the ratio was a little bit intense here. It's not the barometer by which Delray . developments are measured but for whatever itTs LEY ~ MARSAA, COURT REPORTERS, INC. (_561) 6.86-0400 ~, i i E i . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ~a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 L worth, if you compare it to Block 77 --- which was ? in the.news a lot -- that ratio far that project 3 was 4.05. When we were here the first time, the ~ time that eras brought up, we were at 2,73 and we're now at 2.5.x. And that you already know, the setback. ,You can see how it's set in 5 feet and then. I5 feet on the' other side, or a total. of -- one of the things that --- these were the comparisons between the original elevation-.and what rae're proposing now. The new elevation nniy has the one stair tower, which is actually much further back then this shows in a two-dimensional plan, So you really don't quite notice it from here. And the only thing is the stairs -- the railings are matena green, not blue, but that's just an oversight. So we don't have anything of any appurtenances on the roof that are not required. We have the overrun for the elevator, and then we - have mechanical equipment which will be centered and screened. That equipment we now know to be five .foot by 11 foot. zt is 6 feet high, and it sits on a .rack a foot and-a-half hz.gh, but it's in the center of the roof up an the fifth I,EY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC . (561) 6a6-0400 ... .~ • 1 I ~~ '•~ 9 C 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ]. 8 1.9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 17 -floor -- ar above the fifth floor, and ypu really won't see it unless you back up to Cleveland. So I'm not, sure that`s really an issue,. and; again, we.'ll screen it with a wall. There's been the usual concern about the lights ,and the turtles, And again,- I've .hee,n in touch with friends that I have at the t7Ei~ who monitor the- turtle programs. .And in fact; City staff has confirmed that I've.done that, and we know what needs to~be done. We~will be in, ~comp7„ianc_e . We will have all our lights shielded. We will have our windows tinted. We will not have anything that any turtle could see unless they're airborne. Sr5 the..west elegyration -- we didn't' start coloring these unt~il•we got several narrations into here, but you can see that the west elevation has gotten.a lot more articulated with the setbacks with horizontal as well as vertical steps, with more railings, with planters. And of course., we've been able to add a considerable amount of landscaping because of the setback, and I think that we've gazxe a long way to satisfy the Board. As Ron went through his presentation, I L-EY & MA.RSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (56l) 685--04QQ 1,. I I I .~ E .7 -8 9 1.0 11 12 13 1~ 15. 16 17~ 18 19 20 2 ~. 22. 23 24 25 F ~___._____-~______________. .____ ~ noticed that all he-kept saying was~how we were '. _ in compliance, haw we met the code, how they're {~ supporting what we`-re doing. Well, S.think now it' S .~'eal.ly a matter of the- compatibility rait.h the neighborhood and your perception of.what_that truly,me-ans. . ,MR. SHOWERS; Thank you, Jose. Jeff Showers, ,architect, far the partnership . , As yQ.u can s~~,.this. is the existing. Bermuda Inn. This is the site where the hotel ~s,proposed. The aerial z.s repres.entative of where you see the star. zt is the proposed bite fAr the hotel. .Directly to the ,-- to the west, the yellow block is a parcEl of land -- actually two parcels o~ land. the same owner owns,. so I know there were concerns-about residents-who -- who were-directly adjacent to --- to the west. of this property who was directly affected. In fact, it is one of~the prop~xty owners who owns the, hotel. The :majority of that is affected by that. .We provided a --~ an architectural diagram along Ocean Boulevard that's -- that's in~Iicative of the scale and relationship of the -- of the buildings surrounding it .. To the south is the Ocean place condo. It's a 'five-story. condo T,EY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, YNC. (561) 685-000 19 C E 7 9 ~. a ~~ 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L building, and it's in the residential section ? -actually, r The new Monmouth Cando, it's -- it's also a fine-story building. Tt's 48 feet in height, and the hotel, which I think is b9 feet with -- with - appurtenances. that ga beyond that, so that's substantially higher than the rest of .our building in the area. Then of course we .have Peter's Restaurant, and we've got Boston's, which ~is a two-story directly to th-e north. And our proposed. hotel meets within the guidelines, it's 48 feet high. And as Jose mentioned before,,we'~ve got -- the pertinences were eliminated, so we feel --- we feel as though this is a good diagram to show that we're within scale; we're compatible with the surroundings. And the further end .rates have changed as we made in the elevations. rn essence, we added some full windows in back. The landscaping is.. all the same. We've got a lush landscaping that you saw at the last-meeting... ' ' This drawing really did .not indicate as well as this one the shadows that are created, the depth of these balconies_ I think this LEY & MA.RSA.A COURT REPORTERS, TNC. - {561) 586-a4aa 1 1; ,; 7 4 5 6 7 8 .9 1.0. 11 12 13 ]. 4 15 Z6 17 Z$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 drawing~is more indicative of the piny that we have in the elevations, the variety that we have. And you see the -- the pertinences here. They're now eliminated. And on the north elevation, again, we have that interplay of .these recessed balconies -- I don't want to say balconies, recessed. But the .rooms are recessed, so it creates, again, a variety. And we have all this additional landscaping that we`ve now added that we di:d not have before. This is on the north elevation adjacent to Boston's. Then of course with the additional setback along the west elevation, we've adde-d a lot more landscaping to the back., which I think is a lot more compatible with the- residential to the west. MR. CURFtIE: My name is Bob Currie, Bob Carrie Partnership. Just a brief word to talk a little about some of the aesthetic issues, if you Will. The front elevation ,is articulated, as you can see in these step forms, which not only gives you a scale breaking element for horizontally, but we also achieved that on the top floor when we set that back slightly .when he changed the LEl''& MARSAA. COURT REPORTERS, INC. (56~.} 686--0400 21. D 1 e .~ F C ]. 0 11 l2 13 l4 15 16 l7 l8 l9 za 21 22 23 24 25 1 materials. 2 The --- there' s been a lot of concern or 3 talk about zero lot line in the commercial zone. 4 The -- which o~f course is allowed, as you well ~ know, and it's allowed for a specific reason. ~ St's an urbanistic idea that you're trying to get ' a ~ continuum, an urban mall, if you will, . And to that end, of course we're --- we're trying to achieve that --- that element on the north side. There was some .concern of course about Boston's being able to do this and if we would object to the .fact of Boston's wanting to do, it, and S would say categorically we would not. Xn fact, we would welcome it. Those units that are on the north side are --- are frankly marginalized by what they have to look at now_ And if they were willing to do something similar to this, we would be here to support them and we would be most encouraging. Two other issues. One is: This town has been a success.- We want to bring residential into this town. Azad more than anything else, we want to bring hotel residential into this town to support .our downtown, and this is achieving it, St's the last place wa can do it on the --- on the LEY .& MARSAA COURT REPORTERS,.INC, (561.) 686-04fl0 l t ~ •~~ } 5 R 9 c 6 7 8 9 10 ll I2 I3 14 15 16 3.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 _ ~ ocean. `. And lastly, we absolutely clearly have met all the concexns. We are not asking for anything • special.. We are riot violating any of, the zoning codes or laws, so I would certainly hope in -- • with any kind of logic, that'you wauld support this. Thank you. 1!MR. BRANNING: Thank you, Sob. Any other members of your team like to speak? Can I see a~show of hands. of who wants to -- MR. KRALL: Just for the record, Mark Krall for the applicant. I just• want to reserve comments at the end. And I would also like to make a request that when people come up for and against the project tonight, that they not only state their name, but they state their physical address. Thank you. MR. BRANNING: Thank you. Ron, is that proper -- appropriate? MS. HEUSS.I: Yes. MR. BRANNING: Let me see a show of hands ot.members of the public who plan on speaking tonight at this moment, just so I can get an idea. LEY & MARSAA.COURT REPORTERS, INC: (563.} 686-04Q0 ~_. i' i i i t ' ,~ 23 Okay. I would Like to ask you to limit your -- your time at the microphone to three- minutes, and please, if you- cdu.ld state whether you agree or disagree with the project., And i.f there's something that somebody has already talked about and you agree with it, just state that and so it won't be necessary to .repeat e~aetly what that other person said. If you got new ideas or view points, we'd like to hear those. 1 2 :3 4 5 ,6 7 8 9 . 10 11 1-,~ 13 I4 1.5 ' 16 1T 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So at this time I'd~like to ask anybody . who's in favor o.r opposition. of the project to came to the microphone. THE'SPEAKER: ~'m Gene Sullivan. I operate a store at 28 and 30 South Ocean Boulevard. •Al~so I represent the new 'Monmouth Condo Association, who are 100 percent. in agreement that this would be a wonderful project . . What a wonderful ~~ opportunity to rid ourselves of a 1950 motel and. put this in. T can't see how it could be anything but a wonderful, wonderful addition~to Delray Beach. . MR. BRANNING: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. THE SPEAKER: Hi. I'm Melody Dowd, and I~ live right down the street at 200 South Ocean ~. LE'Y &.MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, TNC. (561) 686-Q4Q0 1, i •. r 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 8 9 ]. 0 11 Y2 13 14 1.s~ 16 ]. 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 Boulevard. I was here at the last meeting, and I- just want to tell. you. once again I think this would be a great project for the neighborhood. I'm looking fo.rwaxd to it increasing the property values of our neighborhood. I think it would b.e a huge improvement over what's there now, and I'm•not concerned by anymore congestion. I'm right then-e on the street all. the time, so, you know, it's a . congested street. It's going to continue to be somewhat congested, but I don't see this being any worse for•wear by putting this project in. So we're looking forward to it. MR. BRANNING: Thank you, Melody. THE SPEAKER: x'm Penny Weller. I live in the same complex as Melody does. And to avoid being red.undanit, I'll just say ditto to what she said. ' MR. BRANNING: Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Good evening. My name•is Jahn Belardo. My wide and I live at 502 Vie Lane. We also have property on the lake. We also have property on 18th and one on 11th. This is the type of aggressive, well. planned, well thought out~-entreprene~urs.hip that we need in the LEY & MARSAA COURT REP©RTERS, zNC. (561,} 685-0400 25 1 I I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1a 11 12 13 14 15 Z6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 corn~t~unity. And we're all for it, and we think it's a big plus for the area. MR. BRANNTNG: ,Thank you, John. . THE SgEAKER: Hi. I'm Kim Thomas, and T live at 1138 Vista Del Mar. x'zn here to read a letter that Marianne Cousins ---she's sitting in the third row -- has written. . "Dear Members of the Board, my name is Marianne Cousins. I have operated a business on the corner of.East Atlantic and Selena Avenue for over twenty-five years, and have also resided•on Selena Avenue for the same period of time. I am writing this-~.etter to express my support of the proposed hotel and to express my views as to the character of•~Selena Avenue. "The fact that Selena Avenue serves as a border between commercial and reside-ntial properties.. is certainly nothing new. In fact, the residents on Selena have always lived in harmony with the aommexcial activity that occurs on South Ocean Boulevard. • "What is curious to me as T sat through the . last month's meehing is that I did not recognise anyone who was an actual resident living in close proximity to the proposed hotel. If.you were to LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561) 686-04Q0 ~; I i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~. 4 15 ~. 6 17 18 ]. 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 2~ personally interview the people who actually live on Selena Avenue, I can assuxe you that there would be minimal, if any, opposition to the proposed hotel. Believe me, we would rather see an upscale boutique .hotel on the Bermuda Inn property as opposed to some of the other development proposals that have been seen in the. city. "G~Then a person decides to live on Selena Avenue, it is with full awareness that they will have to co-exist with the commercial activity on both Selena and Atlantic Avenues. The fact that the hotel has a front entrance on. South Ocean Boulevard will greatly reduce the impact that bhis development will have on. Selena Avenue. "Since it is inevitable that some day the Bermuda Inn property will be expanded and approved upon, I cannot think of a better alternative than the. proposed boutique hotel project before you now. "Sincere3~y, Marianne Cousins.." MR. BRANNTNG: Thank you. Ron, we need to get a copy of the letter. THE SPEAKER: My name is Lynn Malox~.e, 18 Selena Avenue. Everybody has already said LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, TNC. (561) 686-0400 ' i 1 I I i 27 L 5 everything, and for all those same reasons, T have absolutely no objections to the project. ~R. BRANNING: Thank you. ~ - - THE SPEAKER: H~i. My-name is Hank Leggy (phonetic) T' m a president of the _ Board. 18 Selena Avenue. And we strongly recommend this project go through. MR. BRANNTNG; Thank you. THE SPEAKER: -Hi. I'm Carl DeSantos Vicimos (phonetic). I live --• no longer do Y .1i~re in Delray. I moved to Palm Beach. I'm at 343 E1 Brillo. That was a slip up, we'll talk about it later with ~Taek.- Jack is back there. They sold my house from under, me~so T had to move, so interimly I'm staying in Palm Beach. T don't know that T'm too impo~'tant, but I ~ - own a number of buildings here in the City, and I work with all the tenants and the lessor, and T just believe that this i~ well needed. T-think something like this is just going to, if you would -- and T wrote same things down real quickly, but it behooven me as a lessor with my tenants who are trying desperately to make it all work. Anal if you`d like to Look at my rent moll, 6 7 8 10 Z1 12 J. 3 J. 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 ., LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, TNC. (561) 686--0400 28 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 I5. 1f 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you're welcome to. I'm substantially below , what's offered on Atlantic, if you would, virtually anywhere on Atlantic, and they're still having a tough time. But I believe also coupled with that, in order for the City to grow and stay No. 1 ~- and T'm so proud of the Gity, I truly ani -- I think we need something that would ingratiate us like this.. Coupled with the fact that it's going to help this particular side getting over the bridge, we need this badly. And I thi~ik it's going to also cause others to emulate what's going to happen. I think be it my good friend Fxanny, be it Boston's, be it my own sel£, the Delray Ocean Center, Bernie's, we're going to do everything we can to make us live u.p t:o what .they're attempting to do . .So I'm alI for it 110 percent. Thank you. MR. BRANNING: Thank you, Mr. Vicimos. Anybody e~.se. like to speak? THE SPEAKER: Are you taking any pro comments or any comments? MR. BRANNING: Any comments. THE SPEAKER: Good eveni.n.g membexs of the board. My name is Stephen Meyer. I'm an LEY~& MARSAA CURT REPORTERS, INC. {561.) 686-04Q0 l I~ I I i I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~. 4 15 16 ~. 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 attorney. My office address is 299- Camino Gardens Boulevard, Ho:ca Raton. I wanted to compliment the Board first a.nd also to compliment the petitio-nets for the xevisi,ons in the design. S spoke here last time, and it seems that the principle complaints or, the issues that were raised at that time have been addressed. .And significantly I think that the restaurant --- it was raised last time that the restaurant created a number of problems. The complaints related to the traffic and trucks on Selena Avenue and trucks backing out -- excuse me -- onto Atlantic Avenue and visibility concerns were really caused by the restaurant. And it seemed that mast of the complaints were dependent upon food service, which by that T mean the preparation and the storage of food on the premises. So my understanding is that there are no -- there is no intent -- the restaurant has been eliminated and there is no intent by the petitioners at this time or at any time in the future to have .food service with the request of a variance relating to food service with preparation nr storage on this premises. - LAY & MARSAA COURT REPC)RTERS, INC. .. (562} 686-0400 30 .~ z I 2 3 4 5 5 7 B. 9 10 11 12 1~ 14 Z5 16 17 18 19 20 . 2 ~. 22 23 24 25 And I would ask the Board to considex that any approval be pertaining to that and any approval would be -- that there- be no food. service here or in.-the future be dependent upon ---- the approval be dependent upon that factor, because that wall certainly ~-~- if it is brought up in the- future and trucks do. come in, we're going to have all the~same pxablems and concerns after the building is built. And it may be a little bit harder to deal with at at that point rather than taking care of some of those problems ,at the, beginning because there won't be enough delivery. space. There won't be room for the trucks on Selena Avenue backing out into .Atlantic or onto Ocean, and the loadizag facilities will be inadequate for the trucks. They've already been, I understand, two loading docks required. One is proposed because there won't be nearly as much traffic with a hotel of this size, but we will have problems if food service is recommended in the future. So I would ask that the Boa-rd make that condition of i,t's approval. With respect to the -- the visibility ,~ LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (551) 68.6-040 - l .. 31 7 L .~ 5 6 7 ~8 9 lp xz l2 13 14 I5 16 17 18 7: 9 20 21 22 23 ~, 24 25 triangle and the~reduct~on of those visib.il•it~ies, ~. - I think it still raises some public safety . c-ancerns, although with this., again, they have been alle~via~te.d. And again, -L. commend -- I ~ - compliment the petitioners-in trying to address those probleFns .~.. .. . My understanding is ~tlzat there is now. egress .or entrance on Ocean. There was not before; is that corre•~ct? There's ,not? All ,right.. So we still have some of those issues perhaps with traffic coming in and out of Selezia. . ,But those are my comments- today,, and 7: thank the Board again for its insight last time in recommending a -•- the changes be made relating to the traffic issues .which ,~rexe generated by the food service propas;al. UNIDENTIFZED~ SPEAKER: Excuse.me, Chairman, could you ask far the record. whc he represents.. MR. BRANNING: Are you representing a client or~ are you here representing yourself, Mr. Meyer? THE SPEAKER: This evening, 7;'m representing myself. MR, OVER: My name is Harvey Oyer, and I am here on behalf of Don Robinson and his family. LEY & MARSAA COURT REPO~tTERS,~- INC. 5567.} 685-04Q0 i, i i i i ~•~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.1 12 13 14 15~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 They are the other property owner on the west side of the proposed project along Selena. For the record, my office address is 777 .South Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida; however,. T was born and raised iri South County.. •Tn fact, I'm a fifth generation, from South County; my great great g~'andfather, Calvin H, E . Pierce, having been the first white resident. of what is today•.Delray Beach in May of 1876 when he was the keeper of the Orange -Grove House_-of Refuge. And ,I was born and raised in this community. I'm a graduate of .Atlantic High School in Delray B~eaGh. •, If Y counted c4xrectly, at the •last SPRAT hearing, there were seven issues that-the- Board asked they applicant to qo away a.nd address ~--- two of which I think they've adequately addxes•sed -- anet that`s the loading space being inadequate and the size and the number of trucks that will come in and out of the project . ~~ The rezr~oval of the restaurant, I think, has obviated all of those problems : • The second one that I think they have adequately addressed is moving the drop -off area .. further inward:. The five, however, that I don't `LEY' ~ & MARSAA COURT RE•PO~tTERS, INC . (561) 68~-0400 1 l I I I : ~ .~ 9 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 ~9 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 think are fu11y addressed are the ones that-z would I•ike to ask the Board to ask the applicant to redouble their efforts and address these. The first is the Board instructed that they did not want to give a waiver or they were hesitant to give a waiver on the visibility triangle for public safety reasons. We still have the same eonc~ern. There's a request for a 5.0 percent reduction in the visibility triangle on the Selena side, a•nd a 6Q percent reduction-on the A-1-A side_ Both of these, I believe, cause a public safety issue. You have a number of bicyclists on the A-1-~A side, and you have residents, including childxen and pedestrians arid~bicyclists, on the Selena side. Inadequate site visibility and knowingly approving inadequate site visibility, I think, is setting this applicant up and the City up for a tragedy in the future . The second issue that I~ don't think-the applxcazxt adequately addressed was the west elevation and the north elevation needing to be stepped back. While we do very much appreciate theca stepping back the west elevation by five more feet, that's really a drop in the bucket LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. {561) 686-Q400 34 9 5 6 7 8 9 1a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ]. 9 ~o 21 22 23 24 25 given the size of this project. And to try to put in the scale the size of this project -- and I apologize, I do not have the benefit of these audio visual aides. At the last meeting, the applicant compared their project to the Marriott project down the street which caused zne to look through the City records and take a look and compare the floor area ratios of the two projects and the densities of the two projects. Tf my numbers are correct, the floor area ration at the .Marriott hotel is 1.a. The floor area ratio of this project, I had it at 2,5. Jose had it at 2.55. I'll give hizn the benefit of the doubt, but it's -- MR: ~RANNIIVG: T!ll give you another half a minute. Okay? I know you've got several more to go thro-ugh. We're limiting this to three minutes. - MR. DYER: Okay. The density of this project is one hundred and seventy units per acre. Think about that. The Marriott hotel is fifty-four. This is a four--tenths-acre piece of property --.not much bigger than a single-family home site -- and there are going to be seventy units on it. One hundred and seventy units per LEY & MARSAA COURT FtEFORTERS, INC. (561) ~~6-o4ao .~ S i I ..~ r E G E 7 9 ].~ d 1 ~. 12 13 .~ 4 Z5 16 1.7 18 ~. 9 2a 21 22 23 24 25 .. ,. 35 L acre. Please keep- that in mind. ? All were asking rs that this be scaled E back. We're not. against this project. We think it will increase property values. We think it's a good use -- good transitional use in the neighborhood. We just want to see something that's reasonable, not.a big bow structure in our front yard•and along the beach. We've all worked very hard, same of us- far many generations, to make South County be a beautiful, livable village--by-the-sea community. And putting the equivalent of a seventy room stripped of its amenities, no swimming pool, no restaurant, no ability to have room service, no tennis courts, small rooms and referring to it• as a luxury hotel, we're simply cramming seventy rooms like a Red Roof Tnn into a .large box on the beach and in my client's front yard. And we would hope that rather tha n stripping the amenities out of this project, they would .add the amenities back in and cut ten or fifteen rooms out of this project so that there are adequate setbacks, there is adequ-ate stepping back on the upper floors, and there is adequate vegetation separating ou.r property from the LEY ~& MARSAA GOL7RT REPORTERS, TNG. (561) 686-0400_ i -.,~ 1 I -~~ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 .g 10 xl la 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 proposed project. Thank you. MR. BRANNING: Thank you. - MR. DON FRANCISCO: I'll attempt to get through this quickly for the sake of redundancy. We would like to acknowledge that the design for its revisions --- MR. BR+A,NNING: Please state your name. MR. DON FRANCISCO: My name is Perxy DonFrancisco, owner of Boston's-on the Beach, 40 South Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach., Floxida. MR. BRANNING: Thazzks. MR: DON FRANCISCO: As. I've staffed, we would like to acknowledge the design revisions, particularly the traffic safety/delivery concerns. Also I'd like to comment that-our earlier garage exhaust concern's seems to have been eliminated. And I agree strongly with Mr. DeSantos when he stated we need this east of the intexcoastal. Far many years we've watched things flourish and maintained in our area hoping that there- would be a-time and it would come eastward, so to speak. But we are the abutter, we are the~propexty owner on the lot line. We still have two concerns, and I believe Mr. Currie.znay have allayed our fears LEY & MARSAA C.OIIFtT REPORTERS, INC. (5f1} 585-a~o0 i i, •1 r 7 L 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 ~. 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ---- 3 7 with a comment he made, and I'li -- we'll have to clarify that. Our two concerns that still exist-that have .not yet been remedied are the proximity_of the• zero-.Lot-line .rooms with no setback, and the hinderance that~the north elevation design .poses for our redevelopment at a future time. Now, if we can address those two issues, I think oux: concerns have been addressed. Let's take the first one, proximity of the rooms. City staff has c~.early and correctly ,.identified a problem with the proximity of these northeast zero-lot-line rooms in the staff report. On Page 12, and T quote, "The Board's concern" -- "your concern regarding the abutting property~to the north have been partially addressed by moving the majority of the building 8 foot back from the property line and thereby allowing the additiozx of foundation planting along the facade. "Unfortunately, this 8-foot ~set~aack does not occur where it''s needed the most; that is, between the proposed project and our building. The entire perimeter of this project is set lack until it reaches that one area." LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561.} 686-0.400 38 .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -8 .~ ~..0 1.1 12 I3 1~ 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 X go o.n 'to quote the staff report. It says, «However,.concerns regarding ocean uzsibility from the nor•th.ern. hotel rooms of a building- of equal -height if it ,were to be constructed to the north have not been addressed. Zt is noted that .the impact of this scenario- - - would be reduced if the corner unit on each floor, four units, were rennoved.~ The: opening created ,between the two buildings would allow. this situation air,. light and ocean visibility, albeit reduced. By not addressing this issue now ~nd•. ensuring at some" -- "and ,ensuring at ].east some ocean visibility, a potential problem with compatibility in the future may }ae created. and may hinder re-development of~the adjacent propert-y." Which is us. "To avoid these potential problems, staff" -= "City staff recommends that the corner unit on each level be eliminated," • MR. BRANNING: You're running long,. so we`ll discuss that. I appreciate that comment. MR. DON FRANCISCO: Okay. Do I•have time to continue? MR. BRANNING: In farness.to every-one LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. - (56~.) 686-0400 i. i'~ ti 39 else, quickly. MR. DON FRANCISCO: Well, in fairness of ~' the abutter, I think.we have a little special situation. May I continue? MR. BRANNTNG: Please be brief and relay your point to us, and we ll follow-up to that. MR. DON FRANCISCO: We're saying that the zero-lot-link situation will create a difficult co-existence for both of us to operate under, and we would also -- I'll summarize then. I'll move to the summary. This Board has the discretion to pxovide relief from }wilding mass: by,praviding a setback even though it is in the CBII. This Board can grant relief' •frorn building mass . It was al-so quoted by staff that. the building covers. most of the site, Parking and service functions are . under roof; therefore, landscaping of this project is minimal. That' s also staff . . Where these buildings abut will be a conduit for noise, will also create -drainage problems on qur property that City staff recommended. We urge the Board to eliminate an array of problems-by creating a setback on the northeast property line between the existing 9 c 6 .~ 9 10 1'1 1.2 1 ~: 14 15. 16• ~. 7 18 19 2Q 21 22 23 24 25~ LEx & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. .(561} 68f-0400 i i i i -~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 IO 11 12 1~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 Za 21 22 23 24 2.5 40 structure .and the .hotel, and we request that a legal ~restrictio~z --- . MS. HEUSSI: Just a moment (changing tape). You`may continue. MR. DON FRANCxSCO: Thank you. We request that a legal restriction be in place protecting us from opposition to our future redevelopment. This covenant shall run with-the land and clearly delineate_ We will not be opposed by the property owner at the time on that north/south boundary when we redevelop in regards to loss of ocean. view, loss of light or loss of air circulation. These are our two issues, the zero-lot-line cohabitation and also the opposition to-aur redevelopment in the future. We thank the Board tonight for their consideration on these two issues. ' MR. BRANNING: Thank you. MR. MIRACOLA: Fran Miracola (phonetic), the applicant. I just want to mare one comment. I `m not sure --- MR. .BRANNING: Excuse me, Fran. Is this- appropriate? Can the applicant speak? He's not the listed applicant. LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (551) 686--0400 i i i i i i i i, i r 9 5 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 MR. MIRACOLA: Was that a yes or no, Ro.n? MR. HOGGARD: Why don't you ~tait until you do your closing argument. MR. MIRACOLA: Okay. T just actually wanted to'-- MR . HOGC-rARD : Do it as part of that . MR. BRANNING: Any other ~rciember5 of the public wish to speak? MR. GRACY: I'm Matt Gracy. I own the property at 72 South-Ocean Soulevaxd. I'm also the -- it's the Bahama House, which is the Bahama House Condominium Association of Delray Beach. We're directly to the-south of this proposed structure, and T'm here as the President of Condominium, first off, and also as the owner of two of the units there. Owner of the penthouse ,unit that has a very large deck overlooking the ocean that is really very much affected by this building. I guess our first desire is far this site to be made into a park, but I don't think that's going to happen. T don't think it's~ever~going to happen, anal I think we're way-down the road on this one. And so you know, we believe that what we have there now is certainly a -- I don't want LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561} 686-0400 i r, i i i 4 L 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15~ 16 17 18 19 2Q 21 22 2 3- 24 25 42 to say a detriment, but.it•certainly has not been the .best thing for the neighborhood for Borne .years And you know,. again, given. the fact that we're going to have a development there and that we're going to --- you know, we're not going.to change •the zoning at this, point to• --•- to make it .into a-much smaller type building, we believe that this is something that we can support and do support and so we wanted to come here to do so. .They have --• I have been following it from not afar, but haven't come up to speak to you yet because we were not a hundred percent satisfied with the past designs either. And now we are, so we're here to support the project. Thank you. MR. BRANNING: Thank you for your comments, Matt. Any ,other members of the public? Okay. MR. HOGGA;R1]: I have three -- those three letters. Would you like me to read them into the record? They're in opposition. MR. BRANNING: .Please do. MR. HDGGARD: The first one is from Carry Glickstein from Ironwood Properties. And let's see. I~EY & NlARSAA CO~TRT REPORTER, INC. ~55Z) ~~~-0400 i I, i i ~~~ 43 C 7 B 9 1~ z•z 12 ~. 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22~ 2 24 25 "Z strongly oppose the above referenced ! proj ect in Sts • current -form :and would encourage I~ the Site Plan Review~an,d Appearance Board to reject the current application., "While agreeing .that a :hotel use- is appropriate for the subject property, the size anal el.esign proj ec•ted by the current plans • are inappropriate for this particular property and • location,. Moreover, the App-licant's presentation of describing in -- was in my -- m.y view ~, broad gloss-over discussion and failed to discuss very significant design and traffic problems.. In my view, •t he current ,revised plan, .even more, eliminating the restaurant and'swimming pool, have had not addressed the most significant probleirES . "The po-tential parking prabieirts and traffic congestion for an a3.ready dangerous and c~..ogged .intersection, an area like Atlantic Avenue and A--1~A, are significant. Unfortunately, if this project is approved in its current form and the - parking/trraffic problems come to fruition. there will be no possibility to alleviate the problems. "Having employed dozens of traffic engineers •ovex the last fifteen years, X can say .~ .LEY & MARSAA -COURT -REPORTERS, INC. ~ , {561) 686--0400 i i 1 i 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]. 0 1 Z. l2 l3 14• 15 l6 l7 18~ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 that if pressed,~T can find a traffic engineer to opine that 1•-95 is not a busy highway. In the prey-ez~t~ case, the traffic engine•er's opinion is overly broad a~.d based on qualified assumptions. Anyone with any design experien•.ce ar common sense ean_appreciate the potential for grid lock at this busy intersection-. "The massing of the proposed structure i,s inappropriate•far the area. The paint raised by the applicant that the Marriott Hotel's d•e.nsity -and massing is greater i,s ~.rrelevant. The Marriott, like many other.large buildings in the beach area,.w:auld encounter much resistance today and would perhaps not be approved under current land development regulations. ' "There is nothing architecturally distinctive about the proposed elevation which will.be visible in many perspectives-as a beach area. We only ask that with the•up and dawn appearance o•f Ocean Boulevar=d, take a•look at Deerfield Beach or Fart Lauclerclale Beach to see what a patchwork of houses, large and small hotels with no design consistency looks like_~ .Add to this -~- add to the mix a potential for jarnming~one of the~most logistically and LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, 1NG. (561y 686-0400 45 i .} .~ F L E 7 8 9 10 1.1 12 ]. 3 14 15~ 16 17 1$ 19 ~a 21 22 23~ 24 25 aesthetically and important intersections in our city, and I would suggest that there ,are much better alternatives here. .~"Thank you for your attention and con.cerns." . MR. BRANE~II~TG: What is the date. of that letter? MR. HOGGARI7: Letter is dated August 8th. MR. BRANNING: Thank you.. Should I start my stopwatch for this one? MR. HAGGARD: The. other two are short. ,The second ore is a• memo to the SPRAT Board from Dan Surns: And he states that '"I am vehemently opposed to the proposed hotel. The property is too. small., . aid. it goes agaznst everything we are trying to do over the~past tin years.~at Delray Beach."~ And that is date d. the 8th. • •And the third one is from Tom Switch. It's dated the 7th_ It ,says, ~"To t~rhom it may concerti, I am writing to you to reference" --- "in reference to .the project on A-1-A where the Bermuda Znn Hotel - is today. I emphasize that" --- "with the developer" -- "emphasize with the developer that ,~ LEY & MARSAA COURT REPQRTERS,~ZNC. (551} X86-040 i `•~ f I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Z5 46 the" --- •"that they have definitely made a lot of changes; removing the restaurant, approving the entrance and egress substantially .from where it was several weeks ago. I know that a,1ot of work is being done to try .to meet the request of citizens and the~Board. I compliment the architect and the developer for their willingness to work cooperatively. "My comment is that" -- to that -- "my cozninent is similar to.that ~ wrote several weeks ago. The project is just too big for that .lot. Perhaps if it was tiered back so that we would not have a five-story bu~ldin,g 48 feet straight up slightly set back from the street, it would not be so oppressive. "As I am sure you're aware, I am not opposed to density and not opposed to change as witnessed over the last fifteen years as we have watched Delray evolve. My concern is the design. Even though attractive, lt.'s just too.inassive for this lot. "A major issue is. Once you approve it, it then becomes precede~.t for others. For examp.Ze, the apartment project on Federal one block off of Atlantic. The mass of the project, its slight LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS., INC. (561) 686-0400 1 l `< 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Z6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 z4 ~5 47 setback from Federal Highway takes away from the character of Delray Beach also. "The major arteries" -- °The major arteries of .Atlantic Avenue, A-1-A and Federal Highway are most important, ar~d we must preserve. the integrity of Qur community and .continue the. village-like atmosphere that ha.s been the ,theme for many many years, and in particular, the theme for the last fifteen years during redevelopment. "I think it is critical fax this Baard to .remember these first projects that appear to be out of the ordinary of the on.e that has set precedent become the standard. Z appreciate your time and cansideratian." MR. BRANNIN-G: -'hanks, Ron. Okay. No other persons- as I understand it wants to speak for or against the praject,_ correct? UNSDENTIFIEI] SPEAKER: Right. . MR. BRANNING: Okay. We'll move an then. Jose, anybody from your team like to cross-examine or ask any questions of the .staff? MR. AGUILAR; No. We'll be .available f or questions, and if you need us, we're here. MR. BRANNING: Okay. Ron, next item on TrEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561) 686-0400 i .~ R E 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ~. 6 17 18 19 2D 21. 22 23 24 25 48. 1, the -- - ? MR. HAGGARD: Yeah, I have a couple -- a 3 couple of questions for the applicant. T noticed in the -- in the PowerPoint presentation, there were some changes to the rear elevation up on the fifth floor. Before, that wal~l_ was set back 8 feet. Now, it looks like i.t's on 1•y five. I don't really know what you did with that,- When we look at it, it's all open now where before it was partially enclosed and partially open. MR. SHOWERS: I'm not sure that what •we have on the screen is diffe-rent than what you have, but the setback is 5 feet. We noticed that when you said that it was. eight, we're n.ot quite sure where you got that, but the. setback from the property line originally was 5 feet. We moved the building back another 5 feet except for the fifth floor where it's gone an additional five feet within which we incorporated a planter of 5 feet over the roof of the fourth floor. I'm not .quite sure what you're looking at. MR. HOGGARD: Well, when I Zook at that new fifth floor plan level, the back of the building, you see that it's diffexent than the back of the building that -- LEY & M.ARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. 1561) 6'86-D4fl0 i i, 7 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~. 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 MR. MIRACOLA: I think you're looking•at the balcony. • - MR. HOGGARD: Right. The balc.o.ny was in back of the building I~efore. How did that look? MR. MIRACOLA: It was 8 feet. MR. HOGGARD: It was 8 feet to the edge of the balcony. . • MR. SHOWERS: Yes, he's right; actually. MR. HOGGARD: Tow's that woxk now? MR. SHOWERS: The corridor is narrower. ' MR. HOGGARD: -I don't. see the roof plan. xs all that open back there, or is that alI covered? The landscaping is all covered also? MR- SHOWERS: What is in the package. that is ix~ front of the Board is what we're proposing. The first line that yo-u gee that. lines up with the stair is the roof of the fourth floor. 5 feet back• begins the planter which ends at; the east edge of the stair, so it would be~in line . with the west line of the laundry room. There's a line mis-sing. MR. HOG.GARD: Sp this drat~ring is incorrect? Okay. MR. SHOWERS: So that drawing is incorrect. Actually, that drawing is missing a line. What LEY & MARSAA COURT REEORTERS, INC. (561) 686-0400 .•1 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 1~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 2.3 24 25 50 you T re massing is~ the second line of~ the .planter. Gdhere .the word "landscaping" is, that's wh-ere the dirt is. And what is.missang is this-side wall of it (indicting) ~ . MR. HOGGARIJ: Right. .T~.at wall is. actually where the -- where the balcony is, that's really 8 feet, not 5 feet? - MR. SHOVERS: Yes, i~n, that sens:ej. you're right. MR. HAGGARD: Okay. I just wanted to understand thab. - MR. SHOWERS: That's correct. MR.~HOGGARD: Okay.. Also,~in one of your exhibits here, you were calling out the height of that tnwer on~the back, that's fifty-seven six. -Your plans showed it at~ fifty-seven° plus the foot and-a--half to the crown. of the 'road, which makes it fifty-eight fifty. Are you lowering that another foot again? ~ - MR. SHOWERS: Vhat we did is: We recalculated on the Auto-CAD, and we are saying that it!s fifty-seven six as~apposed to fifty-sax, but that's to the mean of the. roof to the roof. From the roof deck to the mean of the roof to the tower is fifty-seven six_ LEY & MARSAA COURT REPQRTERS, LNC~. - (561) 686-0400 ;~ .~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ld 11 12 13 14 15' 16 17 18~ 19 20 21 22 2.3 24 25 51 MR. BRANNTNG: From the zero line of the -- from the first floor elevations? MR. SHOWERS: From.-the eighteen inches. ' From zero. zero or from eighteen? Tt's from. zero zero. ' MR. HOGGARD: So it's six inches taller than what's in zny staff report. Okay. MR, SHOWERS: That is correct. MR. HOGGARD: So we're at fifty--nine instead of fifty--eight six, right? MR. MIRACOLA: No. MR. HO,GGARD: Fifty-seven six plus one and--a-half is fifty-nine. MR. MIRACOLA: Frorsi the crown of the road top -- MR. HOGGA~tD: Fifty-seven six is from the crown. of the road. MS. BORCHARDT: No. MR.~NtTRACOLA: We've got the crown of the road as a negative and the fist roof. zero zero, the mean of the roof at fifty-seven. 5o 'you are right, it's six inches higher than what you said to the mean of the roof. NfR. HOGGARD: I would tike to point out. that one of the exhibits showed --- T guess it was LEY &: MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. {551) 686-Q400. 1 I -. l I I i ~1 r 52 x 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ~, 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from your earlier presentation,_showed --- you don't have it on this one -- in the rear, the landscaping in the rear was to be a little bit taller Alexander palms.. I want to point out that they have now changed. that to -- with the increased setlaack the Washitpnias that are 25 to 35 feet tall. That exhibit up there said 16 to 18-foot Al~exanders. MR. SHOWERS: So we're actually taller? MR. HOGGARD: Much taller. MR. SHOWERS- And that may reflect also the rebised site. plan review up to the last sketc h that. they provided -you with. MR. HOGGARD: Okay. MR_ SHOWERS: Anything else? MR. HOGGARD: I just wanted to point out that one. of the other concerns that staff had was the -- and maybe you can address it, was the look of the flatness .of the top of the parapet without any decorative. elements.. Some sort of cap or something, •I don't know. We have it as a condition to do something different with that, and I wanted to address.that to the Board so that • they can decide what to do with it. MR,~SHOW~RS: We'll see what the Board says ,~ LEY & MARSAA COQRT REPORTERS, INC. (561) 685-0400 i l F 1 2 3 4 _ 5 6 7 8. 9 10 1l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ._~~. .. _ .. ._. .53 and discuss it, b~.t we think that adding,moxe on the pitch on. top of that parapet is going to snake the. view a bit too busy. We think that the way we have it with the --- with the scaxe line there is appropriate, and we'd Like not to busy it up. It's just going to start getting a. little too busy. And it's high enough off the ground, I don't think it's going to have the iz~pact that you guys think it's having. So no, we would like tb not ~--- MR. HOGGARD: I just want to make sure it was. addressed. Okay. That's ail I have. MR. BRANNTNG: Oka~r. Thank you, Ron. 0kay.~ Members of the Board, questions to the staff, applicant or any witness-? You want to start? MS . BgRCH~1.R17T : Why not . First, let me just ask two quick questions of the staff. The City does have a txaf~ic•issue here. The City does not have an interim engineer? MR. HOGGARD: That's correct. Well, we don't -- we don't -- MS_ BORCHARDT: Who .f or the City reviews the traffic studies? MR. HOGGARD: Oux director of planning. LEY & MARSAA CQ~'!RT REPORTERS, INC. (561,) 6860400 i i i i i _i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -9. 10 1.1 12 I3 14 15 15 ~. 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 MS. BORCHARDT: And he has reviewed the document, - MR. HOGGARI~: This is based an the generation rates for the- intersection. The DCEA doesn't even require a full traffic study ox traffic studies. , MS. BORC$AR'DT: The other thing I wanted to ask •a quick question on .are the ramps for the handicapped parking-spaces. Are those ramps acceptable or is it just -striping that .is required for handicap? MR. S.EIOWERS :~ There' s no ramp . MS.• BORCHARDT: It .says "r~:mp up,~" so that's vrhy I was just wondering. MR. SHOWERS: Sorry, that's wrong. That's essentially a flat slab. There is no ramp there. There is no ramp. a MS. BORCHARDT: Yeah; I kind o£ thought that was MR. SHOWERS; Yeah, I didn't notice that until you pointed it out. MS. ~ORCHARDT: Okay. MR. SHOWERS: Earlier, there was: a ramp and another"space. MS. BORCHARDT: Right. I think it kind of LEY & MAR:SAA COURT REPORTERS, TNC. (561) 685--0400 1 I. J 2 3 .~ :~ 6 ~7 .8 9 IO 11 ]. 2 13 l4 l5 15.: J.7~; 18. ~. 9 20 21. 22. 23• 24 2 5. S5 stuck there. I•just ha d. some comments.. And I think probably some of them are going to be - - conflicting, but Z was very vac.al about this .pro~e•ct the fi-rst tune it .came in. First of all, I would like to thank the • petit~.oner. I certainly have learned ,some new things on the PowerPoi:nt presentation ~t.hat x'zn .going . to use myself . T enj aged the prese~ntati.on , The floor -area ratio X 1~naw i~ not •required in •the City •of Delray; however, it ,~a.a a very good planning tool, ~rzd I think it•was very positive that you, reduced it .- - ,As far~• •as • the loo k.~.nc~ at, the • urbanism, a ner~, urbanism anal the ur-ban face, Iagree with the concept, I'•m- not sure I• ag-ree with. •t hat concept ala.ng• •t•he beach f~•ont . It., is: •ta ~ me~- a ---- zr~:ore :~f a• downtown type. of a planning c~oncept,• and I'm ` not,suxe T agree with it along the beach. But having said that, .l would like to . really thank -the. arch.~tect far responding, very very. strongly. t,o the comzrrents -from staff, as well as this ,Board. I think you made soiree really positive changes t'o -this and. to this prpposal that I'm very .much more comfortable with it. Itm not sure- -- T still do have some • LEY'•& M~1RSAl~ COURT REPORTERS; -INC. c~6i} sss-o4oo .j i 1 2 3 .~ 5 6 7 .8 9 10 1I 12 13 14 15 16 1 '~ 18 1'9 ~a 21 22 23 24 25 56 feelings- that i.t~s -- the density is' just higher :than I personally fee3. for beach-front. I , understand Fort Lauderdale has got higher,. X ,don't necessarily feel that I want that~for Delray Beach, but• I feel that you have really made some important ~stridas ,an this. I am. still c,oneerned,. about the ,site visibility issue waivers. I'-m not sure this is -- listen to the Baard and~see how they feel about that, but ,I do want to compliment the architect for their response. That's all ~ have. MR. BRANNINC: Thank you., Mike? MR. SIVEIDERMAN:< ~ I ,w aul•d tend to agree with . .; t . a lat of Diapers comments. I was fairly vocal at the last meeting in regards to~the density of the project. I respect the applicant's response.~~ I think that .re.mnving the restaurant was very effective in elirninatin,g the loading problems: I think that comment was made that it would be important that no food service be part~o~f thi-s package, that in the~future'that no food service would be added to~the building. Because by ' adding it down. the road, you're just going to bring'in t.hase problems all over again. ' I~do have some concerns about the corner LEY & MARSAA COURT' REPORTERS, INC. X561) 68,6-04Q0 . 57 :, 1 2 .~ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1Z 12 13 14 15 15 17 ~. $ 1 ~. 20 21 22 23 24 25 units, and ~-- but other than that, I'm very positive about -- as how this project is evolving: MR. BRANNTNG: Thank you•. Debora? M5. DOWD: I'd be looking also into eliminating the corner lots. I think that was a fair request. Z would like to say,. however, that from beginning to thus far, it's been a wonderful improvement. T feel a lot. differently than I felt about it when it first came out. I feel differently than ,T did about it two weeks 'ago when they were here. I can-'t say T'm -- I still feel questionable about the visibility, but it's definitely come a long way. MR. BRANNING: Qkay. Gary? MR.~ELIOPOULOS: I definitely agreE with sortie of the- Soard members . I think several issues where there's been improvements, this is definitely going towards some of the public that's opposed the project. I think obviously the ground 1eve1, we had concerns coming in_ Werve got an~island now as far as directing the txaffic in and out. I think that's -- I think if you look at that lobby, Y tru~.y believe that we have a lobby that functions. I don't believe you LEY.& M~IRSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561) 686-04Q0 1 58. had one before. I think eliminating the restaurant. was a big step that you guys took and totally .appropriate. I think that shall alleviate:a lot of the issues as far as some of the traffic,. and I -- I kind of don't-have a problem with the sight triangles now that the restaurant is not there. I think I can look at this easier now with that. r L 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 l 2- 13 l4 15 16 17 18 ~. 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Even the general ,room layouts, if you go up the floors, 7 -- T really wasn`t truly happy with the other ones. I think this hallway and everything about the hotel has a nice flow to it upstairs. Some technical items -- this has nothing to do with tonight, but I'm advising the applicant because I just got. burned on'it. ,You should look at your side -- when I say the "side," Y mean the north. and south sides -- because it's six hundred under the building code as a percentage of openings that you're allowed when you are within 2p feet. . MR. SHOWERS: Okay. We've got that. MR. ELIOPOULOS: Okay, good. Because it will be an issue for you. „ LEY & 1'~ARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (56J.) 686-0400 i ,, i fi i I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S. 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5' 16 17 a. a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 __ ~9 -- Another minor thing is handicap rooms. I'm sure that wi11 come up later on when you design this. As far as -- I mean, you're hearing some of the comments about --- well, I guess one of the letters, I guess, is Tom Lynch about tiering it back. I don't know, Bab, if you want to look at that. Ts that a possibiiity? The rooms on the ocean side do ,have some nice depth to it. Is it possible? Maybe you can tier the upper level back . I don' t know . T'm j u-st ---- • MR.•CURRIE: You want an answer? MS. DOWD: Yeah. MR. CURRIE: TnTe actually have done that. The top floor is stepped back, and the material has changed. Of course, we're reluctant to do it tao much because, in fact, these are our best rooms. They`re, you know, the biggest square footage and so forth. So --- but in visual terms, we did try to accomplish that. It's -- you know, as you say, it`s a scale -- the only --•- not the -- the only way .to give a scale-giving element is to step-back. It's also to do it horizontally, and we certainly tried to do that. LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561) 686-0400 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 '1 18 x~ 20 21 22 23 - 2~ 25 60 MR. ELIOPOULOS: I imagine you don't like. staff's comments about eliminating the corner units. MR. CURRIE: Yo u.in~agine correctly. MR. ELZOPOULOS: Not that I need a response. I thought T would just throw that on the table far you.. I know you were eager to say yes, you agree: -• I'm pretty much -- I think. as far as -- you know, there was some other concerns on •Selena. I think they've --- they've addressed it. 'They've kicked that building back another 5 feet. I'm not --- I'm not totally ,convinced that you even need the balconies, but that's up ~o yQU on that part . I think --- I think movie.g th,e bu.ilding• back was a big part. I think I heard in one of the~lett~rs about a boutique. I don't know -- Fran, is that what we're calling this? Will this be a boutique hotel? • MR. MIRACOLA: I'm sorry? MR. ELIOPOULOS: Boutique hc5tel is written in a letter. Somebody said that it would be nice to have a boutique hotel. Is that Hrhat we are gearing up for? LEY & MARS.A.A COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561) fi86--04Q0 i i' f 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 1Q 11 12 13 ]: 4 1S 16 17 1.8 19 20 2I 22 23. 24 25 61 The only reason why I ask that is: I do realize you removed the pool, and the way we were kind of putting pressure-on you guys.Ln every single direction, you're kind of forced -doing something. And I -- I'm just asking with regards to the pool -- you know, it as a huge issue where I think it could hurt you with a --- with trying to get a flag if you don't have a pool, but I -- I don't know -- I mean, you had it, but I realize when you push the building back, you lose rooms and stuff. MR. GURRIE: I thank the reference to boutique hotel means- that we can't. get a flag. MR. ELIOPOULOS: Well, that`s -~ that's what I was asking.. MR, CURRTE: And because of the scale of the -- you know, it`s such a small hotel, it also is a boutique by reference, and the rooms are ga.ing to be bigger and more luxurious. That's about it. MR. ELIQPOULOS: Okay. That's it for me. MR. BRANNING: I would like to address Perry`s concerns, your next-door neighbor_ And I know you're eager to answer that question about the corner -- 'the corner units being on the lot LEY & MARSAA COUNT REPORTERS, INC. {551) ss6=o4ao l 1 i .; -;. 62 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 8 .g is 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21' 22 23 24 25 line and if -- if the site to the nor-th were to develop- and go up. Naturally his concern, is that you would object and tha.t...--- that a cavern, would have been created, anal abviousl~y we don't want that to occur, •So if you could spea3~ to your - position an that. ~ ~ • MR. CURRIE:: I think i•t's very clear that we respect Perry's rights to do what. the law allows. We respect~absai~utely his right. to build up,a.gainst our hotel if he wishes to do so. Now, if he Wants to do exactly what r~e've done and set it back•10 feet and step it back, then everybody wins. If he chooses to close it up entirely, which is his right, we still are going to have a na.ce courtyard, the 3~andscaped courtyard with space between the two buildings. I would suggest that frankly now, we don't have much to look at on the north side. We look down on the. rooftops and air--conditioning exhaust hoods, and a .lot of those rooms aren't getting • any view at all. So yeah, knock yourself out, Ga for it. But we respect his right to do it', and we would --- we would encourage it. MR. BRANNING: And would you -- MR. CURRIE: No, we can't. give up the ~,EY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561) 686-0400 63 6 7 8 9 ~. Q 11 12 .~ 13 i4 1 ~' 15 17 1~ 1 9' zo 21 22 23 24 .corner. This thing is so marginal now, it's got to be a success. Arid you can't be~a success with less rooms than this. ,It cari't happen .• MR. BRANNTNG: And would you agree to a. restriction that runs with .the land to -- I don't know -- ,MR. HOGGARD: We just say that they go on the record that they wouldn't :oppose it. MR. CURRIE : Absolutely, assum_~ng ---- assuming-that they do something responsibly. If they pu.t a 40 foot --- a five-story solid wall on t-he property line with n,o w~.ndows in it, I suspect we'll be hexe to object; yeah. And I think he would object, wouldri't~you? MR. BRANIVING: I would suspect, yeah: 'MR. CURRIE : And if he puts a wall ~up~ on the balcony line, he can't have windows in it. I mean, as~Gary pointed out, you have to have a thre~.e-hoax wall. So by -- by virtue of what would.. have to hap~en,'he has. t~o set it back to make it reasonable, you see. ' MR'. ELIOPOULOS. ~ Hey Bob., buddy, I just -- I ' m j ust --- I' m wondering, you know, I do --- I agree with you. I'm sure this sucker is so . ~ marginal, I mean, to eliminate those three rooms I~EY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. {561) 686-0400 1 1, l ,i '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~a 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 is huge. . MR: CURRYE: Four. - MR. ELIOPOULOS: Is it four? T'm sor.ry. I was just wondering about the benefit of it. And I'm just throwing this out,.. that you theoretically have whatevex it i~ --- I don't know -- of azs additional five .roams per floor that you can theoretically still, say, have an ocean view verses if it becomes a courtyard, all of a-sudden now you've really cut down your number- of ocean views . T'm just thxowing.it out to you and the applicant. It could be a- positive. I. know when you're talking about numbers and it gets so tight, bu.t S just -- I think in the sales of it to say that you have .all oeeaxz views verses, well ---- MR. CURRIE: I don't think we do have all ocean views, and I don't think. we can say that. It's not an option. We almost didn't come here tonight. Tt!s so marginal. , MR. BRANNING: .Perry, if~I could. ask you, I - -- I think .I heard you say the wox-d "deed restriction." What was it that. you were requesting--that the applicant .provide by way of LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561) 686--04.00 1 1 1 I I I l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ~9 1.1 12 13 14 15 I6 ~. 7 18 19 2Q zi 22 2~ 24 25 65 deed restriction? MR. DON E'RANCISCO: I think that the current -- the current design•right~ now -- MR~. BRANNING: Excuse me, does he need to come to the microphone? MS . HEUS~S.I : .Yes , MR. BRANNING: Can-you come to the . ,microphone.. . MR. DON FRANCISCO: I'zn just concerned with the current design that if we both do this, which they're doing now, if we both do th-is, they're . blocking their own light, their own air and their own view. - Now, it had been suggested at one time that if we were both to hold back in this 'area, whatever setback they would give us, we make an agreement to consider, and if we agree with it, do the same, zt gives us both an opportunity. But now this eliminates all future. We have no option. And I understand how important that is to their income stream. That's huge, but T also und.erstaz7.d how devastating it is because we~' xe locked in foxever with what it~is, Now, if we can make some agreement that's legally binding when we redevelop and go up LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. t5s~} ~s~--o~oo 66 -•~, 1 .~ 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2z 23 24 25 beyond -- take our building down or go up beyond what it is, it would open this up for them as we11 as fox us. But to do that this way now, they block not only our future but their own roams . So I don' t know ---- I would consider working on an agreement. This is a positive for us up there. Our concern is our future. We've been here , twenty--two years. We worked this thing. And I respect what they're doing, but not something that's going to landlock everybody forever. ~lnd• I'm open to listening to suggestions and -- it was suggested before, and maybe there's a situation that -- a deed restriction that xuns with the land, that they. don't build in that area, and then when we redevelop, we're restricted from building so many feet .from. there in the front. MR. CURRIE: Do you have a response? MR. BRANNING: If you have one. M5, DUWD: No, we don't. MR. CURRI.E: Let rn.e suggest that if -- his property is -- first of all, I don't know why we're speculating on what if he does this in the future. I think that's inappropriate. Let hire LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS,~INC. (561) 686--0400 i i i I 1 i ~'~ ~~ 4 5 6 7 8 io ~.1 ~. 2 ~~ 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 2 ]. 22 23 24 25 67 design his own building. But if he, in fact, built the exact same building we did on his hundred-foot-wide frontage -- which i~ what ov.r.s is -- and~set it back l0 feet, then he's got the opening, doesn't he? So let.him do it that way or~come up with. another design. You know, Z don't think we have to solve his problem. We're following the rules now. We're following the law, and Z think this ~.s a good project. We can't lose those rooms. St c.an.'t happen or we can't do the job. Tt's the end of it . MR. BRANNTNG: Okay. Any other questions to members of the. staff, the applicant or any witness? - - Okay. Closings arguments. MR. MZI~AC.OLA: Am Z allowed to say anything, Chairman? MR. BRANNTNG: Tf you're on that team, you can make a closing argument along with the rest of your team. . MR, MZRACOLA: Z don't know if Z want to make. a closing argument. MR. BRANNTNG: Then you can`t speak. Tf you want to make a closing argument, you're LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, TNG. (561) 686-D40n i, i i i 1 2 3 4 5 fi .~ :8 9 10 11 3..2 13 ~, 4 15 16' 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68. welcome. to do that. , NlR. MIRACO.LA: Z have some points I'd like •you_ to .consider. MR,. BRANNING: In your closing ,arguments? MR. MIRACOLA: Like T said, in my closing - arguments, I have some points I'd like to -, MR~, BRANNTNG: .Please state your name for the record and your-address:. ~MR.. MIRACOLA. My name is a Fran Miracola. One, I think, •~hat this Boarcl sk~ould be co~unended for just what they da. I'-m on. -a Board in DeZ-ray, and I know you -s-p-end a lot of time here, basically just to be a.-good citizen. And what I don''t like and what irks me and what sticks in -my craw i~s th•at there's a lawyer here that xepres-anted that he r~presents~a resid-ant of this c©mmunity: -There's no proof. of that.. He's npt on the deed. I have a deed in my -- in my briefcase, and h.e has never brought any proof that. he represented him. And he's told me that'he never met his client, so I d,on't believe it . And don't worry about me, he can sue me if he~ wants. It would be my privilege. So that's one. thing that really irks me, that he's got up ,~ ~, LEY-& MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561) 6$5-0400 69 .,,` here three times. X mean, I don't care who his grandfather is. Thy bottom line is: He said three times to_•this Board and swore to God that he represented a resident, and I'm saying he doesn't. ~ - ' 1 2 .3 4 `J ,~ 7 9 3.0 11 12 ]. 3 14 15 15 Z '7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. ...And the ether thing that bothers me is basically what Perry said,• is that it's•okay if you. build -- if he bui.ld_s. on his property line, ~bnt~ you can't build on yaur property line. Bab was right -- .MR. DonFRANCIS.CO: I didn't say that. 'MR. MIRACOLA: We have a hundred feet, and we build in -ninety of it. Perry has a hundred feet, and he can do the exact sazzie thing. And we would haue an opening, if that's what he wants to do, but~we respect his right. I would never go up and --- and .be against anyYaody a.s long as they were ,within the code. I went against one•of my best. friends, Carl DeSantos, when the Marriott came here,, and you were on their team, Gary. .And they wanted to • build a .restaurant, and Carl. spoke against it . And T said i,t's wrong,. you got to respect people's property rights, and ---- that's it. Thanks . ~~ • ~ LEY ;& MARSAA~ CURT REPORTERS, INC . (56].) 6$6-04.00 J 70 .. -~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 1.2 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24~ 25 MR . BRANNING : Tha:n.k you, Fran-. MR. 5H'OWERS: Let me try end get this on a positive note. This has been a struggle, and there's. a lot of emotion, as you can tell. Sut T even heard all of you tonight -say complimentarily that we've moved foxwarcl. We've given in a lot, and we~have done a lot of things to positively ;react to. those .in the community,, .even, some of those that don't have justifiable reasons: for coming up here and making the change that they do. ~ - Unfortunately, we as professionals have a different responsibility. We have to support our eomments~with facts. Others can come up here and say things that •a re blatant lies, and they don"t have t'h'e same responsibility that we do. ~ And that's unfortunate when you`re trying to make a decision on what you're hearing and not know that some of what you'fe hearing is inaccurate. But we have moved forward. We have dome a lot •o'f things' to do what we in our town' believe to be a posit.zve project. It is in concert with the goa15 and objections with the Comp~Plan, and it is in compliance with.the laws, and we think that this needs to be voted on tonight. We LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, TNC. (56].) 686•-0400 i '~ .-~ 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lfi 17 18 19 20 2 ~1 22 23 24 25 71 believe it's a favorable project, and it should receive your .€avozable consideration. But this is it. .Tonight Xs the night. Up oz• downy let's. move on. Thank you, ti MR. BRANNING: Thank you. MR. MIRACOLA: Mr. Oyer, I assume you're going to respond, too. • MR_ OYER: Oh, I think our credibility and integrity have been called into question, and if there's any question on the Board, I'~d like t~o clear that up right now. MR. BRANNING: Is there any question on the Board -- by the Board? MR. OVER: Let's not have the applicant standing up saying that,we don't have any stax~.dar~d to live up to. I'm an officer of the Court and forzz~er Maine Corps officer_ I don"t lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do. So if you would like evidence,.i have a certified letter from the Trustee of the txust that holds title to all three of those properties on Selena Avenue. MR. BRANNING:. Would you enter those into the record? MR. OYEk~: Absolutely. Would you like ine LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC: (561) 686-000 72 4 a ..~ .~ _~ 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15• 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to read it into the record? ' MR. HRANNTNG: I don't thin3s that~s necessary. MR. DYER: Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. BRANNxNG: okay. Staff, opportunity for closing arguments. MR. HAGGARD: The only thing that I would like to add'is: There are a couple of you who had questions about the site visibility triangle. Let me just go through that a little bit more. Selena Avenue is very slow moving •traffic. The traffic impacts on that road are going to be very minimal., The- sight visibility triangle for the exit lane, which is where the impact on the roadways would come from, are 20 feet in both di~'ections. The 10-foot. side is for the entrance, so it's just the way we defiz~.ed it in our code is why we require the waiver, The visibility triangles for Atlantic ---- for Ocean Boulevard are also reduced because those columns are in the way. You have visibility on each side of the columns as you cozn,e out. And again, the visibility triangles for where you are in the vehicle in the entrance ' lane; you have more than 20 feet on both sides. LEY & MA.RSAA COURT REPOR'T'ERS, INC. (551} 686--0400 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 3l l2 ~, 3 l4 1.5 ~. 5 l7 18 Z9 20 z~ 22 23 24 25 Plus on that roadway, the pavement for A-1-A is actually another T2 feet to the east, so you have even more visibility. That's all. T wanted to give you reasons why we're supporting it. • MR. SNEIDERMAN: I just have .one q~.estion_ In regards to no food service, is there -- in regards- to no food service and no future food service, do we have the ability to do that? Can we do that?~ MR. HOGGARD: I don't know if•we can do that or•not. I don't know who -- I mean, it would have to come back to you-for site plan modification to do it. . MR. BRANNING: There is no food service contemplated by the project. MR. HOGGARD: So T don't know haw you can say you can't do it in -the future when who knows, I mean, what changes in the building can occux to make it Work? Bo 'I don't think it's appropriate. MR. BRANNING:' I would go with that. - MS. BORCHARDT: Yeah, when you're talking about food service, are you speaking -- yo'u know, say if you wanted to have something a~iailabie just in the hotel but not a restaurant, or LEY & MARSAA C4IIRT REPORTERS, INC.. (~~x} X86--0400 ~~ 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10. l ~. 12 13 I4 15 16 17 1$ 19 2Q 21 22 23 24 25 . ~ 74 exactly what are we talking about? MR. SNEIDERMAN: I'm not really sure. We just don't. want to see those trucks sta;rti•ng to appear. That's ri~y only concern. I believe that they've handled the problem that we. -- that was concerning us in previous sessions. And to somehow magically rnal~e a. restaurant appear in one of those very large rooms would create a food service situation that has to be handled by~ trucks, ~rrhich is not what we want. MR. HOGGARD: As I said, that would . require -- that would require a sate plan modification. And if nothing changed, obviously we wouldn't support it based on the same things that we have already gone through. T don't think we can stipulate now what might change in the past that might make it possible, so I don't think you can now and speculate forever. MS. BORCHARDT: Number of rooms, much less. a restaurant, I don't know where they would pint it. MR. HOGGARD: I'm sure it's not going to happen, bu.t... MR. BRANNING: Okay. Very goad. Okay, zzo further testimony should be taken. The Board LEY & MARSP}A COURT REPORTERS, INC. (56~.) 6$6-0400 ~~ ''; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 ~. 7 18 19 2D 21 22 23 24 25 shall now begin its deliberations. Start with the waivers, discuss the waivers. Stacking distance. MS. BORCHARDT: Do you want to take the waivers all as a group or one at a time? MR. BRANNING: One at a time. Nobody has any issues with the first waiver? . MS. DOWD: No, I don't. MR, BRANNING:. Would you like to make a motion? • MR. EL~OPOULOS : I move for apprt~val of the waiver for LDR ~ectXOn 4.6.9D3Cl~to reduce the required stacking distance for Selena Avenue driveway ent-ranee'from 20 feet to 14. MR. SNEIpERMAN: .Second. MR. BRANNING: Motion is secand.ed.' Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. (.All indicate aye.) ~' MR. BRANNING: Motion passes. MR. SNEIDERMAN~: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14A to reduce the visibility triangle at the Selena Avenue driveway en.tranee from 20 feet to 10 feet and at the Ocean Boulevard driveway entrance from LEY & MARSHA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (.561} 686-0400 76 14 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 la 11 12 13 14 15. 15 17 18 ~. 9 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 20 feet to 8 feet based upon the. positive findings with LDR Section 4 -- 2.47B5. MS. DOwD: Second. MR. BR~.NNING: Motion seconded. Discussion? MS. BORCHARDT: Mr. Chairman, because we have both the waiver for both Selena Avenue and •Ocean Boulevard, I'm probably not going to be able to support it. I do support on Selena Avenue. I`m concerned reducing it down to 8 feet on Ocean Boulevard..Because these are together in 'one waiver, I won.'t be supporting it. MR. BRANNING: Okay. Any other comments? Hearing none, please call the roll, Loretta. MS. HEUSSI: Diane Borchardt? MS.. BORCHARDT: No. • MS. HEUSSI: .Debora Dowd? MS. DOWD: Yes. MS. HEUSSI: Michael 5~eiderman? MR. SNEIDERMAN: Yes. MS. HEI3SSI: Gary Eliop:oulos? MR. ELIOPOULOS: Yes. MS. HEUSSI: William Bxanning? MR. BRANNING: Yes. MS. HEUSSI: Passes four to one. LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. fssl7 &85-0400 4 i I ,~ I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 1x 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 ~. 22 23 24 25 ~~ MR. BRANNTNG: We shah-entertain a motion on the third waivex, - MS. DOWD: Mr. Chair, I move to approve of waiver to LDR Section 6.1.3B to eliminate the required sidewalk along Selena Avenue.. MS. BORCHARDT: Second. MR. BRANNTNG: Motion is seconded. Discussion? Ali in favor say aye.. (All indicate aye.} MR. BRANNTNG: Motion passes. Sates plan. MR. ELIOPOULOS: Mr. Chairman, approve classified site plan for- Hotel Vista Del Mar based on positive findings to~ respect to Chapter 3 and Section 2.4.5F5 of the Land Development Regulations and the policies of the - Coan,prehensive Plan subject to the following conditions one through five. And I don't know if there was aniy others, so I have to -- MR. BRANNTNG: There is a motion. Is there a second? MR. SNEIDERMAN: Seca.nd. MR. BRANNTNG: Seconded. Di.scussio'n? MS. BORCHARDT: Mr. Chairman, is this t~he~ staff's recommendation fox the elimination of the -- the four .rooms? Is this where there's any LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561} 6$6-04.00 1 '; i - 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO ~i 12 ]. 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23~ 24 25 .. ----- - - --- -- -- ~ - 78 proposed. resolutions? . MR. ~LTOPOUL05: Tn terms .of elevation. MR. BRANNING: I don't think that's listed as a technical comment. - MR. HOGGARD; We di~i. zr~ake that a condition. We were just expressing the Board's concern with that, and that way in the alternative, they can go on the record. I•just want you to note that this is a potential problem. . MS. BORCHARDT: It was a concern. Okay. That's all T wanted to -- Mr, Char, .I would like to --- again, Z'm not going to vote an favor of, this, and it i.s not because of the design. I thank it's -- it's -- they've done a wonderful job. The size of°the site and the density is of concern to me and continues to be. This is a very difficult decision because from the first meeting to now, there have been so many improvements to this site plan that .I wasn't sure until just a few minutes ago how I ryas going to vote on bias_ T again am going to compliment the architects for responding, but want to let you know, the agents, I'm ~roting for denial. MR. ELIOPOUL05; Diane, -can T ask you the LAY' & MARSAA C(]URT REPORTER, INC. 1561.) 686-Q4Q0 1 ~__~ 2 1 ~F - ~9- question that if ---- I know Bob said it's marginal --- but Z mean, if we're talking about someone can vote no, I mean, if it was tkzose rooms were eliminated, would you be voting yes or no? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 l2 ~~ 14 15 l6 l7 ~. $ L9 .~ a 21 22 23 24 25 M5. $ORCHAR.DT: You know, Gary, possibly. Possibly. But T understand, you know, the point that they can't. reduce; it. You get to the paint where if you reduce it, as they said, you can't build it, it's not feasible. I understand that. It's --- .itr°s --- just to me, the urban front is mentioned. It's not something I prefer to see along the beach front. The. density, you know, will probably help, but I understand the reasons for not being able to do that. MR. SNETDERMAN: I guess I just -- I -- the -- the problem that I've had with the project all along is that I have felt as though they've dropped an intense building right into the middle of a hundred foot by whatever plot.. But when I sit back and think about it, T mean, they're -- they're doing what they can do with that particular area: They've responded to every issue that we have had, .and I believe they've responded LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTER, INC. (561) 586-0400 -~ . 3 1 - 9 ~5 i I ~ € 7 8 9 10 11 ~. 2 1 I.3 1.4' 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 ~. 22 23 ~`1 2 4 25 80 positively. And when I.look at the drawing •frozn the beach of the -- the landscape, T mean, the town fathers have allowed similar .buildings that - high. T -- I just -- -I .don't -- I do~.'.t object to it. I'zn going to vote for it. - MR. BRANNTNG: Ckay, thank you. Any other COmI[leIltS? - ~ . I~ haven't been •able to express that .I do appreciate. the architect's openness and to respond to the comments of the public anal to the comments of the Berard. This project has come a long way in the three .times its been here,, and I think- it's been reduced ,~in mass ta• scale. I think Selena, in all intents and purposes, is an alley. - - There are single-family residences that are there now. Our -- their view is blocked by the buildings there -- that are currently there, and T don't believe that --- actually, I think replacing it with visibility, with having some landscaping there is an improvement of over what '-s there now. z'm -~- the most difficult aspect of this for me is the -- is the corner units. I understand Perry's concerns., but I da believe ~4 LEy ~ MARSAA CQURT REPORTERS, INC. (561) 686-040Q - - 81 ._~ L C E ~~7 8 9 1-0 1 ~. I2 13 14 15 15 ]. Z 18 19' 20 21 22 23 24 25 .~ ~ - that -- that as you hav:e~done by reconfiguring and shifting things, you're able to make your ~ - project .work. And ~ think ones next door can also be designed so that;it -- it is attractive and functional and profitable as well. M5. DOWD: Oh, boy. T do respect Pea~ry's concern,. and it's like that could be a changing factor for me. But Z'm going to say that with all the changes .that the architects have-go.ne through and with due respect to the buildings they've done, this building, others, that, they've came a long way. I had a. ~.arge concern -before about the residents on Selena. We heard from those people. I -- I stated .that I was a person of - neighborhoods. I think that they certainly .did theiz homework and brough.t,th.at forth, so X'm -- I'm going to vote for it. MR. ELIOPOULOS: Weli; obviously I made the motion. Duh. I would like to $ay that z -- I -- I respect sonic of the comments especially from Jose and Fran.. I would -- Z would have to say, though, that if it wasn't for maybe-some of the comments from the public or this Board, that the _ LBY & MARSAA CgURT REPORTERS,, INC. X561) 685-0400 ...ti ,s 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 . 11 lz 13 1 4' 15 16 17 ~. 8 19 20 21~ 22 23 24 25 82 project wouldn't be getting approved. ~X think you guys have come a.lon.g way, but I think it's due to comments. I mean, obviously the first presentations, we could have just voted ye.s for. z don't think that it was the right project. I think you guys have really made this work. MR. BRANNING~: Okay. S.o ~ any other comments? Ali in favor of the ~a,pproval site plan say aye. . • {indication of ayes.) MR. BRANNING: Opposed? MS. BORCHARDT: Mr.,Chairman, Z would like . s to vote in the affirmative. MR.. BRANNING: Okay,. it's unanimous. Landscape plan. ~ • MR, ELIOPOULOS: That's really beating them up. MS. DOWD: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the landscape plan for the Hotel Vista Del Mar based upon positive findings with respect to Sectian'4.6.16 of the Land Development ~Regulati.ons subject to. the ' following conditions: One, address alx landscape and technical itez~s and subi~.it three copies of LEY & MARSA.A COURT REPORTERS, INC. X561) 686-0400 83 ,~ ,_ 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~. 3 14 _.1 5 16 17 18 1 9' 20 21 22 23 24 25 revised plans. MR. BRANNING: Is there a Second? MR. SNEIDE.RMAN: Second. MR. BRANNING: DiSCCZSSion? All in favor say aye? (A11 indicate aye.} MR. BRANNING:. Opposed? Motion passes. Elevations, Do we need t•o say something on that one shift, .Ron? MR. HAGGARD: Y•ou have to decide what you want to do with that condition. MR. BRANNING: Well, haw about t-he height issue, is that --.has that changed from our staff report? MR.~-HOGGARD: No. It's- one-half foot higher than what I said- MR. BRANNING: Okay. So we don't need to --- • MR. HAGGARD: The height of that tower is 6 inches taller. MR. .BRANNING : Okay. So that' s j ust on. record., is that what it a,s? . MR_ HAGGARD: Right. MR. ELI~P4ULOS: Mr. 'Chairman, is it appropriate for me to ask the•applicant LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, J.tvL- (561} 686-040D . _~~ 1 i r i E 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 ~. 9 20 21 22• 23 _ 24 r 25 ._ 84 something? - MR. BRANNING: Certainly is. NlR. ELIOPOUL~S : I brought ---- I bro-tight with me, actually,, the original proposal,. and I'zn kind of listening actually to. Ron's comment about the parapet. And I was -- you know, in youx original. proposal ---- you know; take. away the roof parts. You know, when you go down the building, you definitely have a lot more defined banding and things like that. Without even having to come bark, I mean, would you guys consider trying to alleviate some o~ the detailing that you had? It appears like the elevations that we have right now have gotten a lot sle-eker•, cleaner maybe; if you w~.ll. But I. mean, i~' you look at the original elevations, maybe some of the archite-ct is due to going through, but some of them on the sides and everything have nl.ce detailing and score- lines. Some of the brackets that you ha.d along -= I don't know. I'd like you guys to maybe look at that, yoi~ know. Here, I'l1 show you that. Just some of this stuff right there (indicating). T think if you look at the elevations,~y.ou last. a loft of LEY & MAR~AA COURT REPQRTERS, INC. {561) 6.86-0400 `,~ t r E ,~ ~4 1 .} 8 9 10 11 12 ]. 3 14 15 16 17 18- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L that detail. I'm not sure if it needed to be taken away, just -- 3 Mr. Currie, do you have a comment,? ~ ~ MR. ELIOPQULOS: I've got to get;-away. MFt. CURRIE: x think on the -- on. the pedestrian level., -the ground •level, you're probably right.. We can reintroduce some of that, especially the materials, ratings. I•think the owner wants it. I'd like to r•eintroduce.the .little paths, if you would, the roofs. But we're not going to j eop-axdize everything on, that .. ~ We may come back solely on that issue and try to make it a better building as a result of that, but we didn't want it hinged .upon that. MR. BRANNING: •So Gary, you were suggesting the applicant snake revisions and not come back to the Soard? MR. ELIOPOULOS: Actually, I --- T didn't know about the tower elements, but X was -- I would say that I felt quite comfortable with what they've done previously on one of the first submittals that they were introducing the detailing, that I would be comfortable with it because I think it would only be the landings. LEY &. MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561) 68fi-0400 t 1 i i 1 .y E t 8 9 10 11 12 ]. 3 14 i5 16 17 18 19 20 2.1 22 23 24 25 85 1 MR. BRP.NNING: Okay. So perhaps trze can add ?. the condition that additional score lines and 3 banding -- 6 MR. ELIOPOULOS: Yes. : MR. SRANNING: ---- as approved by staff. MR. ELXO~OULOS: Weil, mostly -~- my main con:~cern was on the street level at that entrance there. ~ think it really will a.dd to the character o~ the building, MR. SHOWERS: Maybe, in fact, we can do that and show it to staff anal even have it somewhat revised by the time we go to City • Commission for that final agp~roval. But, yes. MR. ELIOPOULOS: okay. Mr. Chairman, approve the elevations for the•Hotel Vista Del Mar based on the positive findings with respect to Section 4.6.].8 of Land Development Regulations subject to the fallowing conditions -- I leave this to the applicant's discretion -- Item 1, that additional architectural eleiaents such, as a parapet cap or metal -- not the metal manside rail.. Possibly a cap be added to, the proposed elevation on the parapet. • No. 2, that additional detailing be applied at the ground level. LEY & MARSAA COIIR~~REPORTERS, INC. (561} 585-0400 ~. _. ~~ i i 1 I t E ••, i 1 c 10 11 l2 13 ~. 4 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 2 :~ 87 1 MR. BRANNZNG: We have a motion. second? 2 MS. BORCHARDT: Okay, second. 3 MR. BRANNZNG: So that motion, Gary, adds ~ the parapet cap to the applicant's discretion, i correct? . > MR. ELICQPOULOS: Yes. MR. BRANNZNG: Okay. And that -- but the street ~.evel demonstration is not at their discretion as you waned a submittal? MR. ELIOPOULOS: I want to see more of it, t but I think between what they had before an the front -- on the first, you know, mixture of that T think is fine, I don't -- it's -only going to get better, so Z don't feel that. it's necessary they have to come back. MR. HOGGARD: Okay. You have to approve it by staff? MR. ELIOPOf3LOS: Right. Without a doubt, approved by staff, MR. BRANNZNG: Do we have a second? MS_ BORCHARDT: Second. MR. BRANNZNG: It's seconded.. Discussion? All in favor say aye.. {All. indicate aye . MR. BRANNZNNG: Motion passes unanimousl~r. LEY ~ MARSAA .COURT REPORTERS, INC. (561j 686-Q400 ~- .. ~, .J 3 I( 1~ 12 . ~.! 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 2D 21 22 23 ~' ~~ 2 4 ,, 2 5 4 6 ~- MR. SNEIDERMAN: One last comment here. 2 I'm thinking about all of the -- the statements 3 that ha~re been made and the Board`s respect for 4 Perry and Soston~s and the thought of Perry•at 5 some point,in.time building a five-story hotel on 5 that spot. ~Tt seems that we've already 7 established the-fact that a hotel of -- in that 3 area requires a certain density, and that 3 density, in order to co-exist with the ~ neighborhood, would mean that couldn't have a restaurant. T, for one, would hate to see Boston's disappear from Delray Beaeh, so... MR. ELIOPQULOS: Don`t build, Perry. MFt. SHOWERS: Okay, members of the Board, thank you.. It was difficult, anal we appreciate the consideration. • MR. BRANNING: Board will take a 5-minute recess. {Whereupon, this- concludes the proceedings had.') LEY & MARSAP, COURT~REPORTERS, INC. (551) 585-0400 Rg ~ -•---. _~ 1 1f ~~] 1c ~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~2 23 24 25. 1, ~ CE RT T FI GAT E 3 THE STATE OF FLORID:, ) - 4 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) 5 I, WANDA D. GOOD, a Court Reporter and 7 Notary Public in and for the State of Fxorida at Large: 3 - DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above.-entitled 3 and numbered cause was heard as herein~bove set out; that I was authorized to and did report in shorthand the proceedings, and that the foregoing pages, numbered I through 88 inclusive, comprise a true and correct transcript of my stenographic notes taJ~en during said Board meeting. . ZN TE-S-TZMONY WHEREOF, S have hereunto affixed my signature this 3Qth day of August, 201. WANDA D. GOOD, Notary Public, . Certified Court Reporter ,,~,,,, f Wanda d. Goad ivlY COMMtSSlaN # CCb98357 EX?IR~S 7anuQry i 7, 2002 ~~~°fiCs_` eON4miHRI1TROYFAUI~iSlA2ANc~Ih1C ~~ LEY & MARSAA COURT REPORTERS, INC. {561) 686-Q400 .~i'S ~i~'~~ r Mr. Sneiderman stepped back to the dais. IV. PROJECT PLANS i'S, ..~ C. Hotel Vista Del Mar. Continuation from Julu~ 1 i. 2001 Meetinal~: West Side of S©uth Ocean Boulevard (A-1-A). Approximately 300' South of Atlantic Avenue: Class V Site Plan Landsca Plan and Buildin Elevations Associated with the Construction of a 70 Room Hotel• Robert Gurrie Authorized A ent. QUASI- JUDICIAL HEARING Chairman Branning eta#ed that this item would be conducted as a quasi judicial hearing, which allows for presentations, by all involved parties, the admission of documen#s into the record and public testimony. The Board Secre#ary, Loretta Heussi, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mr. Ronald Haggard, Senior Planner stated at its meeting of July 11, 2001, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board reviewed the development proposal and tabled the item. Mr. Hoggard stated that the applicant has revised the plans to address the issueslconcems raised at the previous meeting. Mr. Haggard .presented an overview of the revisions that have been made since the previous meeting. The revisions included the following: the overall scale of the project and its compatibility with adjacen# properties; loading requirements and the impact on Salina Avenue; sight visibility on Salina Avenue and Ocean Boulevard; and, traffic circulation and fuming movements on Ocean Boulevard. The development proposal has been changed to a total of 70 rooms and a prnrate gym/spa. The 1,333 sq. ft, restaurant component and the rooftop pool have been eliminated. There are a total of 50 parking spaces accommodated within the building on the ground floor and below grade. There are six floors, induding the sub-grade parking level. Mr. Hoggard highlighted the revisions that have been made as stated in the staff report. • The building setback for Salina Avenr~e has been changed from 5" to 90' to move the building further away from Salina Avenue. Also, a portion of the building on the north properly fine has been setback an additional $'. • The hotel has a height of 48' to the. flat roof deck. The heights of the elevator tower, elevator equipment roam, and the rrmechanica! equipment areas need to be shown on the plans. • Regarding open space, twenty-three percent (23%) of landscaping has been provided adjacent fo ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue as well as along the north and south sides of the building, • Forty-nine (49) parking spaces have been provided, and two (2) additional parking spaces are provided as .guest check-in spaces only. Two handicapped parking spaces are provided and there is a drop off space in front. 5f'R,4~ Minutes 8/8!0'E ~ qv; ~~ ,F • Siric~ the restaurant has been eliminated, one loading space is adequate for the facility. The 45,86D square feet building area of the hotel is less than half of the range provided in the guidelines table for ho#els requiring 2 loading spaces. Also, the hate! has its own laundry, and a linen service will no# be needed. Smaller delivery vehicles can utilize the regular parking spaces in the garage or the drop- off and check-in spaces in front ofi the lobby to make deliveries. • The loading space is located between two parking spaces, which extend behind the loading space. To accommodate the required maneuvering area, the loading space has been widened to 14'. This allows a 30' fuming radius rn both directions. • Since the size of the drop-off area has been reduced, two of the parking spaces for the project, opposite the lobby are being converted to temporary spaces for check-in and luggage drop-off. This can be accomplished, since the parking requirement for the project has been exceeded. • The required stacking distance from the right-of way to the first parking space or aisleway is 2D' when 50 parking spaces are provided in a parking area. The proposed stacking distance from Salina Avenue to the aisleway {ramp). is 14'. A waiver to this requirement has been requested to reduce the stacking distance for this driveway entrance from 20' to 14", and Staff supports the waiver. • The visibility triangles at the garage entrances are approximately 10' on Salina Avenue and 8' on Ocean Boulevard, where 20` is required. A waiver to this requirement has been requested, and Staff supports the waiver. • The building is located west of the Coastal Construction Control Line and does nat require a DEP perm. • The landscaping has been upgraded. There is landscaping on the north and south skies of the building, plantings on Ocean Drive, foundation plantings on the north side, and a 1 D' landscape strip along the west property line between the building and Salina Avenue. • The architectural elevations have changed significantly, especially the rear elevations. The architectural elevations are much more compatible with the adjacen# properties. Mr. Hoggard sta#ed that positive Endings with the LDRs and consistency with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan can be made. He continued that this proposal is an improvement from the previous one, and recommended approval, subject to the conditions ou#lined in the staff report. Mr. Hoggard entered the following pertinent document into the record, the planning and Zoning Departments Project Fife 2001-008-SPF-SPR. Mr. Jose Aguila, Architect of Robert Currie Partnership stated that after several times of appearing before the Board for this proposal, we feel that these revised plans meet all the requirements. He stated fhat they concurred with the site plan technical items and conditions of approval, and felt that the Board would agree that ~ SPRAB Minutes 8/8101 ..,.~~ ; ~~t~~~' ~.~~~i they Have a wonderful hotel. Mr. Aquila gave a power point presentation, which included addressing the comments made from the previous meeting, .and the modifications incorporated to the revised plans as follows: ' Undermining Existing Foundations: increased north wail setback of 8'. • Coastal Construction Line: increased setback of east waU. • - Restaurant has been eliminated. - - • Parking Spaces have. added two check-in spaces and one front drop- off space. Drainage: pervious area has been increased to 3,225 sq. ft. • Loading Zane: 2' wider than required. • Landscaping: mare landscaping has been provided on the north and west side due to increased setbacks. • Setbacks Between Boston`s and Hotel Rooms: proposed setback is larger than currently existing with the Bermuda Inn. Side setbacks are 1 Q' and '} 8' to 24'. • View from Boston's Upper Deck to South: Note! is set back and not inhibiting their view. Front setback adjacent to Boston's upper deck was increased an - additional 3 feet to "1 Q~ feet. . • Floor Area Ratios: the hotel FAR is 2.5fi on new plan. • New Plan Rear Setb-ack: increased from 5' at ground level to 40' on new plan. Increased from. 5' at fifth level #0 95' on new plan. • Building Projections: there are no projections over property fines, • Roof Appurtenances: rooftop pool has been eliminated. Required roof appurtenance is now 5?'-fi" to mid-roof. • West Elevation: Mr. Aquila explained how they redesigned the west elevation, facing Salina Avenue. Mr. Aquila concluded that he felt that they have demonstrated tha# they have complied with- all the pervious issues, and was available to answer any questions. t Mr. Jess Sowards, Architect of Currie Partnership continued with the power point presentation and addressed the following: Aerial of the General Vicinity and Our Existing Site: the two residential properties to the Yllest are owned by the same owner of the hotel development. Explained the height ar}d scale of the hotel compared to the existing businesses on A-1-A, Qcean Boulevard. Explained the changes they had made to the south and north elevations and felt it was more compatible to the residents to the west. Mr. Robert Cume, Robert Gume Partnership addressed the aesthetics issues: • The first elevation articulates our step forms, which element far moderate, but also achieves a vertical eleme ~ffor fhe top floor when setback with the cementitous siding materials. T SPRAB It~nutes 8J8lQ1 ~° • Mr.,'Currie explained why zero lot fines are allowed in the Comrriercial district, and is allowed for specific reasons. It is an urban idea that you are trying #o get a continuing building of wall, if you will, and to that end we are trying to achieve that an the north side. There has been some concern regarding Boston's being able to do this and would we object. He continued that I would say ca#egorical[y, that we wouldn't, we would welcome them. If Boston's decided ~to do something of this size on the north side we would be there to support and encourage them. • Mr. Currie continued that he had two more issues: {1) Th[s City i~as been a success and we want to bring residential into this town. More then anything else we want to bring hotel residential into this town. {2) With all the concerns regarding this proposal, we aren't asking for anything special and we aren't violating any of the zonings codes or laws. Mr. Currie concluded that he hopes the Board would support the proposal. Mr. Mark Krell, Aitomey representing the applicant stated that he would like to make a closing statement, and requested that the individuals speaking from the: public not only speak their name, but also speak their physical address. Chairman Branning asked for a showing of hands from the public to have an idea of how many individuals wished to speak on the proposal. He requested that the individuals Limit #heir time at the microphone to three minutes and please state if you are in favor or opposed to the project, Also, he requested that if another individual has already commented on something, please just state that you agree or disagree. It isn't necessary to repeat the same thing, but naturally if' you have new ideas or viewpoints we do~want to hear them. The following individuals spoke from the public. Mr. Gene Sullivan, Operator of a store at 2838 South Ocean Boulevard, and representing the New Ilifonmouth Condoi~riinium Association at 36 South Ocean Boulevard stated that they are 7 Dp% in favor of this wonderful project. The hotel w_iil be a wonderful addition to Delray Beach. Mr. Sullivan submitted for the record a letter in favor of the project from the New Monmouth Condominium Association. Ms. Melanie Downes, 200~South Ocean Boulevard stated that she had spoken at the previous mee#ing, and that once again was in favor of the project, She left it was a great project for the neighborhood because it would increase the value of the surrounding properties. She didn't think there would be any more traffic congestion on Ocean Boulevard then already exists. Ms. Downes felt that this was a wonderful project. Ms, Pennv Robert, Eastern Complex Santa Al on Salina Avenue stated that she is in favor of the project. SPRAB Mnutes 818/01 t~' If!~ ,. n14 r~xn~_i Mr. Cfiu~k Wamer, representative as a private resident and owner of property East of Atlantic Avenue stated that we are in need ofi a hotel and is in flavor of the proposal. Ms. Karen Thomas, 1138 Vista Del Mar, read into the record a letter from a resident, Ms. Marion Cousins, 1220.East Atlantic Avenue. Ms. Cousins had stated that she was in favor of the project. Ms. Linda Bouboutsis,1817 Salina Avenue stated that she has no objections to the project. Mr. Hank Lenaa, 18 Salina Avenue, President of the Wiliamsberg Condominium Association stated that they recommend approval of this project. Mr. Carl DeSantis, 343 Balboa, stated that this hotel is well needed and is in favor of the project. - - Mr. Steven Me er, Attorney in. Boca Raton, representing himself'had spoken at the previous meeting..He complimented the Board and the petitioners for redesigning the hotel and eliminating the restaurant. The primary concerns of the restaurant have been significantly addressed, He felt that it should be a condition of approval that at this Time, or any time in the fu#ure, there wouldn't be any food service, or reques# a variance relating to food service of preparation or storage of food on these premises. Also, there will be a traffic problem if a restauran# is allowed. Mr. Meyer felt that there was concern with the visibility triangle. He requested that the Board consider this as a condition of approval. Mr. Harvey Over I11. EsQ , of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., business address is 777 South Flagier Dave, West Palm Beach., FL. Mr. Oyer stated that he 'is representing Mr. Donald Robinson, who is a properly owner on Salina Avenue. At the previous meeting there were seven issues that the Board had requested to be addressed, and two have been addressed. He didn't feel the following issueslconcems have been fully addressed, and requested that the Board have the applicant address these. 1. Waiver to the visibility triangle -Granting of such a waiver raises a serious safety concern for the Salina Avenue residents. Reducing the visibility triangle is dangerous and unreasonable. 2. West and north elevations -need to be setback. 3. Floor area ratios. 4. Density. Mr. Oyer concluded that all they are asking is that the hotel be scaled back. We aren'# against this project, and we feel it will increase property values, and think it is a good use in the neighborhood, We just want to see something that is reasonable, net a big box structure in our front yard and along the beach. We feel that they SF'RA8 Minutes 8/8~D1 should Cut 7Q or 15 rooms out of this project, so that there are adequate setbacks, adequate stepping back on the upper floors, and adequate ventilation separating our property from the hotel. Mr. Penn DonFrancisco, Owner of Boston's 4n The Beach, Inc., 4D South Ocean Boulevard stated that he would like to acknowledge the .design for its revisions, and particularly traf~rc, safety, deliver~rconcems, and elimination of tti~ garage exhaust. He agreed that this ho#el is needed, however Boston's is the abutting property and we still have concerns. His concerns are proximity of the zero lot line with no setback, cohabitation, and the impediments that the north elevation design causes for our redevelopment at a future time. Proximity of the zero lot line with no setback. Staff has clearly and correctly identified the problem with tape proximity of these norlhem zero lot line rooms as stipulated in the staff report, -page 12, paragraph 3. Mr. DonFrancis+co quoted the following from the staff report, "The Board's c~ncems regarding the abutting property to the north have been partially addressed by moving the majority of the building 8' back from the properly line, thereby allowing the addition of foundation planting along that facade". Unfortunately, this 8' setback doesn't occur where r# is needed the most, which is between the proposed projec# and Boston's building. The entire perimeter of this project is setback until it reaches that one area, He continued to quote from the staff report, "However, concerns regarding ocean visibility from the northern hotel rooms if a building of equal height were to be constructed to the north have no# been addressed. ft is noted that the impact of this scenario would be reduced if the comer unit on each floor (4 units) were removed. The opening created between the two buildings would allow air, light and ocean visibility, albeit reduced. By not addressing this issue now and ensuring at [east some ocean visibility, a potential problem with compatibility in the future may be created and may hinder redevelopment of the adjacent properly. To avoid these potential problems, staff recommends that the comer unit on each level be eliminated." We are saying that the zero lot line situation will create a difficult co- existence for both of us to operate under. This Board has the discretion to provide relief from the building mass by providing a setback, even though it is in the CBD. Also, he quoted from the staff report, "Tile proposed building covers most of the site with most of the parking and service functions also under roof. Therefore, the proposed landscaping for the project- is minimal." When these buildings abut there will be a conduit for noise, create drainage problems on our property, light and ocean visibility. A legal deed restriction should be placed on the property, protecting Boston's from opposition's blocking our future development. This covenant should run with the land and clearly delineate that we will na# be opposed by the property owner at the time, on that north side boundary when we redevelop regarding loss of view, light and air circeJlation. 