The URL can be used to link to this page

12-02-08 Agenda Reg ëØÖÈÑÜËúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏðØØÉÔÏÖ ëèñøê÷îëíèûñôúíüëéôúôíüéôîï éÈØÊÙÜÄùØÚØÐÛØË 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 ïÎÇØÐÛØË §ëØÖÈÑÜËðØØÉÔÏÖ ü íëîúñüðüéôîïê üïîïø íëøêøïéüéôîïê êÍÎÉÑÔÖÕÉÎÏøÙÈÚÜÉÔÎÏ§ñØÏÜæÜÑÑÜÚØíËÔÏÚÔÍÜÑúÜËÇØËðÔÙÙÑØêÚÕÎÎÑ ü úîïêøïéüöøïùü úÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØËëØÚÎÐÐØÏÙÊüÍÍËÎÇÜÑ õîñùõüëðñøêêüöëøøðøïé êø üÍÍËÎÇØÜÏÙÜÈÉÕÎËÔÃØØÅØÚÈÉÔÎÏÎ×Ü ü õÎÑÙõÜËÐÑØÊÊüÖËØØÐØÏÉÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØúÔÉÄÜÏÙæðÜÑÎÏØêÚÕÎÎÑØË×ÎËÉÕØÔÏÊÉÜÑÑÜÉÔÎÏÎ×Ü ÚÔËÚÈÑÜËÍÜÇØËÙËÔÇØÆÜÄÔÏÉÕØÍÈÛÑÔÚËÔÖÕÉÎ×ÆÜÄéÕØÍËÎÍØËÉÄÔÊÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉ êø úîïéëüúéúñîêøîèéúîïî ôîï û ôïúðüïöëîçøíüëòüÍÍËÎÇØúÎÏÉËÜÚÉúÑÎÊØÎÈÉúÕÜÏÖØîËÙØËïÎ ÑÔÏÉÕØÙØÙÈÚÉ ÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÏÉÎ× ÉÎæØÊÉúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏôÏÚ ×ÎËÉÕØÚÎÐÍÑØÉÔÎÏÎ×ðÜÏÖËÎÇØíÜËÒ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ öØÏØËÜÑ úÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏ÷ÈÏÙôÏÉËÜÚÎÜÊÉÜÑíÜËÒîÉÕØËôÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊ éøëðôïüéôîïî÷üöëøøðøïéúõôñùëøï«êêøëçôúøêúîèïúôñüÍÍËÎÇØ ú ÉØËÐÔÏÜÉÔÎÏÎ×ÉÕØÜÖËØØÐØÏÉÆÔÉÕÉÕØúÕÔÑÙËØÏ«ÊêØËÇÔÚØÊúÎÈÏÚÔÑ×ÎË×ÈÏÙÔÏÖÎÈËü×ÉØË êÚÕÎÎÑíËÎÖËÜÐÜÏÙÜÚÚØÍÉÜ×ÔÏÜÑËØÔÐÛÈËÊÐØÏÉ×ÈÏÙÔÏÖ×ËÎÐúÕÔÑÙËØÏÊêØËÇÔÚØÊúÎÈÏÚÔÑ ×ÎËÉÕØ×ÔËÊÉÌÈÜËÉØËîÚÉÎÛØË ÉÕËÎÈÖÕùØÚØÐÛØË üðøïùðøïéïî éîéõøùôêüêéøëëøúîçøëäôïôéôüéôçøüöëøøðøïéíüñð ù ûøüúõúîèïéäüÍÍËÎÇØüÐØÏÙÐØÏÉïÎ ÉÎÉÕØÜÖËØØÐØÏÉÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØúÔÉÄÜÏÙíÜÑÐûØÜÚÕ úÎÈÏÉÄ×ÎËùÔÊÜÊÉØËëØÚÎÇØËÄôÏÔÉÔÜÉÔÇØùëô×ÈÏÙÔÏÖÉÎØÅÉØÏÙÉÕØÙØÜÙÑÔÏØÉÎüÈÖÈÊÉ ×ÎË ÚÎÐÍÑØÉÔÎÏÎ×ÕÎÈÊÔÏÖËØÕÜÛÔÑÔÉÜÉÔÎÏÍËÎÓØÚÉÊ×ÎËÔÏÚÎÐØØÑÔÖÔÛÑØËØÊÔÙØÏÉÊÆÕÎÊÈ××ØËØÙÙÜÐÜÖØÊ ×ËÎÐõÈËËÔÚÜÏØæÔÑÐÜÜÏÙÜÑÑÎÆ×ÎËÊÜÑÜËÄËØÔÐÛÈËÊØÐØÏÉ ëøçôøæî÷üííøüñüûñøñüïùùøçøñîíðøïéûîüëùüúéôîïêüÚÚØÍÉÉÕØÜÚÉÔÎÏÊ ø ÜÏÙÙØÚÔÊÔÎÏÊÐÜÙØÛÄÉÕØñÜÏÙùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉûÎÜËÙÊ×ÎËÉÕØÍØËÔÎÙïÎÇØÐÛØË ÉÕËÎÈÖÕ ïÎÇØÐÛØË üæüëùî÷ûôùêüïùúîïéëüúéê ÷ íÈËÚÕÜÊØÜÆÜËÙÉÎúËÎÊÊðÜÉÚÕéØÚÕÏÎÑÎÖÔØÊÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÉÕØÍÈËÚÕÜÊØÎ×Ü ñÔÇØêÚÜÏ×ÔÏÖØËÍËÔÏÉÊÄÊÉØÐ×ÎËÉÕØíÎÑÔÚØùØÍÜËÉÐØÏÉ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ öØÏØËÜÑúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏ÷ÈÏÙûÎÎÒÊíÈÛÑÔÚÜÉÔÎÏÊêÎ×ÉÆÜËØ íÈËÚÕÜÊØÜÆÜËÙÉÎùØÇÑÜÏÙêÔÉØùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉôÏÚÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÊÑÈÙÖØ ËØÐÎÇÜÑÜÏÙÙÔÊÍÎÊÜÑ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ æÜÉØËÜÏÙêØÆØË êØËÇÔÚØÊîÉÕØËúÎÏÉËÜÚÉÈÜÑêØËÇÔÚØÊ íÈËÚÕÜÊØÜÆÜËÙÉÎùööéÜÊØËÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÉÕØÍÈËÚÕÜÊØÎ×ÉÆØÏÉÄ×ÔÇØ ÉÜÊØËÊÜÏÙËØÑÜÉØÙÍÜËÉÊ×ÎËÉÕØíÎÑÔÚØùØÍÜËÉÐØÏÉ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ öØÏØËÜÑ÷ÈÏÙîÍØËÜÉÔÏÖêÈÍÍÑÔØÊøÌÈÔÍÐØÏÉ ÜÏÙ êÍØÚÔÜÑíËÎÓØÚÉÊ÷ÈÏÙðÜÚÕÔÏØËÄøÌÈÔÍÐØÏÉîÉÕØËðÜÚÕÔÏØËÄøÌÈÔÍÐØÏÉ íÈËÚÕÜÊØÜÆÜËÙÉÎíËÎÐÔÈÐññúÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÍÈËÚÕÜÊØÎ×ÜñÜÛÎËÜÉÎËÄ ôÏ×ÎËÐÜÉÔÎÏðÜÏÜÖØÐØÏÉêÄÊÉØÐñôðê×ÎËÉÕØøÏÇÔËÎÏÐØÏÉÜÑêØËÇÔÚØÊúÎÐÍÑÔÜÏÚØ ñÜÛÎËÜÉÎËÄÜÉÉÕØæÜÉØËéËØÜÉÐØÏÉíÑÜÏÉ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ æÜÉØËÜÏÙêØÆØË÷ÈÏÙûÎÎÒÊíÈÛÑÔÚÜÉÔÎÏÊêÎ×ÉÆÜËØ ëøöèñüëüöøïùü êøëçôúøüèéõîëôãüéôîïïî ðîúòëîîêüêêîúôüéøêúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑÎ× ü êØËÇÔÚØüÈÉÕÎËÔÃÜÉÔÎÏïÎ ÉÎðÎÚÒëÎÎÊüÊÊÎÚÔÜÉØÊÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÙØÊÔÖÏ Î×ÉÕØôÏÉËÜÚÎÜÊÉÜÑæÜÉØËÆÜÄøÙÈÚÜÉÔÎÏÜÑíÜÊÊÔÇØíÜËÒ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ ôÏÉËÜÚÎÜÊÉÜÑæÜÉØËÆÜÄøÙÈÚÜÉÔÎÏÜÑíÜÊÊÔÇØ íÜËÒ ùøñôùüíüëòñüïùêúüíôïöüëéôêéôïëøêôùøïúäíëîóøúéúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑÎ×ÜÏ û ÜÖËØØÐØÏÉÆÔÉÕñÎÔÊûËØÃÔÏÊÒÔÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÉÕØªñÜÏÙÊÚÜÍÔÏÖüËÉÔÊÉÔÏ ëØÊÔÙØÏÚÄíËÎÓØÚÉ©ÜÉùØÑôÙÜúÎÐÐÈÏÔÉÄíÜËÒ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ êÍØÚÔÜÑíËÎÓØÚÉÊ÷ÈÏÙúÜÍÔÉÜÑîÈÉÑÜÄîÉÕØËôÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊ ü÷÷îëùüûñøõîèêôïöüùçôêîëäúîððôééøøëøíîëéúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑÎ×ÉÕØ ú ü××ÎËÙÜÛÑØõÎÈÊÔÏÖüÙÇÔÊÎËÄúÎÐÐÔÉÉØØüõüúëØÍÎËÉ ï÷ñäîèéõ÷îîéûüññ÷èïùöëüêêëîîéêíëîöëüðöëüïéõôññéîííøë ù êéüùôèðúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜËØÌÈØÊÉÉÎÍËÎÇÔÙØÐÜÉÚÕÔÏÖ×ÈÏÙÊÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÜÏÙ ÜÈÉÕÎËÔÃØÊÈÛÐÔÉÉÔÏÖÜÜÍÍÑÔÚÜÉÔÎÏÊ×ÎËÉÆÎÖËÜÏÉÊÔÏÜÏÜÐÎÈÏÉÈÍÉÎ ØÜÚÕÎ××ØËØÙ ÛÄÉÕØï÷ñäÎÈÉÕ÷ÎÎÉÛÜÑÑ÷ÈÏÙöËÜÊÊËÎÎÉÊíËÎÖËÜÐÉÎËØÍÑÜÚØÛÑØÜÚÕØËÊÔÏÊÉÜÑÑÜÏØÆÍÈÐÍ×ÎË ÔËËÔÖÜÉÔÎÏÜÏÙËØÊÎÙÉÕØõÔÑÑÉÎÍÍØËêÉÜÙÔÈÐÜÉÉÕØîÑÙüÉÑÜÏÉÔÚêÚÕÎÎÑÊÔÉØ üííøüñêôéøíñüïëøçôøæüïùüííøüëüïúøûîüëù ø üúéôîïêûîêéîïêëøêéüèëüïéúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÉÔÎÏÎ×ÜÏÜÍÍØÜÑËØÖÜËÙÔÏÖÉÕØêÔÉØíÑÜÏ ëØÇÔØÆÜÏÙüÍÍØÜËÜÏÚØûÎÜËÙ«ÊÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑÎ×ÜúÑÜÊÊçêÔÉØíÑÜÏ×ÎËÜõÎÉØÑÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉ êîÚØÜÏ ûÎÈÑØÇÜËÙ ûøúüèêøî÷éõøúîèëé«êîëùøëùüéøùóèñä éõøëøæôññûøïî íèûñôúúîððøïéîïéõôêôéøðüííñôúüïéõüêëøìèøêéøùíîêéíîïøðøïééî óüïèüëä ëøöèñüëðøøéôïö íèûñôúõøüëôïöê ùøçøñîíðøïéüöëøøðøïéçôêéüùøñðüëññú÷ôëêéíèûñôúõøüëôïö ü úÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÙØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉÜÖËØØÐØÏÉÆÔÉÕçÔÊÉÜùØÑðÜËññúÜÏÙÜÊÊÎÚÔÜÉØÙúÑÜÊÊçêÔÉØíÑÜÏ×ÎË ÉÕØÍËÎÍØËÉÄÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉ êÎÈÉÕîÚØÜÏûÎÈÑØÇÜËÙ üííñôúüïéõüêëøìèøêéøù íîêéíîïøðøïééîóüïèüëä ëøöèñüëðøøéôïö üðøïùðøïééîéõøùøçøñîíøë«êüöëøøðøïéúüïïøëäëîæññúúÎÏÊÔÙØË û ÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑÎ×ÉÕØÜÐØÏÙÐØÏÉÉÎÉÕØúÜÏÏØËÄëÎÆùØÇØÑÎÍØË«ÊüÖËØØÐØÏÉÉÎÍËÎÇÔÙØÉÕÜÉÉÕØÍÜËÒ ÑÜÏÙÙØÙÔÚÜÉÔÎÏÚÎÏÙÔÉÔÎÏÕÜÊÛØØÏÊÜÉÔÊ×ÔØÙ úîððøïéêüïùôïìèôëôøêîïïîïüöøïùüôéøðê÷ëîðéõøíèûñôú ôððøùôüéøñä÷îññîæôïöíèûñôúõøüëôïöê üúÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØËÊËØÊÍÎÏÊØÉÎÍËÔÎËÍÈÛÑÔÚÚÎÐÐØÏÉÊÜÏÙÔÏÌÈÔËØÊ û÷ËÎÐÉÕØíÈÛÑÔÚ ÷ôëêéëøüùôïöê üïîïø úîððøïéêüïùôïìèôëôøêîïïîïüöøïùüôéøðê üúÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØË ûúÔÉÄüÉÉÎËÏØÄ úúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏ úÑÎÊØÙüÉÉÎËÏØÄúÑÔØÏÉêØÊÊÔÎÏ ðøðîëüïùèð éîðÜÄÎËÜÏÙúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏØËÊ ÷ëîðëÜÏÙÜÑñòËØÓÚÜËØÒíøñøøùüíúÔÉÄøÏÖÔÏØØË ëÔÚÕÜËÙúõÜÊÒÎíøøÏÇÔËÎÏÐØÏÉÜÑêØËÇÔÚØÊùÔËØÚÉÎË éõëîèöõùÜÇÔÙéõÜËÙØÏúÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØË ùüéøïÎÇØÐÛØË üöøïùüôéøðüëøöèñüëúîððôêêôîïðøøéôïöî÷ùøúøðûøë êèûóøúé õîñùõüëðñøêêüöëøøðøïé êø ëùêéëøøé ôéøðûø÷îëøúîððôêêôîï üÍÍËÎÇÜÑÜÏÙÜÈÉÕÎËÔÃÜÉÔÎÏ×ÎËÉÕØðÜÄÎËÉÎØÅØÚÈÉØÜõÎÑÙõÜËÐÑØÊÊüÖËØØÐØÏÉÆÔÉÕæðÜÑÎÏØ êÚÕÎÎÑØË×ÎËÉÕØÔÏÊÉÜÑÑÜÉÔÎÏÎ×ÜÚÔËÚÈÑÜËÍÜÇØËÙËÔÇØÆÜÄÔÏÉÕØÍÈÛÑÔÚËÔÖÕÉÎ×ÆÜÄ ûüúòöëîèïù éÕØÎÆÏØËÎ× êø ÈÚÉÜÚÔËÚÈÑÜËÙËÔÇØÆÜÄÜÑÎÏÖÉÕØêø ËÙêÉËØØÉ ËÔÖÕÉÎ×ÆÜÄúÔËÚÈÑÜËÙËÔÇØÆÜÄÊÜËØËØÌÈÔËØÙÉÎÛØÚÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉØÙÚÎÐÍÑØÉØÑÄÎÏÍËÔÇÜÉØÍËÎÍØËÉÄÛÈÉÔÏ ÉÕÔÊÚÜÊØÉÕØËØÔÊÔÏÊÈ××ÔÚÔØÏÉËÎÎÐÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØÕÎÈÊØÜÏÙÍÈÛÑÔÚËÔÖÕÉÎ×ÆÜÄÉÎÚÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÉÕØØÏÉÔËØ ÚÔËÚÈÑÜËÙËÔÇØÆÜÄÎÏÍËÔÇÜÉØÍËÎÍØËÉÄéÕØËØ×ÎËØÉÕØÍËÎÍØËÉÄÎÆÏØËÕÜÊÜÖËØØÙÉÎÊÔÖÏÜõÎÑÙ õÜËÐÑØÊÊüÖËØØÐØÏÉÆÕÔÚÕÆÔÑÑÜÑÑÎÆÉÕØÍËÎÍØËÉÄÎÆÏØËÉÎÚÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÉÕØÚÔËÚÈÑÜËÙËÔÇØÆÜÄÍÜËÉÔÜÑÑÄÔÏ ÉÕØÍÈÛÑÔÚËÔÖÕÉÎ×ÆÜÄÛÈÉÜÑÊÎÖÔÇØÊÉÕØúÔÉÄÉÕØËÔÖÕÉÉÎËØÐÎÇØÜÏÄÍÜËÉÎ×ÉÕØÚÔËÚÈÑÜËÙËÔÇØÆÜÄ×ÎË ÚÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏÎ×ÊÔÙØÆÜÑÒÊÎËÎÉÕØËÍÈÛÑÔÚÔÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊ ëøúîððøïùüéôîï êÉÜ××ËØÚÎÐÐØÏÙÊÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑ ÷ÄÔÓÚÓÈ©û¨ úðûîñîóùôíðééçúðèð÷ééå öèðè ð÷ééî öèíöå öè é öèíöå öè ìùî û ÊØ é÷ éÈÊ××È ø×ÐÊÛÃú×ÛÙÔöð ðøðîëüïùèð éîðÜÄÎËÜÏÙúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏØËÊ ÷ëîðúÜËÎÑÜÏÏØòÈÚÐØËÎÆÊÒÔúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏðÜÏÜÖØÐØÏÉéØÚÕÏÔÚÔÜÏ ëÔÚÕÜËÙúõÜÊÒÎøÏÇÔËÎÏÐØÏÉÜÑêØËÇÔÚØÊùÔËØÚÉÎË éõëîèöõùÜÇÔÙéõÜËÙØÏúÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØË ùüéøïÎÇØÐÛØË üöøïùüôéøðûëøöèñüëúîððôêêôîïðøøéôïöî÷ùøúøðûøë êèûóøúé úîïéëüúéúñîêøîèéúõüïöøîëùøëïî îïêéëèúéôîï ôïúðüïöëîçøíüëò ôéøðûø÷îëøúîððôêêôîï éÕÔÊÔÉØÐÔÊÛØ×ÎËØÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÉÎÜÍÍËÎÇØÜúÎÏÉËÜÚÉúÑÎÊØÎÈÉúÕÜÏÖØîËÙØËïÎ ÷ÔÏÜÑÔÏÉÕØ ÏØÉÙØÙÈÚÉÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÉÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÉÎæØÊÉúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏ ôÏÚ×ÎËÉÕØÚÎÐÍÑØÉÔÎÏÎ×ÉÕØðÜÏÖËÎÇØíÜËÒíËÎÓØÚÉ CITY ®F DELRAY BEACH CHANGE ®Ri)ER 'I`® ®RIGINAL, C®NTRACT CHANGE NO. 3/Final Contract Claseout) PROJEC`T' NO, 2001-0(17 DATE: PROJECT TITLE: iV~Iangrove Park TO CONTRACTOR: West Canstruetion, Inc. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO MATE TH.E FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT AND TO PERFORM THE WORK ACCORDINGLY, SUBJECT TO ALL CONTRACT S"I'IPULATIONS AND ' COVENAIV'TS. JUSTIFTCATTON: Complete changes to project per the attached Schedule "A". SUMMARY OF CONTRACT AMOUNT ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $2,113,643.92 COST Op' CONSTRUCTION CI-TANGES PREVIOUSLY ORDERED $236,981.10 ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER 52,354,585.02 COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES THIS ORDER ($I I6,833.I7) ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING THI5 CHANGE ORDER $2,233,751.$5 PERCEN'T' DECREASE THIS CHANGE ORDER 5.52% TOTAL PERCENT INCREASE TO DATE 5.158% CERTIFIED STATEMENT: I hereby certify that the supporting cost data included is, in my considered opa.nion, accurate and that the prices quoted. are fair and reasonable. West Constructian, Inc. (Contractor to sign & seal] TO BE FILLED OUT BY DEPARTMENT INITIATING CHANGE ORDER ~urldit~g is available from aceour~t: DEPARTMENT FUNDING DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA by its City Commission RECOMMEND: Environmental Services APPROVED: City Attorney By: CERTIFIED BY Mayor ATTEST; B y: City Clerk S'~,EngAdxninlProjects'Q001-+.20D1-007'~,OFFIC9AL.`,C(53 Finn] West GC 120208.doc SCIIEAUI.E "A'• TO CHANGE ORI3Eli 1010.31 F1NAL WEST CONSTRUCTION, INC. MANGRDVI;: PARI{ PRO.IECT #2001-007 CONTRACT AWARD CDIVTRAC"1' TD DATIE rr>/rvt UNIT EST. UNIT EXTENDED ACTUAL U:NTT EXTEND;CD QIIANT AI).I. rvo. DESCRIPTION T5'. PRICE ~ TDTALPIPICE QTY. P]RICE TOTAL PRICE +/- I Site Mobilization LS 1 .$280,000.00 $ 280,000.00 1 $284,DOO.DO $ 2$4,OOD.00 50.00 2 'vlaintenastcenf"Traffic IS 1 $I8,D00.00 $ 18,004.00 1 $ 18,000.00 S 18,000.00 $D.04 3 Clearing & Grubbing Acres 2.5 56,380.00 $ 15,950.DD 2.50 $ 6,3$0.00 $ 15,950.00 $0.00 4 Embankment CY 9,130 $10.5fl 5 95,865.D0 8,618.5 5 1D.50 $ RQ,494.25 ($5,370.75) 5 13xcat~ation C~' 310 $5.80 $ 1,798.00 3'10 $ 5.80 5 1,798.00 $D.00 6 Stormwater Type "C" Inlet EA 4 52,726.OD $ 10,904.00 4 $ 2,726.00 $ 10,904.00 $0.40 7 4' Diameter Manhole - Stonn EA 1 ,^.53,712.00 $ 3,712.00 1 $ 3,712.4D $ 3,712.D0 50.00 8 Control St~~cture-'Type"C" E.A 1 $3,132.00 $ 3,132.00 1 $ 3,132.00 $ 3,132.04 $0.00 9 15"RCP LF 195 558.00 $ 11,314.04 195 $ 58.00 $ 11,310.OD $0.00 1 S"CAP wlManatee Bander (()utlall 1D pipe section from the Control I.,F 12 $151.40 $ 1,$12.00 i7 S 151.00 $ 2,567.fl0 $755,OD Structure) 11 18° RCP LP 996 $G4.OD $ 63,744.D0 589 $ 54.4D $ 37,G96.40 (S2G,048.04}; l2 Type "D" Curb FI. 1,920 $14.00 $ 26,880.00 1,912 $ 14.00 S 26,768.00 (5112.04)' t 3 T e "F" Curb FL 108 $20.00 $ 2,1 h0.4fl 102 $ 2fl.00 5 2,040.00 ($120.06) 14 12" Stabilized & Coznpacted Sy 8,130 $5.40 $ 40,650.OD 7,585 S 5.60 $ 37,925.00 ($2 725.00) Subgrade (FBV 75) , 15 12" Limerock Base (Includes prime SY 3'75 $25.40 $ 9,375.00 433 $ 25.00 $ 10,825.6© S1 45D.40 coat) - US 1 ROW , IG 8" I.,imerock Base (Includes prime SY 7,614 $14.00 $ 106,596.00 6,811 $ 14.DD $ 95,354.00 {$1 I,242.OD) 17 3-112" Asphaltic Concrete (S-3) SY 375 $34.D0 $ I2,75fl.00 424 $ 34.00 $ 14,416.OD $ 3 ,666.00 , I8 1-112" Asphaltic Concrete (S-3} - SY 7.h14 513.00 $ 98,982.00 6,723 $ 13.00 $ 87,399.OU (511,583.00) Placement in 2 lifts 19 ]'avers wIl-51$"Sand Leveling SF 535 512.pfl $ b,42p.60 279 $ 12.00 5 3,324.04 ($3,49fi.DD) Course & Plowable Fill 20 T'lterrnaplastic Pavesnent Marking LS 1 $4,350.00 $ 4,350.00 1 $ 4,350.fl4 $ 4,35D.00 50.00 and Sirnal;e 21 Wheel Stops EA 16 529.40 $ 290.00 IO $ 29.00 $ 290.Of1 $0.04 22 5' Wide Concrete Sidewalk (4" thick) LF 750 $25.00 $ 18,756.00 605 5 25.00 $ 15,125.06 ($3,625.04) ineC. Taatile Surface 23 6" DIP WM, 12" x b" tapping sleeve, LS 1 $25,520.D0 5 25,52p.00 I $ 25,520.fl0 $ 25,520.00 $0.00 2-6 RSGV 24 Sanita N{anhale, Fracne & Lid EA 2 54,176.00 $ 8,352.Qfl 2 $ 4,t 7G.U0 $ 8,352.04 k0.00 ' 25 8" Gravity Sewer -tie-Into existing LF 296 $74.00 $ 2Q720.D0 296 5 70.60 $ 20,720.00 $4.fl0 manhole included 26 cr Servicewlsneterbox &: ItPL LS 1 $2,088.00 $ 2,088.00 mml __ $~ 2,088.00 5 2,088.00 $0.00 BFP 27 G" Sanitary Lateral wIC.O. I3A 1 $1,624.40 $ 1,624.00 1 S .1,624.00 $ 1,624.00 $O.D6 Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. b" 2$ RSGV} 90 degree Bend & Sample EA 1 $3,944.00 5 3,944.DD 2 $ 3,9+4.00 5 7,888.00 $3,944.00 Pornt ~ HydranC Traffic Barrier L-Nall, FOOT Index 29 410, w/transitions Road & Bridge LF 187 $11b.00 $ 21,692.60 155 $ 115.D0 5 17,980.00 ($3,7I2.04)~ Construction Parapet w/handrail, FOOT Index 800 & $G0; FOOT Index 470, 34 wltransitions; 15" hinGh Almninutn LF 98 $160.40 5 I5,680.4D 103 $ 164.00 $ 16,480.OD $800.44 . Railing; Rd. & Bridge Construction; ' 2006 Bridge Design Standard Page 1 Schedule A to CO 3 Final West GC 1202108.xfs TO C1-IANGE aR13ER NO. 3 ~ ~'TNAL WEST CON;9TRUC,TION, INC. MANGROVE PARK PROJECT #2001-007 CONTRACT AWARD CONTRACT TO DATE t~rrnt tvo. . _ _ 131aSCRIPTIflN UNIT EST. TY. UNIT PRICE EXTENDED TOTAL PR1CE ACTUAL QTY. UN1T PR1CE EXTENllEb TOTAL PR1CE QUANT ADJ. ~" ~ - 31 Sheet Pile Sea Wall w1C`ap, Curb, and Barrier, P11OT Index 72f1, Concrete Traffe Barrier, FDC)T Index 410, w/transitions, Road & Bridge Construction; 2006 Bridge Design Standard 1,F 348 $750.00 S 261,400.00 343 $ 750.00 $ 257,250.0[} $3,750.00) 32 Sheet Pile Sea Wall wlC,ap at 13aat Ramps LF 9S $98fi.04 $ 93,6'70.00 95 $ 98b.DD $ 93,670.00 $O.Ofl 33 Dead man:'tnchors 1rA 2 $1,740.00 $ 3,480.00 4 $ 1,744.40 S - ($3,4$D.40} 34 Boat Ramps (fneludes sheet pile eofferdatn, rip-rap at ramps) 1,S 1 $1.$7,920.04 .$ 187,920.t1D 1 5187,924.00 $ 187,920.00 $O.Ot) 35 Rip-Rap Repair at Fast Ind Sea Wall w/Mirafi Fabric LF 1300 56.50 $ 8,450.04 1 SD $ 6.50 $ 975.00 (57,475.D0} 36 Bottom Dredgin6 C'Y 411 570.DD $ 28,770.00 411 $ 70.OD $ 28,770.00 $0.00 37 ~'erticalConcretePatlr/Repair3"~~ depth 5F 780 532.04 5 24,9b0.0f) 162 $ 32.C?D $ 5,184.00 (S19,776.00} 38 Stagin Doekswl ilex LS 1 $18,328.00 5 18,328.00 I $ 18,328.40 $ I8,328.00 $0.40 39 Buoys Pile Systems C,S 1 830,880.40 5 20,884.00 1 $ 20,884.40 $ 20,880.D0 $0.00 40 Erosion Control Fabric SF 15,9(]0 $3.16 $ 18,444,00 5,2U0 $ 1.16 $ €i,D32.D0 (S12,412.00) 41 8' High Precast Panel Wall (South Wall) LF '712 $176 04 $ 125,312.00 703 $ 176.00 5 123,728.04 ($1,584.00) 42 Restroo~n I3uildin * LS I $1'24,400.64 $ 124,OOO.DO I $120.000.00 $ 120,000.00 $0.00 43 S'te Electrical (including Site Lighting) LS I $6=1,034.00 5 64,034.00 I $ 64,034.40 $ 64,034.00 $0.00 44 lrri anon S stean LS i $24,070.U0 $ 24,470.04 1 $ 24,070.OD $ 24,070.00 $fl.04 45 Entry Gate LS 1 $6,40D.04 $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,044.D0 5 b,D0U.D4 $0.00 46 Bike Rack EA 1 51,000.00 $ i,000.Ofl I $ I,OOO.OD $ 1,004.00 SO.OD 47 Aiuaninuzn Rai]ing -42" High I,F 276 $36.00 $ 9,936.U0 27 $ 36.00 $ 972.00 ($8,964.00) 48 Alu~ninrun Railing -1 S" High above cast wall LF 97 $35.Ofl $ 3,395.4fl 103 $ 35.00 $ 3,605.40 $210.00 49 eBich) hes & Trash Receptacles (3 FA 3 52,300.00 $ 6,ID0.00 2 $ 2,300.40 5 4,Gfl0.00 {$2,300.fl0) 54 Park Sign L5 I $11,600.04 S 11,604.04 1 $ t I.600.40 $ 11,600.OD $D.00 51 Park Signage: Warning, Safety, Preserve, Manatee Zoua, Sea Grass LS 1 $3,OD0.04 $ 3,4D0.04 1 $ 3,OOO.OD $ 3,[#00.00 $0.00 s2 Siwnage Allov~'ance - 10 Educational LS 1 57,500.00 $ 7,SOO.DD 0.50 $ 7,5DO.DD S 3,750.D0 ($3,750.00) 53 (sreen Buttonwood F.:A 41 $261.00 $ 10,701,D0 4] $ 261.04 $ 14,741.D4 50.00 54 Silver Buttonwood I;A ]fl $261.D0 $ 2,610.00 10 $ 261..00 $ 2,610.00 50.00 55 Live Qak EA l7 $290.40 5 4,93UA4 17 $ 290.04 $ 4.930.40 50.00 5G Sabal Pahn EA 23 5186.00 $ 4,278A0 23 $ 18b.04 $ 4,278.C10 ,SO.DO S7 Sea C3xcye Daisy IA 864 $4.(15 5 4,417.60 8b4 $ 4.65 5 4,D17.60 $0.00 58 Cbcoplnrn Pledge EA 7a9 $14.0(? 5 7,394.04 739 $ 14.C}4 $ 7,390.OD 50.00 54 Creeu Island EA 127 Sl 1.64 $ 1,473.20 127 5 11.60 $ 1,473?0 SO.OD 60 Dune Suc~flowar EA 1,298 54.35 $ 5,646.30 1,298 $ 4.35 S S,G46.3D $0.00 61 Spider Lily LA 1,027 $4,35 $ 4,4fi7,45 1,027 $ 4.35 $ 4,467.45 $OAO 62 Lhuarf Yaupon EA 257 510.[xl $ 2,570.00 257 $ 10.00 $ ?,57D.00. 50.40 G3 Railroad Vine EA 4l 8 $S.4Cl $ 2,"57.20 418 $ 5.4{) $ 2,257.20 $0.40 64 Shore Juniper EA 2,102 $4.65 $ 9,?74.34 2,142 $ 4.bS S 9,774.30 $D.DD (iS Red Mangrove BA 56$ $12.75 $ '1,242.00 568 $ 12.75 5 7,242.00 $0.00 66 Muh1y Grass EA 143 $4.65 $ 6b4.95 143 $ 4.65 $ 6b4.95 $fl.40 67 Native Sward Fem 1rA 68 $4.65 $ 316.24 68 $ 4.65 $ 316.20 50.00 68 Seashore Paspalum BA 4,864 $1.75 $ 8,512.00 4,864 $ 1.75 $ 8,512A0 $0.00 69 Sea Purslane EA 642 $A,6S $ 2,985.30 642 $ 4.65 $ 2,985.34 50.00 Page 2 Schedu€e A to CO 3 Fina€ West GC t202108.x1s SCHEDULE "A" 'T'fl Ck1ANGE ORDER N®. 