7~ SPRA$ Minutes 816141 Mr. Matt Gracey, 72 South Ocean 'Boulevard, and President of Bahama House Condominium Association stated that they were supportive of the redesigned project. Mr. Hoggard read into the record three letters received in opposition from the following individuals: Mr. Cary Glickstein, Ironwood Properties, 277 Southeast Fifth Avenue, dated August 8, 2001; Mr. Dan Bums, dated August 8, 2001; and, Mr. Thomas L nch; 820 North Federal Highway, dated August ?, 200'1. Chairman Branning declared the public testimony closed. Chairman Branning asked the applicant if they wished to cross-examine staff. Mr. Agui[a replied na. Ghairman Branning asked star'F if they wished to cross-examine the applicant. Mr. Hoggard stated yes, and asked the following questions. • During the power point presentation, there were some changes made to thy; rear elevations up on the fifth floor, before if was to be stepped back 8', and now it shows 5'. I# looks like it is partially closed and partially opened. Mr. Agui[a explained the design of the fifth floor with the power point presentation, and stated that it was actually 8'. The height of the tower in the rear was called out on the exhibit as 57'6" and the plans depict 57+ 1 '/2' from the crown of the road, which 58'-fi", are you lowering the appurtenances? Mr. Aguila explained that this was recalculated and measured from. the crown of the road, and it is 57'fi". • Mr. Hoggard explained that the proposed Alexander Palms (15' - 16') in the rear of the building have been changed to Washingtonia Palms at 25' - 30' high. • Staff has concerns with the plain sections of the parapet and feels that additional architectural elements such as a parapet cap~ar metal mansard roof projections should be added. Mr. Aguila felt that the score lines were sufficient and adding an additional element would make it to busy, however he was willing to discuss it with the Board. The Berard made the following comments or asked the foilowing questions. Ms. Borchardt asked who reviews and approves the traffic study in the City? Also, if fine documents have been reviewed for this project Mr. Hoggard replied, the Planning Director, Mr. Paul Dorling. Based on the generation rates for the intersection, and the protect being within the TCEA, we do no# require a full traffic study. ~ ~ SPRAB Minutes B/8/01 '~'~: • Ms. -Borchardt inquired if the ramps for the handica acceptable or !f the are 'ust ste P parking spaces were Y 1 Aping that is required? Mr. Aguila replied that ramps are not acceptable, and that they are stepping. • Ms. Borchardt made the following comments: - She thanked the petitioner for the very good power point presen afiion. ~ The floor area ratio isn't required in the City of Delray Beach, however it is a very good planning tool, and felt it was pretty positive that it was reduced. • She believes in the urban concept, but was not sure she agreed with this concept along the beach front. • She thanked the architect for responding very, very strongly to the comments from Staff, as well as from ,the Board. Ms. Borchardt felt they had made some real positive changes to the project, however she felt that the density was too high for the beach front. Also, she was concerned with the visibility triangle. • Mr. 5neiderman commented tha# he was concerned with the following. • Density. - • Restaurant being added in the future, which would cause numerous problems aN over again. • The comer units on the four levels. Ms. Dowd commented that she feels that it is a fair- reques# to eliminate the four comer units, She was also concerned with the visibility triangle. Mr. Efiopoulos stated that he agreed with the other Board members comments, but wasn`t concerned with the visibility triangle; He felt that eliminating the restaurant was totally appropriate. Mr. Eliopoulos asked if the upper level could be tiered back? Mr. Currie stated that i# has been tiered back, the top floor is stepped back and the material has changed. Of course, we are reluctant tQ do it too much because these are our best rooms due to the square footage, luxurious rooms, and etc. Visually we did try to accomplish the tiered back appearance. • Chairman Branning asked Mr. Currie to address the concerns of their next door neighbor, Mr. Perry DonFrancisco, Boston's. Regarding the comer units being on the lo# i'rne, and if the site to the north were to develop and build up of equal height, and naturally _his concern was that you would object, and that a cavern would have been created. Obviously, we don't want that to occur. Mr. Currie stated that he felt it was very clear that we respect Mr. DonFrancisco's rights to do what the taw allows. We respect absolutely his right to build up against our hotel, if he wishes to do so. Now, if Mr. DonFrancisco wants to do exactly what we have done .and set it back to 8' and step it back, then everybody wins. If Mr. DonFraricisco chooses to close it up entirely, which is his right, we still are going to have a nice landscaped. courtyard with space between the two buildings. I would suggest, that frankly now, we don't have much to look at on the north side with the roof tops., air conditioners, and cross 12 SPRAB Minutes 8lB/Qi 1 ~: bars;'and a lot of those rooms are no# being used at all, so knock yourself out, go for it. But, we respect his right #o build and we would encourage it. Chairman Branning asked Mr. Currie if they would agree to a res#riction that runs with the land. Mr. Hoggard stated that the applicant needs to acknowledge on record that he would not oppose the redevelopment ofi the property to the north. Mr. Currie stated absolutely, assuming that Mr. DonFrancisco does something responsibly. if they put a 4l)', 5-story- solid wall {parking garage with no windows, I suspect that we would object. • Chairman Branning asked Mr. DonFrancisco what was it that yo+~ were requesting that the applicant provide by way of a deed restriction. Mr. DonFrancisco replied that he was concerned with the current design that if we both do this, which they would allow, but far from this they are blocking their own land, their own air and their own view. It had been suggested -at one time, that where they are proposing the northern upper four comer rooms that we both refrain from developing in this area anti! the setbacks and development has been agreed to between us. When we have both agreed to the same then we would have a deed restriction. This would give both of us an opportunity, but now this eliminates all future redevelopment, we have no options. Mr. DonFrancisco stated that he understands how important these rooms are for ocean visibility and I also understand how devastating it is when we are locked. in forever with what it is. Now, if we could make some agreement that is legally binding, when we redevelop, take the building down or ~go up beyond what our building is, we are opening this up fior them as well as for us. But, to do that this way now, it blocks not only our future, but their own rooms. Mr. DonFrancisco stated that he would consider working on an agreement because this is a positive for us up there. Boston's is our future and i respect what they are doing, but not for them to block everybody forever. I would hope they are listening to suggestions. Like it was suggested before to have a deed restrictions that runs. with the land, which stipulates tha# they don't go into that area, and when we go to develop tha# we are restricted from building so many feet from them in the front" - Mr. Currie stated that he didn't respect for when Mr. DonFrancisco-was going.to build in the future, and felt it was inappropriate. Let him design his own building. ff he in fact, built the exact same building we did, on his '! 00' wide iron#age, which is what ours is, and then in fact he has the opening. So let him do if that way or come up with another design. Mr. Currie didn't fieel they had tv resolve his problems because we are following the rules and the law. He felt that the hotel was a good project, and that they could not loose the rooms. If they loose these rooms, they cannot do the project and that is the end of it. Chairman Branning asked the applicant if they wished to make a closing argument. Mr. Fran Marieola and Mr. Jose Aguila sta#ed yes. Mr. Maricola commended the Board for what they do and for the amount of time they devote to the meetings, which is basically to be a good citizen. However, it irks ~~ SPPAB Minutes 8/8/Di me, stieres in my crawl, that Mr_ Oyer, Aitomey has stated that he represent a resident of this community, and there is no proof of that. His client, Mr. Donald Robinson is not on a deed in my briefcase, and Mr. Oyer has never brought any proof of his client that he is representing, and he has never met his client. I do not believe him. Don't worry about me, he can sue me if he wants too. Mr. Oyer has been to the three meetings, sworn in to testify and I don't care who his client is. Mr. Maricola continued that the other thing that botliers him is that what Mr. DonFrancisco said, which is that i# is okay if he builds on his property line, but you -can"t build on your property line. I would not go against anybody that is within the codes to build. Mr. Jose Aguila stated let me end this on a positive note, and as you can tell there is a lo# of emotion involved with this project. As you have heard tonight, we have given in on a lot of things to positively reac# to the issueslconcems that were raised at the previous meetings, Fortunately, we as professionals have a different responsibility, we have to support our comments wiifi •facts. We have made numerous changes in our hotel to make it a positive project. We have met the requirements of the LDR's and are consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. We feel this is a favorable project and should be approved. Mr. Harvey Oyer, Attorney wanted to response to Mr. Maricola's remarks because he felt that their creditability and integrity had been fully questioned. He stated that if the Board had any .questions, he would like to clear them up now. Chairman Branning asked the Board if they had any questions, and the Board responded no. Mr_ Oyer listed his credentials and stated that he has a certified letter from the trustee for the trust that holds all three of the properties on Salina Avenue. Chairman Branning asked if the certified letter could be entered into the record. Mr. Oyer replied yes. Chairman Branning asked Mr. Hoggard if he wished to make a closing argument. Mr. Hoggard stated yes, questions regarding the site visibility triangle. Mr. Hogga~rd explained that Salina Avenue is very slow moving traffic. The visibility triangle is for the exit lane, which is where the impact on the roadway would come from, about 20' in both directions, and the ~ 0' side is for the garage entrances. This is why we required the waiver. The visibility triangle for Ocean Boulevard is also reduced because the columns were in the way. You have visibility on each side of the columns as you are corning out. Again the visibility triangle from where you are in the vehicle, and the entrance lane, there is more than 20' on both sides. Plus., the pavement for A- 1-A is "12' to the east and you have even more visibility. Mr. Sneiderman inquired if the Board had the authority to stipulate "no foal service and no future food service". Mr. Hoggard stated that he didn't know, however to add food service at another time a site plan modification would have to be submitted. 14 SiaRAB Minutes 8JB10t The Board made the following comments during their deliberations and motions. ft was moved by Mr. Eliopoulos, seconded by Mr. Sneiderman and passed 5-0 to approve a waiver to LDR Section 4:6.9(D){3){c){1}. to reduce the required sacking distance for the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 20' to 14' for Hotel Vista Del Mar. - -- - - - - - - - . - It was moved by Mr. Sneiderrnan, seconded by Ms. Dowd and to approve a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14{A), to reduce the visibility triangle at the Salina Avenue drn-eway entrance from 20' to 10' and at the Ocean Boulevard driveway entrance from 20' to 8', based upon positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.7{B}(5) for Hote! Vista Del Mar. • Ms. Borchardt commented that because we have the waiver together for both Salina Avenue and Ocean Boulevard that she couldn't support the waiver. Ms. Borchardt did support the waiver for Salina Avenue, bu# was concerned to reducing this down to 8' on Ocean Boulevard. Upon roll call the Board voted as follows: Ms. Borchardt - No; Ms. Dowd -Yes; Mr. Sneiderman -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr, Branning -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4-1 vote. It was moved by Ms. Dowd, seconded by Ms. Borchardt and passed 5-0 to approve a waiver to LDR Section 6.1.3{B}, to eliminate the required sidewalk along Salina Avenue for Hotel Vista Del Mar. It. was moved by Mr. Eliopoulos, seconded by Mr. Sneiderman to approve the Class V site plan for Hotel Vista Dei Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3. (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5{F}(5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Develaprner~t Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions; 1. Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans; 2. No loading or unloading of vehicles, except trash pickup, is permitted on Salina Avenue; 3. A valet queue is not permitted under the current design. Redesign of the front entrance area to provide tha necessary stacking and approval of fine site plan modifica#ion will be required prior to operating a valet queue at this location. 4. Alighting plan which details mitigation measures for aI[ light sources visible from the beach must be provided; and, ~. The trash~enclosure area must be deodorized and air-conditioned. 15 SPRAB Minutes 818107 ' e. , • Ms. Borchardt inquired if staff's recommendation that the comer unit on each level be eliminated should be a condition of approval. Mr. Hoggard stated that the discussion the Board had regarding their concerns would go on record, and it will also be noted as a potential prob[em. • Ms. Borchardt s#ated that she is. not inclined to vo#e 'in favor of this proposal and rt is not because of the design. _She thinks they have done a wonderful job. The site and the density are of concern to me, which continues to be. This is a very difficult decision, because from the first meeting to now there have been so many improvements to the site plan. • Mr. Sneiderman stated that the problem he has had all along with the project is that he feels they have dropped an intense building right into the middle of 100' x ?lot. They have responded to every issue the Board has had. and he believed they have responded positively. Mr. Sneiderman didn't object to the proposal. • Chairman Branning commented that he appreciated the architect's openness in responding to the comments of the public and our Board. This project has come a long way for the three times that it has been here, I think the building has been reduced from the maximum scale: He felt that the current single family residents on Salina Avenue that their view is blocked by the existing building, and feels the proposed hotel wil! be an improvement. The most difficult aspect of this project for me is the comer unit, and I understand Mr. ~ DonFrancisco's concerns. But, 1 do believe that as the architect has done by reconfguring and shifting things that they are able to make their project work. He also felt that the building next door could be designed so that it is attractive and functions as well. • Ms. Dowd commented that she does respect Mr. DonFrancisco's concern, and this could be a changing factor for her. With all the changes that the architect~has gone through that she respects them for down cutting the building for the surrounding residents. She had the mos# concern before regairding the residents on Salina Avenue and felt that the applicant had done his homework and brought that forth. Mr. Eliapoulos felt that the proposal has improved due to the comments of concemsrssues from the public and the Board. Upon roll call the Board voted as follows: Ms. Borchardt -Yes, Ms. Dowd -Yes; Mr. Sneiderman -Yes; Mr. Eliapouios -Yes; Mr. Branning -Yes. Said mo#ion passed with-a 5-0 vote. it was moved by Ms. Dow, seconded by Mr. Sneiderman and passed s-o to approve the landscape plan for Hvtel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.6.ifi of the 1_and Development Regulafions subject to the following condi#ions: 1. Address all 1_aildscape Technical Items and submit three (3~ copies of the revised plans. Chairman Branning inquired if the height had to be added as a condition of approval. Mr. Hoggard stated no, the height correction of the tower is already on record. 1fi SPRAB MinuEes 8/8JD9 Mr. Efiopoulos asked the. applicant if they would consider adding architectural elements a# the ground level. The applican# agreed #o add score fines and banding. It was moved by Mr. Efiopoulos, seconded by Ms. Borchardt and passed 5-0 to approve the elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Section • 4.6.18 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. (RE~/lSED) That a parapet cap be added to the parapet, at the applican#'s discretion: 2. (NEWJ That additional score lines and banding details be applied at the ground level and to be approved by staff. Ill. MISCELLANEOUS B. Bru"s Room Snorts Grille; 35 NE 2"d Avenue: Class I Site Plan Modification; Brad Jones. Authorized Agent. The item before the Board is approval of a Class I site plan modification for Bru's Room Sports Grille.. ~~ Mr. Pape, Senior Planner presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff report. The development proposal consists of the installatjon of a light "dolphfn° teal shed style canvas awnings. The awning is to be installed over the northeast entrance to the establishment. This entrance contains and en#ry portico approximately 16' in height and extends 9' #rom the building. The proposed awning is seventeen feet-eight inches (1.7'-8°} in width, and will project five fee# (5"} from the building. The awning itself has a three foot frve inch (3'-5"} pitch and vrrill be suspended seven feet-six inches (7'-6") above the. existing sidewalk. The building has an existing projecting roof that runs along the front (east side) of the building. The awning will be installed a# the -same height as this roof: At its meeting of August 2, 2001 the PGMSDRC had reviewed the proposal and recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report` Mr. Brad Jones of Janes Awning & Canvas, Inc.. stated that there are two tones 'of teal in the complex, one is a dark teal and the other is a Jade. Mr. Jones would prefer the' lighter color to match the color of the sign lettering. Further discussion' ensued regarding the proposed lighter #eal, and the Board agreed with the lighter teal. It was- moved by Mr. Efiopoulos, seconded by Mr. Sneiderman and passed 5-0 th approve the Class I Site Plan Modfication for Bru's Room Sports Grille, based upon positive ftndfngs with respect tQ Section 4.6.1$ of the Land Development Regulations, subject t4 the following condition: 1 T SPRAB NGnutes B/8~01 ^ ~' - ^ h_ ~ i , . _~' _ ~ft 8 ~ -~ i 1 s '~' t 1~ . a ~Y _.~~~ ~ _ _ .- _ .: - - - ~ - - ^ ~ -- ~i~~~ ~M r i t . R , kl' N ^ R 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ .~ r ~ - a ~ •' ~. ^ Y S is ^ a~ ~~ ^ ~~ ~' ..i ~' I ~, .13 _~I i } i i 4 - . ~I r {~~ .. l W~~f ~ - -- - - - L ~ ~ 'l~rF ll~ -_ ^ ~ ~~. ~ ~ ^, ~. 1 i r~ i - _ R - - .1 I .: i J ~ ~i ~.. r,~ ^ ~ ~_ ~: ,^ ~., r ~ ' . i ~ _ ~ ' ~ ~~ ~~ i .-~ ~ . a w e ~ • i 41 i ~~ _ - - ~ ;~ I _ ~l K ~ it I x { ^ . ^ ^ ~'# ~ - r ~ ~ ^ M1: i ~ y ^ ^: 3 u ~ ~ . '~' ^ - i ~~ s K i .~ R k5 _ _ awl fl 1^ ~ r J :. ~: ~~ ~ F ~.,ri,% ~, i if i@ AC E] ._ ~ _ ~~~ r ~ ~ r ,a~ ~ ~ __ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ FILE NUMBerF: 2001-008SPF-SPR PETITION NAME: HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR A. City of Delray Beach Comprehensive Pian as Existed on 1D 2-01, B. City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations as Existed on 102-01. C. City of Delray Beach Zoning District map as Existed on 10-2-01, D. Gity of Delray Beach Future Land Use Map as Existed on 10-2-01. ARE INCLUDED AS DOGUMENTS OF THE PROJECT F[LE ;-, .ITEM - . ~ . DATE ENTERED ~' fVUMBER ~ DESCRIPTION'OF ITEM ~ IN FILE `' ~; 1. Site plan application with reduced plans and colored elevation. 10-13-00 2. Memorandum from George Diaz to Janet Meeks. 10-25-00 3. TAC review checklist from Gerald VanGelder. ' 10-30-00 4. Memorandum from Nancy Davila to the Planning and Zening 10-31-00 Department. 5. Letter to Robert Gurre from Jasmin AIlen. 11-03-00 6. Memorandum from Barron Caronite to Jeff Castello. 11-09-00 7. Letter from Kevin Warner to Janet Meeks. 1.2-29-00 8. Revised site plan application. 2-23-01 3. Warranty Deed. 2-23-01 10. Certification letter. 2-23-01 11. Traffic statement. 2-23-01 12. Letter to Jose Aquila from Jasmin Allen. 3-20-01 13. Fax cover memorandum and revised TAC comments to Bob 3-2001 Currie. 14. Revised site plan application. 4-19-01 15. Revised reduced plans. 4-19-01 Page 7 FILE NUMBtK: 2001-008-SPF-SPR PETITION NAME: HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR fTEM .. - ~ . ~ ~ DATE ENTERED ~.. ~ . ~ OF ITEM ~~ .~ , . IN FILE' :, ~~: LNUMBER _ ~ - DESCRIPTION .. 16. Fax cover memorandum and revised TAC comments to Bob 5-11-01 Currie. 17. Letter to Ron Hoggard from Jose Aguila. 5-29w01 18. Colored elevations. 5-29-01 19. Caior sampieslfinishes schedule. 5-3D-01 20. [nternal stacking statement from Gerald Church. 6-1201 20.~a} Waiver reguest submitted by Jose Aguila. fi-13-01 21. Pictures of properties on Salina Avenue. fi-13-01 22. Special courtesy notice. 6-14-01 23. Letter from Beach Property Owners Association. fi-1501 24. Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's staff report. 6-15-01 25. Sketch of the relationship between the hotel and Boston's from fi-21-01 Perry Don Francisco. 2fi. Audio tapes of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's meeting of June 20, 2001. 27. Sketch with signed off on trash enclosure by BFI. 7-02-01 28. Special Courtesy Notices. 7-Ofi-01 29. Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's staff report for meeting 7-Ofi-01 of July 11, 2001. 30. Colored elevations and color samples schedule. 7-10-01 31. Faxed letter from Thomas Lynch to the Site Plan Review and 7-11-01 Appearance Board, dated July 11, 20Q1. 32. Letter from Harvey Oyer, Attorney to the Site Plan Review and 7-11-01 A earance Board, dated JuE 11, 2001. Page 2 FILE NUMBtrZ: 2001-008-SPF-SPR PETITION NAME: HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR --ITEM ~ ;: ;~ ; . DATE ENTERED ` ~ NUMBER '~: ~ f]ESCRIPTION OF ITEM _ ~ ` ~ :~ I1~!'Ff LE~.` ~~:' ~ •~ 3.3. Printed copy of Power Point presentation made by Jess Sowards 7-11-01 at meeting of July 11, 2001. 34. Three (3) pictures of trucks on Salina Avenue. 7-11-01 35. Audio tapes of the Site Pfan Review and Appearance Board's meeting of July 11, 2001. 3fi. Schedule of room sizes provided by architect for project. 8-01-01 37. Special courtesy notice. 8-03_01 38. Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's staff report for the 8-03-01 meeting of August 8, 2001. 39. Reduced colored elevations. 8-03-01 40. Minutes of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's meeting 8-08-01 of June 20, 2001. 41. Minutes of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's meeting $-09-01 of July 11, 2001. 42. Letter from Cary Gliclcstein, President of Ironwood Properties, inc. 8-09-01 to Jeffrey Costello, dated August 8, 2001. 43. Memorandum from Dan Bums to the Site Plan Review and 8-09-01 Appearance Board, dated August 8, 2001. 44. Letter from Thomas Lynch to the Site Plan Review and 9-09-01 Appearance Board, dated August 7, 2001. 45. Printed copy of Power Point presentation made by Jose Aguila at 8-09-01 the August 8, 2001, Site Plan Review and Appearance Board meeting. 4fi. Letter from Marion V, Cousins to the Site Plan Review and $-09-01 Appearance Board, dated August 8, 2001. 47. Letter from New Monmouth Condominium Association to the Site 8-09-01 Plan Review and Appearance- Board, dated Auc#ust fi, 2001. Page 3 FILE NUMB~ri: 2007-008-SPF-SPR PETITION NAME: HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR .ITEM -' '.. _ DATE ENTERED; NUMBER , ,',. ~ ~~ ' DESCRIPTION OF ITEM ~~'~ ~. ~, .:.. IN FILE ~.:; 48. Letter from Hank Lenga, President ~ of the Williamsburg 8-09-01 Condominium Association, dated August 7, 2001. 49. Acknowledgement of Trustee signed by Joseph F. Keeiey, dated 8-09-01 April 17, 2001. Page 4 ..' F ~',~ All-Amaical~ . 1 ~ ~' CITY OF DELRAY BEACH 1993 5ITE PLAN REVIEV~ AND APPEARANCE ~ ~ B OARD ~. SITE-~, P~•AN:k~~~APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR CG~PLETING AI'v11i5 1=1LiivG THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION Applications far site plan approval may be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department at any time between the hours of 8:04 a.m. and 5:00 p_m_, Monday thru Friday. Please print artype aEl of the required information, and .ensure that the application is complete and accurate. In order to be accepted for processing, the application must be accompanied by: 1. Standard Application items, as listed on Page 8; 2. Three (3) copies of a Traffic Study or Traffic Sta#ement as appiiaable; 3. A Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Application for architecteJral elevations and color changes; ~. An architectural elevation plan, in color (if applicable); 5. Eight ($) copies of each of the following plans, in collated, stapled -and folded sets: a) Site plan b) Landscape plan c) Preliminary engineering plan d) Building elevations and floor plans e) Survey 6. Processing fee, as applicable jThe processing fee for the categories of site plan reviews are $440.40* fvr a Class Ill modification, $754.00* for a Class IV madifcation and $1,044.00* for a Class V new submission]. Make checks payable to the City of Delray Beach; and, 7. Other information may be requested, if required. All plans (except building elevations and floor plans) must be drawn at the same scale. New site plans (Class V), and site plan modifications (Class ill and Class IV} [see page ~ 1 for description of these site plan review categories], are reviewed by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB), which meets every tither Wednesday. It takes approximately free (5) to seven (7}weeks between submission of the application and action by SPRAB. This time may vary, depending upon the number of comments made by staff, and the time required by the applicant to submit revisions. Please refer to the appropriate sections of the City's Land Development Regulations when designing your project and completing this application. A nre-application conference with a member ofthe Planning staff is strongly recommended and can be scheduled at your convenience. We will be glad to assist you in any way possible. In order to be accepted, plans must be prepared, signed, and sealed by the appropriate professional as listed below: • Site Plan -Registered Architect, Landscape Architect, or Registered Engineer • Landscape Plan -Registered Landscape Architect • Engineering Plans -Registered Engineer • Survey -Registered Engineer or Licensed Surveyor *For parcels over 3 acres, an addifional fee of $100 per acre beginning at 3.09 acres, and any fraction thereof, up fo a maximum of $3,OOt7 perpro~®ct 11197 :~ l-'; adD ~ - o~ GITY OF DELRAY BEACH PLANNING AND ZON[NG DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL Project Name: Hotel Vista Del Mar Address or Genera! Location: 64 S. Ocean Blvd (State Road A1A) Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Brief Description of Project: 104 room residence hotel {2) restaurants ttatalii~g 4,769 sq. ft. Lower level 110 car automated 2 level parking garage with full valet service PART DNE -APPLICANT INFQRMATfON: APPLICANT Name: Address: Telephone Number: AGENT Name: Address: Telephone Number: OWNER lit other than applicant) Name: Address: Rosa Hotel Developers, Enc. (c/o Fran Marincola) 34 S. ocean Blvd., Apartment #A-1 Delray Beach, Florida 33483 274-8896 Robert G. Currie Partnership 134 N. E. 1~ Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 276-4951 Same as applicant Telephone Number. ~. PART TWO - PROPERTY iNFORMATiON: Property Control Number: 12-4346-18-28-001-0060 Legal Description: SEE ATTACHED SURVEY Zoning District: CBD Future Land Use Map Designation: C.C. Size of Properly: 17,923 sq.S#. .411 acres 100' widti7 173.331186.14 depth 100.63' frontage Exis#ing Use of Property: Motel PART THREE - PRO.~ECT~INFORMATION: Describe in detail the proposed project and indicate if there is to be any phasing of the improvements: Demolition of current motel and construction of a new '104 room. residence hotel with two (2) restaurants and vaie# parking in lower lever for 1'10 cars (2 level automated system). .'~Y1 PROJECT DATA The following information~must be provided in the spaces below; and must be shown on the Site Plan. Ground floor area: 1 Q.731 sq. ft. 59.9% of site Total floor area: 75,929 sq. ft. 423.fi% of site Parkinglpaved area: 5,185 sq. ft. 28.9% of site Open (landscaped) space: 2,DD7 sq. ft. 11.2% of site Water bodies: none sq. ft. D% of site Number of residential hotel dwelling units; 1D4 Dwelling units per acre: 268 Number of Units Size Hotel 104 +/-35p sq, ft, Efficiency sq. ft. 1 Bedroom sq. ft. 2 Bedroom ~ sq, ft. 3 Bedroom sq. ft. 4 Bedroom sq. ft. Parking spaces required pursuant to LDR Section 4.8.9: IRClude all use areas (Example: For an automobile dealership state shawroorn, office and service bays t~se areas} Use Hotel :Calculated at .7 spaces per unit = 72.8 Use Restaurant. :Calculated at 6 spaces per 1000 = 28.6 Use Office : Calculated at 1 spaces per 300 - 2.2 Use :Calculated at spaces per TOTAL = 103.6 or 704 Parking spaces provided: Regular 108 Compact 12 Handicapped TOTAL: 120 (~ 00% valet parking) Building data provided pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4{Kj, Development Standards Matrix; Setbacks: Front: 5 ft. Rear: 0 ft. interior north side: 0 ft. Street side: 5 ft. i nterior south side: 10 ft. Height: 48 ft. Floors: 5 :~ 'r' NOTIFICATION OF UTILITY PROVIDERS~`~ Dear SirlMadam: The City of Delray Beach has received an application for development approval as described below: Owner/Applicant Rosa Hotel Developers, Inc. Project Name Hotel Vista Del Mar Project AddresslLocation 64 S. Ocean Boulevard Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Proposed Improvements '104 roam Residence Hotel and 2 restaurants A cagy of the proposed site plan is attached. Please review the attached plan and provide the requested information. This sheet should be returned to: City of Delray .Beach Planning & Zoning Department ~ DD N.W. ~ st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 at your ear#iest possible convenience. Will the proposed development affect existing utility service? Yes No Wil) the proposed development require extension of existing utility service? Yes No Comments: Utility Provider Representative's Name and Title Signature Date 1i ..~ OWNER`S CQNSENT & DESIGNATION OF AGENCY (This form must be completed by ALL proper#y owners) I, Eugenia Kerstin, Trustee, the fee simple owner of the following described propertyr: Fats fi, 7, 8, 9, and ~Q, Block 'i, Ocean Park, less SR A1A RNV and the West 2'8"' hereby petition to the City of Delray Beach for site plan approval for Hotel Vista Del Mar and affirm that Rosa Hotel Developers. 1nc.IFran Marincola and Robert G. Currie Partnership are hereby designated to act as agent on my behalf to accomplish the above. ~ certify that 1 have examined the application and that all statements and diagrams submitted are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Further, I understand that this application, attachments and fees become part of the Official Records of the City of Delray Beach, Fiarida, and are not returnable. Eugeni~erstin, Trustee The foregoing instrument was ackno 's rd day of October, 2QQ0 by Eugenia Kerstin, who is personally known to me r has produced as i en i Ica io an w o did (did not) take an oath. TEiQMAS .!. WOOLLEY~ 1r- (Printed Name of Notary Publicy Commission # , My Commission Expires t~rr,~ ~OIDftB J. W04~ (NOTARY'S SEALS "~ ~. fir. _ 's ~+mm~e~aa ~ CG ~594~2A _ ~' Wires lam. 24,Z ~% $onded Thru 004 ~' - +` , Af]~ntie Soadint Cb., Ioe `~ }. Standard Application items ~ -- ~LDR Section 2.4.3(A} 1. A copy of the latest recorded warranty deed, and a certificate from an attorney or ti#le company (not title insurance) certifying who the current fee simple title holders of record of the subject property are, and the nature and extent of their interest therein. . 2. The written consent of the owners} must be provided in a certified form. When an application is executed on behalf of a corporation or business entity, documentation must be provided which demonstrates that the corporation's representative is authorized to act on behalf of the corporation. These forms are available from the Planning Department. 3. A vicinity map which clearly shows the subject property, adjacent properties, and their relationship to streets located within one-half mile of the property. 4. A survey (8 copies} which shows the property described pursuant to the legal description contained in the warranty deed. Such survey shall show all improvements on the property anal must be certified as reflecting conditions on the site as they existed within six (6) months priorto the fling of the application, 5. Application filing fee, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.3(K}{ ~ ). Standard Plan items LDR Section 2.4.3(6) fn addition to the infarmatian included in the Project Data Sheet, the fallowing items must be included an the site plan: 1. Title Block showing project name, engineering scale, date, page number, name of preparer. 2. North arrow and location map insert. 3. Site boundaries per the legal description. 4. Center line of right-of way of any adjacent street, and location of any improvements between the property and the adjacent stree#s. 5. Approximate location of lot lines of adjacent properties, structures, and improvements. 6. Location of nearest driveway or point of access to adjacent properties (including any that are across a street), if within 50 ft. of subject property. If Wane, indicate on plan. 7. Approximate location of all utilities on the site. 8. I_oca#ion of other significant features such as water bodies, trees and vegetation (tree survey may be required). **Items 7 and 8 may be-shown on a survey sheet, and then only the utilities or features which are to be incorporated into the development need be included on the site plan. 9. Location of all proposed structures with setbacks dimensioned from the closest property line. 10.lntended use of each .structure. - ,•~ •~;:, 11.Ingress and egress for vehicles and pedestrians, traffic flow ir.~~'licated with arrows, pavement markings, traffic control devices. 12.Location of parking areas, loading zones, landscape islands, and traffic aisles. In addition, a detail showing parking space striping, space sizing, wheel stops and handicap accessibility features such as ramps. 13.Manner in which utilities are to be provided to the structures. 14. Location of buffers, fencing, walls. 15.Location of signs with heights and dimensions. 16. Lighting details, including location, height, and coverage of fixtures. 17.Loca#ion and description of solid waste disposal and recycling facilities; including height of enclosures and type of ga#ing to be used. 18.Spot elevations, existing and proposed. 19.Finished floor elevations of all structures. 2p.Type of building construction and occupancy ciassifrcation pursuant to the Standard Building Code. 21.Deta'tls on project phasing, if applicable. 22.Signature and seal of preparer. Landscape Plan LDR Section 2.4.3(C) The fopowing information must be included on the landscape plan: See SHEET LA4 1. Title Block showing project name, engineering scale,. date, page number, name of preparer. 2. Existing and proposed parking spaces, vehicular use areas, access aisles, sidewalks, building locations and similar fea#ures. 3. Statement of intent as to method and coverage of irrigation. 4. Name and location of plant material to be installed or preserved. 5. Legend including botanical and common names, height, spread, and spacing of all plant material. 6. Location of all landscape features and preserve areas in context with existing an proposed buildings and improvements. 7. Tabulation which includes all relevant statistical information including but not limited to the following: a} Total paved area = sq.ft. b) Required interior green space = sq.ft (10% of total paved area). c} Interior green space provided = sq.ft. d) Total number of trees required w sq.ft. (~ interior tree is required for each 72~ sq.ft. of required interior green space.) e} Number of interior trees provided = trees. f} Perimeter green space required = sq.ft. (depth of buffers x length) g) Perimeter green space provided = sq.ft. h) Number of perimeter trees required = trees. (One perimeter tree is required fnr each 3D Eineai feet) i) Number of perimeter trees provided = trees. .;' ~ -' j) XERISCAPE CALCULATIONS k) Required shrubs and ground covers = sq.ft. (3Q% of required interior and perimeter green space, see b and fS !} Shrubs and ground cover provided = sq.ft. ' m} Required native plant materials = sq.ft. (25% of required shrubs and ground cover, see j) n} Native plan# materials provided = (Note Landscape Plan) o} Number of native trees required = trees (so% of required trees, see d and. h) p) Native trees provided = trees. 8. Location of outdoor fighting. 9. Location of refuse areas and method of screening. 1 g. Locatier~ of utility easen~lerts and o verhead lines. 11. Location of signs. 12. Demonstrate that the proposed landscaping is consistent with existing vegetation preserved on site. 13. Re aired Mana ement Plan: For all areas of preserved plant communities larger than one- half ('[/2) acre in area, the owner shall submit a narrative management plan indicating the manner in which the native plant communities will be preserved. The narrative shall include: a}. Whether or not the existing vegetation is to be preserved in the existing species composition. b) !f applicable, the manner in which the composition of existing plant material is to be Preserved, hand removal of invasive species, prescribed burning, etc. c} Maintenance schedule for removal of exotics. d} Maintenance schedule for removal of debris. 14. Signature and seal of preparer. Preliminary Englneeriin~ Plan LDR 5ectian 2.4.3(D} Preliminary engineering plans shall be drawn an a topographic base (unless the use of spot elevations are previously approved by the City Engineer} with topographic features extended to ten feet (10'} beyond the site. The following information must be included an the Preliminary Engineering Plan: 1. Title Block showing project name, scale, date, page number, name of preparer. 2. Approximate location as shown in records of Delray Beach andlor field observations of all existing water, sewer, and drainage facilities, along with streets, sidewalks, and above ground improvements which provide service to and on the site. Notes shalt state the disposition of all existing facilities including service lines, meters, etc. 3. Proposed location, sizing and design basis of water, sewer, fire suppression, and drainage facilities which are to serve the site including pertinent calculations and the method of providing service to the proposed structures. 4. Location of proposed street lights. b. Surface water management calculations indicating the proposed system's ability to meet storm water quality and quantity requirements 9n accordance with L.W.D.D. and S.F.W.M.D~ Regulations. 6. Signature and seal of preparer. ~., Architectural Elevations LDR Section 2.4.3(G} The following information must be included on the architectural elevation plan: 1. Title Block showing project name, scale (architectural scale is permitted), date, page number, name of preparer. . 2. All four (4) elevations (north, east, south and west), of the proposed structure(s) or the elevation which is being modified when an existing structure is involved. 3. Dimension ail elevations including height measurements. 4. All architectural features of the structures, the type of exterior surfaces and exterior color. 5. The location of air conditioning and other mechanical equipment and methods of proposed screening. 6. The location of air conditioning equipment and other features depicted on a roof plan. SITE PI:.AN REVIEW CATEGORIES CLASS !!1 A modification to the site plan which represents either a change in intensify of use, or which affects the spatial relationship among improvements on the land, regpiring partial review of Pertormance Standards found in Section 3.1. ~ . CLASS lV A modification to a site plan which represents either a significant change in the intensity of use or significant changes which affect the spatial relationship among improvements on the land, requiring full review of Perforrnance.Standards found in Section 3.'1.1. CLASS V New application for development of vacant land, or modification of a developed property when no valid site plan of record exists and which requires full review of Performance Standards found in Section 3.1.x. p t ~ -~ ~• ~ ~ d i~ ~ ~ i ~ # e ~~ ~~ ~~ rn ~ I LLL ffF ~ ~l~I~ ~~~ ~~~~ M~lMr . ~~ ~~ ~: ~~ ~~ w~ •Ee ~~ .~~ ~~ leis !1!# ~ ~R ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ =g~ ~ - e ~ a '~ ~ J ~ ~ ~• _~ s ~ :r ._ .. s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i Z ~~ ~k~ [~ II~~J. I~~~ ~L ~~~ ..,,,. ~~~ r: ~':+~ ~l, ~Yyr~`~~ .. .- ~ ~ ~ ~ "' i f~~~ _ - aOaCe X-iF.K +~r ~ ~ . ~ • M ~ ~~ ~ ; '~ 1 ~ ~~~~ - ~~ ii ~~ t • ~ • i „ ti w L • ^ r ~~ i ~~~ ~ -~=eiTey t ~~ !tY aeF ~ ~~~ ~t r . ~ -~ _. ~~ ~ ~ Q f~ -~ ~ ~~~ ~. ~ ~ > O 1, ~~ u ~~~ w f: _[ ~ a. ~ ¢ ~~~~ ~A~ _. s... ti ~'~~~~~ ~ ~ s ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ Ne a ~~~ r ~ ' ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~.~ . ~:.~-~ .~:i. ~~~ ~~ ~#' ~~~ ~ Lr~ ~ ~ i '~F ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~# ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ . t. !~ ~ ~ ~~ err:~r t •rir r ~~ ~ r~ mss: r i~ ~ ~ .,.W~.:;.m.. ~~' ~~~~. ~_ ~ ^~ MEMORANDUM TO: JANET MEEICS, $El~l OR PLANNER FROM: GEORGE Z ll PUTY BUTLDTNG OFI'ICIAL. SU"S,]ECT: HOTEL VISTA L MAR D A TE: 70/25 0 /0 +' { ~.. 1l. (( rrII 1 ~~~ / 11'i.4lll1~ !~- Nl.iv +L, 3:1.U a : -~1~~ \J 11\ ~.a ~L~a A ~Jla The plans have been reviewed foz minimum technical cornpliance with Standard Building Codes and Delray Beach L.D.R requirements. 1. Building height and area. ?. Grade elevations. 3. Separation distance from eaistixxg pzoperty lines. 4. Type o.f construction. 5. File protection requirements. G. Means of egress calculations (travel distance and required exits). 7. Drainage calculations. The above represents the rn;nimu~ specifccations requured foz technical review. Specific materials, method of construction ax other data znay he required prior to construction. r DELRAY BEACI~ FIRE DEPARTMENT TAC Project Review Checkiist l . Project Name: Vista Del Mar . 2. Location: 64 S. Ocean Blvd. 3. Are fire flaw calculations provided? Y N ~ NA Is adequate fire flaw for the size and type of development available? Y N NA Comments: 4. Are dead end streets ar col-de-sacs included an the site plan? If so, is adequate access to buildings, tom around radii, etc. provided? Y N NA ~ Comments: 5. Fiore Hydrants: Is 500 `maximum spacing provided in single family or duplex areas? Z' N NA ~ Multi-family, 2 stories or less 400' maximum? Y N NA iviulti-family, 3 or more stories, 300' maximum? Y ~ N NA Commercial or Industria1300' maximum? Y N NA ~ Are hydrants provided on both sides of the road? Y N ~ NA No obstructions within 5' of the hydrant? Y ~ N NA ~~ 5 _- ; ,1 Will the proposed development have an adverse effect on the Fire 'Department's ability fo provide service? Y N ~ NA Comment 7. Other comments: l . The entire structure shall be provided with an automatic sprinkler system,. including the underground parking ga~.ge. 2. Where do the stairs in the SE corner the parking go to? 3. Additional comments will be forthcoming with the submittal of drawings for building permit. $. Afire suppression system is required to be installed? Yes ~ No 9. Afire alarm system is required to be installed? Yes ~ No NOTE: IF A BUILDINGISTRUCTURE REQUIRES A FIRE SUPPRESSION/FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, THE DE5YGN SID DRAWINGS FOR THESE TYPE SYSTEMS SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE DRAWINGS FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT. TffiS REQUIREMENT IS PER FLORIDA STATUES 553.79(2), 553.79 {G)(C) AND 633.55X. Review completed by: Signature:.~Gerald Van Gelder Date: October 30, 2040 ;',,:.;; ~•.. MEMORAND V lri - To: Planning & Zoning Department From: Robert A. Kussner, Landscape Inspector Via: Nancy Davila, Horticulturist Re: HOTEL VISTA, DEL IVIAR Date: October 31, 2004 1. The applicant shall provide a tree survey. There aze a number of Coconut palms and other plant species that should be saved. If there is no room on site far a holding .area then the applicant sha11 provide an off-site location during the period of construction. 2. Some of the proposed Coconut trees appeaz to be located beneath the building overhang and in the vacinity of overhead power lines. The utilities and any site lighting should be shown on the Landscape plant to avoid any potential conflict. 3. The applicant shall provide landscape calculations, using. the standard form that can be obtained from the Buildiuag Department. 4. There is Daily a small area of sod proposed on the entire site. It would be suggested that the applicant install ground cover instead of sod along the south side of the building. This would reduce maintenance and wave a better chance of survival. a~nrc: U:lk~essgerlwwdatalhotelcfstadelmar.doe ~' r .. ' R„ tIT4 OF UELR114 BEiI[H DELRAY BEACH 100 N.W. ist QvENUE • DELFtQY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 • 5B1 f243-7600 All-AmerigGity November 3, 2Q1]D 1993 Robert G. Currie '134 NE 1St Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483 Re: Hotel Vesta Del Mar - Site Plan [Class V) Application Dear Bob: The purpose of this iei#er is to provide comments with respect to the sufficiency of the applica#ion for Hotel Vista Del Mar. As you are aware the application has not been formal}y accepted fnr processing and has been p}aced on hold pending the outcome of the LDR amendment dealing with the tandem parfcing arrangement. The request to amend the Land Developmenfi Regulations must be accompanied by a processing fee of $5Q0 and a formal letter of request which addresses the following: (i) references the subject section and provides a rationale for the requested change; (ii) draft proposed ordinance including language to be amended; and, (iii} analysis of the amendment a.nd potential impacts including supporting documentation such as exhibits, graphs and similar ordinances from other municipalities. Wtth respect to the sufficiency of the site plan application the roliowing submission deficiencies were identified: ^ A traffic study must be provided which addresses the total .number of trips and analyses the queuing distances proposed from A-1-A. ^ Engineering plans prepared by a registered engineer drawn at the same scale as the site plan. ^ Landscape plan must be prepared by a registered landscape architect. The LDRs require that the site, }andscape and engineering plans b© prepared at the same scale. White the 118" = 1 ` scale may be utilized, provide a master landscape plan drawn at the same scale as site p}an. 5 f'rfrlreaon fse~vafe`+Pnn~ .. . J ,'~ To: Robert G. Curve Re: Hotel Vista Del Mar- Site Plan (Class V) Application Page 2 ^ Photometric plan. ^ Please pravide roof topfpool area plans. Also pravide typical details of each type of hotel roam giving dimensions and square footages. ^ The site plan Eaclcs dimensions with respect to the driveways and drop-off areas. Pursuant to your discussions with staff the revised plans need to indicate access to the garage via Ocean Boulevard and must address vehicle stacking. ^ In order to provide the utility providers an opportunity to review the development proposal please transmit to the utility providers a copy of the site plan along with the revised Notification of Request form. {Note: the farm has been revised to include the name of company representatives and mailing address}. ^ Complete the attached Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Architectural Elevation application with the provision of color samples. ^ With respect to the standard submission requirements please provide a copy of the last recorded warranty deed and a tide certificate from an attorney-at-law or title company certifying the current fee simple owner of record. Staff will review the proposa! as presented and generate preliminary comments which should be incorporated with the changes for the access point from Ocean Boulevard. Queries regarding the petition should be directed to Janet Meeks, project planner at 243-7D40. Sincerely, ~~~ asmir~ Allen Planner c: Pau[ Darling, Acting Planning Director Janet Meeics, Senior Planner Project File. . ,~ City Of Delray .Beach Department of Environmental Services T A C C O M M E N T S TO: Jeff Costello, Principal Planner u FROM: Barron E. Caronite, PE, Assistant City Engineer DATE: No~embefr ~, 2000 PROJECT: Hotel Vista Del Mar ACTION: Site Plan The subject application and plans have been reviewed for minimum technical compliance with the City of Defray Beach Land Development Regulations. Receipt of Site Plan Approval does not imply that the applicant has submitted a eomp[ete set of construction drawings nor fulfilled all the conditions of Site Plan Approval. All technical compliance comments must be addressed prior to issuance of a construction permit. Due to the preliminary nature of the information provided for minimum technical compliance, additional comments may be generated upon submission of construction documents to the building department. ' ~' - Technical Comments: 1. Provide engineering plan addressing water and sewer service, as welt as, paving grading and drainage for the subject project. ~L~,I~S~~t4:,,- ~ 4~1r~~~1~7t file: saengadmiNtaclhotel vista del marlreview01.doc Printed: 1918100 fizge f of 1 Sent by Kevin Warner, TEL 661-266-8810 on 29 Deo 2~0 at 0Z:28pn ., ,:.~ Via Marina Homeowners Association X48 Venetian Drive. Delray Beach DATE: December 29; 2000 TO: Janet Meeks FROM: Kevin blamer, President RE: Hotel Vista Del Mar (proposed for existing Bermuda Inn property) My request to you seems to have slipped through the holiday cracks; no matter. It may be easier fnr you to respond to this fax rather than phoneme. If my understanding of procedure is correct; the owner of a property for which plans are submitted to P&Z is identified on the plans. Flease let me know who is identified as the owl~er of the proposed Hotel Vista Del Mar. You can hand write the information of this fax and return to me at fax 266-7369, OR Phone me at 2C6-88I0 and speak with me or leave a .message on my machine; your choice Janet. Regards, ~_ Gl L 4 L .J G.~~J s -.fiii.i4i .. ~.A ._~.~~t.li~t: ~- DELR4Y BEACH A~Aplpflgl~l~ `~ ~ ~ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. 1993 SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD `SITE PLAN APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING AND FILfNG THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION Applications for site plan approval may be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department at any time between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mondaythru Friday, Please print ortype aEl of the required information, and ensure that the application is complete and accurate. In order to be accepted for processing, the application must be accompanied by: 1. Standard Application Items, as listed on Page 8; 2. Three {3) copies of a Traffic Study ar Traffic Statement as applicable; 3. A Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Application for architectural elevations and color changes;. 4. An architectural elevation plan, in color (if applicable}; 5. Eight (8} copies of each of the following plans, in collated, stapled and folded sets: a} Site plan b) Landscape plan c} Preliminary engineering plan d) Building elevations and floorplans e} Survey 6. Processing fee, as applicable [The processing fee #or the categories of site plan reviews are- $400.00* for a Class lil modifiication, $750.00* for a Class IV modification and $1,000.(30"" for a Class V new submission). Make checks payable to the City of Delray Beach; and, 7. Other information may be requested, if required. All plans (except building elevations and floor plans) must be drawn at the same scale. Newsite plans (Class V}, and site plan modifications {Class Ill and Class fV} [see page 11 fordescription of these site plan review categories], are reviewed by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB), which meets every other Wednesday. It takes approximately fve {5} to seven (7}weeks between submission of the application and action by SPRAB. This time may vary, depending upon the number of comments made by staff; and the time required by the applicant to submit revisions. Please referto the appropriate sections a#the City`s Land Development Regulations when designing your project and completing this application. Apre-application conference with a member of the Planning staff is strongly recommended, and can be scheduled at your convenience. We will be glad to assist you in any way passible. In order to be accepted, plans must be prepared, signed, and sealed by the appropriate professional as fisted below: • Site Plan -Registered Architect, Landscape Architect, or Registered Engineer - Landscape Plan ;Registered Landscape Architect • Engineering Plans -Registered Engineer • Survey -Registered Engineer or Licensed Surveyor *For parcels over 3 acres, an adelitional fee of $100 per acre beginning at 3.09 acres, acrd any fraction fhereof, up to a maximum of $3,000 per project. 11197 1 '~ CITY OF DELRAY BEAGH PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL Project Name: Hotel Vista Def Mar Address or General Location: 300' South of Atlantic Avenue on Ocean Boulevard Brief Description of Froject: 5-story Hntel PART ONE - APPLICANT WFORMATION: APPLICANT Name: Louis Capano Address: clo Robert G. Currie Partnership Telephone Number: AGENT Name: Address: Telephone Number: OWNER fif other than aePlicant} Name: Address: Telephone Number: 134 N. E. 1 ~t Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 27fi-4951 Robert G. Currie Partnership 134 N. E. 1 gt Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 276-4951 Eugenia Kerstin, Trustee clo Robert G. Currie Partnership 134 N. E. 1 ~ Avenue Defray Beach, FL 33444 276-4951 '~~ =, PART TWO -PROPERTY INFORMATION: Property Control Number: 12-43-46-16-28-00~-006D Lega[ Description: . Lat 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 1, Ocean Park, According to the Plat thereof, Recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 15 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Zoning District: CBD Future Land Use Map Designation: CC Size of Property: 17,953 sq.ft. .412 acres +1-100` width +1-185' depth 100.63' frontage Existing Use of Property: Two-story motel with pool. .; 1 ~'~ PART THREE -PROJECT INFORMATION; Describe in detail the proposed project and indicate if there is to be any phasing of the improvements: The projected luxury hotel design shall house 71 suites in a new fiive story building (48' high to roof deck}. Additional facilities to be provided are 3 small service rooms, a private gy~iilspa and ~~.:op swin•}ming pool. A restaurant of some 1,33 sq. ft. is planned for the first floor and open for dinner only. The project shall have on-site parking for 64 cars (valet only} including 3 handicap locations, one of which does not require valet parking. All are located under the building and stacked double high, one lane on the south side only. We are presently submitting for CF zoning on an 8T x 100' property on the west side of Salina Avenue in order to provide public parking. ,~ .....~ PROJECT DATA If new improvements on the site or changes to existing improvements are proposed the following data must be provided below and must be shown on the Sketch Plan. Ground floor area: ~ 3,402 sq.ft. 18.95 % of site Total floor area: 48,777 sq.ft. Parkinglpaved area: 12,726 sq.ft. 70.89 % of site Qpen (landscaped) space: 1,825 sq_ft. .042 % of site Water bodies: None sa, ft. None % of site Number of residential dwelling units: NIA Dwelling units per acre: Efficiency 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Number of Units Size sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. Parking spaces required pursuant to LDR Section 4.fi.9: {Example: For a gasoline station state number of service bays or lifts and non-repair gross floor area). Use :Calculated at spaces per Use :Calculated at spaces per Use :Calculated at spaces per Use :Calculated at spaces per Parking spaces provided: Regular 57 Compact Handicapped 3 TOTAL; 60 TOTAL = Building data provided pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4~K~, Development Standards Matrix: Setbacks: Front: 5' ft. Rear: 0' ft. Interior side: 10' ft. Street side: 0' ft. Height: ~ 48' fit. Flovrs: 6 02/'14!2001 15:39 551278690,5,, { LIS~ICK & KRALL form must be completed by ALL property owners) PAGE 02 1, Eugenia Kerstin Trustee, the fee simple owner of the followin described property: Lot 6, 7, B, 9 end ~ b, Black 1, Ocean Park, According #o the Platt erevf, Recorded in Plat Boost 5, Rage 1~ C~ the Public Records of Paim Beach Cvunty, ~larida. hereby petition to the City of Delray Beach for conditional use a provallmodificativn fvr Hotel Vista Del Mar and affirm that rRvbert G. Currie Partnership; I c. is hereby designated to act as agent an~my behalf to accomplish the above. I certify that I have examined the application and that all statem nts and diagrams submitted are trua~and accurate to the best of my knowledge. F rthar, I understand that 1 tills application, attachments and fees become part of the Offici ~I Records of the City of Delray Beach., Flo~'ida, and are not returnable. ~, (Owrrer' gnature} The foregoing instrument was acknauiledged before me this ~ ~- 'J ~ ,day of February, 2007 by Eugenia Kerstin, who is personally known tv a ar has produced as identification and t~vhv did take an oath. (Printed Name of Notary ~ubFic) {Signature ti Notary Public) Commission # .,~~ ._,,,~, My Commission Expires I (NQTAR'Y'S SEAL) ,~,"'~~" ., Tt~amas J. Wootley, Jr. * ~ ~-Commission ~` QO 894E Expira~e Jan. ?.4, ZQQ4 ~a®a `' ` ALlentio $oadirig Co-, Inc. 'au~+~ ~~' ~ 1 NQTIFICATION 4F UTILITY PROVIDERS Dear SirlMadam: The City of Delray Beach has received an application for development approval as described below: OwnerlApplicant Louis Capano Project Name Hotel Vista Del Mar Project AddresslLocation 300' South of Atlantic Avenue on Ocean Boulevard Proposed Improvements New 5-story hotel structure A copy of the proposed site plan is attached. Please review the attached plan and provide the requested information. This sheet should be returned to: City of Delray Beach Planning & Zoning Department ~ 00 N.W. 7 st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 at your earliest passible convenience. Wi[[ the proposed development affect existing utility service? Yes No Will the proposed development require extension of existing utility service? Yes No Comments: Utility Provider Representative's Name and Title Signature Date "' _ ,. , IMAGE01 : FI.-4)1-13726-2 02!2212001 02:A0:03pm 1Lfs was pn~ved by: I~7:me ~2obrsrt n v °a.-E.S1j~ /~lddieK Si3~_F.at#~nruan a~,e s 35 ~ to: IS~mie Reed n ~~ 630 ~ovnton Heac}L,,,,~; c„-; ~ a'3e35 Gtaat+~e il] 55.I3o. Gx+~ !2 5S. rifo. Avpaty Appxa>sers Parod Ideuti5ntiooa No. 12 43 a6 is 2a ool o '~ STJN-2Q-f9?5 `i'Saam 9~-194b3 ~R$ $~~~ ~9 '~ Z ~~ t f1i~1fE11 ~ 1fi~iil>t/ ^fi Eon iQ.O© fSoc ENFRGS"tr1 'rf, ~i~~.ItF~[~ CL£Rk. ~ CG~Jl~*Y~FL '~V DEED (SIATiTI'OfLY FO~f - S1:CIION 6~!!Z. FSa This find „~,~ 3 ~ ayo~ m ~y i9q~j,B~vveen ~~~, the unzemaxzied widow of ,7ERQ1yE T_ K~tSTIiQ, deceased whasepnat~addtessu 2549 S.w. 23rd Cranhroak Drive, Boynton Beach 3343fi ~*~Co~9~of Palm Beach ,StateoF Florida .nd ~ xmesTY~r, as ~rxtusTxE v/A aatea n+twY 31 ~ 1995 wl~osepastaai~aad~~is 2549 S.W. 23rr3 Cranbraok Arive, Baynton Heach 33436 °~~CO~9°E Palm Beach ,s~eaE Florida •~• ~l~ILBSS~Y1 that said ~ iar and is eta of the s~ of Ten { $14. D D) ---------_____------------- ----- Douae~, and other g~uod and vahiable ors93esaboas !o said gramece m hard paid by s:id gxapee~, the whflea~f is }~by rciaowted~rol, has g~nted, bmgaiad ara said m ti+e seid ~ ~ ~s fides aad assg~s the de~'bed >~ ~ 39;rs and ht5tg m Palm Beach Co~-ty, ~;~, ~~ Lots 6, 7, 8 9 and lU, Block 1, OCEAN PARK, according to. the Plat thereof, recorded in Flat Boo:: 5, page 15 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Except the West 2 feet 8 inches of Lots e, 9 and lD, Block t, deeded to the City of nelray Beach f.or street purposes; and also excep4 that part of Tots b and 7 lying East of that certain line as shown upon map entit-.1ed "Plat of Survey for Establishing a line to Serve in the' Place of the west Boundary Line of Oeearn Boulevard in Fractior-a~. Section ].6, Toranship 46 South, Range 43 East, nelray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida" as xecorded s.h Plat Book 2D, Page 4 0£ the Public Records of Pam Beach County, Florida. T*3E TRUSTEE shall have the powex and authority to protect, consexve, and to sell, ox' to ].ease. or *_o encum~x, or otheo:wise to manage and di spcise of the real property conveyed by this deed. aatd soul iii does haeb! ~Y~ the tide to said hmd, and wait de(eysd the s~.e a~ je+vful c}amrs ct aIl pnsa:~s wLo~oevQ. "`~saAbot" goad wee rx wed fey singn'las tar pheo,,, as d negnoes. II! ~W~ites.S i+t~he'Ceo~ ~ has ~-m~d~ set ~ Shma ara s~ the alb ara ~ sest abo-~e w~ > l aad d~vesad is aroa periamac .-- { ~~ ~"~ (5aI) ~ ~pRr ~ ~e L nn 3ones 1.'rititedpstypeclrame: Euuenia 3CerSt,ir. ~ L ("~eati? i5eptrid Wi~+lYS1 prjteted~tppe3naomc Carol "~allace ~ sr~'rF as: Fs,oRZ nr, m1.1TTCY [1F PALM BEACSi ~G }~$=7~.vss hefae me ~ ~ "J7 lg ~_ Evaenia Kera+;n~~, ,_..~~~,+Mhoist~>v~3paso®II¢ ~~` ~~ LYNNJDHLS arooaress~. a: nrese oa,ars ,wne u, ~8es .nnogormutaovsrw wauar+o;, eu. Pire~ed, °r oaaase Lynn hones Page 1 of 1 -1 45e;irt.ld~beyitamy~ ~~sspwo.~7~G1+es! LAW OFFICES LISTIGK $KRALL, P.A. 61B S. ATLANTEC AVENUE OELRAY 81=ACH. FLaRIOA 33b83 (561) 27B-7A2k MICFEAEL M. LISTItK MARK L. KRALL February 22, 20001 PIanning Department City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1 ~' Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483 Dear Sir or Madam: FAX (581j 278.8909 a•mali: dekray IawQJuno.com Or touws[L MICwL[L S. $TEINEw This letter shall hereby confirm that as of this date, the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida reflect that Eugenia Kerstin, as Trustee under agreement dated 5131195, is the record title holder of real property located in Palm Beach County, Florida, the legal description of which is as follows: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and I 0, Block 1, OCEAN PARK, according to the Plat thereof, recorded. in Plat Book 5, Page 15 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Very truly yours, Mar L. Krall MLK:Ier `O - ~ .'-, GERALD 3. CHUx'ZC:ir ?.F,. CQ~TSUL'=~I?~G CyVIL yNGI1TEE I03Q S. Federal Highway; Suite 1.i8 De? ra_r Heap F ! 33~a3 nhana t~~'} 2~6-920 Fap (~6?}-.206-9520 TRAFFIC STATEMENT : HQTEL VISTA DEL *'iP.R ROJECT t7 SCa F pT^C~H The ~ro~osed is±fll ti i s ~z Del Ma>= w; ~ ~ bo ~ ocated. ~t ~~ So.r~~"~ Ocean ~euleverd, (A?A} 'ir De?ray Beach. It is 300 feet south of the ir.tsrsectio:~ of t~tlaz:t~,c Avenue. presently the 3ermuda I:~n, 220 u_^.it motel OCCU~ieS {he Site. ;~t wil? ~ha demolished. Tre prapcsed ote~. ~,'~.st3 ~7e1 ?~.ar will he five stariQs i~h. The upper four floors wi l ? accommodate 71 rooms . ml;e gro~,~r r.! ~ :. e ~°.'~`.° t~ re i h ~ a'car i :~. ~~.^."t ^d w oc s th ..p or. a a w t s..al"re ~ _~_ ._ a Ve}'?+Cle Fi~r~:ZTlg ~,ea ~O one rear. T::e tot~i '..1'1:.~.~G'.Z?'t[~ cr°G ZS ?71378 square feet. SCCFE CF, S`yUDv: n co_^_juTct_on with a ~ropaspd deve?onr^e~.t, G ~r~~r1C StBLemer.t 15 ~ e~u~.= ed Jay tl3e C~tp Cif i~a i ray tom.,°~C:1 ~ S . wand T~evelox~ment rZegulatio~s. •~•his traf-ic studp ?.es hAAr ~re~ared _~1 ?..CGC~idanCe 41~ th trB St3ilQerC5 ~~C Er=s:.~r? z ?5 S°= ~Ort~l iSl t~3e ?~~?~ ~~' °8^h CQU^tp [7riiied L2.I2G'1 :.a@Ve~ o~men~ C~~° ~ P.rticle ?5, Tre=iic Perfortnar_ce Standards. The SCdAe of ~~'° stlld;~ i5 tD deter'z^.3 .° t~S ~„C~°2.s° 1~? tr~ific volume for the proposed hotel use. Since tre projac 35 locoed 1^~,h° {.'1t~' S '!'razf.~.C C'Jz1C'.~.e: cy Exer.:~t?e:^_ Ar= r J:::~ 2. ~.r''uLrlC St~tem°'_1L IS r°~L:'r:'Gt'. 3TJILDCUT• : 12 f ?002 ~~l'~~~1T' T3Z' A k M T(,", 'lr~p ~ePer~t1Q~'1 ~Or tl~? S Sit° was at~a'_r vZ~w 1 using the Pal: 3each Cou?'1tY ^rip Generator Ra W~:s . ~?r1'~C~ 'i~~Ar ~ . ~': _ ~~ _ -'r; ~ yeT2°rHtiOT_ _,Jr r.~''_i5 5=te ides aT.~~.pZeC using ~~?? ?~~!',, '~' ~~C?`' CQL;XIC~ Trl~ ~eI?ar~t~ 4 . '_~'_Gt~ ={?~ $ !^~{°i k7_^-C 1S j. = 8.70 ~i 7~ = c~~ ~.~.i. _ ~ R 7 Is ~ m T•Z,a `n"~err±Ci i `~ rJti C~ t~e 7f1 rQ-OTC: mCT°1 =11'J.47S -. 4=°_:',_ ~ ~Q'' ~"n 'T>?~c L?-_n ganar~~'4i1 rate 10r 8 TC:Otel _S _{1'_G ~_ ~5 ~°•~ rO'.]'TTI. = 20 x ~a.1s = 204 ADT. _°5S ^~ ~~SS~~y, = 2t}1'r~1..00 - 0.0~) _ _94 ~-±.J.-- {~~ edit ~.~ l oCM°C. LQ~ L?~~a^_ r~eaevelopmsnt ?rC3ec*' - ~~ 0 o C~ ~rafizC q°F_e?'3ted or ~'~~S'`_1Tq L:se: 1 1 ~' ~ ~ •. ... 11.0 0 of 194 = 213 ADT. P?Q} trips for proposed Hotel Vista Del Mar =~87(Hate~.} -- 213 (Motel )= 374 A.D.T. '~~:ORCUGiiPARy IMPACTED: Ocea~z foul evard (Al_A) 2004 TRAr^^E`iC VO~T7ME: 12,385 ADT Prepared by: Garald 3. Church, P.E. Dzte: 2/1/2041 ~~' . .yea ..__, ._r..-.~_~_.~,...... ,. _._ __.. .._. .. .. - _ . ..._.. _... ._ _._ .. _ ~ELRAY BEACH ~~ 11I1-luneri~Citp . .. ~ . f IJ~arch Zfl, 20fl ~.:..: Mr..iDSe Aguiia Robert G. Currie 13? NE 1S'tivenue Delra~r 3each: i=1 ~34~3 Ra: fiotpi Vista del Tifar - Cor~ditionaf Use Rppiica~ian Dear ,}ose: This fetter is provi~ed to acknowladge the raceipt of the conditianal use appiicati•an for ~ Total Vista De! liar. Tha application was revi~v/dd far corlpl~t?n?55 and has i7een accepted far processing. The conditional use request is contingent uaon approval of the LDr~ Text amendment ralatAd to vaietltandem parking arranoement, which is antiui;~atad to be considered by the City Commission on fdfay '3 , 20Q i . Thus, the app[ication will b? scheduled for the ~lannina and. %oning 3aard meeting of May 21, 2DJi. 1Nith respect to the site plan application, the fnllowino itpm5 that ware req~,~ested in my ietier of November 3, 200, are stiEi outstanding: .+ Photometric elan fn order to provide the utility providers an opportunity to review -the development proposal please transmit to the utility providers a cvpy of the site- planalona with the revised Naiification of Request fora. (Nat=: the farm has been revised to invlJde the rama of company representatives and mailing address). ~ Compl=~e file attached Site Plan t=:eview~ any .Appearance ~:,ard ~r:.hitet~sra! lAvation appiicatior: with the provision of color s3rlplss. Ill: ~5= :~flr~3liiat~ u"le r?S[liJm[ttai Df ieV]S~~ Mail; any: ?rl)' ~ii1°' addltl'ai~a.' n'~at°ri~:~ that may be i°:1:lir~~ wltii ~~rl l-I'J3~8rC~'', t~l~ a~sl~n°~ ~r 31?: ~i3nn3'. Sinaarei}~• _ . J: ; ~ .;aSmlil r~lien~ r'Planner C: .;on ; ~o~uard, senior Manner ~`~, Proie~ pile x.. {561} 243-7Q40 (561} 243-7221. FAX e-mail: yzmail rrdelrayplanning. org F~sc~~ cove s~r~E~ ~~~~ DATE: d j TO: ~d ~g CSR-f~~ ~ FROM: ~ ~ (p~~.~ Number of Pages lnciucfing Cover Sheet: co~n~~~v~s 13 -1 __ .. . Planning & Zoning Deparbnent MEMORANDUM TO: TAC FROM: RON HOGGARD DATE: MARCH 7, 21?Q9 RE: HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR The subject application and plans were reviewed for compliance with the land development regulations. The following technics! comments will need to be addressed and revised plans submitted before the project can proceed to SPRAB of approval. 1. Under the proposed ordinance dealing wi#h valet parking in the CBD, a 100' stackinglqueuing are is required. The site plan has two HC parking spaces located in the middle of the queuing area and the required amount of stacking is not provided. 2. Also under the proposed ordinance, a minimum of 2 handicapped spaces are required for specially equipped vehicles which the attendants can not operate. The plan has only one HC space located in the garage. The 2 HC spaces in the middle of the queuing area must be removed. 3. A trash pickup area and loading area must be provided on site. 4. A 5' building setback is required on Salina Avaneue 5. Building height is indicated as 44'-6" to new main fiat roof on sheet A2.01. The elevation sheet indica#e this height as 46'-6". Correct as necessary. 6. Submit proposed color scheme for the building. 1Mi5rv00'ilhoggardlwwdaYalstaff repor#s1~9sta dal mar hotel.doc •, ~ ~~ DELRAY Beach FIRE DEPARTMENT TAC Project Review Checl~list I. Pra~ect Name: Hotel Vista dei Mar 2. Location: S. Ocean Blvd. 3. Are fire flow calculations provided? Y N ~ NA Is adequate fire flow for the size and type of development available? Y N NA Comments: 4. Are dead-end streets or cul-de-sacs included on the site plan? If so, is adequate access to buildings, turn around radii, etc. provided? Y N NA ~ Comments: 5. Fire Hydrants: Is SOU `maximum spacing provided in single family or duplex areas? Y N Multi-family, 2 stories or less 400' maximum? Y N NA ~ Multi-family,. 3 or more stories, 300' maximum? Y ~ N NA Commercial or Industrial 300' maximum? Y N NA ~ Are hydrants provided on both sides of the road? Y N ~ NA No obstructions within S' of the hydrant? Y N NA ~ NA ~ 6. Will the proposed development have an adverse effect on the Fire Department's ability to provide service? Y ~ N NA Comment: The fire department will not be able to pull a rescue vehicle or fire engine off the roadway. Hence, S. Ocean Blvd. will be blocked for any emergency response by the fire department and will sub3ect fire department personnel to possible injury bypassing traffic. Provide adequate space for emergency vehicles to get off of S. Ocean Blvd. as possible. . ,~ ~~ 7. Other comments: 1. The title page under Site Data needs to state NFPA 101 19.94 Edition not 1997 Edition. 2. A I-hour fire rated barrier with self closing doors shall be installed in the comdors on the 2nd,. 3rd7 4~' and Sd' floors. 3. A second means of egress from the lobby shall be provided. 4. The parking garage shall be separated from the hotel and restaurant areas with a 2-haver fire rated barrier. 8. Afire suppression system is required to be installed? Yes ~ Na y. Afire alarm system is required to be installed? Yes ~ No NOTE: IF A BUILDING/STRUCTURE REQUIRES A FIRE SUPPRESSION/FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, THE DESIGN BID CRITERIA FOR THESE TYPE SYSTEMS SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE DRAWINGS FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT. THIS REQUIREMENT IS PER FLORIDA STATUES 553.79(2j, 553.79 (6j(C) AND 633.551. Review- completed by: Signature: Gerald Van Gelder Date: March 1, 2001 '• MEMORANDUM Ta: Planning & Zoning Department From: Robert A. Kussner, Landscape Tnspector Via: Nancy Davila, Horticulturist Re: HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR Date: March 6, 2000 1. 'The applicant shall provide. a tree survey. There are a number of Coconut palms and other plant species that should be saved. If there is no room on site for a holding area then the applicant shall provide an ofd=site location during the period of construction. 2. The utilities and site lighting shall be shown on the landscape plant to avoid any potential conflict. 3. The applicant shall provide landscape .calculations, using the standard form that can be obtained from the Building Departinez~t. 4. There is only a small area of sod proposed on the entire site. The applicant shall install ground cover instead of sod along the south side of the building in the area of the kitchen. ~. The applicant shall provide an underplanting beneath the Sabal palms. 6. Per 4.6.16{H){3) on the site of a building or open-lot use providing an off-street. Barking, storage or other vehicular use area, where such an area will not be screened visually by an intervening building or structure from an abutting right-of way or dedicated alley, there shall be provided landscaping as follows: A strip of land at least five {5) feet in depth located between the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area and the right-of-way shall be landscaped. The landscaping shall consist of at least one tree for each thirty {30) linear feet or fraction thereof. A hedge, wall or other durable Iandscape area shall be placed along the interior perimeter of the landscape strip. This applies to the west side of the site, adjacent to Salina Avenue. I2AK: U slkussnerlww•datalitoteh•istadelmur3.doc _-~ ,-~.~ ~.., DELRAY BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Ran Hoggazd Senior Planner FROM: Ofc. K. Anthony Durante Delray Beach Police Community Patrol DATE: March 15, 2001 SUBJECT: TECHINICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: CPTED REVIEW VISTA DEL MAR RESORT Parking Lot Based on the latest plans, the rear parking area and any cazs that would be parked there would be screened from any natural surveillance by the 6' wall surrounding the property. The- plans do not indicate the type of gate that will be used for the Salina AV exit. It will be important to have gate (perhaps a remote controlled roll-out} that will prevent unauthorized use/access to the parking lot through the exit by vehicular and pedestrian traffic. _~ • Because the parking area is not enclosed, unauthorized access to the space from the sides is a concern.. The planners should consider the installation of a decorative fence between supports along the south and north sides of the parking lot. • Access control from A-1-A can probably be maintained by a full time valet staff. MEMORANDUM To: Planning cX: Zozung Department From: Robert .~. Kussner, Landscape Inspector ~-ia: ?~ancy Davila, Horticulturist RQ: HOTFL VISTA. DEL M.AR Date: lt~arch 6, ?000 The applicants ~ee sun=ev. a number of Coconut palms and other plant species that s aye ooin on site fora 1?olding oleo their the ap_ tall pro`~ide an off-site location during t constnie>:ion. ?. The utilities and site lightuig shall be shoes=n on the landscape plant to avoid any potential conflict. ~. `The applicant shall provide landscape calcuIatiozls, using the standard form that can be obtained from. the Building Department. ~. There i5 only a small area of sod proposed on the entire site. The applicant shall instal] ground cover instead of sod along the south side of the buiIdin in the area of the kitchen. ~. The applicant shall provide an underplanting beneath the Sabal palms. 6. Per 4.6.16(I~(3) on the site of a building or .open-lot use prorsiding an off-street parking, storage or other vehicular use area, ~=here such an area will not be screened ;~is?all,~ h;° a~± iF~te; ti>enTna b~aildina car strl.~cture fre~m an ahuttintr right-of-v~~a~~ nr dedicated alley. there shall be provided landscaping as follows: A strip of land at least five (51 feet in depth located between the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area and the rialtt-of-u~ay shall be landscaped. The landscaping shall consist of at least one tree far each thirty= (~0) linear feet ar fractiari thereof. g hedge, u~aIl or other durablL landscape area shall be placed along the intWrior perimeter of the landscape s`~rip. This applies to the west side of the site, adjacent to Saliuta Avenue. ~:-+.~:: C':ikussnt riwwdatAlhDtell~•istadcltnar?.da~ City of ne~ray B~a~n Department of Environmental Serviees T A C COMMENT S TO: Ron Hoggard, Senior Planner FROM: Barron E. Caronite, PE, Assistant C'rty Enginee DATE: March 5, 2D07 PROTECT: Hotel Vista Del Mar ACTION: Site Pial~ The subject application and plans have been reviewed for minimum technical compliance with the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations. Receipt of Site Plan Approval does not imply that the applicant has submi#ted a complete set of construction drawings nor fulfilled all the conditions of Si#e Plan Approval. All technical compliance comments must be addressed prior to issuance of a ct~nstruction permit Due to the preliminary nature of the information provided for minimum technical compliance, additional comments may be generated upon submission of construction documents to the building department. Technical Comments.: 1. Provide FD~T driveway connection and drainage permit. 2. Provide drainage calculations and exfiltration test results. 3. Indicate sight distance at egress drive to Salina Avenue. 4. Provide pavement marking and signage plan with special detail for A1A entrance. 5. Indicate if building will be sprinkled and where the proposed water service is. 8. Indicate how water and sewer service is provided to the structure and that sufFicient capacity is available forthe number of units proposed. 7. Provide standard city parking stall detail, paving cross section, type "d" curb detail, and standard city utility details as required. 8. Provide typical crass sections at North and South property lines. 9. Indicate proposed finished floor elevation of structure. file: s:/engadminltaclhotel vista del mar/review02.doc Printed: 315101 MaR o s ~~a~ ,y !w ~. r-' t~ '- DEI.RAY BEACH - A1MAme~aaCii~ r ~ ~ ~ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH 1993 BYTE PLAN tREVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD SITE PLAN :APPLICATION ~2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING AND FILING THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION Applications far site plan approval maybe submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department at any time between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday. Please print ortype all of the required information, and ensure that the application is complete and accurate. In order to be accepted for processing, the application must be accompanied by: 1. Standard Application Items, as fisted on Page 8; 2. Three (3) copies of a Traffic Study or Traffic Statement as applicable; 3, A Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Application far architecture[ .elevations and color changes; 4. An architectural elevation plan, in color (if applicable); S. Eight (8} copies of each of the following plans, in collated, stapled and folded sets: a} Site plan b} Landscape plan c} Preliminary engineering plan d} Building elevations and floor plans e) Survey fi. Processing fee, as applicable [The processing fee for the categories of site plan reviews are $400.00" for a Class I[I modification, $750.00 for a Class IV modification and $1,000.00* for a Class V new submission]. Make checks payable to the City of Delray Beach; and, 7. Other information may be requested, if required. All plans (except building elevations arad floor plans) must be drawn at tlhe same scale. IVew site plans (Class V), and site plan modifications (Class Ill and Class IV} [see page '11 far description of these site plan review categories], are reviewed by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB}, which meets every other Wednesday, It takes approximately frve {5) to seven (7) weeks between submission of the application and action by SPRAB. This time may Crary, depending upon the number of comments made by staff, and the time required by the applicant to submit revisions. Please referto the appropriate sections of the City`s Land Development Regulations when designing your project and completing this application. A re-a lication conference with a member of the Plannin staff is strop I recommended and can be scheduled at our convenience. We will be glad to assist you in any way possible. In order to be accepted, plans must be prepared, signed, and sealed by the appropriate professional as listed below: • Site Plan -Registered Architect, Landscape Architect, or Registered Engineer • Landscape Plan -Registered Landscape Architect • Engineering Plans -Registered Engineer • Survey -Registered Engineer or Licensed Surveyor . *For parcels over 3 acres, an additions! fee of $100 per acre beginning at 3.01 acres, and any fraction (hereof, up to a maximum of $3; 000 per project t 1 i 197 l~ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL Projec# Name: Hotel Vista Del Mar Address or General Location: 300' South of Atlantic Avenue on Ocean Boulevard Brief Description ui Projec#: ~ ~ 71 roam residence hotel 1 restaurant totaling 1,479 sq. ft. 44 Lower level parking 18 Ground level parking PART ONE -APPLICANT INFORMATION: APPLICANT Name: Address: Telephone Number: AGENT Name.: Address: Telephone Number: OWNER if otherthan a licant Name: Address: Telephone Number: Louis Capano clo Roberf G. Currie Partnership 134 N. E. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 276-4951 Robert G. Currie Partnership 134 N. E. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 276-4951 Eugenia Kerstin, Trustee clo Robert G. Currie Partnership 134 N. E. 1 st Avenue Delray Beach, l=L 33444 276-495'1 ,, .~ PART TWO - PROPERTY INFORMATION: Property Control Number: 1243-46-16-28-000-0060 Legal Description: Lot 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 1, Ocean Park, According to the Plat thereof, Recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 15 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Zoning District: CBD Future Land Use Map Designation: CC Size of Property: 17,953 sq.ft. .412 acres +1-100' width +1-185' depth 100.63' frontage Existing Use of Property: Two-story motel with pool. .~ ~~ PART THREE -PROJECT INFORMATION: Describe in detail the proposed project and indicate if there is to be any phasing of the improvements: The projected luxury hate{ design shall house 71 suites in a new five story building {46'-6" high to roof deck}. Additional facilities to be provided are 3 sma[I service rooms, a private nymispa and rooftop swimming pool. A restaurant of same ~,47g sc~ ft, is planned for the first floor anal open far dinner only. The project shall have lower level parking for 44 cars and ground level parking far 18 cars. We are presently submitting for CF zoning on an 8T x 1 QO' property on the west side of Salina Avenue in order to provide public parking. .~ PROJECT DAT/~ If new improvements on the site yr changes to existing improvements are proposed the following data must be_provided below and must be shown on the Sketch Plan. Grourid floor area: 3,362 sq.ft. 18.73 % of site Total float area: 49,478 sq.ft. Parking/paved area: 11,127 sq.ft. 6'1.98 % of site Open {landscaped} space: 3,46 sq.ft. 19.29 °!° of site Vllater bodies: ~ None sq. ft. None % of site Number of residential dwelling units: ~ NIA Dwelling units per acre: Number of Units Size Efficiency sq.ft. 1 Bedroom sq.ft. 2 Bedroom sq.ft. 3 Bedroom sq.ft. 4 Bedroom sq.ft. Parking spaces required pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9: {Example: For a gasoline station state number of service bays or lifts and non-repair gross floor area). Use Hotel :Calculated at .7 Use Restaurant: Calculated at fi Use Office :Calculated at 1 spaces per unit = 49.7 spaces per 1,000 = 8.9 spaces per 300 = 2.2 TOTAL = 60.8 or fi 1 Parking spaces provided: Regular 43 Compact 17 Handicapped 2 TOTAL: 62 Building data provided pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4~K), Development Standards Matrix: Setbacks: Front: 5' ft. Rear: 5' ft. Interior side: 10' ft. Street side: 0' ft. Height: 48' ft. Floors: S -~ .-~ .; '~ OWNER'S CONSENT & DESIGNATION OF AGENCY (This form must be completed by ALL property owners} I, Eugenia Kerstin, Trus#ee, the fee simple owner of the following described property: Lots 6, 7, $, 9, and 10, Block 1, Oeean Park, less SR A1A RNV and the 1Nest 2'8" hereby petition to the City of Delray Beach for site plan approval for Hotel Vista Del Mar and affirm that Rosa Hotel Developers. Inc.lFran Marincola and Robert G. Currie Partnership are hereby designated to act as agent on my behalf to accomplish the above. 1 certify that [have examined the application and that al[ statements and diagrams submitted are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Further, l understand that this application, attachments and fees become part of the Official Records of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and are not retumalbie. Eugenia~Cerstin, Trustee The foregoing instrument was ackno 's rd day of October, 2000 by Eugenia Kerstin, who is ersonally known to me~ r has produced as i en ~ ica ion an w o did (did not) take an oath. 7HOh1AS !. WOOi.LEY~ Jr. (Printed Name of Notary Public) Commission # (NOTARY'S SEAL, My Commission Expires k ""' ., `Pflomas J. WooAey, Jr. s Commfnsion # CC =94E24 - • m F.zpiren Jao. 24, 204 ` Handed 'I'hru _'' ." ~ ""` AWntic Hondiaz Co., Inc. NOTIFICATION OF UTILITY PROVIDERS Dear SirlMadam: The City of Delray Beach has received an application for development approval as described below: OwnerlApplican# Louis Capano Project Name Hotel Vista Del Mar Project AddresslLocation 300' South of Atlantic Avenue on Ocean Boulevard Proposed Improvements New 5-story hotel structure with restaurantlpool A copy of the proposed site plan is attached. Please review the attached plan and provide the requested information.. This sheet should be returned ta: City of Delray Beach Planning & Zoning Department 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 at your earliest possible convenience. Will the proposed development affect existing utility service? Yes No Will the proposed development require extension of existing utility service? Yes No Comments: Utility Provider Representative's Name and Title Signature Date Standard Application Items LDR Section 2.4.3(A}~ 1. A copy of the latest recorded warranty deed, and a certificate from an attorney or title company (not title insurance) certifying who the current fee simple title holders of record of the subject property are, and the nature and extent of their interest therein. 2. The written consent of the owner(s) must be provided in a certified form. When an application is executed on behalf of a corporation or business entity, documentation must be provided which demonstrates that the corporation's representative is authorized to act on behalf of the corporation. These forms are available from the Planning Department. 3. A vicinity map which clearly shows the subject property, adjacent properties, and their relationship to streets located within one-half mike of the property. 4. A survey (S copies) which shows the property described pursuant to the legal description contained in the warranty deed. Such survey shall show all improvements on the property and must be certified as reflecting conditions on the site as they existed within six (6) months prior to the filing of the application. 5. Application filing fee, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.3(x)(1). Standard Plan Items LDR Section 2.4.3~B) In addition to the information included in the Project Data Sheet, the following items must be included on the site plan: 1. Title Block showing project name, engineering scale, date, page number, name of preparer. 2. North arrow and location map insert. 3. Site boundaries per the legal description. 4. Center line of right-af-way of any adjacent street, and location of any improvements between the property and the adjacent streets. 5. Approximate location. of lot lines of adjacent properties, structures, and improvements. 6. Location of nearest driveway or point of access to adjacent properties (including any that are across a street), if within 50 ft. of subject property. If none, indicate on plan. 7. Approximate location of all utilities on the site. 8. Location of other significant features such as water bodies, trees and vegetation {tree survey may be required). **ltems 7 and $ may be shown on a survey sheet,, and then only the utilities or features which are to be incorporated into the development need be included on the site plan. 9. Location of all proposed structures with setbacks dimensioned from the closest property line. 10.lntended use of each structure. -~ --~. . ~.~ 11.Ingress and egress for vehicles and pedestrians, traffic flow indicated with arrows, pavement markings, traffic control devices. 12.Location of parking areas, loading zones, landscape islands, and traffic aisles. In addition, a detail showing parking space striping, space sizing, wheel stops and handicap accessibility features such as ramps. 13.Manner in which utilities are to be provided to the structures. 14.Location of buffers,,fencing, walls. 15.Location of signs with heights and dimensions. 16.Lighting details, including location, height, and coverage of fixtures. 17.Lvcation and description of solid waste disposal and recycling facilities, including height of enclosures and type of gating to be used. 18,Spot elevations, existing and proposed. ~ 9. Finished floor elevations of all structures. 20.Type of building construction and occupancy classification pursuant to the Standard Building Code. 21.Detaiis on project phasing, if applicable. 22.Signature and seal of preparer. Landscape Plan LDR Section 2.4.3(C) The following information must be included on the landscape plan: 1. Title Block showing project name, engineering scale, date, page number, name of preparer. 2. Existing and .proposed parking spaces, vehicular use areas, access aisles, sidewalks., building locations and similar features. 3. Statement of intent as to method and coverage of irrigation. 4. Name and location of plant material to be installed or preserved. 5. Legend including botanical and common names, height, spread, and spacing of all plant material. 6. Location of all landscape features and preserve areas in context with existing an proposed buildings and improvements. T. Tabulation which includes al[ relevant statistical information including but not limited to the following: a} Total paved area = sq.ft. b) Required interior green space = sq.ft. (10% of total paved area}. c) Interior green space provided = sq.ft. d) Total number of trees required = sq.ft. (1 inferior tree is required for each i25 sq.ft. of required interior green space.) e) Number of interior trees provided = trees. f) Perimeter green space required = sq.ft. (depth of butters x length) g) Perimeter green space provided = sq:ft. h} Number of perimeter trees required = trees. {one perimeter tree is required for each 30 lineal feet.) i} Number of perimeter trees provided = trees. .--~, .~ ~~ .~1 j) XERISCAPE CALCULATfONS k) Required shrubs and ground covers = sq.ft. (30°~ of required interior and perimeter green space, see b and f) I} Shrubs and ground cover provided = sq.ft. m} f~equired native plant materials = sq.ft. {2s°io of required shrubs and ground cover, see j} n} Native plant materials provided = sq.ft. o) Number of native trees required = trees (50% of required trees, see d and h} p) Native trees provided = trees. 8: ~ Location of outdoor fighting. 9. Location ofi refuse areas and method of .screening. 10. Location of utility easements and overhead lines. 11. Location of signs. 12. Demonstrate that the proposed landscaping is consistent with existing vegetation preserved on site. 13. Required Management Plan: For a!I areas of preserved plant communities larger than one-half (112} acre in -area, the owner shalt submit a narra#ive management plan indicating the manner in which the native plant communities will be preserved. The narrative shall include: a) Whether or not the existing vegetation is to be preserved in the existing species composi#ian. b) If applicable, the manner in which the carnposition of existing plant material is to be Preserved, hand removal of invasive species, prescribed burning, etc. c} Maintenance schedule for removal of exotics. d} Maintenance schedule for removal of debris. 14. Signature and seal of preparer. Preliminary Engineeri,n4 Plan LDR Section 2.4.3(D) Preliminary engineering plans shall be drawn on a topographic base (unless the use of spot elevations are previously approved by the City Engineer} with topographic features extended to ten feet {10`) beyond the site. The following information must be included on the Preliminary Engineering Plan: 1. Title Block showing project name, scare, date, page number, name of preparer. 2. Approximate location as shown in records of Delray Beach andlor field observations of all existing water, sewer, and drainage facilities, along with streets, sidewalks, and above ground improvements which provide service to and on the site. Notes shall state the disposition of all existing facilities including service lines, meters, etc. 3. Proposed location, sizing and design basis of water, sewer, fire suppression, and drainage facilities which are to serve the site including pertinent calculations and the method of providing service to the proposed structures. 4. Location of proposed street lights. 5. Surface water management calculations indicating the proposed system's ability to meet storm water quality and quantity requirements in accordance with L. W.D.D. and S.F.W.M.D Regulations. fi. Signature and seal of preparer. Architectural Elevations LDR Section 2.4.3{G} The following information must be included on the architectural elevation plan: 1. Title Block showing. project name, scale (architectural scale is permitted), date, page number, name of preparer. 2. All four (4) elevations (north, east, south and west), of the proposed structure{s) or the elevation which is being modified when an existing structure is involved. 3. Dimension all elevations including height measurements. 4..All architectura! features of the structures, the type of exterior surfaces and exterior color. 5. The location of air conditioning and other mechanical equipment and methods of proposed screening. 6. The location of air conditioning equipment and other features depicted on a roof plan. SITE PLAN REVIEW CATEG(aRIES CLAS5111 A modification to the site plan which represents either a change in intensity of use, or which affects the spatial relationship among improvements on the land, requiring partial review of Performance Standards found in Section 3.1.9. CLASS N A modification to a site plan which represents either a significant change in the intensity of use or significant changes which affect the spatial relationship among improvements on the land, requiring full review of Performance Standards found in Section 3.1.1. CLASS V New application for development of vacant land, or modification of a developed property when no valid site plan of record exists and which requires full review of Performance Standards found in Section 3.1.1. r . II~i~~ li.,~l, d i~ e ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~.~ ~ - ~ ~d ~ ;~_ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Z ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~x»•• ~ 1 ~~~~ ~ ~~~6 ~ ~~~3 } ~~~~ ~~~~ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ . z ~ ~ ~4 ~~ ~!! 1 .~ ~. ! ~ a ~- ~ 6 f ~. ..~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ gk~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~e -k~5 IS I I °. . ~ .. ~ ~~i ,I ' ... i < < t .~~ i r Z Z ~~ --1 _~ ~u rr -wnc-. .- -.~c ~:rx j+V ~:f { i'i !~~i ~i . I I 1 „ 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 4 i 1 r i 1 r i 1 I ~~ - I I l I e ~ - I r _ _ r r r r __ _ r r r ~, a ~P ~+ ~i ~= 84 :. ~ .. ~ ." j ~dnnooof e~ ~ ~~ '~ti ~ 3s ~ ~ ~ z W ' ~~. ` ~ ~_ ~~k L ~~ ~,. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ !_ 3 + ~~ (~ t ~ ~ t ~~ ~~~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~~~ • 1` k ~ ~ ~~TJI T ~ • i~ L ,~ ~ L 1 3lav3nr e~~ s k ~r~A ~rp~d~d~~ ~~-~ctley ~._ 3[ k ~ ~ E~ '~ L ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~p El ~ L >~s ~~ . '~ r ', . •. `~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ls ~ ~o~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ o~W 4 ~~ ~~ ~z > Q a ~~~~ .~ ~ ~g~ i : 6 = ~ s ~ i ~~ 1 ~€ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~s4 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a.a~ asaa~a tt~ 6 ~ j ~ ~ ~~ti7 $1:: i ~`a~~ ~ ~~ ~ 9j ~ ~~°~ ~ j ~ ~~ !~ 9f.~ ~ ~iik154.4: i m ~~ S ~~ ! ~3 }! ~ ~#` ~f i _j Ri, a ~lS ~S ~~«r°i~iii i~Y. dd3 i ..lil7 liTjY ~ 3 Y~ t 7€i i Y~ i~ ~~ ~~ 7 iR%F ~~~ 9~a€ ilJ Fl~IIi ~ 6fr~~~;~~112~5,~ . _.. ~~ •: PLANNING 8a Z0IVING DEPA.RT~iENT 1.00 N.W. 15t AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 (561) 243-7040 (56 i) 243-7221 FAX e-mail: xho ar del.ra tannin .or ~_ ~ 4,4 '~ FASCIML~E COVER SHEET DATE: May 11,.2001 TO: Bob Currie - 243-8184 FROM: Ron Haggard Number of Pages Including Cover Sheet: 9 C O 1Vl 1V~1 E N T S Attached are staffs' comments on the Hatel Vista Del Mar project. Please address these items and submit revised plans as soon as possible. Action by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2001. In order to remain on schedule, revised plans (including reductions} and additional materials requested should be submitted no later than May 30, 2001. [f you have questions on any of the comments, please feel free to contact the appropriate staff member directly. If i can be of any assistance ar you wish to meet to discuss these comments, please call me. if you are going to request waivers for any of the items in staffs' comments, please submit a written request and a $100 fee for each waiver. Thanks, Ron ') 1~ .; ••) Planning & Zoning Department MEMORANDUM TO: TAC FROM: RON HOGGARD DATE: MAY 13, 2001 RE: REVISED HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR The subject application and plans were reviewed for compliance with the land development regulations. The following technical comments will need to be addressed and revised plans submitted before the project can proceed to SPRAB of approval: 1. A photometric plan needs to be submitted indicating the ligh#ing levels in the garage interior and at the property lines through openings in the garage. Please be cognizant of the impact on turtle nesting. 2. A drop-offltemporary parking area for guests to register or drop off luggage .should be provided. The site plan has a handicapped space- in the drop-off area and limited stacking. 3. The parking space west of the ramp encroaches into the required 5' landscape strip. It also appears to have poor visibility. Please indicate the height of the adjacent wail along the ramp. 4. It appears that the parking space at the bottom of the parking ramp is too close to the ramp and visibility may be a problem. Please indicate the finished floor elevation of the parking floor, the ramp grade(s) and the height of the wall adjacent to the ramp. 5. Show the placement of columns in the garage. Please note that columns cannot encroach inta the required parking spaces. 6. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9.(D)(c}, a 24' wide by 6' maneuvering apron is. required at the end of dead-end parking bays. This has not been provided on the parking floor. 7. Eliminate a parking space at the end of dead-end bay on the parking floor to provide a means to turn around if the garage is full. 8. Three (3} handicapped spaces are required for parking lots containing between 51 and 75 spaces. Only two (2) spaces have been provided on the site plan. 9. Pursuant to LDR 5ect'ion 4.6.10(D){1), 12' of vertical clearance and a 30' maneuvering apron must be provided. There is only 11'-6" of vertical clearance provided and the maneuvering area is inadequate with only 20' of backup area provided behind the space. Additionally, hotels between 2D,DDD and 100,000 square feet must provide 2 berths. The second loading space may be waived by the Board with documentation. A waiver request and $100 fee is required. 10. The elevation at the top of the pool deck is given as 49'-6". This puts the building height at 51' above the crown of the road. The maximum height permitted is only 48'. Use area is not permitted above the maximum building height. There are also .storage areas provided on the roof. Additionalfyy:from the finished floor elevations provided, it appears that the pool is only 3' deep. Please clarify. 11. Indicate the route to the rear stairway from the pool area. 12. Submit the proposed color scheme for the building. Please complete and return a SPRAB Elevation application with the provision of color samples: 13. The traffic statement must be revised to include the trafhc generated by the restaurant in the analysis. 1lmisrv0091hoggardlwuudatalstsff reportsltac review vi&ta del mar hotel rerrised.doc -~ ..~ Ta: Ron Haggard, Senior Planner From: Jerry Sanzone, Chief Building OfFcial~--~J Date: 05/90/09 Re: Hotel Vista peI Mar Some of fhe consideration that we have to look into is creating. the underground and parking so Gose to the adjacent building. The structure adjacent to the underground excavation must be designed so that the structure can accommodate planting at street level. The plans are not detailed enough to give a grea# deal of scrutihy. The above comments are thoughts based on the lack of detaiis in the plans reviewed. • Page 1 ~~ 1 MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Department From Robert A. Kussner, .Landscape Inspector Via: Nancy Davila, Horticulturist Re: HOTEL VIiSTA DEL MAR Date: May 2, 2Q01 1. There is a water meter, catch basin and various other proposed items that are in conflict with the landscaping. Site lighting should be shown on the landscape plan to avoid additional. conflicts. 2. Sod is proposed along the south side of the building. Because of the height of the wall and building, sod may not be the best. choice for that area. Other alternatives such as ground cover should be considered. 3. The applicant shall provide an underplanting beneath the Sabal palms. 4. Per 4.6.16(H)(3j {d) one tree shall be provided far each twenty-five (25) linear feet or fraction thereof to form a solid tree line along the south and. west sides of the site. 5. Per 4.6.16(H)(3)(d) aplanting strip at least flue (5) feef is width is required to separate the vehicular use area from adjacent property. Within this strip a continuous hedge and one (1) tree for each thirty- (30) linear feet is required. This landscape barrier has rat been provided along the north perimeter. 6. A Coconut palm and Dune Sunflower is shown within. an island that is apparently under a roof. Please clarify. 7. Per 4.6.16(H}(4){d} foundation landscaping shall be provided for building elevations that are visible from adjacent rights-of--way. Though this rule applies to existing structures, it would be reconxn:~ended that the applicant provide foundation planting .along the east side of the restaurant. The proposed landscape area along the south side of the prog.erty does not work with the trees and shrubs being planted over .a roof. There will be an insufficient depth of soil for the plants to survive and drainage will be a problem. Tn addition, no room is-being provided for the tree canopies to expand. 9. Because of the height of this building, the vertical landscape elements will need to be very tall in order to be in scale with this structure. aa,x: X1:lkussverlwwdatalhotelvista del mar3.doc y `.` •. DELRAY BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT TAC Pr©3ect Review Checklist 1. Project Name: Hotel Vista Del Mar 2. Location: S. Ocean Blvd. 3. Are fire flaw calculations provided? Y N ~ NA Is adequate fire flow for the size and type of development available? Y N NA Comments: 4. Are dead end streets or cul-de-sacs. included on the site plan? If so, is adequate access to buildings, turn around radii, etc. provided? Y N ~ NA Comments: S. Fire Hydrants: Is 500 `maximum spacing provided in single family or duplex areas? Y N NA ~ Multi-family, 2 stories or less 400' maximum? Y N NA ~ Multi-family, 3 or more stories, 300' maximum? Y ~ N NA Commercial or Industrial 300' maximum? Y 1V NA Are hydrants provided on bath sides of the road? Y N ~ NA No obstructions within 5' of the hydrant? Y N NA 6. Will the proposed development have an adverse effect on the Fire Department's ability to provide service? Y ~ N NA Comment: The fire department will not be able to pull the rescue vehicle. off the. roadway. Hence, S. Ocean blvd. will be blocked for any emergency response by the fre deparment and will subject fire department personnel to possible injury by passing traffic. Space shall be provided in the south parking lot adjacent to the hotel, and designated as fire vehicle parking only. This space can be used by-the responding fire department engine company. ;:`~ , 7. Other comments: 1. Standpipes shall be installed in both stairwells from the underground parking to the roof. 2. Indicate on a drawing the location of the fire pump. . 3. Indicate on a drawing a ~1 haur fire rated wall with double doors extending diagonally across the lobby between the stairs and the exterior wall for the unloading area. 4. Roof plan -how are occupants to access the stairs on the S W corner of the roof? 5. Drawing A2.01-change the NFPA 1 U 1-1997 to NFPA 101-1994. 8. A fixe suppression system is required to be installed? Yes ~ No 9. Afire- alarm .system is required to be installed? Yes ~ No NOTE: IF A BUII~DING/STRUCTURE REQUIRES A FARE SUPPRESSION/FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, THE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THESE TYPE SYSTEMS SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE DRAWINGS FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT. THIS REQUIREMENT IS PER FLORIDA STATUES 553.79{2), 553.79 (6}(C) AND 633.551.. Review completed by: Signature: Gerald Van Gelder Date: May 3, 2001 ', `~1 ~: ' City Of Delray Beach Department of Envrronmentai Services T.~C COMMENTS TO: Ron Hoggard, Senior Planner FROM: Barron. E. Caronite, PE, Assistant City Enginee DATE: April 30, 2001 PROJECT: Hotel Vista De[ Mar ACTON: Site Plan The subject application and plans have been reviewed far minimum technical compliance with the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations. Receipt of Site Plan Approval does not imply that the applicant has submitted a complete set of construction drawings nor fulfilled all the conditions of Site Plan Approval. All technical compliance comments must be addressed prior to issuance of a construction permit. Due to the preliminary nature of the information provided for minimum technical compliance, additional comments may be generated upon submission of construction documents to the building department. Technical Comments: 'I . Provide FDOT driveway connection and drainage permit. 2. Provide drainage calculations and exfiltratian test results. 3. lndicate sight distance at egress drive to Salina Avenue. 4. Provide pavement marking and signage plan with special detail for A1A entrance. 5. Indicate if building will be sprinkled. 6. Indicate how water and sewer service is provided to the s#ructure and that sufficient capacity is available for the number of units proposed. 7. Provide paving cross section, type "d" curb detail, and standard city utility details as required. 8. Provide typical cross sections at North and South property fines. 9. Indicate proposed finished fiaor elevation of structure. file: s:lengadminltaclhotel vista del marlreview03.doc Printed: 4130101 _ , ," "~1 DELRAY BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Ran Hoggard Senior Planner FROM: Ofc. K. Anthony Durante Delray Beach Police Community Patrol DATE: March l S, 2001 SUBJECT: TECHII~IICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.: CPTED REVIEW VISTA DEL MAR RESORT Parkins Lot • Based on the latest plans, the rear parking area and any cars that would be parked there would be screened from any natural surveillance- by the 5' wall surrounding the property. The plans do not indicate the type of gate that will be used for the Salina AV exit. It will be important to have gate (perhaps a remote controlled roll--out) that will prevent unauthorized use/access to the parking lot through the exit by vehiculaz and pedestrian traffic. ~. • Because the parking area is not enclosed, unauthorized access to the space from the sides is a concern. The planners should consider the installation of a decorative fence between supports along the south ead-noxt~i side; of the parking lot. -- e ROBERT G. CURRY ,~ 3RTNERSHIP ~' ~ ~ Robert G. Currle, AttA f .. ~•Ac~cliiitects, Planners & Ynterior Designers ~ ~• .. ~ , ~ Jess M. ~owai ds; AIA na-aooz2n ': - . - ~ . Zos~ N. Agreila, AYA '.. r . May 29, 2001, . Mr. »on Hoggard, Senor Planner • Planning and Zoning Department ~ - . _100 NW ~~. Avenue Delray Beach, Florida ~33~4.4 ~ ' Re: .Hotel Yfsta deb Mar . ;~r~,~cct No. 000601: ~ . Dear Ron: This will Serve a5 the written responses to the comments faxed to our office on May 11, 2001, on the- above referenced project. p~ MEMO TO TAC . 1: The attached revised set includes a photometric plan. 2. The drop-o#'f area has been redesigned to accommodate guests by the main entry lobby. 3. The western most parking space-does not encroach into the landscape str(p. The wall along the parking ramp i5 foil height. 4. Even though this is a tight~area, the parking space nearest the ramp does not pose a concern'to the designer. The finish floor elevations are indicated on the plans, as well as the height of the side walls and railings. 5. The column placement are (nd(cated on the plans, and we see noth(ng in the code that states that we can not encroach into the parking space. E. Aback-up area has been located in the parking garage area. 7. A maneuvering space has been prov(ded in the garage area. 8, Three (3) handicapped parlc(ng Spaces are now Indicated. 9. Twelve (12) feet of vertical clearance has been prov(ded, and a wider maneuvering area has beeri provided. A5 to the second loading space, we will seek a waiver by separate cover. 1D. The pool has been lowered to comply w(th the L17R's. 134 NortheasE 1st Avenue, Delcap Beach, Florida 33444 Telephone; (561} 276-4951 Fag: (~6T) 213-S1$4 E-mail: rgcp@curriearc.coin ALA. Florida Firm of the Year 2000 `~ r_1 11. t~efer to the roof plan for access route from the pool to the exit stair. 12. See attached color Selections for the exterior elevations. 13. The traffic review includes the restaurant in the calculations for the hotel, Since it iS not uncommon for a hotel to have a restaurant. Our traffic engineer has indicated that he included the restaurant in his analysis. BUILDING DEI'AKTMENT MEMO 1. We are discussing a chemical grouting process far Soil Stabilization of the adjacent properties. This i5 a proven method used'in the building industry and we will be glad to provide a specification for review by the Building Repartment if requested. LANDSCAPE 1. Utility locations have been indicated on the landscape plan and coordinated with the landscaping. There is no -site lighting proposed except inside the garage Structure. 2. Sod has been removed and ground covers provided. 