31 T+INAL WEST CflNSTRUCTIflN, INC. 11~lANGROVE PARK PROJEC'T' #2001-007 CONTRACT AWARD CONTRACT "I'O DATE tT~yz ,.~.~.,~.~. TJNIT EST. UNIT EXTENDED AC1'IJAI. UNIT EXTENDED QUANT ADJ. ~o. DESCRIPTION Ty, PRICE 'T'OTAL PRICE QT~'• PRICE TOTAI. PRICE ~" ~ 70 Necklace Pod )wA 2D3 $1 1.60 $ 2,354.8fl 203 $ 11.60 $ 2,354.80 $D.DO 71 Salt meadow Cardgrass 1/A 986 $11.60 $ 11,437.bD 986 $ 11.60 $ 11,437.60 $0.00 72 Bay Cedar EA 278 $16.25 $ 4,517.50 278 S 16.25 5 4,517.50 $4.OD 73 Bahia Sod SF 13,123 $0.24 $ 3,149.52 13,123 $ 0.24 $ 3,149.52 $O.OD Trey Protection /Preservation 74 Indicated on sheet L-1 to remain I..S 1 $10,00fl.00 S 10,ODD.DD ] $ 14,400.00 $ tD,000.OD $O.OD Deduct Alternate 1-Planting witkain 75 steep sloped areas per Section fl12300 LS 1 ($13,04D.D0) $ (I3,440.00) 1 $(13,000.()0) $ (13,004.40) SO.DO & Landscape 76 Video Allowauce LS l $2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 1 $ 2,OOO.DO $ 2,004.00 $0.00 77 Project Si =n 1,wS t $BDD.flO $ 800.00 1 $ 84D.fl0 $ 800.40 $0.00 78 Iitillty Allowance Breakd©wn Below; Pire Hvdranf Relocation i.S 0 $U.00 $D.flO 1 $ 900.04 $ 940.00 $900.Ofl Tenapozary Striping LS D $0.00 $0.00 1 $ 2,83I.22 $ 2,831.22 $2,831.22 Chain Link I~'ence at Restroom Building I S 0 $0.001 $O.DD 1 $ 1,037.94 $ 1,037.90 $1.,037.90 ConiIict Structure S-2 LS D $0.00 $O.flO 1 $ 4,639,87 $ 4,639.87 $4,b39.87 Asbestos Abatement on Retention LS 0 $D.00 $4.00 1 $ 5,013.85 $ 5,013.85 $5,013.85 Device I?roiect 2" telephone cable and add 5 ill " of subo=rade tnaterial at Turn lW5 fl $fl.fl0 $0.00 1 S 2,527.56 $ 2,S27.Sfi $2,527.56 Lane Bus Steelier Pad & Sidewalk Revisions LS 0 $0.00 $O.DD 1 $ 6,838.59 $ 6,838.59 $6,838.59 Removal & Replacement afpanel ai LS D $O.DO $O.OD 1 $ 1,595.79 $ 1,595.79 $1,595.79 Privacy Wall for FPL Vinyl Fence in lieu of 4?° Alurninuan LS 0 $0.00 $O.OD 1 $ (1,626.D0) $ (I,626.00) ($1 626.00) Rail , Remove Palm Trees at G~'est Propcirty LS 0 $U.00 $O.DO 1 $ 1,134.20 $ 5,134.20 $1,134,20 Line Added C aution Submerged Rock LS 0 $fl.00 $O.flO 1 S 573.60 $ 573.64 $573.H0 Signs per City request Total: IJtlllty Allowance/TJtllity Allow. Items/Litility Allow, Ad'. $ 24,000.00 ~ 25,466.58 $5,466.5$ Retention Device Removal 79 Allowance LS f $5,000.00 S S,OOD.OD 1 $ 5,D00.00 $ 5,000.00 $0.00 80 Indemnification LS I $10.00 $ IO.flO 1 5 lO.DD $ lO.OD $0.00 81 As-Buitis Record I?rawin =s LS I $5,84D.D0 $ 5,8f}0.00 1 $ 5,8D0.00 $ 5,804.00 $0.04 TO`T'AL ORIGINAL CONTRACT AWARD $ 2,113,603.92 $ 1,996,770.75 $ (116,833.17) C1IAR'G:Mr ORI]EIi'`lQ. I Removal & Replacement of Seawait and Redesign nf'Paaapet Wall; Bue to actual site conditions & restrictions on Mangroves 1 Removal & Replacement of Seawall LS 1 137 9 9 4 $ 137 939 45 7 4 at Boat Ramp $ , . 3 5 , . 1 ,939. $13 5 $ 137,939.45 510.44 ~ Redesign of Seawall (Parapet Wall) at LS l $ 68,329.8D $ 68,329.80 1 $ 63,329.80 $ b8 329.80 $0.00 Restroom Building , TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. I $ 206,261.35 $ 206,269.2_5 $0.00 Page 3 Schedule A to CO 3 Final West GC 1202108.xEs SCHEDULE "A" 'T'O CI-IANGE ORDER N0.3 1)~'INAL WEST CONSTRUCTION, INC. MANGROVE PARK PROJECT #2ool-oa7 CONTRACT AWARD CON'T'RACT TO DATE z~t~m UNIT EST. UNIT EXTENDED ACTI)AL UNIT EXTENDED QUANT ADJ. ~o. DESCRTI'TION TY. PRICE TOTAL PRICE QTY. PRICE TOTAL PRICE ~-! - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 Additional Scope; 1]uc to structural review of conceptual design o€ new seawall; after f nal soils analysis Add'i. scope/Design changes required: Revised Engineering; Increase length 1 of seawall by 37 it.; decreased pile LS 1 $ 5©,711.85 ~; 50,7I 1.85 1 $ 50,711.85 $ 50,711.85 5x.00 spacing; & increased anchurrad sy'stein; as a result of su~uctural a~eview. 