3. Underplanting provided. 4. palms have been provided every 25' oc: 5. 'this requirement does not apply to this zoning district. 6. izemoved ' 7. The owner does. not wish to provide foundation planting in this area. S. iZa€Sed planters are being provided on the roof deck to allow sufficient planting depth and existing taH coconut palms are being used 5o there i5 adequate aria for canopy. 9. E=xi5ting mature palma are being used to provide the vertical Scale needed. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1 - 5 No response 6. A5 requested, a space has been indicated on the south property for Fire pepartment vehicle use: See Site plan. ~. ._. .. 7. Other comments: 1. Standpipes will be provided (n both stairs as requested:, 2. ~ Anew fire line has been indicated along the South west corner of the property. The fire pump will be located on the roof, adjacent ~o the South west stair, See roof plan. 3. tour inierpretation v~~ the code i5 trtiat crTly.one~ dir°ec;t di5charge tp the exterior i5 - required. The South west Stair serves that purpose. The lobby Stair i5 allowed to be a5 designed, allowing for di5charge into the lobby prior to exiting to the exterior. Please advise if you do not concur. 4. See new walkway on the roof plan. 5. Plan 11x5 been revised. ENGINEERING - ~. To be provided with the permitting process. 2. Drainage calculations are attached. 3. Sight distance requirements of the code have been ~compli.ed with. 4. See revised civil' plan. 5. Building wild be sprinklered. Anew fire riser is indicated on the south west corner of the building. 6. Water and sewer locations are indicated Gn the i°evi~ed p[an5. 7. Anew detail i5 indicated on the revised plans. 8. See neW Site crQ55 Section Sheet in the resubmitted Set of plans. 9. A!I proposed finish door elevations are indicated on the revised plans. F'0l.ICE Tf1e police comments appear to be for the property on the west Side of Salina. Th€5 i5 not a ,parking lat. Any required supervision will be by tfle ho'Cel operator. '~~ Please feet free to contact this office if you need any additional informatiari, in the mean time we anticipate the meeting. of June 20, 2001 with SPRAB. Slncereiy, R013El~1" G. CURRIE FAR~IJERSHlP, if~C. ~ ,. JoS~ Aguila, AlA Principal Copy: Capano Ftle 00.060 j;1oo0.6011Iattcr5tsprali ron D5290t a' •° •••.•,•nwt~ YR7lGL. 5'•3o,ot t~t~. ROOF Y~~iue ~R~~t COLQR S`'~lPLESIFlNISHES SC"DULE ..,. ATTACH SAMPLES ATTACH SAMPLES BaNat~nA, AWNINGS P~.Tn~. c~~y ~aT L04u1lJ~ ' WALLS ~ - ' RAILINGS 5l31.~~bry Y~LLD~f ~V~~x~, '~vE 8M Z lSS-Sa ~ 8M 7.oG6-Zra i FASCIA DOORS A.T~11~M 1~likTE. d'L~tvM kfk~t~ BM ~Ed~ M-`~ $M KEdO~ MtY WINDOWS SCREENING ~~« (PATIO/POOL) COLUMNS C.~ST coau-s~ a ATTACH PHOTOGRAPH OTHER ~..~ A_ ~~raid s. church, P.E. Consulting Ch-ii Engineer 103D S. Federal Highway Suite x.18 Delray Beach, FI 53483 Ph/Fax 1561) 2fiG 9520 1~ lz, Zoos RE: Traffic Statement -Hotel Vista Dei Mar Interior 8tacidng The entry to the haGd provides for two parking stalls for at the hotel, a total distance from the Right-vf Way of 48'. Ia addition, there xs a 2U' driving aisle for other vehicles entering and leavi~ag the itvtel at the east-end There is also an entry and exit at the rear off of Salina Avenue. Attached is an.analy~sis ~ the Peak Hoar Driveway Turning Movements. This is a worse case silvation whereby alI traffic uses fire main euary ~ A-1-A. The tunni~ag mo~venients indicate that ~ additiomal turning lanes are regained The P.M Peak I'Iaa: of Adpceat Street Trafc is z9 entry' move, which averages out to be one vehicle every iwo minutes. Par a hotel with 71 moms the trip generation rate per mom per day is 8.7d Trips. Of these trips, the maximwns for entry and tmlaading would be only one trip Per dap. Therefore the maximum trips for catering the hotel and requiring haggage would be 71 trips, ass®ning a daily trunover of all hotel raom~c. {Nate brat this is the most conservative appcoaclr since the hotel is a resort hotel where the usual stay is in the order oaf five days). ^suallp persons taming to a hotel will sign in during the hours from Z:00 P.M. urrti18:00 P.M., though the timing could be longer; Oa an average theme would be 12 trips during a oao-h~ period that would require drolroff parlang at the hotel. This allows five minutes for unloading acrd parking 1?~ vehicle. There are two drop-afi' paring stalls, which, is cod adeq~mtc for the prapo~d hotel. In the event that drop-off parking was occupied, a vehicle could by~mss the parking spaces and enter the garage area where unloading could still be aocorpmadated at the Unloading Zone. Prepared lry: Gerald B. Cbarcly P.E., 5111101 ~~ Y ._ / ~~ HdTEI. A.Af. PrEi~K M~fI4R G~ A~tNQEM 51RlEEr r~x Q~ Ti~s/J4onm - GC67 x 7 ~ ~8 Tngpr Tex aTOa~wc ~ sax = z4 r~ rra~~c onrnnRC .. ~a~r = r~ r-~. HDTFl P.1iE Pfi1K HdUFt aF' AfJ4t1CkIVT STREET Tl~F7~ d ~ Ti~/R~ ~s4r~ - r~rac oirr~ _ ~ = zs rr~s Tla1FF1C DfI11rMG a 4~i ~ 25 Tl~! ~~ ~y +Mr .~ (,Z9)BIm4CKET fKs'f~ES ASE A.~ PEAK HDIJft 25 (i8 Oflf' DdaL•L"I110MiAL SPAT ~` ~, SP1JT 7~7 7 (B) O[!T 8 (S) M 20 {2a) 1N 1B (f~) OIIT PEAK SDUR DRIVEiP~4.Y TURNING 11~OYE~IfENTS c. ~. cHUac~r, ~.~. ca~su~.n~c aaNe~ A-1-~r1 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HOTEL V15TA DEL MAR DELRAY BEACH, FlARIDA o~r~ os/~1/as FlC. N0. 1 - ~ ~ . ROBERT'G. ~CLTRA"PARTNERSHIP ~ -- .. . - - ~ Architects, Planners & Interior Designers ' ~ ' . ~ ~ ' AAO(10227] June 13, 2001 hilt. Ron Hoggard, Senior Planner Planning and Zoning Department 100 NW 15`. Avenue i.'e.r:; Beach, Florida 334-44 Re: Hotel Vista del Mar t'raject Na. OO~6D~ Dear Ron: ~- '• L . _ RoberE.G. _Ctirrie, AlA " Jess M.~Sowards, AIA Josh N. Agnila; A]W This will Serve as .our formal request fora .waiver of the required five (5) foot Sidewalk on Salina Avenue. A5 you know, there i5 no ability for an extension of the sidewalk to the north or South and as Such, the sidewalk forthis proposed project would be moot. In addition, the code requires two loading spaces for this project, and we have only indicated one. Based an the requirements of the hotel operator,. and our experience we are of the opinion that for this project one wiH be 5uf~icient. The time of loading operations will be controlled to limit the impact on the guests~and general public. I am attaching the required check, payable to the City of Delray Beach. We request your favorable recommendation to the above. . Sincerely, ROI3ERT G. CIJRRiE PARTNERSHIP, INC. .~ ~~ L Jose Aguila, AIA Principal Cody: Gapano File 000601 j;10~06i01VeCtervslron D613D1 ... w" ~ ~ ~. a 1.34 Northeast 1sY Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 ~ Telepbo~ue: {561) 276-4951 Fax: {561) 243-8I84 E-maiE: rgcp@curriearc.caxn AIA Florida Fiirm of the Year 2080 ~~ ~~) _~ .,, ~~• _ : ~ ', "~'r''r, d: i_ :~ . 9; } _?. f' aco.~- ~•~ ~~ ,~~ ,.-.~ ,,~ :' ~+ Y f ~ w /• •. „~ 5PECIAL COURTESY NOTICE TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TFae purpose of this special courtesy notice is to inform you that at its Meeting to be held on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2DO~I, the Site ~fan~ Review and Appearance Board will consider a request for site plan approval for Hotel Vista Del Mar. The meeting begins at fi:30 p.m. and will be held in the Commission Chambers, City Hall 100 NW 15t Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. The following is a brief description of the project. The plans are available for review at the Planning and Zoning Department.. If you would like to obtain additional information on this project please feel free to contact Senior Planner Ron Hoggard, at 243-7040. If you cannot make this meeting but would like to be heard on the project, you may submit your comments as follows: _ - By phone at (5fi1) 243-7040 - By fax at (561) 243-7221 - By a-mail at pzmail@delrayplanning.org - By regular mail at 100 NW 15r Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 The subject site is located on the west side of Ocean Boulevard, approximately 300 feet south of East Atlantic Avenue {fi4 South Ocean Boulevard). The development proposal involves the demolition of the existing Bermuda Inn Hotel and construction of a 5-story hotel containing 71 suites. A 1,333 sq. ft. restaurant is proposed on the first float. A parking garage is proposed on the ground and basement levels. Amenities include a private gym/spa and rooftop swimming pool. Date Mailed: June 14, 200'1 ~-~` - .~.., ~ r .1 .~ ..: no~AC, w eo-or z ~. ~ a 3 LO WRY t~.E. ~sT ST. = W a ~' DELRAY VETERANS PAI?K ~ ,,~JMMIT w a ATLANTIC ~ CONDO w N PLAZA W S.E. ~" w,aTERwAY EAST ~= COMMERCIAL "'x"""10 r~~ GONDO m a BARB v TERRACE canrDO A T L A N T I C Q ~n Q O LU ~' v~,wr ~~~n 8AR o cRROn+s ~~ HARBOUR OOfm° CONDO MIRAfdAR STREET tit7nar f j ~ ~ ~ eeuse 1 1 1 1 1 YAdfT Q 0.~ 1 Ll7NDG a~aa so~n+ coewo uueor BERKSHIRE i BY THE SEA Q GROSVENOR O z H MANOR HOUSE CONDO FIRE sra. rvo. 2 a 0 DELRAY BEACH MARRIOTT A V E N U E ~,, ~~ ~ hws~ ~ ca+oo DOVER HOUSE CONDO OCEAN ALACE CONDO I xutaERtra ~° I ~ Z R A I ING AH M Q „~ ~ ~. , JARDIN DEL MAR w "-'~'." C0ND0 CONDO a OEIR.Y atu+ wlws OCEAN 7EFiR. U TOWERS ~ ""~ ~ u A S T W . T OF WINDEMERE HOUSE CONDO ~E"A~~ STREET ~~ '~ N -~- HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR CITY DF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING do 20NING DEPARTMENT -- D!G!>•AL 645E Al4P 5Y5TEAf -- IifAP REF: LM525 N:• X0955 ~ase~ ---- ._. -• .. , --; :.~.~~~_ ..,, --_; .- . . _ _ - - ^_.. _ ._. _ .. - - .I, ~ sla4P7 ssa~pPy ®~~Ab-~ + R ~ . ~OHIiT BENNETT ~ . -~.•# ~i ~ PROD•AND BEACH PROPERTY ASSN GRADY SCOTT D , ~ E ;AVENUE . 72 S OCEAN BLVD ~6 • ~~~ L , FZ 33483-7017 DELRAX BEACH, FL 334$3 - ' DELRAY BEACH 1 e o I! ~ P • '~ KEVIN WARNER ~Eall~f~(~ V~AiMAR7~'NA~st RVENUE ~ F3ELRAY S-EACH, F~ORlQA 33444 • 56~~~43-7QQ~ 248 VENETIAN DRIVE ' DELRAY BEAC$, FL 33483 1993 BILL WOOD - DELRAY BEACH CH.A?~BEp~ OP COMMERCE b4 5E 5TH AVENUE DEI'RAY BEACH, F1. 33483 CAROLYN ZiN.QfERMAN PRESIDENTS COUNCIL 212 SW 2ND AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 BRANNEN GEORGE W & PATRIGLA 1212 BATAViA AVENUE G$NEVA IL 50134-32x4 BELLANTE DANIEL D ' $09 N 0 STREET f. LAKE WORTH FL 33450 BELLANTE DANIEL & PAMELA REIDER 5 NE 2ND ST ,~ DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 CURRIE ROBERT G 75 S OCEAN BLVD #F4 = DELRAY BEACH, FI, 3348.3 GP~~CEI' *~ THEW 3R 1109 HARBOR DR _ , DELRAY BH<9CH, FL 33.4$ ~°°_.-~"""~ f r ~... g _ r - .~,a r" ~ L l•~,~, f' • .~. ~..~ ,~ ~~t:~:~~i ~~1F~E3a~3.cR ' ~G ~~r-~^T fx~Lt+lrA?`S E~~.='~TT~. ~... ~ ^. i -- /~ I BEACH PROPERTY DUw.~:~:=SRS ASSOCIATIDN, INC. ~r ~ - ~~_ -~` po. sox ~7~ 'yam ~`"' ~' DELRAY BEACH, ~LORICA 337 /~~wne_ -~00 ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~, ~ w sV;~: ~ ~~~~r~'~`~ ~- " ~~ ~ ~K nut ~'i- ?~ .~ ~ ~ ., ~~~~ Cam- ,%~~~~~.~..yy ~}~ ~ ~~~,~~ ~ /J ,~ - °~ -.yam j /~s~~~ c~i J: G~ _ !~J -~~.- Xc c~ ~v eau. ~~ ~ ~~ 2 ~7 ~.! ~ ~T~zr~ ~--~~ C~~ chi c~ ~ ~ ~.1' ~~. ~. f~-r cam. y~ °~ -sf'~` ~;._~ r~~~^-- --_~`` _ _ A CORPORATION NOT F.OR PROFIT t ._ .-. ..~~~. _ .. - ~ 2S% c~-~ ~~~.~ '/ ~. ~ _ ~ ~ f~i~ ~ ~ Gam, ~.,,,~~ ,~ ~ r~ /~ M7 rye ~ ./~ ~ ~`~' 7 - ~Z. ~°'~~ ~~~ ` ~~-~ G~.' Gam,/ ~Z.G-r.~ fvytc.~ ,/~ ~~A / , it/~/7 i/Narn, 1.;..~u a( ~cf COG J G.~ ,'/ ~ ¢ .~~.•~~ Gi' ~~12~'?~~ ~'~ •s ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ X17- !/~ O ~~~ Y ~J rt~C. / _ ~,~-~ C.~ ~~ c ' mac- ~ ~~..~`U ~~ J dr e~-`~- ~~"c~~ ~_ • ~~ .:~ W `tr ~t. ~Q~ G~G~ ~ ~ ~v2~p l~l~ ~~ ` ~ ~~ `~`~.° ~/ L--L ~. ~ `"~` ~~ `.~~ c i i' ~ a ! ~~_ ~' ~S ITS PLAN REVIEW AN D AP P SARAN C E BOARD GfTY OF DELRAY BEACH --'-STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: .tune 20, 2001 .AGENDA ITEM: V.D. ITEM: Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, Located on the West Side of South Ocean Boulevard (S. R. A1A), Approximately 300' South of East Atlantic Avenue. co-oP ..~ aeRxsrrrR~ BY rH£ S£A GRO5VENOR GENERAL DATA: Owner.........-•--•--....-----• .................. Applicant ........................................ Agent ......... ............................. Location .....................................<... Property Size ................................. Future Land Use Map .................... Current Zoning .:............................ Adjacent Zoning ...................North: East: South: West: Existing Land Use ......................... Proposed Land Use ....................... Water Service ................................ Sewer Service ............................... Eugenia Kerstin, Trustee Louis Capano Robert Currie, Architect Robert G. Currie Partnership West side of South Ocean Boulevard (S.R. A1A}, approximately 300' south of East Atlantic Avenue. 0.412 Acre Commercial Core CBD (Central Business District} CBD OS (Open Space) RM (Multiple Family Resider~tia!- Medium Density) RM Two-story motel with pool Demolition of existing mote! and canstructian of a 5-story Hate1 (48' high to roof deck), with 71 roams, ane 1,333 sq. ft. restaurant, 89 parking spaces, roofi top swimming pool, private gym/spa and associated landscaping. Existing on site. Existing on site. GROVE GONDO 'PFINISH +M D£LRAY RIVER j - 11~ARR! r~so~r I ATLANTIC AVENUE peq Aiw~~e aF ~~ DOVER NOUSE GONQO~ ,~,! OCEAN PLACE 5 ~ CONDO p V ~ GOM ~wl ~I ~ ~ ~~~ # ~ JARDlN DEL MAR ~ `~. f CONYDO v '~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ i ~ I i I "" I I ~ ~~~ DNbO ~Sf LANlKAf VILLAS GONDQ ~ ay~ N ~, - ...~,~ nr: A R~ D ~ , ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~ ~~ i~T F~ ~~~~BE j F O R E_~ T"~~ E B ~ ~ ~ y ~,: a r~ k~cs' `~3r r sf9^,: , ., ,~.e-K4.-'~ t~~ :-,.~~ r~,.,~., s ~- ^~; t nd., r ~3 .:i The action before the Board is that of approval of a Class V site plan which incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for Hotel Vista Del Mar, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5{F}: . ^ Site Plan; ^ Landscape Plan; and, ^ Elevations. The subject property is located on the west side of Ocean Boulevard {A-1-A), approximately 300 feet south of Atlantic Avenue and is zoned CBD (Central Business District). _. } ~. ,: B A C=:K G ~t O_ U~' - t_~ ~~ y~ ' ~ N ~ - ~~ - a it ~_ The subject property consists of Lots 6-10, of the Ocean Park subdivision and is approximately D.41 acres in size. The site currently contains the Bermuda Inn, a 20 room, two-story motel (constructed in 1968), with a pool and associa#ed parking. The parcel was zoned LC (Limited. Commercial) until it was rezoned to CBD {Central Business District} with the Citywide Rezoning associated with the adoption of the Land Development Regulations in 1990. A site plan application has been submitted to demolish the existing motet and to construct a hotel to be known as Hotel Vista Del Mar. This item is now before the Board for action. ~, -5 ,,~ ~F~~~ ~~ P RV'O JE ~~ T= D ~E S'~G~,R' 1 P T 10: N _ - -- - - - - The new hotel has a total of 71 roams, a private gymispa, a rooftop swimming pool and a 1,333 sq. ft. restaurant. There are a total of 59 parking spaces accommodated within the building on the ground floor and below grade. There are six floors, including the sub-grade parking Ievei. The building is.48 feet in height. ~. 1 = ~ ° Ty ~ S`tl~~ E: P L iA IV- ,A N l~ L,YS i S ~:~~; COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking fnal action on the site and development applicationfrequest Building Setbacks: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G)(2)(a), Setbacks. within this portion of the CBD zoning district, a front setback of not less than 5', nor greater than 10' shall be provided. The proposed hotel is setback 5' from Ocean Boulevard. Since the rear of the hotel also faces a public street, Salina Avenue, a 5' setback has been provided in the rear. SPRAB Statf Repor# ~~, Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Si•~Man Approval Page 2 Normally, a side interior setback 'rs not required when there is dedicated access to the rear of the building. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.4(A}(1}, Commercial Zoning Adjacent to Residential Zoning, a 10' setback is required where the rear or side of a commercially zoned property directly abuts residentially zoned property without any division or separation. between them. Since the adjacent property to the south is zoned RM, a 10' side setback has been provided. Since the property tv the north is also zoned CBD, a side setback has not be provided along the north property Fine. It is noted that Bahama shutters, installed on the north elevation, project 2'-4" aver the property line. Since, this encroachment onto adjacent property is not permissible, the shutters must be removed or an easement obtained for the encroachment. This has been added as a condition of approval. Based upon the above, the building setback requirements have been met. Building Height: Pursuant to Section 4.3.4(K}, within the CBD zone district, a maximum building height of 48' is allowed. The hotel has a height of 4S' to the flat roof deck. Appurtenances, usually required to be placed above the roof level of a building and not intended for human occupancy, may be allowed to extend above the height limitations when approved by action of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. This provision allows for elevators, stair towers,, cooling towers, and mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof. Several large towers are shown on the roof plan with no function indicated. As Hated above; areas for human occupancy such as storage, restrooms, etc., are not pem~itted above the maximum height requirement of 48'. The design of the building is such that there are a total of seven towers which project above the 48' high roof deck. The highest of these towers reaches a height of 63' to the mid fine of its roof and 65'-6"' to the peak. A decorative blue metal railing is provided between the towers on the east and west facades. The towers are also finked by an 8' high pergola. The design, size and placement of these elements gives the appearance that there is an additional floor' on this building, thereby adding to its perceived mass and height. To minimize this impact,. the height and size of the required appurtenances should be reduced. Those appurtenances which are not required should be eliminated. This has been added as a condition of approval. Open Space; Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(F}(2) (Open Space}, within the CBD zone district east of the Intracoastal Waterway, there shall be no minimum open space requirement. No#withstanding the provisions of this section, the body acting upon a development application within the CBD may require tha# open areas, including but not limited to courtyards, plazas, and landscaped setbacks, be provided in order to add interest and provide relief from the building mass. It is noted that some landscaping has been provided adjacent to Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue as well as along the south side of the building. , ~ SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar. Cass V S,•••;'i~lan Approval ' • Page 3 ' • Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(7)(e), hotels and motels are required to provide 0.7 spaces for each guest room plus 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to ballrooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, Eounges, and shops. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G}(1)(d), within the CBD zone district, restaurants require 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. The parking requirement has not been met as 62 spaces are required (71 roam x .7/room + 1,400 sq. ft. restaurant/1,000 x fi + 500 sq. ft. meeting rooms11000 x 10 = 63 - 1 space reduction =fit] and only 57 spaces (38 standard spaces, 1fi compact spaces and. 3 handicapped space) have been provided. The parking data table on the site plan indicates that 59 spaces are provided, the meeting rooms on the third and fourth floors were not included in the parking calculations and the area of the restaurant appears to be 1,400 sq. ft. The correction of these errors have been added as site plan technical items. Please note that the two drop-off spaces in front of the lobby seem to be indicated as parking spaces, when in fact, the drop-off area cannot be used to meet the parking requirements. In addition to the deficiency in the required number of parking spaces, there are a number of design problems that may result in a loss of several spaces. Modification of the plans to address these technical problems has been added as a site plan technical item. It is noted that any reduction in the number of parking spaces will require a associated reduction in the number of rooms ar other use areas. The primary problem involves the location of structural columns within the parking garage. Columns have been placed between parking spaces, but the size of the spaces has not been adjusted to accommodate the width of the columns. This results in spaces that are less than the required widths. If columns are 1' in width, as indicated vn plans, adjacent standard parking spaces will be reduced from the required 9' to 8'-6" wide and compacts will be reduced from the 8' to 7'-6" in width. This reduction is not permitted. Another problem is that columns are placed between the handicapped spaces and the required 5' service aisle. This obstruction is not permissible. Finally, there are a number of problems associated with the compact parking space located west of the parking ramp--a column is located in the space; a curb to protect the landscape area to the west has not been provided; and, the space is located immediately against the wall of the parking ramp which severely limits visibility. Handicapped Parking: Based on the total number of parking spaces provided, three handicapped accessible parking spaces are required and three have been provided. In addition to the problem with the columns discussed above, the location of the spaces requires crossing the main drive aisle to enter the hotel lobby. Although one space can remain on the south side to serve the restaurant, at least two of the handicapped spaces should be relocated to the- opposite side of the parking garage and a walkway provided to the lobby. This has been added as a site plan technical item. Dead-end Parking Bays: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9.(D)(4){c), Dead-end Parking Bays, a 24' wide by 6' maneuvering area is required at the end of dead-end parking bays. The maneuvering area provided on the sub-level parking floor does not meet this requirement. The maneuvering area must be located at the end of the parking bay, essentially extending the aisle 6' . ~ SPRAB Staff Report . ~`j Hotet Vista De! Mar - Class V 5,~.:"•~ flan Approval '~~~~. • Page 4 beyond the parking spaces. As depicted on the site plan, the rear stairs are located within this area. The site plan must be adjusted to accommodate the required maneuvering area. This has been attached as a site plan technical item. Loading: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.1 g{D}(1 }, a 30' maneuvering apron and 12' ofi vertical clearance must be provided for single unit loading spaces. The maneuvering area provided is inadequate. The loading space is located between a parking space and a wall which both extend behind the loading space. Even though there is 30'-6" behind the space, the configuration reduces the maneuvering area. t© only.20', since the vehicle cannot be turned until it is clear of the adjacent obstructions. Another problem with the loading space is the vertical clearance. Although the applicant has indicated that 12' of vertical clearance exists directly above the loading space, the design of the arches across the entrances- to the parking garage is such that the clearance below the arch is only 8'-6" at the edges. This makes the loading space inaccessible to larger vehicles. The design of the loading area must be changed to provide the required maneuvering area and the entrances must be modified or the height of the 15t floor increased to provide adequate clearance into the garage. This has been attached as a condition of approval. Hotels between 2D,DDD and 1DD,QOD sq. ft. shall provide 2 loading spaces. The applicant proposes to provide only one loading space. The body approving the site plan shall determine the adequacy of the provisions which are made for (un}loading. The applicant has submitted the following statement: "Based on the requirements of the hotel operafor, and our experience, we are of the opinion that for this project, one will be suffrcienf. The time of loading operations will be controlled to Limit the impact on fhe guests and general public." In addi#iona! to the one loading space provided, other opportunities for loading and unloading exist on the site. Smaller delivery vehicles can park in the garage to make deliveries ar utilize the drop-off area in front of the building. Based on these factors, one loading space should be adequate. for the facility. However, it is important that the project's impact on Salina Avenue be minimized for compatibility wi#h the residential development to the west. Therefore, no loading or unloading of vehicles is pem~itted on Salina Avenue. This has been added as a condition of approval. Fire Truck Access. Given the low vertical clearance under the building, the fire department will not be able to pull the rescue vehicle off of the roadway. Hence S. Ocean Boulevard would be blocked for any emergency response by the fire department and will subject fire department personnel to possible injury by passing traffic. Although the applicant has shown a space on the adjacent properly to the south for fire department use, no documentation has been provided.. An easement for the use of the adjacent property is required and this has been attached as a condition of approval. Drop-off Area and Stacking; Two drop-off spaces have been provided in front of the hotel lobby. The applicant has provided a trafil:IC statement dealing with the adequacy of this drop-off area. The analysis SPRAB Staf# Report :;.:-~ Hotel Vista Del Mar- Cfass V St'.'~fan Approval , Page 5 indicates that the maximum number of trips entering the hotel requiring check-in and baggage drop-off would be 71 per day, assuming a daily turnover of all hotel rooms. Since the usually check in time is between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., an average of 12 trips during a one-hour period would require drop-off parking. Since there are two spaces, 6 vehicles per hour could be accommodated in each space. This allows ten minutes for unloading and parking per vehicle, which should be adequate. Since there is no stacking provided for the drop-off area, in the event that both spaces are taken, a vehicle would by-pass the drop-off area and either use the loading space in the garage or park in a regular parking space before checking in. Although the drop-off area is adequate for check-in and baggage drop-off, it is not large enough to operate a valet queue to park vehicles for c~~stomers of the res#a~.irant and s~~rrounding businesses. lf,a valet queue is established at this location, it may only be for guests of the hotel. This has been added as a condition of approval. The function of the building could be improved by moping the building back from Ocean Boulevard and utilizing a circular entrance drive with adrop-off area. This would improve the stacking area, and allow fire truck access to the site. Point of Access: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.4{C)(1), the minimum width for anormaltwo-way driveway is 24'. In instances where there are no points of conflict in the immediate vicinity of the driveway and the internal circulation system, the width may be approved at a minimum width of 20'. The main access drive in front of the building is only 20' wide and there is a point of conflict with the drop-off area in front of the lobby. Therefore, the driveway width must be increased to 24'. This has been added as a site plan technical item. Visibility at Intersections; Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A), a visibility triangle is required at the intersections of roads (corner lots) and driveways. An unobstructed view within this triangle visibility must be provided between the heights of three-feet and six feet. The required visibility triangle at the intersection of two streets is 40' and 20' at driveways. The purpose of the triangle is to provide a sufficient line of sight for drNers to spot oncoming traffic. These triangles are required for walls, fences, and landscaping. The visibility triangle at the garage entrance on Salina Avenue is approximately 13' where 20' is required. A waiver to this requirement has been requested. 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 signifcarttly 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 on other properly for another applicant or owner. The building setback an Salina Avenue is 5'. Since the driveway entrance on Salina immediately enters the parking garage, the walls of the building (exit stairs and parking ~SPRAB Staff Report ::'1 .,.. Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Sit_~~~lan Approval Page 6 ramp wall} encroach into the required 26' visibility triangle. Salina Avenue is a narrow roadway which dead-ends approxima#ely 15g' south of the subject property. The 13' visibility triangle provided is adequate given the low speed and limited traffic on this roadway. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead #o the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(6){5), can be made. Sidewalk: Pursuant to L©R 'Section 6.1.3(8}, a sidewalk is regdired to be const~~~acted in the right-of- ways that abut the subject property line. This would apply along Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue. A 5' wide sidewalk exists along Ocean Boulevard but no sidewalk exists along Salina Avenue. Pursuan# to LDR Section fi.1.3(D}(2}, where it is clear that the sidewalk will not serve its intended purpose, the requirement for installation of a sidewalk adjacent to the property being developed may be waived during site plan or plat approval. The applicant has requested a waiver from the installa#ion of a sidewalk along Salina Avenue on the basis that there is no ability for an extension of the sidewalk to the north or south. 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; or, {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. Back-out parking exists along both sides of this roadway and there is not room to install a sidewalk within the existing right-of-way. Without a reasonable expectation that the sidewalk could be extended on either side, the sidewalk would not fulfill its intended purpose. Therefore, it is inappropriate to provide a sidewalk along Salina Avenue. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(6}(5), can be made. Reduction in Right-of--Way Width; Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D), the required right-of way width fiar Salina Avenue is 60' and a 21.43' right-of-way currently exists. Pursuant tv LDR Section a.3.1 {D}(4}, a reduction in right-of-way widths for existing streets may be granted by the City Engineer upon favorable recommendation from the Development Services Management Group {DSMG). The DSMG recommended that reductions in right.-of-way width for Salina be granted. SPRAB Staff Report Wotel Vista Del Mar -- Class V S~. ~::' ~~ Ian Approval ~: • Page 7 . . Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting must be provided within the proposed parking area. A photometric plan for the parking levels has been .provided. However, the location of the project also requires compliance with Sec#ion 91.51 of the City of Delray Beach Code of Ordinances, Lighting Restrictions Along Beach, s#ated as follows: "No arfificia! lighf shat! illuminate any area of fhe beach which is used for turtle nesting and hafchGngs. !n order fo accomplish this, al! lighting shall be shielded or screened so thaf fhe light is not a visible source from fhe beach during fhe night period from April 1, to October 39 of each year "Night Penrod" is defined herein as being thaf Elms from dusk to dawn. The locafion of fhis projecf requires that a lighfing plan for the building detailing all exterior frxfures be provided." A complete lighting plan for the building indicating the location and fixture details for all sighting sources which could be visible from the beach is required. This includes interior 1•ixtures which could be visible through windows or other building openings. Details of measures that will be taken to screen the lighting must also be provided. Section 9.1 of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code should be used as a guide for mitigation measures tv screen lighting sources. The provision of this plan and mitigation details has been added as a condition of approval. Trash Compactor: An enclosed trash compactor area with atoll-down gate is provided under the roof on the first floor. As depicted on the plans the service of this compactor will be from Salina Avenue and the only access to the enclosure is via the front roll-down gate. The use of the gate facing Salina Avenue- whenever trash needs to be deposited in the compactor is `inappropriate. To reduce the impact on the residential properties to the west, additional access to the compactor must be provided. This has been added as a conditional of approval The parking space on the side of the enclosure could be eliminated and an auxiliary opening could be placed in the side wall of the enclosure to allow less intrusive access or a chute system could be installed in the building to dispose of trash without going outside. Bike Rack: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9{C){1)(c)(3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in the designated area and by a fixed or stationary bike rack for any non-residential use within the City's TCEA. The subject property is located within the TCEA area, and a bike rack has not been indicated. Provision of a bike rack has been listed as a technical Item. Site Plan Technical Items: While the revised site plan has accommodated most of the stafF concerns the following items remain outstanding, and wi[I need be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit 1. That drainage calculations and exfltration test results be submitted; ~PRAB Staff Report ;^ ;~ ..~.r1 Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V $~~'::: Flan Appro~ai ~':: ,. Page S ' 2. A note must be placed on the plans s#ating that ail utilities will be placed underground; 3. The applican# shall provide fire flow calculations prior to permit approval; 4. The fire pump room cannot be located on the roof of the building; 5. The finished floor eleva#ions shown on the preliminary engineering plan do match the other plans. Revise as necessary so that all plans are consisten#; 6. The sidewalk must continue through the driveway entrance on Ocean Boulevard. 7. Indicate the function of all rooftop appurtenances (towers) on the plans.; 8. The area of the restaurant is shown as 1,333 sq. ft. but it appears to be approximately 1,400 square. Verify this figure and adjust the plans as necessary. 9. The parking data on the site plan indicates that 59 parking spaces are provided when in fact only 57 spaces are shown on the plan. The meeting rooms on the third and fourth floors were not included in the parking calculations. The table must be revised to make these corrections; 10. Modify the plans as necessary to address the problems with the parking design identified in the parking section above; 11. Relocate at least two of the handicapped spaces to the opposite side of the parking garage and provide a walkway to the lobby; 12.A 24' wide by 6'-deep maneuvering area must be provided at the end of the parking bay on the sub-level; 13. Modify the plans to increase the main driveway aisle from 20' to 24 ;and, 14.A bike rack must be provided. As stated earlier in this report, there is no minimum open space requirement within the CBD zone district east of the [ntracoastal Waterway. However, the body acting upon a development application may require that open areas, including but not limited to courtyards, plazas, and landscaped setbacks, be provided in order to add interest and provide relief from the building mass. The proposed building covers most of the site with most of the parking and service functions also under roof. Therefore, the proposed landscaping for the project is minimal. The mains entrance to the building is on Ocean Boulevard. Coconut Palms with Dune Sunflower underplantings and a backdrop of purple Crinurn Lilies will be located on either side of the building facing the street. The Coconut Palms are relocated from elsewhere on the site and are fisted as having 6' of clear trunk. Given the height of the building, the vertical landscape elements need to be very tall in order to be in scale with the building. •&PRAB Staff Report ; •"'; Hotel Vista DeI Mar - Class V S.::~:~;jlan Approval .-~ Page 9 ' These Coconut Palms are much too short and should be replaced with taller trees. A planter will be provided under the building in front of the hotel lobby with 3 European Fan Palms, Variegated Arboricola, and Pathos Wines. Additional vertical elements are needed along the front facade to provide balance and detract from the mass of the building. A pair of Coconut Palms with Dune Sunflower underplantings should be added on either side of the entrance drive. Aline of Coconut Palms are proposed along the south property line in a raised planting bed over the sub-level garage. As Hated above, these Coconut Palms are much too short for the scale of the building and should be replaced with larger trees. Triple trunk Pigmy Date Palms will be 1^cated between the.Cacon~t Palms with~Xanad~.end Boston Fens ~+vill. be utilized for ground cover in the area. Four booted Sabal Palms with Fakahatchee Grass are proposed along between the south property line and a walkway along the south side of the building adjacent to the restaurant. The depth of the soil in the raised planting bed along the south property line needs to be increased to 36" to accommodate the proposed trees. A 5' landscape strip is provided along the west property line between the building and Salina Avenue. Double Alexander Palms and a Redtip Cocoplum hedge will be provided within the landscape strip. Although much taller trees would be preferred adjacent to the building, it is not possible within the 5' provided. if in addressing the other issues contained in this report, the building is set back farther from Salina Avenue, taller trees such as Washingtonia Palms should be substituted for the Alexander Palms where possible. A Variegated Arboricola hedge and a mulched planting bed will be provided between the trash compactor and the wall along the north property line. This is the only landscape material provided along the north side of the building since the building is set on the property line. The proposed landscape plan complies with LDR Section 4.6.96. Landsca a Technical Items: The following Landscape Plan items remain outstanding, and will need to be addressed prior to building permit submission. 1. Increase the size of the Coconut Palms used on the site to be in scale with the building; 2. Add a pair of Coconut Palms on either side of the main entrance; 3. increase the depth of the raised planting bed along the south property line to 36"; and, 4. The Alexander Palm trees should be replaced with taller trees such as Washingtonia Palms where possible along the rear property Iine. ~, o. ASR C H JST, E, C, T l~ R4;~!~~-~~ :~~'~ E~ V_A T ~ ~~ ~N S ~ ~' ~_. The proposed architectural elevations are in a modified Italianate style with eclectic design elements. The first floor of the east facade consists of a series of three arches supported on large columns along Ocean Boulevard. The central arch provides access to the parking garage. Sidewalks are provided on either side of the entrance road with the hotel lobby visible through the north arch and the restaurant visible through the south arch. This facade contains a series of step backs from north to south which follow the angled front •SPRAB Staff Report .: Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V 5::~.~~:alan Approval •'~' ~~•~~ Page 10 property line. The first floor is capped with a comics and decorative brackets. The next four floors contain the hotel rooms. The design is repeated an each of these floors. Raised white banding is used to separate the floors and a flat wider white band is used along the roof fine. The wall material is cast coquina, painted yellow. Each hotel room has a balcony accessed by a pair of white French doors with an arched top. The balconies project slightly from the wall face and are wrapped in blue bowed metal railings. The windows, which are painted white, are covered by green Bahama shutters. Three large towers extend above the flat roof line. They are painted yellow at their base with white above and have hipped green metal roofing. The two side towers have green round louvers on the wall face and the center tower has a larger arched louver. The area between the towers contains a flat roof with a decorative ,blue ,metal railing. The towers are also linked by a pergala with a Uctorian design. As stated earlier in this report, the height and size of the required towers should be reduced. Those towers which are not required for appurtenances should be eliminated. The pergola is placed above the allowed height limit and should also be eliminated. The same color scheme and architectural details with some variations are found on the north and south facades. To maximize ocean views for the hotel rooms, the walls have a saw tooth design with angled balconies extending out from the building. Pergolas have been added above the balconies an the tap floor. Single glass doors are used to access the balconies as opposed to the double French doors found on the east elevation. Between the projecting balconies, flat walls extend above the roof line. The areas between these walls is spanned by blue metal railings. Bath flat and metal roofed towers with the same detailing as in the east elevation extend above the roof on the north and South elevations. The ground floor on the south elevation is open, exposing the parking garage. A 6' wall has been added along the south property line to screen the automobiles. On the north elevation, the parking garage is enclosed by a wall but is open at the tap to allow for natural fight and ventilation. The north facade is very plain for the first 6fl' from Ocean Boulevard. Within this area, there are only two openings on each floor. Since this facade will be most visible when traveling southbound on Ocean Boulevard, additional windows or other architectural elements should be added to break up the large expanse of blank wall and add interest, It was noted earlier in this report that the Bahama shutters extend over the north property line and will need to be removed or an easement obtained. The west elevation is very plain with little variation in the flat wall plane. Additional windows or other architectural elements should be added. The paint scheme is the same as on the other elevations. On the ground floor, an arched opening on large columns provides access to the garage. An enclosed trash compactor area with aroll-down gate is provided under the roof an the first floor. The floors above contain windows with Bahama shutters. There are two towers an this facade, one with a flat roof and one with a metal roof. The tallest tower reaches a height of 62' to the peak of the roof. The area between the towers contains the same railings -and pergolas as found on the east elevation. As with the east elevation, the tower which is not required and the pergala should be eliminated. The building is only 5' from Salina Avenue which is a narrow roadway. The residential buildings across Salina Avenue will be less than 50' from the face of the building. At such a close distance, the building will have a major visual impact on these residential properties. Staff recommends that portions of the building be set back an additional 5' from Salina Avenue to allow variations in the plane of the wall. This would break up the mass of the ~SPRAB Staff Report _:,~ .:..~.} Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V 5~:.~ flan Approval Page 11 building and allow the use of larger trees suci~ as Washingtonia Palms in front of the facade. ~'~ @~. '~ ~~ ~`. }~ .,~~ _A. ~~~I~ END ~j~~l~ j~ ~.0"S 2~ '~ ~ ~~ .... ~ ~~~ 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, 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 consistency with the' Future' Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Developmen# Regulations. Section 3.1.1 A =Future Land Use Ma : The resulting use of land or structures must be allowed in the zoning district within which the land is situated and said zoning must be consistent with the applicable land use designation as shown on the Fu#ure Land Use Map. The subject property has a Zoning District Map designation of CBD {Central Business District} and is located in the CC (Commercial Core) Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13{B), Principal Uses ar~d Structures Permitted., hotels are allowed as a permitted use within the CBD zoning district. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive fnding with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map designation. Section 3.1.1(Bl - Concurrency: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan. As described in Appendix A, a posi#ive fnding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and solid waste. Section 3.1.1 (C} -Consistency (Standards-for Site Plan Actionsl: Compliance with performance standards set forth in Chapter 3 and required fndings in Section 2.4.5(F)(5) shop be the basis upon which a fnding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in making a finding of overall consistency. As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Section 2.4.5{F)(5] (Site Plan Findin~s~: Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter Three, the approving body must make a finding that the development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and SPRAB Statf Report . ~.~ Hotet Vista Del Mar - Class V Si~~' flan Approval ~~~~~ Page 12 ' nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is located at the south end of the CBD zoning district which extends southward from Atlantic Avenue along Ocean Boulevard. The development of a new hotel on the subject property is ~ compatible with the existing commercial development in the area. East of the Intracoastal Waterway, the CBD zone consists primarily of resort-oriented retail businesses, restaurants and the Marriott ho#el. Restaurants, shops and a 5-story condominium (New Monmouth) are located north of the proposed hotel site, south of Atlantic Avenue. The Marriott hotel complex is located just north of Atlantic Avenue. The CBD distric# is the highest intensity zoning district within the City and the development standards for the district were written to promote compact urban development in order to emphasize economic growth and business development. Since the type of development permitted and encouraged within the CBD is not always compatible with less intense development, it is important to minimize the impacts of new developments on adjacent properties along zoning district boundaries. The subject property is bordered by RM (Multiple Family Residential -Medium Density) zoning on the south and on the west side {across Salina Avenue). While the hotel use is compatible with this zoning district, the difference ih scale between the proposed hotel and the existing residentia! developmen# must be addressed. As proposed, the rear facade of the hotel is a relatively flat 48' high wall with additional elements on the roof. This facade., located less than 50' from one and two-s#ory residential buildings on the other side of Salina Avenue, is not compatible with this adjacent development. To achieve compatibility, portions of the building must be set back an additional 5' from Salina Avenue to allow variations in the plane of the wall. This would break up the mass of the building and permit the use of larger trees such as Washingtonia Palms in front of the facade. The additional appurtenances must be removed from the roof and additiona! windows or other architectural elements must be added. These changes have been added as conditions of approval. The property to the south is a two story condominium. The south facade of the proposed hotel has considerable variations in the wall plane and large Coconut Palms are to be planted along the facade. With the removal of the additional appurtenances on the roof, this facade is compatible with the adjacent condominium. Provided the changes as outlined above are made, a positive finding can be made that the development will be compatible and harmonious with nearby properties and the City as a whole. The project wilt ful#ill the need for additional hotel rooms in the city and promote additional economic development. This should have a positive effect on property values in the area. COMPREHENS[h'E PLAN POLICIES: A review of the objectives and policies of the adapted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies were no#ed: Future Land Use Element Ob'ective A-7: Property shall be developed or redeveloped, in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate in terms ~SPRAB Staff Report ~.~;`~ Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V S'r~ ~~~~lan Approval ' Page ~ 3 ' ' ` of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complementary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. When the property is cleared (demolition of the existing motel) there should be no physical conditions that would prevent the redevelopment of the property. The site is located in a Central Business District and will be developed in a manner consistent with that zoning designation. The project will be complementary to the adjacent land uses provided the conditions of approval are addressed. The project fulfills the need for additional hotel rooms within the City. !`#ousiri~ Elemenit t'olir,~_ A_o1~_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 sha11 be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas, if it is de#ermined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. As discussed above, the proposed hotel will be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood provided the conditions of approval outlined in this report are met. The project is consistent with this policy in that it will not result in a degradation of the neighborhood. Coastal Management Element; Goal Area "C": Development and redevelopment in the Coastal Planning Area sha[I be compatible with the existing character of the area, and shall provide for a sensitive balancing of the needs for economic development, redevelopment, and environmental protection. ©biective C-3: The development of vacant and under-developed land on the barrier island shall occur in a manner which does not change the character, intensity of use, or demand upon existing infrastructure in the Coastal Planning Area, as dictated in the following policies: Policy C-3,2: There shall be no change in the intensity of land use within the barrier island and all infill development which does occur shalt connect to the City's storm water management system and sanitary sewer system. This is an redevelopment project of an underdeveloped property within the Central Business District. The development promotes economic growth in the downtown and is consistent with the character of the touris#-orien#ed commercial development within this area of the Central Business District. It will provide needed hotel rooms within the City, which will serve the local beach community and tourists. The project will comply with the City's site lighting restrictions in order to protect the beach area used for turtle nesting and hatchlings. This site has a Commercial Core Land Use designation and no change in the intensity of land use designation is proposed. Due to the property's location, there is not an opportunity to connect to the City's storm water management system. However, the project will be connected to the City's sewer system.. ~SPRAS Staff Report •=•. ~,~ ;,--~ Hotel Vista Dei Mar - Class V Sii~~•~~lan Appro~at ~ __ Page ~4 Section 3.'l.'1 (D1-Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis ofi this report,. a positive finding of compliance with the LDRs can be made, provided Site Plan Technical Items and conditions of approval are addressed. .~. ..~:: ~+ .i ~~~~~ max.., ~ ` R~I~l, i, ~i~Y~ O' ~ F,~R S ~~ ~s ~.~ ~. y~3w~._. Downtown Deyela ment Authori DDA. i he DDA reviewed the request at~its meeting of i~a'y~i6;~2D01 and recommended approval subject to addressing the technical site plan issues raised by staff, which are contained in this report. ,Community Redevelopment Agency ~CR~ The CRA reviewed the reques# at its meeting of June 16, 20D1, and recommended approval subject to addressing compatibility with adjacen# properties and the technical site plan issues raised by staff, which are contained in this report. CQUrtesy Notice• Special courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowners and civic associations: • PROD -Progressive Residents of Defray • Chamber of Commerce • Property Owners of the Bahama House Condo Presidents Council Beach Property Owners Association. A letter has been provided from the Beach Property Owners Association expressing concerns with the scale of the building, trafFc flow and adequacy of the supplied parking. A copy of the letter is attached to this report. Other letters of support or objection, if any, will be presented at the SPRAB meeting. . ~ , k ~~ ~ A S``~ ~' S~.S N•T~' A ~I:;D ~ C Q„~l ~ ~. ~„~ ~~~7 N S fir: The development proposal to construct a T1 room hotel with a pool on South Ocean Boulevard is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are a number of items that must be addressed and have been attached as conditions of approval. Consistency with Chapter 3 and 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations will be achieved provided the conditions of approva! are addressed. . ~ ~ L ~ _ 9. ~ ~' 1. Continue with direction. 2. Approve the Class V si#e plan, landscape plan and elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Pertormance Standards} ~~ SPRAB Staff Report '-~, : ~. Hotel Vista, Qel Mar-Class V Sht~i%fan Appro~af , ~ .'~~? Page 15 and Section 2.4.5(F}{5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions. 3. Deny the Class V site plan, landscape plan, and elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based an a failure to make posi#ive findings with respect to the Land Development Regulations. G. ~~ N .,. ~. r ~ .-_ a~ mac.. ._m ~ ' "~~.::~.. ~. KF .n.. ,. ~,T .ems ~ :iti :~ _~ ~ ~~ The technical problems identified in this report are such that major revisions to the building design will t;e required to address the issues. The resultant design may vat u~i~siderabiy from the current submittal. Staff recommends that the Board provide direction to the applicant on these issues and that the item be tabled so that the Plans can be revised. If the Board chooses to approve the plan with conditions to address the issues, the following motions are appropriate: By separate motions: Waivers• 1. Approve a waiver #o LDR Section 4.6.14{A}, to reduce the visibility triangle at the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 2D' to 13' based upon positive fndings with LDR Section 2.4.7(B}(5). 2. Approve a waiver to LDR Section 6.1.3(B), to eliminate the required sidewalk along Salina Avenue. Site Plan: Approve the Class V site plan for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 {PerFormance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(F){5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans; 2. The design of the loading area must be changed to provide the required maneuvering area and the garage entrances must be modified ar the height of the 1 st floor increased to provide 12' of vertical clearance; 3. The Bahama shutters an the north facade of the building must be removed or an easement obtained for the encroachment on the adjacent property; 4. Ail appurtenances on the roof which are not required must be removed; 5. No loading or unloading of vehicles is permitted on Salina Avenue; 6. Provide space for a fire truck to get off of Ocean Boulevard. if the adjacent property is used, an easement must be provided; - ~-SPRAB Staff Report ;~ ;--1 Hotek Vista Del Mar - Class V SitL-r~lan Approval . Page 1fi 7. Alighting plan which details mitigation measures for all light sources visible from the beach must be provided; 8. Additional access to the trash compactor that does not require opening the roll-down gate on Salina Avenue must be provided; - 9. [f a valet queue is established in the drop-off area, it may only be used for guests of the hotel. Landsca a Plana: Approve the landscape plan for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development. Regulations, subject to tie following conditions: 1. Address all Landscape Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. Elevations: Approve the elevations far Hotel Vista. Del Mar, based upon posi#ive findings with respect to Section 4.6.18 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. That portions of the building be set back an additional 5' from Salina Avenue to allow variations in the plane of the wap and that additional architectural features be provided to add interest. 2. That additional windows or other architec#ural elements be added to break up the large expanse of blank wall and add interest on the north elevation. Attachments: ^ Appendix A ^ Appendix B ^ Reduced Floor Plans, Landscape Plan, Building Sections, and Building Elevations ^ Letter from the Beach Property Owners' Association f:lpkanning & zoninglboardslsprablhote[ vista del rnar.doc .. ~ O a ,Y~.~? ~~~~ ~~ ~: i ~ _ m..~. .._.mT.. ~ ! ~ =w „I tai a~~ -~;~ 3'I +r~ru 4 C~~ V Q U J1~ ~al~~ ~ / a ~ n.. 1 / a ,~ w ., ~' ~ '-..~ . ~f~.~ 4. Y i a ~r ,- ~, -- _ ~ ~+ ~ ~ y ~ all I ?~ d S Is'I ~.--I^ ~ ~ ~ ~ R G G a r- a• ~~ Z m a ~+ s Q33 r 0~ in a~~ yd; ~~~ Q • ~_~ ~_of Z 4~ f i ~~ _O a~ - E • ~ ~ ~ _ g~Y ': r ~ x n ~ .X v, ~ ~ n < V r ~ ~ ¢ k.` ~~ ~ a ~ ~ d ~ ° ~ ~g ~ 8 pi O ~ F . Gp~s~yxw O I~ P ~FoR u E`°~ ;:i. p S ¢ ~ eo ~a" ~ . boon ~ -~== a ~~ ~ ^g~ ~~~A ~ ~ ~ a~C~w m X55 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ m m m~r~it~ ~ 88 m m ~ ~ u} [a U Q ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ m n orae m.•sima a-r war. w ~,a.ow U $ ,~ 1 ~ j lL a ... -~ -+ a ~~ 3 ~ ~ Y1 ~ ~ ~~~ z ~~ =y ~ - ~ ~k '~~ I ~ j ... F ~~ ii ~ ;r~ .~ ~ i ~ - ~ ~x ~ ~. ~ ~ °~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ z~ ~ ; 1 p ~ ~. ~, is ' _~ ~ ~ `e~Y H~ .. y~11r f \ eC• r \l w4 ~J LL~ 7~ ~~ r~ Z ~_ '11 w ~V J Y LL O~~ ~~m ~ ~ O 1 1 y° f s a ~ ~~ ~ 1 - ~ i £ 9 ~1 ~ , ~ , ~. I~®~r. r~ , ~' ~ ~ ~. ~ 1 M M' __ 4 n • ~ W, , K j O~ y. 6 E < r = i[ a ~~~~~~ ~ S d F ~ E n ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~S S ~ a~ L$ ~ Q ~ b 8 s ?. ~a y,y ~O 5 ~p ~~ ze y~ c^ E8' -. ... e.4. ~Y 'Y 9 ~i ~O ~~ EH pi 7 $~' S' ~C• p' c 7L S Y `~ ~ ` .\ Y! ~ ~ _~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~w 14~~ ~I~:~ .~~r~r.x ~~~,~~c~ ,~w ~ ~ ~ Y f ~ ~n a ~s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n7 ~R 3+~ gF ~@ y4 'a a a a .a - I~ I I ij'l Ih i I I {~{ t~ i~ 1 ~ ~' 4 ~ ~ I ~ _= i ~ ~~ - ~ ~ I~ i ~ I~ I~~~ II - ~~ i~~i NEii ~~ y$i ~ I a~~Y Q ~~ ~ t 8., '~_ ~~ ~~ :~ • ~y ~~~ ~ ¢ i t ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ $~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 4 ~e~ ~~ z ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~• L~ 0 Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~: ~: : ~: ~: fee ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .-: --~ -_=~ ~. ____ ~I~Ili~l i-i ~~~:_ ~: ~~~~~: ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~': - i ~~~ i-1 ~ L~: ---U .. U .S = -~ --~ ca ZOI~ -- •. ~,-~,yi w~ ., PLANTING NOTEr. All plant materials shall conform to the standards for Rarida Na. 1 err batter as given in "Grades and STandards for Nursery Plants Part I, February 1998, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee. All sad sha11 be clean and reasonably free of weeds and pasts or diseases. All landscape areas no# covered with trees, shrubs or ground covers shall be sodded with St. Augustine "F[oratam" unless atharw.ise Hated. All landscape areas shall be mulched to provide a minimum of 3° Grade A Eucalyptus mulch. Contractor is responsible far locating all underground ut~ities prior to installation of planting materials to avoid damage Contractor is to furnish ail materials, equipment. labor and plants as required to install the proposed planting as indicated an the landscape pions. Ail trees are to be staked and/or guyed as indicated on the planting detcils. All plant materials to be backfilled with a mixture of 1/3 approved Florida peat, 1/3 approved topsoil and 1/3 clean sand. To this mixture add 15 pounds of fi-fi-ia fertilizer par cubic yard. Thoroughly mix ail parts prior to piercing In plant pits. The Contractor shaA lay out the locations of the plant beds and contact the Landscape Architect far approval before the installation afi the plant material. The Landscape Architect may adjust the location of the plants be#ore planting. AA quantities an the plans are intended as a guide and shall be verified by the Contractor with a comprehensive plant take-off. Should any discrepancies occur, the Landscape Architect is to be notified for clarification prior to bidding. Any existing .plant material to remain shall be protected during construction with a physical barrier to be approved by the Landscape Architect. Ali landscape islands and other landscape areas that are ad}'aeent to vehitular use areas are required to be curbed with eoncret.e Han-mountable curbing at least six inches in height. The unpaved portion of the R:O.W. adjacent to the property line and to the edge of roadway shall be landscaped with sad and irrigated. All landscape areas are to be irrigated to provide a minimum of 15096 coverage. using Xeriscope principles. KEY PLANT NAAAE QTY HT SP i2ENiARKS CN Coconut Pakm 7 6' ct Relocated from on site CRl Purple Crinum Lily 6 35' 35' Full CHY Redtip Cocaplum 2i 24" 18` 24" oc PED Double Alexander Perim 5 12' EUP European Fan Palm 3 4' 30" full to ground FAK Fakahatchee Grass 9 30' 24" Rpe Pigmy Date Palm 5 6' 4' Triple Trunk NE° Enston Fern 4Q5 1?" ":2` '•13~ oc PAT Pathos Vine 24 fi` 12" 12" oe SUN Dune Sunflower 71 6' 12' 12' oc SP Sabel Palm 4 14' oa Booted VAR Variegated Arboricola 126 24° 16' 76° oc XAN Xanadu 44 18" 24` 30" ac M .-~~ '_ (i~i r '~ r F aA~rk~~' a7~+r ~ ~° a ~~ ~~~p~~ s °°`~~,' e 'Er ~VP~y- ~f. ~~~~1~ ,a:7 `~ .~ .~~ ~©r~ ~ ,~cs,~..w ~~a+ r ~ ~~~+~.''`. .x...s ev'~e=. @ '. Pursuant to Section 3.9.1(B~ Concurrency as defined pursuan# to Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Pian must be met and a determination made that the public faciliity needs of the requested land use andlor development application will not exceed the ability of the Gity to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: ^ Water service is available to the site via a service lateral connection to a fi" main located in the Ocean Boulevard right-of--way. ^ Sewer service is available to the site via a service lateral connection to an 8" main Igcated in the Georgia Street right of-way. ^ An existing fire hydrant is located at the NE comer of the site on Ocean Boulevard. A new fire line will be installed along the southwest corner of the property, connected to an 8" main in Salina Avenue. The Building will be fully sprinkled. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the Ci#y's Water Treatment Plarat and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant far the City at build- aut. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to these level of service standards. Drainage• A preliminary engineering plan was submitted by the applicant. Since mast of the ground level parking area is covered by the second floor of the building, drainage of the parking surFace will be minimal. Any storm water that enters the parking area will be accommodated via sheet flow into a drain grate at the driveway entrance to Salina Avenue. Runoff from the roof will be discharged into catch basins at the- northwest and southwest comers of the building and all the drainage will be diverted to exfiltration trenches along the west property line. Exfiltration test results will be required prior to obtaining a building permit far the paving and drainage system. Although no problems are anticipated in accommodating on-site drainage in this manner, the final design will depend upon the results of the test. Thus, positive findings with respect to this Ievel of service standard can be made. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located within the TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD (Central Business District), OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District} and the West Atlantic Avenue Business Corridor. The TCEA exempts the above- described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. However, a traffic statement has been provided by the applicant which indicates that the construction of the new hotel wil! generate 374 additional trips onto the surrounding roadway network. The additional traffic generated will not have an adverse impact an this level of service standard. Parks and Oaen Soace: The 77 additional rooms will not have a significant impac# with respect to level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities. However, pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.2(C}, Impact Fee Required, whenever a development is proposed upon land which is not designated far park purposes in the Comprehensive Plan, impact fee of $500.00 per dwelling unit (including hotel Appendix A ~:~~~ Standards for Site Plan Actions -~~~~~: =~ ~' Page 2 ' ' rooms} will be collected prior to issuance of building permits for each unit. Thus, an impact fee of $35,50 will be required of this development. Solid Waste: The Solid Waste Authority indicates that it has capacity to serve development in the County at its current LOS of 7.2 pounds per day per capita far the life of the existing landfill (approximately 202'1). Based upon the Solid Waste Authority's trash generation rates, trash generated each year by the proposed 49,478 sq. ft. hotel will be approximately 4.7 pounds per sq. ft. or ~ 1.6.3 tons per year. Since the total (rash generated by this proposal can be accommodated by existing landfill facilities, a positive finding with respect to this level of service standard can be made. ~~ r ~ w ,~ ' ~§ ~7i'~~c~K~ ~ I. ~ ~ Syr ~J3~ +"rr a '_~~ e !=~ r E~ ~ Tz ° ~ ~ '~. r '~~~ ~ c { ~~ ..'~~" < < P,~-P 1\.,» D~„E- Jl P n F', _ ~ ~, -. .,A~i~ i I-, ~ 'r r i sr s~ wu5 [ °~-~ I r ~~- 4~ ~~ ° ~S°°~'= D A'`.R ~S~ O `i~ S~i~T'E P 'L A~,N A G T i ~ 1~5 ~ ~, , - {s ,N.s a ~.. ~s~:~..,~~..,~.-.~ ~r~ . -«~.c~~Pry . ~w ~. ,~.~.. ._xo-z..~r :? . Ni- A. Building design, Landscaping, and lighting (glare} shall be such #hat they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Provide relief is granted for the site visibility triangle on Salina Avenue Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms 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 Nat applicable Meets intent of standard X The provision of the bike rack is required. Does not meet intent T ___ 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 Meets intent of standard X ©oes not meet intent D. The City steal[ 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. Nat applicable X Meets intent of standard Daes not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shat! be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Daes not meet intent l=. Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soli, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Nat applicable Meets intent of standard X Even though the property is not currently vacant, it is noted that the project wilt provided needed hotel rooms in the City and will be complementary to adjacent uses, provided the conditions of approval contained in this report are met. Appendix 13 Standards for Site Plan Actions ~~~ ;. Page 2 • Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the developmen# 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 profle, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element. This shall be • accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-Z of the Housing Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not mAet intent H. The City shall consider the effec# that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulafiion 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. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X This standard was addressed in the body of the report with the review of applicable comprehensive plan objectives and policies Does not meet intent L Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing ii #o become a high accident location, without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets in#ent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of a[I new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households ~~aving a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments loca#ed in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer Phan 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent F"F~DM i2QBE~2T G. CURR I E Pf~F.' i P PHA N0. 561 243 .8184 , ~ 3un. 27 2001 ~ : 3~M P2 a~+tr~v 24'-0" FO'-O broP ~ptFe l®®!A' saw aeon A~ _ -~ - - ~s~ro~ s _ •~ TTS ~ ~~ ,~A f~WV/7 R a~ ' I"~f~,' i~ ~~ ~ ~~ L ,.'`1' ~r...~~ r' y~ t 4 ~ ~ ~ L/,f Z~f~~ ~' ~ ~~ W I . i Y 1 ~ u~ ~ Maey ~ ~n,~~ 1~ \~ ~ y/ U Y"` ~ ~ rz~ ~~ ~ 4` ~~.t r ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~t _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ OF~1GE ElC` .. io'~" ~sraueartr t~ era. ~r. . ~: Lop~'Y ~~ ~~ a4' x 4!F' x 36' 111Ca1i PLR eax eTrn aF s1 SOE !'1'i.~ r-~..~ . , - .., , :~ ,.~, SPECIAL COURTESY NOTICE TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION The purpose of this special courtesy notice is to inform you that at its Meeting to be held on WEDNESDAY, JULY 1'[, 200'1, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board will consider a request for site plan approval for Hotel Vista Del Mar. The subject site is located on the west side of Ocean Boulevard, approximately 300 feet south of East Atlantic Avenue (64 South Ocean Boulevard). The meeting begins at fi:30 p.m. and will be held in the Commission Chambers, City Hall 100 NW 1~ Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. The following is a brief description of the project. The plans are available for review at the Planning and Zoning Department. If you would like to obtain additional information on this praject please feel free to contact Senior Planner Ron Hoggard, at 243-7040. If you cannot make this meeting but would like to be heard on the project, you may Submit your comments as follows: - By phone at (5fi1) 243-7040 - By fax at (561) 243-7221 - By a-mail at pzmail@delrayplanning.org - By regular mail at 100 NW 1~ Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 Previously you were noted of the site plan request tv demolish the Bermuda Inn Hotel and construct. a 5-story hotel with a parking garage on the ground and basement level. At the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board meeting of June 20, 2001, the Board tabled the item in order to address compatibility issues. The applicant has now submitted revised plans to address #hose concerns. Some of the elements of the development proposal which have been modified include changes to the architectural elevations, the reduction of the number of suites from 71 to 70, a reduction in the area devoted to the restaurant use and the addition of landscaping materials. ^ate Mailed: July fi, 2001 ~0 ewiiAr ~i°u5t 81G cv-or ~~ ' ~ ' '~~ ~~ I I '" rl~TrcN l ~ BERIC5HlRE ~° ~~ w I ccNOO Q I .~ ~ I 8Y THE SEA ~ ~ ~ ~ GR05VENOF? ~ a Z ~ N aNmo LOwRY STREET MANOR NDUSE ST. ++~~~~' scnea~ J~1~ppk~ +~!^y1I CDNDD K.I d ~ 1r~Ar T!~~ X16} I °av°° ~a VETERANS ~ DELRAY ~ _ ,~* °`~~ sra SLlMMfT n GROVE ~~' 2 PARK ~ ATLANTIC ~ CONDO w ~ CDNDD ra PLAZA ~ ~ a sE~w ~ BARR ~ ~ ~ TERRACS SPA.NlSN sve CONDO RIVER s-.o-+s DELRAY BEAGN RESORT I MARRIOTT ATLAN TiC AVENUE ~,, ~ ~?~ i~~l~ w ~ I . ~ ~ I WATERWAY EAST- ~„ ~ ~ a' ~ a ~¢ cn COMME,4CIAL ~,~ - ~ r~ CDNDD ~ ~ ~ z ~~ i ~ "~ ~ z ~ IoNAYAR caro~o cis ~ ~ousE a HARBOUR a I a '~ CDNDD ° `ate" ~ `~` ~"o'sc G I 15T 7. 1~IlRAMAR STREET er v ~ r ~i ~ ~ r ~ I Li x°"100 ~ o DOVER NDUSE CDNDD ~n ~ ~ ~ P"'"` ~ Q OCEAN PLACE O z O ~ CDNDD p ~ ~ C~ Q] ~~ I ~ o cocavur r;dwl `y NAR~RAI I I ! ~ y ~° .E. 2Nd ST. INGRAHAM A Q ~ ~ ,~ s~ ~ ~, JARDlN DEL MAR ,s-.s-.3 ~ CDNDD ~ `~~aa oEex,~r nc~nK uu45 QCEAN TERR. V y,- SEA GA TE ~ ~ `~N00 O 3 TOWERS > I ~,~,~,E~ ~~~ ~~~~ I f `~~J ~I ~~f!f N A A I I I I S~ T, i "B~r~i°u:~`Neo " WIIVDE~dERE NDUSE CDNDD N --~- HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR CfTY 6F DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING k Z.ONlNC ~EPAR'IIIAEHT -- DIGITAL 845E AfAP S?S'TEI/ -- MAP RE:': Lra525 T:EVIN k~ARKER r..--~ _'~- VIA MARINA 24,8 ~VEN$TIAN DRIVE sDE£TtAY BEACH, FL 33483 BRANNEN GEORGE W & PATRICIA 1212 BA'TAVIA AVENUE GENEVA IL 50134-3204 BELLANTE DANIEL D 809 N D ST.P.EET LA1:E WORTH. FL 33460 BELLANTE D_~,ATIEL & PAMELA REEDER 5 NE 2ND CT DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 GRACEY MAfiTHEW JR 1109 HARBOR DR. D£LRAY BEACH, FT.. 33483 GRADY SCOTT D 72 S. RCEAN BLVD ~6 DEL~'.AY BEACH, FL 33/+83 P>ERRY DOI~ FRANCISCO ~DSTDAS 40 S DG~' BLVD DELRA:Y EEACH, FL 33453 ,.. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPQRT--- MEETING DATE: July 11, 2DD1 (Continuation from June 2D, 2DD1 meeting) AGENDA ITEM: v.c. ITEM: Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations #or Ha#el Vista Del Mar, Located an the West Side of South Ocean Boulevard (S. R. A1A); Appraximatefy 3DD' South of East Atiantic Avenue. GENERAL DATA: Owner ........................ .................... Applicant .................... .................... Agent ..................... ................. LDCatlan ..................... .................... Property Size ............. .................... Future Land Use Map ....... .............. CLJn'ent Zpnln~ ........... ...:............... Adjacent Zoning ......... ..........North; East: South: West: Rxisting Land Use....-, .-•---------------- Propcsed Land Us= ... .................. . Water service ............ .....~-~------------ 5~wpr 5erv~c8 ............ ................... Eugenia Kerstin, Trustee Louis Capano Robert Currie, Architect Ra~ert G. Currie Partnership West side of South Ocean Boulevard (S.R. A1A), approximately 3D0' south of East Atlantic Avenue. D.412 Acre Commercial Core CBD (Centre! Business District} CBD OS (open space) RM (Multiple Family Residenfiial- 'fdfedlum Density} RM Two-story motel with pool Demolition of existing motel and corstructian of a ~-story Hotel (48' high to roof deck), with 7l) rooms, fine 1,297 sp. f<. restaurant, 56 parking spaces,. roof top. swimming pool, privatQ gymfspa and associated iandSCaping. Existing on sit°. Existing on site. ::~ DORCHESTER ~ CO-OP 7N0-IAS ST ~~F~' on+• 5+ r ' v ~.,~ < ~ 9fRK5HlRE S.1s. m +a ~ 8Y I!"IIa SEA ~ GRDSIrtNDR O C r F ~pxRr TREET ~ A~ANOR 'HOUSE ~,,,, coNDo .~ t rNZc .r srx GROVE wo. Z N COfJDO L~1 d. ~ ~ o 5PANf5H "' DrLRAY BEACH RIVER MARRIOTT RESDxr ATLANTIC AVcNU€ ,,,, h? ~ ~ ARIM~IC m'P ~ ~ i i a ~. ~ I ~~ MNi~AMATt 5i. m III I I I DOVc'R HDU5E CONDO ,~ I OCEAN PLACE 5 `v CONDO p Qs Q ~ ~,-~,T ~ O ~~ i~ ~ i z '~ ~ ~ ~~ ~°, I ~ JARDfN DEL MRR w '~. CDNDD ~ `4. I i ~i ~ IlII I~ ~ A h v ~i .rd 1 I ~ I I WMlDEACC~Df1 DL'SE /~ AY $7REET " / dn[ =v.e r"` I ~ LANlKAI M.k t wriAS coN~D N LANCER WA"' I-°° _ ' ~: s ~ ns ~~ ~ " G ~ 9 ~~~. i a 't~ ~ Jt Pi-~ y ~ ~ V~ ~ ® ' 1: The action before the Board is that of approval ofi a Class V site plan which incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for Hotel Vista Del Mari pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F}: ^ Site Plan; ^ Landscape Plan; and, ^ Elevations. The subject property is located on the west side or South Ocean Bouievara (A-1-A), approximately 300 feet south of Atlantic Avenue and is zoned CBD (Central Business District}. ~ ~ 3.T_' ' The subject property consists of Lots 6-10, of the Ocean Park subdivision and is approximately 0.41 acres in size. The site currently contains the Bem7uda Inn, a 20 raam, two-story mote! (constructed in 1968), with a pool and associated parking. The parcel was zoned LC (Limited Commercial} until it was rezoned to CBD (Central Business District) with the Citywide Rezoning associated with the adoption of the Land Development Regulations in 1990. At its meeting of June 20, 200'1, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board reviewed the site plan approval to demolish the existing motel .and to construct a new hotel to be known as Hotel Vista Del Mar. Staff presented the item and Hated that revised plans were submitted the day of the meeting addressing many of staffs comments, except building height, loading, and compatibility. The Board also had concerns with the compatibility of the project with the properties to the north and west. Revised plans have been submitted and are now before the Board for action. :. ~m -- ~-_ ~r~ ~ ,~a~- ~~ y ~: The new hotel has a total of 70 rooms, a private gymispa, a rooftop swimming pool and a 1,297 sq. ft. restaurant. There are a total of 56 parking spaces accommodated within the building on the ground floor and below grade. There are six floors, including the sub-grade parking level. The building is 48 feet in height. S~ T:E~' P ~L'' A ~N_ = .A;~ .~~ t;, ~ S l S ~ F.~F - ~- ~ - COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking fna[ action on the site and development applicationlrequest. SPRAf3 Staff Report Hotel Vista Dei Mar- Class V~~Pfan Approval -~• Page 2 "~ Building Setbacks: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G)(2){a) Setbacks, within this portion of the CBD zoning district, a front setback of not less than 5', nor greater than 10' shall be provided. As the property fronts on two streets, it is considered a double frontage lot. The proposed hotel is setback 5' from both Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue, thus meeting this requirement. Normally, a side interior setback is not required when there is dedicated access to the rear of the building. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.fi.4{A)(1) Commercial__Zoning Adiacent to Residential Zoning, a 10' setback is required where the rear or side of a commercially zored property directly abuts residentially zoned property without any division or separation between them. Since the adjacent property to the south is zoned RM, a 10' side se#back has been provided. Since the property to the north is also zoned CBD, a side setback has not be provided along the north property line. Based upon the above, the building setback requirements have been met. Building Height: Pursuant to Section 4.3.4(K}, within the CBD zone district, a maximum building height of 48" is allowed. The hotel has a height of 48' to the flat roof deck. Appurtenances, usually required to be placed above the roof level of a building and not intended for human occupancy,. may be allowed to extend above the height limitations when approved by action of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. This provision allows for elevators, stair towers, cooling towers, and mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof. The design of the building is such that there are three towers and a Power mechanics! equipment area which project above the 48' high roof deck. The towers, which accommodate two sets of stairs and the elevator shafts, reach a height of 58'-fi" to the mid Tine of their roofs. Although the height of the mechanical equipment area has not been indicated on the plans, it is not visble above the parapet wall on the building elevations. The height of this area must be shown on the plans. This has been added as a site plan technical item. A parapet wall and decorative blue metal railing is provided around the roofline of the building. Open Space: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(2) Open Space, within the CBD zone district east of the Intracoastal Waterway, there shall be no minimum open space requirement. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the body acting upon a development application within the CBD may require that open areas, including but not limited to courtyards, plazas, and landscaped setbacks, be provided in order to add interest and provide relief from the building mass. ft is noted that some landscaping has been provided adjacent to Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue as well as along the south side of the building. Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.fi.9(C)(7){e), hotels and motels are required to provide 0.7 spaces for each .guest room plus 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to ballrooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, lounges, and shops. However, pursuant to LDR SPRAB Staff Report .-~ Hotel Vista DeE Mar- Ciass V ~. ~~ ~•Plan Approval ~~.~. Page 3 ` Section 4.4.13(G){1){d), within the CBD zone district, restaurants require 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of float area. The parking requirement has been met as 56 spaces are required [70 room x .7lroom +'1,297 sq. ft. restaurant11,000 x fi = 57 - 1 space reduction = 5fi] and 56 spaces (37 standard spaces, 1 fi compact spaces and 3 handicapped spaces) have been provided. Handicapped Parking: Based on the total number of parking spaces provided, three handicapped accessible parking spaces are required and three have been provided, thereby meeting the requirement. Dead-end Parking Bays: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9.(D)(4)(c), Dead-end Parking Bays, a 24' wide by 6' maneuvering area is required at the end of dead-end parking bays. The maneuvering area provided on the sub-level parking floor meets this requirement. Loading: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.10{D)(1), single unit loading spaces must be 12' x 30' with a 30' maneuvering apron and 12' of vertical clearance. The loading space provided is only 11'-3" wide. The loading space is located between a parking space and a column which bath extend behind the loading space. Even though there is 32'-4" behind the space, the configuration reduces the maneuvering area to only 24', since the vehicle cannot be turned until it is clear of the adjacent obstructions. Documentation must be provided that the loading space as shown on the plan will accommodate the types of vehicles expected to service the hotel ar the design must be changed to provide the required size space and maneuvering area. This has been attached as a condition of approva{. Hatels between 20,000 and 100,000 sq. ft. shall provide 2 loading spaces. The applicant proposes to provide only one loading space. The body approving the :site plan shall determine the adequacy of the provisions which are made far (un)loading. The applicant has submitted the following statement: "Based on the requirements of the hole! operator, and our experience, we arse of fhe opinion that for this project, one will be sufficient. The time of loading operations will be controlled to limif the impact on the guesfs and genera! public." In additional to the one loading space provided, other opportunities for loading and unloading exist on the site. Smaller delivery vehicles can park in the garage to make deliveries or utilize the drop-off area in front of the building. Based on these factors, one loading space should be adequate for the facility. However, it is important that the project's impact on Salina Avenue be minimized for compatibility with the residential developments fronting Salina Avenue. Therefore, no loading or unloading of vehicles, except trash pickup, is permitted an Salina Avenue. This has been added as a condition of approval. Drop-off Area and Stacking: Two drop-off spaces have been provided in front of the hotel lobby. The. applicant has provided a traffic statement dealing with the adequacy of this drop-ofF area. The analysis SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista ©el Mar- Class V~ Plan Approval ~~ Page 4 ~ ' : ~` indicates that the maximum number of trips entering the hotel requiring check-in and baggage drop-off would be 70 per day, assuming a daily turnover of all hotel rooms. Since the usually check in time is between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., an average of 12 trips during a one-hour period would require drop-off parking. Since there are two spaces, 6 vehicles per hour could be accommodated in each space. This allows ten minutes for unloading and parking per vehicle, which should be adequate. Since there is no s#acking provided for the drop-off area; in the event that both spaces are taken, a vehicle would by-pass the drop-off area and either use the loading space in the garage or park in a regular parking space before checking in. Although the drop-off area is adequate for check-in and baggage drop-off, it is not large enough to operate a valet queue to park vehicles for customers of the restaurant and surrounding businesses. if a valet queue is established a4 this location, it may only be for guests of the hotel. This has been added as a condition of approval. Point of Access: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D}{3}{a}, the point of access to a street or alley shall be a maximum of twenty-four feet (24'} unless a greater width is specifically approved as a part of the site and development plan. The main access drtve in fronf of the building is 32' wide. The additional width allows vehicles to pull directly into the drop-off area with minimal conflicts and should be approved. Visibility at Intersections: Pursuan# to LDR Section 4.6.14{A), a visibility triangle is required at the intersections of roads {corner lots} and driveways. An unobstructed view within this triangle visibility mus# be provided between the heights of three feet and six-feet. The required visibility triangle at the intersection of two streets is 40' and 20' at driveways. The purpose of the triangle is to provide a sufficient line of sight for drivers to spot oncoming traffic. These triangles are required for walls, fences, and landscaping. The visibility triangles at the garage entrances is approximately 5' on Salina Avenue and T on Ocean Boulevard, where 20' is required. A waiver to this requirement has been requested. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the gran#ing 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 on other property far another applicant or owner. The building setback on Salina Avenue and Ocean Boulevard is 5'. Since the driveway entrances immediately enter the parking garage, the building columns on either side of the entrance encroach into the required 20' visibility triangle. Salina Avenue is a narrow roadway which dead-ends approximately 150' south of the subject properly. The 5' visibility triangle provided is adequate given the low speed and limited traffic an this roadway. In reality, visibility is only an issue for the exit lane of the garage. The primary turning movement will be to the right (north) upon exiting the garage and the visibility triangle from SPRAB Staff Report Hotel V;sta del Mar- Class V. ~_~' Plan Approval ; Page 5 the exit lane to the left is 20', Additionally, the driver's position on the left side of the vehicle and openings in the building walls on both sides of the entrance provide much greyter visibility as vehicles approach the exit. The visibility triangle for Ocean Boulevard is 20' except for the encroachment of two major columns which reduce it to T. However, fram the driver's position in the vehicle, the actual visibility triangle for the exit Lane is approximately 16` to the right (south) and over 20' to the left (north}. Also, there is an additional 12' between the property line and the travel lanes for Ocean Boulevard. Given these conditions, the T visibility triangle on Ocean Boulevard is adequate. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services., and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same i;onclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section. 2.4.7{B}{5}, can be made. Sidewalk: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B), a sidewalk is required to be constructed in the right-of- ways that abut the subject properly line. This would apply along Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue. A 5' wide sidewalk exists along Ocean Boulevard but no sidewalk exists along Salina Avenue. Pursuant to LDR Sectian 6.1.3(D)(2), where it is clear that the sidewalk will not serve its intended purpose, the requirement far installation of a sidewalk adjacent to the property being developed may be waived during site plan or plat approval. The applicant has requested a waiver from the installation of a sidewalk along Salina Avenue on the basis that there is no ability fvr an extension of the sidewalk to the narth or south. Pursuant to LDR Sectian 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 pr"tvilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Back-out parking exists along both sides of this roadway and there is not room to install a sidewalk wi#hin the existing right-of--way. Without a reasonable expectation that the sidewalk could be extended on either side, the sidewalk would not fulfill its intended purpose. Therefore, it is inappropriate to provide a sidewalk along Salina Avenue. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe .situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conciusian. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), can be made. Reduction in Right-of--Way Width: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1 {D}, the required right-of-way width for SaEina Avenue is 60' and a 21.43' right-of-way currently exists. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1{D)(4), a reduction in right-af-way widths for existing streets may be granted by the City Engineer upon SPRAB StaTf Report Hotel Vista E7el Mar - Class V `~~ Plan Appro~a! .,~~~~;~- Page 6 ~ . favorable recommendation from the Development Services Management Group (DSMG). The DSMG recommended that reductions in right-of--way width for Salina be granted. Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting must be provided within the proposed parking area. However, the location of the project also requires compliance with Section 91.5'! of the City of Delray Beach Code of Ordinances, Lightin4 Restrictions Along Beach, stated as follows: "1Vo artificial light shat! iilurninafe any area of the beach which is used for tarfle nesting and hafchlings. !n order to accomplish fhis, al! lighting steal! be shielded or screened so that the light is not a visible source from the beach during fhe night period from April 7, to October 39 of each year. "Night Period" is defined herein as being thaf Time from dusk to dawn" The location of this project requires that a complete lighting plan for the building indicating the location and fxture details for all lighting sources which could be visible from the beach. be provided. This includes interior fixtures which could be visible through windows or other building openings. Details of measures that will be taken to screen the lighting must also be provided. Section 9.1 of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code should be used as a guide for mitigation measures to screen lighting sources. The provision of this plan and mitigation details has been added as a condition of approval. Trash Compactor: An enclosed trash compactor area with a roll down gate is provided under the building on the first floor. Trash pick-up -will be from Salina Avenue via the roll-down gate. BFl has approved the configuration. To minimize the impact on the residential properties to the west, the enclosure area will be deodorized and air conditioned. This has also been added as a condition of approval. A trash chute system will be utilized to dispose of trash from within the hotel and a secondary access door, located on the side wall of the enclosure will be utilized to dispose of trash and garbage from the first floor lobby and restaurant. Bike Rack: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C}(1)(c)(3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in the designated area and by a fixed or stationary bike rack for any non-residential use within the City's TCEA. The subject property is located within the TCEA area, and a bike rack has been indicated in front of the building on Ocean Boulevard. Coasta! Construction Control Line: A DEP permit wilt be required for construction of the sub-grade parking garage which extends eastward of the Coastal Cons#ruction Control Line. This has been added as a condition of approval. Existing Site Conditions: The survey indicates that the buildings to the south encroach into the subject property by ~/,". This encroachmen# will need to be accommodated in the final design of the ho#el. Additional encroachments by an air conditioning unit and electrical box will also need to be SPRAB Staff Report : -~ Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V Pion Approval •:~ ~ `~;_7 Page 7 ~ .. addressed. The applicant will need to notify the property owners of these encroachmen#s and the need for their removal andlar relocation prior to construction.. Site Plan Technical Items: While the revised site plan has accommodated most of the staff concerns the following items remain outstanding, and will need be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. 1. Provide the exfiitra#ion trench percolation test results; 2. Provide documentation that the Salina Avenue drainage system has adequate capacity to handle the additional stormwater flow; 3. Provide FDOT driveway connection and drainage perrnits; 4. Provide fre flow calculations; and, ~. Indicate the height of the mechanical equipment area on the roof. _- r h d j - :. ~-L ~-'N'~~A# ~' ~ '~~ -CAN ' ,A~ ;I~l k~ L' Y S I S' ., ~~ F , ~ ~ ; S.S.. ~._. ~... ,_ .,+~.~ ~..-......-. .., fit.. x- .~.~: ~.,.. .-.,. ,~. .....,....,,~ ....y~-i ..'~`.. .::. .d..t, As stated earlier in this report, there is na minimum open space requirement within the CBD zone district east of the Intracoastal Waterway. However, the body acting upon a development application may require that open areas, including but not limited to courtyards, plazas, and landscaped setbacks, be provided in order to add interest and provide relief from the building mass. The proposed building covers most of the site with most of the parking and service functions also under roof. Therefore, the proposed landscaping for the project is minimal. The main entrance #o the building is on ocean Boulevard. Coconut Palms with Dune Sunflower underplantings and a backdrop of purple Crinum lilies will be located on either side of the building facing the street. An additional Coconut Palm will be provided in a 3' high raised planter box on either side of the main entrance. The Coconut Palms are relocated from elsewhere on the site and are listed as 25' - 35' in height. Given the height of the building, this height is necessary in order to be in scale with the building. A planter will be provided under the building in front of the hotel lobby with 3 European Fan Palms, Variegated Arboricola, and Pathos Vines. A fine of Coconut Palms are proposed on the south side of the building in a raised planting bed over the sub-level garage. The trees will be spaced every 25' to comply with the spacing requirements where commercial abuts residentially zoned property [ref. 1_DR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(e)]. Trip}e trunk Pigmy Date Palms will be located between the Coconut Palms with Xanadu and Boston Ferns utilized for ground cover in the area. Fifteen 8' high White Birds of Paradise will be planted along the property line. Four booted 5abal Palms with Fakahatchee Grass are proposed between the south property fine and a walkway adjacent to the restaurant. Sl'RAB Staff Report `- Hotel Vista Del Mar -Class V..=: •. ~ ~ Plan Approval ~'•--'~ Page 8 A 5' landscape strip is provided along the west property line between the building and Salina Avenue. Double Alexander Palms and sod will be provided within the landscape strip. The Alexander Palms are depicted as 12' high. Much taller trees are necessary to break up the mass of the west fagade, and is listed as a condition of approval. A Variegated Arboricola hedge and a mulched planting bed will be provided adjacent to the west building line #o screen the openings in the parking garage and along sides of the trash enclosure. There is no landscape material provided along the north side of the building since the building is set on the property line. The proposed landscape plan complies with t_DR Section 4.6.16. ~. ,. ~,,, ,~ ~ ~.~~A r f~; ~ ~' ~~ R C H !' ~ ~E C T U °R~A~L :L .E; v= A T I° ON G~- ~. ., ~~,V^^ y ;b.n. ~. .~.'~ - ~'6k. - ~.. .ale] ~~ r r YRI... W r .. a... ....~..~., '~.... .~~ -n~T4q.i Y{"'O..' ....{ :LY.- The proposed architectural elevations contain a mixture of design elements. The frst floor of the east facade consists of a large rectangular opening and four smaller arched openings supported on columns along Ocean Boulevard. The central opening provides access to the parking garage. Sidewalks are provided. on either side of the entrance road and the hotel lobby and restaurant are visible under the building. Tire columns on this floor are cast coquina, painted yellow. The next four floors contain the hotel rooms. The fagade contains a series of step backs from north to south which follow the angled front property line. The design is repeated on the 2"d through 4r" floors. Raised white banding is used to separate the floors. Each hotel room has a balcony accessed by a pair of white French doors with an arched top. The balconies project slightly from the wall face and are wrapped in blue metal railings. The window frames, which are painted white,. are covered by green Bahama shutters. The walls are stucco, painted yellow. The 5~h floor is stepped back slightly from the front and has the same design elements as the floors below, except the walls are covered with cementitous siding. A parapet is provided along the roof line with breaks to accommodate blue metal railings. The same color scheme and architectural details with some variations are found on the north and south facades. To maximize ocean views for the hotel rooms, the walls have a saw tooth design with angled balconies extending out from the building. Trellises have been added above the balconies on the #op floor. Single glass doors are used to access the balconies as opposed . to the double 1=rench doors found on the east elevation. Between the projecting balconies, flat walls with windows and Bahama shutters extend above the roof line. The areas between these walls is spanned by blue metal railings. Cementitous siding is utilized on the walls of the upper level. A stair tower with a green meta! hipped roof is located on each fagade. The ground floor on the south elevation is open, exposing the parking garage. A 6' wail has been added along the south property line to screen the vehicles, On the north elevation, the parking garage is completely enclosed. To break up an otherwise blank wall, decorative shutters are used on the north facade between the hotel room balconies and Ocean Boulevard. The west fagade is very plain compared to the rest of the building. The otherwise flat wall plane is broken by balconies on the north corner and in the center o€ the building. Windows with Bahama shutters are utilized on each floor between the balconies. A stair tower with a green metal hipped roof is located on the south comer and faux windows with Bahama shutters are used on each floor centered on the tower. Cementitous siding is utilized on the walls of the upper level. On the ground floor,. a rectangular opening on large columns SPRAB Staff Report -. Hotel Vista Del Mar - CIasS V'' ~ Ptan Approval Page 9 ' provides access to the garage. This opening is flanked by arched openings on either side exposing the ground floor of the garage. An enclosed trash campacfior area with a roli- down gate is provided under the roof on the first floor. The building is only 5' from Salina Avenue which is a narrow roadway. The residential buildings across Salina Avenue will be less than 50' from the face of the building. At such a close distance, the building will have a major visual impact on these residential properties. Staff recommends that steps be taken to create additional variations in the flat walls to break up the mass of the building. This could be accomplished by setting back portions of the building further from Salina Avenue or by opening up the rear hallway to the outside and creating a uantinuous ba#cony, In addition to the above, architectural elements should be added to the plain sections of roof parapet around the building, such as decorative caps or mansard projections to match the proposed green metal roofing on the towers. ~. ~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~:.. ~, ~ ~~ . ~ .,, ate- ~ .~ [f 1 C ~ I ~n '3 '~ ILL'' r--- ~ 'x - If -~ `` ~ #~~~E U ~I F~~~~~F I=DS ~G S '.: _ v , .i_ _. ~...~-ntu._.......,~,. >~ r,a .mot„x<~.,s a.:~ ~_.~a .. `'~" .r Pursuant to Section 3.1 .'I (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 fihrough 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 f ndings relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.1.1(A) -Future Land Use Map: The resulting use of land or structures must be allowed in the coning district within which the Land is situated and said zoning must be consistent with the applicable land use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map. The subject property has a Zoning District Map designation of CBD {Central Business District} and has a CC {Commercial Care) Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuan# to LDR Section 4.4.'13{B}, Princi al Uses and Struc#ures Permitted, hotels are allowed as a permitted use within the CBD zoning district. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map designation. Section 3.1.1{B) -Concurrency: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursunn# to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan. As described in Appendix A, a positive fndmg of concurrency can be made as it relates to water, sewer, streets and traffc, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and solid waste. SPRAB Staff RepDrt ~--. Hotel Vista Del Mar -Class V'~:~.~~~:~ plan Approval Page 10 Section 3.1.1 (C] - Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions]: Compliance with performance standards set forth in Chapter 3 and required findings in Section 2,4.5(F)(5) shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in making a fading of overall consistency. As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Ac#ions. Section 2.4.5(F](5] (Site Plan Findings]: Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(Fj(5) (Findingsj, in addition to provisions of Chapter Three, the approving body must maKe a finding that the development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is located at the south end of the CBD zoning district which extends southward from Atlantic Avenue along Ocean Boulevard. The development of a new ho#el on the subject property is compatible with the existing commercial development in the area. Bast of the Intracoastal Waterway, the CBD zone consists primarily of resort-oriented retail businesses, restaurants and the Marriott hotel. Restaurants, shops and a 5-story condominium {New Monmouth) are located north of the proposed hotel site, south of Atlantic Avenue. The Marriott hotel complex is located just north of Atlantic Avenue. The CBD district is the highest intensity zoning district within the City and the development standards for the district were written to promote compact urban development in order to emphasize economic growth and business development. Since the type of development permitted and encouraged within the CBD is not always compa#ible with less intense development, it is important to minimize the impacts of new developments on adjacent properties along zoning district boundaries. The subject property is bordered by RM {Multiple Family Residential -Medium Density) zoning on the south and on the west side (across Salina Avenue). White the lintel use is compatible with this zoning district, the difference in scale between the proposed hotel and the existing residential development must be addressed. As proposed, the rear.fa~ade o'F the hotel is a relatively flat 48' high wall with additional elements on the roof. This facade, located less than 50' from one and two-story residential buildings on the other side of Salina Avenue, is not compatible. with this adjacent development. To achieve compatibility, additional variations in the #lat walls are necessary to break up the mass ofi the building. This change has been added as a condition of approval. The property to the south is a two story condominium. The south facade of the proposed hotel has considerable variations in the wall plane and large Coconut Palms are to be planted along the facade. This facade is compatible with the adjacent condominium. Provided the changes as outlined above are made, a positive finding can be made that the development will be compatible .and harmonious with nearby properties and the City as a whole. The project will fulhll the need for additional hotel rooms in the city and promote SPRAB Staff Report ~-• Hotel Vista Del Mar - CEass V ', .~. ; ~ Plan Approval •~ Page 1 ~ additional economic development. This should have a positive effect on property values in the area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies were noted: Future Land Use Element Objective A-'l: Property sha[I be developed or redeveloped, in a manner 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. When the property is cleared {demolition of the existing motel) there should be no physical conditions that would prevent the redevelopment of the property. The site is located in a Central Business District and wil[ be developed in a manner consistent with that zoning designation. The project will be complementary to the adjacent land uses provided the conditions of approval are addressed. The project fulfills the need for additional hotel rooms within the City. Housin Element Polic 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 degrada#ion of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. As discussed above, the proposed hotel will be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood provided the conditions of approval outlined in this report are met. The project is consistent with this policy in that it will not result in a degradation of the neighborhood. Coastal Management Element: Goal Area "C": Development and redevelopment in the Coastal Planning Area shall be compatible with the existing character of the area, and shall provide for a sensitive balancing of the needs for economic development, redevelopment, and environmental. protection. Dbiective C-3: The development of vacant and under-developed land on the barrier island shall occur in a manner which does not change the character, intensity of use, or demand upon existing infrastructure in the Coastal Planning Area,. as dictated in the following policies: Policv C-3.2: There shall be no change in the intensity of land use within the barrier island and all infill development which does occur shall connect to the City's storm water management system and sanitary sewer system. This is a redevelopment project of an underdeveloped property within the Central Business District. The development promotes economic growth in the downtown and is consistent SPRAB Staff Report _ Hotel ~5ta Del Mar - Class V :~ Plan Approval ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Page 12 with the character of the tourist oriented commercial development within this area of the Central Business District. It will provide needed hotel rooms within the City, which will serve the local beach community and tourists. The project must comply with the City's site lighting restrictions in order to protect the beach area used for turtle nesting and ha#chlings. This site has a Commercial Core land use designation and no change in the intensity of land use designation is proposed. Due to the property's location, there is not an opportunity to connect to the City's storm water management system. However, 'the project will be connected to the City's sewer system. Section 3.1.1 (D) -Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDRs can be made,. provided Site Plan Technical Items and conditions of approval are addressed. "7 ~ P. ';~i. '-~fll+a.F ~ C .P"to Fns rrc Em.u.... :R.. .ry., ,r.~",~x ~i, _ - _ Downtown Develo ment Authori DDA The DDA reviewed the request at its meeting of May 1B, 2001 and recommended approval subject to addressing the technical site plan issues raised by staff,. which are contained in this repork. Community Redevelopment Agenw (CRA] The CRA reviewed the request at its meeting of June 1 fi, 2001, and recommended approval subject to addressing compatibility with adjacent properties and the technical site plan issues raised by staff, which are con#ained in this report. Courtesy Notice: Special courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowners and civic associations: • PROD -Progressive Residents of Delray • Chamber of Commerce • Property Owners of the Bahama House Condo Presidents Council • Beach Property Owners Association A letter has been provided from the Beach Property Owners Association expressing concerns with the scale of the building, traffc flow and adequacy of the supplied parking. A copy of the letter is attached to this report. Other letters of support or objection, if any, will be presented at the SPRAB meeting. ~° ~ - Q~S:S~E,~~S1VI`Ii=NAT AN:D C'QrN~CL' U'S~~'N~ ~ - ~ ~ ,~~ ,3, :~~. ~_..~. - - - - The development proposal to construct a 70 room hotel with a pool on South Ocean Boulevard will be consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan provided the conditions of approval concerning loading,, the west building elevation and valet parking SPRAB Staff Report -~ ~: Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V ~ ~:~~,~ Plan Approval . _ ~ Page 13 are addressed. Consistency with Chapter 3 and 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations will be achieved provided the conditions of approval are addressed. 1. Continue with direction. 2. Approve the Class V site plan, landscape plan and elevations far Hotel Vista Del Mar, based on positive findings with. respect to Chapter 3 {Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5{F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations, and the policies nf~the~Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions. 3. Deny the Class V site plan, landscape plan, and elevations for Hotel Vista pel Mar, based on a failure to make positive findings with respect to the Land Development Regulations. `~~a~ .~R E~ ~ ~O~`Ilfi'-11A~ E N. D ~D A C~ I ax.N ~* ,~~~~ ~ r_ ~~ - By separate motions: Waivers- 1. Approve a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14{A), to reduce the visibility triangle at the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 20' to 5' and at the Ocean Boulevard driveway entrance from 2Q' to 7', based upon positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.7(6)(5). 2. Approve a waiver to LDR Section 6.1,3{B), to eliminate the repaired sidewalk along Salina Avenue. Site Plan: Approve the Class V site plan for Hote! Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5{F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive .Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans; 2. Documentation must be provided that the loading space as shown on the plan will accommodate the types of vehicles expected to service the hotel or the design must be changed to provide the required size space and maneuvering area; 3. No loading or unloading of vehicles,, except trash pickup, is permitted on Salina Avenue; 4. A DEP permit is required for construction of the sub-grade parking garage which extends eastward of the Coastal Construction Control Line; SPRAI3 Staff Report _ , ~,. Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V`~ ``Plan Approval ' :'~'' Page 44 ~. Alighting plan which details mitigation measures for all light sources visible from the beach must be provided; 6. If a valet queue is established in the drop-off area, it may only be used for guests of the hotel; and, 7. The trash enclosure area must be deodorized and air conditioned. Landscape Plan: Appro~re the .lands~pe.pian fnr l~o~l Vista 9el.,l~la~rs based ~apcard ;~rasitir~e findings with respect to Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. The 12' high Alexander Palm trees must be replaced with taller trees along the rear property line. Elevations• Approve the elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.fi.18 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. Create additional variations in the flat walls of the west facade to break up the mass of the building; and, 2. That additional architec#ural elements such as a parapet cap or metal mansard roof projections be added to the parapet. Attachments: ^ Appendix A ^ Appendix B ^ Reduced Floor Plans, Landscape Plan, Building Sections, and Building Elevations ^ Letter from the Beach Property Owners' Association f:lplanning & zor~inglboardslsprat~lhotel vista del mar revised.dac r.~ ~ iat~ A CS"`~~7-'~f '"~ ~ L~,~ y ~Ad` -2 ~' 3 y .g3Y e { I _ '~F~ _ ~. 'W N- D , ~E ,~ ~~ _ y {- ~ ~d C _~RE ~C~~~INDi GS~~ .~ ~. ~ ~,n-, r ~, .~ ~ ~~ . tr ,u_, f s}£.. .+'~?~x4~~:~cbr ;ems.' ~,:.na~z..a..r,. ~ ts., ,... ~~-...y.. -, ~~,. a.~ ,. ~ as... c . ..z a .. .: ,, .^. Pursuant to Section 3.7.'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 requ[re the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer• ^ Water service is available to the Site via a service lateral connection to a 6" main located in the Ocean Boulevard right-of--way. ^ Sewer service is available to the site via a service lateral connection to an 8" main located in the Georgia Street right-of-way. ^ An existing fire hydrant is located at the NE comer of the site on Ocean Boulevard. A new fire line will be installed along the southwest corner of the property, connected to an 8" main in Salina Avenue. The Building will be fully sprinkled. 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 fndings can be made with respect to these level of service standards. Drainage: A preliminary engineering plan was submitted by the applicant. Since most of the ground level parking area is covered by the second floor of the building, drainage of the parking surl`ace will be minima[. Any storm water that enters the parking area will be accommodated via sheet flaw into a drain grate a# the driveway entrance to Salina Avenue. Runoff ftom the roof wi11 be discharged into catch basins at the northwest and southwest corners of the building and all the drainage will be diverted to exfiltra#ion trenches along the west property line. Extiltrativn test results will be required prior to obtaining a building permit for the paving and drainage system. Since the drainage of the property is being directly almost exclusively to the rear of the property, documentation that the Salina Avenue drainage system has adequate capacity to handle the additional flow is required prior to obtaining a building permit. In addition, 1=DOT driveway connection and drainage permits will also be required. If #hese requirements are rnet, positive findings with respect to this level of service standard can be made. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located within the TCF_A (Traffic Concun-ency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD (Central Business District), OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) and the West Atlantic Avenue Business Corridor. The TCEA exempts the above- described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. However, a traffic statement has been provided by the applicant which indicates that the construction of the new hotel will generate 374 additional trips auto the surrounding roadway network. The additional traffic generated will not have an adverse impact on this level of service standard. Parks and Open Space: The 70 additional rooms will not have a significant impact with respect to level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities. However, pursuan# to LDR Section 5.3.2(G}, Imvact Fee Appendix A Standards for Site Plan Action:: ~~:~ ~~ Page 2 Required, whenever a development is proposed upon land which is not designated for park purposes in the Comprehensive Plan, impact fee of $500.00 per dwelling unit (including hotel rooms} will be collected prior to issuance of building permits for each unit. Thus, an impact fee of $35,000 will be required of this developmen#. Solid Waste• The Solid Waste Authority indicates that it has capacity to serve development in the County at its current t.OS of 7.2 pounds per day per capita for the life of the existing landfill (approximately 2021). Based upon the Solid Waste Authority's trash generation rates, trash generated each year by the proposed 49,114 sq. ft. hotel will be approximately 4.7 pounds per sq. ft. or 115.4 tons per year. Since the total trash generated by this proposal can be accommodated by existing landfll facilities, a positive finding with respect to this level of service standard can be made. ,.8, . ,, i ~~ ~ ~ t ,; PLAN A`CrTa1,~ Na~S` .., , 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. Nat applicable Meets intent of standard X Provide relief is granted for the site visibility triangle on Salina Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms 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 applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X 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 Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X D. The City shall evaluate- the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an exisfing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighboafiood, the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant sand which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designafions. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent F. Vacant property shall be developed 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 eases; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicab}e Meets intent of standard X Even though the property is not currently vacant, it is noted that the project will provided needed hotel rooms in the City and will be complementary to adjacent uses, provided the conditions of approval contained in this report are met. Appendix B Standards €ar Site Plan Action. ~ ~ :~~ Page 2 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 steal! be~ accomplished through the implementation ~of policies under Objective B-Z of the Housing Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard I~oPS not mee# 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, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of #heir potential to negatively impact the. safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development wil[ result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X This standard was addressed in the body of the report with the review of applicable comprehensive plan objectives and policies 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 applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent ,!. Tat 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 modifed far residentia[ 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 - --. ~ t ;, ~~ a~~~ ~ I~~ Ali ~I~ c~l~~ ~~~ I~~~l1 ~'dl~ . ~ ~ I~ I E ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~x ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~_ w ~~~ ~ !^ ~1 ~; €~ ~ '~ MYYMY ~~a=~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ A~K~~ ~ # ~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~' ~ z ww YN~ a~sww ~g~ ate' : 5 ~ II~~iiili.~il~ li~~ ~~ ~~ i~l~~~ ~~~~ ~I ~a a a a a _ 1 • ~ °Q °a ~a ~ i z a u a a ~ - ~~ i s m e ' ~ ea °.a ~ °a ~ a - s t' Z ~~~ ~~~ ~ d ~~~ ~ ~ _~ i~~ ~ ~ ~~ _-~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= t ~ ~~ ~ ~~ o~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~y ! ~~ s ~~~ ~ ~ ~• ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ o ~~~ ~i ~• ~# ~~ ~~ ~~ o ~ ~ t s t t - ~~ t~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ g ~e~~ ~ < ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~~~~ a i'~ I ~ ~ 1 ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ x ~ ~~~ s~ ~. ~Y ~. ~ti ~ 4 .~ ~ ~# `` 2~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 6 g~ ~e 3~ ~: !~~ ~r a aY f- F , C . :_ ,~ '+ - ~~ ~ ~y+` ~ ~ r 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ i ' ~ I ~ ~ ~ r~~ ~ ~~ k ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~i1~ i ' { ~}i ~s.~ • •e. ~~ ~ iii o ~ ~~~ ~•^"~ f 1 ~ ~ ~ r ~ • rill ,,« R ~ iE~l 4 1{11 rr iii ~ ~ ~ 1 t ~ ti i ~ ~-r f ~ i~ ---`~ ~i f~ { 0 1 ill `~~ t i ~ ~ 11 i f ~ 1~1 f~ ~ . 1 3;1 - . _ ~ 1~ ~ ~ r ` _ mac. 1 11+ f r '. s '~ ~ ~ ~a r ~ ~ i~ ~ ~~~ $a~ ~~ ~- ~ t ~ ~ 9 6.r * ~ ~ $ ~ E.~w SSE ~~ ~ ~a ~ ~ 8 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~"~ ~~~ ~~ EG i E a ~xs ~ ~ ~~ ~ C~~ ~ ~s ~~5 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ S r S ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ E ~ ~ ~ s~ ~~ ~~ ~~ _~ ~ ~g ~~ 3~ ~S ~~ E FF $ ~~ _! 8 ~~' _~ ~~ ~~ ~~ t ~ _~~ _ s S ~ ~BES SA ~a ~ ~ ~a :~ ~ ~~* ~KY~~~ ~~p ~Ly ~3~~ ~ik'e OIL nTe n FsBrn«~~RICr'Q~g E sa ~ a~~* 1.~~- "E•~ sr~ s (fi ~$"g~di ~ ~W.~~~~~~~ ~ 3~~~~~~~~`~kTg~ ~~ C C R U C a r- C ~:; ; . ~~~: O C r+ m c~ o' i-„ ~_ ~. , z 0 m m o" ~~ .. . ~. m m rn C N O~ 3 ~~~ - ~~ ~A`~ ~~ - ~. CQLQR SAIV~PLESIF~NISHES SC=~~~EDULE • ATTACH SAMPLES ATTACH SAMPLES R OF AWNINGS .. ~b~TM4~ ~St~lut~e-k{k; YaM R~141x . is-~":,____ ~, - FASCIA 8~n Rs~ ~qtx COLUMNS CAST GOiQu1l~ ~rduS 80~ OTHER AMA ~1~5 .$1~ Z~ 59 -~o ATTACH PHOTOGRAPH DOORS e-1hluM wH~ gt~n g~,~Mtx WINDOWS SCREENING `~ ,G. 07%!1/01 49ED 14:04 ~'.4g aS127B5244 F~,~ * {`~~~' H'id' ~ ~ PLASTRIDGE THOMAS E. LYNCH SZO N. Federal Highway Delray Beach, Fl 33483 TO: Paul Dorling/City of Delray Beach FAX: 243 7221 FRUM: Thomas E. Lynch .lZly: $otel ~~sta del Mar DATE: 7111/01 Dear P~xui: I am sorry I ara unable to attend the meeting thus evening, but ask that the attached letter be read into the minutes and given tv the beard. Please gyve Darve garden a copy as well. Thank E. Lynch f~j ooi 2J 7 07r'? I/O1 9YED 14:04 ~'Ax 5612785244 PLA5TRIDGE THQMAS E. ~.YNC~ Sz0 N. Federnl Highway Delray Beacli, FI 33483 July 11, 2001 Site Plan Review and Appearance Board City ofDelray Beach, PI. Dear Board Members; ~vo2 I am sorry I cannot appear before yo'u this evenuag to gave ypu my opinions an oae ofthe projects you will be x~eviewxng. Unfortunately, I have a Palm Beach County School Board meeting, which I must attend. I have lived is Dekay Beach for 30 years anal I have been actively involved in the redEVelogmern transition of Delray for over l~ years, When we originally started the redevelopment, we spent over one year analyzing the city and cam buck with three major assets: beautifiil beaches, a main street, anti a diversity of citizenship, not only in ethnicity, but by economics. Our majox goal was to improve the overall quality of Delray Beach but not lose its "village-like°' atmosphere. A$er I left office, I have only come before the City Comrnissioa on one occasion to talk about a project that was being considered. I irnentiazaally stayed away to allow the city to evolve, as parents must allover their children to evolve. In reference to the planned Hotel Vista del Maz, I feel I weed to voice my opinion. T believe the project is way too m~ssave for the lot. I realize there are fewer restrictions in the CBD, but we definitely don't want to dramaticaIly change the quam#ness and village-h~ce atmosphere that we have in Aebay. The total lot is Daly about 18,000 square £eet and the binding will be close to 50,000 square feet. Even though the parlang may meet the minimum starndards, rt is obvious that it is squeezed in, eonfi?~+rg, and claustmphabic. For years we have dealt with the problem of stacking on AIA with cars and trucks for the existing restauzaits. This would only be cxacerbatcd by now having a hotel and restaurant {and probably side-wa]k diamg} to add more traffic to a heavdy congested, na~arow azea of Al A., . I am not opposed to the hotel complex. In fact the idtas of converting Bermuda Inn Motel to a hotel is in keeping with the overall changes ofDehay, but to allow such a dense project that changes the appearance of our city and adds to congestion anti parking issues is something we should not permit. This project is just too noassive for the proposed location. 5ineerely, E~ ~'~~~ J~e~ r yy. V S.~ '_ ~~~,~3,. uri,t,crux rt".,, i~.vu me ssva oaa aOfr vulr~Ari.[C j ~; G~ GvrTSr~R Y(7Axl,.Fv A'f Tt1RN CY5 AT 1.RW July i l , 204 i Writzr's DirCet llial Nt[mbr:r: 563-6S4-f?S33 Writer's ~-Ma!I Address: }~iverCu3.r[ms~cr.com Tn S1Tls pLAN REVIEW AND 1~.PP)~AItANCE BUART7 Ml-~MB)rR.S Re: vista llel Mar Hotci Site flan Application, T7ear SPRAl3 Member: 'T'his Taw B~ represents 1VIr. Dc~nalt; Rokaanscm, who. o~vn.~ residential prupe;rtsr ~-a Salina Avenue adjac4nlt to anal west pft~c property subaect to the above-referenced site plan :apg]ication ~"Site kalan"). A[ We June 24, 2001 Site Plan Kevicw and .~tppcarance Board ("SPIZ.AB"} hAga i :~ppe,~red oc, behalf of Mr. Rtibitlson to sixare with SPR,lif3 a zrataltiiude c~!'aQnccrns rcgaz'ding the Site Plan, '~i5 ]alter i5 far tBc purpcase taf sharing Vl~itll each SI'I~.AB member 11~r. Rabinsran's Cntl~rn5 regarding the revised Site Plan to ~ considered ai the 5PRA]~ Bearing pri July 11, ?b01. ]qtr. Ra~ir[.~;carz, like many other bc~u:h~ide res,ici~n#s, vacations dtuing the stuiuner and is ut7.avai lat~l a to appear iri person at tl,e SI'TiAB hearing. This fact de~~tonstratcs #I'iat the tinting of the consiclcratiazt of the Site flan by SPILA3 is less tltau opp~rtwne. Marty residc3ats effected by the project are nc7t present to have their vqi ces heard in the very public t'arurn chat was created to receive and c;unsidcr their concersls. lnzagitte their surprise wlte>ci they rettim to Delray Beach i~~ the late 1-all only to disccaver this massive irniltlin~ i,rt their nei~Yiborltood that dial neat exist previously. 'phis weans fundnmetatally uztfair_ A better solution would lae tc~ ~:~ansidcr action an tl:e Sire Flaln aTaplicatiozt later ist the year when Hans[ caftl,e residents effected by the Site Plan. proposal will he available tQ ahead tine SpRAFi hearings. F~Tcawever, assuming that the SpRAII llearirt~, will not. lx; rescheduled, l ti~~il] attempt tta ;urnmarizo Mr. i~obittisan'ti ccanc~~rtts in this letter. 1']eafie.givE laic c~~t)eea.7YS every eanslderation_. ate. ha is the ovrner ctf thr~ residential properties on Salina+ including asingle-fanuly hnmc; clircctly behind the prappsed !total. • Size The o~reruc ccancer-n of lVlr. Rubinson is thlr sheer size and mass of the grol~case structure, ~~~hileij-,epxoposedStruct~tren--aysc}ucczcwithiuthe4$'.hcia;htiintitationanf3thcnomita,~! setbacl: reglasrerrrents pra~~ded for by the Land Ueve]ralan~ent IZc~ulations ("T.DT~'s"1= tl)e langua~~e 1arr+rtrr, Y+ruklcv FS Slctvt+r[, rn. !'}igisrs 1'~~int • ?7,'urnl: FIaE+,[cr Dc's~x, Sitiec SCkt Eis!st Wk•+:i Palm Ra:trh, FL 7z'#i1[-[s1+t-} f5h1a655.[4t~? r'ruC:{5G1)l~;i5-5fi9] c-mars. ti'1ir.,gt,'r.tn~t4 ~uagter.GO+n wa~+ci;unyrrr.cuin riiTR l f.I fl]S:'T;GAIk • MI.tiF.i! " 151LW 1lLAL.11 • 'i ILIAiC! • 'IR~.6~+}ta ~;~P • E'FRI11f}eU it • N'~ t k'.it,av !11 1:,11 i~J U if G 3~ ~. '' '~ ....~ July I1, 2(341 Page 2 in fire LDR's coricern,ing proper propai'tions, Appearance, impact ern neighbUriug uses, and integration with existing uses se~:ms to he entirely iF,nared by the applicant. For example, }~ttrsuant to 1:UR Sec#ion 4.4.13(1(2), "ifte body acting uprrri a dcvaloprrtent Appiir.ation within the C:J3D ~-v_ rcciuirc that ovc:tt, areas including but i~lt limited tn. co~utr~ar•d.~,plazaS, and lrlndscape sel~cks be o 'ded ' er to interest and . rp~'' relief from he ildi « m ." Clearly, a five fr}cat l~rdscapc strip alotag SaulixiA is not capable ol'praviding rediefi`ratn a building ~$' Feet in height (pl~js addiklun€il rooftop strtactares reaching S7') divided from the resiclcntial r~.eighl~ars to~tfie v-=esi by ozalr• the 2I' wide Salina. ]Moreover, the applicant hits made .na el~ort to recess any portion of the Urnund flociF or step-bac;k the upper floors afthe building The end rest~l.t is a ~nassit~c building, ciwarl"ing the existizi8 neighbors, cutting c-ut their rattan htccze aa~d sunrise vieu~•s. , Tlie applicant ~Itattld recluse the size ctf the hotel tt~ same#liing zliat conforms with the character of Delray Beach. Citirxns of the City have urc-rkeel hard liar many years to create a uzrir~us community atmosphere thflt does not irrcludc lwge, monolithic structures and oti~erbuilt prcge7ti.es. `This is Delray I3tach, riot I~ortT.uutlcrdale, Appravitxg this crversi2ed project is not in keeping wifh the charm and character ol'the City, nrrr does it set a good precedent tat future dew'clopment. The applicannt should either acquix~ rziorc property in order to build a project r~t~ this size err, altCrtiativel }~, rk~duce tkze sire ofthe project. I believe t3aat it is incunZlrtnt tipan the Sl'R~1l3 to deny projects cf this nat«xe or at least scale tltean dawn to something rcason~ble-acrd flttractrve. l.t is n~~t wnrth i;han~n~ the GlZaracter of the C;i_y t'or one prajei:t. ina c Another critical concern: of Mr. Robinsnn's is how the proposed tree of the property will affect drainage and stflrm water nuioff in the rieighbarliocTd_ At the June ?0''' S.PK.Af3 hearin~t, 4 Taraugbt to >fie Board's attention the fact [hai the ari8inal $i:te Flan showed over 19t/o pervious :area dstpits the fact that loss than 5% crf the properly wax actuaily pervious. '1 he revised Site Ylan bears This trot, As it now sha~us the pervious area to be mert}Y ~.4~°10 of tlic total property. ('Thus,. tlYe revised Site Plt~n riot only lost ] Cr,i;7°la ofits penrinu,• arcs, but it also increased dre i~r~pervinus-aria by ] b.i;7%.) This rcieans that the storm water run-offfrorn. the Qthcr 97'.5$% ot'the properly mast be chatmeled towards and percolate into a S' wide exfiltt~.tit~n trench (as, xPparentl3'a hnak~up to the City stcrtrn water system, is not possible}. ].his is a Tat of water gaiz~g Into a very stria!! area, TFte revised Site Plan cnnrains drainage calculations based on a 5 year, I hour storm ct~en.. Even assuming inr the momeru that the drainage calculati[?n~ arc correct,. it is naive to bClirrve drat providing drainage capacity for a rnatun of a 5 year, 1 Maur sterner event i s suFFtcient given 5attth FlnridA's fret}uent Arid severe rainstorm event4. The standard should be rnucll luliter (e.g. ?5 year,. 2 or 3 hour storm event) given the incredible atnotult of impervious area l~in~; clrate~! bj~ th.is project. The end r~rrl t rx*ilI andoubtedly ~be tlta# all c-Ftl?e water from tlazs project will Tre cltarutLltd towards the rtaeo['ihc prvpcrty, the c>tifiltratinn tnncit will bu oti~et~vvhe]mEd u-ith wdtE2, acid Saline GUIvSTER, Yt~nlEt.liY & STirw~atiT, P.A. A17tat~a@YS nTLAw ... , .,....~ ,...., ..:..... , ~w. ..~~ vvo ~~. r u~1lJinn -.1 duly I I, ZUt%l [gage 3 anei 7ttr_ Robinsort's yard and hc~mc will be ilouticd. When and if this occurs, the City is he~rcb3~ rn notice that Mr. Robinson will hold tl~e Cit}r respnnsiblc for tlae same tts these flticrding cYvetttG nre pz~ediU.table and avoidable. ~afct The applicant is requesting a Waiver of the 2U' visibilil}"#rlan~le r~iluircd by LS)R ~~ctiu~a 4.6.14{.A} whir:h would allow tttc applicant to instead have n 5'visibi]ity triangle. Granting of sUCI~ ,~ waiver raises a seriMiis safety cnneerxt for the Salina residents. The purpose afi the visik~ilit.r triangle is to provide a sufficient line of sight for drivers tea spot Qncoming traffic, bic}rciists, ald pedestrians. 'l'he applicarn i5 asking to have khe ~.L1R ~nfrxrr-curn reduced by art aciditicx1u175°.'a. 'I'3 pis problem is Iurthcr exaeerbet~~d by the narrti,utaess of Salina Avinue, which is only 21' wide {ihc fitrtctiar~af equivalent of an allay, residenitiai stxE~cts are narmall}r 54+' xu wic3th~. T7ae trdVCl lane pavetrtent l5 Approximately 2' from the propetrty line. signil7eantly Iess than vvauld lam: cxpteted on typical road right-of-ways. 'I'kea statTreport skates that "`Saiilta ,pventt~ is a narrow roadway which dead-ends appraaitxtatcly 15Q' sautlt~ of rho stibjsct pioperty.°' It gcscs ot1 to indicate that the 5' visibility triangle is adeyetatc divcn the low s~pcccis. I would si uestion whether. this is Supported by saund traffic engineering or is sir~tp]y thy: opinion of the staff: ffthe reductian by 75% of this site trianble is prtrpc>rtionsl to the sperm traveled t~~r Salina ~ivcnue, can it be an#icipated that cars will be txaveling ortfy 114 of the spc~:d of a taormal local roadvay? This may he a ~;iinplistic appsoacki but I do not find any evidence that the staff has a sound 1;er1>JUCa1 basis to r4duce the visibility triaitglc to such a small nttmber_ Staff indicates that this ivaivAr will nQt create an unsafe situation with respect to public Safely. Quce again, is this backed up by sound traffic engincerittg larinciPals? The reality is that children play, ~peoplc ride bicyclr;s, and autnrnr~bilas drive at the sped ]intit or above itlpng Sa3itta. Ta have the traffic created by a 7U t~-trrn hotel at~d t'est~tur~3rtt (aneltaditlg delivery trucks) spillizag out onto St~litia with anly S' of visibility is dangerous and utu~easar~ztbl4. This waiver shatrld ho d_c~ticd. Parkitti g t raised this iswuc at the Tune 24~' hearing at~d l will rise it dgiiln ztOW. While the appllcan[ may be meeting the bars minimum parking ~acc rcquircttlents far the CAD, the practictil ei~fcct of having only S6 parking spgrres (.3 of which arc 1~andicappGd spaces and l6 of tivhiGh arc comis~tt at~tamabile spaces} far a 7t} room hatel axed restaurant is that there w'sl] be a parki~tg deTcit daring tE~te vYitYter ;sort. At ktigl~ nc;cupattcy kinks, it is foreseeable that a]] oi'thc parkas}g spaces will l,~e~ lull surd that rrtc~re will be needed.. Tn addition, the en~pluyees c~fthe hotel (rr.g. maxtager, o'F€ic:e ~~taff; u~aiesj artd tf3e ~mplayee5 of the restaurant {e.g. coal, waifr;rs,hostesses) will ~1eed scmie ~~c~aiere t+o park as we 11. ~IUU~ t_tl.T[~I~T~R, YUASCLBY & 51~11fA~{T, P..A_ A7-DaNrrc A't I.nw V I l 11/ VA ifrJ/ 14. Vk7 l'!16 :fpl V%3+1 V V l l UIlIV.71EM A ~ •'~ July 11, 2001 Pa~,e 4 the ~ lican o vide a ditianal akin . .~ .'.' ~~ What invariably 1lappetts in these situations is that the el~nl~li~yc:es are told to find parking clsew.harr~ sa that the 70 ~tiests can use flit' 5fi pazkins~ spaces. The end result is that guests vrho could not be acromzltadatcd with parkire~ ttnd #l}n hotel and t~statlrant etnployees are litrccd to go itt 5earcft of parking in the staxxaunding nci~hborhaad- The consequence will be cars parked bc3iind the l~utcl aloxtg Salina. 'T'his is a ftaretier;ablc outc:c' mt; can be avoided t~tirely if SPR.tki3 would require u.~iarl The proposed project is ride ~+ith inequitieti i"ar the surrc)urtdizlF resi.dcntiul neiP;hl~at~ tin Salina lhvenue_ Clearly, a Iac~ltl 'use of the property is not a bad use, ncsr is the tlced far adtTitianal Hotel roams in the City beila~ tfisputed. The proposed bite l~lai~, however, is simply too nte:eh tiatcl 4n tact small of a p~rc~pexty. Xrl attemptil~ to maximize the ecannrltics of their prnjec:t, the applicant is tllea luaxiFati:~ixt.~ the negative i~slpacts an the sYUrottxldin¢ nt;i~hborhood. The h ~~ t and fantpr~nt of the huyldintY should be healed dawn,,~tite buildi.np sl)s~uld he 5ct 17at,~~~r tm Shcin.~ f!tsn~ (~vluch would salve the visibility txlat~ le iS.SUe -and help tt~ allc~riatc the ~i~.x,,,~,~.~~1`thc parkictg should be in eased, and mare pervious area should be required. 1t is incumbent upon the Site Plan ~eviaw and ante Board to make this }project ~ortforzxs with the good character of the City rutd this particular ncighl~arl~ood anei to t:tlte undwr taFeFtll C[itt5ltiexatitsn the ootlCCxllS c)I'al! A~tlle tv.it}''& residents wh.o will l3E impacted lty the project. It serves no purpose tit inset the appeat~artce t,l'trtie ncighbazhos~d, undermined the prapresa #it.at the City has ;~c111eYed 31'1 i~CCtlt yeaTS, antl cttElSC dllltlXltltiCtri in the'v3lt1C o~stztYOUndiatr e~;.tstirlg uses itt order to advant;c the econami c desires of one indi vidua~l. Please c:ar~iully cold der the ra~mifiCatialts n# the-decisions vet the SPR11.B on this rnattcr. R.esl,catfu y, ~ G. Harvey F Uycr III, •q. c~- htr.1)ottuld Itobinsbn ~ uva GL.FN57'Ek, YC1AK(:F:Y & ~TEVJART, l~.A. A'RtHeffin n7• E.~W .-~ •.::1 i- -if S E' .,''.'t't~ ~z V- ~'~`~~ki'Y L ~{afiiy6w.C~ ai . f 1 ^~. ~if~"Fry A~ k~l ~ Al .: t::.... .~. :, ~ "~ 9 '~ ~;r: a ~rw?` r,_ .C4 ~ ~ . y ~ 5 ~' _ y.- ~ w~., - - . ,.~- ~'r~- Y -may,{., z~~ ~> eiw Y'S~ ~ 3 a ~ - N '~ R - x +ww~ ~7F ~ tL~ frk4f y'Wyy~L7 ~ 'w .~. ~ Y ~~, _. i .h1 ) S t ... ~ ..., x` . .. ~,~r ~ ~.n .~ a4::.:_ . .. . ~' ~: h • 1. ~.. i ..}wry ~r: - k _ ~. fib~#3 ~ _ h+4 ~ _~~~ ~ ~ t ~ Y ~'1 N ti ' ~ rr. ~ f - -1 S Ktix,~'3, F 4 a ~ -' k r ~ ~ 4" £ Y ~_ .r r S _ i L ~FYv M gyp. ,1'~ y~ tY L^"5 f Y ' '~' ~°"" ~. i `~,~_~ a Fr ~ 3'4 £ J _ ~~ . `/ F- - 1 _ - 'Y::. .. - .... ~.. _s~ ~~ `-. ~ s - s'.N.. __ t. _ .' P~ - F . 3 `~ '~ 1 .~! ~ ,~ :r~' ~~~ e~ ' ,'~<'~~'3 'tF'°~~~t~ `7 a-w r,~. ~.~, ~ _ 4 4 - ' syn. ~x ~A~ ~~.. . __ __~~L',513!r.4ee_r..3°'.....'~'..~~i..~ dr '^!~:~. ..~! ..'v. ~I ,. ..s.w, ha: o .E~ ~~, !! N' ~k ~r ~: ~!~ 4 h~ i 4r Y '~ . ~ "' i~~i. .~ M1 ~ My ... . ~ z. -,~~~~ .~js: - ~~ c "_~ty - `~ •'.c.':° -_*~ ': "-g ~3-, ,~'~' ~r ~r.t ;r.a ~S: .-~4 Z • ~ ~~ .- ~-a- y ~~.c ~G ~~~ F :~-i~-'~ viS b4=~ V My ~ f - ~ a~ "~ ~>- .}. S ~0. ,y t -,.1. ~~~~3>z t -~~ ,n ~ ~~ li, S~µF n s„ ~ '~sS *~~ a Sr~ :.w ° ~ 'Mau ~^t~jk A w sY~~`e, ter '~ ~~ 3 x~~.3.. ~~~t.a•2~ .1: ~k ~~yt "'.` rt-a p ~t~a 3~'~. ~x /~~''}~-tee r 't„ ' ~~ r r ' - ~~i{r'~' fir- t ~~~~ s~~ ~„y s :; ~`"5 a c a : r'~',' M~aF~zgdr F~~t.«v~„ ~~'~ f .z i ~.§ ~ r w x ry'' < ~w~n ~ ~ ~ i ,~ - ~y _ -'ti J''S~,f V y'riy~S.. ~ ~~ ~ " r9.i X S - - ~ ~ ~~ ~ - - ~~ ~~ L1 y Y.~ J I y t I Yr'Z M~b ~^ Y f ! ~ { rj } '"~" A sm '"~lq b ' 'f YZ [1~ 1 .'f ~{ ~ 7'u41 ~r ` ~ { S Vie' ,~~- ~ Y"s.'>? Y-~S>_-.'that?" - ~r ~ ~ f - _ _ _, ~ _ ~- _~ ~ _ ~ t'- r"S.. 1 . >~ _ .` ~~ ~ ~ `'' ~.b "~ L.... _ _.... _ . _.. _ _ ~ ~~ ~ Zx~ ~. ~ - - ~A ~~~ T _ rt" ASE ( . ~ T N_?-~ Y ~3 d 3 ~_ ^~ _,~ ~' _ ~ J u~ •~~~~ L ~ ~ ~ { '~' O 7 ~ b~>a~ . .. .. cn31s; E ~` ~ ~ { ~ ~ [~i~t wow -•'c ~~,_.. _ __ .r .. .~ . ~, . ~. _. 3i. ~l ~wa ~~. ~h .° :~,=~i:~ ~~. f~. 5 rat[-,~ .. , ~ ~. ~ ~~i ~,- ~, t ~Y ~:.t ~ . ~ _~ _ ~~ _ ~~ ~'~' N Q U N ~ ~ C „F ~~ N ~Y f ~~± W~ D ^M G U ~k ~~ ~"~ .I C ~- i Y ~~ w ?] E _~ 4 m CO 1 ~ .."tie .S ~~'~. `~ --. - -- ------ --- ---~~- r-- » ~ .~ ~;,-: r ~ ~ ~~ Q . ---- ` , ~- .~ ,..i~ ;,;:; ,~ ;. . ,; -~ i ..,, y ~4 ~:~~ a8 ~o . ~- 'r ~ ~ y L F ~~ I 1~~3G ~ r 47 ~_ Ry L. L 3ry ~ J 7 -' i ~. a'~ ~ ~_ 'i ~, ~~!? i, /~ ,~1; ~J y ~~y Gr'3 C 1 ~~t 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ i. fi ~~ ~~; ~ -~ ~. ~ ~~ !E 1' 3~ Y~~ d `tl' t'7 O O O O O~ O i~ W ~ C'7 O O O O ~ r r ~' @7 01 W ~ OS ~' W ~ Q d' N ~ ~ tq ~ ~ 4f AS's AjJ AA tp ~ Ch ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o ' ~_ ~_. ~ ~ •IL r ~: , r N t h ~ ~ A'D 1 ~ OD iA O r r r CH r Cpl r e} r tf1 r Cp r i~ r A1f7 r :~~ 1' ~- c C c 6 CC 6 ~ G 0 ~ CC G ~ ~ 0 ¢ G 0 ~ 0 c G ~ Cc G C L c 6 c 6 CC 6 .:.,. ~ ~. ~~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ a ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ a c ~: ~` - 4 ~ ~.. '~^""• o 0 Q 0 C7r 0 Q o O ti W co ~ a CS v O o Q ti MrM r ~ Ah df W et W '~i' W ~ o ~ N ~ 5'~-+c~.~+5 3 ~°~Nj~i. `~ :~ '.D % ; O ,~ :r -~~ r ~' ~~ ~ ' 0 A ~ r r r r r ~ r ~ :~ . r N N ~ {y m ti .CO W J ~ Ws _~~ ~ ~ ~ r2 rL 2r r2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "` ~~~ "~ a m c o o o c a o a r~ W as as o o 0 a o o ti r r ~ ~ W W ~ W ~ W ~ a ~ N ~ ~t3 , ~...~ ~ ~ u~ AO A~j A(~ ~ A!~ AC? ~ m `~t' c+1 'd' tl' v '~1' Ari W, _~~ ~~O ~a , ~o ~ S, ~ /O~ ii ~`ys ^.~F-.~- r N M ~' ~ m ti ~ ~ ~ _ r r r r r ~ r ~ ,~~:F~~~ X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~`~' ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .~.~.,. '-.:~, ^ .`~_+~T ' ''F„t: ..~.:° r o O o O C] O O O C O O l] 1~ W A17 W OD ' O O Ai3 O O 4CI O O Ai3 O O Ail r ~ C9 O~ ~7 Ca ~ ' W ~ W ~ O ~ '' N ~ Al] fi~N-r r .t~ . ~ An sf7 L l A ~ ( ~ ~ ~ rye yf O D o - ~ z c°.1 O ~ V W r N ch ~ At] [O 1+ GD W ~ ~ r r r r ~ ~ ~ (A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3~ r ' \ f (- h SPECIAL COURTESY NOTICE TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION The purpose of this special courtesy notice is to inform you that at its Meeting to be held on WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 20Q1, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board will consider a request for site plan approval for Hotel Vista Del Mar. The subject si#e is located on the west side of Ocean Boulevard, approximately 300 feet south of East Atlantic Avenue {64 South Ocean Boulevard}. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and will be held in the Commission Chambers, City Hall 100 N11V 15t Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. The following is a brief description of the project. The plans are available for review at the Planning and Zoning Department. If you would like to obtain additional information on this project please feel free to contact Senior Planner Ron Hoggard, at 243-7040. if you cannot make this mee#ing but would. like to be heard on the pro}ect, you may submit your comments as follows: - By phone at (561) 243-7040 By fax at (561 } 243-7221 - By a-mai[ at pzmail@delrayplanning.org - By regular mail at 100 NW 1~ Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 The development request is to demolish the Bermuda Inn Ho#el and construct a 5-story hotel with a parking garage on the ground and basement level. The request was considered by the Si#e Plan Review and Appearance Board on June 20, 2001, and July 11, 2007 and was tabled due to concerns with compatibility issues. Revised plans have been submitted to address the Board's concerns. The major changes to the plan involve the elimination of the restaurant and the roof top swimming pool. Also, the building has been setback an additional 5 feet, resulting in a total setback of 10 feet from the property line adjacent to Salina Avenue. Date Mailed: August 3, 2001 ~'1 _ '~•~ ~_ KEVIN Wp.RNER VIA MARINA 248 VENETIAIJ DRIVE DELRAY BEACH, F'L 33483 BERNARD HAFTEL ~1 ~3AML T 3500 HAMLET D IVE ~~.~- DEL BEACH FL. 33445 BR.4NNEN GEORGE W & FATRTCIA 1212 BATAVIA AVENUE GENEVA IL 60134-3204 BELLANTE DANIEL D 809 N O STREET LADE waRTE, FL 33460 BELLANTE DANIEL & PAA~ELA REEDER 5 NE 2Iv'D STREET DE'LRAX BEACH, FL 334.44 ,GRACEY MATTHEW JR 1109 HARBOR DRIVE DELRAX BEAC~3, FL 3:34.53 GRADY SCOTT D 72 S OCEAT~ BLVD ~~5. DELRLY BEACI:, 1`I. 33483 PERRY DON FRANCISCO BOSTONS 40 S OCEAN BLVD DELRAY BEACH, I'l, 33483 EDW S LE NE GREENS AR) VILLAGE 839 GR EN ARD VILLAGE H 215 DELRAY BE CH, FL 33445 FRED SANDY BEAUMONT COUNTRX LUB ACRES 5349 V BUREN ROAD DELRA B CH, FL 33484 MART E TEIN COUNTR L1FB ACRES 5399 S ROAD DELRA B ACH, FT. 33484 BUSS L WSON COUN RY IIB ACRES 1537 JAC SON ROAD DEL Y BE CH, FL 33484 MIC L S WOOD OREST 44 5 SHER OOD FOREST DRIVE D RAY B H, FL 33445 H GHLAND T ILER FAR~C 3 4 NE 3RD STREET B YNTON B H, FL X3435 NsET PINE. 6.24 SUNSET PINES DR LRAY BEACH, FL 33445 JOHN $ENNETT PROD 137 SEABREEZE AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, F'I.. 33483 CAROLYN ZIMMERMAN PRESIDENTS COUNCIL 212 SW 2ND AVENUE DET.aARY BEACH, FL 33444 ~, } SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: August 8, 2001 (Continuation from July 11, 2001 meeting) AGENDA ITEM: Iv.c. fTEM: Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, Located on the West Side of South Ocean Boulevard (S.R. A1A), Approximately 300' South of East Atlantic Avenue. GENERAL DATA; Owner .............. .............................. Applicant ........................................ Agent ................... . . . ................ Location ....... .................................. Property Size ................................. Future Land Use Map .................... Current Zoning ............................. Adjacent Zoning ..................North: East: South: West: Existing Land Use ......................... Proposed Land Use ....................... Water Servic:e ................................ Sewer Service .................... ....... Eugenia Kerstin, Trustee Louis Capano Robert Currie, Architect Robert G. Currie Partnership West side of South Ocean Boulevard (S.R. A1A), approximately 300' south of East Atlantic Avenue. 0.412 Acre Commercial Core CBD (Central Business District} CBD OS (Open Space) RM (Multiple Family Residential- Medium Density} RM Two-story motel with pool Demolition of existing motel and construction of a 5-story Hotel (48' high to roof deck), with 70 rooms, 50 parking spaces,. private gymispa and associated iandsca~ing. Existing on site. Existing on site. DoRCxESrER co-oP niaaAS s .~ ~~ w 81=RK5}11RE ra ,,, aAO t m _ ~' 8Y TF1E SEA t CRO5IIENON4 4 Z 4pxtlY 11tEEr ~ MANOR NOLISE m.. ~ CdMVDO 5-~ GROVE No. ~ ~ conrDO o a SPMf15N DELRAY 9EACF1 R1VER MARRIO?`T RESOYtT A'RAN71G AVENUE ,~ e~ ~ ~i ~ ~ AIA S . DOVIr'R FIOUSE GOND4 oc1=aN rn.AeE ~ cav~DO o V is fl x ~ ~ :s +y ~ JARDJN DEL MAR •` caNDO ~. ® N ~ mNDEMERE HOUSE AY STREET ~ LAN1KAl VILLAS CONDO wA w.r .... .r I ~ u: ~ ,k~~ , ~ ~~._ ~ T-T E~ tali B~~.~ O ~~~ T~H~~ -8~~.,. 4 ~~ ~a.. a ~ ~~ , : .. The action before the Board is that of approval of a Class V site plan which incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for Hotel Vista Del Mar, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F}: ^ 5ite Plan; ^ Landscape Plan; and, ^ Elevations. The subject property is located on the west side of South Ocean Boulevard (A-1-A}, approximately 300 feet south of Atlantic Avenue and is zoned CBD (Central Business District). ,.. `- ~, ,,. - .; _ ~~ ~~;A C K_G R O tJ The subject property consists of Lots 6-10, of the Ocean Park subdivision and is approximately 0.41 acres in size. The site currently contains the Bermuda Inn, a 20 room, two-story motel (constructed in 19fi8}, wi#h a pool and associated parking. The parcel was zoned LC (Limited Commercial) until it was rezoned to CBD (Central Business District) with the Citywide Rezoning associated with the adoption of the Land Development Regulations in 1990. At its meeting of June 20, 2001, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board reviewed the site plan application to demolish the existing motel and to construct a new hotel to be known as Hotel Vista Del Mar. Staff presented the item and noted that revised plans were submitted the day of the meeting addressing many of staff`s comments, except building Neigh#, loading, and compatibility. The Board also had concems with the compatibility of the project with the properties to the north and west. The item was tabled. The Board reviewed revised plans at it meeting of July 11, 2001. After presentations by staff and the applicant, several residents spoke in favor of the proposal. Then, an attorney, representing an adjacent property owner, and several residents spoke in opposition to the proposal. After the public comments, the Board discussed the project and directed questions to the applicant. The Board members felt that the revised project did not adequate address their concerns, including, the overall scale of the project and its compatibility with adjacent properties; loading requirements and the impact on Salina Avenue; sight visibility on Salina Avenue and Ocean Boulevard; and, traffic circulation and turning movements on Ocean Boulevard. The Board voted 5-0 to table the proposal. Revised plans have been submitted and are now before the Board for action. ~~~ ~ ~. P'R~~ SGT ~D~~.5GRIt='~."Fi ,, ~_ iY I x~i:. ^. L l~ 4 The new hotel has a total of 70 rooms and a private gym/spa. The 1,333 sq. ft. restaurant component and the rooftop pool were eliminated from the earlier plans. There are a total of 50 parking spaces accommodated within the building on the ground floor and below grade. There are six floors, including the sub-grade parking level. SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar-- Glass V Site Plan Approval Page 2 r ,. ~,, r ~ i r, S 1 T'`E ;. PLL~I~k A-id~A L ~~~~ ~~ _~ COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shat! specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development applica#ionlrequest Building Setbacks: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G)(2)(a) .Setbacks, within this portion of the CBD zoning district, a front setback of not less than 5', nor greater than 1D' shall be provided. As the property fronts on two streets, it is considered a double frontage- lot. The proposed hotel is setback 5' from Ocean Boulevard and 1 D' from Salina Avenue, thus- meeting this requirement. Normally,. a side interior setback is not required when there is dedicated access to the rear of the building. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.4{A)(1) Commercial Zoning Ad'acent to Residential Zonin a 10' setback is required where the rear or side of a commercially zoned property directly abuts residentially zoned property without any division or separation be#ween them. Since the adjacent property to the south is zoned RM (Medium Density Residential), a 1 D' side setback has been provided. Since the property to the north is also zoned CBD, a side setback has not be provided along the north properly line. Based upon the above,. the building setback requiremen#s have been rnet. Building Height: Pursuant to Section 4.3.4(K), within the CBD zone district, a maximum building height of 48' is allowed. The hotel has a height of 48' to the flat roof deck. Appurtenances, usually required to be placed above the roof level of a building and not intended for human occupancy, may be allowed to extend above the height limitations when approved by action of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board: This provision allows for elevators, stair towers, cooling towers, and mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof. The building has a parapet wall and decorative blue metal railing around the flat roofiine ofi the building. A stair tower and lower appurtenances for the elevator tower and other mechanical equipment project above the 4$' high roof deck. The stair tower reaches a height of 58'-6" to the mid fine of its roof. The height of the elevator tower, elevator equipment room, and the mechanical equipment area is not shown on the plans. This has been added as a si#e plan technical item, Open Space: Pursuart to LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(2) open Space, within the CBD zone district east of the Intracoastal Waterway, there shall be no minimum open space requirement. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the body acting upon a development application within the CBD may require that open areas, including but not limited to courtyards, plazas, and landscaped setbacks, be provided in order to add interest and provide relief from the building mass. It is noted that 23% of landscape area has been SPRAB 5taf# Report Hotel Vista Del Mar - Ckass V Site Play Approval Page 3 provided adjacent to Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue as well as along the north and south sides of the building. Room Size: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3(M)(1), each sleeping room shall contain a minimum floor area of 325 square feet including closets and baths. The applicant has submitted documentation indicating that the size of the hotel rooms vary from 393 to 617 square feet. Therefore, this requirement has been met. Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9.(0)(7}(e), hotels and motels are required to provide 0.7 spaces for each guest room plus 10 spaces per 1,00D sq. ft. of floor area devoted to ba[Irooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, lounges, and shops. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13{G)(1}(d}, within the CBD zone district, restaurants require 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. The parking requirement has been met as 48 spaces are required [70 room x .7/room = 49 - 1 space reduction = 48] and 49 spaces have been provided. It is noted that an additional 2 spaces are provided as guest check-in spaces and are not included in the regular parking count. Handicapped Parking: Based on the total number of parking spaces provided, two handicapped accessible parking spaces are required and two have been provided, thereby meeting the requirement. Dead-end Parking Bays: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9{D)(4)(c), Dead-end Parkins Bays, a 24' wide by B' maneuvering area is required at the er~d of dead-end parking bays. The maneuvering area provided on the sub-level parking floor meets this requirement. Loading: Ho#els between 20,000 and 100,000 sq. ft. shall provide 2 loading spaces. The applicant proposes to provide only one loading space. The body approving the site plan shall determine the adequacy of the provisions which are made for (un)loading. The applicant has submitted the following statement: "Based on the requirements of fhe hotel operator, and our experience, we are of the opinion that for this project, one will be sufficienf. The time of loading operations will be controlled to limit the Impact on the guests and general pubtic. " ' The 45,860 square feet building area of the hotel is less than half of the range provided in the guidelines table for hotels requiring 2 loading spaces. Additionally, the proposed hotel does not have any of the components which would generate additional loading demand such as a restaurant or mee#inglbanquet facilities. Since the hotel also has its own laundry, a linen service will not be needed. SPRAB Staff Repart Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 4 In addition to the one loading space provided, smaller delivery vehicles can utilize the regular parking spaces in the garage or the drop-off and check-in spaces in front of the lobby to make deliveries. Based on these factors, one standard loading space should be adequate for the facility. However, it is important that the project's impact on Salina Avenue be minimized for compatibility with the residential developments fronting Salina Avenue. Therefore, na loading or unloading of vehicles,. except trash pickup,. is permitted an Salina Avenue. This has been added as a condition of approval. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.fi.10(D)(1), single unit loading spaces must be 12' x 30' with a 30' maneuvering apron and 12' of vertical clearance. The loading space is located between two parking spaces which extend behind the loading space. To accommodate the required maneuvering area, the loading space has been widened to 14'. This allows a 30' turning radius in both directions. Drop-off Area: The applicant provided a traffic statement dealing with the adequacy of a two space drop- off area shown on an earlier version of the plan. The analysis indicated that the maximum number of trips entering the hotel requiring check-in and baggage drop-off would be 70 per day, assuming a daily turnover of all hotel rooms. Since the usual check in time is between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., an average of 12 trips during aone-hour period would require drop-off parking. With two spaces, fi vehicles per hour could be accommodated in each space. This allows ten minutes for unloading and parking per vehicle, which should be adequate. As shown in the above analysis, at least two spaces are needed for guests checking into the hotel. Since the size of the drop-off area has been reduced, two of the parking spaces far the project, opposite the lobby are being converted to temporary spaces for check-in and luggage drop-off. This can be accomplished, since the parking requirement for the project has been exceeded, Stacking Distance: Pursuant to LDR Section 4,6.9{D)(3)(c){1}, the required stacking distance from the right-of- way to the first parking space or aisleway is 20' when 50 parking spaces are provided in a parking area. The proposed stacking distance from Salina Avenue to the aisleway (ramp} is 14'. A waiver is required to reduce the stacking distance for this driveway entrance from 20' to 14'. 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 far another applicant or owner. SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Dsl Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 5 The proposed parking design provides for driveways to Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue. Therefore, the demand for stacking distance at any one driveway is reduced since the vehicle- trips are distributed, Additionally, the reduced stacking distance only affects the exiting traffic. Since ,incoming vehicles have a stacking distance of 24' to the dawn lane of the ramp, Safina Avenue is not impacted by the reduction. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(8)(5}, Waiver Findings can be made. Although not requested at this time, it is noted that the establishment of a valet queue in front of the hotel lobby would nat have adequate stacking with the current design. Therefore, a valet queue is no# pemnitted at this time. The establishment of a valet queue will require design revisions to accommodate the required stacking and approval of a Site Plan modifcation. This has been added as a condition of approval. Point of Access; Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9{D){3)(a), the point of access to a street or alley shalt be a maximum of twenty-four feet (24') unless a greater width is specifically approved as a part of the site and development plan. The main access drive in front of the building is 36' wide at the property Line. The additional width allows for a raised median to be placed in the center to restrict turning movements to right-turn in and right-turn out only. This is being proposed to minimize traffic conflicts due to the closeness of the Atlantic Avenue intersection. Visibility at Intersections; Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A), a visibility triangle is required at the intersections of roads (corner lots) and driveways. An unobstructed view within this triangle visibility must be provided between the heights of three-feet and six feet. The required visibility triangle at the intersection of two streets is 40' and 20' at driveways. The purpose of the triangle is to provide a sufficient line of sight for drivers to spot oncoming traffic. These triangles are required for walls, fences, and landscaping. The visibility triangles at the garage entrances are approximately 10' on Salina Avenue and 8' on Ocean Boulevard, where 20' is required. A waiver to this requirement has been requested. 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; or, {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 building setback is setback 10' from Salina Avenue and 5' from Ocean Boulevard. Since the driveway entrance on Salina Avenue immediately enters the parking garage, the wall of the stair tower encroaches into the required 20' visibility triangle. Similarly the building columns on either side of the entrance on Ocean Boulevard encroach into the visibility triangle. Salina Avenue is a narrow roadway which dead-ends approximately 150' SPRAB 5taf€ Report Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 6 south of the subject property. The 10' visibility triangle provided is adequate given the low speed and limited traffic on this roadway. In reality, visibility is only an issue for the exit lane of the garage. Upon exiting the garage, the visibility triangle from the exit lane is 20' in both directions. The visibility triangle for Ocean Boulevard is greater than 20' except for the encroachment of two major columns which reduce it to 8'. However, from the driver's position in the vehicle, the actual visibility triangle for the exit lane is approximately 20' in both directions. Also, there is an additional 12' between the property line and the travel lanes for Ocean Boulevard. Given these conditions, the reduction of the visibility triangle to 8' on Ocean Boulevard is appropriate. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation. with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7{B)(5), can be made. Sidewalk: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B}, a sidewalk is required to be constructed in the right-of- ways that abut the subject property line. This would apply along Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue. A 5' wide sidewalk exists along Ocean Boulevard but no sidewalk exists along Salina Avenue. It is noted that the proposal includes installation of a new paverbrick sidewalk on Ocean Boulevard, adjacent to the subject property. Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(D)(2), where it is clear that the sidewalk will not serve its intended purpose, the requirement for installation of a sidewalk adjacent to the property being developed may be waived during site plan or plat approval. The applicant has requested a waiver from the installation of a sidewalk along Salina-Avenue-on the basis that there is no ability for an extension of the sidewalk to the north or south. 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 signifcantly 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 on other property for another applicant or owner. Back-out parking exists along both sides of this roadway artd there is not room to install a sidewalk within the existing right-of--way. Without a reasonable expectation that the sidewalk could be extended on either side, the sidewalk would not fulfill its intended purpose. Therefore, it is inappropriate to provide a sidewalk along Salina Avenue. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7{B}(5}, can be made. Reduction in Right-of-Way Width: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D), the required right-of--way width for Salina Avenue is 60' and a 21.43' right-af--way currently exists. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4}, a reduction. in right-of way widths far existing streets may be granted by the City Engineer upon SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Slte Plan Approval Page 7 favorable recommendation from the Development Services Management Group {DSMG}. The DSMG recommended that reductions in right-of-way width far Salina be granted. Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting must be provided within the proposed parking area. However, the location of the project also requires compliance with Section 91.51 of the City of Delray Beach Code of Ordinances, Liahtinp Restrictions Along Beach, stated as follows: "No artificial lighf shall illuminafe any area of the beach which is used for furfle nesfing aRd hafchlings. In order fo accomplish fhis, all lighfing shall be shielded or screened so fhaf fhe light is not a visible source from the beach during fhe night period from April 7, fo October 39 of each year. "Night Period" is defined herein as .being fhaf time from dusk fo dawn." The location of this project requires that a complete lighting plan for the building indicating the location and fixture details for all lighting sources which could be visible from the beach be provided. This includes interior fixttares which could be visible through windows or other building openings. Details of measures #hat will be taken to screen the lighting must also be provided. Section 9.1 of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code should be used as a guide for mitigation measures to screen lighting sources. The provision of this plan and mitigation details has been added as a condition of approval. Trash Compactor: An enclosed trash compactor area with atoll-down gate is provided under the building on the fast floor. Trash pick-up will be from Salina Avenue via the roll-down gate, B1=1 has approved the configuration. To minimize the impact on the residential properties to the west, the enclosure area will be deodorized and air conditioned.. This has also been added as a condition of approval. A trash chute system will be utilized to dispose of trash from within the hotel and a secondary access door,. located on the side wall of the enclosure will be utilized to dispose of trash from the first floor. Bike Rack: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C){1)(c){3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in the designated area and by a fixed or stationary bike rack for any non-residential use within the City's TCEA. Since the subject property is located within the TCE.A area, a hike rack has been indicated in front of the building on Ocean Boulevard. Coastal Construction Control Line: The building is located west of the Coastal Construction Control Line and does not require a DEP permit. Existing Site Conditions: The survey indicates that the buildings to the south encroach into the subject property by ~/4". This encroachment will need to be accommodated in the fnal design of the hotel. Additional encroachments by an air conditioning unit and electrical box will also need to be SPRAB Staff Report Motel Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 8 addressed. The applicant will need to notify the property owners of these encroachments and the need for their removal andlor relocation prior to construction. Site Plan Technical Items. While the revised site plan has accommodated most of the staff concerns the following items remain outstanding, and will need be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. 1. Provide e~ltration trench percolation test results; 2. Provide documentation that the Salina Avenue drainage system has adequate capacity to handle the additional stormwater flow; 3. Provide FDOT driveway connec#ion and drainage permits; 4. Provide fire. flow calculations; 5. Show the height of the elevator tower, elevator equipment room and mechanical equipment area on the roof; and, 6. The Engineering Plan must be consistent with the site plan. t As stated earlier in this report, there is no minimum open space requirement within the CBD zone district east of the Intracoastal Waterway. However, the body acting upon a development application may require that open areas, including but not limited to courtyards, plazas, and landscaped setbacks, be prodded in order to add interest and provide relief from the building mass. The proposed building cavern most of the site with most of the parking and service functions also under roof. Therefore, the proposed landscaping for the project is minimal. The main entrance to the building is on Ocean Boulevard. A planting area with a pair of Coconut Palms with Dune Sunflowers between them will be located on either side of the entrance facing the street. The Coconut Palms are relocated from elsewhere on the site and are fisted as 25' - 35' in height. Given the height of the building, this height is necessary in order to be in scale with the building. The planting area on the north side of the entrance, in front of the hotel lobby, includes 3 European Fan Palms, Purple Crinum Lilies, Variegated Arboricoia, and Green Island Ficus. The planting area on the south side of the entrance includes Purple Crinum Lilies, Variegated Arboricola, Ti Plants, Pathos Vines and Green Island Ficus. A line of (8) Coconut Palms are proposed on the south side of the building. The trees will be spaced every 20' to comply with the spacing requirements where commercial abuts residentially zoned property [ref. LDR Section 4.6.1fi(H)(3)(e)). Triple trunk Pigmy Date Palms will be located between the Coconut Palms with Xanadu and Variegated Arboricola utilized under the tree canopy in the area. Boston Ferns will be located adjacent to the SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar-- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 9 parking spaces and {24) 8' high White Birds of Paradise will be planted along the property line. A 10' landscape strip is provided along the west property line between the building and Salina Avenue. Nine 25' - 35' high Washingtonia Palms will be provided within the landscape strip with Purple Crinum Lilies and Xanadu located under the tree canopy. Podocarpus will be located immediately adjacent to the west building line to screen openings in the parking garage. A fine of {6) Sabal Palms with Variegated Ginger underplantings are proposed on the north side of the building. An Arboricola hedge will be provided along the face of the building and Wart Fern will be utilized as a ground cover between the hedge and the property line. The floor plans indicate that a landscape area is provided on the fifth floor in the rear of the building in front of the balcony, However, the landscape materials for this planter have not been identified. This has been listed a landscape technical item. Several changes were made to the site plan after completion of the Landscape Plan.. These changes reduced the size of the planting areas in front of the hotel. The Landscape Plan will have to be modified to incorporate these changes. This has been listed as a landscape technical item. The proposed landscape plan complies with LDR Section 4.6.16. Landscaae Technical Items: The following Landscape Plan Items remain outstanding, and will need to be addressed prior to building permit submission. 1. Identify the landscape materials in the planter in the rear of the building on the 5~~' floor. 2. The .Landscape Plan must be consistent with the site plan. ''~.,~~" ~ ann .A RfC H 1'1f•~~',C~°-°f~'A L E L~.V~/~ ~`1`.~~,kS 'f ,~~ The proposed architectural elevations contain a mixture of design elements. The first floor of the east fagade consists of a large arched opening and four smaller arched openings supported on columns along Ocean Boulevard. The central opening provides access to the parking garage. A sidewalk is provided on the north side of the entrance road and the hotel lobby is visible under the building. The columns on this floor are cast coquina, painted yellow. The next four floors contain the hotel rooms. The far~ade contains a series of step backs from north to south which follow the angled front property line. The design is repeated on the 2"d through 4~' floors. Raised white banding is used to separate the floors. Each hotel room has a balcony accessed by a pair of white French doors with an arched top. The balconies project slightly from the wall face and are wrapped in blue metal railings. The window frames, which are painted white, are covered by green Bahama shutters. The walls are stucco,- painted yellow. The 5#h floor is stepped back slightly from the front and has the same design elements as the floors below, except the walls are covered with cementitous siding. A parapet is provided along the roof with a scare line in the stucco near the top. SPRAR Staff Report Hotel Vista Qel Mar ~- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 10 The same color scheme and architectural details with some variations are found on the north and south facades. To maximize ocean views for the hotel rooms, the walls have a saw tooth design with angled balconies extending out from the building. Trellises have been added above the balconies on the top floor. Single glass doors are used to access the balconies as opposed to the double French doors found on the east elevation. Between the projecting balconies, flat walls with windows and Bahama shutters extend above the roof line. The areas between these walls is spanned by blue metal railings. Cementitous siding is utilized on the walls of the upper level. A stair tower with a green metal hipped roof is located on the west side of the south facade. The ground floor on the south elevation is open, exposing the parking garage. A 6' cbs wall, finished in the same style as the base of the building with painted stucco and horizontal score lines, has been added along the south properky line to screen the vehicles. On the north elevation, the parking garage is completely enclosed. To break up otherwise blank walls, decorative shutters are used on bath facades between the hotel room balconies and the front and rear of the building. A large arched opening provides access to the garage on the ground floor of the west facade, A column divides the opening in two with the ground floor of the garage and ramp area visible through the openings. An enclosed trash compactor area with a coif-down gate is located on the north corner of the building. A stair tower with a green metal hipped roof is located on the south corner and two faux windows with Bahama shutters are used on each floor of the tower. Above ground level, the wall plane is broken up by a recessed balcony in the center of the building on each level. The balcony is accessed via a central door-and-an-addf#ional-dooFlocated-on~i##~er•-side-far-direct access--tohotel-~roorr~s~h~ wall plane of the upper level is stepped back an additional 8' wi#h a planting area provided in front of the balcony. Cementitous siding is utilized on the wails behind the balconies and on the upper level. Two faux windows with Bahama shutters are utilized on each floor between the open walkway and the north comer of the building, matching #hose on the stair tower. The building is set back 10' from Salina Avenue which is a narrow roadway. The residential buildings across Salina Avenue will be less than 50' from the face of the building. At such a close distance., the-'building will have a major visual impact on these residential properties. The recessed balconies, step back on the 5xh floor and the use of tall Washingtonia Palms in front of the fagade will serve tv break up the mass of the building and lessen its impact on the adjacent development. Architectural elements should. be added to the plain sections of roof parapet around the building, such as decorative caps or mansard projections to match the proposed green metal roofing on the tower. Pursuant to Section 3.'[.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of .development applications, certain findings must be made in a form whfch is part of the .official 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 consistency with the Future Land Use Map, SPRAB StafF Repnrt Hotel Visa Del Mar - Class V Si#e Plan Approval Page '[ ~ Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Section 3,1.1(A) -Future Land Use Map; The resulting use of land or structures must be allowed in the zoning district within which the land is situated and said zoning must be consistent with the applicable land use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map. The subject property has a Zoning District Map designation of CBD (Central Business District) and has a CC (Commercial Core) Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(B), Principal _Uses and_Structures Perm_ fitted, hotels are allowed as a permitted use within the CBD zoning district. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map designation. Section 3.1.1 B -Concurrent : Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan, 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, and solid waste. Section 3.1.1 (C) -Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): Compliance with performance standards set forth in Chapter 3 and required findings in Section 2.4.51jF)(5) shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in making a f nding of overall consistency. As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Site Plan Findin~sl: Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(F](5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter Three, the approving body must make a finding that the development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole., so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is located at the south end of the CBD zoning district which extends southward from Atlantic .Avenue along ocean Boulevard. The development of a new hotel on the subject property is compatible with the existing commercial development in the area. East of the Intracoastal Waterway, the CBD zone consists primarily of resort-orien#ed retail businesses, restaurants and the Marriott hotel. Restaurants, shops and a 5-story condominium (New Monmouth) are located north of the proposed hotel site, south ofi Atlantic Avenue. The Marriott hotel complex is located just north of Atlantic Avenue. SPRAB Staff Report Motel Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 12 The CBD district is the highest intensity zoning district within the City and the development standards for the district were written to promote compact urban development in order to emphasize economic growth and business development. Since the type of development permitted and encouraged wi#hin the CBD is not always compatible with less intense development,. it is important to minimize the impacts of new developments on adjacent properties along zoning district boundaries. The subject property is bordered by RM (Multiple Family Residential -Medium Density) zoning on the south and on the west side (across Salina Avenue). While the hotel use is compatible with this zoning district, the difference in scale between the proposed hotel and the existing residential development must be addressed. The property to the south is a two story condominium. The south facade of the proposed hotel has considerable variations in the wall plane and large Coconut Palms are to be planted along the facade. This facade is compatible with the adjacent condominium. The west facade of the hotel borders one and two-story residentia! buildings on the other side of Salina Avenue. The hotel is set back 10' from Salina Avenue. The proposed design includes recessed balconies, an 8' step back of the 5t~ floor and the use of tall Washingtonia Palms in front of the facade. With these design elements to break up the mass of the building and lessen its impact, the hotel will be compatible with the adjacent residential development. The Boards concerns regarding the abutting property to the north have been partially addressed by moving the majority of the building 8' back from the property line, thereby allowing the addition of foundation planting along that facade. However, concerns regarding ocean-visibilit~t-fi-~ m,e-n er#hern-hot~F-reer~s-i€-a--ba+ldir~g-e€-eq~a{-heigh# were-tfl~ ._ - be constructed to the north have not be addressed. It is noted that the impact of this scenario would be reduced if the comer unit an each Hoar (4 units} were removed. The opening created between the two buildings would allow air, light aril ocean visibility, albeit reduced. By not addressing this issue now and ensuring at least some ocean visibility, a potential problem with compatibility in the future may be created and may hinder redevelopment of the adjacent property. To avoid these potential problems, staff recommends that the corner unit on the each level be eliminated. If the applicant is unwilling to make this change, it is recommended that the applicant acknowledge on the record, the potential for loss of ocean visibility, fight and air, and agree not to oppose the redevelopment of the property to the north on the basis of those issues. A positive finding can be made that the development will be compatible and harmonious with nearby properties and the City as a whole, provided the conditions of approval are addressed. The project will fulfill the need for additional hotel rooms in the city and promote additional economic development. This should have a positive effect on property values in the area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies were noted: Future Land Use Element Objective A-1: Property shall be developed or redeveloped, in a manner so that the future use and intensity is approprla#e in terms of soil, topographic., and other applicable physical considerations, is complementary to adjacent land uses, and fulfils remaining land use needs. SPRAB StafF Report Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Site Plan Approval Page ~ 3 When the property is cleared (demolition of the existing motel) there should be no physical conditions that would prevent the redevelopment of the property. The site is located in a Central Business District and will be developed in a manner consistent with that zoning designation. The pro}ect will be complementary to the adjacent land uses provided the conditions of approval are addressed. The project fulfills the need for additional hotel rooms within the City. Housing Element Policy A-72.3: 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 discussed above, the proposed hotel will be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood provided the conditions of approval outlined in this report are met. Trash is being accommodated via an enclosed, air conditioned compactor which wil! prevent odors. Noise will be minimal since the 70 rooms are accessed internally and the hotel doesn't have a restaurant or conference facilities. Traffic generated by the facility will only be 579 trips with Ocean Boulevard as the main access and Salina Avenue as the secondary access. The project is consistent with this policy in that it will not result in a degradation of the neighborhood. --- - - - Coastal Management Element Goal Area "C": Development and redevelopment in the Coastal Planning Area shall be compatible with the existing character of the area, and shall provide for a sensitive balancing of the needs for economic development, redevelopment, and environmental protection. ~blective C-3_ : The development of vacant and under-developed land on the barrier Island shall occur in a manner which does not change the character, intensity of use, or demand upon existing infrastructure. in the Coastal Planning Area, as dictated in the following policies: Policy_C-3.2: There shall be no change in the intensity of land use within the barrier island and all infill development which does occur shall conned to the City°s storm water management system and sanitary sewer system. This is a redevelopment project of an underdeveloped property within the Central Business District. The development promotes economic growth in the downtown and is consistent with the character of the tourist-oriented commercial development within this area of the Central Business District. It will provide needed hotel rooms within the City, which will serve the local beach community and tourists. The project must comply with the City's site lighting restrictions in order to protect the beach area used for turtle nesting and hatchlings. This site has a Commercial Core land use designation and no change in the intensity of land use designation is proposed. Due to the property's location, there is not SPRAB Staff Report Hates Vista Del Mar- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 14 an opportunity to connect to the City's storm water management system. However, the project will be connected to the City's sewer sys#em. Section 3.1.7 dDi -Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Pian Analysis of this report, a positive Ending of compliance with the LDRs can be made, provided Site Plan Technical Items and conditions of approval are addressed. Downtown Development Authority (DDA) The DDA reviewed the request at its meeting of May 1fi, 2001 and recommended approval subject to addressing the technical site plan issues raised by staff, which are contained in this report. Community RedevelopmentAgency (CRA) The CRA reviewed the request at i#s meeting of June 16, 2Q01, and recommended approval subject to addressing compatibility with adjacent properties and the technical site plan issues raised by staff, which are contained in this report. _- aurtesy o ce: -~ -- --- Special courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowners and civic associations: PROD -Progressive Residents of Delray Chamber of Commerce • Property Owners of the Bahama House Condo • Presidents Council • Beach Property Owners Association ~° .~~__ ~ ~. ,;~.~r~*~~~~.8 ~ ~-~ T F~ [~ © c o SIC L'tl.~~i'~O~.N~.ffS The development proposal to construct a 70 room hotel on South Ocean Boulevard will be consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan provided the conditions of approval are addressed and the associated waiver requests regarding the reduced stacking distance from Salina Avenue, the reduced site visibility triangles on Salina and Ocean Bouievard and the sidewalk along Salina Avenue are approved.. The revised floor plans and building elevations seem to address the Board's previous concerns as they relate to the massing of the building and compatibility with adjacent development. Loading concerns have been significantly reduced since the restaurant has been eliminated. Consistency with Chapter 3 and 2.4.5(F}(5} of the Land Development Regulations will be achieved provided the conditions of approval are addressed. ' os A'~ Y,F ~'ACTION.S ~, 1. Cantinas with direction. SPRAB Staff Report Notei Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 15 2. Approve the Class V site plan, landscape plan and elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5{F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions. 3. Deny the Glass V site plan, Landscape plan, and elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based on a failure to make positive findings with respect to the Land Development Regulations. ~.~.... ~~.~.'- ~.'. R='I~.~OM~,~N,O.ED'A°CTI By separate motions: Waivers• Approve a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D){3}(c}(1}, to reduce the required. stacking distance for the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 20' to 14'. 2. Approve a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A), to reduce the visibility friangle at the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 20' to 10' and at the Ocean Boulevard driveway entrance from 20' to 8", based upon positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.7{B)(5). ~~i ppro~e a waiver o ~ eS cfor~ i? 'f:3(B}~ fo elimr- n~ a rtfi~"equrred siTewalk along Salina Avenue. Site Plan: Approve the Class V site plan for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans; 2. No loading or unloading of vehicles, except trash pickup, is permitted on Salina Avenue; 3. A valet queue is not permitted under the current design. Redesign of the front entrance area to provide the necessary s#acking and approval of the site plan modification will be required prior to opera#ing a valet queue at this location. 4. Alighting plan which details mitigation measures for all light sources visible from the beach must be provided; and, 5. The trash enclosure area must be deodorized and air conditioned. SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar-- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 18 Landscap® Plan: Approve the landscape plan for Ho#el Vista Del Mar, based upon positive fndings with respect to Section 4.fi.16 of the Land Development Regulations subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Landscape Technical Items and submit three (3} copies of the revised plans. Elevations: Approve the elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.6.18 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. That additional architectural elemen#s such as a parapet cap or metal mansard roof projections be added to the parapet. Attachments: ^ Appendix A ^ Appendix B ^ Reduced Floor Plans, Landscape Plan, and Building Elevations 1lmisrvD011departmentslpianning & zoninglboardslsprablhotel vista del mar revised 2.doc Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be rnet 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• ^ Water service is available to the site via a service lateral connection to a 6" main located in the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way. ^ Sewer service is available to the site via a service lateral connection to an 8" main located in the Salina Avenue right-of--way. ^ An existing fire hydrant is located at the NE corner of the site on Ocean Boulevard. A new fire line will be installed along the southwest corner of the property, connected to an 8" main in Salina Avenue. The Building will be fully sprinkled. 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 these level of service standards. - Drainage• -- - A preliminary engineering plan was submitted by the applicant. Since most of the ground level parking area is covered by the second floor of the building, drainage of the parking surface will be minimal. Any storm water that enters the parking area will be accommodated via sheet flow into a swaie along the south side of the property. Runoff from the roof will be discharged into catch basins at the northwest and southwest comers of the building and all the drainage will be diverted to exfiltration trenches along the west properky line. Exfiltration test results will be required prior to obtaining a building permit for the paving and drainage system. Since the drainage of the property is being directly almost exclusively to the rear of the property, documentation that the Salina Avenue drainage system has adequate capacity to handle the additional flow is required prior to obtaining a building permit. In addition, FDOT driveway connection and drainage permits will also be required. If these requirements are met, positive findings with respect to this level of service standard can be made. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located within the TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD (Central Business District), OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District} and the West Atlantic Avenue Business Corridor. The TCI=,4 exempts the above- described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. However, a traffic statement has been provided by the applicant which indicates that the construction of the new hotel wi[I generate 374 additional trips onto the surrounding roadway network. The additional traffic generated will not have an adverse impact on this level of service standard. Parks and Oaen Space: The 70 additional roams will not have a significant impact with respect to level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities. However, pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.2(C), Impact Fee Appendix A Standards for Site Plan Actions Page 2 Required, whenever a development is proposed upon land which is not designated for park purposes in the Comprehensive Plan, impact fee of $500.00 per dwelling unit (including hotel rooms) will be collected prior to issuance of building permits far each unit. Thus, an impact fee of $35,000 will be required of this development. Solid Waste: The Solid Waste Authority indicates that it has capacity to serve development in the Caunty at its current LOS of 7.2 pounds per day per capita for the life of the existing landfill (approximately 2021}. Based upon the Solid Waste Authority's trash generation rates, trash generated each year by the proposed 49,114 sq. ft. hotel will be approximately 4.7 pounds per sq. ft. or 115.4 tons per year. Since the total trash generated by this proposal can be accommodated by existing landfill facilities, a positive finding with respect to this level of service standard can be made. L °'ISTAt~D,A'RC}S FQI~ ~~'=tTE° P~A;1'~~, AGT~;~ON5 , 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 Provided reliefi is granted far the site visibility triangle on Salina Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms 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 applicable 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. Nat applicable Meets intent of standard X. --©oes natmeet-inten 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 meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shat[ 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. Vacant property shall be developed 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 Even though the property is not cun'ently vacant, k is noted that the project will provided needed hots! rooms in the City and will be complementary to adjacent uses, provided the conditions of ap removal contained in this report are met. Appendix B Standards for Site Pfan Actions Page 2 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 6e accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not 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 neighborhoods. 1=actors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shalt 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. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X This standard was addressed in the body of the report with the review of applicable comprehensive plan objectives and policies Does not meet intent I. 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 actiorts #o remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent .l. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of alt 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 infli projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent r I I i L r z ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .g r-- ~ ~ ! ~ i ~ ~ a~ t a ,~ - - - -- - - - ~ a 4 ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ `~1 ~ ~ ~ l i l ill l~ ~wrwaa~ -~+wvti uMSai ~e ~.a+wwM+~u b~aue~'wr~+yearun ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~p ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ v#s ~MMKM At~ti9 3~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~~~ p~~ ~~~ ~~ ~. ~' ~ ' ~ '~ i !+ ,~ ~ ~ _~..~ Z mra~iwoww lnr aw mnmi ^w ~resrr ~ +~F~I arreenwor ~o rq`prr as r uanzaehu ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ $ ~ i~ o d ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ Q~~ 2 ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ 3 z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ t------ -----------~---- ~" ,,j i 1 1 ~ ~ ® ~1 0 I ~l I 1-------------._._.__------------~~ _ r I I 1 Z ~w+tw+a ~r ~.~-. awoo m~w+v~naw~wwrra~e #a 1fdYm'LiN]OaNn b.~ rue~n xw.agor~ ~a~nwo+uwaw mv~at w ww~+r ~rsrrwva-~ w~rova~er n ~a~K+-i ~cw.w+ma wu ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ a~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~R r~r ~ ~ a Ri~~~ ~4 ~~~ E~ ~~ ~f wLrrar+r Vr ~wrrrarrovy~a Ielwl~lYMYiW pu y1bYe'i~.11e0efutl ~ISO~oi161btylOWPY J+s' d/ m~tl1f ~ ~ n ~M.rrMrware 90Y~GYA J,a~i'~Mi ~s'~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f~~ ~ ~ z~z ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~x.~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e o ,~$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R a ~ ~a -~oar.i a y.+~.u arc+~vwai p q+...+.~ae au maw~i+++aea.~u~n oor~.ro.o nawaww~ r. a.~vrr aw wew.n ~ r`rurr+a aroaoow~ c iur+orr ~* ~MQ Q~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ d a ~ Q J ~ ~ : w i $ U a J n ~ ~r~n ~ a ~ ~ J O ~ W m ~~~ ~~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' s ~ ~ Y j~~¢~~a~~~~~~~,~ ~ ~ Z;~i~~~ a~~~~ ~ #~ fZa ~s a ~~ i tl ~ ~ e alr~ ~ el~ Y: ~li { a ~ ~ ~~~ ; . 5 ~~ .~~~ ^RS~ilwi~7i~i~=~~ s f~# ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ 6 ;iii~'alri~3ERi ~~ P~i E 1 d :~ ~~ e ~_ g~ = ~ ~ ~ g ? ~E~~~F ~S~ ~~~ ~~ =~ ~~ ~~~~~. ~ d~-~ ~~~ d~~ w ~~~ ~ Q ~~ ~~~~~~~~ n ~ ~~. ~ ~~~' dugg 5~ y`~~- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ yr~ ~~ i o z w J ~~ ° ~ w noonoo d 5 ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~[Ee S~~ ~ Z N $ ~~ !k E i 4Q a~ ~ - 6~~ics~ ~~ ~~R~ g~g~ 3. u ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ . €' g ~.~~~iBiB~~ tt ~a ~'~ ~ ~ ~ /(~ yyy$~ ~~~ ~ L~/;~~i i ~~.~5 ,~~~~4 ~~s~~, ~~_~ ~~~~~$ ~ ~_a j w- T •• J-•- , ~ ~, ~i Z r~ ;~ t~y `W O O O p O O 1+ GS ~ c~i O O O O 1~ r r ~ C"7 Cb W st C1 d' CD ~ O ~ N ~ 47 c/J tin 1L1 X13 iq +.C~ u'1 rO ~ crf st ~ ~ ~Q' ~ H i#. ~ r N @7 d' 1(! CD 1~ OD ~ ~ _ r r r r r ~ r ~ ~ ~ g g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 ~n d 0 ~n O 0 ~n O o vs ~ w ~ W oa ~ to o ~ o o ~ O ca 7 ~ r r ~ cn c~ h Of ~ w ~ OD ~ O ~ N ~ u rp c in O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r N Q7 ~ t[1 ~C I~ OD 8f ~ r r r r r ~ ~ ~ J z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 o D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o o D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ~ j O CD v C7 O u~ O O ie7 O O ~ O O ~ 1~ 01 ~ W GD ~ O Q u~ O O u~ O Ci u~ I~ r Q r ~ C? 01 + O ~ Q d' CD ~ O N ~ J J ~U a c ~ ~ er u _~ ~ a O ~ o ~ o Q: = H r N CQ ~ 1l"J O ~ CO ~ o ~ r r^ N ~ c+~ r ~ r Q r cc r I~ r ao r ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ a o o o a v o o o ~ a~ a~ eo O 0 O o O O O r~ ~- ~r ~ x*, m ~ a, .r ~ O ~ a, ~ O ~ N ~ D o ° ~ Z c N O r ~ ~ ~ r N t+7 ~ to ~D 1~ CO 01 r r r r ~ vim- rQ r ~ + ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O D O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oc ac rY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z O tt3 ~` 1 nC O Z z a Q a w w 0 Z O H d } W 111 H (~ d z 0 w w ~} IV. PROJECT PLANS D. Hotel Vista Del Mar West Side of South Ocean Boulevard A-1 A A roximatel 300' South of Atlantic Avenue: Class V Site Plan Landscape Plan, and Buildino Elevations Associated with the Construction of a.7'I Room Hotel with a~ 1.333 sq ft. Restaurant Robert Currie Authorized A enc. QU~4SI-JUDICIAL~HEARING Chairman Branning stated that this item would be conducted as a quasi judicial hearing, which allows for presentations, by all involved parties, the admission of documents into the record and public testimony. The Board Secretary, Loretta Heussi, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mr. Ron Haggard, Senior Planner presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff report. The site currently contains the Bermuda Inn, a 20 room, fi~vo- story motel (constructed in 1968}, with a pool and associated parking, and is zoned CBD (Central Business District). Immediately to the north of the proposed site is Boston's that has a 2 story, restaurant, apartments, and a parking lot. To the west of Salina Avenue there are one and two story residential buildings. The development proposal is to demolish the existing motel and construct a new hotel. Mr. Hoggard explained that the new hotel has a total of 71 rooms, a private gymispa, a rooftop swimming pool and a 1,333 sq. ft. restaurant. There are a total of 59 parking spaces accommodated within the building on the ground floor and below grade. There are six floors, including the sub-grade parking level. The building is 48 feet in height. The development proposal also involves the following waiver requests, which Staff supports: ^ To reduce the visibility triangle at the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 20' to 13'. ^ To eliminate the required sidewalk along Salina Avenue. Mr. Hoggard continued that the technical problems identified- in the staff report are such that major revisions to the building design will be required #o address the issues. The resultant design may vary considerably from the current submittal. Mr. Hoggard stated that the applicant has addressed several of the technical problems, and that the applicant will explain how the issues were resolved. Mr. Hoggard stated that if the Board chooses to approve the plan with conditions to address the issues that the appropriate motions are outlined in the staff report. Mr. Hoggard highlighted the following issues stipulated in the staff report that needed to be addressed to be in compliance with the Land Development Regulations: ^ The Bahama shutters on the north facade of the building must be removed or an easement obtained for the encroachment on the adjacent property. 4 SPi~AB Minutes 6/20/Df ^ The design of the loading area must be changed to provide the required maneuvering area and the garage entrances must be modified or the height of the 1 st floor increased to provide '12' of vertical clearance ^ All Site Plan Technical Items need to be addressed. v Alf appurtenances on the roof, which are not required must be removed. Mr. Hoggard explained that if the applicant seeks to have the appurtenances, which are not required project above the 48' high roof deck, the applicant would have to apply for a waiver, which would have to be approved by the City Commission. Also, there may be an issue with a Comprehensive Plan policy that states that no residential development shall exceed 48' in height. An interpretation of this Gomprehensive Plan policy would have to be made by the City Attorney. ^ No loading ar unloading of vehicles is permitted on Salina Avenue. ^ A fighting plan which details mitigation measures for a[I Gght sources visible from the beach must be provided. ^ Additional access to the trash compactor that does not require opening the roll- down gate on Salina Avenue must be provided. ^ If a valet queue is established in the drop-off area, it may only be used for guests of the hotel. ^ That the Coastal Construction Control l_me be shown on the survey and that a DEP permit be received for any development east of the I'rne. ^ Increase the size of the Coconut Palms used on the site to be in scale with the building. ^ Add a pair of Coconut Palms on either side of the main entrance; ^ Increase the depth of the raised planting bed along the south property line to 3fi". ^ The Alexander Palm trees should be replaced with taller trees such as Washingtonia Palms where passible along the rear property fine. © That portions of the building be set back an additional 5' from Salina Avenue to allow variations in the plane of the wall and that additional architectural features be provided to add interest. ^ That additional windows or other architectural elements be added to break up the large expanse of blank wall and add interest on the north elevation. Mr. Hoggard gave a brief overview of the required findings as outlined in the staff report that relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Hoggard entered the following pertinent document into the record:, the Planning and Zoning Department's Project File 200'i-008-SPF-SPR. SPRA$ Minutes 6120/D1 Chairman Banning inquired what Staff's recommendation was at this moment. Mr. Hoggard stated that the applicant hasn't addressed all the site plan technical items, the building height issue, loading, and compatibility, and would prefer to see how the issues have been addressed and then ifi can be discussed further. Mr. Eliopoulos stated for the record that he had contacted Robert Currie Partnership for clarifcation regarding the development proposal. Mr. Eliopoulos had also received verbal comments €rom Mr. John Bennett, Mr. Kevin Warner, and Mr: Harvey Oyer, Attorney. Chairman Branning arid. Mr. Perez-Azua stated for the record that they had received a telephone tail from Mr. Harvey Oyer, Attorney, however neither of there had spoken fio Mr. Oyer. Ms. Borchardt, Mr. Sneiderman, and Mr. DeCapito stated for the record that they had also received verbal comments from Mr. Harvey Oyer, Attomey. Mr. Jose Aguila, Architect at Robert Currie Partnership., representing the developer, handed out 11" x 17" size revised plans that depicted the changes they had made as a consequence of Staffs conditions of approval. To be readily seen, Mr. Jess Sowards, Architect displayed a larger scale drawing. Mr. Aguila stated that it is important to remember that one of the goals, which is stated in the Comprehensive Plan, is too encourage redevelopment to the areas that safer to our tourists trade and bring income into the City. We have a village by the sea proposal, which encourages redevelopment projects and it is important for the Board to consider the good that will come from this project. This development proposal will fulfill the need for additional hotel rooms within the City. Mr. Aguila explained how they dealt with the issues outlined in the staff report as follows: © Removed the Bahama shutters on the north fagade of the building. n Several of the building towers have been removed. Also, the remaining towers have been reduced 10'. which is 55 feet to the peak. v Parking issue - the meeting rooms have been removed and now are administrative offices, therefore we don't have a parking shortage. Also, the restaurant has been modified to 1,333 sq. ft. The columns encroaching into the parking space although they don't agree this is an issue, the parking has been .adjusted, and the columns don'# encroach at any point or at any level into the parking spaces. v The compact parking space located west of the parking ramp has been removed. ^ The western and northern most parking space between the ramps of the garage and Safna Avenue, which had a parking space that caused a maneuvering problem has been removed. 6 SPRAB Minutes 6/20101 '~~ ~:. ', ^ Handicapped parking -the handicap parking has been divided so that there is one handicap parking space on south and two on the north. With direct access to the restaurant and the lobby. This is no longer an issue. ^ The site plan has been adjusted to accommodate a 24' wide by 6' maneuvering area at the end of dead-end parking bay. . ^ The loading area has been moved to the west. ^ The arches have been raised and squared off to provide the adequate clearance. ^ The fire truck access condition has been eliminated. ^ The east elevation of zhe building shau}d be moved further west to allow a drive off of Qcean Avenue, and we don't agree. ^ The main access driveway width in front of the building has been increased to 24'. ^ Agreed with Staff to provide a lighting plan-which details mitigation measures for all light sources visible from the beach. ^ Have added a trash chute system. ^ A bike rack has been provided on the NE corner of A-1-A. ^ The fire pump room has been located to the NW corner and is no longer on the roof. ^ The sidewalk has been extended through the driveway entrance on Ocean Boulevard. ^ Agree with Staffs Landscape Technical Items. a Can add windows or other architectural elements to the north far~ade. ^ Have added scoring, removed the towers and the pergolas to the west elevation and can add a different paint scheme. ^ The two houses to the west are owned by our client, and there is a possibility that this area will be rezoned, therefore the houses will not exist. ^ Cannot move portions of the building back an additional b' from Salina Avenue because the required setback for Salina is zero. ^ The hotel is compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties. ^ Columns -you are allowed to encroach on the parking line and doesn't agree with Staff, and felt it was a misinterpretation. Mr. Aquila requested that. the Board would allow the encroachment. However, he did feel that this issue should be discussed further. Mr. Aquila concluded. that he felt that they have demonstrated that they have complied with all the issues ou#lined in the staff report, and was available to answer any questions. Chairman Branning asked if there were any individuals that wished to speak in favor of the project. There were none. 7 SPi~Ae Minutes 6120109 ~l Chairman Branning asked if there were any individuals that wished to speak in opposition of the project. The following individuals spoke from the public. Mr, Harvey Over., Attorney, stated that he is representing Mr. Donald Robinson, who is a properly owner on Salina Avenue. Mr. Oyer explained that his client awns three lots on Salina Avenue, in fact one of the three lots is immediately behind the Bermuda Inn. There are three properties immediately to the west, and only two are owned by the applicant, and the third, a single family home, is owned by Mr. Robinson. Also, Mr. Robinson owns two others on the street. Mr. Oyer stated that they have the following concems: (1) The height of the building, which is fairly traumatic. The footprint takes up virtually the entire piece of property,. which is about 4110 of an acre. Even with the reduction, it is still a pretty precipitous rise, when you are looking out the door of a single family home, and you have about a 15 foot front yard, 21 foot wide road, with no swales, no sidewalks, and no additional right-ot way. (2) The code requires that the road is 60 feet wide, and it is only 21 feet wide, which is about a third of what we feel we would Tike to have. In fact, the alley is 20 feet, so it is basically the sarne as the alley. The 20 feet plus the 5' setback means that you aren't very far away from a 55' building, which blocks light, air, and as you saw from the west elevation, the building is not particularly attractive either. We hope that if this is approved that the :applicant would make the building more attractive. (3) This also does not step backwards in anyway, and according to the Land Development Regulations, it is encouraged tha# as height increases buildings are set backwards to mitigate this issue. Mr. Oyer continued that the applican# has absolutely maximized everything that they can; minimum setbacks, maximum height, no setbacks, and no open space. We understand that this makes economically sense for them, but for the residences that live in a long standing residential neighborhood, immediately behind the building, and immediately to the south, that is a pretty intimidating building to be put in place. {4) Traffic issues. (a) Res#aurant garbage dumpster contains a lot of odor, attracts raccoons and other wild animals that live on the barrier island, (6} Parking -there will be employees that need to park some place,. and combined with the existing shortage of parking, where will everyone park in my client's backyard. Several of our minor concems are: location of mechanical and air ducts; will there be window air conditioning; drainage issue. Mr. Oyer stated that they haven't had a chance to review the proposed changes presented tonight, and requested that the Board table the proposal. Mr. John Bennett, Vice-President, Governmental Relations for the Beach Property Owner's Association, Inc. stated that he doesn't fal[ under either category of in favor or in opposition of the proposal. Mr. Bennett had written a letter expressing concerns with the scale of the building, traffic flow and adequacy of the supplied parking, which a copy was attached to the staff report. He stated that it is not really easy to comment on plans that have drastically changed from the time he wrote the letter. Mr. Bennett had two questions, which were: {1) Are the revised appurtenances truly required for fire purposes, and if so, do they absolutely have to be on the roof, because the appurtenances significantly increase the apparent mass SPiZA6 Minuses S12o101 -~ .1 . and height of the building. The association has concerns with maintaining the resort atmosphere. (2) What is the fmal parking space count and how does this relate to the actual code requirement. This is a serious concern because of the existing shortage of parking spaces. Mr. Cary Glickstein, 277 SE 5~' Avenue stated that his concerns are: {1) That there is a signifcant congestion problem at this intersection. I would suggest to you that these plans, in terms of the parking areas,. that the building will .probably require a transfer slab. However, it is impossible for the architec#, as competent as their are, to tell you where those columns are going to be a# this point. 5o i feel discussing trse parking space is premature at this time. Mr. Glickstein did feel that the issues #ha# had been raised were pertinent, such as, Coastal Construction Control Line and compatibility regarding what the height restriction is in that area. The economic liability of we need to get a certain height ar we can't do anything because it reduces the size of rooms or eliminates rooms is not relevant. What is relevant is the state of more than just one property owner and their development of that property. There are a lot of other people who are concerned about commercial intrusion in this area, numerous changes, and the significant issues that haven't been addressed, therefore everyone is entitled to see these issues. Mr. Perry DonFrancisco, Vice-President and Owner of Boston's On The Beach, [nc., stated tha# they own the abutting property immediately to the north of the proposed hotel, and he is here tonight to represent our company's concemslissues. In all due respect to environmentalists, Bos#on's might receive more consideration if we were turtle hatchlings. Mr. DonFrancisco handed out a ske#ch of Boston's adjacenf to the proposed hotel, and presented the following concemslissues: • The east setback which is at 5' eliminates Boston's sunny view from both the upper and lower deck patios, and our interior second floor picture window. Bos#on's patios are not shown on the applicant's drawings their drawings show behind our patios. • The hotel's proposed northern boundaries has no setbacks and abuts our southern boundary, which will eliminate our natural light on the sou#h side. The structure will create a cavern that blocks our building. • The zero lot line between the proposed hotel and Boston's creates a safety issue. Excavation is necessary and the hotel will no# only abu# our property line with the structure on grade, but intends to go one level below. Down immediately next to our structure and we are 31? yards from the shoreline. Thus, jeopardizing the structural integrity and safety of our building and the public. • Zero lot line building to building is one thing, but building to patio is another. The proposed hotel guests and Bos#on's customers will be able literally to touch each other on the second floor from their respective patios. They would be able to crawl back and forth. This may be convenient if Boston's were to receive the roam service account. • The hotel will coexist with our operations and will create and automatic complaint situation. ~ SPRAB Minutes 6120101 • Staff is recommending that additional windows or other architectural elements be added to break up the large expanse of blank wall and add interest on the north elevation. A comment was made that you won't see the north elevation because Boston's would be in front of the hotel, however if you look at the proportions of Boston's with this structure, Boston's is probably 113 ofi the total height of the proposed hotel: • If the applicant can build zero lot line, five stories, and Boston's decides to develop their present undeveloped properly five stores on the same zero lot line, are we now infringing on the applicant's now approved northern exposure views. Would we be allowed to break up our lot, length, southern walls with windows? Whereby windows in both buildings would) be facing each other. Is this not a fire hazard? • The applicant blocks the views, and the air flow of the northem side rooms with their own northeastem rooms that project northward beyond the site plan of their own set of rooms. This project assumes that the properly to the north will not develop five stories, however Boston's future development must be taken into consideration and not restricted. • The northeastern rooms, which but up to the lot line must be reconsidered for the following reasons: proximity to our public patio;. if blocks the air flow and view of its own northwest rooms; potential fire hazard to both buildings; is there an adequate fire escape route for the northern rooms .beyond the east elevation when its sealed off to the east and wes# elevation; the north elevation, which is our south property line, zero lot line, the parking garage wil! be enclosed by the wall, but it will only be opened on the north boundary to allow natural light and ventilation, which Boston's natural light is being removed and. the fumes will ventilate into our building; loss of view. • If the hotel or restaurant can't absorb the parking provided for the facility then the automobiles wip stack- in the. southbound lane on A-1 A. The automobiles will stack directly in front of our patio diners, which will create obnoxious views, obstructions, and traffic accidents. More parking and traffic is only adding to the congestion on Salina Avenue. Both Boston's hotel and restaurant lot would be obstructed, if this is allowed. Mr. DonFrancisco stated that it is their position that the City, the Board; and the Developer, please acknowledge the aforementioned concerns, and make the appropriate necessary adjustments of this project. Mr. Kevin Wamer, 248 Venetian Drive stated that his sentiments are similar to the ones already mentioned. He was in favor of the concept being proposed, however many of the objections already raised were his concems. The City's CBD code requirements already exist and needs to be adhered to. The Comprehensive Plan is very clear regarding compatibility with the surrounding area. Mr. Warner stated that this project was too large, and a little moderation is called for to maintain all the visual and :aesthetics qualities of that corner, part of the beach, surrounding area and compatibility issues. Also, he felt very strongly that the financial realities were not a concern for the public, because such a large project as this one should not be 1D SPRAB Minutes 6/2o/t)'1 crammed into a small area. Mr. Wamer encouraged the Board to take Staff s recommendation, and have it reworked, give direction, and to come up with something that is more manageable, more reasonable in scale, and addresses all the specific issues that have been raised. Chairman Branning declared the public testimony closed. Chairman Branning asked the applicant if #hey wished to cross-examine staff. Mr. Aquila replied no. Ci~iairtnan Branning asked staff if they wished to cross-examine the applicant. i~lr. Hoggard replied no, bu# fel# that several conditions shouid be added based on their mod~ed plan. The Board made the following comments or asked the following questions. • Ms. Borchardt stated that she strongly agreed that the project should- be tabled, because there have been numerous changes since the document requiremen#s were submitted to the Board. There were some very good points that were raised tonight. She would [ke to have the following items put on the plan: elevations referencing were the height was measured from and the type of roads that have been explored, more details of the north elevation, calculations of the pervious area, because there is no pervious area. • Ms. Borchardt asked if the setbacks were actually measured from the parking s#ructure below ground or from some place else? Mr. Hoggard stated that it is measured from the upper level. • Ms. Borchardt stated that the proposed trash compactor located on Salina Avenue directly across the street from single family residence shows a lack of sensitivity. • Ms. Borchardt inquired if the functional analysis of the parking stnacture was submitted to Staff for review and does it actually work. There are parking spaces that no one could passibfy get into, such as below ground and by the elevator. • Ms. Borchardt stated that a floor area ratio is a good indicator of how much building mass there is compared to an acreage of the site. This is a very intense site and the applicant should be more sensitnre to the surrounding area.. • Mr. Sneidem~an stated that what was insensitive to him was sidewalks. The applicant isn't providing a sidewalk on the west side of the building, because of having no way to get to the sidewalk from the sides of the building. Mr. Aquila stated that there are no sidewalks at all on Salina Avenue. Mr. 5neiderman stated that he did not understand the whole concept of no sidewalks on Salina Avenue. Mr. Hoggard explained that there is not adequate right-of-way on Salina Avenue to provide a sidewalk, and that there is no ability for an extension of the sidewalk to the north ar south. ~~ SPn,a6 Minutes srzo~oi .