2 Aeducc Credit for Aiternate Privacy EA t $ (20 OD0.40} $ (20,fl04.4Q} 1 5(20,000.0()) $ (20 000.00) $0.00 Wall , ;! U'i'AL C:HANC:1•v UIZUI•uK N V. 2 $ 3U,7II.85 $ 30,71T.85 $O.OU SUS-TOTAL INCLITDING PRE'VIOUSL'Y APPRC3VED CHANGE ORDERS NO. I & 2 $ 2,350,585.02 Original Contract e4vvard $ 2,193,603.92 Previousiy Approved Changes $ 236,981.10 7'gtal Awardl~,pproved to Date $ 2,350,585.02 i*inai Contract to Date $ 2,233,751.85 CI~ANG~ ORDER EEO. 3 ! i=11~AL $ {916,833.17) 2,233,751.85 $ (i1G,833.i7), Page 4 Schedule A to Ca 3 final West GC 1202108.x€s MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Linda Karch, Director of Parks and Recreation THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 21, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITH CHILDREN'S SERVICES COUNCIL ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approve a final 25% reimbursement funding from Children's Services Council for the first quarter, October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008, in the amount of $74,854.00. BACKGROUND Our 2008-2009 contract with Children's Services Council states that beginning October 1, 2008, CSC will start transitioning its afterschool funding to a rate-based reimbursement structure using the existing child care reimbursement system operated by the Early Learning Coalition of Palm Beach County. A letter dated October 16, 2008, from Tana Ebbole, Chief Executive Officer of CSC, states that the current contract with CSC will end on December 31, 2008 and the afterschool program will be transitioned to, and funded by, the Continue to Care Afterschool (CTC-A) program effective January 1, 2009. Original funding was for a full year in the amount $299,417.00. $74,854.00 reflects 25% of a full year funding with the remainder $224,563.00 transferred to CTC-A. Anew agreement between the City of Delray Beach and CTC-A is forthcoming. RECOMMENDATION Parks and Recreation recommends approval of CSC's funding up to the amount of $74,854.00 to close out their grant to us. Children's S~rv~~~s Coun~~ PALM BEACH COIJ NTY October 16, 2408 Mr. Rodger Ribeiro, Recreation Superintendent City of Delray Beach 50 NW First Avenue Dekay Beach FL 33dd4 Program: Chit of School Enrichment Dear Mr. Riteiro: 2300 High Ridge Road Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Main 561.740.7000 ref 800.333.1462 Fax 561.835.3956 www.cscpbc.org ContractNt~mber: X104 On September 9, 2008<you ware notified of CSC's decision to transition to a rate-based reimbursement structure using the existing child care reimbursement system operated by the Early Learning Coalition of Palm Beach County. This is your notification that your afterschaol program will be trat~sitioned to and be funded by the Continue to Care Afterschaol (CTGA) program effective Jauuary 1, 2009. Accordingly, your current contract with direct CSC funding will end on December 31, 2008. Family Central, Inc. is the Early Learning Coalition's vendor that will administer the rate agreement, enrollment, reimbursement, and monitoring processes. Family Central's staff will be contacting you shortly to schedule an orientation to review the CTC-A Rate Agreement and attendance and reimburserxaent processes. They will also arrange for enrollnent of families currently served ty your program. The CTC-A Rata Agreement with: Family Central, Inc. will be the legal document which. provides the basis for funding your afterschaol program. In addition, this transition will require that you close your books on this contract and submit your final reimibursement request to CSC by January 31, 2009. Please note that a CSC cIosenut audit must be completed prior to release of your f nal reimbursement check. Any disallowance not covered by your final reimbursement cheek would need to be repaid to CSC within 20 days of notice of disallowance. Throughout this process, your CSC Contract Manager will be working closely with you and Family Central's staff to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible acid to help facilitate the process. If you have any questions regarding the transition, please contact your CSC Contract Manager. eerely, f r+ ~ 1~ Tana ~~~~ OCT 2 2 2~~ Chief Executive Officer ... ~....... ,... .Y:.4 Expect SuCCe~S Cc: Martha Ly~zah, Ron Bazil, Beverly Beguesse, Leah Grater, Lee Petereit, CSC; Linda Karch, Director of Parks & Recreation; Sally Laws, Family Central, Imc. Christie Young, Warren Eldridge, Early Learning Coalition ..~M1 S:~ N ~ ` LCF TS L~ ~ A C .~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y= _ Q 1.,.•.- ~y;~e. ~ ~~ry~, ~ ~ IB ~ ~ ~ V i SIB !~. !IT tD (~ ~ a i ~J -1-+ ~ ~k~ ~ `~ LJ3 ~ _ La ~ A ~ s a~ ~.., ~ Q ~ O .b-. ~ ~ i LO ~ ~ t- +~-. .I.., T [ry O L;3 ~ Q. . V L ~~ ~ A ~ (~ ¢ ~ .F A ~ f ~ I • a (~ L .~ ~'~.yQ,:4 /~~ r~+ ~3 ~ ~ U N tlS N C ~ C U ~ EY3 L ^ D Q ~ W,+ N TS Q1 O [ ^ C ~ ~ Q L~ ~~ Q) ~ Q7 (13 ~ . ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ i"~o " Q m~ ~ ~i~ca ~ µ' ~~ a i ~ µ- o . ~ ~ ~ 'vs a } ~''~ ~ j .,~ cn ~ to ~ 4=- ~ -~ LlS ~ [,~ ~ ~- o w N ~ ~ ~ ;t] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O y h 'R"^~` ~ O N ~ ~ 'c s~r~ ~ U ~ ~ ~n ~ fl1~ ,F, ~ ~ '""" u~ ~ ~ m o t~ u3 ~~ U ~ ~ (u ~ ~ ~+ ¢ U fn ~ ~ ~ ~ p N L3 D ~ '~ ~ N t2. ~ {~ ~ ~ ~ "-~ ~ l~ ~ +~-. ~ ue ~ N ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ , s .. . ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ EYS C ~ ~ ~ '~ O U N ~ (SS _~ ki LS1 N ' ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ L1 ~ ~ ~ p U t:'3~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ at cn cn .,_. ~ rn ~~ _ ~ _ .... C) ~ ~~ ,~ C R ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ t0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~1~~ ~ ..,: ; Q ~ W ~ ~ L ~ ©" ( ry M ~ O `"'" l U ~ ` " ~ iS3 E- [S d ~'L ~ ( ~ - ~ fiL1 y ~ to 0 ... w • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ V 1... 7 ~ n ,~ ., . A 7 ~ -~ ~ U } ~ ~ ~ `F"~ VJ ~ ~ ~ (~ 0 ~ LIS ~ ~ ~ ~ O "Z'3 ~ LU ('" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- TS C (~ ~ ~ 4r TS G ~ N Q. .y ~ v ~ L.. L..~ A N ~ m ~C ~J i C~ Q ~ GL "S~ ~ (A q ~ ~ .fl Aqi ate. EL ~ ~ ~ ~ o L7] il, , -'.! fA ~ ~ `C7 "fS ~ Q`~ c~ ~ ~ _ o ~ ~ of ao c ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~° ~ V ~~ ~' Q L ' °a i ~ ~ to 4 ~, ~ A L o u i~ ~ - in ~ - ~ ~ :~. Q3 tV ~.-_-~~-°:. _-._. .~. __ .C_~_.... -s-~ p"T]. a .f~ ,.~ ~ ..{n_.~y.. ~....C3~...~,_ ..,. ~ TS ~_..~.. .. ~ .C_~_.r,~ p C to -~-' .~ .. _. :+ p._.Q. ~'- ~- _Q:.-~, ~"- =~3-- -° N f .. .. R1 U rA i p ~ '"" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ © - (~ C ~ y o ~ ~ N 4:3 TJ ~ o {ri LTf ' ~ - .~ to p O +• N f 1 '...e ~ .~ ,., ~ ~ sue, ~ ~ ,~ ~ LU Q ~ ~ CL c ._ ~ ~+ ~ ~ -' .,... ~ S ~ - U ? U zs ~ . C i Ql U3 w ~ La O ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~, LI ~ {,n , _ w- . .~ to 7+ to - L~F `Mi- C w N C (ll ,,,,, ro ~ U d ~ - -~-' o a-' L7? ~ to m ~ ' ~ .~ ~ o . U LS'f W •I~ '~ ",_, X O ~ .C ~+.' t31 "~ O N L ~ Q .« • ~, ~ U ,F- p o ~ 1:3. iii x.. ~'' (~,) 41 Q1 a ~ Ll. {{f ~ U Ca ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .fit] ~ [0 ~ ~ ~ .w ~ O A o 'T3 ~ ~ i-~-. ~'~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L3 tll ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O (~f U W ~ N ~ ~ o 'c LJ ~ ~ ~ ~ "" '~ ~ ~ O ~ s,..y Q) 1.. M- w ~ ~ ~ (U ~ ~ Q LL3 U Qa .~ ~ Uf ~} ~{j ~ (a ~ " " N to ~ ~ ~I/! L~ ~ L~ t~ - "~ ~ L ~ .~' w.+ L1.. cll T7] ~S N ~ ?C + ~ ~ ~ A ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^ (A~ ~ yam... ~ Y-~- ~ {n !}L- n~~ A ~ ~ A Q ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Q ~ / U . y . ~~ ~ ~ ~ .. , ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ .Y.+ ~ . ~ L9 . ~ . '? ~ ~ ( ~ ~"' V ~ ~ ~ ~ `F ~ ~ Ld fl3 ~ '~"' t1J ~- ~ ~ i -~ La O ~ LU .. G O If ~ "C+ ~ N ~ i ~ ~ fh G ~ [ ~ ' L ~ - L ~ :R ~ L Q3 L r n tl) m LA N ~ N rn ~, ~ }l (? cn as rn .._. ~ c ~ as . .. ~ ~ i a .._. o • • ~ ~ C ~ ~a'" C ~ ~ TS ~ '~ ~ fl ~'` O i C 4... i L A ~ ~ y" :W L. ~ Q1 ~ Q"6 TLS ~ ~ ~ ~ Q i ~ O Q ~! T] o ~~ ..... N^` A"•` ~ 'J ~ I 'J ~w+ U ~ A 5~. C7 Q Lts U {4 Q_ LJ _ ~ L~ LU .y..r ~ ` F-. Lit fU CO ~ .> ~ ~' i D ~.+ ~ L ~ A s.. A ti LU L w.~ LS L W N C C A t.. LJ !<I i ~ ~ ."""" .'~"... _ i TS f7] V ice. Q .~ ~ ~ - ~ Tf F- C 7 ~y ' ~`+. (,~ ~ (V ~ . ~ N "~ *) ' ' [f3 [[f t~ ~ ~ I~ cn ~ flb 'O to Oi b ~ ~ ~- Q r O c- ~-- N tnS;lx~ ~ [3 ~ N U [ L!3 LLi [(7 ~ . a .. ~n m cn ~~ c~ zo C? ~ G7 w ~ ~ O `~' Q ~N v~ !n N O ICD "f7 C7 t~ I ~ ~o C7 m X m .~ ~~ ~ C Q.. ro ~. su ro ~ ~~ ,~ o ~ ~ ~~ C1 N O m r~ V C7 E~ D -I t'rt m ~_ Z ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ `rl ~ °_ ~ ~7 O'~ ~~p ~ ~.~ ~ f ~ p ~ ~ ~ ca [TI mc° ~' ~ v~s~~0 ."W'Y ~ ~ S?°rn0~ ~ o ~ O o ~_ ~ N ~ ~ p~~j ~ Q N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -a Q cci ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ Vi p .A ~ ~ cs~~ro~ ~~' ~ a o ~,• :-, ~ - ~ o u~ .. - Ci ui ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ o ~. p Qro ~ro y ~ ccz ro ro -a m ~, ~ Ca ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ 0 a~a ~. rE .. ~ ~ ~ a pi co ~ ~ ~ ~ .