-.~ • Mr. DeCapito was in favor of the concept, but was not clear on the height restrictions and appurtenances on the roof. Mr. Hoggard explained what the City codes stipulate and that a waiver for a higher height would have to be approved by the City Commission. • Mr. DeCapito inquired about the drainage. Mr. Hoggard explained the minor drainage problems. • Mr. Perez Azua stated that verifcation of the location of the Coastal Construction Line is needed. • Mr. Perez-Azua stated that he was concerned with the entrance to the Ivbby, and having one-ways far eniering and exi#i>; gig, which will cause a stacking problem, congestion and addition traffic on A-1-A. • Mr. Perez-Azua stated that he was extremely concerned about the rear elevations because it needs to be broken up to mitigate the massiveness of the s#ructu re. • Mr. Eliapoulos stated that he was in favor of the concept, but his concerns are: Salina Avenue; trash compactor; the first parking space close to A-1-A you would have to back into the space; intensity of the site; control of traffic; reorienting the bathroom door versus the kitchen door far the. restaurant; does the parking work; and west elevation needs relief. • Chairman iranning stated that he had the following concerns: architectural treatments required by Staff; square footage of the administrative ofhc~s and restaurant to figure if parking spaces are required; pervious area calculation; eas# elevation setback. • Chairman Branning inquired of the windows on the north elevation, would it matter if Mr. DonFrancisco wanted to develop Boston's as a fve-story building, and then what would became of the north elevation. Are these required fire exits? Mr. Hoggard explained the stipulation for fire exits. Further discussion, ensued regarding the stacking, service area, upgrading in landscaping, and other numerous issues of the proposed project. Chairman Branning asked the applicant if he wished to make a closing argument. Mr. Aquila stated yes. Mr. Aquila stated that they are in compliance with the City's code as currently written. The garage, the ramps, fuming radius and percentages work. We have modified our plans to address Staffs conditions, and request that the proposal not be tabled. Chairman Branning asked Mr. Hoggard if he wished to make a closing argument. Mr. Hoggard stated yes. Mr. Hoggard stated that we don't want the building any closer than 5' to Salina Avenue. Also, the fire pump is required to be in its own room. 12 SPfiAB Minutes 612109 Chairman Branning stated that he appreciates the applicant's quick response and great strides to accommodate Staffs concernsrssues of the proposal. However, because the Board is being presented with 11 x 17 size revised plans at tonight's meeting, which the public has not seen, staff has not had a chance to review in detail, and the issues the Board has raised that the proposal should be tabled. He continued #hat by tabling the proposal until the next meeting gives the applicant time to address the issues and everyone the opportunity to review the revised plans. The other Board members concurred. It was moved by Ms. Borchardt, seconded by Mr. Sneiderman and passed 6-~ to table the entire proposal for Hotel Vista del flilar. So tha# il~~e items presented tonight, as well as Staff's issues are included in the site plan and other documentation and presented to the Board. at a future date. A. T~ ite Plan The item before Square. NE 1~ ue Board is approval of a Class I site plan modification for Town .~'. r, nner summarized the~~'land use actions that have occurred and ttto the Board through a review of the staff report. The psi consists of t e installation of four (4) carport canopy structures over #hose~+parking space adjacent to the residential building. The canopies will be e~ghte~n feet {18") irlength and will have varying widths depending an the number of space's within the parking rows (90', 72', and 63'). The canopies wilt be of a Navy Blue vrn~yl matet'ial, which matches the existing awnings on the buildings. Also, the support posts will be Navsr Blue. Staff is concerned that an assumption will be made b c~`stomers, employees, and visitors that the carports are for the exclusive use o the residents, because of the carports being located adjacent to the residential st ctures. Therefore, signage needs to be provided on site that clearly indicates that the covered parking spaces are available for both the office and residential uses. A`Il~r. Pape recommended approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff rep rt. ~~ The Board inquiredfrhow many srgn are going to be provided and where will the Mr. Pape, Senior PI presented the item development propo signs be located. Mr. Cary Gfckstein of Ironwood Properties they have gone to a great degree to keep~,th lot of signage. Mr. Glickstein stated that the end of th~site. He felt that regardless o~ spaces would predominately be used by the A leng~fiy discussion ensued, regarding the Board that signage was not needed. 13 stated that this was an issue because site open, and we don't want to have a had considered placing a sign at each the signage provided that the parking residents. and it was the consensus of the SPr~AB Minutes .fi/20/01 ~` .-: ~: 5! 2. (NEiM That a photometric plan be submitted if there are any changes in the site lighting, and no adjustments can be made without submission of an approved photometric plan. After further discussion, Mr, DeCapito amended his motion. It was moved by Mr. DeCapito, seconded by Ms. Dowd to approve the request to remove the condition requiring a photometric plan for the Ralph ls~xulDaewoo Dealership, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a letter be provided by a certified electrical engineer stating that the subject dealership complies with LDR Sections 4.6.8 and 4.4.10(G)(6}. 2. (NEW} That a photometric plan be submitted if there are any changes in the site lighting, and no adjustments can be made without submission of an approved photometric plan. 3. (NE1IV) That any additional square footage to the building or any modifications of the square footage to the building, no matter what the percentage is, will require the submission of a photometric plan. Upon roll call the SPRAB voted as follows: Ms. Dowd -Yes; Mr. Sneiderman - No; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. DeCapito -Yes; Mr. Perez Azua -Yes. Said motion passed wi#h a 4-1 vote. B. Hotel Usta Del Mar, lContinuation from ,tune 2D. 2UQ1 Meetingl: West Side of South Ocean .Boulevard (A-1 A), Approximately 30D' South of Atlantic Avenue: Class V She Plan Landscape Pfan, and Buildino Elevations Associated with the Construction of a 7l] Room_ Hotel with a 1.29T sa. ft. Restauranfi,.Robert Currie. Authorized Aoent. QUASI-JUD1ClAL HEARING Vice-Chairman Perez Azua stated that this item would be conducted as a quasi- judicial hearing, which allows for presentations, by all involved parties, the admission of documents into the record and public testimony. The Board Secretary, Loretta Heussi, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mr. Ronald Hoggard, Senior Planner stated at its meeting of June 20, 20D1, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board reviewed the development proposal and tabled the item. Staff had presented the item and noted that revised plans were submitted the day of the mee#ing addressing many of staffs comments, except building height, loading, and compatibility. The Board also had concerns with the compatibility of the project with the properties to the north and west. Mr. Hoggard stated that the applicant has revised the plans, which addresses the issueslconcems raised at the previous meeting. Mr. Hoggard explained that these revisions have been reflected in the staff report. The total number of rooms has been reduced from 71 to 70, the 1,333 sq, ft. restaurant to 1,297 sq. ft., and the tots! of 59 parking spaces to 56, 5 5PRA8 Minutes 7111/D1 L major visual impact on these residential properties. Staff recommends that- steps be taken to create additional variations in the- fiat walls to break up the mass of the building. This could be accomplished by setting back portions of the building further from Salina Avenue ar by opening up the rear hallway to-the outside and creating a continuous balcony. v That additional~archi#ectural elements such as a parapet cap or metal mansard roofi projec#ions be added to the parapet. Mr, Hoggard stated, at this point, Staff supports the two waiver requests and . recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the conditign~ outlined in the staff report. Mr. Hoggard stated that a letter had been received from Mr. John Bennett, ~ce- President, Governmental Relations for the Beach Property Owner's Association, Inc. The letter expressed concerns with the scale of the building, traffic flow and adequacy of the supplied parking, and that a copy of the letter was attached to the staff report. Mr. Hoggard entered the following pertinent document into the record, the Planning and Zoning Department's Project File 2001-008-SPF-SPR. Mr. Jess Sowards, Archi#ect of Robert Currie Parternship, thanked Mr. Ronald Hoggard for all his time and assistance spent with them on this development proposal. He stated that they concurred with the site plan technical items and conditions of approval, and felt that these items could be met quite easily. Mr. Sowards continued that he was going to address the comments/issues/concerns that.were made from the previous meeting. He explained that they wanted to make sure that they built a hotel that is friendly to the City and the community. Mr. Sowards gave a power point presentation, which included addressing the comments made from the previous meeting, and the modifications incorporated to the revised plans. - Underminin Existin Foundations - Coastal Construction Line - Restaurarrt Intens' - Parkin S aces - Stadcin - Draina e - Loadin Zone - Trash Room - Landsca in - Boston's Deveio meet Ri hts - Setbacks Between Bastan's and Hotel Roams - lfiew Frain 6oston's U er Dedc To South - Baicon Proxim' Ta Boston's t! er Deck D Duet Work - Floor Area Ratios - Buildin Pro'ections - Roof A urtenances - Turtle Li htin - West Elevation, facing Salina Avenue, has been - Height and Scale of the Hotel Compared to redesigned the Existing Businesses an A-'!-A, Ocean Boulevard - Desi n of South Elevation - Desi n of North Elevation - Since you can't do windows an the property line, what - Aerial of the General Vclnity -and our they are creating on the zero lot line portion of the Existing Site - The two residential properly is faux windows. Basically the faux windows ~ properties to the West are awned by the soak like closed shutters. same owner of the hotel develo meat. 7 SPRAB Minutes 7/1'E!0'I ~~ ~~ As I had discussed before this will create a difficult situation to co-exist on and will generate complaints of noise and other operational factors. As mentioned at the previous meeting, we are still concerned with -all the structural integrity with the excavation on our property line. " The rendering presented at the previous meeting is not accurate. The. rendering shows a 9' setback, landscaping, palm trees and in reality none of this does exist. There is viirtually no space here and the buildings abut at that paint. He read LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(2} men Space. 2. The second item he was going to discuss was the northern elevation of the proposed project. Traditionally CBD zero lot fines are not used and capitalized on a view. This project's design is such that the north elevation rooms depend on a view. This design abuts Boston's underdevelopment. The design can only perform if Boston's properly remains two stories high. ft is our intention and right to develop Boston's property. This project design will adversely affect our future development and property value. Reason being, is that the applicant ar the owner at the time will oppose any attemp# we make to increase our building height. Because when we increase our building height, we will automatically e[imina#e the view of all these rooms. There will no longer be a view to the north, #hey will be looking directly into a wall on that entire north elevation. This project should be physically self-suffcient .and not rely on Boston's stagnation. Boston's should not be neglected from consideration because we are in the CBD. But, conversely now is the time for intelligent planning for co-commercial habitation. 3. The third item is deliveries, and a condition of approval is that no loading or unloading of vehicles is permitted on Salina Avenue. At the previous meeting "" and again tonight the applicant has stated that this is a small hotel and restaurant and would use small trucks. This project has. only one undersized loading space, ~ and project of this size is required to have two full size loadir:g spaces. This one undersized loading space is also going to bean alternative far stacking for incoming hotel customers. So I ask you, when this occurs where do the delivery trucks go? Currently three restaurants deliver ,from substandard congested Salina Avenue. Boston's also provides its property to these restaurants for delivery, which Boston's is under no obligation to do so. Boston's chooses to assist ir3 this manner to alleviate problems of congestion. Salina Avenue can't take more congestion, which would further block residential travel in driveways, as well as our own hotel and restaurant back out parking and our driveway entrances. Boston's owns the property that these trucks will be blocking, which we own 2fiQ' of frontage on Salina Avenue, We own Hearty from the comer of Atlantic Avenue and Salina Avenue to the applicant's property fine. So whatever stacking is going to occur with trucks, it is going to occur in front of our back out parking from our hotel, driveway and from our restaurant property line. Boston's has been doing business for twenty-two years in October, and during this time we have received deliveries from a numerable amount of 9 SPRAB Minutes ~i~~ro~ `~ ~` alternatives is the stacking that would eliminate the loading area. This project has maximized itself in every way possible. Using every concession available that will mushroom into future problems. This Board has options, which are in the form of your alternatives, and the alternative actions are to approve, table or deny. Ask yourselves, is this project in its current format, in its currentform, appropriate for tha# footprint. Make this project frt into our community's future scheme, make it compatible and not overwhelming. Please put three pounds of gold in a three- pound bag. Mr. John Bennett, Uce-President, Governmental Relations for the Beach Property Owner's-Association, Inc. stated that he doesn't fall under either category of in favor or in opposition of the proposal. He thanked the applicant's for the work they have done far a most improved project from the previous meeting, and especially for the providing the sfreetscape rendering. Our letter that was attached to the staff report from the previous meeting was obviously directed to the massiveness of the building. However, we still have concerns which includes the fallowing: 1. Appurtenances -Have been improved on the east elevation from the- previous meeting, but was wondering if the roofs were needed, in order to reduce the overall height of the building. 2. Loading issue -This is not the firs# time various projects have come in and the applicant has stated that there is plenty of room because only small service trucks will be used. However, I have driven around town at various times and seen more tractor-trailer trucks delivering then the small delivery trucks. Also, I have seen the tractor-trailer trucks parked in the middle of the street to unload their products. How is the requirement going to be enforced; all the time, that there will only be small delivery trucks? 3. The parking situation obviously barely meets code. If a valet queue is established, and will be for hotel guests only, how will this be enforced? Will there be a sign posted that states "Hotel Guests Only°. If someone drives up and states that, they want to go to the restaurant, what are you going to say, song not for you.. There are numerous restaurants in the City that have valet parking and has this kind of pressure, which also causes a stacking problem. Mr. A. Franco, Attorney stated that he had a concern on one issue in particular, regarding the applicant `s statement, "that it was their intention to build a hotel #hat was friendly to the community". However, according to the applicant's plans for the visibility in front of the proposed hotel, there is a foreseeable chance of a significant public danger and would occur as the plans stand now. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.'{4{A}, a visibility triangle is required. at the intersections of roads and driveways, and the purpose is obviously for the driver to be able to see clearly into the roadway. According, #o 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, and in particular he focused on subsections {a) shall not adversely affect the neighboring. area, and {c) shall not create an unsafe situation. Particularly with these two subsections, the 91 SPRAB Minutes 7I't'{ID9 '~ pedestrians. In addition, to the trucks of this size, it presents a hazard to vehicles, owners, property, residents, and parking on that street. The loading space has been counted as part of the proposed 56 parking requirements, which it shouldn't be included. He read the statutory construction administrative codes and the City codes that relate to parking requirements for hotels and restaurant. In conclusion, I think that the project as designed is bad for the residents and is really an issue of public safety and public welfare. !would suggest to the Board that they should protect the public, maintain public welfare, to protect the residents and let the existing businesses in this area function to continue in their normal fashion. . ~_~ Mr. Kevin Wamer, .248 Venetian Drive'stated that he welcomed the presence of this hotel and restaurant in concept in that part of town, but not in its current fashion. He shared the same concerns that the previous speakers noted about parking, trafl•ic related problems, tourism, tractor-trailer trucks on Salina Avenue, and the noise level of the trash compactor. Mr. Wamer would like to know who is going to enforce the conditions that have been placed on the approval as noted in the staff report. His second main concern was with compatibility, and that the staff report clearly points out that the site plan must be compatible and- harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties. Mr. Wamer continued that this property is bordered by RM zoning on the south and on the west side, and isn't compatible with the adjoining RM district. The massiveness of this building doesn't fit. Mr. Wamer didn't believe that a building of this size, mass and scale on the streetscape, right on the beach is going to be compatible and harmonious with the area. At the Community Redevelopment Agency's Board (CRA) meeting when discussing this proposal, i{ was stated that it maximizes out the cube. In other words every thing that the developer is allowed to do is crammed into a small area. Mr. Wamer felt this project was too large and not compatible with the surrounding area. He encouraged the Board to send the proposal back to have it reworked, be more reasonable in scale, and compatible with the surrounding area. Ms, Alice Finst, 707 Rlace Tavant stated that her cancems~ssues are the following: ^ The property is 'I QO' x '! $8' and to place this large of a building on a small lot is too much. ,. ^ The traffic on the beach is horrendous of the proposed hotel's site. The traffic will only be compounded by the way the entrance to the building is set up. v A large crater that will be stabilized for the owner next door, however suppose the owner next door doesn't allow this, and suppose the building falls over into the hole, then what happens. v We wil! have to live with this building for a very long time. ^ it would seem like, perhaps there would be a way for the two owners, Boston's and the owner of the proposed hotel to get together and come up with some plan. 5o that they can expand upward, make sure of the quality of the appurtenances, setbacks and sill provide nothing that would depreciate property value to the surrounding area and each other. i3 SPiZAi3 Minutes 7111109 consideration the concerns of all of the City's residents who will be impacted by the project. It serves na purpose to upset the appearance of the neighborhood, undermine the progress that the City has achieved in recent years, and cause diminution in the value of surrounding existing uses in order to advance the economic desires of one individual. Please carefully consider the ram cations of your decision tonight on this matter. _Mr. Andv Kann, 247 South Ocean. Boulevard inquired if it was the pool an the roof that requires the elevator and the two addi#ional staiircases. In other words, if it was just utilities on the roof, would we have less activity on the roof, and therefore not -~ have essentially another floor: The building is riot really 48'; but 58 '!f2' plus, and the building does need to be scaled down. Mr. Hoggard read into the record a letter received from a resident, Mr. Thomas E. Lynch, 820 North Federal Highway. Mr. Lynch had stated, "to allow such a dense project that changes the appearance of our city and adds to congestion and parking issues is something we should not permit. This project is just too massive far the proposed location.p Vice-Chairman Perez-Azua declared the public testimony closed. Vice-Chairman Perez-Azua asked the applicant if they wished to cross-examine staff. Mr. Sowards replied no. Vice-Chairman Perez-Azua asked staff if they wished to cross-examine the applicant. Mr. Hoggard replied no. The Board made the following comments or asked the folbwing questions. ~..- • Mr. Eliopoulos slated that the west elevation presented in the presentation is not the same as in the Board's packet. Mr. Sowards stated that was correct and explained that they had revisited the west elevation and felt it needed same more relief. Mr. Sowards explained how the west elevation had been redesigned. • Mr. E[iopouios stated that he didn't think the stop sign located near the restaurant side would be visible when exiting onto A-'f A. Mr. Eliopauios commented that he was concerned with the loading space, if there are cars entering and being dropped off at the lobby, and both spaces are occupied, wilt they pail into the loading space? Or if there is a delivery truck in the loading space where will the person go? Mr. Hoggard explained they would park in a regular parking space and proceed to check in. • Mr. DeCapito inquired if the planters were considered as part of the pervious area. 15 SPRAf3 Minutes 71111DT Vice-Chairman Perez-Azua asked fihe applicant it he wished to make a closing argument. Mr. Sowards stated yes. Mr. Sowards stated that the Board had asked very valid questions and hopefully we have satisfied all the concern~ssues. He explained the visibility triangle and the reason why staff supports the waiver. Mr. Sowards stated that they have provided relief in the middle of the building and have met the LDR standards. He summarized a!I the requirements that they have met, and issues raised by the public. Mr. Mark Kroll, Esq. stated that this project has improved since the previous meeting to the point that staff is recommending approval, subject to conditions. The waivers and conditions of approval are very minimal. This project is not a restaurant, but a hotel that is providing food for the hotel guests, who choose not to leave the hotel. The proposed Note! is compatible, and we encourage the Board to approve the project.. Vice-Chairman Perez-Azua asked Staff if he wished to make a closing argument. Mr. Hoggard stated yes. Mr. Hoggard make the following comment regarding the loading issue. For this size of a hotel it 'ts a requirement for two loading spaces, however we feel that one is sufficient with the small trucks dropping off in the garages. Staff is concemed with the size of the vehicles that will be servicing the hotel and maneuvering area and that is why we are requesting the documentation. The Board members made the following comments during their deliberations: • Mr. Sneiderman commented that this is a very difficult project too come to a final decision on. He felt #his was a beautiful project and wonderfully designed, and absolutely meets code too the maximum degree. It is a maximized project and dropped into a hole. The project is foo dense, much, big and absolutely does every thing perfectly, but it seems like it is going to explode out of this area. As time goes on it will create one problem after the other. There are still an enormous amount of issues that need to be dealt with.. He was concemed with compatibility and being harmonious with the surrounding area. Mr. Sneidemzan didn't feel this was the righ# project for this area, and was too massive. • Mr. DeCapito commented that he was concerned about compatibility, the residents, density and the reduction of the visibility triangle waiver. He inquired if documentation was required regarding the safety of this reduction. Mr. DeCapito was concerned with the safety of the foot traffic on the beach. Also, he was concemed with the site plan conditions of approval regarding the Board doesn't know what the consequences are. Mr. Hoggard explained the visibility triangle and why staff supported the waiver. 1 ~ S~RAB Minuses 7111101 ~• ~ .` , elevation from Salina Avenue, and more substantial landscaping behind the building. It was moved by Mr. Sneiderman, seconded by Mr. Eliopoulvs and passed 5-0 to table the entire proposal for Hotel Vista Del Mar. . B. Our Lady of Perpetual ,Help; fi10 S1N 8~' Avenue: Class IV Site Plan Modification: J. Patrick Lynch, Authorized A ,gent. The item before the Board is approval of a Class IV site plan, architectural elevation and landscape plan for Our Lady of Perpetual Help. Mr. Pape, Senior Planner summarized the history and presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff report. On October 20, 1999, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approved with conditions a Class N site plan modification to allow the construction of a 407 seat church and conversion of the existing church building to a parish hall, offices, conference room and kitchen. The new sanctuary has not commenced to date and the site plan expired on April 20, 2001, therefore the proposed development is for re-approval of -the construction of the new sanctuary. The development proposal incorporates the following: • Construction of a fi,527 sq, ft. church facility with a 337 sq. ft. mezzanine. With the new sanctuary the seating capacity will be increased by 101 seats (from 30fi to 407}; w Conversion of the existing church building to accommodate a parish hall, kitchen, offices and conference room; • Construction of 40 new parking spaces at the west end of the site; and, • Installation ofi associated landscaping and a refuse storage area. Mr. Pape stated that a major issue is associated with the projection of the entry feature into the parking lot drive aisle. He explained that there is a requirement by the Fire Marshall ,that the clearance between the roadway and bottom of the overhang be a minimum 13' 8" high to accommodate emergency vehicle access. The elevations display only 12 feet of clearance, and elevations need to be revised to meet the requirement. Mr. Pape recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. J. Patrick Lynch, Architect stated that he agreed with the staff report, except far the canopy clearance height. Mr. Lynch explained that when this proposal was approved in 1999, signed off by all departments, which the canopy clearance height was not an issue, we continued working and everything is finished, then it was noticed that the site plan had expired. It was during this review that the canopy clearance height became an issue from the Fire Department. My contention is that we still have a lane that is open to the sky, and that the emergency vehicles could bypass, and wouldn't have to go under the overhang. Mr. Lynch stated that they 19 SPRAB Minutes 7/11/Q1 Au[,~--OL-O1 10:28A Via Fxccimile Mr.:leffrey A. t`nvtellc> ~einior 1'fanner City csf llclray ~ic~tch 10(I Ncsrthwcxl 1,t 1lventtc Delray 13i;ach, I~lorida 33144 RG: v~~t~ nil M~~ Hamel Dc;ar Jc~~: P_02 1 str~ts,ly np}sc~st• the aE~t~ve-referenc;cci hc~icl proj4z.t in its ctatrent 1i~rns, at1~1 ttssllld cnc,cyura~!c the Site 1'1`an Kevit4v ~md 1lppearance Board lei rcjcet th4 current ~JsglicttEican. While; l a~rGc tli7t a hotel use: is appropriate {'or the subject property. the sir anti cJrsi~rl ~SrOjeGteci lay the. current l~latts tre itsv.]sisrcypri~tc for this lsarticular prcaperCy atscl lnt<ation. A4orcts~•er, the agplit~atit's pre~etstaticrn at the S~RAR rnt<ctiat~ was, in nsy view, .a hraad "~li~sv c~vur'' di~cu5sion tlsat l~tilcc3 tip ~eldre;4s very' 4igniftcant.desi~n xncl traffic rrablems. in ~tty vicu~, rise currrsnt, revist:cl pi~~tzs, even with clitninaiin~ tlsc: restaurzt~t anti swimming pool, ha~•e nest addres~e} the mast sipnif.icai7t lsri~}aictns. 'rlse }sui~ttlial ~strl:in~ prC~blCiriS :xrtd lral•!iC Con~estinn fir ~ ~Ire~rdy ~aiiE1_L'CrOL]$ and clu~~ed 111tCrseclic+n ~ttlc! aria (Atlantis !~v~nue anel hl~,) are significant. ~1t~ortwsaiGl}•_ it'tksis 1SrajcLt is slslsro~~ccf its i1,s currc3lt rest'tTS, ~tnd lllti parkin; anti tr~cftic prtshletns c:csttt~'. to fnii[ion, tktcre will he rte pntisihlc r4tttc~iy u~ alleviate the prnbl4frts, The apPlic:ani's esnly re,lson5e to ~.hiti iSSUG is to say their tCaftic en~inr:~r ~aclviseti of~tto prtshlenss. }•la~inr ensplayLd dozens of trat'i'ic engineers over the last 1 j y~'ars, l uan say th1t, if 1SressLd, l cnttici i~trttl a tt•aff~c twn~it3ecr to cspinc char ~-~}S is not a hu~y hi~ls..~ay. ltt rho lsrrs~~nt case. the tra.Ffc engim~:r's cspinints is uvorly hrnac3 and haszci un quaGfi~:cl ~ssunslstioirs• ,~ri}1c,ne ~•itU any de:,5i~n cxlseric:nc~: or crntsmon sctts4.ean ap}~rec:i~xe the putc'r7tia! 1i,r gridlc~clc al ilsi busy intcrsecticyn. T~ 2?7' S~utfseast Fifth Avcnu~t • 1"sctray 13rarh, FiUri~ia 3348: 'I:~t: ~~7.27°9.8~i52 • Fax: 565.279.OEi21 • w~vuv.srrmwcsc~agro~,ertir~.c:UrY~ Aug-O8-O1 1Dt28A P.03 -. ,~ ~:1 Mr..~cf#rcy .h, t:astcllo August 4, ?(}(}1 page 2 '1•hc xxtas5in~, c~f'tltc propu~~d structure: is in~~pprc~prie~tr liar tl7e ~uea_ The poinx r~iiscd l~ythc applicant th~it the Marric~t Hc~tr.l'ti density and rnuysing is ~'ea[er is irrelevant. '!'he I~/larrit~t, like many other Dirge huilciin~s in tine heath aroma, would encounter t~tt~cliresist~rte:e: icsda}. and r~ve,uld Perhaps nc~t hr approved tYndcf Gurrcr~t Lane! Ucvciapmctttl~cgulatia:ts. 'IYicrc is ne>thing dre:hitccturally clistinctivc about the prnpc~aGCi ltotci ctc~afionJy which will be visibic lie~m niainy perspectives in th:: be~e:lti ~srett, anti, file a pair nI•bacl teeth, will eznly add tc~ the e~p-and-duw~n appearancr n['(')cean fioulevard T~tkc n [disk ~~t Uc.4rlicld 13cach or l~t. I_,audcrdalt: Beach to see what a patchv~~ork r-fnut-nf-scale, large: a~zd small hc~tcls with nc~ Clcai~ri coltsistc[1C.y looks like; Add to the nix t1:3c: pdtciltial for jamming rn}~ c~l• the mast 1<rgistic~tlly and ~tcsthcticalIy i~nporta~ll irttrrtiecttc~ns in cur City, and I Watlld 413~~;~tit 1h~1t. Shore are muCll hotter itltCTnatiYCS here. Thank you liar your Rtuerntic~rt to these canccrtts. Sinceraly. Irc»}woad~'rc~~criics, lnc. ~~~ry Glicksrcir~ President _.~~ -~ Memo To: SPRAB Frorn: Dan Bums S~~bject: Pro~ousec~ New Hotel -- A1.A Date: August 8, 2001 I am vehemently opposed to the proposed hotel. The property is too small and goes against everything we have been trying to do over the past 10 years in Delray Beach. ~~ r Page 1 ~~~.~~~ { ~.Nlal.~,vs~ ~ L~}i~~fd~ 08/08/01 3.6:42 F'.4~ 15612765244 PL+~STRIDG~ f~ 002/002 ~' THOMAS E. LYNCH P. O. Drawer 73D Delray Beach, FL 33447 '~'O: 5i,te Plan T~eview and Appearance Board RE: Bermuda Inn Project DATE: srr-o~ To Whom It May Concern: -:.. . I am writing to you in refen:nce to the project on A1A where. the Bermuda Inn Motel is today. I empathize with the developer In that they have definitely made a lot of changes, removing the restaurant and improving the entrance and egress substantially from where it was several weeks ago. I know that a lot of work is being done to try and meet the requests of the citizens anal the boards. I compliment the architect and developer for their willingness to work cooperatively. Nly comment is similar to what I wrote several weeks ago. The project is just too big for that lot. Perhaps if it was tiered back so that you would not have a 5-story building, ~48' straight up slightly set. back from the street, it would not be so oppressive. As 1 am sure you are aware, I am not opposed to density and not opposed to "change" as witnessed over the last 15 years as we have watched Delray evolve. Nly concern is the design, even though attractive, it is tvo massive for this lot. A major issue is once you approve it, it then becomes precedent for others. For example, the apartment project on Federal on® block off Atlantic, th® mass of the pnject and slight set back from Federal Highway takes away from the character of Delray Beach also. The major arteries of Atlantic Avenue, A'!A, and Federal Highway are most important and we must preserve the integrity of our community and continue the village-[ike atmosphere that has been the theme for many, many years, and in particular the theme for the last 15 years during. redevelopment. I think. it is critical for this board to remember these first projects, that appear to be out of the ordinary! are the ones that will set precedent and become the standard. I appreciate your time and consideration. Since l ,T,honxas E. Lynch ~' x 'b' Y~ ,~v,-~ ~ ' - ~~~~°~~st~3FV~ ~ s r ,'Er~ o -. w ~ n TE 5` ~^ _ c~~~-~1 t tr 7-~ ~ ~-. s. ~r `,I ~ z r +..~ ^Tnl r. y w 1 k~ F~ Ip~ ~ .Y.~ Y ~ ~?' r 1•h 5 L I' iF ti, N ~ ,Y s' 'i a'iyr-..~,.q~4~7v'.'i' ay a-' g ` s - ~ ~ ~r r s ~ ~ . ~,~ 5,. .r J I ~~''I I` ~ 3• a~ Y .~ t •~ 41~ - ,~. tip l ~ f VIII }Ri r~ 5 r ! +4 .~;. ,Yµ ~Z ~ I ~ ~~ ~. xy~ f~-r...€~ 1 r _ 1'~ - I °v"~ ~~ J. ~ 7 .,F ' : r r .,r. 5... +fr .e. ~ •:~, . 4 '~ ~. , :.Y .1 III i ~y 3 l~~ + r a r ~° ~, ,~` f¢ 2 .- ,r r. t: - ,.>-- . _ .. .. `~'+ ,. ~` 1~^~Ti-- ~ 2'Y -..G a h k~'~; ~ .tip ~ c v ti ~_ y,ch"«~. ~I ~« a ~is8 ~4 4'^ s ,~ L a -s `>" ~ ~ ' I _ ,( . i ,•v I. :o . ~I. ~_ .~ _x ''11~~ ., ~k. ~~_~.: K- ~j.r ?:~' :.~ tel.,, x - I i7 5 r_ zf .. -~a. r _ ~ - ~~ Wh'.I Lti y~ t i wa ~ ~` ~ .. ~'~TR - - ;R r.~' W 'Fa. ~~~~~ .rte ~ ~ _;~ - z, F4 ~ F ' l _ '~ ~~ r'9 . ss I ~ ~ ~ T 'i I• ~~ III ~~~"'6 r.. . .s ~'v - a .'r"• Il• ._ _. ~.3a. S .:~..~ r{I v I _ • i .. 3. ... n . .- ~v= ,._.~.... .. ... .~ ..~. Y' ~ ~~- . .r _ ,, ,.- •' ~' ~,= ,,. ~~ ~fi. c ~ ~~ r r.r ,r ~ ^", .-,-~ ~.. o ..... r J.- .~„'~" .. N . ~. - . ~~ ~. _ ..75 i ~.5 `~ I~ ...._ +. Y ~I/ _ .Z... 'h a: eTi ~~~ Y! k. t ~. w.Y' e~ yk-. ~~~ _..I. . J '`tom ~e -f ! .? Y t - '..T4 „i„ 3t. ?. ~ 'ea vE. N '. L 14 ~ :l - F u rid- ? ~ f ice' ,s+' V ~b 'O 3 1 L~~~ ~~~3~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ,~ -. '-' ~ e t~ '~Y ,,ssvv r } :x' x h r .Y ..~ ..3;; _ -v P '~Ali"y '~ Y„' ''}} .R.~~•!~•r 4' i. 5 " Tom" ~ ~ ~ ~'"qr~ ivy ,Yg .~ ~ ~ _• }. ~ _ _ _ r- i ~ ~' ..s~, ' ~'~ Vsi%Fa - ~ ~ - ~~ ~~ ~. _ ' ~ ' ~ xs -~ _ •I ".I -~~ -~ Lr~ R 1' ~ S. •~T• "r '~~ L 1 1 l I 0 ~'l.L~ 1 "FL ' ~+ ~ YN~s 1 1. 1~ ., - {~- K > > ~ _ i .. ~~r4'~ ~k ...- ., t' ~,. 7, "~: .. . ~` . . - .fX'~ 1 - t 5 r ~ 7.• _ ., ~, _ ~ ~.~ S F J 1 'S E ~ ~ . ~ t _ -4~ -(~ ~ 1 r', ~~~f ~~1 I L f Ytt "'5.,g ''r~ C? -gip ' _ r - _ S I ~ 'k ~ i 'rj7tArT~i• _,k 1 - f ~ ~ r , wA '~ -rL I .. - c .. -. .... ~-.,, ~fJ ~1-F _ l } . l~y~ ti~ J 6 ~. lY ~' f- S -. '!~Z ., ~ 4 . ~ i 1 y" . As ~ p• x~"~'k~3 r S 1. s ~~~ -2eh ~y e, ~ t~t. 1 .Y ~ 1 . -~ } 1 4I V ~; ~1~'~Y °~~1 1 r _ § ~ ~~ ~ k - ~ 5 ~~'~-M I - ~ "r ~ •t~ } ~ ~ c r- t ~` ~ d ° F• 4 T w4 J61~ y1~rAr y4 F _ 'r y > t y F ~ ~ ~ Y Y4 Y ~. ~`~ ~+ . .,y T L '~.`~'~ .~: 4 s ,r • e ~~ ,err ~,~ ,~, _ ~~ ~, :~ _ .. a x y a +" / - ~ ~=3, ~,, - 4 ~.~ ~ V~2 1. µ - - . ~-. .z~ tom' ~z_ ~~ ~ e- ~~x`tiv 7~ yr .'tza'?- .C~ ~ _ - ;f ~ --, '~ ~~ y_ I _.___... i r 1 ~ ~ . a '~~, -_ - _- a ~,o I -.,y ~--_ ~ - - ~ ____ ~ t I I u ~ ~ ~{~~ t i ~ ~ i ~ I ! I a ~ ----- - J--~ ~ ~ + lli' ~ •~ i e E 3 ' ~~ {{ nip ~ 5 1 _ I ~; n~ ., i I r. i ~ +. ~ f ~ i c .. ._ .. .~ s. _. ~. .r _ .~...,. . . - ~ __ r,. W ~ _ _ _ .- .. - y V ~ y ~ - •1 1 _ _ .. . - V ~; -- - ~- -~ - . ~- ; . - J .` _ `;' ~ C .__._ .. . ~ _____ ...Y...~ ~ _ _ ~ _. __. ~ _: _ _... . _~. _. L :~ ~- ~ .... '~' L ,-~. ,._ ?_. ~.~..~-~ ...::~ as ., a+ - 'h}Ft 4 i i ~ J ` 1 0 ,~ Y ~~ L _ 4. ~ ?. } - _ .. _ 7 _ ._-r~~~=--~~ __ --tea F, ... .. _~ '- _ ~ .-. ~ - -<.ti.- '~ _ __a.. - ~ ~ . ~ .. _ .~ -.. ... .. .. .~ -~~ ..._. ~,.~ _ r a • ~. -, ,- -. w µ ' ~ ~ ~ E.. .._ _- dJ 1 _~~ ~,,'; .~; ~. •~ ~r.+n.~ awiiooa.o +c~ .arctw an `' ~ c `+. s' 4~~~ "'I!- 1 u f4,D _ jpy., Y'~M~.iti~..~'.y~~.! ~~~ `~~ ~ L~ ~.~ `~1 i =- +~ it U z w r 1 R w r • ~ w a R • ~ * w ~ f R - .• ~ ,~ ~ • s ~ • •y ~ ' ~ ', ~ . • w m ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ .. ~~ ~ -. ~, , ~ i . w w e R i 1 RA RR IF R ii r !t ~ .: ~~.. ice" _~~~ .. _._ _Y...., ...... ..._ 4 ti ____ .____ =ti^ r - - - _ ~ l t ~ .. - ~ . ~ •-. _. _ .. =may i~ _ ~ 1 ,.,.. L.~ ~ _ _~ _ __ r ..~ - - .; f _ ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ m~ ~. . ,` °-. .... M r. v~- ' ~ t.~ ~~ ~ y' ~` ~~ c ~ c - {I -. ~ - ~ . G ~r .~ ~ 1,}~ ~ ~.t ~` '*f r ~? ~~~ ~ ~ c ' ,. 5 ~. ~ ' •~ y • „~~' ~ "^~ Sia Cam' •.!~ • 7 ~ f ~ t y~ f ,~ ~ ~ - --- __ .. nI `I _.....~t.~F-_ ~I ~~ -J ~, I --. .. _ ~ . ~ ~C_~V ` ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ !.=c~ ~~ ~ t +~~ ~ ter' ~ ~ f; ° ~T~`a:1W `T ~ ~ r n ~ _~ Qaa ~ ~ _ ! ~ '~ •- ~~ ~ ' •~ ~n T~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ [{ /~ '1r _is ~ r'i~ •~. ~ J -...~~ ,~ y ~ {f~ r~y • r ~ • i ~ A ~ r ~ ~ • 4 ~ # ~ • ~ r • s • ~ ~l • e ~_ ,_1.~ i - 4L~~ f ~_ ~' ~ :, _.., _; :: ~ _ ~ ~ --~ ~ ~I - - • • - .~ Ia.. ~ ~ : -~ _ _ ~ _ -./ ~ -~' • _. ~ 1_ --- ~ ~. 3.~ ~ :~ ., ~ ~ i ,:~:, 1 ~ i ,. ~ ~ E' ~: a~N '1 I ~~ i - ~ ~~~~:~ `~ . ~` 1 ~'~ •~I 1 ~.~ r~ { y7 J r ~ ~~ ~~ # ~.~~~, 4, ~~~ 1~L ~"~2 J . si' f ~~~ ~~~ ~ r ~- ._ . Y ~3} i i ~ ~- 1~ a ~ui a~ ~~ ~~ ~~ m ~~ ~. D n I! i +;~~ ~' ~ ~~ L y a~ m c U 0 r- ix w •: '~ :J ~I '~I :r ;~ 1220 ~ ogfLanfr'e OTv~rlus 1~~'•cat~. ~Eae~, ~Co7ictu 33¢&3 (561 z78-o~01 August 0$, 2001 Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Citg of Delray Beach 100 N. W. lst Avenue T'~~lz~a~ Beach, Flaxida 33~ RE: Vista Del Mar Motel Dear Members of the Baard, My name is Marion Co~asins. T have operated a business an the corner of East Atlantic and Salina Avenues for over 2s ,years and have also resided on Salina Avenue far the same perioel of time. I a_m writing this letter to eFpress my support of, the proposed hotel and to express my views as to the character of Salina Avenue. TYie fact teat Salina Avenue serves as a .border between commercial and residential properties is certainly nothing new, in fact, the residents an :: ..'_ ~~:. Salina have always lived in harmony with the com- mercial activity that occurs on South Dcean Boule- vard. What is curious to me as I sat through last month+s meeting is that I did not reco~ni~e anyone who was an actual resident living in close praa~imitg to the proposed hotel. Ifgou were to personallg interview the people who actuallg live an Salina Avenue, I can assure .you that there would be minimal if any opposition to the proposed hat`el. Believe me, we would rather see an up scale, boutique hotel an the Bermuda Inn property as opposed to SaYIlE of the other development proposals I have .seen in the City. ir~Y?en a person decides to live on Salina Avenue., it is with f~.zll awarness tY~at they will have to co- exist with corr3mercial activitq an both Salina and _~tlantic Avenues. The fact that the hotel has a front entrance on SoutYi Ocean Boulevard will greatly reduce tree impact treat this development will have on Salina Avenue. Since it is inevitable that somedag tre Bermuda Inn property will be expanded and improved upon, I can not think of a better alter- native thax2 the proposed boutique hotel project before you now, Marion V. Cousins New Muemoutin Cot~domit~urr:.4asvciatiou 35 Scx~tb OcEan ~tyd. Dcltxy $each, TL 33483 w+~z~, zAOi cuy afn~y>, ~aaxwi~Ay~„~ ~ , ~ 3~a~a nom a~a ~ ~ ~ o~ n;~ ~a ~aenu of New ~a[~nmouth Ga~adium Association toed at 3& South o Blsrd. riu eondnmi~ium ~~ on ~lA emd mks up w Salitu~ Awauc, ,der ~xam~riing tht phtris for tl~ p€n~wscd Vf Ue~ Mat l~a~t tmd caring upcsu all ! G members of the eonda with the ex~uon of Z rt,at wa could neti h, we cvacludcd that the Viat~ l3el Mar proposal i~ sa excollsnt plea and cor~`oraas wrtfr the x~. h's an Qcacenfiont hotel that is an the own. '~'e have ~ rep'~tativea ~hvsnd meml~rs Bud ~i< ~d SuWvan) to ba pr~eat a! the :neecin8 if you have auy quEStias~. r t ~JlQ~ ~~i~~ "s Lernley . Alea- Mo~mvuth COtutOrnini~mt Ae .~ ~~ '~'~ a :~ S/701 r uty of Delray , I oo N.W. I St Avenue Delray Beach, Fla. 33483 ` RE: Bermuda Inn /Vista Del Mar Hotel Project ~~' As the President of the board of directors for The Williamsburg Q Condominium Association orated at 18 Salina Ave. Delray Beach, Fl r ~ 33483, l wa#d kke ro make t#~e fvliawing state,na-ts. Our residents artd board of directors have looked at the proposed plans for the Vista Del Mar Hotel and unanimously agree that it is beautiful bur~ding. The project when completed will make a trice addition to .our neighborhood and will add to value of all the surrmxxling properties. We have been in contact with Mr. I=ran Marincola and have received ass~anres in wrrting as to tfie ~mrted use of Sal"irta Avenue as a ronstructic~tt entrance. That the majority of the constnrcdon activity wi11 occur from the A !Aside of the property. ice' i would like to matte note that we and our neigf~or Ms. Marion fcwsirts represent 100/0 of the owner residents ~tving on Samoa Ave. Please tall if you have arty rluestiorts. Sitxerely, Hark Lenga, President 9Lr rC. Fran Marincold f_. ::.:::: ;:,~:::> Y8 Salu~z Ave Unit. 2fi DeI~ay Seach, ~ 33483 56I-?76-6634. "~ D JiII., 13. ZOOI I1:28AM BENDERSON DEV. CO. ~ N0. ~z94 P. 2/2 ~~. . . ' n o~ ~us~, tmderslgndd trasbee hergby $cl~OW1P.~CB, r~ar~lfies Sild ~s that nUNA7~D E. )~iOBINSOI~ is baaeficiary of the £ollarving land tn~7s, to--wit i . L~,d rrrlSt Agrecmet~;dated Yuly 25, zOt-o, kflawn as Trust Na. one, which fend trust has as its subject mattex the fallovvi~g Qescrl`bed parcel aftr$i pxoperEy situate, aging and bsiztg iu Palm Bcaeh County, Florida aad being more particularly described as follows, to wit: >aat l 5 iu~ Block 2 of OCEAN PARK, acoorci~ng to the plat t]aareo~ recorded iu~ Plat Boole 6 at Page 15, of ~ Public RecAxds ofPalm~ Beach County, Florida, foss the Fast twv feet eight inciics ti~ereo£ 2. ifand 'X'ii~t Agreement: known as '1~ust Na. 'Iva, which Land. mYSt has as xts subj cct matter the following described parcel of r+eai praPearty sf#x~be, 1~-is~;g and being in Palm Beach Caufmty, Florida and being mare paracttfarly described es follows, to-wit: i.at 24 in Flock ~ of OCEAN PARK, accorrlintg to the Plat thereof, recorded iri Plat B oolr 6 at Page i 5, of fhg Public R~corcfs of Palm 13ea,cl~ County, Florida. 3. Taand Trust Agreemeao~ known as Trost No.Three, which land tsusC has as its subject matter the fallowu~ descr~cd pawl of ~ property situate, Iying and bei~ag ~. Pedro $each Cac~ty, Florida and barr~g moss pasticule~rly wed as follo~rs, to-wit: Apazlment 23 of Wfl_.LFAM~BURG INN CCNDOi~IINICJNf, a cc~.dominium, sccardmg to #be peclarati~ oFC.ondum~:mathereoi7 recorded i~t a~oial ~ecards Bowl[ ~ ~ 9 8 at Pagic 738 of th+e Public R~coxtfs of Pt~n Reach County, Flozicla.. . with respect to earh of which land Trusts the underslg~d ig fife sale tn~stee, Dated at Bocce. Raton, Florida ,this 17'" clay of April, 20p! . o .I / ~y IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and BOSTONS ON THE BEACH, 1NC. Appellant(s), vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee.. I ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA REGARDING THE APPEAL OF A CLASS V SITE PLAN DATED AUGUST 3, 2001 INCLUDING LANDSCAPE PLANS, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS AND THREE WAIVERS WHICH WAS APPROVED BY SPRAB AT ITS AUGUST 8, 200.'! MEETING 1. This appeal has come before the City Commission on November 3, 2008, as a result of the Order of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, which remanded this case in order that the City Commission could make findings on the record as to the appeal. Pursuant to the Court's Order, this appeal is limited to the existing original record. (See, Court Order attached as Exhibit "A"}. 2. The Appellants and Appellee .argued their case to the City Commission. The Commission reviewed all testimony and evidence submitted to the City through August 8, 2001, including the site plan, landscape plan, architectural elevations and waivers. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsections I and II. I. Waivers for Hotel Vista Del Mar 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 far another applican# or owner. A. The City Commission hereby finds that the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board correctly determined that positive findings could be made with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.7{B}{5) {above) and 4.6.9(D)(3}(c}{1) (attached hereto as Exhibit "B"} to reduce the required stacking distance for the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 20' to 14'? Yes No B. The City Commission hereby finds that the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board correctly determined that positive findings could be made with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.7{B){5) {above} and LDR Section 4.6.14{A), Visibility at Intersections" (attached hereto as Exhibit "C'"}: a. To reduce the visibility triangle at the Salina driveway entrance from 20' to 9 0'? Yes No b. To reduce the visibility triangle at the Ocean Boulevard driveway entrance from 20' to 8'? Yes No G The City Commission hereby finds that the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board correctly determined that positive hndings could be made with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.7(8)(5) (above} and LDR Section 6.1.3{B), "Sidewalks" (attached hereto as Exhibit "D"). a. To eliminate the required sidewalk along Salina Avenue? Yes No Il. Class V Site Plan for Hotel Vista Del Mar The City Commission hereby finds that the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board correctly determined that positive findings could be made subject to conditions (attached as Exhibit "E"}with respect to-the Site Plan which includes landscape plans and architectural elevations in accordance with the following provisions: A. LDR Chapter 3, "Performance Standards", {attached hereto as Exhibit uF"}; YES NO B. LDR Section 2.4.5{F){5}, Finding of Compatibility", {attached hereto as Exhibit "G"); LDR Section 4.6.16, uLandscape Design Standards" {attached hereto as Exhibit "H"); LDR Section 4.6.18, "Architectural Elevations and Aesthetics" (attached hereto as Exhibit "I"}: YES NO C. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit "J"}; YES NO 4. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map and LDR requirements in existence on August 8, 2001 and finds that its determinations set forth in this Order are consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. 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, minutes, and transcripts. 6. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves denies Boston's Appeal, {Boston's appeal seeks to overturn SPRAB's approval of the waivers and SPRAB's approval of the site plan, landscape plan, and elevations}, and hereby adopts this Order by a vote of in favor and opposed. This item was scheduled for hearing at the regularly scheduled City Commission meeting of November 3, 2008. Rita Ellis, Mayor ATTEST: Chevelle Nubin City Clerk EXHIBIT ~~A" IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA VISTA DEL MAR, L.C., A Florida Limited Liability Company, Petitioner, V. THE CITY CJF DELRAY BEACH, A Florida Municipal Corporation,. Respondent. ,~ `.~ ~~ ,~,~ {~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ i G~~-; ~ ~~ ~ ." ~ ~ ~ C+ ~r .~' i~ ~ r~r ~ .c ~ c,.~ ~~~ f Opinion flied: ~{jL 1 ~ 2fl06 Appealed from the City Commission of Delray Beach, Florida. For Appellant: axles lemon, sq,, ar o en erg, sq., o essenger, Esq., 433 Plaza Read, Suite 339, Boca Raton, FL 33432. For Appellee: Susan Ruby, City Attorney for the Ciiy of Delray Beach, 2Q0 N. W. I ~` Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 3 3444. PER CURIAM The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is Graate~d. For the third time ttfis cause has been presented to this Court. Upon review of the instant record it is evident that once again. the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach departed from the essential requi.rernents of the law in its decision to grant Boston's appeal of the Site Plan Review and Appeazance Board's approval of a site plan for the Hotel Vista Del Mar. ~EGEIVED _1_ APPELLATE D1VI5ION (CIVIL} CASE NO.: 502006CA000138~IB Division: `AY' JUL 13 2~6 G~TY ATTORNEY On August 8, 2002, the SPRAB approved a site plan for the Hotel Vista Del Mar. The approval contained three waivers of tl~e City's Laud Development Code, which enabled the Hotel to reduce the view triangle requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet, reduce the stacking distance .for automobiles from. 29 feet to 14 feet, and remove the required sidewalk along Selena Avenue. On August 20, 2~OI ,the owner of Boston's Restaurant, located. on the north side ofthe I-hotel site, filed an appeal of the SPRAB approval. The appeal stated that Boston's sought reversal ofthe approval of the site plan, landscape plan, and architectural elevations. On September 4, 2001, the City Commission granted Boston's appeal, reversing the SPRAB approval. On Novernbex 15, 2001, the Hotel filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to this Court. On Tune 12, 2003, this Court found that the Commission did not adhere to the essential requirements of the law because it dzd not determine as a body how the site plans failed to satisfy at least one of the obleetive cntena or site p an approve., an reman e e action to a ommuss~on. e Commission was instructed that if its composition had changed during the pendency of the Petition, Boston's anneal should be considered de nova. The Hotel plans were subsequently modified and re-submitted to the Commission. Anew objector appealed and the Commission again deniedthe-site plans. The Hotel filed a second Petition with this Court, which was granted on January. 18, 2005. In that Opinion, ibis Court stated that Boston's appeal was still pending before the Commission and that as the composition of the Commission had changed the anneal was to be heard de novo. On December 7, 2005, the Commission again heard Boston's appeal pursuant to this Court's January 1 S, 2005, Opinion. At the hearing the Hotel and the Commission debated as to the scope of the hearing. The Hotel argued that the Court's directing a de noun hearing meant that just the -2- original Boston's appeal was to be heard while the Commission took the stance that the de novo hearing. was to be held on the site plan itself, and That its review was not confined solely to Boston's app. Ultimately, the Commission approved Boston's appeal, This Petition ensued. Among other things, the Hotel argues that the Commission erred during the December 7, 2445, hearing when it held an entirely new hearing based on this Court's granting a de novo review of Boston's appeal, To establish a departure from the essential requirements of law there must be a "violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice." Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 539 (Fla.. 1995}. In .discussing the "essential requirements of Iaw" standard, the Florida Supreme Court explains: judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice, The writ of certiorari properly issues to correct illegality but not legal error. The required "departure from the essential requirements of law" means something. far beyond legal error. It means an iaherent illegality or ixregularity, an abuse of Haines, 65$ So. 2d at 527, quoting Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d Sfi6, 569 (Fla.. 1985} (Boyd, C.J. concurring specially). A City's code dictates a Commission's scope of review of Board actions on appeal, See Morningside Development v. City afMiami, 13 Fla. L. Weekly. Supp. 30a (October 18, 2405}; Lee v. St..Tohns County Board of County Commissioners, 776 So. 2d 111.0 (Fla 5th DCA 2001); Smith v. Board o,~County Commissioners ofPutnam County, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 849a (April 18, 2401). If the Code merely provides that the Commission may hear an "appeal" of a decision of the Board, the Commission is limited to reviewing the record presented to the Board, much like an appellate -3- court's review of a lower court's action. Morni~gside, 13 Fla. L. Weekly. Supp. 30a (October 18, 2005). The City of Delray Beach's Code Sections 2.~.7(E)(1) and (2) provide an aggrieved party with the right to appeal the decision of an approval board and. state that "...an appeal of an approving boazds action shall be made to the City Commission." The Code eleazly states that the review of board decisions is to be by "appeal." The Commission is therefore limited to the existing original record and is not permitted to allow new evidence at a new evidentiary hearing. As. the SPRAB is a baazd ehazged with approving proposed site plans, it is an approval board. A review of SPRAB actions, therefore, would be by the Commission and limited to the existing original record. This Court twice ordered the Commission to hold a de nova hearing on Boston's weal: We note that Briton's appeal remains pending. However, ifthe City Corrunission's composition has changed since the orders appealed, the appeal should be considered e navo. Boston's appeal still remains pending before the City Commission. The composition of the commission changed and therefore, the appeal is to be heazd de navo, pursuant to this Court's earlier opinion. The City Commission should either hold a de navo review of the appeal... Basa Hotel Developers v, The City of Delray Beach, l0 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 600b (June l2, 2003); Vista Del Mar, LC v. The City of Delray Beach, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 33 Sb (January 18, 2005). These Opinions directed the Commission to reheaz only the original Boston's appeal as it was presented to the SPRAB, and not to hold an entirely new evidentiary hearing. This is the only valid .interpretation of the opinions because the Code does not give the Commission authority to hold a de novo review of the existing original retard. This Court cannot disregard the unambiguous language of the City's own Code limiting the Commission solely to appellate review. -4- When the Commission held an entirely new hearing on Boston's appeal and considered evidence not originally presented to the SPRAB, it violated this Court's previous Opinions and its own Code. The Commission interpreted this Court's Opinions as putting it in the same position as the SPRAB, whereby it would be able to hear and receive new as well as old testimony and receive additional evidence on the appeal. However, as the- Code does not permit the Comrn.ission to hold de novo hearings, the Commission acted outside the Code and this Court's Opinion when it did not limit itself to the record created before the SPR.AB. Therefore, by holding the de novo evidentiary hearing and permitting Boston's to introduce new evidence, the Commission disregarded procedural requirements. The Commission abused the authority conferred by the Code, thereby violating the essential requirements of the law, To adhere to this Court's previous orders and its own appellate procedures the Commission is instructed once again to hold a novo eanng on oston s appe . McCARTHT', W7NIKOFF, and HOY JJ., concur. -5- EXHIBIT "B" IN THE CITY CHAMBERS OF DELRAY BEACH, VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and BOSTONS ON THE BEAGH, INC. Appellants}, vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. 1 Section 4.5.9{D}{1}{c) STACKING DISTANCE: COMMISSION THE CITY OF FLORIDA Provisions must be made for stacking and transition of incoming traffic from a public street, such. that traffic may not backup into the public street system. (1 } The minimum distance between aright-of--way and the first parking space or aisle way in a parking lot shall be as outlined in the following table: NUMBER OF SPACES ACCE35 STREET CLASSIFICATION MINIMUM STACKING DISTANCE 20 or fewer Local 5 feet 21 - 50 Local 20 feet 50 or fewer Non-Local 20 feet 51 or more All Streets 50 feet EXHIBIT "C" IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and BOSTONS ON THE BEACH, INC. Appellants}, V5. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. 1 Section 4.6.14(A) Vlsibili#y at Intersections: A. Generally: When an accessway intersects a public right-of-way or when the subject property abuts the intersection of two {2} or more public rights-of--way, all landscaping within the triangular areas described be#ow shall provide unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between three (3) feet and six {fi) feet, provided, however, trees or palms having Limbs and foliage trimmed in such a manner that no limbs or foliage extend into the cross visibility area shall be allowed, provided they are located so as not to create a traffic hazard. Trees shall not be located closer than six {fi} feet from the edge of any accessway pavement. The triangular areas above referred to are: (1) The area on both sides of an accessway formed by the intersection of each side of the accessway and the public right-of-way fine with two {2) sides of each triangle being twenty {20) feet in length from the point of intersection and the third side being a line connecting the ends of the other two {2) sides. {2) The area of property located at a corner formed by the intersection of two (2} or more public rights-of--way with two {2) sides of the triangular area being forty (40) feet in length along the abutting public right-of-way lines, measured from their point of intersection, and the third side being a line connecting the ends of the other two (2) fines. EXHIBIT "D" IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and BOSTONS ON THE BEACH, INC. Appellant(s), vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH., Appellee. 1 Section fi.1.3(B} SIDEWALKS: A. _Pri~les.~af Design: The primarily purpose of sidewalks is to provide a ~ ~ _ ~~ safe pace for pedestrian travel. Generally, sidewalks are required along both sides of all streets. B. Sidewalk Design Reauiremen#s: (1 } Widths: • Low Density Residential Areas 5' • Medium and High Density Areas 5' • Commercial Areas 5' to 10' • Other Areas 5' (2) Location: Sidewalks shall be constructed within the- street right-of- way (or easement or tract) and shall be constructed adjacent to the right-of--way (easement or tract) line. (3) Separation: A strip of grass, or landscape area, of a least two feet in width shall separate sidewalks from the street pavement or curb section, as applicable. (C) Sidewalk Construction Requirements: (1 } Sidewalks shall be constructed wi#h concrete; however, when the sidewalk is to function both as a pedestrian way and a bicycle pathway it may have concrete or asphalt as its finished surface. (2) Concrete sidewalks, which are located in driveways, shall have a minimum depth of six inches {fi"), and shall be constructed of Class I concrete with a minimum strength of 3,000 p.s.i. {3) Sidewalks shall be constructed through asphalt driveways. (4) Sidewalks shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the property upon which they abut. However, installation of sidewalks within a residential subdivision may be deferred pursuant to an agreement which provides for the installation of a majority of the sidewalks at a given point in time. The Local Planning Agency may require that all sidewalks be installed within a developmen# either at a time certain ar upon reaching a certain percentage of build-out of the development. (D) Relief from Sidewalk Installs#ion: {1) Residential: (a) Alternative System: Within residential developments, an alternative pedestrian way system may be provided and, if deemed acceptable by the Planning and Zoning Board, it may substitute for sidewalks along the street system. (b) Waiver: Where it is clear that the sidewalk system will not serve its intended purpose, the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of a street may be reduced to installation of a sidewalk along only one side of the street, during the site plan or plat process, as appropriate. Similarly, a complete waiver may also be granted. (2) Non-Residential: Where it is clear that the sidewalk will not serve its intended purpose, the requirement for installation of a sidewalk adjacent to the property being developed may be waived during site plan or plat approval. (3) Payment In-lieu of installs#lon: In situations where it is inappropriate to install a sidewalk concurrent with development, the sidewalk installation requirement may be met by the payment of funds sufficient to install the sidewalk. Such funds shall be escrowed and used, at a later date, for the installation of said sidewalk. EXHIBIT "E" IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and BOSTONS ON THE BEACH, INC. Appellants}, vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. 1 A, CONDITIONS: ~. Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3} copies of tl~e .---~ revised plans; 2. No loading or unloading of vehicles, except trash pickup, is permitted on Salina Avenue; 3. A valet queue is not permitted under the current design. Redesign of the front entrance area to provide the necessary stacking and approval of the site plan modification will be required prior to operating a valet queue at this location. 4. Alighting plan which details mitigation measures for all light sources visible from the beach must be provided; and 5. The trash enclosure area must be deodorized and air-conditioned. B. SITE PLAN TECHNICAL ITEMS: While the revised site plan has accommodated most of the staff concerns, the following items remain outstanding and will need to be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit: 9 . Provide exflltration trench percolation test results; 2. Provide documentation that the Salina Avenue drainage system has adequate capacity to handle the additional stormwater flow; 3. Provide FDOT driveway connection and drainage permits; 4. Provide fire flow calculations; 5. Show the height of the elevator tower,. elevator equipment room and mechanical equipment area on the roof; and fi. The Engineering Plan must be consistent with the site plan. C. LANDSCAPE TECHNICAL ITEMS: The following Landscape Plan items remain outstanding and will need to be addressed prior to building permit submission: 1. Identify the landscape materials in the planter in the rear of the building on the 5~' floor. 2. The Landscape Plan must be consistent with the site plan. EXHIBIT "F" IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and BOSTONS ON THE BEACH, f NC. Appellant(s), vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Appellee. 1 Consistencv (Standards for Site PIIan Actionsk Compliance with performance. standards set fiorth in Chapter 3 and required findings~in Section 2.4.5(F}(5} shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. i. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. ii. Separation of different forms 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. iii. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. iv. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods regarding factors such as noise., odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns. v. 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. Section 3.1.1dD) comaliance with the Land Develonrnent Regulations: Section 3.1.'! (D) requires that Items identified in the LDRS shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development applicationlrequest. These areas include building setbacks, height, room size., space, parking, loading, stacking distance, point of access, visibility at intersections and site lighting. Building Setbacks: Within the CBD zoning district, front building setbacks shall be no less than 5' and no greater than 10'. Side building setbacks must be 10" when adjacent to Residential zoning. ii. Building Height: Within the CBD zoning district, a maximum of 48' height is allowed. iii. Room Size: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3{M)(1 }, each sleeping room shall contain a floor area of 325 feet including closets and baths. iv. Pa. rking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.fi.9(C)(7){e), hotels and motels are required to provide spaces for each guest room plus 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. floor area devoted to ballrooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, Lounges, and. sloops. However, pursuant to Section 4.4.13 (G}(1 }(d}, within the CBD zone district, restaurants require 6. spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. v. Handica ed Parkin :Two handicapped spaces are required. vi. Dead-end Parkin Ba s: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9 (D}(4}{c), a 24' wide by 6' maneuvering area is required at the end of the dead-end parking bays. vii. Loadine: Hotels between 20,000 and 100,000 sq. ft. shall provide 2 loading spaces. viii. Stackin Distance: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D}(3)(c)(1), the required stacking distance from the right-of--way to the first parking space or aisle way is 20' when 50 parking spaces are provided in a parking area. ix. Point of Access: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(a), the point of access to a street or alley shall be a maximum of 24' unless a greater width is specifically approved as part of the site and development plan. x. Visibility at Intersection: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14{A}, a visibility triangle is required at the Intersections of roads (corner lots) and driveways. An unobstructed view within this triangle visibility must be provided between the heights of 3' and 6'. The required visibility triangle at the intersection of two streets is 40' and 20' at driveways. xi. Si#e Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting must be provided within the proposed parking lot area, however, the location of the project also requires compliance with Section 91.51 of the City's Code of Ordinances, "Lighting Restrictions along Beach", stated as follows: "No artifcial light shall illuminate any area of the beach which is used for sea turtle nesting and its hatchlings, In order to accomplish this, a!I lighting shall be shielded or screened so that the light is not visible from the beach at night period (from dusk until dawn) from April 1 to October 31 of each year." xii. Bike Rack: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(c)(3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in the designated area and by a fixed or stationary bike rack for any non-residential use within the City's. TCEA. EXHIBIT "G" IN THE CITY CHAMBERS OF DELRAY BEACH, VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and BOSTONS ON THE BEACH, INC. Appellant(s), vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH., Appellee. Section 2.4.5(F]i5] (Site Plan Findincas]: COMMISSION THE CITY OF FLORIDA Pursuant to Section 2.4,5(F)(5), "Findings, iri ~additian to provisions of Chapter Three of the Land Development Regulations, the approving body must make the foliawing finding: The development of the property pursuant to the site plan is compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. EXHIBIT "H" IN THE CITY CHAMBERS OF DELRAY BEACH, VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and BOSTONS ON THE BEACH, INC. Appellant(s), vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. 1 Secfiion 4.6.'[6 LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS: COMMISSION THE CITY OF FLORIDA The following shall be considered the minimum standards for the design and installation-- of al! plant materials within the City of Delray Beach,_ (1) DeSlgn: Xeriscape principles shall be utilized in landscape designs and installations. Copies a€ South Florida Water Management District's ~Xeriscape -Plant Guide II" and "How to Xeriscape" are available from the Building Department Principles of xeriscape include: (a) Appropriate planning and design to include consideration of the size and shape of lot, soil type, topography, intended use of area site specific planting to minimize in-igation waste. {b} Use of soil analysis and appropriate amendments to provide better absorption of water and' to provide beneficial plant nutrients. {c) Efficient irrigation systems which permit turf and o#her less drought tolerant plantings to .be watered separately from mare drought tolerant plantings, consideration of low volume drip, spray or bubbler emitters for trees, shrubs and ground covers. (d) Reduction of turf areas, utilizing less water demanding materials such as low water demand shrubs and living ground covers in conjunction with organic mulches. (e) Utilization of drought tolerant plant materials and the grouping of plants with similar water requirements. (f} Utilization of mulches to increase moisture retention, reduce weed growth and erosion and increase the organic content of sail upon degradation. Mulch should be initially applied at a three inch depth, but pulled away from direct contact with stems and trunks to avoid rotting. Mulched planting beds are an ideal replacement for turf areas. {g) Appropriate maintenance to preserve the intended beauty of the landscape and conserve water. {2} Installation: AI[ landscaping shall be installed in a sound,. workmanlike manner and according to sound horticultural and planting procedures with the quality of plant materials herein described. All elements of landscaping shall be installed so as to meet ail other applicable ordinances and code requirements. (3) Vehicular Encroachment: There shall be no vehicular encroachment over or into any required landscape area. In order to prevent encroachment and maintain a neat and orderly appearance of ail planting areas adjacent to parking spaces, accessways, andlor traffic, all landscape areas shall be separated from vehicular use areas by carstops or non_mountable, reinforced concrete curbing of the type characterized as "Type.O" ifl the current edition of~ the "Roadway and Trafs•ic Design Standards" ~ Manual prepared by the State of Florida Department of Transportation, or curbing of comparable durability. In the case of curbing around required landscaped islands,. the width of the curbing shall be excluded from the calculation of the minimum dimensions of the required island. t_andscape islands are required to be a minimum of 5 feet in width exclusive of the curb width. The exception to this is that in paved parking lots, that portion of the parking space extending beyond the car stop may be sodded, and therefore, a vehicle would encroach into this specific landscaped area.. (4} uall :All plant materials used in conformance with provisions of this ordinance shall conform to the Standards for Florida. NG.1 or better as given in "Grades and Standards for Nursery Plants" Part 1, 1963 and Part II, State of Florida Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee, or the most current revised edition. (5) Trees: Shall be a species having an average mature spread of crown greater than twenty (20} feet and having trunks which can be maintained in a clean condition with over six (6} feet of clear mature wood. Trees having an average mature spread of crown less than twenty (20} feet may be substituted by grouping the same so as to create the equivalent of a twenty (20} foot spread of crown. Tree species shall be a minimum of twelve (12} feet in overall height at the time of planting, with a minimum of four (4} feet of single straight trunk with six {6} feet of clear trunk, and a six (6) foot spread of canopy. Native tree species shall be permifited to be ten {10) feet in height at the time of planting, with a minimum of four (4} feet of straight single trunk, and a four (4) foot spread of canopy when it can be demonstrated that trees twelve {12) feet in height are not available. When more than ten (90) trees are required to be planted to meet the requirements of this section, a mix of species shall be provided. The number of species to be planted shall vary according to the overall number of trees required to be planted. This species mix requirement shall not apply to areas of vegetation required to be preserved by law. The minimum number of species to be planted is as follows: REQUIRED NUMBER OF TREES MINIMUM NUMBER OF SPECIES 11 - 20 2 21 - 3D 3 31 ~ 40 4 41+ 5 (fi) Palms: Shall be considered trees. Palms considered susceptible to lethal yellowing by the Florida Department of Agriculture shall not be used to fulfill the requirements of this article. Palm species which do not have a mature spread of crown of at least fifteen {15} feet shall be grouped in threes, and three {3) palms shall equal one (1) shade tree. Palms must have an overall height of a minimum of twelve {12} feet and a minimum of six {fi} feet of clear trunk at the time of planting. Minimum overall palm height may be-increased if paims.ai-e of a nature that the fronds hang below an eight {8) foot clearance, aid are further, located in an area where pedestrians may be adversely affected by fine fronds. Coconut Palms and Royal Palms may be credited on a one for one basis with shade trees. Coconut Palms are permitted to have a minimum of two (2) feet of grey wood at the. time of planting, providing they are located so that the fronds are not hazardous. {7} Shrubs and Hedges: Shall be a minimum of two (2) feet in height when measured immediately after planting. Hedges where required shall be planted and maintained so as to form a continuous, unbroken, solid, visual screen within a maximum of one year after planting. To this end, shrubs shall be spaced a maximum of two (2) feet, center to center, unless plants are exceptionally full, in which case the shrubs shall be permitted to be planted up to a maximum of thirty (3a) inches, center to center, provided the branches are touching at the time of planting. Hedges must be allowed to attain height of thirty-six (36) inches except where providing adequate and safe sight distance requires them to be maintained at a thirty (30) inch height. (8} Lawn Grass: (Turf yr Sod) A major portion of water demand used for landscape purposes is required for the irrigation of lawn areas. Portions of landscaped areas that have been customarily designed as lawns shall be: (a) Preserved as natural plant communities; (b) Planted as redeveloped native areas; or (c} Planted in tradi#ional mixes of trees, shrubs, and ground covers. Property managed non-grass landscape developments of site specific plantings will typically be able to survive on reduced water requirement and survive drought conditions better than lawn areas. For commercial, industrial and multi-family developments, no more than 70% of the combination of the required interior greenspace and the required perimeter landscape buffers, shall be planted in lawn grass. The balance shall be planted in a mix of shrubs and ground covers. For the development of single family and duplex residences, no more than 80% of the pervious lot area shall be planted in lawn grass. A minimum of 20% of the pervious lot area shall be planted in shrubs and ground covers. When used, fawn grass shall be clean and reasonably free of weeds and noxious pests or diseases. When grass areas are to be seeded, sprigged or plugged, specifications must be submitted to and approved by the City Horticulturist. Once hundred percent {100°/a) coverage must tie achieved wfthin~nineijr {90) days. Nurse grass must be sown for immediate effect and protection against soil erosion anti[ coverage is otherwise achieved. Solid sod must be use din swales, canal banks, rights-of way and other areas subject to erosion. {9) Ground Covers: Ground covers used in Geu of grass, in whole or part, shalt be planted at such spacing to present a finished appearance and reasonably complete coverage within six {6) months after planting. Aq ground cover areas must be kept free from weeds. (10} Vlnes: Shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height immediately after planting and may be used in conjunction with fences, screens, or walls to meet physical barrier requirements as specified. (11) C}rganlc Mulches: Organic .mulches may be used is combination with living plants as part of a landscape design as provided in this section. However, organic mulches shall not by themselves constitute landscaping. No more than twenty-five percent {25%) of a front or side street setback may be comprised of mulch independent of living plant materials. EXHIBIT "I" IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and BOSTONS ON THE BEACH, INC. Appellant(s), vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. Sec#ion 4.6.18(E), "Architectural Elevations and Aesthetics" requires findings that: i. The pian`~r'thd' proposed structure is in conformity with good tas#e, .good.- •• ~ - 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. ii. The proposed structure, or project, is in its exterior design and appearance pf quality such as not to cause the nature of the local environment or evolving environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. iii. The proposed structure, or project, 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. EXHIBIT "J" IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and BOSTONS ON THE BEACH, lNC. Appellant{s), VS. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. 1 Com rehensfve Plan -Future Land Use Element Objectlve A-'I: This objective requires that the prap~rty shall be developed or redeveloped, in a~manner 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. Future Land Use Mao: The resulting use of land or structures must be allowed in the zoning district within which the land is situated and said zoning must be consistent with the applicable land use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map. The subject property has a Zoning District Map designation of Central Business District {CBD) and has a Commercial Core {CC) Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13{B), "Principal Uses and Structures Permitted", hotels are allowed as a permitted use within the CBD zoning district. Concurrence: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the- Comprehensive Plan. Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must foe 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 fallowing areas: Com rehensi-re Flan - Housin Element Po[ic A-'12.3: This policy requires that in evaluating proposals for new development, redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. The Comprehensive.Coastal Management Element states in Goal Area "C": This element requires that development and redevelopment in the Coastal Planning Area shall be compatible with the existing character of the area, and shall provide for a sensitive balancing of the needs for economic development, redevelopment, and environmental protection and in Objective C-3 that the development of vacant and under-developed land on the barrier island shall occur in a manner which does not change the character, intensity of use, or increase demand upon existing infrastructure in the Coastal Planning Area and pursuant to Policy C-3.2 that there shall be no change in the intensity of land use within the barrier island and all infill development which does occur shall connect to the City's storm water management system and sanitary sewer system. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 31, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 REQUEST FOR RELOCATION OF DELRAY GREEN MARKET ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is a request to relocate the Green Market. BACKGROUND Lori Nolan, GreenMarket Manager has requested to relocate the Green Market to the Old School Square Surface Lot (Block 76) due to the Worthing Park parking lot being permanently closed. The Green Market season will end on May 16, 2009. Ms. Nolan's memo is attached. RECOMMENDATION Commission discretion. ~~ , ~~~ ,x~~~ ~,,e ~y~~`~ d e l ra y GreenMarket in the park ~~~ Worthing park Vie;-, y~ ~~~ ~'~,~~;,~ RECEIVEb OCT 3 1 2408 October 31, 2008 CITY MANAGER Mr. David Harden City Mana~er 100 NW 1$ Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Dear Mr. Harden, Yesterday morning I was informed by South Coast Partners that the City has closed the Worthing Park Parking lot permanently. Jeff Costello, Scott Aaronson and I met with Christopher Wheeler (South Coast Partners) to discuss temporary vendor parking and worked out an arrangement for this Saturday and possibly next Saturday but there are no guarantees beyond this weekend. This presents a huge safety issue for my vendors, by forcing them to load their vehicles on Atlantic Avenue at 1:OOpm at the close of the GreenMarket day. This has put me in an urgent position to find a new location for the GreenMarket immediately. 1 would like permission to move the GreenMarket to the Old School Square surface lot (block 76) for this season ending May 16~', 2009. There are lots of benefits in moving to this new location including encouraging people to use the new city parking garage right next door. Also, by moving just around the corner from Worthing Park it will ease the confusion of the move to the customers of the GreenMarket as we enter our 13"' season. I have checked the DMC calendar and with Peggy Murphy at Old School Square and it appears that the GreenMarket would only have to move one Saturday during the season for the Garlic Festival. The Pineapple Grove Main Street Board of Directors is fully supportive of this relocation. I know that this is very short notice, but would you please, place this item on the City Commission Agenda for this Tuesday's meeting? Thank you for your consideration to this matter. Sincerely, ~~~~ Lori Nolan GreenMarket Manager cc: Bob Barcinski 20 north Swinton avenue delray beach, florida 33444 561.276.7511 ~ol RA DFLRAY RFACN AerialMap Proposed Green Market Site 133L=~~/iV D,~~,~ 'Page 1 of 1. hip://esg~sn=001/tnap~ude2008/mapviewerpl~p/priritablepage.php?SESSI.QN=484a53a6-0000-:.. 10/31 /2008 Norc-; ~u~yw.~ys wou~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 RESOLUTION NO.50-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This resolution is before Commission for second reading authorizing the indebtedness by the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $500,000.00 to pay the cost of Brownfields cleanup activities and costs of issuance, and approve an Interlocal agreement with the South Florida Regional Planning Council. BACKGROUND At the first reading on October 21, 2008, the Commission passed Resolution No. 50-08. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Resolution No. 50-08 on second and final reading. RESOLUTION 50-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE. QTY COMMISSION OF ~ QTY OF DELRAY BEACH; FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUT~iORIZING THE IrIDEBTEDNESS BY THE DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $500,000 TO PAY THE COST OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND PAY COSTS OF ISSUANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Part III, Chapter 163,. Florida Statutes (the "Redevelopment Acct"}, the City of Delray Beach, Florida (the "Cit}~'} created and. established the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (the "Agenc~'); and WHEREAS, the Cary Commission of the Cityfound certain areas within the Cityta be slum or blighted areas within the meaning of the Redevelopment Act (the "Redevelopment Area"); and. WHEREAS, the City Commission previously approved and adopted the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Plan {the "Redevelopment Plan") in accordance with the Redevelopment Act; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2008, the Agency adapted a Resolution (the "Resolution") authorizing the Agency to enter into an Tnterlocal Agreement (the "Interlocal Agreement") with the South Florida Regional Planning Council ("council") to provide for a loan to finance a portion of the costs of Brownfields cleanup activities and costs of issuance in an amount rat to exceed $500,000; and WHEREAS, Section 163.385, Florida Statutes, requires the authorization or approval of the City Commission, as the governing body which created the Agency, f ar the indebtedness to be incurred by the Agency pursuant to the Interloeal Agreement; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, as follows: Section 1. royal and A orization of Interlocal ement. Pursuant to and for the purposes of Section 163.385, Florida Statutes, the City Commission hereby approves and authorizes the indebtedness to be incurred bythe Agency (the "Loan") upon the terms, criteria and conditions provided in the Interlocal Agreement set forth as Exhibit "A" for the purposes mentioned above, and the City Commission. does hereby further approve the execution, delivery and performance by the Agency of the Interlocal Agreement. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared that, because of the characteristics of the Loan, prevailing and anticipated market conditions, and. savings to be realized in an expeditious Loan, it is in the best interests of the City and the Agency for the .Agency to enter into the Loan subject to the temps, conditions and criteria provided in the Interlocal Agreement. The City covenants that it will not reduce the boundaries of the Agency while the Loan is outstanding, 'on 2. This Resolution shall lZecome effective immediatelyupon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on the day of , 2008. QTY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By Mayor ATTE5T: By. City Clerk First Reading Second Reading Res. 54-OS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, THE DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY LAND TRUST. INC. FOR BROWNFIELD CLEANUP FUNDING THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR BROWNFIELD CLEANUP FUNDING (hereinafter the "Agreement"), is made and entered into this day of 2008, and is by and between the DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY RED)~VELOPIVIENT AGENCY, a Florida public body corporate and politic created pursuant to Section 163.356 F.S. (hereinafter called 'BORROWER"), and the SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, a body corporate and politic and an agency of the State of Florida, (hereinafter referred to as "COUNCIL"). WHEREAS, the BORROWER is the owner in fee simple of certain lands situate and lying in Delray Beach, Florida, and the- Delray Beach Cornrnunity Land Trust, Inc. a Florida not- for-profit corporation is the owner in fee simple of certain lands located in the community redevelopment area of the BORROWER, all as more- particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Land"); and WHEREAS, COUNCIL is a recipient of Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Funds ("BCRLF") and is authorized to make certain loans from these funds; and WHEREAS, BORROWER has completed Ioan pre-qualification and Application Requirements far the COUNCIL'S BCRLF; and WHEREAS, BORROWER has requested of COUNCIL and COUNCIL has agreed to lend to BORROWER, upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth, the total sum of up to $500,000.00 (the "Loan") to assist BORROWER in the effectuation of Brownfields cleanup activities and for such other purposes as are set Earth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements. set forth herein, and other good. and valuable consideration exchanged between the parties, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acl~irowledged, it is agreed as follows; ARTICLE I 1.1 As used in this Agreement,. the terms listed below shall have the following meanings: 1.1.1 Act_ Means Part .III of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, 1.1.2 Approval Memorandum. Means the agreement described in Section 3.1.1 herein. 1.1.3 BORROWER. The business entity, local government, non-profit agency, or individual having fee simple title to the subject real property. and authority to execute all relevant documents. BORROWER is the DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOFMENT AGENCY, a Florida public body corporate Page i and politic created pursuant to Section 163.356 F.S. ("CRA"}, with an address of 20 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach,. Florida 33444. 1.I.4 Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Funds ("BCRLF"}. Funds originating from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EFA") to be disbursed by COUNCIL to BORROWER far the purpose of effectuating the rehabilitation and cleanup of the loan property site. 1.1.5 Business Day. Means any day except Saturday or Sunday ar a day an which the COUNCIL or the contractor hired by the COUNCIL to process the Loan payments are closed. 1.I.6 COUNCIL. The South Florida Regional Planning Council, with its offices located at 3440 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 140, Hollywood, FL 33021. 1.1.7 Community Relations Plan {"CRP"). A plan for the community relations and public involvement activities that will occur throughout the BCRLF response and implementation process. 1.1..8 Cooperative Agreement Worlc Plan, The Brownfields Site Rehabilitation Agreement and Remedial Action Plan that the BORROWER has entered into with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1.1.9 Effective date. Shall mean the date on which the occurrence of all of (a) the execution of this Agreement by the proper officers of the COUNCIL and the BORROWER, (b) the Fling of this Agreement pursuant to Section 11.8(b}, hereof and (c) the approval of the Loan and this Agreement by the City of Delray Beach, Florida and the satisfaction of any conditions precedents required under such authorizing resolutions. 1.1.10 Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis ("EE/CA"). An Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis prepared in conjunction with the cleanup activities pursuant to a Project Response Action. I.I.I 1 Final Maturit Date.. Means the earlier of (a) , 2011 or (b) immediately on the day that the revenues pledged under this Agreement are deemed by a court with jurisdiction over the Borrower to be ad valorem revenues subject to the requirements of Article VII, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution. 1.1.12 Governmental Authority. Any federal, state, county, municipal or other governmental department, commission, board, bureau, court, agency, or any instrumentality of any other .governmental entity having jurisdiction over the Property. . 1.1.13 Governmental Re uirernents. Any law, statute, code, ordinance, order, tole, regulation, judgment, decree, writ, injunction, franchise, permit, certificate, license, authorization, or otkier direction or requirement of any Governmental Page 2 Authority now existing or hereafter enacted, adapted, promulgated, entered or issued applicable to the construction of the Improvements or to Borrower. l.l.l~l lncrement Revenues. Means the amount calculated pursuant to Section 163.387{1), Florida Statutes, as amended, and. appropriated no later than January 1 each year by each taxing. authority (as defned in the Act) in connection with the redevelopment of the blighted areas for deposit into the redevelopment trust fund of the BORROWER established pursuant to the Act. 1.1.15 Land. That certain real property described on Exhibit " A", annexed hereto and made a part hereof 1.1.16 Loan. A loan in the amount of $500,000A0. L 1.17 Non-Ad Valorem Revenues. Means all legally available non-ad valorem revenues of the BORROWER, derived from any .source whatsoever, including, without limitation and investment income, which are legally available for the payment by the BORROWER of debt service on notes or bonds, including, without limitation, legally available non-ad valorem revenues derived from sources subject to a prior pledge thereof for the payment of other obligations of the BORROWER and available after payment of principal and interest on such other obligations; provided however, for clarification purposes only, Increment Revenues shall only be used to the extent legally permissible and are not otherwise determined by a Florida court to be ad valorem revenues subject to the limitations described under Article VII, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution. 1.1.18 On-Scene Caoxdinator ("OSC"}. An individual or entity to be selected by the COUNCIL to coordinate and oversee the Project Response Action pursuant to Section 3.1.1 hereof. 1.1.19 Covenant Revenues. means (i} all Non-Ad Valorem Revenues and (ii) proceeds, if any, from the sale or transfer of all or a portion of the Froperty. 1.1.20 Project Budget and Schedule. The Project Budget and Schedule describes how the loan funds are to be utilized, according to the Work Plan, and the time franr~e under which it is anticipated that Work Plan will be implemented. 1.1.21 Project Response Action Agreement sl Means collectively, the agreement between the BORROWER and BG Group (the soil remediation contractor) dated December 19, 2008 and, the agreement between the BORROWER and GFA International (the environmental consultant) dated January 10, 2008. 1.1.22 Project Response Action. Soil Remediation and Environmental monitoring. of contaminants for excavating and backfilling tasks. preformed on the two (2) block Carver Square neighborhood particularly described in the work plan referenced herein. Page 3 1.1.23 Pro e The Land, together vuith any existing improvements and the Improvements to be constructed on the Land, other improvements and all fixtures, personal property and other properties owned by BORROWER and used in connection with the Land. 1.1.24 Work Plan. The Brownfields Site Rehabilitation Agreement and Remedial Action Plan that the BORROWER has entered into with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1.2 Other Definitional Provisions. (a} The terms "material" and "materially" shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms under generally accepted accounting principals. ("GAAP") as such would be applied to the business of the BORROWER, except as the context shall clearly otherwise set forth; (b) all of the terms defined in this Agreement shall have such defined meanings when used in other documents issued under, ar delivered pursuant to, this Agreement, unless the context shall otherwise require; (c) all terms defined in this Agreement in the singular shall have comparable meanings when used in the plural, and vice versa; (d) accounting terms,. to the extent not otherwise defined, shall have the respective meanings .given them under, and shall be construed in accordance with, GAAP; {e} the words "hereby", "hereto", "hereof', "herein", "hereunder" and words of similar import when used in this Agreement shall refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement; (f) the masculine and neuter genders are used herein and whenever used shall include the masculine; feminine and neuter as-well; and (g) any reference in this Agreement to any of the parties hereto shall be deemed to include the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of such parties unless the context shall expressly provide otherwise. 1.3 Titles and Headings. The titles and. headings of the articles and sections of this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and are not to be considered a part hereof: shall not in any way modify or restrict any- of the terms and provisions hereof, and shall not be considered or given any effect- in construing this Agreement or any provision hereof or in ascertaining intent; if any question of intent should arise. ARTICLE II THE LOAN 2.1 LOAN. The BORROWER may borrow from time to time up to the principal sum of Five Hundred Thousand and 001100 DbIlars ($SOO,QOO.OQ} aggregate principal amount predicated. on the COUNCIL receiving draw requests from the BORROWER in accordance with Section 2.11 hereof (each an "Advance"). Amounts Advanced and repaid may not be re-advanced. Each Advance must be in an amount equal to or greater than $50,404. The Loan shall bear interest on the outstanding principal balance at zero percent (0%) from the Effective Date through and including , 2049 and thereafter at three percent {3%) per annum. Interest on all Advances shall be payable Semiannually on and Page 4 of each year (each an "Interest Payment Date") so long as any amount under the Loan remains outstanding, with the initial Interest Payment Date to he 2009. Principal for all Advances made against the Loan shall be payable on , 2009, , 2010, , 2x10, , 2011 with the final installment due on the Final Maturity Date (each a "Principal Payment Date"). Principal payments shall be in substantially equal amounts and the principal due on each Principal Payment Date shall equal an amount determined by dividing the aggregate principal amount of all Advances made by the BORROWER under this Interlocal Agreement by the number of Principal Payment Dates remaining, including for purposes of such calculation, the Final Maturity Date. The entire unpaid principal balance, together with all accrued and unpaid interest hereon, shall be due and payable in full on the Final Maturity Date. Al! payments by the BORROWER pursuant to this Agreement shall apply first to accrued interest, then to other charges due the COUNCIL, and the balance thereof shall apply to the principal sum due. 2.2 Computation of Interest and Fees. All computations of interest and fees hereunder shall be made on the basis of a year of 365 days (or 366 days in a leap year) for the actual number of days (including the first day but excluding the last day) occurring in the period for which such interest or fees are payable. 2.3 PREPAYMENT. BORROWER may, without premium prepay any portion of the principal on the Loan before the maturity date, with five (5) days notice- to the COUNCIL. 2.4 Business Days. In any case where the due date of interest on or principal of the Loan is not a Business Day, then payment of such principal or interest need not be made on such date but may be made on the next succeeding Business Day, provided that credit for payments made shall not be given until the payment is actually received by the COUNCIL. 2.5 PURPOSE. The proceeds of the Loan shall be used.. only for the approved Brownfields Response Action for the Property and in strict compliance with the Cooperative Agreement Work Plan, Project Budget and Schedule, Work Plan and Approval Memorandum and for costs of issuance related io the Loan. 2.6 BROWNFIELDS (BCRLF) PROTECT RESPONSE ACTION AGREEMENT. BORROWER has entered into a soil remediation agreement dated December 19, 2007 with BG Group, and an environmental consulting services agreement dated January X 0, 2008 with GFA International (the Contractors' Contracts, hereinafter referred to as "Contractors") to execute the. Work Plan. The Wark Plan and Contractors' Contracts shall be subject fio and incorporate the Project Response Action Agreement. BORROWER shall attach and incorporate a copy of this Agreement and the COUNCIL'S Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund guidelines to any agreement with the Contractor. Page 5 2.7 CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS AND „INSURANCE. BORROWER represents and warrants to the COUNCIL that each Contractor has examined the Property, is fully familiar with local conditions, and is able to execute the Work Plan and perform in accordance with its term. Each Contractor shall perform the Work Plan consistent with the Ievel of care and skill exercised by similar contractors performing comparable services under comparable circumstances. Each Contractor must be certified as a Brownfields Redevelopment Contractor pursuant to Sections 376.80, Florida Statutes (2046), and maintain a current and valid license from the State of Florida Contractor's State License Board, or other authorized agency, for the past twenty-four (24j months prior to date of the SCRLF Project Response Action. Each Contractor shall maintain and keep in farce insurance, including, but not limited to pollution and general liability insurance with a minimum of $1,400,440 coverage per accident. or claim, property insurance and workman's compensation. Insurance shall be placed with an insurer with an A.A!i. Best rating of no less than A:VII. The BORROWER shall ensure that the COUNCIL is identified as an additional insured in any acid all policies obtained by each. Contractor relative to this project. 2.8 FEES AND COSTS. 2.8.1 Fees and Costs. BORROWER shall pay alI closing costs, which shall include, but are not limited to, costs of recording any and all instruments evidencing the loan,. documentary stamps and intangible taxes, attorney fees and costs for the COUNCIL. 2.$.2 TRANSACTIONS, COUNCIL may, at its option, charge transaction fees for document preparation and retarding and all. other services related to the Property including, but not limited to subordination, sale or other transfer, demand notices, refinancing, tecanveyance, and Litigation. BORROWER shall pay or reimburse COUNCIL an demand for all present or future documentary stamp taxes, if any. 2.8.3 LOAN COLLECTION SERVICES. COUNCIL may, at its. option, charge a fee far loan collection services equal to that fee which the contractor providing such services charges to the COUNCIL for processing of loan payments. 2.8.4 UPON DEFAULT. Upon default of this INTERLOCAL Agreement, BORROWER shall pay COUNCIL all reasonable collection and attorney°s fees and expenses actually incurred by the COUNCIL, whether or not litigation is commenced, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees and. penalties and/or fees due under this Agreement. 2.9 PAYI~!IENT 29.1 The BORROWER shall pay or cause to be paid an the Final Maturity Date from Covenant Revenues, the principal amount of $500,000, together with interest as described in Section 2.1 hereof, sufficient to pay the Loan in full. Page 6 2.9.2 Within twenty (20} days subsequent to the Effective Date, the BORROWER shall erect and maintain a sign on the Project .Site stating that the project is financed in part by BCRLF and the COUNCIL. The sign should also include appropriate contacts far obtaining information on activities being. conducted at the site and for reporting suspected criminal activities. The sign erected on the Project Site shall comply with all requirements of the state and local law applicable to anWpremise outdoor advertising as well as 40 CFR Subpart O §35.6105(a)(2)(ii). 2.10 INSPECTION AND RIGHT TO STOP WORK. At its discretion, COUNCIL shall have the right to enter upon the Property at any time upan reasonable notice for the purpose of conducting inspections of-the work at the Property during and upon completion of BCRLF Project Response Action, with BORROWER to provide notice to COUNCIL when completion is imminent (nor later than five days prior}. The OSC shall perform duties including, but not limited to, coordination, oversight and inspection of the BCRLF Project Response Action. If COUNCIL or the OSC find that the work is unsatisfactory or is not substantially in accordance with the Work Plan, COUNCIL. shall have to right to order the work to stop; and artier work replacement by BORROWER at BORROWER'S expense. COUNCIL shall not be obligated to make any disbursements unless or until all work to be paid from such disbursement is satisfactory to the COUNCIL, Upon the transfer of any interest. in all or a portion of the Property or Land while any amount is outstanding hereunder within 1 S days of the execution of the real property interest document (or if there is no written documents, then 15 days from the date that such an interest is effective) a copy of an access agreement granting the COUNCIL access to such property to inspect the property for the purposes described in this Section shall be provided to the COUNCIL. 2.11 DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS. Advances shall be made to the BORROWER in installments based upan the progress of the work and in accordance with the approved Project Budget and Schedule. No Advance shall be advanced to BORROWER from the COUNCIL without the written approval of the OSC, which will not be unreasonably withheld and provided. the BORROWER is not in default of this Agreement or no event has occurred which with the. passage of time or the giving of notice, or both,. would give rise to a default under this Agreement. As a condition to the disbursement of funds, the COUNCIL may require from time to time documentation evidencing payment by BORROWER to the Contractor or subcontractors for work performed on the Project. All such funds allocable to the Loan shall be and constitute trust funds for such purposes, and there is hereby created a lien upon such funds in favor of the COUNCIL until .such funds are applied as herein provided. 2.12 PROGRESS PAYMENTS AND RETENTION. All requests by BORROWER for progress payments will be disbursed by the actual expense method and shall be approved by the BORROWER's Licensed Environmental Professional ("LEP"} and submitted in writing. with original billing. statements for actual work performed to the COUNCIL an or about the first day of each month, for review and approval of the OSC and COUNCIL. The progress payment will not be available until the 28th of each month or by the 15~' of Page 7 the month if the draw requested was submitted by the 2Q~' of the previous month. The COUNCIL reserves the right to withhold up to ten percent { 10%) of each payment as retention. Any withheld funds will be released after submitting a BCRLF Project Response Action Closeout Report and receipt of a Certificate of Completion, approved by the OSC. All requests far payment shall be accompanied by partial releases ftom any materialmen, subcontractors and the Contractor. 2.13 ADHERENCE TO BUDGET. BORROWER agrees to keep all expenditures from loan proceeds within the approved budget (described in the Project Budget and Work Schedule}. BORROWER shall not exceed any of the costs enumerated in the approved Project Budget and Work Schedule without the prior written approval of the O,SC. ARTICLE III PRE-DISBURSEMENT UBLIGATZONS 3.1 Prior to disbursement of the loan proceeds, the COUNCIL, as the lead agency, will complete all response selection requirements, however; these activities may not be completed prior to execution of the loan documents. For cleanup planning and decision documents not completed prior to the signing of the loan agreement, then: 3.1.1 COUNCIL shall have the right to select an individual or entity to serve as the On- Scene Coordinator ("OSC"). The OSC shall perform all duties as required by the COUNCIL, including but not limited to coordination and oversight of the BCRLF Project Response Action ("Response Action"). The OSC shall prepare an Approval Memorandum documenting that the situation meets the CERGLA (as hereafter defined) and NCP (as hereafter defined) criteria for initiating anon-time removal action for signature by the COUNCIL. 3.1.2 After the COUNCIL has prepared the Community Response Plan ("CRP"}, the BORROWER shall draft an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis ("EEJCA"}, which shall clearly identify the objectives of the removal action, provide an analysis of alternatives, recomnr~ends an action for the removal of contamination and the estimated costs of removal. The BORROWER shall submit copies of the draft EE/CA to the OSC and the COUNCIL for approval. The BORROWER agrees to accept advice and suggestions from the OSC and COUNCIL, and to incorporate those suggestions or requests for revisions into the draft EE/CA. 3.1.3' After the COUNCIL and OSC have approved the draft EE/CA, the COUNCIL shall make the draft EE/CA available for review and public comment for a period of not less than thirty (30} days from the date of public notice. 3.1.4 After the public comment period, the OSC shall prepare. a Response to the public comments and a Decision Memorandum documenting the basis .for the removal action for signature by the COUNCIL. At the request of the COUNCIL, the BORROWER shall submit alI information to the COUNCIL in a farm requested by the COUNCIL, which will enable the COUNCIL to prepare the Decision Page 8 Memorandum. After the COUNCIL has signed the Decision Memorandum, the BORROWER shall prepare: (a} A Budget and Work Schedule (b) Health and Safety Plan (OSHA 1910-120-I26) And submit same to the OSC and COUNCIL for approval. 3.1.5 BORROWER understands and agrees that all proceeds of the Loan provided by the COUNCIL shall be used to rehabilitate and cleanup the Property site subject to this Agreement. BORROWER shall supply the COUNCIL with construction design plans and specifications for redevelopment of the property. ARTICLE IV REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 4.1 BORROWER makes the following representations and warranties to COUNCIL: 4.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL WARRANTIES. BORROWER certifies that: (a) The Property is not listed, or proposed for listing an the National Priorities List of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency {EPA); (b) BORROWER is not a generator or transporter of the contamination at the Property; (c) BORROWER is not an owner or operator of the site, as defined by CERCLA; and, (d) BORROWER purchased or acquired tlse property after the time of disposal or placement of hazardous substances and the BORROWER has not caused or contributed to the contamination. 4.1.2 Powers of BORROWER. The BORROWER is and will be on the date of closing, duly organized and validly existing under 'the constitution, the laws of the State and its enabling legislation. The BORROWER has the power to barrow the amount provided far in this Agreement, to execute and deliver each of the agreements described herein, and to perform and observe all the terms and conditions on its part to be performed and observed. 4.1.3 Authorization of Loan. The BORROWER has full legal right, power, and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement, and to carry out and consummate all ether transactions contemplated hereby, and the BORROWER has complied and will comply with alI provisions of applicable law in all material matters relating to such transactions. `The BORROWER, has duly authorized the borrowing of the amount provided for in this Agreement, the execution and delivery ofthis Agreement, and to that end the BORROWER warrants that it will Page 9 take all action and will do all things which it is authorized by law to take and to do in .order to fulfill all covenants on its part to be performed and to provide for and to assure payment of the Loan. The BORROWER has duly authorized the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement and the taking of any and all other such action as may be required on the part of the BORROWER to carry out,. give effect to and consummate the transactions contemplated herein. This Agreement has been duly authorized, executed, issued and delivered to the BORROWER and constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of the BORROWER enforceable in accordance with its terms. All approvals, consents, and orders of and flings with any governmental authority or agency which would constitute a condition precedent to the execution and delivery of this Agreement ar the execution and delivery of or the performance by the BORROWER of its obligations herein have been obtained or made and any consents, approvals, and orders to be received or filings so made are in full force and effect. 4.1.3 NO VIOLATION. The making and performance by BORROWER of this Agreement does not violate any provision of Iaw, Florida statute, or result in a breach of or constitute a default under any agreement, indenture or other instrument to which BORROWER is a party or by which BORROWER is bound. 4.1.4 AUTHORIZATION. This Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and delivered, and is a valid and binding agreement of BORROWER as of the Effective Date. X1.1.5 LITIGATION. There are no pending or threatened actions or proceedings before any court or administrative agency, which may adversely affect the. financial condition or operation of BORROWER other than those heretofore disclosed by BORROWER to COUNCIL in writing. 4.1.6 CORRECTNESS OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT. The financial statement dated September 30, 2U07 heretofore delivered by BORROWER to COUNCIL accurately represents the. current financial condition of BORROWER, and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied. As of the date of such financial statement,. and since such date, there has been no material adverse change in the condition of BORROWER, nor has the BORROWER mortgaged, pledged or granted security interest in ar encumbered any of BORROWER'S assets ar properties since such date, except as contemplated by this Agreement. 4.1.7 NO ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATION. The obligations of BORROWER under this Agreement will not be further subordinated in right of payment to any abligation of BORROWER, other than that which may be provided under this Agreement, unless otherwise acknowledged or agreed to by COUNCIL in writing. Page 10 ARTICLE V CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 5.1 The obligation of COUNCIL to make this Loan contemplated hereunder is subject to the fulfillment of the following. conditions: 5.1.1 APPROVAL OF COUNCIL'S LEGAL COUNSEL. All legal matters incidental to COUNCIL'S commitment to issue the Loan hereunder shall be satisfactory to the Iegal counsel of COUNCIL, including the form, validity and enforceability of this Agreement and Exhibits attached hereto. 5.12 COMPLIANCE. The representations and warranties contained herein shall be true on and as of the-date of the signing of this Agreement with the same effect as though such representations and warranties had been made on and as of such date, and on such date no event of default as defined in Article VII herein ("Events of Default") and no condition, event or act which, with the giving of notice or the lapse of time or both would constitute an Event of Default, shall have occurred and be continuing or shall exist. 5.1.3 SUBMISSION OF BCRLF PR03ECT RESPONSE ACTION. BORROWER shall submit to COUNCIL copies of all bids and the BCRLF Project Response Action contracts for all work required under the Work Plan. 5.1.4 No Default. On the date hereof the BORROWER shall be in compliance with alI the terms and provisions set forth in this Agreement and any other Ioan documents on its part to be observed or performed, and no Event of Default nor any event that, upon notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute such an Event of Default, shall have occurred and be continuing at such time. ARTICLE VI AFFIRMATIVE COVENANTS 6.1 BORROWER does aclmowledge that it is familiar with and shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, and implementing regulations at 4160-4 relating to Federally assisted construction contracts. BORROWER covenants that so long as BORROWER is indebted to COUNCIL under this Agreement, BORROWER shall do the following: 6.1.1 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. BORROWER shall document all the uses of the loan proceeds, and maintain adequate books and accounts in accordance with GAAP consistently applied. BORROWER shall permit any representative of COUNCIL, at any reasonable time, upon reasonable notice to inspect, audit and examine such books and inspect the properties of BORROWER. BORROWER shall maintaiun documentation on the use of the loan proceeds for a minimum of ten (10) years after the completion of Project Response Action activities supported by the Loan, or for the length of the Loan, whichever is greater. BORROWER must obtain written approval from COUNCIL prior to destroying any such records earlier than the date permitted in the preceding sentence. Page 11 6.1.2 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ONGOING REPORTIIVG. BORROWER shall furnish COUNCIL, so long as amounts remain due hereunder: (a} Quarterly reports that document that they are in compliance with all relevant Federal and State of Florida environmental regulations and that they meet the requirements of the COUNCIL'S Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Guidelines. (b) Quarterly financial statements, including basic accounting and control mechanisms to track legitimate use of funds and document that the funds are put to authorized uses. BORROWER'S accounting system must track site-specific cost, and track cost activity and operable unit if applicable. Financial statements are considered to be (i) Income Statements; (ii)' Balance Sheet; and (iii) Cash Flow Statement. (c) From time to time such other information as COUNCIL may reasonably request. 6.1.3 COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS. BORROWER will carry out the Work Plan in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act {"CERCLA"} in (42 USC 9601 et seq.); Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to States and Local Governments (40 CFR Part 31); Cooperative Agreements for Superfund Response Actions (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O}; the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan ("NCP"} (40 CFR Part 300) and all other applicable provisions of Federal, State or Local law. 6.1.4 DAV1S-BACON ACT. BORROWER 5ha11 carry out the Work Plan in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 (CERCLA 104(8){1), (40 U.S.C. 276a-5 and 42 U.S.C. 321.2). Compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act requires payment of Federal prevailing wage rates for construction, repair or alteration work funded in whole or in part with. BCRLF Loan Funds. BORROWER must obtain recent and applicable wage rates from the U.S. Department of Labor and incorporate them into the construction contract. for the Work Plan. 6.1.5 INSURANCE. In addition to contractor's insurance requirements, BORROWER shall maintain and keep in force insurance of the types and amounts necessary to protect the security for BORROWER'S indebtedness to the COUNCIL, including; but not limited to general liability insurance with a minimum of $1,000,000 coverage per accident or claim, property insurance and workman's compensation, if applicable, and fire insurance, for the value of the property, and coverage for pollution incidents that may be evidenced by pollution legal liability insurance. Insurance coverage shall be primary as respects any other insurance of self insurance available to the COUNCIL. Insurance shall be placed with an insurer with an AM Bests rating of no less than A:VII. The COUNCIL, its officers, employees and agents, shall be named as "Loss Payee" and "Additional Insured", and BORROWER shall. deliver to COUNCIL from time to time at COUNCIL'S Page. 12 request certificates of Insurance or policies setting forth all business insurance then in effect. Policies shall be exadorsed to provide that the COUNCIL shall be provided with thirty (30) days advance written notice of any cancellation, suspension or reduction in limits. 6.1.6 MAIN'T'ENANCE. BORROWER shall keep Property in good repair and condition ordinary wear and tear excepted, and, from time to time make necessary repairs, renewals and replacements thereto so that Property shall be fully and efficiently preserved and maintained in a commercially reasonable manner. 6.1.7 TAXES AND OTHER LIABILITIES. BORROWER shall pay and discharge before delinquency any and all indebted obligations, assessments, taxes real and personal, includirtg federal and state payroll and income taxes, except such as BORROWER may in good faith contest or as to which a bona Fide dispute may arise; provided provision is made to the satisfaction of COUNCIL for eventual payment thereof in the event that it i5 found that the same is an obligation of BORROWER. 6. l .8 LITIGATION AND LIENS. BORROWER shall promptly give notice in writing to any litigation pending or to its knowledge threatened against BORROWER or Property involving in excess of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($SQO,Q00.00). Furthermore, BORROWER shall not allow any liens to be filed against the property. In the event a lien is filed, BORROWER shall within thirty (30) days of the recordation of the lien, satisfy it or transfer it to a bond. 6.1.4 NON-DISCRIMINATION AND E UAL OPPORTUNITY. BORROWER shall comply with the statutes prohibiting discrimination on the, grounds of race, color, national origin, sex and disability. In addition, BORROWER will undertake good faith efforts in compliance with 40 CFR §35.6580 to give opportunities for qualified Small Business Enterprises (SBE), Minority Business Enterprises (MBE) and Women-Owner Business Enterprises (WBE) to submit proposals, bids, and provide services on contracts and subcontracts for services and supplies. BORROWER shall submit. a report of such efforts. 6.1.10 DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION. The BORROWER certifies that BORROWER and Contractor: (a) Are not presently or proposed. to be debarred or suspended, declared ineligible; or voluntarily excluded from liederal, State of Florida or local (herea$er "public"} transactions; (b} Have not within a three (3) year period preceding this proposal, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in corinecticm with obtaining, .attempting to obtain, or performing a public transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State of Florida antitrust or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery; bribery, falsification or Page 13 destruction of records; making false. statements, or receiving stolen property; (c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a public entity with commission of any of the offenses enumerated under Paragraph 6. I. ] 1(b) of this Agreement; and (d) Have -not within the preceding three {3} years had a public transaction terminated for cause or default. 6:1.11 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. BORROWER certifies that it is not currently, nor has been, subject to any penalties resulting from environmental non-compliance at the Property. BORROWER further certifies that it will conduct its BCRLF Project Response Action activities in accordance with the COUNCIL'S BCRLF Project Response Action Revolving Loan Fund Program Guidelines, and will modify the BCRLF Project Response Action activities, as necessary and as reasonably determined by the COUNCIL, based on unforeseen site conditions or public involvement requirements. 6.1.12 NOTICE TO CHANGE 1N WORK PLANS. If the COUNCIL reasonably determines that it is necessary to modify the Work Plan based on public comments or new information, the BORROWER will amend the. Work Plan. BORROWER will immediately report in writing any potential changes to the Work Plan and the discovery of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants not identified in the Work Plan. All changes or modification to the Project or the Project Documents shall be approved in writing by the OSC and the COUNCIL prior to such change or modification becoming effective. All additional costs incurred as the result of any change orders define shall be the responsibility of BORROWER. In the event that unforeseen conditions are discovered during the project implementation, the COUNCIL reserves the right to revise the BCRLF Response Action and the Project Documents, which the BORROWER must implement in a commercially reasonable manner. AlI costs resulting from revisions to the Response Action are the responsibility of the BORROWER. b.1.13 COMPLETION OF PROJECT. BORROWER shall begin the project within ninety (90) days and will complete alI work included in the Work Plan within 364 days from the Effective Date. BORROWER agrees to complete the work in a timely manner in accordance with. the Work Plan and Budget. BORROWER shall notify the COUNCIL when the Work Plan is complete. The notice shall contain certification or documentation necessary to prepare a BCRLF Project Response Action Closeout Report developed in accordance with Section .300.165 of the NCP. The report shall summarize the actions taken, the resources committed and the problems encountered in completion of the Project, if any. 6.1.14 Payment; Covenant to Budget and Appropriate. The BORROWER covenants that it shall duly and punctually pay the principal of the Loan and the interest Page 14 thereon on the dates, at the place and in the manner {and subject to the limitations) prodded herein according to the true intent and meaning thereof. The BORROWER covenants and agrees, to the extent permitted by and in accordance with applicable law and budgeting process, that so long, as the Loan shall remain unpaid, it will prepare, approve and appropriate in its annual budget, by amendment, if necessary, Non-Ad Valorem Revenues in an .amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Loan as the same shall become due. In the event that the amount previously budgeted for such purpose is at any time insufficient to pay such principal and interest on the Loan, the BORROWER covenants to take. immediate action to amend its budget so as to budget and appropriate an amount of Non-Ad Valorem Revenues sufficient to pay such debt. service on the Loan. Such covenants to budget and .appropriate shall be cumulative to the extent not paid and shall continue until amounts sufficient to make al! required payments have been budgeted, appropriated and used to pay such debt service on the Loan. All proceeds, if any, from the sale or transfer of all or a portion of the Property within the boundaries of the CRA must be used to pay down the principal on the Loan. 6.1.15 Notice of Defaults. The BORROWER shall within ten { 10) days after it acquires knowledge thereof, notify the COUNCIL in writing upon the happening, accunrence, or existence of any Event of Default, and any event or condition which with the passage of time or giving of notice, or both, would constitute an Event of Default, and shall provide the COUNCIL with such written notice, a detailed statement by a responsible officer of the BORROWER of all relevant facts and the. action being taken or proposed to be taken by the BORROWER with respect thereto. 6.1.16 Maintenance of Existence. The BORROWER covenants that it will take all reasonable legal action within its control in order to maintain its existence and to not reduce its boundaries until all amounts due and owing from the BORROWER to the COUNCIL, hereunder have been paid in full. 6.1.1'7 Records. The BORROWER agrees that any and all records of the BORROWER shall be open to inspection and copying by the COUNCIL or its representatives at ail reasonable times at the offices the BORROWER. 6.1.I8 Notice of Liabilities. The BORROWER shall promptly inform the COUNCIL of any actual or potential contingent liabilities or pending or threatened litigation of any amount that could reasonably be expected to have a material and adverse effect upon the financial condition of the BORROWER. ARTICLE. VII NEGATIVE CONIlVIENTS Page 15 7.1 BORROWER further covenants that so long as BORROWER is indebted to COUNCIL under this Agreement until payment in full of the amounts owed to the COUNCIL hereunder, BORROWER will not without prior written consent of COUNCIL use Loan proceeds other than for activities approved under the COUNCIL'S Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Program Guidelines. ARTICLE VIII EVENTS OF DEFAULT 8.1 The fallowing shall constitute EVENTS OF DEFAULT: 8.1.1 Default by BORROWER in any payment when due of principal or interest hereunder. 8.1.2 Any representation or warranty made by BORROWER hereunder proven at any time false or misleading as of the date made in any material respect. 8.1.3 Use of the proceeds of the Loan for a purpose other than that associated with cleanup activities. 8.1.4 Default by BORROWER in the performance of any other term, covenant or agreement captained herein which default is not cured within thirty (3Q) days from notice of its occurrence. 8.1.5 The failure of BORROWER promptly to pay and discharge any judgment, lien, or levy of any attachment, execution ar other process against the assets of BORROWER, and such judgment not be satisfied, or such levy or other process be not removed within thirty (3Q} days after the entry or levy thereof, or at least five {5} days prior to the time of any proposed sale under any such judgment or levy. 8.1.6 BORROWER shall be adjudicated as bankrupt or insolvent, or shall consent to ar apply for the appointment by a receiver, trustee ar liquidator of itself or any of its property, or shall admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due, or shall make a general assignment far the benefit of creditors, ar shall file a voluntary petition in bankruptcy ar a voluntary petition or an answer .seeking reorganization or arrangement in a proceeding under any bankruptcy law, ar BORROWER arrangement in a proceeding under any bankruptcy law. 8.1.7 Sale of all or a portion of the Property without prior approval of the COUNCIL. 8.2 ACCELERATION. If an Event of Default shall occur, any indebtedness of BORROWER under this Agreement shall, at COUNCIL's option, and without notice, become immediately due and payable without presentment, notice or demand, all of which are hereby expressly waived by BORROWER, and the obligations, if any of Page 16 COUNCIL- to permit further borrowings hereunder shall immediately cease and terminate. $.3 SECURE SITE. In the event of default, BORROWER shall have the option to secure the site. The cost of securing the site is the responsibility of the BORROWER. If BORROWER fails to secure the site within twenty-four (24) hours, COUNCIL may do so of the BORROWER'S sole cost. ARTICLE IX REMEDIES OF COUNCIL 9.1 Upon the occurrence of anyone or more. of the Events of Default and at any time thereafter until cured, 9.1.I COUNCIL may exercise any and all of the rights, power, privileges and remedies provided in this Agreement. 9.1.2 Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default, COUNCIL may exercise, singly or in combination, any ar all of the rights, powers and privilege provided in this Article IX and all other remedies available to the COUNCIL at law or in equity, at any time and from time to time and such exercise shall not constitute a waiver of any of COUNCIL'S rights or remedies thereunder whether or not the indebtedness shall be due,and payable and whether or not COUNCIL. . 9. I.3 COUNCIL shall be entitled to exercise all other remedies, provided to COUNCTL under this Agreement and under Florida law, including, but not limited to: (a} Appointing a receiver; (b) Commencing a suit in equity or other appropriate proceedings for specific performance or an injunction against a violation of this Agreement; or (c} Taking possession of the Property and performing any and all work and labor necessary to complete the Work Plan iun which event expenditures therefore shall be deemed an additional loan to BORROWER, payable on demand, bearing interest at the maximum rate allowed by law. ARTICLE X INDEMNIFICATION 10.1 BORROWER shall, at BORROWER'S expense, defend, indemnify, and otherwise hold COUNCIL, its officers, employees and agents harmless against any and all claims, demands, losses, expenses, damages (general, punitive or otherwise) and causes of action (whether legal or equitable in nature) asserted by any person, firm, corporation, or other entity and arising out of or caused by BORROWER'S actions or inactions with regard to the Property, or by the use of the proceeds of the Loan up to the loan amount plus the costs referred. to herein, BORROWER shall pay COUNCIL upon demand all claims, judgments, damages, lawsuits or expenses (including reasonable legal expenses} incurred Page 17 by COUNCIL as a result of any legal action arising out of or caused by this Agreement or any other loan documents related to the Loan, or by the use of the prpceeds of this Loan. Provided, however, BORROWER shall not be liable for settlements obtained without its consent. ARTICLE XI MISCELLANEOUS 11.1 WAVER. No delay or failure of COUNCIL in exercising any right, power privilege hereunder shall affect such right, power or privilege; nor shall any single or partial exercise thereof of any abandonment or discontinuance of steps to enforce such a .right, power or privilege affect such right, power or privilege. The rights and remedies of COUNCIL hereunder are cumulative and not exclusive. Any waiver, permit, consent or approval of any kind by COUNCIL, , of any breach or default hereunder or any such waiver of any provisions or conditions hereof, must be in writing and shall be effective only to the extent set forth in writing. 11.2 SUCCESSORS. This Agreement shall be binding upon the permitted assigns or successors of BORROWER and COUNCIL. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred by BORROWER without the written consent of COUNCIL and any purported assignment or transfer without such prior written consent shall be void. 1 I.3 NOTICES. All notices,, requests and demands. given to or made upon the respective parties under this Interlocal Agreement shall be deemed to have been given or made when deposited in the mail, first class postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: BORROWER: Frank Wheat, Chair Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency 20 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Telephone No. (561 } 276-8640 Facsimile Na. (561) 27b~-855$ COPY TO: City of Delray Beach City Attorney 100 Northwest lg` Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Telephone No. (561). 243-7091 Facsimile No. (561) 278--4755 COPY TO: John E. Aurelius, Esq. John E. Aurelius, P.A. 4367 North 1~ederal Highway, Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone No. (954) 772-8222 Facsimile No. (954) 772-8759 COUNCIL: Cheryl D. Cook Page 18 South Florida Regional PIanning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, #140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Telephone No, (954) 985-4416 Facsimile No. {954) 985-4417 COPY TO: Mark Raymond Holland & Knight LLP 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suits 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Telephone No. {561) 833-2000 Facsimile Na. (561} 650-8399 11.4 ATTORNEY'S FEES. BORROWER will reimburse COUNCIL for all costs expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees expended or incurred by COUNCIL in enforcing this Agreement, in actions for declaratory relief in any way related to this Agreement, ar in collecting. any sum which becomes due the COUNCIL under this Agreement. I 1.5 TIME. Time is of the essence with respect to the obligations arising hereunder. 11.6 EXHIBITS. All Exhibits mentioned in #his Agreement shall be deemed incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. 11.7 RELATIONSHIP. The relationship of COUNCIL and BORROWER. is that of COUNCIL and borrower. Na party hereto intends to create any other relationship hereby, and the parties disavow and negate any intention to create a partnership or joint venture hereby. 11.8 ENTIRE AGREEMENT; MISCELLANEOUS (a) The terms and conditions of this Agreement, all exhibits attached and any documents expressly incorporated by reference represents the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement shall supersede any prior action agreements, oral or written, regarding the subject matter between COUNCIL and BORROWER. No other actipn agreement, contract, statement; or promise relating to the subject matter of this Agreement shall be valid or binding except by a written amendment to this Agreement. This Agreement shall control except where Federal statute or regulation are controlling. (b) A copy of this Agreement shall be fled with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida and Braward County, Florida in accordance with Section 163.01(11), Florida Statutes. (c) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original; but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same Agreement, and, in Page 19 making proof of this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for mare than one such counterpart. (d) Severability. If any clause, provision or section of this Agreement shall be held illegal or invalid by any court, the invalidity of such clause, provisian ar section shall not affect any other provisions ar sections hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced to the end that the transactions contemplated hereby be effected and the obligations contemplated hereby be enforced, as if such illegal or invalid clause, provisian or section had not been contained herein. (e) Term of Agreement. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, this Agreement and all representations, warranties, covenants and agreements contained herein or made in writing by the BORROWER in connection herewith shall be in full force and effect from the date hereof and shall continue in effect until as long as any amount is outstanding. (f) Entire Agreement. Except as otherwise expressly provided, this Agreement embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto and supersede all prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter hereof: (g} Further Assurances. The parties to this Agreement will execute and deliver, or cause to be executed and delivered, such additional ar further documents, agreements or instruments and shall cooperate with one another in all respects for the purpose of carrying out the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. {h) Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective on the Effective Date. 11.9 Loan Not to be General Obligation or Indebtedness of the BORROWER. The Laan shall not be deemed to constitute .general obligations or a pledge of the faith and credit of the BORROWER, the Mate of Florida or any political subdivision thereof within the meaning of any constitutional, legislative or charter provision or limitation, but shall be payable solely from and secured by a lien. upon and a pledge of the Covenant Revenues, in the manner and to the extent herein provided. The COUNCIL shall not have the right,, directly or indirectly, to require or compel the exercise of the ad valorem taxing power of the State of Florida, Palm Beach County or any other political subdivision of the State of Florida or taxation in any form on any real or personal property for any purpose, including, without limitation, for the payment of principal of and interest on the Loan or to maintain or continue any activities of the BORROWER r~+hich generate user service charges, regulatory fees or other non-ad valorem revenues, .nor shall the COUNCIL be entitled to payment of such principal and interest from 'any other funds of the Borrower other than Non-Ad Valorem Revenues budgeted and appropriated by the BORROWER far payment on the Loan and proceeds, if any, from the sale and transfer of all or a portion of the Property, all in the manner and to the extent herein provided. The BORROWER has na taxing power. The Loan shall not constitute a lien upon any real or personal property of the BORROWER, or any part thereof, or any other tangible personal property of or in the BORROWER, but shall constitute a lien only on the Non-Ad Valorem Revenues budgeted and Page 20 appropriated by the 80RROWER for payment on the- Loan and proceeds, if any, from the sale and transfer of all or a portion of the. Property,, all in the manner and the extent prorrided herein. [signature Pages Follow] Page 21 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the date first hereinabove written. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: BY: Holland & Knight LLP eouNCIL: SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCII., By: Carolyn A. Dekle, Executive Director BoRROwEI~: Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, a Florida public body corporate and politic created pursuant to Section 163.356 F.S. (CRA) agency By: Mr. Frank Wheat, Chair ATTEST: By: (Seal) Board Secretary Delray Beach Community Land Trust, Inc. a Florida not-for-prflfit corporation By: Name: Page 22 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Delray Beacli_Co_mmunity Redevelop>Enent A~ency (CRA.) Owned Prouerty Legal Description, Lot No. Carver Square Lot I1 Carver Square Lot I2 Carver Square Lot 13 Carver Square .Lot 14 Carver Square Lot 1 S Carver Square Lot 16 Carver Square Lot 17 Carver Square Lot 1$ Carver Square Lot 19 Carver Square Lot 20 Garver Square Lot 21 Carver Square Lot 22 Carver Square Lot 24 Carver Square Lot 25 Carver Square Lots- 26 Bc 27 Garver Square: Lot 28 Carver Square Lot 29 Carver Square Lot 30 Pro er Control Number 12-43-46- 17-31-000-0110 12-43-46-17-3 I -000-0120 12-43-46-17-3I-000-0130 12-43-46-17-31-00.0-0140 12-43-46-17-31-000-0150 12-43-46-17-3I-OOO-Oldo 12-43-46- r 7-31-0oo=a 170 12-43-46-17-31-000-0180 12-43-4d-17-31-000-OI90 12-43-46-17-31-000-0200 12-43-46-17-31-000-0210 12-43-46-17 31-000-0220 12-43-46-17-31-000-0240 12-43-46-17-31-000-0250 12-43-46-17-31-000-0'260 12-43-46-I ~ 3I-000-0280 12-43-4d-17-3I -000-.0290 12-43-46-17-31-000-0300 Community Land Trust (CLT) Owned Prouerty Legal Description. Lot No. Property Cantral Number Carver Square Lat 23 12-43-46-17-31-OOfJ-0230 # 5391127_10 Page 23 MEMORANDUM T0: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney DATE: September 26, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 2008 RESOLUTION NO. 50-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is City Resolution 50-08 which approves and authorizes indebtedness to be incurred by the CRA based on the terms in the Interlocal agreement adopted by the CRA board on September 25, 2008 through CRA Resolution 2008-04. Florida Statute Section 163.385 requires the authorization or approval by resolution of the CRA and the City Commission in order for the indebtedness to be incurred by the CRA pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement. BACKGROUND The State of Florida's Brownfield program provides assistance to local governments for cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated, abandoned or underused sites. The City Commission designated the two block redevelopment area within the boundaries of the Carver Square subdivision as a Brownfield area on March 8, 2007 via Resolution No. 20-07, making it eligible for funding through the Brownfields program. Participation in the program allows an applicant to qualify for both a low interest loan administered by the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) and to earn Voluntary Cleanup Tax Credits through the state's Department of Environmental Protection for the project. The attached Interlocal Agreement between the SFRPC, the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and Community Land Trust (CLT) is the instrument that will specify the terms of the loan and provide for repayment. (Note: because the CLT is the owner of Lot 23 within the Carver Square subdivision, they are also required to execute the agreement.) The principal amount of the loan is $500,000.00 and is to be repaid over a three year period at a 3% rate of interest. No interest is being charged and no payments are required for the first year. Commencing on the first anniversary date, five (5) semiannual installments are to be made and are to include 3% interest. No liens will be placed on the property during the term of the loan. RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney's office recommends approval. http://www.mydelraybeach.com/Agendas/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID=1514&MeetingID=154[10/28/2008 10:22:24 AM] RESOLiF`!'ION N0.2A08.04 A RESOLUTION OF THE DELRAF BEACId COMMUNITY REDEVEL{?PMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING F4R THE ENTERING INTO AN INTERLOCAL AQ~REEMENT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIOIITAL PLANNIN{;~ COUNCIL TO SORROW AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED ~OO,OtlO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP PROJECTS, AND TO PAY THE COSTS OF ISSUANCE; PROVID~ivG THAT SUCH LOAN SHALL BE A LIMITED OBLIGATION 0~' THE AGENCY PAYABLE FROM NON~AD VALOREM REVENUES BUDGETED AND APPROFRIATED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND CERTAIN OTHER NON-AD VALOREM REVENUES OF THE AGENCY; APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTXON AND DELIVERY OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT; .MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.; AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF TAE AGENCY TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH ENTERING INTO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT; PROVIDING CERTAIN OTHER DETAIIS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency"), a public body corporate anal politic organized under the laws of the State of Florida, is authorized end empowered pursuant to Part III, Chaptex 163, Florida Statutes, as a~naemded (the "Act"}, to undertake and carry out community redevelopment grajeets within community rede~elapmeat areas, and to borraw money for the purpose of financing or refinancing such community redevelopment protects; and. WHEREAS, as required by the provisions of the Act and preparatory to the creation of the Agency and the undertaking of community redevelopment protects, the City of Delray Beach, ~`larida (the "City"), by resolutiians and ordinances made cex~ain findings relating to the- e~etence of alums and blighted erase within the City in need of redevelopment and adopted a community redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") and pursuant to an Ordinance of the City, ®stabliahed the Agency to carry out the purposes of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Agency finds it to be in the public interest and necessary to enter in#o an Interlacal Agreement, substantially in the foFrm attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "xnterloeal Agreaitneat"} with the South Florida Regional Planning Council. {the "Council") pwrsuant to which the Council will loan t4 the Agency in an aggregate principal amawnt of not to e~noeed $40,400 (the "Loan"), in order to finance a portion of the costs of $rvwnfield cleanup projects (the °Project") iul accordance with and as described in the Redevelopment Plan and to pay costa of issuance of the Loan; and WHEREAS, purauamt to the requirements of the Act, the Loan is conditioned upon authorization thereof by tike City and natir~s to each taming authority all in arcardance with the.Act; and WHEREAS, the Loan i~ secured by a covenant to budget and appropriate all Covenant Revenues {as defined in the Interlacal Agreement), NOW, T13EREFQRE, BE YT RESOLVED BX THE DELRAY BEACH COMMiINITY REDEVELOPMENT A[IENCY THAT: SECTION 1. ~ ~Q~, t~iR Resolution. This Reaalution is. enacted pursuant to Part III of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida nod other applicable p~covisians of law (the 'iAct~. SECTION 2. s and De '. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared that: A. The Agency is authorized under the Act to issue revenue bonds or other evidences of indebtedness far aaxioue ~o~nmunity redepelnpment purposes, izxcluding the Project, and the Project c~nstitutea a valid publicpurpeee. B. The Loan shall. be used to finance the coats of the Project, sad Pay the costa related to entering into the Interlocal ,Agr®ement, amd the principal of end interest on the Loan shall be payable from the Covenant Revenues an the terms set Earth in the Imterlocal Agreement. The Covenant Revenues are estimated to be at Ieast sufficient to pay the pxime~ipal of amd interest an the Loaa ae the same becomes due and payable, and all other amnunte required to be paid or deposited under the Interiacai Agreement. C. The Agency is authorized under the Act to enter into the Interlocal Agreement to finance the costa of the Project, and to repay the Lvan as prosrnded in the. Interlocal Agreerai.ent. D. The Council shall never have the power to require the Agency or the City to levy ad valorem fosse an the property Within its boundaries to pay the priucip$1 of and interest vu the. Loan or other payments required hereunder ar under the: Interlocal Agreement, and the Loan shall not constitute a lien upon any property owned by or situated within the boundarie® of the Agency or the city. E. A negotiated barmvriag as required and necessary sad is in the beet interest of the Agency for the following reasons: the Lcan will be a special and ]invited obligation of the Agency; the principal of and interest an az~d vth~r coats and expenses related thereto shall be payable solely from a c;avvenant to budget anal appropriate Covenant Revenues expressly provided herein and in the Iaterlocal Agreement; the teats of harrowing is likely to be greater earl the time to borrower ~ likely to be longer if the Lean is sold at public sale by competitive bid, than if the Loan is sold at a negotiated sale; there 3s na basis, ~nsidering prevailing market conditions, far any expectation. that the terms sad Conditions of a Login at a public sale by competitive bid would be more favorable than a negotiated sale;. leans having the characteristiCS bf the Loan are typical~p sold at negotiated aal,es under prevailing market eonditioas; and the Agency has undertaken eubstantial negotiations with the Council with respect tQ the Loan. SECTION 8, ®uthorizatinn of the Project and the Loan. Subzeot to the provisions hereof; the Loan in the principal amo'uat of eat to exceed $500,000 ie hereby authorized for the purpose of finaneiag the coats- of -the Project and paying chats of isauaace of the Loan. Sl';C~'ION 4. Interlacal Aereet. The f`nrm of the Interlacal Agreement in substaxxtially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is. hereb~r ~ppmved by the Agea~y, and the Chair ar Vice-Chair (the "Chair") or in their absence, the Executive. Dir®ctor is authorized to execute the same, and the Board Secretary is hereby authorized to attest to such signature,with such changes as may be approved by the Chair or in their absence, the Executive Director, such approval to be coaelusiveEly evideaaed by the e~ecutivn thexeof and the attestation of the Board Secretary. SECTION 5. u o ' ' a D .The Chair end the Executive .Director are heroby charged with the responsibility of taking aII actions accessary to enter into the Interlocal Agreement ugvr~ the terms. and conditions contained herein and in the Iaterlacal Agreement and the Chair and the Executive Director are hereby respeCtive~p authorized ~r sign all documents necessary or appropriate ire connection with the Loan and to carry out the purposes of this Resolution. SECTION 6. d ' h 1Var 'l'a~rina Power ors, Pledeed. The Loan and the interest thereon, shall not be or Eonstitute a general obligation or indsbtednes~a of the Ag+~acy, the. City, the State of Florida or any political subdivision thereof within the meaning of the Constitutiaa of the State of Florida or any legislative, charter ar ordinance provision or limitation, but shall be payable. solely fenm and secured by a caveaant to budget and appropriate of the Covenant Revenues and ~-ny unagent proceeds of the Lnsn and all investment earnings thereon. The Couaeil shall never have `the right to compel the exercise of the ad valorem taxing power of the Agency or the City or any other political subdivision of the State ~of Florida or taxation in any farm on ax~y property to pay the Loan ar the interest thereon ear shall the Cou~xcil be entitled to payment of such principal and interest thereo~t fmm any ether funds of the Agency or the City except from non-ad valorem revenues to the extent described in the Interlocal Agreement. SECTIC3N 7. Authorization. The Chant, the Board Secreta~q, the Executive Director amd .all other oil~icers. and eaxplayees of the Agency are hereby authorized to take all actions necessary or incidexttal to the Loan, including, but not limited to, the eXectation of the Intsrlo+eal Agreement and all certificates and other documents related thereto. SECTION 8. Repeal,_,gf Inconsistent Resolutions. All resolutions ar parts of resolutions an conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SEGTION 9. 8everabilit;~. If axry one or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions of-this Resolution should be held cer~trery to ~ expte~ provision of law or contrary to the policy of expreea lam, though not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or, shall f9r any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements Qr provisions shall be cull and void and shell he deemed separate fmiu the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions of this Resolution or of the Interlacal Agreement. SECTIl~N 10. D uth ' n This Resolution shall 'become effective upon the adoption hereof provided, however, that the authorizations for the Lean spat forth herein is expressly conditioned upon approval thereof by the City and notice to the appropriate taxing authorities all as sat forth in the Act. PASSED AND ADOPTED thin ~5ei day of September, 2fiU8. DELRAY BEACH C4NIlVIUNITY REDEVELOPMENT A~ENC'~' r !.~ Chair ATTEST: r Boar secretary M 5577140 v~4 Exhibit "A" Farm of lntertacar Agreemaat AL AGREEMENT CANNING COUNCIL, THE DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMEl1 AGENCY AND THE DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY LAND TRUST. INC. FOR BROWNFIELD CLEANUP FUNDING THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR BROWNFIELD CLEANUP FUNDING (hereinafter the "Agreement"j, is made and entered into this day of 2008, and is by and between the DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a Florida public body corporate and politic created pursuant to Section 163.355 F.S. (hereinafter called "BORROWER"), and the 50UTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL,. a body corporate and politic and an agency of the State of Florida, {hereinafter referred. to as "COUNCIL"). WHEREAS, the BORROWER is the owner in fee simple of certain lands situate and lying in Delray Beach, Florida, and the Delray Beach Community Land Trust, Inc. a Florida nat- for-profit corporation is the owner in fee simple of certain lands located in the community redevelopment area of the BORROWER, all as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Land"); and WHEREAS, COUNCIL is a recipient of Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Funds {"BCRLF"} and is authorized to make certain loans from these funds;. and WHEREAS, BORROWER has completed loan pre-qualification and Application Requirements for the COUNCIL'S BCRLF; and WHEREAS, BORROWER has requested of COUNCIL and COUNCIL has agreed to lend to BORROWER, upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth, the total sum of up to $500,000.00 (the "Loan") to assist BORROWER in the effectuation of Brownfields cleanup activities and for such other purposes as are set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration exchanged between the parties, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows: ARTICLE I 1.l As used in this Agreement, the terms listed below shall have the following meanings: 1.1.1 Act. Means Part III of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. 1.1.2 Aonroval Memorandum. Means the agreement described in Section 3.1.1 herein. 1.1.3 BORROWER. The business entity, local government, non-profit agency, or individual having fee simple title to the subject real property and authority to execute a!l relevant documents. BORROWER is the DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a Florida public body corporate Page 1 and politic created pursuant to Section 163.356 F.S. ("CRA"), with an address of 20 North Swintion Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444. 1.1.4 Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Funds ("BCRLF"). Funds originating from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to be disbursed by COUNCIL to BORROWER for the puxpase of effectuating the rehabilitation and cleanup of the loan property site. 1.1.5 Business Day. Means any day except Saturday or Sunday or a day on which the COUNCIL or the contractor hired by the COUNCTL to process the Loan payments are closed. i.1.6 COUNCIL. The South Florida Regional Planning.. Council, with its offices located at 3440 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 144, Hollywood, FL 33021. 1.1.7 Community Relations Plan ("CRP"). A plan for the- community relations and public involvement activities that will occur throughout the BCRLF response and implementation process. 1.1.8 Cooperative Agreement Work._ Plan. The Brownfields Site Rehabilitation Agreement and Remedial Action Plan that the BORROWER has entered into with the FIorida Department of Environmental Protectian. 1.1.9 Effective date. Shall mean the date on which the occurrence of all of (a) the ex.eeution of this Agreement by the proper officers of fine COUNCIL and the BORROWER, {b) the filing of this Agreement pursuant to Section 11.8(b), hereof and (c} the approval of the Loan. and this. Agreement by the City of Delray Beach, Florida and the satisfaction of any conditions precedents required under such authorizing resolutions. 1.1.10 Engineering; Evaluatian and. Cast Analysis {"EE/CA"}. An Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis prepared in `conjunction with the cleanup activities pursuant. to a Project Response Action. 1.1.11 Final_Maturity Date. Means the earlier of (a) , 20.11 or (b) immediately on the day that the revenues pledged under this Agreement are deemed by a court with ,jurisdiction over the Borrower to be ad valorem revenues subject to the requirements of Article VII, Seciion 12 of the Florida Constitution. 1.1.12 Governmental Authority. Any federal, state, county, municipal or other .governmental department, commission, board, bureau, court, agency, or any instrumentality of any other governmental entity having jurisdiction over the Property. 1.1.13 Governmental Re uirements. Any law, statute, code, ordinance, order, role, regulation, judgment, decree, writ, injunction, franchise, permit, certificate, license, authorization, or other direction or requirement of any Governmental Page 2 Authority now existing or hereafter enacted, adopted, promulgated, entered or issued applicable to the construction of the improvements or to Borrower. I.i.14 Increment Revenues. Means the amount calculated pursuant to Section 163.387(1), Florida Statutes, as amended, and appropriated no later than January 1 each year by each taxing authority (as defined in the Act) in connection with the redevelopment of the blighted areas far deposit into the redevelopment trust fund of the BORROWER established pursuant to the Act. 1.1.15 Land. That certain real property described on Exhibit "A", annexed hereto and made a part hereof. 1.1.16 Loan. A loan in the amount of $SOO,OOOAO. 1.1.17 Non-Ad Valorem Revenues. Means all legally available non-ad valorem revenues of the BORROWER, derived from any source whatsoever, including, without limitation and investment income, which are legally available for the payment by the BORROWER of debt service on notes or bands, including, without limitation, legally available non-ad valorem revenues derived from sources subject to a prior pledge thereof for the paymenf of other obligations of the BORROWER and available after payment of principal and interest on such other obligations; provided however, for clarification purposes only, Increment Revenues shall only be used to the extent legally permissible and are not otherwise determined by a Florida court to be ad va.~orem revenues subject to the limitations described under Article VII, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution. 1.1.18 On-Scene Coordinator ("OSC"). An individual or entity to be selected by the COUNCIL to coordinate and oversee the Project Response Action pursuant to Section 3.1.1 hereof 1.1.19 Covenant Revenues. means (i) all Non-Ad Valorem Revenues and (ii) proceeds; if any, from the sale or transfer of alI or a portion of the Property. 1.1.20 Project Budget and Schedule. The Project Budget and Schedule describes how the loan, funds are to be utilized, according to the Work Plan, and the 'time frame under which it is anticipated that Work Plan will be implemented. 1.1.21 Project Response Action Agreement(s). Means collectively,. the agreement between the BORROWER and BG Group (the soil remediation contractor) dated December 19, 2008 and, the agreement between the BORROWER and GFA International (the environmental consultant) dated January 10, 200$.. 1.1.22 Project Response Action. Soil Remediation and Environmental monitoring of cantam.inants for excavating and backftlung tasks preformed on the two (2} block Garver Square neighborhood particularly described in the work plan referenced herein. Page 3 1.1.23 Property. The Land, together with any existing improvements and the Improvements to be constructed on the Land, other improvements and all fixtures, personal property and ether properties owned l7y BORROWER and used in connection with the Land. 1.1.24 Work Plan. The Brownfields Site Rehabilitation Agreement and Remedial Action Plan that the BORROWER has entered. into with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1.2 Other Definitional Provisions. (a} The terms "material" and "materially" shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms under generally accepted accounting principals ("GAAP"} as such would be applied to the business. of the BORROWER, except as the context shall clearly otherwise set forth; (b) all of the terms defined in this Agreement shall have such defined meanings when used in other documents issued under, or delivered pursuant to, this Agreement, unless the context shall otherwise require; (c) all terms defined in this Agreement in the singular shall have comparable meanings when used in the plural, and vice versa; (d) accounting terms, to the extent not otherwise defined, shall have the respective meanings given them under, and shall be construed in accordance with, GAAP; (e) the words "hereby", "hereto", "hereof', "herein", "hereunder" and words of similar import when used in this Agreement shall refer to this Agreement as a whole and eat to any particular provision of this Agreement; (f) the masculine and neuter genders are used herein and whenever used shall include the masculine, feminine and neuter as well; and (g) any reference in this Agreement to any of the parties hereto. shall be deemed to include the heirs, personal representatives, successors,. and assigns of such parties unless the context. shall expressly provide otherwise. 1.3 Titles and Headings. The titles and headings of the articles and sections of this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and are not to be considered a part hereof, shall not in any way modify or restrict any of the terms and provisions hereof, and shall not be considered ar given any effect in construing this Agreement or any provision hereof or in ascertaining intent, if any question of intent should arise. ARTICLE II THE LOAN 2.1 LOAN. The BORROWER may barrow fram time to time up to the- principal sum of Five Hundred Thousand and 001100 Dollars ($500,OQ0.00) aggregate principal amount predicated on the COUNCIL receiving draw requests from the BORROWER. in accordance with Section 2.11. hereof (each an "Advance"). Amounts Advanced and repaid may not be re-advanced. Each Advance must be in an amount equal to or greater than $50,000. The Loan shall bear interest on the outstanding principal balance at zero .percent (0%) from the Effective Date through and including , 2009 and thereafter at three percent (3°l0) per annum. Interest on all Advances shall be payable Semiannually on and Page 4 of each year (each an "Interest Payment Date"j so Long as any amount under the Loan remains outstanding, with the initial Interest Payment Date to be 2009. Principal for all Advances made against the Loan shall be payable on , 2049, , 2010, , 2010, , 2011 with the final installment due an the Final Maturity Date (each a "Principal Payment Date"}. Principal payments shall be in substantially equal announts and the principal due on each Principal Payment Date shall equal ain amount determined by dividing the aggregate principal amount of all Advances made by the BORROWER under this Interlocal Agreement by the number of Principal Payment Dates remaining, including for purposes of such calculation, the Final 11~Iaturity Date. The entire unpaid principal balance, together with all accrued and unpaid interest hereon,, shall be due and payable in full on the Final Maturity Date. All payments by the BORROWER pursuant to this Agreement shall apply first to accrued interest, then to other charges due the COUNCIL,. and the balance thereof shall apply to the principal sum due. 2.2 Computation of Interest and Fees. All computations of interest and fees hereunder shall be made on the basis of a year of 365 days {or 36fi days- in a leap year} fnr the actual number of days (including the first day but excluding the last day) occurring in the period. for which such interest or fees are payable. 2.3 PREPAYMENT. BORROWER may, without premium prepay any portion of the principal on the Loan before the maturity date, with five {5} days notice to the COUNCIL. 2.4 Business Davs. In any case where the due date of interest on or principal of the Loan is not a Business Day, then payment of such principal or interest need not be made on such date but may be made- on the next succeeding Business Day, provided that credit for payments made shall .not be given until the payment is actually received by the COUNCIL. 2.5 PURPOSE. The proceeds of the Loan shall be used only for the approved Brownfields Response Action for the Property and in strict compliance with the Cooperative Agreement Work Plan, Project Budget and Schedule,. Work Plan and Approval Memorandum and for costs of issuance related to the Loan. 2.6 B_ROWNFIELDS BCRLFj PROJECT RESPONSE ACTION AGREEMENT. BORROWER has entered into a soil remediation agreement dated December 19, 2007 with BG Group, and an environmental consulting services agreement dated January 10, 2008 with GFA International (the Contractors' Contracts, hereinafter referred to as "Contractors"} to execute the Work Plan. The Work Plan and Contractors' Contracts shall be subject to and incorporate the Project Response Action Agreement. BORROWER shall attach and incorporate a copy of this Agreement and the COUNCIL'S Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund guidelines to any agreement with the Contractor. Page 5 2.7 CONTRACTOR 4LTALIFICATIONS „AND. INSURANCE. BORROWED represents and warrants to the COUNCIL that each Contractor has examined the Property, is fully familiar with local conditions, and is able to execute the Work Plan and perform in accordance with its term. Each Contractor shall perform the Wark Plan consistent with the level of care and skill exercised by similar contractors performing comparable services under comparable circumstances. Each Contractor must be certified as a Bro~vnfields Redevelopment Contractor pursuant to Sections 376.80, Florida Statutes {200b), and maintain a current and valid license from the State of Florida Contractor's State License Board, or other authorized agency, for the past twenty-four {24) months prior to date of the BCRLF Project Response Action. Each Contractor shall maintain and keep in force insurance, including, but not limited to pollution and general liability insurance with a minimum of $1,000,000 coverage per accident or claim, property insurance and workman's compensation. Insurance shall he placed with an insurer with an A.1vI. Best rating of na less than A:VII. The BORROWER shall ensure that the COUNCIL is identified a5 an additional insured in any and all policies. obtained by each Contractor relative to this project. 2.8 FEES AND COSTS. 2.8. i Fees and Costs. BORROWER shall pay all closing costs, which shall include, but are not limited to, costs of recording any and all instruments evidencing the loan, documentary stamps and intangible takes, attorney fees and costs for the COUNCIL. 2.8.2 TRANSACTIONS. COUNCIL may, at its option, charge transaction fees for document preparation and recording and all other services related to the Property including, but not limited to subordination, sale or other transfer, demand notices, refinancing, reconveyance, and litigation. BORROWER shall pay or reimburse COUNCIL on demand for all present or future documentary stamp taxes, if any. 2.8.3 LOAN COLLECTION SERVICES. COUNCIL may; at its option, charge a fee far loan collection services equal to that fee which the contractor providing such services charges to the COUNCIL for processing of loan payments.. 2.8.4 UPON DEFAULT. Upon default of this INTERLOCAL Agreement, BORROWER shall pay COUNCIL all reasonable collection and attorney's fees and expenses actually incurred by the COUNCIL, whether or not litigation is commenced, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees and penalties and/or fees due under this Agreement. 2.9 PAYMENT 2.9.1 The BORROWER shall pay or cause to be paid on the Final Maturity Date from Covenant Revenues, the principal amount of .$500,000,. together with interest as described in Section 2.1 hereof, sufficient to pay the Loan in full. Page 6 2.9.2 Within twenty (20} days subsequent to the Effective Date, the BORROWER shall erect and maintain a sign on the Project Site stating that the project is financed in part by BCRLF and the COUNCIL. The sign. should also include appropriate contacts for obtaining infoz~mation on activities being conducted at the site and for reporting suspec#ed criminal activities. T'he sign erected an the Project Site shall comply with all requirements of the state and local law applicable to on-premise outdoor advertising as well as 40 CFR Subpart O §35.6105:{a}{2)(ii). 2.10 INSPECTION AND RIGHT TO STOP WORK. At its discretion, COUNCIL shall have the right to enter upon the Property at any time upon reasonable notice for the purpose of conducting inspections of the work at the Property during and upon completion of BCRLF Project Response Action, with BORROWER to provide notice to COUNCIL when completion is imminent (nor later than five days prior}. The OSC shall perform duties including, but not limited to, coordination,. oversight and inspection of the BCRLF Project Response Action. If COUNCIL or the OSC find that the work is unsatisfactory or is not substantially in accordance with the Work Plan, COUNCIL shall have to right to order the work to stop, and order work replacement by BORROWER at BORROWER'S expense. COUNCIL shall not be obligated to make any disbursements unless or until all work to be paid from such disbursement is satisfactory to the COUNCIL. Upon the transfer of any interest in all or a portion of the Property or Land while any amount is outstanding hereunder within 15 days of the execution of the real property interest document (or if there is na written documents, then 15 days from the date that such an interest is effective) a copy of an access agreement granting the COUNCIL access to such property to inspect the property for the purposes described in this Section shall be provided. to the COUNCIL. 2.11 DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS. Advances shall be made to the BORROWER in instaIlrnents based upon the progress of the work and ~ accordance with the approved Project Budget and Schedule. No Advance shall be advanced to BORROWER from the COUNCIL without the written approval of the OSC, which will not be unreasonably withheld and provided the BORROWER is not in default of this Agreement or no event has occurred which with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both, would give rise to a default under this Agreement. As a condition to the disbursement of funds, the COUNCL, may require from time to time documentation evidencing payment by BORROWER to the Contractor or subcontractors far work performed on the Project. All such funds allocable to the Loan shall be and constitute bust funds for such purposes,. and there is hereby created a lien upon such funds in favor of the COUNCIL until such funds are applied as herein provided. 2.12 PROGRESS PAYMENTS AND. RETENTION. All requests by BORROWER for progress payments will be disbursed by the actual expense method and shall be approved by the BORR~WER's Licensed Environmental Professional ("LEP") and submitted in writing with original billing statements for actual work performed to the COUNCIL on or about the first day of each month, far review and approval of the OSC and COUNCIL. The progress payment will not be available until the 28th of each month or by the 15a' of Page 7 the month if the draw requested was submitted by the 20th of the previous month. The COUNCIL reserves the right to withhold up to ten percent {10%) of each payment as retention. Any withheld funds will be released after submitting a BCRLF Project Response Action Closeout Report and receipt of a Certificate of Completion, approved by the OSC. All requests .for pa}~nent shall be accompanied by partial releases from any materialmen, subcontractors. and the Contractor. 2.13 ADHERENCE TO BUDGET. BORROWER agrees to keep all expenditures from loan proceeds within the approved budget (described in the Project Budget and Work Schedule). BORROWER .shall not exceed any of the costs Enumerated in the approved Project Budget and Work Schedule without the prior written approval of the OSC. ARTICLE III PRE-DISBURSEMENT QBLIGATIONS 3.1 Prior to disbursement of the loan proceeds, the COUNCIL, as the lead agency, will complete all response selection requirements, however; these activities may not be completed prior to execution of the loan documents. Far cleanup planning and decision documents not completed prior to the signing of the loan agireement, then: 3.1.1 COUNCIL shall have the right to select an individual ar entity to serve as the On- Scene Coordinator {"OSC"}. The OSC shall perform all duties as required by the COUNCIL, including but not Iimited to coordination and oversight of the BCRLF Project Response Action {"Response Action"). The OSC shall prepare an Approval Memorandum documenting that the situation meets the CERCLA {as hereafter defined} and NCP (as hereafter defined) criteria far initiating anon-time removal action for signature by the COUNCIL. 3.1.2 After the COUNCIL has prepared the Community Response Plan ("CRP"), the BORROWER shall draft an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis ("EEICA"), which shall clearly identify the objectives of the removal action,. provide an analysis of alternatives, recommends an action for the removal of contamination and the estimated costs of removal. The BORROWER shall submit copies of the draft EEICA to the OSC and the COUNCIL for approval. The BORROWER agrees to accept advice and suggestions from the OSC and COUNCIL, and to incorporate those suggestions or requests for revisions into the draft EEICA. 3.1.3 After the COUNCIL and OSC have approved the draft EEICA, the COUNCIL shall make the draft EEICA available for review and public comment for a period of not less than thirty {30) days from the date of public notice. 3.I.4 After the public comment period, the OSC shall prepare a Response to the public comments and a Decision Memorandum documenting the basis for the removal action for signature by the COUNCIL. .4t the request of the COUNCIL, the BORROWER shall submit all information to the COUNCIL in a form requested by the COUNCIL, which will enable the CUUNCTL to prepare the Decision Page 8 Memorandum. After the COUNCIL has. signed the Decision Memorandum, the BORROWER shall prepare: (a) A Budget and Work Schedule (b) Health and Safety Plan (OSHA 1910-120126) And submit same to the OSC and COUNCIL for approval. 3.1.5 BORROWER understands anal agrees that all proceeds of the Loan provided by the COUNCIL shall be used to rehabilitate and cleanup the Property site subject to this Agreement. BORROWER shall supply the COUNCIL with construction design plans and specifications for redevelopment of the property. ARTICLE IV REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 4.1 BORROWER makes the following representations and warranties to COUNCIL: 4.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL WARRANTIES. BORROWER certifies that: (a) The Property is not listed, or proposed for listing: on the National Priorities List of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); (b) BORROWER. is not a generator or transporter of the contamination at the Property; (c) BORROWER is not an owner or operator of the site, as defined by CERCLA; and, (d} BORROWER purchased or acquired the property after the tune of disposal or placement of hazardous substances and the BORROWER has not caused or contributed to the contamination. 4.1.2 Powers of BORROWER. The BORROWER is and will be on the date of closing, duly organized and validly existing under the constitution, the laws of the State and its enabling legislation. The BORROWER has the power to borrow the amount provided for in this Agreement, to execute anal deliver each of the .agreements described herein, and to perform and observe all the terms :and conditions on its part to be performed and observed. 4.1.3 Authorization of Loan. The BORROWER has full legal right, power, and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement, and to carry out and consummate all other transactions contemplated hereby, and the BORROWER has complied and will comply with all provisions of applicable law in aII material matters relating to such transactions. The BORROWER, has duly authorized the borrowing of the amount provided for in this Agreement, the execution and delivery of this Agreement, and to that end the BORROWER warrants that it will Page 9 fake all action and will do all things which it is authorized by law to take and to da in order to fulfill all covenants on its part to be performed and to provide far and to assure payment of'the Loan. The- BORROWER has duly authorized the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement and the taking of any and all other such action as maybe required on the part of the BORROWER to carry out,, give effect to and consummate the transactions contemplated herein. This Agreement has been duly authorized, executed, issued and delivered to the BORROWER and constitute .legal, valid and binding obligations of the BORROWER enforceable in accordance with its terms. All approvals, consents, and orders of and filings with any governmental authority ar agency which would constitute a condition precedent to the execution and delivery of this Agreement or the execution and delivery of or the performance by the BORROWER of its obligations herein have been obtained or made and any consents, approvals, and orders to be received or filings so made are in full force and effect. 4.1.3 NO VIOLATION. The making and performance by BORROWER of this Agreement does not violate any provision of law, Florida statute, or result in a breach of or constitute a default under any agreement, indenture or other instrument to which BORROWER is a party or by which BORROWER is bound. 4.1.4 AUTHORIZATION. This Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and delivered, and is a valid and binding agreement of BORROWER as of the Effective Date. 4.1.5 LITIGATION. There .are no pending or threatened actions ar proceedings before any court or administrative agency, which may adversely affect the financial condition or operation of BORROWER other than those heretofore disclosed by BORROWER to COUNCIL in writing. 4.1.6 CORRECTNESS OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT. -The financial statement dated September 34, 2407 heretofore delivered by BORROWER to COUNCIL accurately represents the current financial condition of BORROWER, and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting. principles consistently applied. As of the date of such financial statement, and since such date, there has been nv material adverse change in the condition of BORROWER, nor has the BORROWER mortgaged, pledged or granted security interest in ar encumbered arty of BORROWER°s assets or properties since such date, except as contemplated by this Agreement. 4.1.7 NO ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATION. The obligations of BORROWER under this Agreement will not be further subordinated in right of payment to any obligation of BORROWER, other than that which may be provided under this Agreement,. unless otherwise acknowledged or agreed to by COUNCIL in writing. Page 10 ARTICLE 'V CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 5.1 The obligation of COUNCIL to make this Loan contemplated hereunder is subject to the fulf llment of the following conditions: 5.1.1 APPROVAL OF COUNCIL'S LEGAL COUNSEL. All legal matters .incidental to COUNCIL°S commitment to issue the Loan hereunder shall be satisfactory to the legal counsel of COUNCIL, including the farm, validity and enforceability of this Agreement and Exhibits attached hereto. 5.12 COMPLIANCE. The representations and warranties contained herein shall be true on and as of the date of the signing of this Agreement with the same effect as though such representations and warranties had been made on and as of such date, and on such date no event of default as defined in Article VII herein ("Events of Default") and no condition, event or act which, with the giving of notice or the lapse of time or both would constitute an Event of Default,. shall have occurred and be continuing or shall exist. 5.1.3 SUBMISSION OF BCRLF PROJECT RESPONSE ACTION. BORROWER shall submit to COUNCIL copies of all bids and the BCRLF Project Response Action contracts for all work required under the Work Plan. 5.1.4 No Default. On the date hereof the BORROWER shall be in compliance with alI the terms and provisions set forth in this Agreement and any other loan documents on its part to be observed or performed, and no Event of Default nor any event that, upon notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute such an Event of Default, shall have occurred and be continuing.. at such time. ARTICLE VI AFFIRMATIVE COVENANTS 6. I BORROWER does acknowledge that it is familiar with and shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, and implementing regulations at 4I60-4 relating to Feiierally assisted construction contracts. BORROWER covenants that so long as BORROWER is indebted to COUNCIL under this Agreement, BORROWER shall do the following: 6.1.1 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. BORROWER shall document all the uses of the loan proceeds, and maintain adequate books and accounts in accordance with GAAP consistently applied. BORROWER shall permit any representative of COUNCIL, at any reasonable time, upon reasonable notice to inspect, audit and examine such books and inspect the properties of BORROWER. BORROWER shall maintain documentation on the use of the-loan proceeds for a minimum of ten (10) years after the completion of Project Response Action activities supported by the Loan, or for the length of the Loan, whichever is greater. BORROWER must obtain written approval from COUNCII, prior to destroying any such records earlier than the date permitted in the preceding sentence. Page 11 6.1.2 FINANCIAL. STATEMENTS AND ONGOING REPORTING. BORROWER shall furnish COUNCIL, so long as amounts remain due. hereunder: {a} Quarterly reports that document that they are in compliance with all relevant Federal and State of Florida environmental regulations and that they meet the requirements- of the COUNCII.:'s Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Guidelines. {b) Quarterly financial statements, including basic accounting and control mechanisms to track legitimate use of funds and document that the funds are put to authorized uses. BORROWER'S accounting system must track site-specific cost, and track cost activity and operable unit if applicable. Financial statements are considered to be (i) Income Statements; {ii) Balance Sheet; and (iii) Cash Flow Statement. (c) From time to time such other information as COUNCIL may reasonably request. 6.1.3 COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS. BORROWER will carry out the Work Plan in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") in (42 USC 9601 et seq.); Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to States and Local Governments (40 CFR Part. 31 }; Cooperative Agreements for Superfund Response Actions- (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O); the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan ("NCP") {40 CFR Part 300) and all other applicable provisions of Federal, State or Local law. 6.1.4 DAVIS-BACON ACT. BORROWER shall carry out the Work Plan in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 (CERCLA 104{g){1), {40 U.S.C. 276a-5 and 42 U.S.C. 3212}. Compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act requires payment of Federal prevailing wage rates far construction, repair nr alteration work funded in whale or in part with BCRLF Loan Funds. BORROWER must obtain recent and applicable wage rates from the U.S. Department of Labor and incorporate them into the construction contract for the Work Plan. 6.1.5 INSURANCE. In addition to contractor's insurance requirements, BORROWER shall maintain and keep in force insurance of the types and amounts necessary to protect the security for BORROWER'S indebtedness to the COUNCIL, including; but not limited to general liability insurance with a minimum of $1,000,000 coverage per accident or claim, property insurance and worIanan's compensation, if applicable, and fire insurance, for the value of the property, and coverage for pollution incidents that may be evidenced by pollution legal liability insurance. Insurance coverage shall be primary as respects any other insurance of self insurance available to the COUNCIL. Insurance shall be placed with an insurer with an A1VI Bes#s rating of no less than A:VII. The COUNCIL, its officers, employees and agents, shall be named as "Loss Payee" and "Additional Insured", and BORROWER shall deliver to COUNCIL from time to time at COUNCIL'S Page 12 request certificates of Insurance or policies setting forth all business insurance then in effect. Policies shall be endorsed to provide that the. COUNCIL shall be provided with thirty (30) days advance written notice of any cancellation, suspension or reduction in limits. 6.1.6 MAINTENANCE. BORROWER shall keep Property in good repair and condition ordinary wear and tear excepted, .and,. from time to time make necessary repairs, renewals and replacements thereto so that Property shall be fully and efficiently preserved and maintained in a commercially reasonable manner. 6.I.7 TAXES AND OTHER LIABILITIES. BORROWER shall pay and discharge before delinquency any and all indebted obligations, assessments, taxes real and personal, including federal and state payroll and income taxes, except such as BORROWER may in good faith contest. or as to which a bona fide dispute may arise; provided provision is made to the satisfaction of COUNCIL for eventual payment thereof in the event that it is found that the same is an obligation of BORROWER. 6.1.8 LITIGATION AND LIENS. BORROWER shall promptly give notice in writing to any litigation pending or to its knowledge threatened against BORROWER or Property involving in excess of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00). Furthermore, BORROWER shall not allow any liens to be filed against the property. In the event a lien is filed, BORROWER shall within thirty {30} days of the .recordation of the Iien, satisfy it or transfer it to a bond. 6.1,9 NON-DISCRIMINATION AND E UAL OPPORTUNITY. BORROWER shall comply with the statutes prohibiting diserirnination on the, grounds of race,. color, national origin, sex and disability. In addition, BORROWER will undertake good faith efforts in eompiiance with 40 CFR §35.fiS80 to give opportunities for qualified Small Business Enterprises (SBE), Minority Business Enterprises: (MBE} and Wornen-Owner Business Enterprises {WBE} to submit proposals,. bids, and provide services on contracts and subcontracts for services and supplies. BORROWER shall submit a report of such efforts. 6.1.10 DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION. The BORROWER certifies that BORROWER and Contractor: (a) Are not presently or proposed to be debarred or suspended, declared ineligible; or voluntarily excluded from Federal, State of Florida or local (hereafter "public"} transactions; (b) Have not within a three (3j year period preceding this proposal, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public transaction or contract under a public transaction; viola. Lion of Federal or State of Florida antitrust or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery; bribery, falsification or Page 13 destruction of records; making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a public entity with commission of any of the offenses enumerated under Paragraph 6.1.11(b) of this Agreement; and {d) Have not within the preceding three (3) years had a public transaction terminated for. cause or default. 6.1.11 ENVIRONMENTAL. COMPLIANCE. BORROWER certifies that it is not currently, nor has been, subject to any penalties resulting firom environmental non-compliance at the Property. BORROWER further certifies that it will conduct its BCRLF Project Response Action activities in accordance with the COUNCIL'S BCRLF Project Response Action Revolving Loan Fund Program Guidelines, and will modify the BCRLF Pro}ect Response Action activities, as necessary and as reasonably determined by the COUNCIL, based on unforeseen site conditions or public involvement requirements. 6.1.12 NOTICE TU CH.ANGE IN WORK PLANS. If the COUNCIL reasonably determines that it is necessary to modify the Work Plan based on public comments or new information, the BORROWER will amend the Work Plan. BORROWER will immediately report in writing any potential changes to the Work Plan and the discovery of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants not identified in the Work Plan. All changes or modification to the Project or the Project Documents shall be approved in writing by the OSC and the COUNCIL prior to such change or modification becoming effective. All additional costs incurred as the result of any change- orders define shall. be the responsibility of BORROWER. In the event that unforeseen conditions are discovered during the project implementation, the COUNCIL reserves the right to revise the BCRLF Response Action and the Project Documents, which the BORROWER must implement in a commercially reasonable manner. All costs resulting from revisions to the Response Action are the responsibility of the BORROWER. 6.I.i3 COMPLETION OF PROTECT. BORROWER shall begin the project within ninety (9Q} days and will complete all work included in the Work Plan within 364 days from the Effective Date. BORROWER agrees to complete the work in a timely manner in accordance with the Work Plan and Budget. BORROWER shall notify the COUNCIL when the Work Plan is complete. The notice shall contain certification or documentation necessary to prepare a BCRLF Project Response Action Closeout Report developed in accordance. with Section 300.165 of the NCP. The report shall summarize the actions taken, the resources committed and the problems encountered in completion of the Project, if any. b.I.14 Pa~+ Went: Covenant to Budget and Appropriate. The BORROWER covenants that it shall duly and punctually pay the principal of the Loan and the interest Page 14 thereon on the dates, at the place and in the manner (and subject to the limitations) provided herein according to the true intent and meaning thereof. The BORROWER covenants and agrees, to the extent permitted by and in accordance with applicable law and budgeting process, that so long as the Loan shall remain unpaid, it will prepare, approve and appropriate in its annual budget, by amendment, if necessary, Non-Ad Valorem Revenues in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Loan as the same shall become due. In the event that the amount previously budgeted for such purpose is at any time insufficient to pay such principal and interest. on the Loan,. the BORROWER covenants to take immediate action to amend its budget so as to budget and appropriate an amount of Nan-Ad Valorem Revenues sufficient to pay such debt service on the Loan. Such covenants to budget and appropriate shall be cumulative to the extent not paid and shall continue until amounts sufficient to make all required payments have been budgeted, appropriated and used to pay such debt service on the Loan. All proceeds, if any, from the sale or transfer of all or a portion of the Property within the boundaries of the CRA must be used to pay down the principal on the Loan. 6.1.15 Notice of Defaults. The BORROWER shall within ten (10) days after it acquires knowledge thereof, notify the COUNCIL in writing upon the happening,. occurrence, ar existence of any Event of Default, and any event or condition which with the passage of time or giving of notice,. ar both, would constitute an Event of Default, and shall provide the COUNCIL with such written notice, a detailed statement by a responsible officer of the BORROWER of all relevant facts and the action being taken or proposed to be taken by the BORROWER with respect thereto. 6.1.16 Maintenance of Existence. The BORROWER ,covenants that it will take all reasonable: Iegal action within its control in order to maintain its existence and to not reduce its boundaries until all amounts due and owing from the BORROWER to the COUNCIL, hereunder have been paid in full. b.1.17 Records. The BORROWER agrees that any and all records of the BORROWER shall be open to inspection and copying by the COUNCIL or its representatives at all reasonable times at the ofliices the BORROWER. 6.1.18 Notice of Liabiliries. The BORROWER shall promptly inform the COUNCIL of any actual or potential contingent liabilities or pending or threatened litigation of any amount that could reasonably be expected to have a material and adverse effect upon the financial condition of the BORROWER. ARTICLE VII NEGATIVE COMMENTS Page 15 7.1 BORROWER further covenants that so long as BORROWER is indebted to COUNCIL under this Agreement until payment in full of the amounts owed to the COUNCIL hereunder, BORROWER will not without prior written consent of COUNCIL. use Loan proceeds other than for activities approved under the COUNCIL'S Brawnf elds Cleanup .Revolving Loan Fund Program Guidelines. ARTICLE VIII EVENTS OF DEFAULT 8.1 The folIawing shall constitute EVENTS OF DEFAULT: 8.1.1 Default by BORROWER in any payment when due of principal or interest hereunder. 8.1.2 Any representation or warranty made by BORROWER hereunder proven at any time false or misleading as of the date made in any material. respect. 8.1.3 Use of the proceeds of the Loan for a purpose other than that associated with cleanup activities. $.1.4 Default by BORROWER in the performance of any other term, covenant or agreement contained herein which default is not cured within thirty (30) days from notice of its occurrence. $. l .5 The failure of BORROWER promptly to pay and discharge any judgment, lien, nr levy of any attachment, execution nr other process against the assets of BORROWER, and such judgment not be satisfied, az such levy or other process be not removed within thirty (30) days after the entry or levy thereof, or at least five (5) days prior to the time of any proposed sale under any such judgment ar levy. 8.1:6 BORROWER shaiI be adjudicated as bankrupt or insolvent, or shall consent to or apply for the appointment by a receiver, trustee or liquidator of itself or any of its property, or shall admit in writing. its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due, or shall make a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or shall file a voluntary petition in bankruptcy or a voluntary petition or an answer seeking reorganization nr arrangement in a proceeding under any bankruptcy law, or BORROWER arrangement in a proceeding under any bankruptcy iaw. 8.1.7 Sale of all or a portion of the Property without prior approval of the COUNCIL. 8.2 ACCELERATION. If an Event of Default shall occur, any indebtedness of BORROWER under this Agreement shall, at COUNCIL'S option, and without. notice, become immediately due and payable without presentment, notice or demand, all of which are hereby expressly waived by BORROWER, and the obligations, if any- of Page I6 COUNCIL to permit further borrowings hereunder shall immediately cease and terminate. 8.3 SECURE SITE. In the event of default, BORROWER shall have the option to secure the site. The cost of securing the site is the responsibility of the BORROWER. If BORROWER fails to secure the site within twenty-four (24) hours, COUNCIL may do sa of the BORROWER's sole cost. ARTICLE IX REMEDIES OF COUNCIL 9.1 Upon the occurrence of anyone or mare of the Events of Default and at any time thereafter until cured, 9.1.1 COUNCIL may exercise any and all of the rights, power, privileges and remedies provided in this Agreement. 9.1.2 Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default, COUNCIL may exercise, singly or ire cnmbinatiori, any or alI of the rights, powers and privilege provided in this Article IX and all other remedies available to the COUNCIL at law or in equity, at any time and from time to time and such exercise shall not constitute a waiver of any of COUNCIL'S rights or remedies thereunder whether or not the indebtedness shall be due and payable and whether or not COUNCII. . 9.1.3 COUNCIL shall be entitled to exercise alI other remedies, provided to COUNCIL under this Agreement and under Florida law, including, but not limited ta: (a) Appointing a receiver; (b) Commencing a suit in equity or other appropriate proceedings for specific performance or an injunction against a violation of this Agreement; or (c) Taking possession of the Property and performing any and all work and labor necessary to complete the Work Plan in which event expenditures therefore shall be deemed an additional loan to BORROWER, payable on demand, bearing interest at the maximum rate allowed by law. ARTICLE X INDEMNIFICATION I0.1 BORROWER shall, at BORROWER'S expense, defend, indemnify, and otherwise hold COUNCIL, its officers, employees. and agents harmless against any and alI claims, demands, losses, expenses, damages (general, punitive or otherwise) and causes of action (whether legal ar equitable in nature) asserted by any person, from, corporation, or other entity and arising out of or caused by BORROWER'S actions or inactions with regard to the Property, or by the use ai' the proceeds of the Loan up to the lawn amount plus the costs referred to herein. BORROWER shall pay COUNCIL upon demand all claims, judgments, damages, Iawsuits or expenses (including. reasonable legal expenses.) incanted Page 17 by COUNCIL as a result of any Iegal action arising out of or caused by this Agreement or any other loan documents related to the Loan, or by the use of the proceeds of this Loan. Provided, however, BORROWER shall not be liable for settlements obtained without its consent. ARTICLE XI NIISCELLANEOUS 11.1 WAVER. No delay ar failure of COUNCIL in exercising any right, power privilege hereunder shall affect such right, power or privilege; nor shall any single or partial exeretse thereof of any abandonment or discontinuance of steps to enforce such a right, power or privilege affect such right, power or privilege. The rights and remedies of COUNCIL hereunder are cumulative and not e~cclusive. Any waiver, permit, consent or approval of any kind by COUNCIL, , of any breach or default hereunder or any .such waiver of any provisions or conditions hereof, must be in writing and shall be effective only to the extent set forth in writing. 11.2 SUCCESSORS, This Agreement shall be binding upon the permitted assigns or successors of BORROWER and COUNCIL. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred by BORROWER without the written consent of COUNCIL and any purported assignment or transfer without such prior written consent shall be void. 11.3 NOTICES. All notices, requests and demands given to or made upon the respective parties under this Interlocal .Agreement shall be deemed to have beets given or made when deposited in the mail, first class postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: BORROWER: Frank Wheat, Chair Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency 20 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Telephone No. (561)276-8640 Facsimile No. {561) 276-8558 COPY TO: City of Delray Beach , City Attamey 100 Northwest 1 ~` Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Telephone No. {561) 243-7091 Facsimile No. (561) 278-4755 COPY TO: John E. Aurelius, Esd. John E. Aurelius, P.A. 436'7 North Federal Highway, Suite 141 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone No. (954} 772-8222 Facsimile No. (954) 772-8759 COUNCIL: Cheryl D. Cook. Page 18 South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, #140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Telephone No. {954} 985-4416 Facsimile No. (954} 985-4417 COPY TO: Marls Raymond Holland & Knight LLP 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 100(1 West Palm. Beach, Florida 33401 Telephone No. (5.61) 833 2000 Facsimile No. (561) 650-8399 11.4 ATTORNEY'S FEES. BORROWER will reimburse COUNCIL for all costs expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees expended or incurred by COUNCIL in enforcing this Agreement, in actions for declaratory relief in any way related to this Agreement, or in collecting any sum which becomes due the COUNCIL under this Agreement. 11.5 TIME. Time is of the essence with respect to the obligations arising hereunder. 11.6 EXHIBITS. All Exhibits mentioned in this Agreement shall be deemed incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. 11.7 RELATIONSHIP. The relationship of COUNCIL and BORROWER is that of COUNCIL and borrower. No party hereto intends to create any other relationship hereby, and the parties disavow and negate any intention to create a partnership or joint venture hereby. 11.8 ENTIRE .AGREEMENT; MISCELLANEOUS (a) The terms and conditions of this Agreement, all exhibits attached and any documents expressly incorporated by reference represents the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement shall supersede any prior action agreements, oral or written, regarding the subject matter between COUNCIL and. BORROWER. No other action agreement, contract, statement; or promise relating to the subject matter of this Agreement shall be valid or binding except by a written amendment to this Agreement. Ties Agreement shall control except where Federal statute or regulation are controlling. (b) A copy of this Agreement shall be filed. with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida and Broward County, Florida in accordance with Section 163.01(11),. Florida Statutes. (c) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original; but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same Agreement, and, in Page 19 making proof of this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for mare than one such counterpart. (d) Severability. If any clause, provision or section of this Agreement shall be .held illegal or invalid by any court, the invalidity of such clause, provision or section shall not affect any other provisions or sections hereof, and this .Agreement shall be construed and enforced to the end that the transactions contemplated hereby be effected and the obligations contemplated hereby be enforced, as if such illegal or invalid clause, provision or section had not been contained herein. {e) Term of Agreement. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, this Agreement and all representations, warranties, covenants and agreements contained herein or made in writing by the BORROWER in connection herewith shall be in full force and effect from the date hereof and shall continue in effect until as Iang as any amount is outstanding. (#} Entire Agreement. Except as otherwise expressly provided, this Agreement embodies the entire agreeFnent and understanding between the parties hereto and supersede all prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter hereof. {g} Further Assurances. The parties to this Agreement will execute and deliver, or cause to be executed and delivered, such additional or further documents, agreements or instruments and shall cooperate with one another in all respects for the purpose of carrying out the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. (h) Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective on the Effective Date. 11.9 Loan Nat to be General Obligation or Indebtedness of the BORROWER. The Loan shall not be deemed to constitute general obligations or a pledge of the faith and credit of the BORROWER, the State of Florida or any political subdivision thereof within the meaning of any constitutional, legislative ar charter provision or limitation, but shall be payable solely from and secured by a lien upon and a pledge of the Covenant Revenues, in the manrxer and to the extent herein provided. The COUNCIL shall not have the right, directly or indirectly, to requiare ar compel the exercise of the ad valorem taxing power of the State of Florida, Palm Beach County ar any other political subdivision of the State of Florida or taxation in any form an any real ar personal property for any purpose, including, without limitation, for the payment of principal of and interest on the Loan or to maintain or continue any activities of the BORROWER which generate user service charges, regulatory fees or other non-ad valorem revenues, nor shall the COUNCIL be entitled to payment of such principal and interest from any other funds of the Borrower other than Non-Ad Valorem Revenues budgeted and appropriated by the BORROWER for payment an the Loan and proceeds, if any, from the sale and transfer of all ar a portion of the Property, all in the manner and to the extent herein provided. The BORROWER has no taxutg power. The Loan shall not constitute a lien upon any real or persona! property of the BORROWER, or any part thereof, oz any other tangible personal property of or in the BORROWER, but shall constitute a Lien only an the Non-Ad Valorem Revenues budgeted and Page 20 appropriated by the BORROWER for payment on the Loan and proceeds, if any, from the sale and transfer of all or a portion ofthe Property, all in the manner and the extent provided herein. [Signature Pages Follow] Page 2l IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the date first hereinabove vc+ritten. COUNCIL: SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL By: Carolyn A. Dekle, Executive Director APl?ROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: BY~: Holland & Knight LLP BORROWER: Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, a Florida public body corporate and politic created pursuant to Section 153,356 F.S. {CRA) agency By: 1VIr. Frank Wheat, Chair ATTEST: By: (Seal) Board Secretary Delray Beach Community Land Trust, Inc. a Florida not-for~profit corporation By: Name: Page 22 EXI~BIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Delra Bench Comnnuni Redevelo went A ene CRA Owned Pro e Le al Descri tion Lot 1Vo. Carver Square Lat 11 Carver Square Lot 12 Carver Square Lot 13 Carver Square Lot 14 Carver Square Lot 1.5 Carver Square Lot 16 Carver Square Lot 17 Carver Square Lot I8 Carver Square Lot 19 Carver Square Lot 20 Carver Square Lot 21 Carver Square Lot 22 Carver Square Lot 24 Carver Square Lot 25 Carver Square Lots 26 & 27 Carver Square Lot 28 Carver Square Lot 29 Carver Square Lot 30 Property Confrol Number 12-43-46-17-31-OOD-0110 12-43-46-17-31-000-0120 12-43-46-17-31-D00-0130 12-43-46-17-31-000-0140 12-43-46-1731-000-O1 SO 12-43-46-17-31-000-0160 12-43-45-17-31-000-0170 12-43-46-17-31-000-0180 12-43-46-17-31-000=0190 12-43-46-17-31-000-0200 12-43-46-17-31-000-0210 12-43-46-17-31-000-0220 12-43-46-17-3I -000-0240 12-43-4b-1 ?-31-000-0250 I Z-43-46-17-31-000-0260 12-43-4b-17-31-000-0280 12-43-46--17-31-000-0290 12-43-4f-17-31-000-0300 Community Land Trust ~CLT) Owned Property Legal Description. Lot No. Property Control Number Carver Square Lot 23 12-43-4G-17-31-000-0230 # 5391127w10 Page 23 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Terrill C. Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney DATE: October 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/VISTA DEL MAR, LLC ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The attached Development Agreement, prepared in accordance with Sections 163.3220-163.3243, Fla. Stat. will, if approved, settle two (2) pending cases between Vista Del Mar, LLC and the City of Delray Beach. BACKGROUND The proposed Development Agreement provides in Section 4 on Page 4, that upon the effective date of the Agreement, the owner (Vista Del Mar), shall file a notice of voluntary dismissal in the Circuit Court dismissing both the Circuit Court lawsuit for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed in 2006 and the Writ of Certiorari that was remanded to the City Commission for rehearing in 2006 and is still pending. The Agreement provides that in exchange for the dismissal of these lawsuits, the City will allow Vista Del Mar to build a hotel at 64 S. Ocean Blvd. as depicted on the Class V Site Plan attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "B" subject to all permitting requirements. The Site Plan provided proposes a 70- room hotel with a snack bar and a 50 car parking garage. The plan proposed is similar to what the City's Site Plan Review and Appearance Board ("SPRAB ") approved in August, 2001 (attached as Exhibit "C"), except that the traffic circulation has been changed from 2 ways to 1 way with the entrance on Ocean Blvd. and exit on Salina Avenue, the parking garage has been reduced by ten (10) spaces, a snack bar has taken the place of the restaurant and the facade has been changed to provide a more pedestrian-friendly appearance in order to accommodate the covered walkway, resulting in a slightly different appearance than what was originally approved by SPRAB. The Agreement provides in Section S.B. on Page 4 that Vista Del Mar will have two (2) years from the effective date of the Agreement to obtain the first building permit and five (5) years from the effective date of the Agreement to obtain all certificates of occupancy and/or final inspections. It also provides in Section S.I. on Page 7 that the property shall be developed in accordance with all required permits and in accordance with all applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan and LDRs in effect on August 8, 2001. RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney's Office recommends City Commission discretion. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED CLASS V SITE PLAN FOR THE HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR 1. This Development Agreement and associated Class V Site Plan has come before the City Commission on November 3, 2008 and November 18, 2008. 2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence for the hotel and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the Class V Site Plan of Vista Del Mar. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsections I and II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: ARE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS MET? a. Comprehensive Plan -Future Land Use Element Objective A-1: This objective requires that the property shall be developed or redeveloped, in a manner 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. Is this objective met? Yes No b. Future Land Use Map: The resulting use of land or structures must be allowed in the zoning district within which the land is situated and said zoning must be consistent with the applicable land use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map. The subject property has a Zoning District Map designation of Central Business District (CBD) and has a Commercial Core (CC) Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(8), "Principal Uses and Structures Permitted", hotels are allowed as a permitted use within the CBD zoning district. Future Land Use - Is project's proposed location consistent with the Future Land Use Map? Yes No c. Concurrence: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan. 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 and/or 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: Are the concurrency requirements met with respect to water sewer, drainage, streets traffic, parks, open space, impact fees or solid waste? Yes No d. Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): Compliance with performance standards set forth in Chapter 3 and required findings in Section 2.4.5(F)(5) shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made pursuant to the items listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Are the requirements for consistency met? Yes No e. Comprehensive Plan -Housing Element Policy A-12.3: This policy requires that in evaluating proposals for new development, redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods and as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. 2 Based on the above, will the development adversely affect the stability of nearby neighborhoods pursuant to Housing Element Policy A-12.3? Yes No f. The Comprehensive Coastal Management Element states in Goal Area "C": This element requires that development and redevelopment in the Coastal Planning Area shall be compatible with the existing character of the area, and shall provide for a sensitive balancing of the needs for economic development, redevelopment, and environmental protection and in Objective C-3 that the development of vacant and under-developed land on the barrier island shall occur in a manner which does not change the character, intensity of use, or increase demand upon existing infrastructure in the Coastal Planning Area and pursuant to Policy C- 3.2 that there shall be no change in the intensity of land use within the barrier island and all infill development which does occur shall connect to the City's storm water management system and sanitary sewer system. Is the Coastal Management Element for Goal Area "C" met? Yes No g. Pursuant to Sections 3.1.1(A), "Future Land Use Map, 3.1.1(8), "Concurrency" and 3.1.1(C), "Consistency" as outlined above in Sections I (a), (b), (c) and (d), and Sections I(e) through (g) are the future land use map/concurrency/consistency requirements and Comprehensive Plan requirements met? Yes No II. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: ARE THE LDR REQUIREMENTS MET? a. Section 3.1.1(D) compliance with the Land Development Regulations: Section 3.1.1(D) requires that Items identified in the LDRS shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development application/request. These areas include building setbacks, height, room size, space, 3 parking, loading, stacking distance, point of access, visibility at intersections and site lighting as provided in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. Are these requirements met? Yes No b. Section 4.6.18(E) requires certain findings: Section 4.6.18(E) requires findings that: 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, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality. It further requires that 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. Finally, it requires that the proposed structure, or project, 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. Are the requirements of Section 4.6.18 (E) met? Yes No c. Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Site Plan Findings): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(F)(5), "Findings", in addition to provisions of Chapter Three of the Land Development Regulations, the approving body must make the following finding: Is the development of the property pursuant to the site plan compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values? Yes No 4 III. WAIVERS: The Petition requested the following: LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1) to reduce the required stacking distance on Salina Avenue from 20' to 18' and a waiver to LDR Section 6.1.3(8) to eliminate the required sidewalk along Salina Avenue. 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 neighboring area; (a) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (b) Shall not create an unsafe situation; (c) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar waiver; and (d) Shall not adversely affect the circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Based on the requirements in LDR Section 2.4.7(8)(5), the City Commission finds as to the two waiver requests as follows: i. LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1) to reduce the required stacking distance on Salina Avenue from 20' to 18'. Does the waiver meet all the requirements of 2.4.7(6)(5)? Yes No ii. LDR Section 6.1.3(8) to eliminate the required sidewalk along Salina Avenue. Does the waiver meet all the requirements of 2.4.7(6)(5)? Yes No 3. 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 4. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original site plan was submitted in August, 2001 and finds that is Order is in compliance therewith. 5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves denies the Development Agreement and associated Class V Site Plan, and hereby adopts this Order by a vote of in favor and opposed on this date, 2008. Rita Ellis, Mayor ATTEST: Chevelle Nubin City Clerk 6 ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED CLASS V SITE PLAN FOR THE HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR EXHIBIT "A" -Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as required by Section 2.4.5(F)(5) and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations. The building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. ii. Separation of different forms 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. iii. The open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element should be appropriately addressed. iv. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. v. 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. vi. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods including factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns. vii. The proposed development should not result in degradation of the neighborhood. viii. 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. ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED CLASS V SITE PLAN FOR THE HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR EXHIBIT "B" -Pursuant to Comprehensive Plan -Housing Element Policy A-12.3 Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. The proposed development results in degradation of any neighborhood. iii. Is the project modified accordingly? If no, it shall be denied. ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED CLASS V SITE PLAN FOR THE HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR EXHIBIT "C" - Pursuant to LDR Section 3.1.1(D) Compliance with Land Development Regulations Building Setbacks: Within the CBD zoning district, front building setbacks shall be no less than 5' and no greater than 10'. Side building setbacks must be 10' when adjacent to Residential zoning. ii. Building Height: Within the CBD zoning district, a maximum of 48' height is allowed. iii. Room Size: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3(M)(1), each sleeping room shall contain a floor area of 325 feet including closets and baths. iv. Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(7)(e), hotels and motels are required to provide spaces for each guest room plus 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. floor area devoted to ballrooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, lounges, and shops. However, pursuant to Section 4.4.13 (G)(1)(d), within the CBD zone district, restaurants require 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. v. Handicapped Parking: Two handicapped spaces are required. vi. Dead-end Parking Bays: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9 (D)(4)(c), a 24' wide by 6' maneuvering area is required at the end of the dead-end parking bays. vii. Loading: The guidelines provide that hotels between 20,000 and 100,000 sq. ft. may be required to provide 2 loading spaces. The adequacy of these guidelines can be determined by the body approving the site plan. viii. Stacking Distance: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), the required stacking distance from the right-of-way to the first parking space or aisle way is 20' when 50 parking spaces are provided in a parking area. ix. Point of Access: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(a), the point of access to a street or alley shall be a maximum of 24' unless a greater width is specifically approved as part of the site and development plan. x. Visibility at Intersection: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A), a visibility triangle is required at the Intersections of roads (corner lots) and 1 driveways. An unobstructed view within this triangle visibility must be provided between the heights of 3' and 6'. The required visibility triangle at the intersection of two streets is 40' and 20' at driveways. xi. Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting must be provided within the proposed parking lot area, however, the location of the project also requires compliance with Section 91.51 of the City's Code of Ordinances, "Lighting Restrictions along Beach", stated as follows: "No artificial light shall illuminate any area of the beach which is used for sea turtle nesting and its hatchlings. In order to accomplish this, all lighting shall be shielded or screened so that the light is not visible from the beach at night period (from dusk until dawn) from April 1 to October 31 of each year." xii. Bike Rack: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(c)(3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in the designated area and by a fixed or stationary bike rack for any non-residential use within the City's TCEA. 2 HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR A. History and Current Status of Hotel Proiect On October 3, 2000, Petitioner filed a series of site plan applications for the Hotel Project with the City. The first site plan called for the demolition of the existing 20 room motel to be replaced with a 103 room residence hate! with 2 restaurants and a 110 car automated 2 level parking garage. Petitioner subsequently modified its plans and, by 2001, the Hotel Project proposal called fora 71 suite luxury hotel and a 51 car parking garage. SPRAB expressed concerns regarding the relative mass of the building, but nevertheless, SPRAB voted to approve the Hotel Project with conditions a# its August 8, 2001 meeting. Currently, the proposed plans are similar to the plans SPRAB approved in 2001, with minor modifications including: there are 70 roams, a snack bar instead of a restaurant, a change in the circulation of traffic from 2 ways to 1 way with the entrance on Ocean Blvd. and exit on Salina Avenue and a 52 car parking garage. Also, the pool has been removed. Further, as a result of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's suggestions, a covered walkway has been provided to give a more pedestrian-friendly appearance, which resulted in same additional modifications to the upper levels in order to be consistent therewith, resulting in a different window design and a slightly different facade. B. History of Court Cases 1. Petitioner Appears Before the City Commission. At the October 2, 2001 hearing, Petitioners presented a modified plan which eliminated a single stack of rooms on the northeast corner of the building, leaving a 10' wide opening between the building and the north property line on the upper floors. After hearing all of the testimony, and based on the entire record, the City Commission voted 3-2 to grant the appeal, thereby denying the project. 2. Petitioner Files First Writ of Certiorari and Court Enters Order. Petitioner subsequently appealed the City Commission's vote granting Boston's appeal to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Appellate Division, by filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. In June, 2003, the Court granted Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari, holding that the City .Commission's failure to follow its own rules with regard to fact- finding had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Further, the Court stated, "We note that Boston's appeal remains pending. However, if the City Commission's composition has changed since the orders .appealed, the appeal should be considered de nova." Page 2 3. Events Leading up to Petitioner's Second and Third Writs of Certiorari. (a) Petitioner modifies site plan, Boston's appeal is still pending. In December, 2003, without seeking a de novo review by the City Commission in accordance with the Court's Order of June, 2003, Petitioner submitted a Class II site plan to the City's Planning and Zoning Department for approval. The City's Planning and Zoning Department processed the Class II modifications under the incorrect assumption that the City had lost the court case and that, as a result, the site plan that was approved with conditions by SPRAB on August $, 200'[, had been fully reinstated. This was incorrect because the Court ordered a remand in a de novo proceeding before the City Commission. The City's Planning and Zoning staff made the incorrect assumption that the City lost the lawsuit based upon incorrect representations by Robert Currie, Architect and Agent for Petitioner. Mr. Currie incorrectly stated, "as you are aware the City iost its case and that gives the owner the right to do what the SPRAB had originally approved.„ (b) SPRAB Meeting of February 11, 2004. On February 11, 2004, the Hotel Project went before SPRAB for Class II Site Plan Modification approval pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G}(1 }(b}. SPRAB voted 6-1 to table the Class II site plan modifcations. (c} City Received Request for Appeal to the City Commission on February 14, 2004. On February 11, 2004, Harvey Oyer, Esq. submitted a Request for Appeal regarding the "Pending Site Plan, Hotel Vista Del Mar; 64 South Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach, Florida" to the City Clerk's Office on behalf of his client, Don Robinson, an adjacent property owner. Additionally, Mr. Oyer explained that the appeal was filed to challenge the Administrative Interpretation of the Planning and Zoning Director, Paul Dorling, with regard to the Hotel Project as, "we fait that the Class II site plan that was submitted by Vista Del Mar, should have been treated as a new Class IV site plan, due to the Court's Order that remanded the prior site plan to the City Commission for further proceedings, which have not yet occurred". (d} City Commission Meeting of April 13, .2004. On April 13, 2004, the City Commission conducted aQuasi-Judicial Hearing on the Appeal of the Administrative Interpretation of Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Page 3 Zoning for the City of Delray Beach.. The City Commission voted 5-0 to grant the appeal stating that Applicant had three (3) options: (1) seek review of the Site Plan. before the City Commission in a de novo proceeding per the Court Opinion, {2) submit the proposed modifications to the Site PEan to 5PRA6 as a Class N Site Plan, or (3) abandon the. Site Plan that was the subject of the {original} Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court and proceed to submit a new Site Plan to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. (e} Petitioner Files Second Writ of Certiorari and Court Enters Order. Petitioner appealed the decision of the City Commission and all alternatives suggested by them at the City Commission meeting of April 13, 2004 to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Appellate Division, by filing a Second Writ of Certiorari. In January, 2005, this Honorable Court granted Petitioners Petition for Certiorari, holding that, The composition of the Commission changed and therefore, the appeal is to be heard de novo pursuant to this Court's earlier opinion. The City Commission should either hold a de novo review of the appeal or dismiss for failure to prosecute, if no action is taken after a hearing is set. (f} Petitioner Files Third Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Fourth District Court of Appeal. On or about March, 2005, Petitioner filed his third Petition €or Writ of Certiorari, this time in the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The Fourth District Court of Appeals rendered an Order on March 17, 2005 denying Petitioner's Writ. 4. Events Leading up to Petitioner's Fourth Petition for Writ of Certiorari Regarding. Hotel Project. (a) City Commission hears Boston's appeal at its meeting of December T, 2Q05. On December 7, 2005, the City Commission conducted aquasi-judicial de novo hearing on Boston's appeal of the site plan approved toy SPRAB at its August 8, 2001 meeting. Ultimately, the Gommission voted 5-0 to approve Boston's appeal, thereby denying the August 8, 200.1 SPRAB approval of the Petitioner's site plan based upon findings of fact made on the record. (b) Petitioner files Fourth Writ of Certiorari and Court enters Order. Page 4 Petitioner appealed the December 7, 2045 decision by a Writ of Certiorari to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court Appellate Division, which remanded the case to the City Commission, stating in its July 11, 2006 Order that, The Commission is limited to the existing original record and is not permitted to allow new evidence at a new evidentiary hearing. As the SPRAB is a board charged with approving proposed site plans, it is an approval board. A review of SPRAB actions, therefore, would be by the Commission and limited to the existing original record. 5. The City Commission then voted to approve ordinance 49-Ofi which changed its appeal provisions under Sec#ion 2.4.7{E) to provide that Appeals should be conducted as new evidentiary hearings via de novo review and not limited to the record below. 6. Petitioner then filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court requesting declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the consistency of the City Commission's development order denying the application with the City's Comprehensive Pian. 7. The proposed Development Agreement would settle both the pending Writ of Certiorari case which was remanded on .luly 11, 200fi to the City Commission for rehearing and the Circuit Court case filed in 2006 for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 SUBJECT: REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 7, 2008 CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO SETTLE TWO (2) PENDING CASES BETWEEN VISTA DEL MAR AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is consideration of a developer's agreement to settle two (2) pending cases between Vista Del Mar and the City of Delray Beach. Attached to the development agreement is a site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar. The subject property is located approximately 300 feet south of Atlantic Avenue on the west side of South Ocean Boulevard (State Road A-1-A). BACKGROUND The Vista Del Mar development proposal was considered by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) on June 20, July 11, and August 8, 2001. The development proposal included the demolition of the Bermuda Inn, a 20 room, two-story motel (constructed in 1968) along with the associated pool and parking. The new hotel had a total of 70 rooms and a private gym/spa. A 1,333 sq. ft. restaurant component and the rooftop pool were eliminated from earlier plans. There were a total of 50 parking spaces accommodated within the building on the ground floor and below grade. There were six floors, including the sub-grade parking level and the structure will have an overall height of 48 feet. During the initial SPRAB consideration staff expressed concerns relating to height, loading, parking layout, and general compatibility of the proposal. There was public testimony in opposition to the request. The objections mainly related to the size and mass of the proposed structure. In addition, concerns with the zero setback at the northeast corner of the site and its potential impacts on the redevelopment of the property to the north were noted. Future redevelopment of the site (Boston's Restaurant) with a similar zero setback would potentially block the ocean view for 1/2 of the proposed hotel rooms. In light of that, significant future opposition would be anticipated from the new hotel owners. The Board discussed these points at length and during discussions, it was acknowledge that the proposal did meet the current regulations which allows a zero setback. At its meeting of August 8, 2001 SPRAB approved the Class V site development plan, waivers, landscape plan and architectural design elements associated with Hotel Vista Del Mar. A complete analysis of the proposal is found in the attached August 8, 2001 SPRAB staff report. On August 20, 2001, SPRABs action was appealed by Michael Weiner, attorney for Mr. Perry DonFrancisco owner of Boston's Restaurant (property immediately to the north). The basis of Vista Del Mar -September 8, 2008 the appeal was that the actions taken by SPRAB were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, LDRs and the Laws of the State of Florida. The relief being sought was to reverse the approval of the site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations. The appeal was heard by the City Commission on September 4, 2001. The Commission upheld the appeal and the project was denied. At its September 18, 2001 meeting, the City Commission voted to reconsider the appeal. This reconsideration was based on revisions to the site plan which attempted to address the major issues of the appeal. The City Commission considered the revisions and again upheld the appeal. The applicant then sued the City and the history of this legal activity is outlined in the attached Assistant City Attorney brief. Since that time the City requested the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to assess the redevelopment potential of this site along with two other sites. They issued a report dated June 13, 2006 which is attached. The applicant has made some revisions to address some of the recommendations of that report and these revisions are attached to the development agreement and are summarized below. ANALYSIS OF THE REVISED PLANS The Treasure Coast recommendations focused on the interaction of the building with the street- scape along A1A and recommended it be more pedestrian friendly. The development proposal has modified the elevations, lobby layout and introduces a small snack bar function with related outside seating to address this issue. Additional changes to the elevations are proposed primarily consisting of additional offsets for upper floors along the east elevation, changes to exterior building materials, and changes to window types and related awnings on the north and south elevations. Modifications to the site's traffic flow to a one way in, (A1A), and one way out, (Salina Avenue) is proposed. Additional internal modifications include modifications to the ground floor to extend the portion of the building located on the north lot line to accommodate a larger lobby check in area, office areas, and expansion of the ramp area of the garage. RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve the development order and the attached site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar. 2 SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: August 8, 2001 (Continuation from July 11, 2001 meeting) AGENDA ITEM: Iv.c: ITEM: Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, Located on the West Side of South -Ocean Boulevard (S.R. A1A), Approximately 300' South of East Atlantic Avenue. GENERAL DATA: Owner ............................................ Applicant ........................................ Agent ...................................... Location ......................................... Property Size ................................. Future Land Use Map .................... Current Zoning .............................. Adjacent Zoning ...................North: East: South: West: Existing Land Use ......................... Proposed Land Use ....................... Water Service ................................ Sewer Service ............................... Eugenia Kerstin, Trustee Louis Capano Robert Currie, Architect Robert G. Currie Partnership West side of South Ocean Boulevard {S.R. A1A), approximately 300' south of East Atlan#ic Avenue. 0.412 Acre Commercial Core CBD (Central Business District) CBD OS (Open Space} RM (Multiple Family Residential- Nledium Density) RM Two-story motel with pool Demolition of existing motel and construction of a 5-story Hotel (48' high to roof deck), with 70 rooms, 50 parking spaces, private gymispa and associated landscaping. Existing on site. Existing on site. DORCHESTER CD-OP THauAS srneET ~~ a BERKSHIRE Q ~ B Y 7HE SEA ~ GROSVENOR O z r s~REeT MANOR HOUSE coNDD FlRE STA. GROVE No.2 CONDD q ~ rc ~ 4 0 ~ a SPANISH DELRAY BEACH RIVER MARRIOTT RESDRT ;4TLA NTIC AVE . ~ 4 n sTREEr ® C a DOVER HOUSE CONDO ~, y OCEAN PLACE ~ ~ CONDO O O ~-^ONUT RO'M U ~ ._ JARDIN DEC MAR ~ ~ CONDO U o ocFUa ism. o ,., $ T, WINDEMERE HOUSE CONDO BAY 57REE'f CANlKA! V1LLA5 CONDO , r LANCER WAY I~ IV.C. ITEM BEFORE TH`»E BOARD The action before the Board is that of approval of a Class V site plan which incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for Hotel Vista Del Mar, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5{F): - Site Plan; ^ Landscape Plan; and, ^ Elevations. The subject property is located on the west side of South Ocean Boulevard {A-1-A), approximately 300 feet south of Atlantic Avenue and is zoned CBD {Central Business District). BACKG>ROUND The subject property consists of Lats 6-10, of the Ocean Park subdivision and is approximately 0.41 acres in size. The site currently contains the Bermuda Inn, a 20 room, two-story motel (constructed in 1968}, with a pool and associated parking. The parcel was zoned LC {Limited Commercial) until it was rezoned to CBD {Central Business District) with the Citywide Rezoning associated with the adoption of the Land Development Regulations in 1990. At its meeting of June 20, 2001, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board reviewed the site plan approval to demolish the existing motel and to construct a new hotel to be known as Ho#e[ Vista Del Mar. Staff presented the item and noted that revised plans were submitted the day of the meeting addressing many of staffs comments, except building height, loading, and compatibility. The Board also had concerns with the compatibility of the project with the properties to the north and west. Revised plans have been submitted and are now before the Board for action. PROJECT I]fTSCRIPTION The new hotel has a total of 70 rooms, a private gymispa, a rooftop swimming pool and a 1,297 sq. ft. restaurant. There are a total of 56 parking spaces accommodated within the building on the ground floor and below grade. There are six floors, including the sub-grade parking level. The building is 48 feet in height. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS 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 applicationlrequest. Building Setbacks: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G}(2)(a} Setbacks, within this portion of the CBD zoning district, a front setback of not less than 5', nor greater than 10' shall be provided. As the property fronts on two streets, it is considered a double frontage lot. The proposed hotel is setback 5' from both Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue, thus mee#ing this requirement. Vista f7el Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions Normally, a side interior se#back is not required when there is dedicated access to the rear of the building. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.4(A)(1) Commercial Zoning Ad'lacent to Residential Zonino, a 10' setback is required where the rear or side of a commercially zoned property directly abuts residentially zoned property without any division or separa#ion between them. Since the adjacent property to the south is zoned RM, a 10' side setback has been provided. Since the property to the north is also zoned CBD, a side setback has not be provided along the north property line. Based upon the above, the building setback requirements have been met. Building Height: Pursuant to Section 4.3.4{K), within the CBD zone district, a maximum building height of 48' is allowed. The hotel has a height of 48' to the flat roof deck. Appurtenances, usually required to be placed above the roof level of a building and not intended for human occupancy, may be allowed to extend above the height limitations when approved by ac#ion of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. This provision allows for elevators, stair towers, cooling towers, and mechanics! equipment to be placed on the roof. The design of the building is such that there are three towers and a lower mechanical equipment area which project above the 48' high roof deck. The towers, which accommodate two sets of stairs and the elevator shafts; reach a height of 58'-6" to the mid line of their roofs. Although the height of the mechanical equipment area has not been indicated on the plans, it is not visible above the parapet wall on the building elevations. The height of this area must be shown on the plans. This has been added as a site plan technical item. A parapet wall and decorative blue metal railing is provided around the roofline of the building. Open Space: Pursuant to LDR Section 4,4.13{F)(2) Open Space, within the CBD zone district east of the Intracoastal Waterway, there shall be no minimum open space requirement. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the body acting upon a development application within the CBD may require that open areas, including bu# not limited to courtyards, plazas, and landscaped setbacks, be provided in order to add interest and provide relief from the building mass. It is noted that some landscaping has been provided adjacent to Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue as well as along the south side of the building. Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9{C)(7){e), hotels and motels are required to provide 0.7 spaces for each guest room plus 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to ballrooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, lounges, and shops. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G)(1){d), within the CBD zone district, restaurants require 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. The parking requirement has been met as 56 spaces are required [70 room x .7lroom + 1,297 sq. ft. restaurant11,000 x fi = 57 - 1 space reduction = 56] and 56 spaces (37 standard spaces, 16 compact spaces and 3 handicapped spaces) have been provided. Handicapped Parking: Based on the total number of parking spaces provided, three handicapped accessible parking spaces are required and three have been provided, thereby meeting the requirement. 2 Vista Del Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions Dead-end Parking Bays: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9.(D)(4)(c), Dead-end Parking Bays, a 24' wide by 6' maneuvering area is required at the end of dead-end parking bays. The maneuvering area provided on the sub-level parking floor meets this requirement. Loading; Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.10(D}(1 ), single unit loading spaces must be 12' x 30' with a 30' maneuvering apron and 12' of vertical clearance. The loading space provided is only 11'-3" wide. The loading space is located between a parking space and a column which both extend behind the loading space. Even though there is 32'-4" behind the space, the configuration reduces the maneuvering area to only 24', since the vehicle cannot be turned until it is clear of the adjacent obstructions. Documentation must be provided that the loading space as shown on the plan will accommodate the types of vehicles expected to service the hotel or the design must be changed to provide the required size space and maneuvering area. This has been attached as a condition of approval. Hotels between 20,000 and 100,000 sq. ft. shall provide 2 loading spaces. The applicant proposes to provide only one loading space. The body approving the site plan shall determine the adequacy of the provisions which are made for (un)loading. The applicant has submitted the following statement: "Based on the requirements of the hots! operator, and our experience, vie are of the opinion that for this project, one wi!! be sufficient. The time of loading operations wi!! be controlled to limit the impact on the guests and genera! public." In additional to the one loading space provided, other opportunities for loading and unloading exist on the site. Smaller delivery vehicles can park in the garage to make deliveries or utilize the drop-off area in front of the building. Based on these factors, one loading space should be adequate for the facility. However, It is Important that the project's impact on Salina Avenue be minimized for compatibility with the residential developments fronting Salina Avenue. Therefore, no loading or unloading of vehicles, except trash pickup, is permitted on Salina Avenue. This has been added as a condition of approval. Drop-off Area and Stacking: Two drop-off spaces have been provided in front of the hotel lobby. The applicant has provided a #raffic statement dealing with the adequacy of this drop-off area. The analysis indicates that the maximum number of trips entering the hotel requiring check-in and baggage drop-off would be 70 per day, assuming a dally turnover of all hotel rooms. Since the usually check in time is between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., an average of 12 trips during aone-hour period would require drop-off parking, Since there are two spaces, 6 vehicles per hour could be accommodated in each space. This allows ten minutes for unloading and parking per vehicle, which should be adequate. Since there is no stacking provided for the drop-off area, in the event that both spaces are taken, a vehicle would by-pass the drop-off area and ei#her use the loading space in the garage or park in a regular parking space before checking in. Although the drop-off area is adequate for check-in and baggage drop-off, it is not large enough to operate a valet queue to park vehicles for customers of the restaurant and surrounding businesses. If a valet queue is established at this location, it may only be for guests of the hotel. This has been added as a condition of approval. 3 Vista Del Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions Point of Access: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D}(3)(a}, the point of access to a street or alley shall be a maximum of twenty-four feet (24') unless a greater width is specifically approved as a part of the site and development plan. The main access drive in front of the building is 32' wide. The additional width allows vehicles to pull directly into the drop-off area with minimal conflicts and should be approved. Visibility at Intersections: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A), a visibility triangle is required at the intersections of roads (corner lots} and driveways. An unobstructed view within this triangle visibility must be provided between the heights of three-feet and six-feet. The required visibility triangle at the intersection of two streets is 40' and 20' at driveways. The purpose of the triangle is to provide a sufficient line of sight for drivers to spot oncoming traflc. These triangles are required for walls, fences, and landscaping. The visibility triangles at the garage entrances is approximately 5' on Salina Avenue and 7' on Ocean Boulevard, where 20' is required. A waiver to this requirement has been requested. 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 signi#icantly 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 on other property for another applicant or owner. The building setback on Salina Avenue and Ocean Boulevard is 5'. Since the driveway entrances immediately enter the parking garage, the building columns on either side of the entrance encroach into the required 20' visibility triangle. Salina Avenue is a narrow roadway which dead-ends approximately 950' south of the subject property. The 5' visibility triangle provided is adequate given the low speed and limited traffic on this roadway. In reality, visibility is only an issue for the exit lane of the garage. The primary turning movement will be to the right (north) upon exiting the garage and the visibility triangle from the exit lane to the left is 20'. Additionally, the driver's position on the left side of the vehicle and openings in the building walls on both sides of the entrance provide much greater visibility as vehicles approach the exit. The visibility triangle for Ocean Boulevard is 20' except for the encroachment of two major columns which reduce it to 7'. However, from the driver's position in the vehicle, the actual visibility triangle for the exit lane is approximately 16' to the right {south) and over 20' to the left {north). Alsq there is an additional 12' between the property line and the travel lanes for Ocean Boulevard. Given these conditions, the T visibility triangle on Ocean Boulevard is adequate. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances an other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2,4.7(8){5), can be made. Sidewalk: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(8), a sidewalk is required to be constructed in the right-of-ways that abut the subject property line. This would apply along Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue. A 5` wide sidewalk exists along Ocean Boulevard but no sidewalk exists along Salina 4 Vista Del Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions Avenue. Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(D}(2), where it is clear that the sidewalk will not serve its intended purpose, the requirement for installation of a sidewalk adjacent to the property being developed may be waived during site plan or plat approval. The applicant has requested a waiver from the installation of a sidewalk along Salina Avenue on the basis that there is no ability for an extension of the sidewalk to the north or south. 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; or, (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 far another applicant ar owner. Back-out parking exists along both sides of this roadway and there is not roam to install a sidewalk within the existing right-ofi way. Without a reasonable expectation that the sidewalk could be extended on either side, the sidewalk would not fulfill its intended purpose. Therefore, it is inappropriate to provide a sidewalk along Salina Avenue. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7{B)(5), can be made. Reduction in Right-of-Way Width: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D), the required right-of-way width far Salina Avenue is 60' and a 21.43' right-of way currently exists. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4}, a reduction in right-of- way widths for existing streets may be granted by the City Engineer upon favorable recommends#ion from the Development Services Management Group {DSMG). The DSMG recommended that reductions in right-of-way width for Salina be granted. Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting must be provided within the proposed parking area. However, the location of the project also requires compliance with Section 91.51 of the City of Delray Beach Code of Ordinances, Lighting Restrictions Along Beach stated as follows: "No artificial light shall illuminate any area of the beach which is used for turtle nesting and hatchlings. In order to accomplish this, a!1 lighting shall be shielded or screened so fhaf the light is not a visible source from the beach during the night period from April 1, to October 31 of each year. "Night Period" is defined herein as being that time from dusk fo dawn. " The location of this project requires that a complete lighting plan for the building indicating the location and fixture details for all lighting sources which could be visible from the beach be provided. This includes interior fixtures which could be visible through windows or other building openings. Details of measures that will be taken to screen the lighting must also be provided. Section 9.1 of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code should be used as a guide for mitigation measures to screen lighting sources. The provision of this plan and mitigation details has been added as a condition of approval. 5 Vista Del Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions Trash Compactor: An enclosed trash compactor area with atoll-down gate is provided under the building on the first floor. Trash pick-up will be from Salina Avenue via the roll-down gate. BFI has approved the configuration. To minimize the impact on the residential properties to the west, the enclosure area will be deodorized and air conditioned. This has also been added as a condition of approval. A trash chute system will be utilized to dispose of trash from within the hotel and a secondary access door, located on the side wall of the enclosure will be utilized to dispose of trash and garbage from the first floor lobby and restaurant. Bike Rack: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9{C)(1){c}{3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in the designated area and by a fixed or stationary bike rack far any non-residential use within the City's TCEA. The subject property is located within the TCEA area, and a bike rack has been indicated in front of the building on Ocean Boulevard. Coastal Construction Control Line: A DEP permit will be required for construction of the sub-grade parking garage which extends eastward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. This has been added as a condition of approval. Existing Site Conditions: The survey indicates that the buildings to the south encroach into the subject property by 3/a'. This encroachment will need to be accommodated in the final design of the hotel. Additional encroachments by an air conditioning unit and electrical box will also need to be addressed. The applicant will need to notify the property owners of these encroachments and the need for their removal andlor relocation prior to construction. Site Plan Technical Items: While the revised site plan has accommodated most of the staff concerns the following items remain outstanding, and will need be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. ~ . Provide the exfiltration trench percolation test results; 2. Provide documentation that the Salina Avenue drainage system has adequate capacity to handle the additional stormwater flaw; 3. Provide 1=DOT driveway connection and drainage permits; 4. Provide fire flow calculations; and, 5. Indicate the height of the mechanical equipment area on the roof. LATINDS»CAP~ PLAN ANALYSIS As stated earlier in this report, there is no minimum open space requirement within the CBD zone district east of the Intracoastal Waterway. However, the body acting upon a development application may require that open areas, including but not limited to courtyards, plazas, and landscaped setbacks, be provided in order to add interest and provide relief from the building mass. The proposed building covers most of the site with most of the parking and service functions also under roof. Therefore, the proposed landscaping for the project is minimal. 6 Vista De! Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions The main entrance to the building is on Ocean Boulevard. Coconut Palms with Dune Sunflower underplantings and a backdrop of purple Crinum Lilies will be located on either side of the building facing the street. An additional Coconut Palm will be provided in a 3' high raised planter box on either side of the main entrance. The Coconut Palms are relocated from elsewhere on the site and are listed as 25' - 35' in height. Given the height of the building, this height is necessary in order to be in scale with the building. A planter will be provided under the building in front of the hotel lobby with 3 European Fan Palms, Variegated Arboricola, and Pathos Vines. A line of Coconut Palms are proposed on the south side of the building in a raised planting bed over the sub-level garage. The trees will be spaced every 25' to comply with the spacing requirements where commercial abuts residentially zoned property [ref. LDR Section 4.6.16{H)(3}{e}], Triple trunk Pigmy Date Palms will be located between the Coconut Palms with Xanadu and Boston Ferns utilized for ground cover in the area. Fifteen $' high White Birds of Paradise will be planted along the property line. Four booted Sabal Palms with Fakahatchee Grass are proposed between the south property line and a walkway adjacent to the restaurant. A 5' landscape strip is provided along the west property line between the building and Salina Avenue. Double Alexander Palms and sad will be provided within the landscape strip. The Alexander Palms are depicted as 12' high. Much taller trees are necessary to break up the mass of the west facade, and is listed as a condition of approval. A Variegated Arboricola hedge and a mulched planting bed will be provided adjacent to the west building line to screen the openings in the parking garage and along sides of the trash enclosure. There is no landscape material provided along the north side of the building since the building is set on the property line. The proposed landscape plan complies with LDR Section 4.6.16. ~ ARC"HIT>~ECTURA`<L ELEVATIONS; ~ The proposed architectural elevations contain a mixture of design elements. The first floor of the east facade consists of a large rectangular opening and four smaller arched openings supported on columns along Ocean Boulevard. The central opening provides access to the parking garage. Sidewalks are provided on either side of the entrance road and the hotel lobby and restaurant are visible under the building. The columns on this floor are cast coquina, painted yellow. The next four floors contain the hotel roams. The fagade contains a series of step backs from north to south which follow the angled front property fine. The design is repeated on the 2"d through 4~h floors. Raised white banding is used to separate the floors. Each hotel room has a balcony accessed by a pair of white French doors with an arched tap. The balconies project slightly from the wall face and are wrapped in blue metal railings. The window frames, which are painted white, are covered by green Bahama shu#ters. The walls are stucco, painted yellow. The 5t~' floor is stepped back slightly from the front and has the same design elements as the floors below, except the walls are covered with cementitous siding. A parapet is provided along the roof line with breaks to accommodate blue metal railings. The same color scheme and archi#ectural details with some variations are found on the north and south facades. To maximize ocean views for the hotel rooms, the wails have a saw tooth design with angled balconies extending out from the building. Trellises have been added above the balconies on the top floor. Single glass doors are used to access the balconies as opposed to the double French doors found on the east elevation. Between the projecting balconies, flat walls with windows and Bahama shutters extend above the roof line. The areas between these walls is spanned by blue metal railings. cementitous siding is utilized on the walls of the upper level. A stair tower with a green metal hipped roof is located on each facade. The ground floor 7 Vista Del Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions on the sou#h elevation is open, exposing the parking garage. A 6' wall has been added along the south property line to screen the vehicles. On the north elevation, the parking garage is completely enclosed. To break up an otherwise blank wall, decorative shutters are used on the north facade between the hotel room balconies and Ocean Boulevard. The west facade is very plain compared to the rest of the building. The otherwise flat wall plane is broken by balconies on the north corner and in the center of the building. Windows with Bahama shutters are utilized on each floor between the balconies. A stair tower with a green metal hipped roof is located on the south corner and faux windows with Bahama shutters are used on each floor centered on the tower. Cementitous siding is utilized on the walls of the upper level. On the ground floor, a rectangular opening on large columns provides access to the garage. This opening is flanked by arched openings on either side exposing the ground floor of the garage. An enclosed trash compactor area with aroll-down gate is provided under the roof on the first floor. The building is only 5' from Salina Avenue which is a narrow roadway. The residential buildings across Salina Avenue will be less than 50' from the face of the building. At such a close distance, the building will have a major visual impact on these residential properties. Staff recommends that steps be taken to create additional variations in the flat walls to break up the mass of the building. This could be accomplished by setting back portions of the building further from Salina Avenue or by opening up the rear hallway to the outside and creating a continuous balcony. In addition to the above, architectural elements should be added to the plain sections of roof parapet around the building, such as decorative caps or mansard projections to match the proposed green metal roofing on the towers. RE`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, 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 consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.1.1 A -Future Land Use Ma :The resulting use of land or structures must be allowed in the zoning district within which the land is situated and said zoning must be consistent with the applicable land use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map. The subject property has a Zoning District Map designation of CBD {Central Business District} and has a CC (Commercial Core} Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section x.4.13{B), Principal Uses and Structures Permitted, hotels are allowed as a permitted use within the CBD zoning district. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map designation. Section 3.1.1{B) - Con,currencLr: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan, 8 Vista Del Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions 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, and solid waste. Section 3.1.1 C -Consistent Standards for Site Plan Actions : Compliance with perFormance standards set forth in Chapter S and requ[red findings in Section 2.4.5(F)(S) shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in making a finding of overall consistency. As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Section 2.4.5(1=](5] (Site Plan Findinas): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(F){5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter Three, the approving body must make a finding that the development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is located at the south end of the CBD zoning district which extends southward from Atlantic Avenue along Ocean Boulevard. The development of a new hotel on the subject property is compatible with the existing commercial development in the area. East of the Intracoastal Waterway, the CBD zone consists primarily of resort-oriented retail businesses, restaurants and the Marriott hotel, Restaurants, shops and a 5-story condominium {New Monmouth} are located north of the proposed hotel site, south of Atlantic Avenue. The Marriott hotel complex is located just north of Atlantic Avenue. The CBD district is the highest intensity zoning district within the City and the development standards for the district were written to promote compact urban development in order to emphasize economic growth and business development. Since the type of development permitted and encouraged within the CBD is not always compatible with less intense development, it is important to minimize the impacts of new developments on adjacent properties along zoning district boundaries. The subject property is bordered by RM {Multiple Family Residential -Medium Density) zoning on the south and on the west side (across Salina Avenue}. While the hotel use is compatible with this zoning district, the difference in scale between the proposed hotel and the existing residential development must be addressed. As proposed, the rear facade of the hotel is a relatively flat 48' high wall with additional elements on the roof. This facade, located less than 50' #rom one and two-story residential buildings on the other side of Salina Avenue, is not compatible with this adjacent development. To achieve compatibility, additional variations in the flat walls are necessary to break up the mass of the building. This change has been added as a condition of approval. The property to the south is a two story condominium. The south facade of the proposed hotel has considerable variations in the wall plane and large Coconut Palms are to be plan#ed along the facade. This facade is compatible with the adjacent condominium. Provided the changes as outlined above are made, a positive finding can be made that the development will be compatible and harmonious with nearby properties and the City as a whole. The project will fulfill the need for additional hotel rooms in the city and promote additiona! economic development. This should have a positive effect on property values in the area. 9 Vista Del Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES; A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies were noted: Future Land Use Elernent Objective. A-1; Property shall be developed or redeveloped, in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate in terms of so'ri, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complementary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. When the property is cleared {demolition of the existing motel} there should be no physical conditions that would prevent the redevelopment of the property. The site is located in a Centro! Business District and will be developed in a manner consistent with that zoning designation. The project will be complementary to the adjacent land uses provided the conditions of approval are addressed. The project fulfills the need for additional hotel rooms within the City. Housing Element Policv A-12.3: In evaluating proposals far 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 discussed above, the proposed hotel will be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood provided the conditions of approval outlined in this report are met. The project is consistent with this policy in that it will not result in a degradation of the neighborhood. Coastal Management Element: Goal Area "C": Development and redevelopment in the Coastal Planning Area shall be compatible with the existing character of the area, and shall provide for a sensitive balancing of the needs for economic development, redevelopment, and environmental protection. Objective C-3: The development of vacant and under-developed land on the barrier island shall occur in a manner which does not change the character, intensity of use, or demand upon existing infrastructure in the Coastal Planning Area, as dictated in the following policies: Policv C-3.2: There shall be no change in the intensity of land use within the barrier island and all infill development which does occur shall connect to the City's storm water management system and sanitary sewer system. This is a redevelopment project of an underdeveloped property within the Central Business District. The development promotes economic growth in the downtown and is consistent with the character of the tourist-oriented commercial development within this area of the Centro! Business District. It will provide needed hotel rooms within the City, which will serve the local beach community and tourists. The project must comply with the City's site lighting restrictions in order to protect the beach area used far turtle nesting and hatchiings. This site has a Commercial Core land use designation and no change in the intensity of land use designation is proposed. Due to the property's location, there is not an opportunity to connect to the City's ~a Vista Del Mar Standards fior Site Plan Actions storm water management system. However, the project will be connected to the City's sewer system. Section 3.1.1 (D) -Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the IDRs can be made, provided Site Plan Technical items and conditions of approval are addressed. REVIEW BY OTHERS Downtown Development Authority (DDA) The DDA reviewed the request at its meeting of May 16, 2001 and recommended approval subject to addressing the technical site plan issues raised by staff, which are contained in this report. ommuni v e eve o me p nt„Agency (CRA) The CRA reviewed the request at its meeting of June 16, 2001, and recommended approval subject to addressing compatibility with adjacent properties and the technical site plan issues raised by staff, which are contained in this report. Courtesy Notice: Special courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowners and civic associations: • PROD -Progressive Residents of Delray Chamber of Commerce • Property Owners of the Bahama House Condo Presidents Council • Beach Property Owners Association A letter has been provided from the Beach Property Owners Association expressing concerns with the scale of the building, traffic flow and adequacy of the supplied parking. A copy of the letter is attached to this report. Other letters of support or objection, if any, will be presented at the SPRAB meeting. ASSESSMENT:; AND CONCLUSIQNS The development proposal to construct a 70 room hotel with a pool on South Ocean Boulevard will be consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan provided the conditions of approval concerning loading, the west building elevation and valet parking are addressed. Consistency with Chapter 3 and 2.4.5{F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations will be achieved provided the conditions of approval are addressed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIOhIS Continue with direction. 2. Approve the Class V site plan, landscape plan and elevations far Hotel Vista Del Mar, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5{F}(5) {Finding of Compatibility) of the land Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions. 11 Vista Del Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions 3. Deny the Class V site plan, landscape plan, and elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based on a failure to make positive findings with respect to the Land Development Regulations. »REC»OMMEN'DED ACTIQN> By separate motions: Waivers: 1. Approve a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A), to reduce the visibility triangle at the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 20' to 5' and at the Ocean Boulevard driveway entrance from 20' to T, based upon positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.7{13)(5). 2. Approve a waiver to LDR Section 6.1.3(8}, to eliminate the required sidewalk along Salina Avenue. Site Plan: Approve the Class V site plan for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility} of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submifi three {3} copies of the revised plans; 2. Documentation must be provided that the loading space as shown on the plan will accommodate the types of vehicles expected to service the hotel or the design must be changed to provide the required size space and maneuvering area; 3. No loading or unloading of vehicles, except trash pickup, is permitted on Salina Avenue; 4. A DEP permit is required far construction of the sub-grade parking garage which extends eastward of the Coastai Construction Control Line; 5. Alighting plan which details mitigation measures for all light sources visible from the beach must be provided; 6. If a valet queue is established in the drop-off area, it may only be used for guests of the hotel; and, 7. The trash enclosure area must be deodorized and air conditioned. Landscape Plan: Approve the landscape plan for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. The 12' high Alexander Palm trees must be replaced with taller trees along the rear property line. Elevations- Approve the elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.6.18 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. Create additional variations in the flat walls of the west facade to break up the mass of the building; and, 12 Vista De[ Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions 2. That additional architectural elements such as a parapet cap or metal mansard roof projections be added to the parapet. Attachments: ^ Appendix A ^ Appendix B ^ Reduced Floor Plans, Landscape Plan, Building Sections, and Building Elevations ^ Letter from the Beach Property Owners' Association 13 Vista Del Mar Standards for Site Plan Actions APPENDIX A CQNCURRENCY FtNDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.9(6) 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: ^ Water service is available to the site via a service lateral connection to a 8" main located in the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way. ^ Sewer service is available to the site via a service lateral connection to an 8" main located in the Georgia Street right-of--way. © An existing fire hydrant is located at the NE corner of the site on Ocean Boulevard. A new fire line will be installed along the southwest corner of the property, connected to an 8" main in Salina Avenue. The Building will be fully sprinkled. 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 findings can be made with respect to these level of service standards. Drainage A preliminary engineering plan was submitted by the applicant. Since most of the ground level parking area is covered by the second floor of the building, drainage of the parking surface will be minimal. Any storm water that enters the parking area will be accommodated via sheet flow into a drain grate at the driveway entrance to Salina Avenue. Runoff from the roof will be discharged into catch basins at the northwest and southwest corners of the building and all the drainage will be diverted to exfiltration trenches along the west property line. Exfiitration test results will be required prior to obtaining a building permit for the paving and drainage system. Since the drainage of the property is being directly almost exclusively to the rear of the property, documentation that the Salina Avenue drainage system has adequate capacity to handle the additional flaw is required prior to obtaining a building permit. In addition, FDOT driveway connection and drainage permits will also be required. if these requirements are met, positive findings with respect to this level of service standard can be made. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located within the TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD (Central Business District), OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) and the West Atlantic Avenue Business Corridor. The TCEA exempts the above- described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. However, a traffic statement has been provided by the applicant which indicates that the construction of the new hotel will generate 374 additions[ trips onto the surrounding roadway network. The additional traffic generated will not have an adverse impact on this level of service standard. 14 Vis#a Del Mar Standards for Site Pian Actions Parks and Open Space: The 70 additional rooms will not have a significant impact with respect to level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities. However, pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.2(C), Impact Fee Required, whenever a development is proposed upon land which is not designated for park purposes in the Comprehensive Plan, impact flee of $500.00 per dwelling unit (including hotel rooms) will be collected prior to issuance of building permits for each unit. Thus, an impact fee of $35,000 will be required of this development. Solid Waste: The Solid Waste Authority indicates that it has capacity to serve development in the County at its current LOS of 7.2 pounds per day per capita for the life of the existing landfill (approximately 2021). Based upon the Solid Waste Authority's trash generation rates, trash generated each year by the proposed 49,114 sq. ft. hotel will be approximately 4.7 pounds per sq. ft. or 115.4 tons per year. Since the total trash generated by this proposal can be accommodated by existing landfill facilities, a positive finding with respect to this level ofi service standard can be made. 15 APPENDIX B STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN ACTIONS 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 Provide relief is granted for the site visibility triangle on Salina Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies #ound under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable 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 Meets intent of standard X 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 ^oes 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 1=, Vacant property shall be developed 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 Even though the property is not currently vacant, it is noted that the project will provided needed hotel rooms in the City and will be complementary to adjacent uses, provided the conditions of approval contained in this report are met. Appendix B Standards for Site Plan Actions Page 2 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 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 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. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X This standard was addressed in the body of the report with the review of applicable comprehensive plan objectives and policies 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 situa#ion. Not applicable 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 Daes not meet intent 17 This instrument prepared by: J. Michael Marshall, Esq. Siemon & Larsen, P.A. 433 Plaza Real, Suite 339 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 561.368.3808 Parcel I.D. No.: 12-43-46-16-28-001-0060 Development Agreement for Vista Del Mar, L.L.C. This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Delray Beach, Florida, a FIorida municipal corporation (the "City"}, and Vista DeI .Mar, L.L.C. of 351 North Congress Avenue, Suite #142., Boynton Beach,. Florida 33426 (the "Owner"), pursuant to Section .2.4.11 of the City's Land Development Regulations ("LDRs"}, and the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act, Sections 163.3220-163.3243, Florida Statutes, and is binding on the effective date as set forth herein. Witnesseth: WHEREAS, Vista DeI Mar, LLC is the owner of the real property in the corporate limits of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, located at 64 South Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach, Florida, and more particularly described on Exhibit A (the "Property"}; WHEREAS, the: Property is designated under the City's future land use map as Commercial Core ("CC") and zoned Centxal Business District ("CBD"); W HEREAS, Policy 4-1.6 and Policy C-4. l of the City's Comprehensive Plan state that the City shall encourage rehabilitation and revitalization of the CBD district; WHEREAS, in pursuit of Policy 4-1.6, Section 4.4.13 of the City's LDRs states that the CBD district is intended to stimulate and enhance the vitality and economic growth of the City's downtown area; district; WHEREAS.,. Section 4.4.13(B)(S) provides that hotels and motels are permitted uses in the CBD WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with a 20-room hotel known as the Bermuda Inn; WHEREAS, on August $, 2001, the City's Site Plan Review and Appearance Board ("SPRAB") approved the Owner's plans for redeveloping the Property with the proposed Hotel vista Del Mar (the "Approved Site Flan") after determining that the Approved Site Plan complied with the City's LDRs and Comprehensive Plan in all material respects (the "2001 SPRAB Approval"); WHEREAS, the City Commission thereafter granted a neighbor's request to appeal the 2001 SPRAB Approval and then reversed the 2001 SPRAS Approval on appeal; WHEREAS, the City Commission's decision to reverse the 2001 SPRAB Approval was subsequently quashed and remanded by the Appellate Division of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County ("Appellate Division") in a. Writ of Certiorari action that was timely filed by the Owner; WHEREAS, the City Commission reconsidered the appeal and again ruled to reverse the 2001 SPRAB Approval; WHEREAS, the Owner initiated another Writ of Certorari action in which the Appellate Division again quashed the City Commission's second decision to reverse the 2001 SPRAB Approval and remanded it back; WHEREAS, the City Commission reconsidered the 2001 SP1tAB Approval for a third time and ruled again to reverse-the 2001 SPRAB Approval; WHEREAS, on January 5, 2006, the Owner filed a third Writ of Certiorari. action challenging the City Commission's decision. to reverse the 2001 SPRAB Approval ("the. 2006 Certiorari Action"); WHEREAS, the Appellate Division again quashed and remanded the City Commission's third decision. to reverse the 2001 SP1tAB Approval and remanded it back; WHEREAS., on. January 5, 2006, the Owner commenced an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Circuit Court"), entitled Vista Del Mar, L.L.C. v. The City of Delray Beach, CASE NO.50 2006 CA 00.0141 ~S:XXXMB (the "Lawsuit"}, in which the Owner challenged the same City Commission decision that was at issue in the 2006 Certiorari Action; WHEREAS, the City has contested the Owner's claims in the Circuit Court Lawsuit and the Lawsuit is currently pending in Circuit Court in conjunction with the third Writ of Certiorari action which was remanded to the City Commission and is also currently pending;. WHEREAS, the City and the Owner have .recognized the benefits of cooperation to redevelop a key area of the City and have agreed to resolve any and all claims at issue in the Lawsuit to allow for such redevelopment to occur on the Property; 2. WHEREAS, the Owner proposes to redevelop the Property with a 70-room hotel in accordance with the revised site plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Revised Plans"}; WHEREAS, the City has held public hearings to accept and encourage public input with respect to the provisions contained in this Agreement, and has considered such public input; WHEREAS, the Owner has provided public notice of the parties' intent to consider entering into this Agreement by advertisement published in a newspaper of general circulation and readership in Delray Beach, and by mailed notice to all affected property owners; WHEREAS, the City Commission of Delray Beach (the "Commission"} held a public hearing on the day of _._ , 2008, to consider this Agreement; WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the City's interests and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Delray Beach are best served by settling the Lawsuits and resolving all outstanding claims therein pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement; WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that this Agreement further advances public. interest because the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are consistent with the City's policy of encouraging development/redevelopment of hotels and motels in City's CBD, and; WHEREAS, the Commission also finds that the City's interest and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Delray Beach are best served by allowing redevelopment of the Property on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement with the expectation that such redevelopment will encourage further developmentlredevelopment in the CBD and result in enhanced economic benefit to the City with respect to the stability and potential for future developmentlredevelopment of properties in the surrounding area. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promiscs and undertakings contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: Secfion 1. Recitals The foregoing recitals are a part of this Agreement on which the parties have relied anal are incorporated into this Agreement by reference, Section 2. Purposes of Agreement The purposes of this .Agreement are: (A) to encourage and provide for redevelopment of the Property consistent with the City's LDRs and Palley 4-1,6 and Policy C-4.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan; 3 (B) to settle all pending Lawsuits between the parties and resolve any and all claims that are pending; or which could have been brought, between the parties; and {C} to affirm the 2441 SPRAB Approval as modified by Exhibit B attached hereto and. further secure approval for the Owner to proceed with redevelopment of the Property in accordance. with the Revised Plans, attached hereto as Exhibit B, resolving any and all claims previously submitted by any and all third. parties with respect to the Owner's plans for redeveloping the Property,, including the Approved Site Plan. Section 3. Definitions For the purposes of this Agreement, all terms shall have the definitions as found in the City's LDRs, the City's Comprehensive Plan, Florida Statutes Chapter 1 G3, or in other applicable Florida Statutes. If-any term contained herein is not defined in the City's LDRs or Comprehensive Plan, or any applicable Florida Statute., the term shall be understood by its usual and customary meaning. Section 4. Settlement of the Lawsuit Upon the- effective date of this Agreement, as provided below in Section S(Z}, the Owner shall file a notice of voluntary dismissal in the Circuit Court dismissing the Lawsuits with prejudice. The parties agree, however, that the Circuit Court shall retain jurisdiction far the purpose of enforcing. the parties' agreement to settle the Circuit Court Lawsuit and Writs of Certorari through the duration of this Agreement. Section 5. Statutory and Code Requirements for Development Agreements The parties recognize the binding effect of the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act, Florida Statutes Sections 163.322 T, et seq, as to the form and content of this Agreement and accordance therewith set forth and agree to the following: A. Legal Description and Ownership Vista Del Mar,. LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, is the sole owner of the Property that is the subject of this Agreement and more particularly described in Exhibit A. The parties to this Agreement know of no other legal or equitable owners of the Property. B. Duration of Agreement The Owner shall have a period of two (2} years. from the effective date of this Agreement to obtain the first building permit and five (S} years from the effective date of this Agreement to obtain all certificates of occupancy and/or final inspections for structures on the Property as shown on the Revised Plans. This Agreement may be renewed or extended as provided herein provided the lawsuits referenced herein are dismissed. 4 C. Permitted Uses 1. The development permitted on the Property shall consist of hotel rooms with accessory uses, as depicted on the Revised Plans attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2. For the duration of this Agreement, the Parties agree that any and all of the approved redevelopment shall adhere to, conform to, and be controlled by this Agreement, the Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and the City's LDRs and Comprehensive Plan which were in effect on August 8, 2Q0i, the date of the SP1tAB Approval. In the event that all or a portion of the existing. or authorized development subject to this Agreement should be destroyed by storm, f re or other. disaster, the Owner, it's grantees, successors, or assigns shall have the absolute right to rebuild or repair the affected structure(s) and reinitiate the prior approved use so long as such development is in compliance with this Agreement. 3. The following documents are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, showing the Property Boundary and Existing and Proposed Uses: Exhibit A: Legal Description of the Properly Exhibit B: Revised Plans 4. Applicable Density,. Intensity and Building Heights. Density and intensity shall be as provided in this Agreement and as shown on the Revised Plans attached as Exhibit B. Maximum building height shall be forty-eight (48} feet, as provided in Section 4.3.4(IK) of the City's LDRs. D. Public. Facilities 1. Fotable Water: The- City currently provides domestic potable water to the Property. 2. Electrical Service: Florida )'ower and Light Company currently provides electrica[ service to the Property. 3. Solid Waste: Waste Management currently provides solid vuaste service to the Property pursuant to its service agreement with the City. ~#. Wastewater and Sewage: The City currently performs wastewater and sewage collection and disposal on the Property. 5. Education Facilities: The redevelopment of the Property as contemplated by this Agreement will not impact education facilities. 6. Recreation Facilities: The Revised Plans include onsite recreational facilities far visitors and guests of the Property. Therefore, redevelopment of the Property will have no impact on public recreation facilities. 5 7. Stormwater: A stormwater management plan which meets all applicable local, .state and federal requirements shall be developed and maintained onsite as part of the plans to redevelop the Property. 8. Any increased impacts on public facilities or public services attributable to each unit of the proposed redevelopment of the Property, and the cost of capital improvement to meet the associated increased demand on such facilities or services, shall be assured by the Owner's payment to the City, concurrent with the issuance of the building permits for each unit, of any impact fees that are required by City's ordinances then. in effect, provided that such ordinance applies equally and uniformly to all development/redevelopment in the City. 9. Fire Protection: The Owner shall provide fire hydrants, fire sprinklers, and other such fire protection equipment as required by the City's LDRs and the City's Fire Department. E. Land DedicationlReservation The Owner is not required to dedicate or reserve any land for public purposes. F. Development Permits The following is a list of alI development permits necessary for the redevelopment of the Property as specified and requested in this Agreement: 1, approval of this Development Agreement, by which the Revised Plans, attached hereto as Exhibit B, shall be approved; 2. approval of all building and construe#ion related permits required for all structures, utilized for principal or accessory uses, land clearing, and landscaping. At any time any building permit is applied for, the Owner shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable federal, state and local disabled-access regulations in effect at the time of application, and shall pay alI required permit fees; 3. any and all required federal, state, regional, and local permits; runoff: 4. any and all required federal, state, regional, and Iocal permits for stormwater G. Finding of Consistency By entering into this Agreement, the City finds that the redevelopment of the Property in accardance with the Revised Plans attached hereto as Exhibit B is consistent with and furthers the City's Comprehensive PIan and applicable LDRs. b H. Mutual Cooperation The City and Owner agree to cooperate fully and assist each other in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement. I. Compliance with Permits and City Comprehensive Plan and LDR Provisions The redevelopment of the Property shall be developed in accordance with alI required permits and in accordance with all applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan and LD12s in effect on August 8, 2001, the date of the 2001 SP1tAB Approval. No certificate of occupancy for an individual building shall be issued until all plans for that building are approved by the City and the Owner has complied with all conditions in permits issued by the City and the other regulatory entities for that building. The City agrees that- any permits or certificates of occupancy to be issued by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. J. Compliance With Other Permit, Terms,, Conditions, and Restrictions The failure of this Agreement to address a particular pernut, condition, term, or restriction shall not relieve Owner of the necessity of complying with the law governing said permitting requirements, conditions, terms, or restrictions. K. Laws Governing Agreement 1. For the duration of this Agreement, all approved development of the Property shall comply with and be controlled by this Agreement and provisions of all applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan and LDIZs in effect on August 8, 2001, the date of the 2001 SPRAB Approval. The parties do not anticipate that the City wall apply subsequently adopted Laws and policies to the Property, except as expressly provided in this Agreement. 2. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 1G3.3233, the City may apply subsequently adopted laws and policies to the Property only if the City holds a public hearing and determines that: a. the new laws. and .policies are not in conflict with the laws and policies governing the Agreement and do not prevent development of the land uses, intensities, or densities set forth in this Agreement; b. the new laws and policies .are essential to the public health, safety, or welfare, and the City expressly states that they shall apply to the development that is subject to this Agreement; c. the City demonstrates that substantial changes have occurred in pertinent conditions existing at the time of approval of this Agreement; or Owner. d. this Agreement is based on substantially inaccurate information supplied by 7 3. Tf state or federal laws enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement preclude any party's compliance with the terms of this Agreement, it shall be modified as necessary fa comply with the relevant state or Federal laws. 4. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit the parties from mutually agreeing to apply subsequently adopted laws to the Property. 5. This Agreement does not and shall not be construed to waive or abrogate any rights that may have vested ar inured to the benefit of the Owner of the Property pursuant to common Iaw. L. Amendment, Renewal and Termination This Agreement may be amended, renewed, or terminated as follows: 1. As provided in Florida Statutes. Section 163.3237, this Agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the parties to this Agreement or by their successors in interest. Any amendment under this provision shall be accomplished by an instrument in writing signed by the parties or their successors. 2. As provided in Florida Statutes Section 163.3237, this Agreement may be renewed by the mutual consent of the parties, subject to the public hearing requirement in Section 163.3225, Florida Statutes and applicable LDRs. The City shall conduct at least two (2} public hearings, one of which may be held by the local planning agency at the option of the Crty. Notice of intent to consider renewal of the Agreement shall be advertised approximately seven (7) days before each public hearing. in a newspaper of general circulation and readership in Delray Beach, and shall be mailed to all affected property owners before the first public hearing. The day,. time, and place at which the second public hearing will be held shall be announced at the fast public hearing. The notice shall specify 'the location of the land subject to this Agreement, the development uses on the Property, the population densities., the building intensities and height1 and shall specify a place where a copy of the Agreement can be obtained. 3. This Agreement may be terminated by Owner or its successor(s) in interest following a breach of this Agreement by the City upon written notice to the City as provided in this Agreement, identifying, the term or condition the Owner contends has been materially breached and providing Cfty with ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the notice to cure the breach or negotiate an amendment to this Agreement. 4. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 163.323.5, this Agreement may be revoked or modified by the Cfty if, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, the Cfty finds there has been a failure by Owner to comply with the terms of this Agreement and the City provides the Owner with written notice identifying the term or condition the Owner contends has been materially breached and providing City with ninety (94) days from the date of receipt of the notice to cure the breach or negotiate an amendment to this Agreement. 5. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties. M. Breach of Agreement and Cure Provisions 1. If the City concludes that there has been a material breach in this Agreement by the Owner, prior to revoking this Agreement, the City shall serve written notice to the Owner identifying ~e term or condition the City contends has been materially breached and providing Owner within ninety (90} days. from the date of receipt of the notice to cure the breach or negotiate an amendment to this Agreement. Each of the following events, subject to subsection 5 below, shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement: a. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement; b. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of permits issued by the City or other regulatory entity for the development authorized by this Agreement. 2. If the Owner concludes that there has been a material breach in the terms of this Agreement by the City,. the Owner shall serve written notice to the City identifying the term or condition the Owner contends has been materially breached and provide the City with ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the notice to cure the breach, ar negotiate art amendment to this Agreement. The following events, subject to subsection 5. below, shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement: a. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement; b. Failure to timely process any completed application for approval or other development authorized by this Agreement. 3. If either party waives a material breach in this Agreement, such a waiver shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach. 4. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, neither party hereto shall be deemed to be in default. under this Agreement where delay in the construction ar performance of the obligations imposed. by this Development Agreement are caused by war, revolution, labor strikes, lockouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, governmental restrictions, embargoes, litigation between the City and the Owner, tornadoes, hurricanes, tropical storms or other severe weather events, or any other causes beyond the control of such party. The time of performance hereunder, as well as the term of this Development Agreement, shall be extended for the period of any forced delays or delays caused. or resulting from any of the foregoing causes. The Owner 9 must submit evidence to the City's reasanable satisfaction of any such delay. N. Notices All notices, demands, requests, or replies provided for or permitted by this Agreement, including notificafion of a change of address, shall be in writing to the addressees. identif ed below, and may he delivered by anyone of the following methods: (1) by personal delivery; (2) by deposit with the United States Postal Services as certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid; or (3) by deposit with an overnight express delivery service with a signed receipt required. Notice shall be affected upon receipt. The addresses and telephone numbers of the- parties are as follows: TO OWNER: Vista Del Mar, L.L.C. 351 North Congress Avenue, Suite #142 Boynton Beach,. Florida 33426 and 105 Foulk Road Wilmington, Delaware, 19803-3740 With a copy by regular U.S. Mail to: Siemon & Larsen, P.A. 433 Plaza Real, Suite 339 Baca Raton, FL 33432 561_368-3808 TO THE CITY: David T. Harden, Ci , Manager 100 N.W. ls~ Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 56I-243-7U15 With a copy by Regular U.S. Mail to: Paul Dorling, Director of Planning & Zoning 100 N.W. 1 S` Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 561-243-7043 and Susan A. Ruby, Esq.,. City Attorney 200 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 561-243-7091 10 O. Annual Report 4n each anniversary date of the effective date of this Agreement, the Owner shall provide the City with a report identifying (1) the amount of development authorized by this Agreement that has been completed, (2} the amount of develaprnent authorized by this Agreement that remains to be completed, and (3) any changes to the plan of development that have occurred during the one (1 } year period ftarn the effective date of this. Agreement or from the date of the last annual report. P. Binding Effect This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors in interest, heirs, assigns, and personal representatives. Q. Assignment This Agreement may not be assigned. without the written consent of the parties, or to other third parties with written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. R. Drafting of Agreement The parties acknowledge that they jointly participated in the drafting of this Agreement and that no term or provision of this Agreement shall be construed in favor of or against either party based solely on the drafting of the Agreement. S. Severability In the event any provision, paragraph or section of this Agreementis determined to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such determination shaI1 not affect the enforceability or validity of the remaining provisions of this Agreement. T. Applicable Laws This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the Florida law. U. Venue Venue for any Iegal proceeding arising out of this Agreement shall be Palm Beach County, Florida. V. Use of Singular and P1uraI Where the context requires, the. singular includes the plural, and plural includes the singular. W. Duplicate Originals; Counterparts 11 This Agreement may be executed in any number of originals and in counterparts,: alI of which evidence one agreement. Qnly one original is required to be produced for any purpose. X. Headings The headings contained in this Agreement are for identification purposes only and shall not be construed to amend, modify, or alter the- terms of this Agreement. Y, Entirety of Agreement This Agreement incorporates or supersedes ail prior negotiations, correspondence, conversations, agreements, or understandings regarding the matters contained herein. The parties agree that there are no commitments, agreements, or understandings concerning the subjects covered by this Agreement that are not contained. in or incorporated into this document and, accordingly, no deviation from the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any prior representations or agreements, whether written or oral. This Agreement contains the entire and exclusive understanding and agreement among the parties and may not be modified in any manner except by an instrument in writing signed by both parties. Z. Recording; Effective Date The Owner shall record this Agreement in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, within fourteen (14} days after the date the last party signs this Agreement. A copy of the recorded Agreement showing the date; -page and book where recorded shall be submitted to the state land planning agency at the Department of Community Affairs, Division of Community Planning, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, 'T`allahassee, Florida 32399-2100 by hand delivery or, by registered or certified United States mail, or by a delivery service that provides a signed receipt showing the date of delivery, within fourteen (14) days after the Agreement is recorded and received by the Owner or its agents. The Owner shall also provide a copy of the recorded Agreement to the City at 100 N W 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, within the same time period. This Agreement shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date the state land planning agency receives its copy from the City, as required by Florida Statutes Section 380.Q552(9) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the day and year below written. Signed, sealed, and delivered. in the presence of: ]SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW] T2 WITNESSES: Signature Name: Signature Name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH OWNER: VISTA DEL MAR, L.L.C. By: Manager/Member Print Name: The following., instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 2008, by as ManagexlMember of Vista Del Mar, LLC, who is personally known to me or who produced as identification, and who did/did not take an oath. Notary Public, State of Florida At Large My commission e~pir~s: On the day of 2008, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach approved this Agreement by ReSalution No. ATTEST: City CIerk CTTY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: APPROVED A5 TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY FOR THE USE AND RELIANCE OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,. FLORIDA ONLY -Rita Ellis, MAYOR 13 Exhibit "A" Legal Description Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10; Block 7, OCEAN PARK, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 15, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Excepf the West 2 feet $ inches of Lofs $, 9, and 10, Block 1, deeded fo Cify of Delray Beach for street purposes; and also except that part of Lofs fi and 7 lying Easf of thaf cerfain line as shown upon Map enfifled "Plaf of Survey for Establishing a Line fo Serve in the Place- of fhe West Boundary Line of Ocean Boulevard in Fracfional Secfion 16, Township 46 Soufh, Range 43 Easf, Delray Beach, Palm Beach Counfy, Florida" as recorded in Plat Book 20, Page 4, Public Records of Palm Beach Counfy, Florida. U W H ~ 2 a> U ~ a . o ~ d a _ ~"'1 r-^~~ ~LJ . r..+ r^^~ll ~L/ O x E-~ W N ~ ~ ~ ~ Q a O w ~ ~ w _ ~ ~ a` U~ i ~i,l I ~-; 'I ~I!I I~ ~; ~'' W', ~,I'~, P ~'' ~ ~ I ~ ~~'~, W ~,~ ~~ c~ Q • r.., r~ '~.,,,~ O x U W ~_ N = d U ~ a d . o a o c~ ~ a- ~, o ~ R Q a O '^ ~ ~ a • Y_ W L N. V INL I.L U ZI ~'~ H H W W ~I,I~ti .o ~ Q ~~{ w '~ I'm' i F- U W H U Q Q J ,_ V a N d C rn .y d O ~L Y ''^^ L V/ N0 ~ LL Q a O ~ ~ ~ w ~ a` s.~ cd .-~ N Q • r..~ r^^~,, ~I./ O x U~ 0 III T, W 'I H ~~ ~ :o ~'I ~~jj ,, ; , ~-I I N' n c~ N Q '~ V J • rnn~,, ~I./ O x U w I- y 2 d U ~ Q y p J_ ~ N ~ _ a- ~, G i ~ it ~ a O r N `.' ~ ~ ~I ~ a U 0 ~i ~~~ W a W ,6 m P i1~ ~ ui N N V Hotel Vista Del Mar 8'-O" 18'-O" 24'-O" 18'-O" I'-O" ~- ---- - ------ ---- - --------Q 0 O I - I I ~ ~ I I I I I 16 'NO PARKING' I I ~I N u a w Q I h1ANEUVERING SPAGE~ I ~~ Qwl <0 O I i I N~ I ~ - 6 I ~ I I I I ( ~ 0 1 NU I ~ I I 42' H H WALL ~ wQ I w ~ ~ Q N ~ I ___.._ 6' HIG WALL ~9 m ~~ I I ~3l' ~ 6 e SL PE FOR M I N. 8' O' 6 I n~ J V Ll I ~ DOLLN UP a I ~VI w w a ~ l m ~~ I v a+ , I ~ I ~ ~ 4 I I O N I ELE 0R5 ~ a w aw I = ry I N~ I m~ 31 PARKING SPACES ' a 0 ~ O I 6 ~ I I ~ CCGLI 1 ~ _ I ~-~ C G _ _-- ___ _ _ ~ _ _ _ 0 0 0 - _ 0 0 0 I _ _ _ ~--~ _ - ~ ~ I CGGL ~'_~__ r~ PARKING LEVEL PLAN ~ ~ 9GCLE VI•'=I'-0' CURRIE • SOWARDS • AGUILA • ARCHITECTS DATE 8-~.-~ Archi tects • Planners • Interior Designers Hotel Vista Del Mar BOSTON'S ZIPPER DECK SOUTH OCEgN BOULEVgRp (STgTE HIGHWgy A-1-q) GROUND TLOOR PLAN ~ ~ CURRIE • SOWARDS • AGUILA • ARCHITECTS 9C°LE IAb'=1'~0' °°*E 8P10 ~ Architects • Planners .Interior Designers Hotel Vista Del Mar 2nd FLOOR PLAN xA~E ~,~e•.~._m. DAiE 8~0a~08 CURRIE • SOWARDS • AGUILA • ARCHITECTS Architects • Planners • Interior Designers Hotel Vista Del Mar j ___, ~------ ~ j i - i QO MAID'S C}b © ROOM ~ ~ j i~ ~~ j p~ 0 ~4 O O j ~ e ~B j ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ j ® o ® O ~ i e ~ ~ ,._. ~ ~ I ;.... I ~ ~ I I ' ~ o ® I ~ ~ ® ~ ~ I _.. o ~ ~ ~ I ;._. I ~ ~ 24'-I" / ~ I'-10" ~ ~ ~ ~ 18'-O" G ® ~ 10 I5'-G" bb i.... ~ ' / OFFICE I ~ ~ 0 ~ I ¢p o 6-b _. vEND'G ELE TORS j j ~ LOBBY O O 9 ~ ~ O m L...~ ~~ O~ O S~rBAGK I I _ ' II I ~ II II I j 11 12 13 14 15 3rd FLOOR PLANT ~ ~ CURRIE • SOWARDS • AGUILA • ARCHITECTS xo~E ~,~•~.~..m. DATE e-m.-mB Architects • Planners • Interior Designers Hotel Vista Del Mar j a i i © ~ ~ i i ~ ~ i ,/ ~ ~ ~ i i ® ~ i ~ © ® ~ ' j ® ® - I i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ j i ~ ® ® o O ~ ~ ~ o ~ I ,._. I ' ~ ~ I I ' ~ j ® m j ~ 10 ® 9 ~ ~ ~ I _..: I ~ ~ j 24'-I" / ~ I'-10" ® m O 11 18'-O" 9 ®i X5'_9" ~ ~ ~ OFFICE I ~ ~ ® ~ I I VEND'G ELE TORS j j ~ LOBBY ~_ ~ G7 ~O A ~ DO Im ~ O~ O~ OD S~TBAG~, ~~. ~ II ~ ~~ ~ 12 13 14 15 16 ~ L _ ~_~ ~ ~ Q ~ 17 18 ~------ _eIW - _ - ~ ~ 4th I-~LO(~R PLAN ~~ CURRIE • SOWARDS • AGUILA • ARCHITECTS 9CaLE lii6'=I'-0' DATE •.e...m• Architects • Planners • Interior Designers Hotel Vista Del Mar _ - - r- ~~ r - ~ ~___ _m~~~m - - - - _ -- -- ---°11`_~__ 12'-8 I/2'7TYf'.J- _ --"_~-~-_~- -._-- .__- -P~ 5th FLOOR PLAN 9CdLE I/Ib'=I'-m' ogre a-ma~me ~~ CURRIE • SOWARDS • AGUILA • ARCHITECTS Architects • Planners • Interior Designers Hotel Vista Del Mar i SI ~ ° i j EQUIPMENT SCREEN i i AO o EQUIP. a ry WOOD TRELLIS TYPICAL AS SHOWN i OVER ROOM BALCONIES i i 12._0.. i i i i i i ELEVATOR ROOF i i i i ~_ ------ -----__-_,_ - - _ - - - _ 1 ROOD PLAN ~ Q CURRIE • SOWARDS • AGUILA • ARCHITECTS 9GALE lil6'=I'-0' DATE a~m,-mB Architects • Planners • Interior Designers - - _ _ _- I ° ~ I C ~ rnn~,, ~1.J • ~•-~ r~ I O x Q) U 0 - U 3 ~~ ~/_ ~"~ U W H w 2 a> U = Q y p J _ ~ ~ .d+ ~ ~ Q H L d N~~/ Y. Q a O w ~ ~ m w ~ a` U ~~i H H' V' W C.7'' ~. Q H <, _. H~ma ~~..~, ~I.~i~~i - 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ l~ ~0 ~~ ~ - ~~ O CV ~ ~~~ U l~J - U u o ~` ~ -p ~ 2, ~ L a~ ~` 0 U ~ 0 ~ ~ 4 0 ~ vt ` S ~ ~ ~ \~ C ~ ~~~i _ ~~ ~~ F\ l~ ~ _ ~ `' v \ t ~ ~\ U! ~~ ~ ~ii ~ t Lf~ ~ i ~~ l~ n~i Q ~i ~ ~~ ,~ } 1r; 6f~ r. I U~~I ~I L d .y d 0 .~ c m c c R a N V d w t U Q l^~ ~/ '~ V • ^~ O x \`~` \`\~ O ~I U' W ~~ Q'd d H m N .. /y~ _, N !V1 in Il ~ ~ ~ cn~~ ~ e Q ~ LLI ~' ~ n r Q~co> >~ ~ J OUCH v_ cnQi~ a'LL ~ ~ LLJ u.~ .. o ~ Q ~ J °'~ sw ~ °w ~ I- ~ju~ ~mry~xE wa - N w~ UL7a ~c`rLLw a o a Q - s 3 U 3 i i-'- 4 e ; ~ a, ~\~/~I'n~ 31 1 ; a s ~- ~ ~~ igy ~ ~~ s V~ ~~ i p~d a 9 ~~ ~ yy58n a3~3 E59~ Y~ ~ =y S+ 4 bq ~ yy- y 6 S~A E44 E:a y~ :~ ~j,' 6~~ yyA r d ~ ~ -o° ~~~ ~~~ Y 3¢ ap ~ E ~ ~ E# 3 ~& ~; J ~~" 3e; ~~P E~ a~ 3~ E ~~~ ~ i ~~ ~s Y .~~ t3~ m`s- a n ~ s m 331 ~ s~ A ~~ ~a ~ 33$ ~Ef {3 3a ~~ ~ E p 7 W .. 4 3 ~ 9 xP 6 ~~O ~__ t: ~ § 0 si° Y ~~ E -"~ -'-Y ~ ~~~ 3~~ ~Ey -~ 8E 3E s. a~ E !a a4 ~; 9~ 9 ~~ 6y~ si~ ~' ~~` as ~E ~ i z ida i y i g~ gs i i~;? ;~d 49' gn E3 ~a i d -:a 3 34 3~ ~'s ~i 3 3~a:° d~i~ 5~8~ 1' 331 di 5i m a a J ~ a ~ ~ a ~ °, U wd5~ pww A N ~ ~ ~ T~ ~ w U a~'2 ° ~ O a a ~ "Arco w ~ ~, -6 ~ ~ f o ~~ W o mpp Q <~ ~ ~ 3 a ~ ~a ~- o f Q- ~ U o o ~ a ~ .. .. ... ~~~ a !! as !E aaa ~~~ asa 5 a 5: x oo ~~ .. lEo gsx ~ ~y g @ iFtl9o :~3 _r 5 .°. 5 as;, i11 .71k ~~ q A Sa,.:,~A~..,,: ~E io ~ ' ~ ° "'~ Bg ~ °a 3 s~5 Q ~ ~ ~~ ~ R ~ ~ ~2 8 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~~ ~ ~ f~ °1a E.€ ~ Q ~ ~~'~ gp ~~s'c~~ : a~ ~ ~~ i as t ~ e ~~S~~~i~i a2 e ' ~ r r'~~Rae yoo~~ 3 i~ ~73 i i ig p ~ ~'~ CC Cp i a , tl ~ l Y 3 3$a~~'a 3;55.33 ~ i ooo o oa r ~~ooroo ~R.tl2i 3 R~ o0o SA s~au6isaa ~oua;u~ • s~auue~d . s;aa;iyo~y gm.,,,-a 3„0 '51'N 3~OY S10311HO~It/ • VlIf1J`d • S021`dMOS • 31baf1~ FT,I,Fi Q ~ I~II~RI~1d ~ o 1~IIQr[I17~I ~,I,IS W U a a rn ai a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u N N N N N N ~ Z ~ m ~ O o_ N o• OO t0 (!i m N ~ ~ W N~ 0 0 o R d ~ ¢ ~ a uai U W ~ !~ U II ¢ a ~ ti a N U W N p fn W to U ~ W ¢ ~ ~ ~ O ~ v ~ ~ ~ LL H W ¢ ¢ U Q p ~ U .. .. Z ~ Z a oo F O Q ~ ~~ N K O N U W ~ ¢ Z Q to ~ Z » m is °r J U' O x ¢ ' >< >< Y w Q O K O~ p~ o Q p O O ~ W a H Q ~a °' co ~ O ~ Nva~o ~ ~ C7 Z O J O J O O '~ ~ LL O ~ ~ (.7 o a rn m ~ @~ @~ W a Q H~V39 ® ~ J p LL= J Q ~ m Z n a N ¢ W (A y V Q U V Q a _ 1- 0 2 rnv~Or Q ~ Y ~ J W J J ~ ¢¢ a¢ ¢ a aavna~noe va Q ~ m ~ w x 0 W LL fA H LL LL O H Q O ¢ O O N N~~ N1~V$ d = 2 F H ~ W N ~ '3np' -,,nn32JONV w ~ a 33J1$ NOSV3l9 Z u U ~ a ~ e o o e ~ O ~ M t0 p, O ~D ~ ~ N y y VJ (p y ` d O I ~ d~ v v O ti ~ '~ ~ U N ~a t0 ~ Cl N- f0 ~ ~ ~ ~ OD R tD N ~ T i@S ~ N M O O o 0 0 0 o a J r ^ ~ P o~ apaw ' LL r ~ ~ J G ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ a c ~ Z ~ ~ m _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ u 'n H °° w rn Q ~ J ~ fn ~~ ~ h~~ ~~Ua ~ ~ ~ Q~l ~ ~ ~ U J ~~~m ~ ~ ~ ~i `y J W V U ~ Z Z (~ ~ ~ ~~~Q m z m a m a =tr ~ ~~I r~ p~J e~ ~~~ ~ W ~3~~+ rcw .. a Z 1~ o U~ Q `_ w g=g ~ V ~ ~ ~ a a `' ' a -- - I_N o '-fM d ~ LLu~.a ~ o z N O = o ~ U C~c~O m W m m J m~ ~~ N -.:mQ =O W ~ ~ ~ NZNfnLL Z ~ ~ Y w o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O U O w aw m nl m W 2 O U J Q o ~, N ~ N v a ~~o~g w C~ ~ z 0- ~ p W w?> O J a~~>¢ Q' Z ~ ~ H ~ o _ a ~ am W ~ p O Q ~ ~ p a Q N ~ m ~~I~ TaQ ~~.sT~ Tai °H iiA MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER DATE: October 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 ORDINANCE NO.51-08 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARINGI ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is approval of a City initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 4.3.4(J)(4), clarifying the requirement to provide workforce housing units equal to a minimum of 20% of the top floor residential units in order to qualify for conditional use approval for increases in height. BACKGROUND Requirements to provide a workforce component when requesting Conditional Use approval for additional height (above 48') was added in April, 2006 via Ordinance 16-06. This proposed LDR text amendment is to clarify the original intent of those changes. Ordinance 16-06 required that to qualify for any increase in height above 48', workforce units equal to a minimum of 20% of the additional units proposed on the top floor (above 48') were to be dedicated for workforce housing, subject to requirements of LDR Section 4.7. These changes were codified under LDR Section 4.3.4(b)(ii) (1). Recently, questions have been raised by a developer subject to the requirement as to whether they must provide workforce housing units. He has asserted that if the maximum intensity is not proposed on the balance of the site (portion not seeking increases in height) that the workforce requirement does not apply. This interpretation was clearly not the intent of Ordinance 16-06. By restructuring the existing language and separating the paragraph to put the workforce housing requirement in a stand alone paragraph the original intent of the ordinance is clarified. In addition to the restructuring of the language, an additional modification is recommended to provide flexibility by allowing the provision of both low and moderate housing units while not mandating individual percentages. REVIEW BY OTHERS The amendment is corrective in nature and was not reviewed by either the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) or the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). At their October 20, 2008 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve the amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 4.3.4(J)(4), on first reading 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)(5). ORDINANCE N0.51-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMNi<SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.3.4, "SASE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS", SUBSECTION Q), "HEIGHT", PARAGRAPH (4), "INCREASES TO HEIGHT REGULATIONS", SUBPARAGRAPHS (b) (ii), (iii) AND (iv), "ALLOWANCES"; TO UPDATE THE WORKFORCE HOUSING REGULATIONS REGARDING HEIGHT INCREASES; 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 October 20, 2008, and voted 6 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 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 goals, policies, and objectives of 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 4.3.4, "Base District Development Standards", Subsection Q), "Height", Paragraph (4), "Increases to Height Regulations", Sub-Paragraphs (b)(ii), (b)(iii) and (b)(iv), "Allowances" 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 follow: (ii) That the increase in height will not provide for, nor accommodate, an increase in the floor area (within the structure) beyond that which could be accommodated by development which adheres to a height lirrntation of 48 feet, except for the following situations: (1) (~) An increase in ~ hei t is allowed when the increase from 48 feet to 60 feet is for the purpose of accommodating residential use on the top floor of the structure; however, the increase in ~ hei t is only for the added residential use area 1 n r ,.~.~~,.,,,, ,~~, ,,,;,.. ~. , ,,..; ~„ ,.,~ ~~ ,~. ~,,.,+~ „_.,».,,,,,.,~ ~~r,°~_ ~ levels and shall comply with other applicable provisions of Article 4.7. iv That the increase in height shall be allowed if t~ or more of subsections 4.3.4(J) iv (1), (2) or (3) are met: (1) That for each foot in height above 48 feet, an additional building setback of t~ feet is provided from the building setback lines which would be established fora 48-foot tall structure. The additional setback is required from all setback liens (i.e., front, side, and rear) for the portion of the building that extends above 48 feet. In lieu of this setback requirement, buildings in the CSD zone shall adhere to the setback requirements of that district; (2) That a minimum of 50% of the ground floor building frontage consist of nonresidential uses (excluding parking); (3) That open areas, such as courtyards, plazas, and landscape setbacks, be provided in order to add interest and provide relief from the building mass. Section 4. 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 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed 2 ORD. NO. 51-08 Section 6. 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 City Clerk First Reading Second Reading MAYOR ORD. NO. 51-08 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: October 20, 2008 AGENDA NO: IV. 3. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 4.3.4(J)(4) "HEIGHT" TO CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE WORKFOCE HOUSING WHEN SEEKING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR INCREASES IN HEIGHT. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a City initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 4.3.4(J)(4), clarifying the requirement to provide workforce housing units equal to a minimum of 20% of the top floor residential units in order to qualify for conditional use approval for increases in height. 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 Family/Workforce Housing Ordinance adopted by the City Commission on December 6, 2004, included incentives to provide workforce housing by allowing density bonuses within the Southwest Neighborhood Overlay District. On April 4, 2006, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 18-06, to expand the Program by providing additional opportunities and incentives for the provision of workforce housing. Requirements to provide a workforce component when requesting Conditional Use approval for additional height (above 48') was added in April, 2006 via Ordinance 16-06. This proposed LDR text amendment is to clarify the original intent of those changes. Ordinance 16-06 required that to qualify for any increase in height above 48', workforce units equal to a minimum of 20% of the additional units proposed on the top floor (above 48') were to be dedicated for workforce housing, subject to requirements of LDR Section 4.7. These changes were codified under LDR Section 4.3.4(b)(ii)(1). Recently, questions have been raised by a developer subject to the requirement as to whether they must provide workforce housing units. He has asserted that if the maximum intensity is not proposed on the balance of the site (portion not seeking increases in height) that the workforce requirement does not apply. This interpretation was clearly not the intent of Ordinance 16-06. By restructuring the existing language and separating the paragraph to put the workforce housing requirement in a stand alone paragraph the original intent of the ordinance is clarified. In addition to the restructuring of the language, an additional modification is recommended to provide flexibility by allowing the provision of both low and moderate housing units while not mandating individual percentages. ^ Applicant. ^ The unit will still be considered a Workforce Housing unit for the term of the rental term. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, October 20, 2008 LDR Amendment -Workforce Housing Increases in Height 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. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were reviewed and the following applicable objectives noted. Objective B-1 The City's existing housing supply accommodates households having a wide range of economic ability. There is very little vacant land left, especially large tracts, for new housing development. Through its housing programs, the City shall work to ensure that there continues to be an adequate supply of housing to accommodate very low, low, and moderate income households, as well as manufactured and mobile homes. Objective B-2 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 this Element. This amendment is consistent with these objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as it continues the Family/Workforce Housing Program in the City. This provision provides clarification of the original intent of Ordinance 16-06 of requiring a workforce component as a condition of increased height. Based on the above, a positive finding can be made that the amendment is consistent and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS 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. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this City initiated LDR text amendment is to clarify the original intent that any conditional use request for an increase in height must provide a minimum of 20% of the additional units accommodated on the top floor as workforce units. 2 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, October 20, 2008 LDR Amendment -Workforce Housing Increases in Height RECOMMENDED ACTION Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for a City initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 4.3.4(J)(4), 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)(5). Attachment: ^ Proposed Ordinance 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Mark McDonnell, AICP, Assistant Director Planning and Zoning Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: October 29, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 ORDINANCE N0.52-08 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARINGI ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of City and Privately-initiated amendments to the Land Development Regulations to allow for additional opportunities to satisfy workforce housing unit requirements including allowing units on-site, off-site, or by monetary contributions, or a combination thereof. The amendment would also change the recipient of monetary contributions from the Delray Beach Land Trust to the Housing Trust Fund. BACKGROUND The amendment expands the options available to satisfy workforce housing unit requirements by allowing units to be provided on-site, off-site, or though a monetary contribution to the Housing Trust Fund and extends this option to workforce housing units provided as a requirement for increases in density or height. The ordinance allows the units to be built anywhere in the City. However, workforce housing units cannot be previously allocated in another project, must be constructed at the same time a vertical building permit is issued, and can be provided in a phased project if workforce housing units are constructed in the same proportion and manner as the number of workforce units required for each phase. The ordinance adds a definition of Housing Trust Fund. This new fund will be comprised of the City's State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) allocation, and will also include deposits of funds for in- lieu workforce housing units. The fund must be used for the purpose of implementing programs described in the City's Local Housing Assistance Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS The text amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board on October 20, 2008. The Board unanimously recommended approval on a 6 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. 52-08 for a City and Privately-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 N0.52-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4.4, "SASE ZONING DISTRICT", SECTION 4.4.13, "CENTRAL BUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT", SUBSECTION (I), PERFORMANCE STANDARDS"; TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES REGARDING WORKFORCE HOUSING; ARTICLE 4.7, "FAMILY/WORKFORCE HOUSING", SECTION 4.7, "FINDINGS" SUBSECTION (I), TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS REGARDING INCREASED HEIGHT AND DENSITY; SECTION 4.7.1, "DEFINITIONS", TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF "WORKFORCE HOUSING TRUST FUND", SECTION 4.7.2, "APPLICABILITY", PARAGRAPHS 4.7.2 b. AND c. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES REGARDING WORKFORCE HOUSING; SECTION 4.7.3, "PROVISION OF WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS", TO ALLOW WORKFORCE HOUSING IN ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS; SECTION 4.7.4, "DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM FOR THE SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE CARVER ESTATES OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE INFILL WORKFORCE HOUSING AREA", PARAGRAPH e. TO PROVIDE FOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE DELRAY BEACH WORKFORCE HOUSING TRUST FUND; AND SECTION 4.7.6, "RENTAL HOUSING UNITS", TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION REGARDING MODERATE INCOME REQUIREMENTS; 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 October 20, 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 deten-nined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plary and WHEREAS, the City Comtrrission 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 goals, policies, and objectives of 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 Article 4.4, "Base Zoning District", Section 4.4.13, "Central Business (CSD) District", Subsection (I), "Performance Standards", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall be amended to read as follow: (I) Performance Standards These standards shall apply to all applications for new development and modification of existing developments which mould result in a density greater than thirty (30) dwelling units per acre in the Commercial Core or twelve (12) units per acre in the West Atlantic Neighborhood (1) The maximum permissible density of a particular project will be established through the conditional use process, based upon the degree to which the development complies with the performance standards of this section, the required findings of Section 2.4.5(E), and other applicable standards of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. Notwithstanding the above, the approving body may deny an application for increased density where it is determined that the proposed project is not compatible in terms of building mass and intensity of use with surrounding development. All eligible developments ~esi~g to use these performance standards shall provide twenty percent (20%) of the residential units above thirty (30) dwelling units per acre in the Commercial Core or twelve (12) units per acre in the West Atlantic Neighborhood as Workforce Housing units (fractions shall be rounded up). The workforce housing units shall be divided between low and moderate income levels °.T'-'~ r ~ '-'~~„ ~~°% ~~ '-'~~ ° ~~-'~~~-~~ ,,...;~„ '-~'~~ ~~~- ~~~'~~-~'-~ mcand shall comply with other applicable provisions of Article 4.7. The units shall be provided either onsite, offsite or through a monetary contnbution or as noted in LDR Section 4.7.2 c. Section 3. That Article 4.7, "Family/Workforce Housir~', Section 4.7, "Findings", Subsection (I), of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall be amended to read as follow: (I) The City Commission also desires to establish additional incentives to encourage additional Family/Workforce Housing, including but not lirrdted to requirements to provide additional workforce housing for developments that request increases in height and/or densitypursuant to Section 4.3.4(T)(4)(b) and 4.4.13(I~ Section 4. That Article 4.7, "Family/Workforce Housing', Section 4.7.1, "Definitions", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be amended to correct a typographical error for Subsection p., "Southwest Neighborhood Overlay District", and to enact a definition of "Housing Trust Fund" as follow: p. Southwest Neighborhood Overlay District -The area zoned RM between Interstate 95 and l S.W. 1St Avenue, from Atlantic Avenue to S.W. 2nd Street, except along S.W. 12th Avenue, where it extends south to S.W. 3rd Street, as shown in the map below ORD. NO. 52-08 u Housing trust runa - Commtulit~mprovement Departmealt. All monetary contnbutions in lieu of workforce Section 5. That Article 4.7, "Family/Workforce Housing', Section 4.7.2, "Applicability', Paragraphs 4.7.2 b. and c. of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall be amended to read as follow: Section 4.7.2 A~nlicability Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, these regulations shall apply only to development applications consistent with the following conditions: b. Subject to the restrictions of this Article, developments constructed pursuant to Section 4.3.4(J)(4)(b)i~ must provide ~rkforce housing to qualify for an increase in height. Developers may also meet this requirement by prig the units onsite, proms ~ a monetary contribution, or delivery of offsite units . A combination of these added options is permissible. For each required workforce housing unit, developers may make a payment of a sum equal to $160,000, payable to the Ci of Delray Beach ,Housing Trust Fund in lieu of providing the workforce housing unit within the development. Offsite units may be as ~rkforce housing units in another proiect. These units would be constructed at the time of the first vertical building~emut issuance. If the proiect is built in phases, then the ~rkforce units mould be constructed in the same proportion and manner as the number of ~rkforce units required for each phase. c. Subject to the restrictions of this Article, developments constructed pursuant to 4.4.13(I) must provide ~rkforce housing to qualify for increased density. Developers may else meet this requirement ~ by prig the units onsite, providing a monetary contnbutioi~, or delivery of offsite units ~c~. A combination of these three options is permissible. For each required workforce housing unit, developers may make a payment of a sum equal to $160,000, payable to the Ci of Delray Beach Housing Trust Fund, in lieu of providing the workforce housing unit within the development. Offsite units maybe located anywhere within the City of Delray Beach These units cannot be previously allocated as ~rkforce ORD. NO. 52-08 would be constructed in the same proportion and manner as the number of ~rkforce units required for each phase. Section 6. That Article 4.7, "Family/Workforce Housir~', Section 4.7.3, "Provision of Workforce Housing Units", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall be amended to read as follow: Section 4.7.3 Provision of Workforce Housing Units Developers will be ~ allowed additional density or height in exchange for providing ~rkforce additional density ,beyond the base number allowed per existing ee Land Development Regulations after performance standards have been met. Developers will be allowed additional height under section 4.3.4(T .t~ beyond 48' after the height requirements of Section 4.3.4(f,Z(4)(b) have been met. a Developers may earn ~ additional density by building housing for very low, low or moderate income families within the designated boundaries of the Overlay Districts and Infill Workforce Housing Area or other appropriately zoned areas of the Cam-' descnbed in this article. b. All development shall meet the requirements for units as specified in this chapter and meet all required Land Development Regulations. c. Workforce units shall include those units in a development, which are regulated in terms of: Sales price or rent levels; and ii. Marketing and initial occupancy; and iii. Continued requirements pertaining to resale or rent increases. Section 7. That Article 4.7, "Family/Workforce Housing', Section 4.7.4, "Density Bonus Program for the Southwest Neighborhood Overlay District, the Carver E states Overlay District and the Infill Workforce Housing Area', Paragraph e. of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall be amended to read as follows: Section 4.7.4 Density Bonus Program for the Southwest Neighborhood Overlay District, the Carver Estates Overlay District and the Infill Workforce Housing Area ORD. NO. 52-08 e. Instead of or in addition to providing workforce housing units, developers may also accrue bonus units by contributing to the Ci of Delray Seach Housing Trust Fund that will be utilized to subsidize workforce housing in the City of Delray Seach. Developers may earn one bonus unit for each payment of a sum equal to $60,000, payable to the Ci of Delray Seach Housing Trust Fund d Section 8. That Article 4.7, "Family/Workforce Housing', Section 4.7.6, "Rental Housing Units", Paragraph d of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Seach, Florida, shall be amended to read as follows: Section 4.7.6 Rental Housing Units d Units targeted to ~ra~erate inarirae households at 81% to the 120% affordability level of the Palm Seach County median income, adjusted for family size, shall not have rental rates that exceed 140% of the HUD deterrruned fair market metre rent for the area. Section 9. 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 10. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed Section 11. 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 ORD. NO. 52-08 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 AGENDA NO: IV. 4. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF BOTH PRIVATELY AND CITY-INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR), SECTION 4.4.13.1, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE VII FAMILY/WORKFORCE HOUSING, TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNTIES TO SATISFY WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING CONTRIBUTION INTO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND, AND TO ALLOW PROVISION OF WORKFORCE HOUSING ONSITE, OFFSITE, OR BY MONETARY CONTRIBUTION, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding both privately and city-initiated amendments to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that expand the options for satisfying workforce housing unit requirements, and modify the recipient of funds paid "in lieu of" from the Community Land Trust to the Housing Trust Fund. 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. ANALYSIS Section 4.4.13.1 Performance Standards Saecific to the Central Business District rnrivateiv initiated Current regulations allow residential densities to exceed 30 du/ac in the Central Core and 12 du/ac in the West Atlantic Neighborhood of the Central Business District (CBD) by conditional use. Twenty percent (20%) of the residential units above these densities must be provided as workforce housing units and be divided between low and moderate income levels, with no more than 50% provided for moderate income levels. The amendment removes the 50% limit on units provided at moderate income levels, although still allows a mix between low and moderate income levels. The amendment also expands the options available to satisfy workforce housing unit requirements by allowing units to be provided on-site, off-site, or though a monetary contribution. Section 4.7 IA) through IJ) Family/workforce Housing Findings (city initiatedl This section includes a series of findings made by the City Commission that set the foundation for the initial Family/Workforce Housing regulations enacted on December 6, 2004. Current Finding "I" provides a general statement that the City Commission desires to establish additional incentives to encourage Family/Workforce Housing units. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, October 20, 2008 LDR Amendment -Expanded Options to Satisfy Family/Workforce Housing Unit Requirements The ordinance expands upon Finding "I" to include the requirement for additional workforce housing for developments that request increases in height and/or density. Section 4.7.1 Various Definitions Related to Family/workforce Housing (city initiatedl This section includes a list of definitions related to the city's Family/workforce Housing regulations. The ordinance adds a new definition called Housing Trust Fund. This new fund will be comprised of the City's State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) allocation, and will also include deposits of funds for in-lieu workforce housing units. Interest earned stays in the fund. The fund must be used for the purpose of implementing programs described in the City's Local Housing Assistance Plan. Section 4.7.2 Specific Applicability of Family/Workforce Housing Regulations fPrivateivinitiatedl This section provides specific parameters for providing Family/Workforce Housing regulations in specific situations. Two sections are amended by this ordinance: (b) increases in height, and (c) increases in density. Requests for both increases in height and density are currently included as incentives to provide Family/Workforce Housing. Current provisions allow for payment of a monetary contribution to satisfy the requirement in lieu of providing the actual physical unit. The ordinance expands the options for providing Family/Workforce Housing units by adding that the required units may be provided on site or by delivery of units off site. The ordinance further allows any combination of on site, off site or monetary contribution to satisfy Family/Workforce Housing unit requirements. The ordinance allows the units to be built anywhere in the City. Family/Workforce Housing units cannot be previously allocated in another project, must be constructed at the same time a vertical building permit is issued, and must be provided in the same proportion as the number of Family/workforce Housing units when projects are phased. 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. The following sections of the Comprehensive Plan are relevant to the proposed ordinance: Objective B-1 The City's existing housing supply accommodates households having a wide range of economic ability. There is very little vacant land left, especially large tracts, for new housing development. Through its housing programs, the City shall work to ensure that there continues to be an adequate supply of housing to accommodate very low, low, and moderate income households, as well as manufactured and mobile homes. Objective B-2 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 this Element. 2 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, October 20, 2008 LDR Amendment -Expanded Options to Satisfy Family/Workforce Housing Unit Requirements This amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it continues the Family/Workforce Housing Program in the City. It clarifies when additional workforce units must be provided as they correlate to increases in both height and residential density. It also provides additional options available for satisfying workforce unit requirements, and designates the Housing Trust Fund as a central depository that will be used exclusively to help the City implement programs described in the its Local Housing Assistance Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS The proposed amendment was presented before the following boards with recommendations made as follows: The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the proposal at their October 16, 2008 meeting and recommended approval. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed the proposal at their October 20, 2008. The DDA recommendation will be conveyed to the Planning and Zoning Board at their meeting on October 20, 2008. 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, amending Section 4.4.13.(1), Performance Standards in the Central Business District, and various sections of Article VII "Family/workforce Housing," to provide additional options to satisfy workforce housing unit requirements, 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, amending Section 4.4.13.(1), Performance Standards in the Central Business District, and various sections of Article VII "Family/workforce Housing," to provide additional options to satisfy workforce housing unit requirements, 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). 3 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, October 20, 2008 LDR Amendment -Expanded Options to Satisfy Family/Workforce Housing Unit Requirements RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend approval of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, amending Section 4.4.13.(1), Performance Standards in the Central Business District, and various sections of Article VII "Family/workforce Housing," to provide additional options to satisfy workforce housing unit requirements, 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 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: October 30, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 ORDINANCE 41-08 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC HEARINGI ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is approval of a City Initiated Amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to revise and clarify the requirements for on-site lighting. BACKGROUND The purpose of the proposed amendment is to provide clarification of the on-site lighting standards in the City and to revise the required illumination levels to be more consistent with those of Palm Beach County. The increased illumination levels will also provide for increased safety. The ordinance was considered by City Commission on October 7, 2008 (first reading) and October 21, 2008 (second reading). At second reading specific changes were requested by a Commissioner and the ordinance was remanded back for second reading at this meeting. The requested changes have been made to the ordinance and include the following: 1. A change has been made to the min/max intensities required for the parking garage/structure entrance area category to reflect minimums recommended by IES (50 ft. candles versus 5.0 ft. candles); 2. A note has been added at the bottom of Table 2 that references the above max/min apply only to the first 66' from the entry; 3. A reference has been changed from cutoff luminaries to "full" cutoff luminaries in Section 4.6.8. (B)(3)(b) to be consistent with similar references Section 4.6.8(A)(2). REVIEW BY OTHERS The Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) on August 6, 2008 recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) on August 11, 2008 recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) on August 13, 2008 recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) on August 14, 2008 recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. The Board did however question the need to increase the required lighting levels in the City at the cost of greater energy expenditure. The Board made several other suggestions that have been incorporated into the proposed Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 4 to 0 on August 18, 2008 to recommend approval. RECOMMENDATION Approve, on second reading, the amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.3, "Submission Requirements", Subsection 2.4.3 (B), "Standard Plan Items" and Subsection 2.4.3(M), "Credentials for Preparation of Certain Submission Items"; and amending Section 4.6.8, "Lighting", to revise and clarify the requirements for on-site lighting, 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). ORDINANCE NO. 41-08 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 2.4.3, "SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS", SUBSECTION 2.4.3 (B), "STANDARD PLAN ITEMS" AND SUBSECTION 2.4.3(M), "CREDENTIALS FOR PREPARATION OF CERTAIN SUBMISSION ITEMS"; AMENDING SECTION 4.6.8, "LIGHTING", TO REVISE AND CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ON-SITE LIGHTING; 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 August 18, 2008, and voted 4 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 does 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 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 2.4.3, "Submission Requirements", Subsection 2.4.3(B), "Standard Plan Items" 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: (B) Standard Plan Items: The following items shall be included as a part of any plan submission which requires formal action. These include, but are not limited to: a site and development plan, landscaping plan, preliminary engineering plans, or master (concept) plan. (1) The survey, site plan, landscaping plan, preliminary engineering plans, tree survey, photometric plan, irrigation plan, (excluding architectural elevations and floor plans, which shall utilize an architect's scale) shall be at the same scale. Acceptable scales shall include 1"=10'; 1"=20' or 1"=30'. The size and location of structures, landscape areas, and other features shall be dimensioned. (2) A title block which shows: the project name, the scale, the date of the drawing, revision numbers and revision dates (revised drawings which do not have revision numbers and dates shall not be accepted), page numbers, name of what is being presented (e.g. landscaping, paving and drainage, etc.), and the name of firm or individual who prepared the drawing. (3) A north arrow and a location map inset. (4) The perimeter of the property described pursuant to the legal description contained in the submitted warranty deed. (5) The center line of the right-of--way of any adjacent street with the basis of the center line clearly stated; the center line of the existing pavement; the width of the street pavement; the location and width of any adjacent sidewalk; and the identification of any improvements located between the property and any adjacent street. (6) The approximate location of intersecting lot lines of adjacent parcels and the approximate location of the nearest structures and/or significant improvements on those parcels. (7) The location of the nearest driveway or point of access of adjacent properties (including property across a street, which shares a common street with the subject property). If there are no driveways within 50', then they do not need to be shown; however, a note to this situation shall be provided. (8) The approximate location of aboveground and underground utilities including water, sewer, drainage, power, gas, telephone, and cable television; poles and guy wires; transformer boxes, etc. The plan shall identify the disposition of all such existing utilities. (9) The location of any other significant features, including vegetation and all trees which have a diameter of four inches (4") or greater, measured at 4.5' above grade; water bodies and water courses; and other improvements. The plan shall identify the disposition of all such items. A separate tree survey may be required. If so, it shall be at the same scale as the site plan. NOTE: Items required in (8) and (9) may be shown on one separate plan or survey sheet, and then only those items which are proposed to be incorporated with the proposed development need be shown on the site plan. 2 ORD. N0.41-08 (10) The location of all proposed structures with setbacks dimensioned from the closest property lines. (ll) The intended use of each structure. This may be accommodated directly on the drawing or by referencing the structures by letter and providing a chart. (12) The paths of ingress and egress for vehicles and pedestrians onto and through the site. Traffic flow shall be indicated with arrows. Standard Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MLTTCO) symbols shall be used to show control devices and pavement markings. A separate flow control plan may be required. (13) The location of parking areas and loading zones (areas). The number of parking spaces shall be shown on the plan. The plan shall show typical dimensions of parking spaces, landscape islands, and traffic aisles for each type of parking space which is provided. In addition, a detail showing parking space striping, space sizing, and method(s) of providing wheel stops shall be provided. (14) The manner in which all utility services are to be provided to the site and to individual structures on the site. (15) The location of any buffers, fencing, walls. A sketch of the type of such feature shall be provided. (16) The location of proposed signing with an indication of proposed height and dimensions. Note: Sign approval is not a part of a site plan approval.) (17) A photometric plan showing a preliminary lighting layout including the location of all proposed lighting fixtures shall be provided for all development. A picture or sketch of the li~htin~ fixture including height and a lighting coverage exhibit is required. This shall include details of wallpack lighting and freestanding lights both proposed and existing. The plan shall show maximum photometric calculation patterns which shall not exceed ten feet spacings. Calculations shall include the average, minimum and maximum foot-candles, average to minimum ratio and maximum to minimum ratio on the site. Plans shall be signed and sealed bX a licensed professional knowledgeable in lighting design. (18) The proposed location for solid waste disposal facilities. A note or detail shall be provided which identifies the height of required enclosures, the type of gating, and the type of materials to be used for the enclosure. 3 ORD. N0.41-08 (19) The location of all landscape areas and an indication of the type of vegetation (trees, shrubs, hedges, groundcover) which is to be provided therein. (20) Spot elevations showing changes of elevations of not more than two (2'), existing and proposed, throughout the site and at a distance ten feet into adjacent property. Additional spot elevations and/or a topographic plan may be required. (21) The F.E.MA. Flood Plain designation for the property, the base flood elevation, and a statement as to how provisions of the Flood Damage Regulations (Section 4.5.4) will be met. (22) If project phasing is proposed, such phases shall be clearly shown on the plan and a narrative describing the phasing program shall be provided. (23) A completed "Project Data" sheet. Zoning Department and shall be unique to commercial, industrial, residential). This sheet shall be available at the Planning and different types of development activity (i.e. (24) Plans which are submitted for formal action shall be stamped with a raised seal and signed by the preparer. [See Section 2.4.3 (M)] Section 3. That Section 2.4.3, "Submission Requirements", Subsection 2.4.3(M), "Credentials for Preparation of Certain Submission Items" 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: (M) Credentials for Preparation of Certain Submission Items (1) Plans to Be Certified: The following submissions are to be signed and sealed by the profession which is so authorized by Florida Statutes, (Board of Professional Regulation): (a) Boundary Survey by a licensed surveyor or registered engineer; (b) Traffic statement or study by a registered engineer; (c) A landscape plan by a registered landscape architect; (d) A site plan by a registered architect, a landscape architect, or registered engineer; (e) Preliminary and Final Engineering Plans by a registered engineer 4 ORD. N0.41-08 (f1 Photometric plans shall be signed and sealed by a licensed professional knowledgeable in li~htin~ design. (2) Exceptions: (a) General: Exceptions to the above sign and seal requirement include the preparation of plans, when allowed, by owners and others, who are not registered professionals, pursuant to Florida State Statute. (b) Site Plans: A site plan to be recorded (certified as meeting conditions of approval) must be signed and sealed without exception. A site plan submission which is to be considered through the formal site plan review process shall be signed and sealed when the site planning involves the application of drainage, landscaping principles, building relationships, and traffic flow concepts. However, the Director may accept a site plan prepared by an owner, or other person, when the site plan is considered as a preliminary submission or when the essence of the review is to evaluate compliance with code requirements as opposed to application of design principles to the proposed development. Section 4. That Section 4.6.8, "Lighting", 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: 5 ORD. N0.41-08 Section 4.6.8 Lighting For All Developments: All developments/redevelopments are encouraged to utilize enemy efficiency lighting. Artificial lighting used to illuminate premises shall be directed in such a way to minimize light spillover on adjacent properties and reduce urban lg ow. . In eg neral any lighting requirements not covered by this section should follow the standards in the latest edition of ASHRAE/IESNA related to Exterior Lighting. When lighting is proposed within the vicinity of the beach it shall comply with all other City of Delray Beach Code Sections, including, but not limited to, Section 91.51 (Sea Turtles) which requires that all lighting shall be screened or shielded so that the light is not visible from the beach. In addition, the following standards shall be adhered to: (A) General Requirements: (1) Luminaries ~e Height: ' The following chart indicates maximum heights allowed for luminaries. Table 1 Buildings and Structures Parking Lots Residential Industrial Commercial Parking Structure Top Floor S 25' or eave overhang which ever is lower 25' 25' 25' 15' if within 20' of structure edge 20' if greater than 20' from structure edge Per IESNA latest edition (2) Cutoff Luminaire Required: All perimeter exterior li~htin~ shall be full cutoff luminaries to minimize spillover on adjacent properties. In order to decrease urban flow no luminaries shall be directed upwards. ~i~2~??~rcE2'S•`scci~t6~cE`pz~-'r~liiiir~F6ixir°ccrt6 *~e 6 ORD. N0.41-08 (3) Illumination Standards: The following illumination standards shall be adhered to: Table 2 Outdoor Li~htin~ Max Min Max/Min Avera~e~Min Illumination Illumination (ft-candles) (ft-candles) Buildings and Structures Accent pathway 5.0 2 0_5 Building Entrance 10.0 1.0 - 3:1 Landscape Lighting 5_0 Canopies, Drive-Thru & 30.0 3_0 10:1 2.5:1 Overhangs Parking Lots Multi-Family Residential 4.0 Commercial & Industrial 12.0 Parking Garages/Structures Parking Area 10 Ramps -Day 20 Ramps -Night 10 Entrance Area- Day 500 Entrance Area -Night 10 Stairways Specialty Lighting Golf Courses, Outdoor Entertainment, Parks 5.0 0.3 1.0 1.0 2_0 1_0 50 1.0 2.0 13:1 12:1 3:1 10:1 4_1 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:1 Refer to latest edition of IESNA Lighting Handbook Other Lighting Types Outdoor Display other than 15 1 1_0 15:1 4_1 Vehicle Sales & Rental Outdoor display associated Refer to LDR Section 4.4.10 (G~6) with Vehicle Sales & Rental 7 ORD. N0.41-08 Notes: 1) The first row closest to public rights-of--way of display outdoor sales may be increased to a max of 20 foot candles. 2) Fully shielded bollards not greater then 42 inches in hei hg t may be permitted up to a max of 20 foot candles. 3) The values for entrance area only applies to the first 66 feet inside the structure as it is needed to effect a transition from bright davli~ht to lower internal levels. (4) Night Hours Reduction and Security: ., Full cutoff luminaries shall be used for all security lighting and dusk-to-dawn area lighting. Outdoor illumination, including areas used for outdoor sales and display, eating=parkin, assembly, service of equipment and freight, loading and unloading, repair, maintenance, commercial activities and industrial activities shall not continue after 11:00 pm, or more than one hour after active use of the area ceases, whichever is later, except for security lighting. Security lighting shall be required for all active entrances to buildin~parkin~ lots and access to buildings or parking lots. All security lighting shall maintain lighting levels as indicated in Table 1 and shall operate from dusk until dawn. No outdoor recreational facility shall be illuminated after 11:00 pm except to conclude a scheduled or sanctioned recreational or sporting event by City of Delray Beach or other authorized agency in pro rg ess prior to 11:00 pm. The luminaries shall be extin uig shed after outdoor recreational events are completed and the site has been vacated. Exceptions would include recreational facilities that are open to the public on a 24 hour basis (B) Requirements for Outdoor Parking Areas and Commercial Sites: (1) Standards: The complete installation of the area lighting system shall comply with applicable local codes and ordinances and meet the recommended illumination levels and uniformity ratios of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (LE.S.), as set forth in this specification. The responsibility for performance to this specification, in its entirety, cannot be split up among individual suppliers of components comprising the system, but must be assumed solely by a single supplier. (2) Testing: Upon completion of installation, the system shall be subject to inspection by the City Engineer, at his discretion, to determine compliance with criteria set forth herein. Computer verification shall be made available upon his request. (3) Design Criteria: (a) General: In determining a lighting design, consideration shall be given to the architectural and environmental aspects of the facility it is to serve. 8 ORD. N0.41-08 This consideration shall be instrumental in determining type of fixture mounting height, and light source. (b) Light Control and Spillage: ~~ ~~ > > > > gem For perimeter exterior li~htin~, only full cutoff luminaries will be approved. The applicant is encouraged to minimize light spilla e~ from building and site and to reduce urban-flow for the development/redevelopment proposed. Maximum allowable illumination at the property line of any adjoining parcel or public right-of-way is 0.25 horizontal and vertical foot-candles measured at six feet above grade level. ORD. N0.41-08 Street Light Requirements Street li hg t requirements for public rights-of-way shall meet the requirements of the City's Street Light Polio Temporary Lighting Lighting classified as temporary lighting for public festivals, celebrations and the observance of holidays are exempt from this section. Deviations Lighting may vary from this Section to the extent necessary to comply with specific State requirements, i.e., increased intensity required for automatic bank teller areas, etc. Section 5. 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 6. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 7. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. 10 ORD. N0.41-08 PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 200 ATTEST City Clerk First Reading Second Reading MAYOR 11 ORD. N0.41-08 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 18, 2008 AGENDA NO: IV.E. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF ACITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR) SECTION 2.4.3, "SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS", SUBSECTION 2.4.3 (B), "STANDARD PLAN ITEMS" AND SUBSECTION 2.4.3(M), "CREDENTIALS FOR PREPARATION OF CERTAIN SUBMISSION ITEMS"; AND AMENDING SECTION 4.6.8, "LIGHTING". ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a City-initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to revise and clarify the requirements for on-site lighting. 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 purpose of the proposed amendment is to provide clarification of the on-site lighting standards in the City and to revise the required illumination levels to be more consistent with those of Palm Beach County. The increased illumination levels will also provide for increased safety. The amendment includes the following: • Clarifies the submittal requirements for photometric plans; • Adds language to prevent light spillover on adjacent properties and reduce urban glow; • Adds language to reduce the impact of lighting within the vicinity of the beach on Sea Turtles; • Adds lighting requirements for the top floor of parking structures; • Modifies the illumination standards to add lighting requirements to areas other than parking lots and to be more consistent with those of Palm Beach County; • Modifies the requirements for security lighting; • Adds requirements for street lights in public rights-of-way; • Addresses the requirements for temporary lighting for public festivals, celebrations and the observance of holidays; and • Adds a section for "Deviations" Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, August 18, 2008 LDR Amendment - On-Site Lighting 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 the amendment does not specifically further the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, it is not inconsistent with them. REVIEW BY OTHERS The following advisory boards reviewed the proposed amendment and made the following recommendations to the City Commission: The Pineapple Grove MainStreet on August 6, 2008 recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) on August 11, 2008 recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) on August 13, 2008 recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) on August 14, 2008 recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. The Board did however question the need to increase the required lighting levels in the City at the cost of greater energy expenditure. The Board made several other suggestions that have been incorporated into the proposed Ordinance. 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 2.4.3, "Submission Requirements", Subsection 2.4.3 (B), "Standard Plan Items" and Subsection 2.4.3(M), "Credentials for Preparation of Certain Submission Items"; and amending Section 4.6.8, "Lighting", to revise and clarify the requirements for on-site lighting, 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). 2 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, August 18, 2008 LDR Amendment - On-Site Lighting C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.3, "Submission Requirements", Subsection 2.4.3 (B), "Standard Plan Items" and Subsection 2.4.3(M), "Credentials for Preparation of Certain Submission Items"; and amending Section 4.6.8, "Lighting", to revise and clarify the requirements for on-site lighting, 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 2.4.3, "Submission Requirements", Subsection 2.4.3 (B), "Standard Plan Items" and Subsection 2.4.3(M), "Credentials for Preparation of Certain Submission Items"; and amending Section 4.6.8, "Lighting", to revise and clarify the requirements for on-site lighting, 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 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 ORD N0.48-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for second reading for an ordinanceamending Chapter 96, "Fire Safety and Emergency Services", Section 96.66, "Emergency Medical Transportation Fees", of the Code of Ordinances to adjust the fee schedule for emergency medical transportation in accordance with the National Ambulance Fee Schedule. BACKGROUND At the first reading on October 21, 2008 the Commission passed Ordinance No. 48-08. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 48-08 on second and final reading. ORDINANCE N0.48-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 96, "FIRE SAFETY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 96.66. "EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION FEES", SUBSECTION 96.66(A), TO ADJUST THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL AMBULANCE FEE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on January 17, 1995, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 5-95, which enacted a new Section 96.66 of the City Code to provide for emergency medical transportation; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the implementation of the National Ambulance Fee Schedule a new schedule is hereby established NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Title IX, "General Regulations", Chapter 96, "Fire Safety and Emergency Services", Section 96.66, "Emergency Medical Transportation Fees", Subsection 96.66(A), of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: (A) The following service charges or fees are levied for the provision of emergency medical transportation: (1) Advanced Life Support (ALS-1) Transport Fee X99:99 650.00 (2) Advanced Life Support (ALS-2) Transport Fee $750.00 (3) Skilled Case Transport Fee $800.00 (4) Basic Life Support (BLS) Transportation Fee 8 600.00 (5) NTileage Fee $12.00/mile 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 upon 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 First Reading Second Reading 2 ORD. N0.48-08 MEMORANDUM T0: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David C. James, Fire-Rescue Chief THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 6, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 2008 ORDINANCE NO. 48-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to give consideration of an Ordinance amending Chapter 96 to modify fees charged by the City of Delray Beach for emergency medical transportation services provided by the Fire-Rescue Department to be effective following second reading. BACKGROUND Advanced Data Processing Incorporated (ADPI) does billing for many public EMS agencies in the area, including Delray Beach, and they have a very broad perspective on this issue. They have provided recommendations to improve revenues by adjusting fees for service, which if approved by the City Commission could afford the City the opportunity to raise revenues in both the near and longer terms. The Fire-Rescue Staff has considered ADPI's recommendations and provided its recommendations for fee adjustments. The City Attorney's office has prepared the necessary Ordinance for consideration by the City Commission. RECOMMENDATION Recommend the City Commission consider for adoption the recommendations of Fire-Rescue Staff and approve the Ordinance. http://www.mydelraybeach.com/Agendas/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID=1549&MeetingID=154[10/28/2008 9:40:44 AM] E.Il~.S. T'RANSPQRT FEES BLS AO429 ALS -1 1=merg. A0427 ALS - L2 A0433 Skilled Care Trans. A0434 Mileage Boynton Beach $350.00 $425.00 $575.00 $8.00 Boca - 1011108 $650.00 $65D.00 $750.00 $75D.OD $12.00 Palm Beach Ca. 111109 $490.00 $490.00 $65D.00 $9.OD Deerfield Beach $650.00 $700.00 $750.00 NA $12.00 West Palm Beach $39D.00 $39D.D0 $540.OD $640.00 $8.00 Delra Beach 1011107 $550.00 $600.00 $750.00 $800.00 $12.00 AVI~RAGI^ $513.33 $542.50 $669.17 $730.00 $14.17 * -will be increasing but do not have the figures at this time. *~- These are the proposed increases BLS ALS -1 Emerg. ALS - L2 Care Trans. Mileage AO429 A0427 A0433 A0434 Fiscal Year 2008-09 fees Delra Beach $550.D0 $600.Op $750.00 $BDD.OD $12.00 ** DELRAY BEACH FIRE-RESCUE STAFF RECOMMI=ND~D FEES EFFECTIVE NOVI~MBN=R 1, 2008 Skilled BLS ALS -1 Fmerg. ALS - L2 Care Trans. Mileage AO429 AD427 A0433 A0434 ©elra Beach $600.00 $650,00 $750.00 $80©.00 $72.00 Change $50.OD $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $D.00 Percentage change 9.09% 8.33% 0.00% D.DD% 0.00% If the fee increases recommended by staff are used, we can expect revenue increases as follows: 2010 $125,000 over current FY collections MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 ORD N0.49-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for second reading amending Chapter 71, "Parking Regulations", of the Code of Ordinances by amending Section 71.060, "Parking Meter Permits", to provide for a change in fees charged for parking permits. BACKGROUND At the first reading on October 21, 2008 the Commission passed Ordinance No. 49-08. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 49-08 on second and final reading. ORDINANCE NO. 49-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 71, "PARKING REGULATIONS" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING SECTION 71.060, "PARKING METER PERMITS", TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN FEES CHARGED FOR PARKING PERMITS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City issues parking permits to allow parking in certain spaces without requiring the payment of money into the space's parking meter; and WHEREAS, the City has increased the cost for metered parking; and WHEREAS, the City desires to increase the charge for parking permits to correspond with the previous increase in metered parking. 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 Chapter 71, "Parking Regulations", is amended by amending Subsection 71.060, "Parking Meter Permits", to read as follows: Sec. 71.060. PARHING METER PERMITS. (A) A "parking permit" may be purchased from the City by all persons which shall authorize the parking of the vehicle for which the permit was acquired in any designated permit-only parking space and in any parking meter space located within Anchor Park, Sandoway Park, Orange Grove Lot, Atlantic Dunes, and Ingraham Avenue parking lots without requiring the payment of money into the space's parking meter. (B) The cost of a parking permit shall be s~~ ei~htX dollars ($F9-99 80.00) per year, plus applicable taxes. (C) Each permit shall cover the period from October 1 through September 30. There shall be no proration of the permit fee. The application procedure and the form of the permit shall be determined by the City administration. It shall be illegal to deface a parking permit or to transfer a parking permit from the vehicle for which it was acquired to any other vehicle. However, if the parking permit sticker and other sufficient proof is submitted to the City, and when approved in advance by the City Manager or his designee, the parking permit sticker may be exchanged for a new sticker and the parking permit transferred to a substitute vehicle acquired by the permit holder subsequent to the issuance of the original parking permit. Section 3. 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 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: MAYO R City Clerk First Reading Second Readi 2 MEMORANDUM T0: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: R. Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: City Attorney DATE: October 13, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 2008 ORDINANCE 49-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the Commission is Ordinance 49-08 which amends Section 71.060 of the Code of Ordinances by increasing the ~~parking permit" cost from $60.00 to $80.00 per year. BACKGROUND The City issues ~~parking permits" to allow vehicles to park in designated permit-only parking spaces and in certain parking spaces with parking meters, which permits the vehicle to use the space without requiring the payment of money into the space's parking meter. The City has previously increased the fee for metered parking. This increase in the ~~parking permit" cost corresponds with the increase in metered parking. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 49-08. http://www.mydelraybeach.com/Agendas/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID=1572&MeetingID=154[10/28/2008 10:07:13 AM] MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Catherine Kozol, Police Legal Advisor THROUGH: City Attorney DATE: October 29, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 ORDINANCE 50-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Ordinance 50-08 will allow the City to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by issuing an Ordinance Violation for vehicles that are observed running red lights by a traffic control monitoring system/device. BACKGROUND Numerous studies have shown that the running of red lights are a major cause of motor vehicle collisions and are a safety hazard affecting other drivers as well as pedestrians. (See #7 in the attached Q&As: Red Light Cameras.) Various National organizations, including the Governors Highway Safety Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, have supported the use of traffic control monitoring devices for more effective and efficient traffic law enforcement. Just recently on October 2, 2008 the National Safety Council adopted a new public policy supporting the use of automated enforcement (red light cameras and speed cameras) for traffic safety. While there have been some concerns raised regarding the installation of red light cameras, such as individuals braking suddenly to avoid running a red light and possibly causing a rear end collision, and the possibility of challenges to the system and ordinance, the positive reasons for installation greatly outweigh them. Not only has it been shown that these cameras have become deterrents for people running red lights, but this system will allow law enforcement to focus more of their time on criminal activity in the area resulting in a better use of personnel and resources. Moreover, these cameras can be a valuable device to aid law enforcement in determining perpetrators of crime if they travel through a monitored intersection as well as assist traffic accident investigators in their investigations. RECOMMENDATION That the City Commission approve the ordinance on first reading. ORDINANCE N0.50-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, SY ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 74, "CIVIL TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, SY ENACTING NEW SECTIONS 74.01 THROUGH 74.16, PROVIDING FOR "INTENT", "USE OF IMAGE CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES", "DEFINITIONS", "ADHERENCE TO RED LIGHT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS", "VIOLATION", "REVIEW OF RECORDED IMAGES", "NOTICE OF VIOLATION/ INFRACTION", "VEHICLE OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES", "APPEAL TO HEARING OFFICER", "VEHICLE OWNER AFFIDAVIT OF NON RESPONSIBILITY", "PENALTY", "ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES", "COLLECTION OF FINES", "EXCEPTIONS", "APPEAL OF ORDER", AND "ENFORCEMENT", TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM FOR INTERSECTION SAFETY; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach is located in a high density traffic area and regularly experiences traffic incidents related to the failure of motorists to obey duly erected traffic control devices; and WHEREAS, the r~ulning of red lights causes a safety hazard affecting every citizen and traveler in the City of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, the violation of red light traffic signals is recognized as the number one cause of urban motor vehicle collisions; and WHEREAS, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognizes the act of violating a red light traffic signal as the most dangerous form of aggressive driving and WHEREAS, the National Safety Council has adopted a new public policy supporting the use of automated enforcement (Red Light Cameras and Speed Cameras) for traffic safety. WHEREAS, the apprehension of violators of red light traffic signal through means of law enforcement observance, chase and citation is difficult, dangerous and expensive; and WHEREAS, the installation and use of traffic control photographic systems permit law enforcement resources to be efficiently utilized in responding to other serious criminal and traffic offenses; ancl, WHEREAS, red light legislation penalizing or assessing civil fees against the owner of a motor vehicle has proven extremely effective at reducing red light violation and traffic accidents; and WHEREAS, the City finds it to be fair and reasonable to use the same procedure employed by the state of using unmanned cameras to enforce toll violations on the State's system of toll roads that has been determined to be fair, reasonable and sufficient by the State in order to effectively enforce laws regulating the payment of tolls without the need to commit the extreme amount of personnel that mould be necessary without the use of Luzmanned cameras; and WHEREAS, similarly, the use of Luzmanned cameras will be effective in enforcing laws requiring drivers of motor vehicles to stop for red lights and will have the effect of freeing law enforcement personnel to respond to other, and sometimes more significant, incidents as well as serious crime; and WHEREAS, Section 316.008, Florida Statutes, grants municipalities, with respect to streets and highways Linder their jurisdiction and within reasonable exercise of the police power, the authority to regulate and monitor traffic by means of law enforcement officers and security devices; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Seach is vested with home rule authority pursuant to Article VII, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, to enact an ordinance malting the failure to stop for a red light indication a code violation, and to provide for enforcement of such violations; and WHEREAS, Opinion 05-41 of the Attorney General of the State of Florida, dated July 12, 2005, issued to Samuel S. Goren, City Attorney for the City of Pembroke Pines, confirms the authority of the City to enact an ordinance malting the failure to stop for a red light indication a code violation, to use Luzmarnled cameras to monitor intersections in the City for such code violations, and to record the license tag numbers of vehicles involved in such violations; and WHEREAS, the Attorney General has opined that the cities may not issue uniform traffic citations Linder the State law to drivers for violations observed by the use of Luzmarnled cameras and not otherwise observed by law enforcement officers; and WHEREAS, in order to be consistent with State law and the referenced Attorney General Opinion, the City will issue a Notice of Infraction for failure to stop at red lights to a registered owner of a vehicle for a violation of this ordinance and will not utilize uniform traffic citations prescribed by Chapter 316 of the Florida Statutes for violation of this ordinance and will not prosecute offenses of this Ordinance through the County Court, but, rather, through the City`s code enforcement program, procedures and processes; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to reduce the running of red lights by creating an additional enforcement mechanism to protect the public health, safety and welfare by implementing an automated photographic red light traffic enforcement system in efforts to reduce violations of steady red traffic signals at intersections in the City of Delray Seach. 2 ORD. N0.50-08 NOW, THEREFORE, SE IT ORDAINED SY THE CITY CONMSSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 74, "Civil Traffic Enforcement", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, is hereby enacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 74. CIVIL TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT. Sec. 74.01. INTENT. The purpose of this chapter is to authorize the use of an unmanned cameras/monitoring system to promote compliance with red light signal indicators as described by this chapter, and to adopt a civil enforcement system for red light signal violations. Failing to stop at steady red light signal places the offending vehicle in violation of the city intersection safety ordinance. This ordinance prohibits vehicles from obstructing occupying or passing into an intersection when a steady red light is proiected from a traffic control device. This ordinance will also supplement law enforcement personnel in the enforcement of red light signal violations and shall not prohibit county, state or local law enforcement officers from issuing a citation for a red light signal violation in accordance with normal statutory traffic enforcement techniques. Sec. 74.02. USE OF IMAGE CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES. The City shall utilize image capture technologies as a supplemental means of monitoring compliance with laws related to traffic control signals, while assisting law enforcement personnel in the enforcement of such laws, which are designated to protect and improve public health, safety and welfare. This section shall not supersede, infringe, curtail or impinge upon state or county laws related to red light signal violations or conflict with such laws. This ordinance shall serve to enable the City to provide enhanced enforcement and respect for authorized traffic signal devices. The City utilize image capture technologies as an ancillary deterrent to traffic control signal violations and to thereby reduce accidents and iniuries associated with such violations. Notices of infractions issued pursuant to the ordinance shall be addressed using the Cites own Code Enforcement Hearing Officer pursuant to Section 37.45 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delra, S and not through the uniform traffic citations or county courts. This shall not bar the use of uniform traffic citations and the county courts when Ci , police personnel decide not to rely on this ordinance as the enforcement mechanism for a specific violation Sec. 74.03. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply to this ordinance: Ir~erse~ion shall mean the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb line; or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of two roads which loin or intersect one another at, or approximatel~ght angles; or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different roadsroads i oining at any other angle may come in conflict. ORD. N0.50-08 Notice ~nfi~ad~ion shall mean a City of Delray Beach citation issued for a Red Zone Infraction Ouner or zeYiide our~r shall mean the Person or entity identified by the state deFarttr~ent of motor vehicles, or other state vehicle registration office, as the registered owner of a vehicle. Such term shall also mean a lessee of a motor vehicle Pursuant to a lease of six months or more. Recorded ima~res shall mean images recorded by a traffic control signal monitoring system/device on Two or more Fhotograr Two or more electronic images; Two or more digital images; Digital or video movies; or Any other medium that can disFlay a violation; and that showy the rear of a motor vehicle and on at least one image, clearly identif,n~ng the license plate number of the vehicle. Red zone infi~ad-ion shall mean a traffic offense whereby a traffic control signal monitoring s, established that a vehicle entered an intersection controlled bey erected traffic control device at a time when the traffic control signal for such vehicle's direction of travel was emitting a steady red signal Hearing O~icer shall mean the Cites Code Enforcement Hearing Officer, as described in ChaFter 37, Section 37.45 (B,Z(1)(a) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach Tra f/-ic control signal shall mean a device exhibiting different colored lights or colored lighted arrow, successively one at a time or in combination, using only the colors green, yellow; and red which indicate and ably to drivers of motor vehicles as Provided in F.S. ~ 316.075. Tra fl-ic cantrol signal monitoring stistem/ deuce shall mean an electronic system consisting of one or more vehicle sensors, working in coni unction with a traffic control signal, still camera and video recording device, to caFture and Produce recorded images of motor vehicles entering an intersection against a stead right signal indication ORD. N0.50-08 Sec. 74.04. ADHERENCE TO RED LIGHT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS. Motor vehicle traffic facing a traffic control signal's steady red light indication shall stop before entering the cros`Swalk on the rear side of an intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown on the traffic control signal; however, the driver of a motor vehicle which is stoP~ed at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswallc on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the Point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection in obedience of a steady red traffic control signal, may make a right turn ,unless such turn is otherwise Prohibited b~posted sign or other traffic control device, but shall ,, 'eight-of-wa~Pedestrians and other traffic Proceeding as directed b traffic control signal at the intersection. Sec. 74.05. VIOLATION. A violation of this ordinance known as a Red Zone Infraction shall occur when a motor vehicle does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 74. Violations shall be enforced Pursuant to Chapter 74. This prosecution or appeal in the Coun , courts. Sec. 74.06. REVIEW OF RECORDED IMAGES. (A) The owner of the vehicle which is observed by recorded images committing a Red Zone Infraction shall be issued a Notice of Infraction The recorded image shall be sufficient grounds to issue a city Notice of Infraction. B) The City shall designate a Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer(s) who shall meet the qualifications set forth in F.S. $943.13 or F.S. $316.640(5 (A), or any other relevant statute. The Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer shall review recorded images Infraction Review Officer has verified the accuracy of the recorded images and functionality of the traffic control monitoring system/devices, he or she shall complete a report, and a Notice of Infraction shall be sent to the vehicle owner at the address on record with the Florida DePartmealt of Highwa~ety and Motor Vehicles or the address on record with the appropriate agenc~g such information in another state. Sec. 74.07. NOTICE OF VIOLATION/INFRACTION. ORD. N0.50-08 issued pursuant to this ordinance shall not be by the Florida Uniform Traffic Citation and shall not be subiect to The notice of violation/infraction shall include: (A) The name and address of the vehicle owner; The license elate number and registration number of the vehicle; (C) The make, model, and near of the vehicle; (D) Notice that the violation charged is Pursuant to this ordinance; B) The location of the intersection where the violation occurred (F) The date and time of the Red Zone Infraction; (Hl The civil Penalty .imposed; (I) Images depicting violation; (T) A signed statement by the Traffic Control Infraction Officer that, based on inspection of recorded images, the vehicle was involved in a Red Zone Infraction; (K) The procedures for pa~m~ealt of the civil penalty and contesting the Notice of Infraction Sec. 74.08. VEHICLE OWNER REPONSIBILTIES. (A) A vehicle owner receiving a Notice of Infraction may within (30,~lurt~ys of the date of the Notice of Infraction (1) Pay the assessed civil penaltypursuant to instructions on the Notice of Infraction; or (2) Request an appeal before the Code Enforcement Hearing Officer to contest the Notice of Infraction pursuant with procedures as outlined in this ordinance. (B) The failure to comply with the provisions of this section within (30 tlurt,~ys from the date of the Notice of Infraction shall constitute a waiver of the right to contest the Notice of Infraction and will be considered an admission of liability and in such case an order maybe entered against the violator for an amount up to the maximum civil penal , ,plus any administrative costs. ORD. N0.50-08 Sec. 74.09. APPEAL TO HEARING OFFICER. The Cites Hearing Officer is authorized to consider meals Linder this ordinance. Within t ' (30~ days of the date of the Notice of Infraction, the vehicle owner may file an meal with the Ci ,T Code Enforcement Hearing Officer Eursuant to the directions on the Notice of Infraction A hearing on the meal shall be scheduled for all meals in which the vehicle owner requests such a hearing within (30~~~s, exceEt those in which the vehicle owner submits an affidavit Eursuant to Section 74.10 in which the vehicle owner affirms under Eenalty of Eeriury that the vehicle was not under his or her care, custody or control or that of someone with the vehicle owner's consent. (A) UEon receiEt of the request for an meal, the City shall schedule a hearing before the hearing officer to occur not later than sixt,~60ws after the Ci , s receiEt of the Notice of Areal. A Notice of Hearing shall be Erovided to the vehicle owner no less than ten (10~~Erior to the hearing, and shall be Erovided by certified and U.S. mail to the same address to which the Notice of Infraction was sent. (B) The following shall be Eemlis~srble grounds for an meal: 1) At the time of the infraction, the vehicle was not under the care, custody or control of the vehicle owner or an individual with vehicle owner's consent, established pursuant to affidavit as Erovided in Sec. 74.10. (2) The motor vehicle driver was issued a citation by a law enforcement officer, which was seEarate and distinct from the citation issued under this section, for violating the steady red traffic control signal; (3) The motor vehicle driver was required to violate the steady red traffic control signal in order to comEly with other governing laws; (4) The motor vehicle driver was required to violate the steady red traffic control signal in order to reasonablyprotect the EroEe , or Eerson of another; (5) The steady red traffic control signal was inoperable or malfunctioning, or (6) Any other reason the Hearing Officer deems appropriate. (C) All testimony before a Hearing Officer shall be under oath and shall be recorded (D) The traffic control infraction officer ma, try at the hearing The vehicle owner may then present testimony and evidence. ORD. N0.50-08 The formal rules of evidence shall not apply but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the Proceedings. (F) Recorded images indicating a Red Zone Infraction, verified by the traffic control infraction review officer, are admissible in andproceeding before the Cites Hearing Officer to enforce the Provisions of this Chapter, and shall constitute Prima facie evidence of the violation (G,~UPon determination of the Hearing Officer irrelevant, immaterial and undul~cpetitious evidence maybe excluded but, all other evidence of a t~~pe commonly relied upon by reasonable Prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible. (Hl Unless an affidavit is Provided Pursuant to Sec. 74.10, it is presumed the Person registered as the vehicle owner with the Florida DeParhnent of Motor Vehicles or any other state vehicle registration office, or an individual having the owner's consent was operating the vehicle at the time of a Red Zone Infraction. Sec. 74.10. VEHICLE OWNER AFFIDAVIT OF NON-RESPONSIBILITY. In order for the vehicle owner to establish that the motor vehicle was, at the time of the Red Zone Infraction, either: (a) in the care, custody or control of another person without the consent of the registered owner; or (b) was subiect to a short term Qess than six months) car rental agreement entered into between a car rental agency which is licensed as required b~PPlicable law and is authorized to conduct business in the state, and the operator of the vehicle. The vehicle owner is required within twee , -one 21 ~ys from the date listed on the Notice, to furnish to the City, an affidavit setting forth the circumstances demonstrating either: a the motor vehicle was not in the vehicle owner's care, custody or control, and was not in the care, custody or control of another Person with the vehicle owner's consent, or (b) that the motor vehicle was subiect to a short term ,less than six months, rental agreement between the car rental agency receiving the notice and the vehicle operator and provide a true and correct copy of the short term car rental agreement, as applicable. The affidavit must be executed in the Presence of a notary and include: (A) If lmown to the vehicle owner, the name, address, and driver's license number of the Person B) The name, address and driver's license number of the person who rented the motor vehicle from the car rental agency which has received the Notice, at the time of the alleged Red Zone Infraction; or (C) If the vehicle was stolen, the Police report indicating the vehicle was stolen at the time of the alleged Red Zone Infraction; and ORD. N0.50-08 Uno~y receipt of a sufficient affidavit Pursuant to this section, andprosecution of the notice issued to the vehicle owner shall be terminated Proceedings maybe commenced by the Citesagainst the responsible Person identified in the affidavit, and in such event, the responsible person shall be subi ect to the same Process and procedures which are applicable to vehicle owners. Sec. 74.11 PENALTY. A violation of this ordinance shall be deemed a non criminal, non moving violation for which a civil penalty in the amount $125.00 shall be assessed As the violation relates to this ordinance and not to the state statutes, no points as otherwise provided in F.S. §322.27, shall be recorded on the driving record of the vehicle owner or responsible Part . Sec. 74.12. ADMINISTRATNE CHARGES. Sec. 74.13. COLLECTION OF FINES. The City establish Procedures for the collection of a penalt~imPosed herein and may enforce such penalty civil action in the nature of debt collection Sec. 74.14. EXCEPTIONS. This ordinance shall not apply to Red Zone Infractions involving vehicle collisions or to any authorized emergency vehicle responding to a bona fide emergency; nor shall a notice be issued in any case where the operator of the vehicle was issued a citation for violating the state statute regarding the failure to stop at a red light indication for the same event or incident. Sec. 74.15. APPEAL OF ORDER. Ordinances. Sec. 74.16. ENFORCEMENT. This ordinance maybe enforced bey other means available to the City Section 2. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any ORD. N0.50-08 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 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 10 ORD. N0.50-08 Q&As: Red light cameras Vehicle ratings ~ News ~ Consumer brochures & videos ~ Research & stats ~ Laws & regs ~ Status Report newsletter Q&As: Red light cameras February 2008 Show all answers Video: automated traffic law enforcement 1 ~ What is red light running? A violation occurs when a motorist enters an intersection some time after the signal light has turned red. Motorists inadvertently in an intersection when the signal changes to red (waiting to turn left, for example) are not red light runners. 2 ~ Is red light running a big problem? A nationwide study of fatal crashes at traffic signals in 1999 and 2000 estimated that 20 percent of the drivers involved failed to obey the signals.t In 2006, almost 900 people were killed and an estimated 144,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. About half of the deaths in red light running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners. Motorists are more likely to be injured in urban crashes involving red light running than in other types of urban crashes. Institute researchers studied police reports of crashes on public roads in four urban areas during 1990-91. Occupant injuries occurred in 45 percent of red light running crashes, compared with 30 percent of other crash types.2 Red light running crash 3 ~ How often do drivers run red lights? A study conducted during several months at five busy intersections in Fairfax, Virginia, prior to the use of red light cameras found that, on average, a motorist ran a red light every 20 minutes at each intersection.3 During peak travel times, red light running was more frequent. Analysis of red light violation data from 19 intersections (without red light cameras) in four states found that 1,775 violations occurred over 554 hours, for a violation rate of 3.2 per hour per intersection.4 4 ~ Who runs red lights? The Institute created a profile of red light runners by studying driver behavior at an Arlington, Virginia, intersection equipped with a http://www.iihs.org/research/ganda/rlr.html (1 of 6) [10/30/2008 11:51:47 AM] Q&As: Red light cameras red light camera. The 1996 study compared red light runners with motorists who had an opportunity to run a red light but did not. As a group, red light runners were younger, less likely to use safety belts, had poorer driving records, and drove smaller and older vehicles than drivers who stopped for red lights. Red light runners were more than three times as likely to have multiple speeding convictions on their driver records. No gender differences were found between violators and drivers who did not run red lights.5 A 2007 study in Sacramento, California, found about 30 percent of red light runners were under 30 years of age.6 5 ~ What are red light cameras? Red light cameras can help communities enforce traffic laws by automatically photographing vehicles whose drivers run red lights. A red light camera system is connected to the traffic signal and to sensors that monitor traffic flow at the crosswalk or stop line. The system continuously monitors the traffic signal, and the camera is triggered by any vehicle entering the intersection above a preset minimum speed and following a specified time after the signal has turned red. Violations occurring within 2/10ths of a second after the signal changes to red generally aren't recorded because of technical limitations of the recording equipment. In addition, many red light camera programs provide motorists with grace periods of up to 1/2 second. Depending on the particular technology, a series of photographs and/or video images show the red light violator prior to entering the intersection on a red signal, as well as the vehicle's progression through the intersection. Cameras record the date, time of day, time elapsed since the beginning of the red signal, vehicle speed, and license plate. Tickets typically are mailed to owners of violating vehicles, based on review of photographic evidence. Red light camera violation photo 6 ~ Isn't conventional police enforcement sufficient? Enforcing traffic laws in dense urban areas by traditional means poses special difficulties for police, who in most cases must follow a violating vehicle through a red light to stop it. This can endanger motorists and pedestrians as well as officers, and police cannot be everywhere at once. Traffic stops in urban areas can exacerbate traffic congestion. Communities do not have the resources to allow police to patrol intersections as often as would be needed to ticket all motorists who run red lights. Red light cameras allow police to focus on other enforcement needs. 7 ~ What safety benefits do red light cameras provide? Cameras have been shown to substantially reduce red light violations. Institute evaluations in Fairfax, Virginia, and Oxnard, California, showed that camera enforcement reduced red light running violations by about 40 percent.3~7 In addition to reducing red light running at camera-equipped sites, violation reductions in both communities carried over to signalized intersections not equipped with red light cameras, indicating community-wide changes in driver behavior. An Institute evaluation of red light cameras in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that after red light violations were reduced by 36 percent following increased yellow signal timing, the addition of red light cameras further reduced red light violations by 96 percent.$ In addition to reducing red light violations, cameras have been shown to reduce intersection crashes. In Oxnard, California, significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent.9 Front-into-side collisions -the crash type most closely associated with red light running -were reduced by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68 percent. An http://www.iihs.org/research/ganda/rlr.html (2 of 6) [10/30/2008 11:51:47 AM] Q&As: Red light cameras Institute review of international red light camera studies concluded that cameras reduce red light violations by 40-50 percent and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent.io Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. Because the types of crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe than year- end crashes, research has shown there is a positive aggregate benefit. A recent study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities.i 1 The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million over 370 site years, which translates into a crash reduction benefit of approximately $39,000 per site year. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were more than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras. Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The Cochrane Collaboration (an international organization that conducts systematic reviews of the scientific literature on public health issues) reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light camera effectiveness in Australia, Singapore, and the United States.12 Using techniques of meta-analysis, the authors estimated a 16 percent reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24 percent reduction in right-angle crashes. The review did not find a statistically significant change in rear-end crashes. 8 ~ Isn't longer yellow signal timing more effective than using red light cameras to reduce red light running? While the provision of adequate yellow signal timing is important and can reduce red light running, longer yellow timing alone does not eliminate the need or potential benefits of red light cameras. Studies have shown that increasing yellow timing to values associated with guidelines published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers13 can significantly decrease the frequency of red light violations.1415,16 In addition, a 2002 Institute study of modified yellow and all-red traffic signal timing at urban intersections reported that injury crashes were reduced by 12 percent at experimental sites relative to comparison sites.17 An Institute study conducted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, evaluated incremental effects on red light running of first lengthening yellow signal timing, followed by introduction of red light camera enforcement.$ Yellow signal timing was increased by about one second at two intersections where red light cameras were installed. Results show that while increased yellow signal timing reduced red light violations by 36 percent, the addition of red light camera enforcement further reduced red light violations at these sites by 96 percent beyond levels achieved by the longer yellow signal timing. 9 ~ Do the cameras photograph every vehicle passing through an intersection? No. Cameras are set so that only those vehicles that enter an intersection after the light has turned red are photographed. Vehicles that enter on yellow and are still in an intersection when the light changes to red are not photographed. This technology is intended to identify vehicles driven by motorists who enter an intersection after the signal has turned red. 10 ~ Does someone review the photographs before motorists are ticketed? Yes. Trained police officers or other officials review every picture to verify vehicle information and ensure the vehicle is in violation. Tickets are mailed to vehicle owners only in cases where it is clear the vehicle ran a red light. 11 ~ Do red light cameras violate motorists' privacy? No. Driving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees to abide by certain rules, such as to obey traffic signals. Neither the law nor common sense suggests drivers should not be observed on the road or have their violations documented. Red light camera systems can be designed to photograph only a vehicle's rear license plate, not vehicle occupants, depending on local law. Only vehicles driven by motorists who violate the law are photographed. More information on legal issues http://www.iihs.org/research/ganda/rlr.html (3 of 6) [10/30/2008 11:51:47 AM] Q&As: Red light cameras 12 ~ Are special laws needed to allow localities to use red light cameras to cite violators? Before cameras may be used for law enforcement, laws must authorize enforcement agencies to cite red light violators by mail. The legislation must make the vehicle owner responsible for the ticket, establishing a presumption that the registered owner is the vehicle driver at the time of the offense. This can be accomplished either by state statutes or in some states by local legislation. Red light cameras currently are authorized in about half of US states. Depending on state law, violations photographed by red light cameras are commonly treated in one of two ways - as traffic violations or as the equivalent of parking tickets. If, as in New York, red light camera violations are treated like parking citations, the law can make registered vehicle owners responsible without regard to who was driving at the time of the offense. 13 ~ Are red light camera programs expensive? Camera equipment costs vary based on the type of camera, complexity of the intersection, and technical requirements. A red light camera system with installation costs approximately $100,000. A single red light camera can be used at several locations once the sites are equipped to work with the camera, allowing communities to move cameras among sites without drivers knowing which ones are active at any given time. Startup costs can be offset by fines, savings from crashes prevented, and by freeing police to focus on other enforcement efforts. 14 ~ Isn't the main purpose of red light cameras to make money? No. The objective of photo enforcement is to deter violators, not to catch them. Signs and publicity campaigns typically warn drivers that photo enforcement is in use. Revenue is generated from fines paid by drivers who continue to run red lights, but this is a fundamental component of all traffic enforcement programs. Independent audits of red light camera enforcement have found that these programs generally do not generate excess revenue. For example, the California state auditor reported in 2002 that red light cameras were not generating large amounts of revenue.i$ The financial status of only two of the state's seven camera programs was break-even or better. The US General Accounting Office reported in 2003 on the contribution of federal funds to local use of photo enforcement technology and the amount of revenue generated by these programs.19 The report found that photo enforcement program revenues were lower than program costs in three jurisdictions, while the revenues in two other jurisdictions exceeded program costs. 15 ~ Does the American public support the use of red light cameras? The large majority of the US public supports red light cameras. A 2000 Institute survey in ten cities -five with cameras and five without -reported that more than 75 percent of drivers supported camera enforcement.20 A 2002 nationwide survey sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and conducted by the Gallup Organization found that 75 percent of drivers favored the use of red light cameras.21 A 1996 survey by the Insurance Research Council found that the highest support for red light cameras was in large cities, where 83 percent of respondents supported their use, compared with 52 percent of respondents in suburbs.22 16 ~ Do major US cities use red light cameras? Cameras are used for law enforcement in Albuquerque, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC, plus many smaller communities. US cities with red light cameras 17 ~ What other countries use red light cameras? Red light cameras have been used in at least 33 foreign countries since the 1970s.23 Countries that use red light cameras http://www.iihs.org/research/ganda/rlr.html (4 of 6) [10/30/2008 11:51:47 AM] Q&As: Red light cameras include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. References ~ Brittany, N.; Campbell, B.N.; Smith, J.D.; and Najm, W.G. 2004. Analysis of fatal crashes due to signal and stop sign violations. Report no. DOT HS-809- 779. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2Retting, R.A.; Williams, A.F.; Preusser, D.F.; and Weinstein, H.B. 1995. Classifying urban crashes for countermeasure development. Accident Analysis and Prevention 27:283-94. SRetting, R.A.; Williams, A.F.; Farmer, C.M.; and Feldman, A.F. 1999. Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Fairfax, Va., USA. ITE Journa169:30-34. 4Hill, S.E. and Lindly, J.K. 2003. Red light running prediction and analysis. UTCA Report no. 02112. Tuscaloosa, AL: University Transportation Center for Alabama. SRetting, R.A. and Williams, A.F. 1996. Characteristics of red light violators: results of a field investigation. Journal of Safety Research 27:9-15. SYang, C.Y. and Najm, W.G. 2007. Examining driver behavior using data gathered from red light photo enforcement cameras. Journal of Safety Research 38:311-21. SRetting, R.A.; Williams, A.F.; Farmer, C.M.; and Feldman, A. 1999. Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California. Accident Analysis and Prevention 31:169-74. SRetting, R.A.; Ferguson, S.A.; and Farmer, C.M. 2008. Reducing red light running through longer yellow signal timing and red light camera enforcement: results of a field investigation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40:327-33. SRetting, R.A. and Kyrychenko, S.Y. 2002. Reductions in injury crashes associated with red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California. American Journal of Public Health 92:1822-25. ~oRetting, R.A.; Ferguson, S.A.; and Hakkert, A.S. 2003. Effects of red light cameras on violations and crashes: a review of the international literature. Traffic Injury Prevention 4:17-23. >>Council, F.; Persaud, B.; Eccles, K.; Lyon, C.; and Griffith, M. 2005. Safety evaluation of red-light cameras: executive summary. Report no. FHWA HRT-05- 049. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 12Aeron-Thomas, A. S. and Hess, S. 2005. Red-light cameras for the prevention of road traffic crashes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2, Art. no. CD003862. Oxfordshire, England: The Chochrane Collaboration. 131nstitute of Transportation Engineers. 1985. Determining vehicle change intervals: a recommended practice. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers. 14Bonneson, J.A. and Zimmerman, K.H. 2004. Effect of yellow-interval timing on the frequency of red-light violations at urban intersections. Transportation Research Record 1865:20-27. 15Retting, R.A. and Greene, M.A. 1997. Influence of traffic signal timing on red light running and potential vehicle conflicts at urban intersections. Transportation Research Record 1595:1-7. ~SVan Der Horst, R. 1988. Driver decision making at traffic signals. Transportation Research Record 1172:93-97. »Retting, R.A.; Chapline, J.F.; and Williams, A.F. 2002. Changes in crash risk following re-timing of traffic signal change intervals. Accident Analysis and Prevention 34:215-20. ~SCalifornia State Auditor. 2002. Red light camera programs. Sacramento, CA: Bureau of State Audits. SUS General Accounting Office. 2003. Traffic enforcement: funding of automatic red-light and speed enforcement technologies. Report no. GAO-03- 408R. Washington, DC. 20Retting, R.A. and Williams, A.F. 2000. Red light cameras and the perceived risk of being ticketed. Traffic Engineering and Control 41:224-25, 227. 2i National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2004. National survey of speeding and unsafe driving attitudes and behavior: 2002; Volume II: findings. Report no. DOT HS-809-730. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation. 221nsurance Research Council. 1996. Public attitude monitor, 1996. Wheaton, IL. 2sBlackburn, R.R. and Glibert, D.T. 1995. Photographic enforcement of traffic laws. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.iihs.org/research/ganda/rlr.html (5 of 6) [10/30/2008 11:51:47 AM] Q&As: Red light cameras search search help ~ site index ©1996-2008, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute gcopyright/use of images/linking policies ~ contact us g privacy policy ©1996-2008, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute 1005 N. Glebe Road, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22201 USA ~ tel 703/247-1500 ~ fax 703/247-1588 http://www.iihs.org/research/ganda/rlr.html (6 of 6) [10/30/2008 11:51:47 AM] MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: October 29, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2008 ORDINANCE N0.53-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is approval of a proposed amendment to the Community Redevelopment Plan to add a section providing for the sponsorship of tournaments at the Delray Beach Municipal Tennis Center. BACKGROUND The Delray Beach Municipal Tennis Center has been a critical component of the redevelopment of both the downtown's Central Core Area and the West Atlantic Redevelopment Area. Since the renovation of the site was completed in 1993, Delray Beach has become a competitive venue for major sporting events and tournaments. Events like the Chris Evert Charity Tournament and the International Tennis Championship Tournament bring tens of thousands of people to downtown Delray Beach. Visitors attending these events also patronize area hotels, shops and restaurants, creating a substantial economic impact to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) District. In 2008, the economic impact of these events was estimated to be approximately $8.5 million. While preparing the FY 2008/2009 budget, the City of Delray Beach requested that the CRA agree to contribute a $500,000 sponsorship to help offset the cost of site host fees for major tournaments held at the tennis center. The sponsorship will prevent the City from having to eliminate various job positions and functions such as animal control and many school crossing guards, due to significant budget cuts. The sponsorship has been included in the CRA budget for FY 2008/2009. The CRA will receive a set of benefits, including various marketing opportunities, in exchange for the contribution. The sponsorship supports the CRA mission, as well as the goals of the Downtown Master Plan, by helping the Tennis Center remain a competitive venue for major events. However, an amendment to the Community Redevelopment Plan is required in order for the CRA to provide the sponsorship. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Planning and Zoning Board considered the amendment at their October 20, 2008 meeting and unanimously recommended approval on a 6-0 vote. The CRA considered the request at their October 16, 2008 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve the proposed amendment to the Community Redevelopment Plan to add a section providing for the sponsorship of tournaments at the Delray Beach Municipal Tennis Center. ORDINANCE NO. 53-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, MODIFYING THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATIONS CONFORM TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1969, AS AMENDED; FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH'S COMPREHENSNE PLAN, AND MAKING FURTHER FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA STATUTE 163.360; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTNE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, by Ordinance No. 46-85, adopted June 18, 1985, did create a Community Redevelopment Agency as provided in Florida Statutes Section 163.356; and WHEREAS, on December 23, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County passed and adopted Resolution No. R-86-2003 delegating the exercise of the powers conferred upon the County by Chapter 163, Part 3, Florida Statutes, within the boundaries of the City of Delray Beach to the governing body of the City of Delray Beach completely and without limitation; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, has heretofore approved a Community Redevelopment Plan on September 9, 1986, by Resolution No. 49-86 as subsequently amended on November 24, 1987, by Resolution No. 47-87, and as further ratified and amended on February 14, 1989, by Resolution No. 6-89, and as further ratified and amended on September 25, 1990, by Resolution No. 86-90; and as further ratified and amended on April 9, 1991, by Resolution No. 28-91; and as further ratified and amended on November 26, 1991, by Resolution No. 93-- 91; and as further ratified and amended on May 26, 1992, by Ordinance No. 17-92; and as further ratified and amended on December 1, 1992, by Ordinance No. 60-92; and as further ratified and amended on February 22, 1994, by Ordinance No. 5-94; and as further ratified and amended on September 5, 1995, by Ordinance No. 48-95; and as further ratified and amended on March 5, 1996, by Ordinance No. 8-96; and as further ratified and amended on February 3, 1998 by Ordinance No. 2-98 and Resolution No. 11-98; as further ratified and amended on November 7, 2000 by Resolution No. 94-00; and as further ratified and amended on May 15, 2001 by Ordinance 33-01; and as further ratified and amended on January 18, 2005 by Ordinance 01-05; and as further ratified and amended on March 18, 2008 by Ordinance 11-08; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "CRA", has heretofore adopted a Community Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the CRA is desirous of modifying said Plan to provide for the addition of a new program to the Plan; and WHEREAS, the CRA of the City of Delray Beach has recommended to the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, that the Community Redevelopment Plan be modified, amended and ratified in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, finds that the modifications conform to the Community Redevelopment Act of 1969, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, finds that the modifications are consistent with the City of Delray Beach's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, finds that the modifications meet the applicable requirements of Section 163.360, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Commission shall hold a public hearing on said modifications to the Plan, after public notice is given in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part 3, Florida Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the preamble stated above is hereby incorporated by reference herein, as findings of fact upon which this ordinance is based. Section 2. That the Community Redevelopment Plan for the City of Delray Beach be, and the same is hereby modified, amended and ratified in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence or word or other provision of this ordinance, or any portion thereof, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of any other section, subsection, paragraph, sentence or word or provision or its application to other persons or circumstances and 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 this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 200 ATTEST: City Clerk First Readi MAYOR Second Reading Part Four: The Redevelopment Program EXHIBIT "A" II: Community Redevelopment Agency Projects and Programs C: Group 3: Community Improvement Programs No. 3.11: Sponsorship of City Tennis Tournaments Background In 1992, the CRA agreed to contribute $481,000 to the rehabilitation of the City's Municipal Tennis Center. The rehabilitation project, which began in 1993, expanded the existing center and included the construction of a 3,000-seat stadium court, as well as additional courts and a pro shop. In 1993, Delray Beach successfully hosted the Virginia Slims national women's tournament, seeing a record 80,000 people attend over atwo-week period. Since that time, Delray Beach has hosted several major sporting events at the Tennis Center, including professional tennis and volleyball tournaments. Seating in the stadium has been increased to 8,200 seats. The events produce a positive economic impact for businesses throughout the downtown and the CRA District that grows over time. In 2001, the estimated economic impact of the International Tennis Championships was approximately $7.7 million, growing to an estimated $8.5 million in 2008. Intangibles such as media exposure and increased name recognition provide additional benefits for the city, the CRA District and its merchants. At the request of the City, the CRA agreed to provide $500,000 to help offset the costs of host site fees for tennis tournaments held at the Tennis Center in 2008. The additional funds would allow the City to continue to use the Tennis Center as a viable and competitive venue for professional tournaments and events. Program Objectives • Encourage the use of the Municipal Tennis Center as a venue for major sporting events and other entertainment activities. • Stimulate economic development within the West Atlantic Redevelopment Area and the downtown as a whole by attracting visitors and activity to a major public facility located directly within the area. • Promote economic development in the Central Core and Beach Area districts of the downtown by the sponsorship of tournaments that attract thousands of visitors, many of whom will patronize hotels, restaurants, and shops in these districts. Program Description • The CRA will participate as a sponsor for major events occurring at the Delray Beach Tennis Center. Events may include, but are not limited to, the International Tennis Championship tournaments, Planers International Youth Tournaments, and the Chris Evert Charity Tournament. • The City will provide the CRA with sponsor benefits. Benefits may include, but are not limited to, signage, booth space, media advertisements, and promotional materials. Program Participants & Administration • This program is to be primarily administered by the City of Delray Beach and the event providers. Funding Sources • The CRA provided an initial allocation of $500,000 of for the program in FY 2008/2009. • Additional allocations will be determined annually during the budget process or at the discretion of the CRA on an as-needed basis. Program Schedule • Sponsorship of City tennis tournaments was first implemented in FY 2008/2009 and is ongoing. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: October 20, 2008 AGENDA NO: V. C. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDING SECTION 3.11: SPONSORSHIP OF CITY TENNIS TOURNAMENTS. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to approve the proposed amendment to the Community Redevelopment Plan to add a section providing for the sponsorship of tournaments at the Delray Beach Municipal Tennis Center. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Delray Beach Municipal Tennis Center has been a critical component of the redevelopment of both the downtown's Central Core Area and the West Atlantic Redevelopment Area. Since the renovation of the site was completed in 1993, Delray Beach has become a competitive venue for major sporting events and tournaments. Events like the Chris Evert Charity Tournament and the International Tennis Championship tournament bring tens of thousands of people to downtown Delray Beach. Visitors attending these events also patronize area hotels, shops and restaurants, creating a substantial economic impact for our District. In 2008, the economic impact of these events was estimated to be approximately $8.5 million. While preparing the FY 2008/2009 budget, the City of Delray Beach requested that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) agree to contribute a $500,000 sponsorship to help offset the cost of site host fees for major tournaments held at the tennis center. The sponsorship will prevent the City from having to eliminate two job positions, due to significant budget cuts. The sponsorship has been included in the CRA budget for FY 2008/2009. The CRA will receive a set of benefits, including various marketing opportunities, in exchange for the contribution. The sponsorship supports the CRA mission, as well as the goals of the Downtown Master Plan, by helping the Tennis Center remain a competitive venue for major events. However, an amendment to the Community Redevelopment Plan is required in order for the CRA to provide the sponsorship. The CRA Plan was last amended in March, 2008. That amendment included a thorough update of many different components of the plan. The current amendment is on a much smaller scale, consisting only of the addition of the sponsorship program. RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve the proposed amendment to the Community Redevelopment Plan to add a section providing for the sponsorship of tournaments at the Delray Beach Municipal Tennis Center. Report Prepared By: Elizabeth C. Butler, Marketing & Grants Coordinator Attachment: ^ Proposed Amendment No. 3.11: Sponsorship of City Tennis Tournaments Background In 1992, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) agreed to contribute $481,000 to the rehabilitation of the City's Municipal Tennis Center. The rehabilitation project, which began in 1993, expanded the existing center and included the construction of a 3,000-seat stadium court, as well as additional courts and a pro shop. In 1993, Delray Beach successfully hosted the Virginia Slims national women's tournament, seeing a record 80,000 people attend over atwo- week period. Since that time, Delray Beach has hosted several major sporting events at the Tennis Center, including professional tennis and volleyball tournaments. Seating in the stadium has been increased to 8,200 seats. The events produce a positive economic impact for businesses throughout the downtown and the CRA District that grows over time. In 2001, the estimated economic impact of the International Tennis Championships was approximately $7.7 million, growing to an estimated $8.5 million in 2008. Intangibles such as media exposure and increased name recognition provide additional benefits for the city, the CRA District and its merchants. At the request of the City, the CRA agreed to provide $500,000 to help offset the costs of host site fees for tennis tournaments held at the Tennis Center in 2008. The additional funds would allow the City to continue to use the Tennis Center as a viable and competitive venue for professional tournaments and events. Program Objectives • Encourage the use of the Municipal Tennis Center as a venue for major sporting events and other entertainment activities. • Stimulate economic development within the West Atlantic Redevelopment Area and the downtown as a whole by attracting visitors and activity to a major public facility located directly within the area. • Promote economic development in the Central Core and Beach Area districts of the downtown by the sponsorship of tournaments that attract thousands of visitors, many of whom will patronize hotels, restaurants, and shops in these districts. Program Description • The CRA will participate as a sponsor for major events occurring at the Delray Beach Tennis Center. Events may include, but are not limited to, the International Tennis Championship tournaments, Players International Youth Tournaments, and the Chris Evert Charity Tournament. • The City will provide the CRA with sponsor benefits. Benefits may include, but are not limited to, signage, booth space, media advertisements, and promotional materials. Program Participants & Administration • This program is to be primarily administered by the City of Delray Beach and the event providers. Funding Sources The CRA provided an initial allocation of $500,000 for the program in FY 2008/2009. Additional allocations will be determined annually during the budget process or at the discretion of the CRA on an as-needed basis. Program Schedule • Sponsorship of City tennis tournaments was first implemented in FY 2008/2009 and is ongoing.