~: ~ ~ ca.. m c ~' .~ ~ ~ -v o ~? ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ C3 O ~ ~ ~ ~ ro c ~ ~ ~' Q ~ ~~ N lG2 „- W S2a rn~ ~ p ~ Q -CJ ~ ~ ~ . D ¢7 ~ ~ O ~ --n ~ ~ Sll ~ ~ ~ N (D Z ~ ~ N '~{ a ~? ~ rr~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v O .-,. n ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ tJ ~ -a, ~~ O m~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ .p ~ ~ ~ ~ m O ~ ro ~ ~ ~ c ~c ~. c °. ~ ~ o ~ `~ ~ ~~~~. ~~~.m py O ~..mrn~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ CA ;-,. vroi m ~ ~ ~ r~i ~ ~ m a~-m~ O N ro C1? ~ © ~ 6' ~a~ -~. a a n --*. ~~~ ro ro o~o ~~~ -~ o ~ ~ (~ to ~ ~~ m ~ ~ p~-~ ro ~ ~ ~.-a ~ ~ ~ ~- m m ~- a ~+ _~ ~ n "C3 ~ ro ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-c~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ -~ ~~~] ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Q CG1 D, t/f ro n ~ ~ ro N ~ ~ ~'~G ~ .. ,~D b ~ a ~ ~ A3 ~. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ N "' ro ro ~ ~ ~ ~ n ,~ Q ~ n ~ ~ o m p ~' n ~, `~ n m ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~. ~ -, ~ ~ tin n ~ o m -, n ~ _ ?" O CD ~~ a ~~~ 0 m a. ~~ ~ ~ .--r x ~ ro n~ ~. ~ ~ ~ Q ~z. ~ m ~~ m o ~ ~ N o ~. 0 ~ ~ ~ m ~ a m ~_ rn m ~ ~ ~ ~.~ C_ _« ~. n ~ U] .5 ~ N C]. m uro+ ~ ~ ~ v, :,'h ro o ;o ~ O N ~ 4 ~~ CI7 "L7 N ? Q 7C' 'r'E (A ~- ~ ~ ©~© '.' ~ C m 3 ~ w ~' ~~n ~ ~ ~ r r* ~ w -' ~ ~ r~i ° ~~ ~~ r~ W ~ ~~ .t~. ~ ©o~~~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ - ~ ~ [ '") .--I .:..~ ~ ~ tCTI ~_ "~"I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O fT1 ~ c~i,7 ' ' m ©a o 0 (~ O ~ ~ L17 ~ `C ~ p W W"' ~ ~ N ~ © 's ~; ~ ro '' ' .~'3. ' ~ a R ~ O , ~ ~ ~ ~ C? ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ m a ro m ~7 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ©° ~n~~ ~ ©~ ~ °~~°z ~ ~ ~ D In~'I ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ O O ~' O ro C7 to m w ~ ~ _ ~ O N cb ~P 0~o p Oho r m Z N N m C rn (/1 O C Z n r rn O N Ili P1'I N `C C3 N `"~ C3 ~ ~' ~ (n to "~ ,(") °c ° 3 ~ o ~ ~ ~ o n ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ O` o ,., ~ ~ ~ i~ C ] ~ a ~ (D ~?. C7 Ln a D ~ c ~ ~. ~: ~' ~ ~ ~? ~ 'a -a ~ `gin -y ~ N ~ ~ ~ l~ ~Jl U) (Q ~ (u ~ -~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ CD ~~ -~-' ~_ ~" ~ ~. G ~ d ~ ~ ~ r-; r4r n' ~ ~ '~-'~ ~.. (3S ~ b ~ CU « ~ ~' rt ~~l CA CD ~ (D -~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ r« d ~ (CR fl iu ~ r~ - . Q O ~ O" p N ~ ~ ` N (R n AI W A ~~ L1. CU © ~ U; ' - ~ ~ ro ~ - c~ m ~ ~ Q c n' ~ ~ w ^*: , c~i w C fD ~ ~ -+ ~ ~ ~ ~. i1) -~+ U, ~ c, iii ~ . ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ rn ~u ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ c ~; ~. ~ 3 Q- ~ ~.. ~ ry- a ~. tV Q N ~ ~ '`' ~ Z'> ~ o " ~ - - ~ ~ LJ ~ ~1 E7 111 © c n p ,~, , raw ~ c t~, ~_ ~ ,~-r (D ~ IQ ~ C , 3 ~ ~ r~r ~ ~ ~ Ci ~: ~ ' Q- ~ " ~ ~' ~ _ h' ,~ = ~ ° o~ ~U a CD ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ iT[ - ~~ ~~ ~~ ~- ~, ~~ _T o -~ m v c7- - m ~ ~ © ~-,- N~ C~ lli l~ ~ t j ~ ~.,y -~ v, RS r-e~ ~ in CFA .- . CD .+ ~ Lp N ~ ~ c7i ~ -~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - u ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ n h c~ r~~ ~ 3 (~ -~ ~ Cy ~ ~ <~- ~F~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ D CC2 ~ ~iy rP ~ - C ~ ~ ~ N ~{ , ~ - , N ~ ~ (Q N ~ fl) " ~ ~_ ~'~'" ~ t~ -- ~ ~ C) ~ D D' ~ fS n -. t~ ED Q ~ r ~ ~~ a w U i R. L -~, o ~ ~ ~ n cEr ni G' m ~ ~ .,.,. ~ ~ ~ ~,' m ~ , n- ~' r- (D- O ~- r[~ ~ri- ~ m ~ m ~z~ =r ~ ~ ~, car; ~ ~ ' a7 r~ - ~ r; c~ '~; '~ 'm'` ~n- U'` ~"" V! v m Q v C O m D "`.~ rn rn m ."'~ n i~ cs W a N ~. 'N O 0 0 E~ '~ !~ 0 ~^ ro -~ v )C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~' -a ~ m: ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ n ~« -~ r~ r~ ~ vim o ~~~~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ n~ ~ ~ o `~ N -~s -„ ~ ~, O cn ~' ~ ~ n' ~ ~ ~ fl..~. ~ ;n ~~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~' ~ V ~ ~fi } ~~-y {-• 1: - Cp ~ "'~ ~. r ~ O ~u ~ -, ~' O {p Q~ ~ '~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C7 r~ ~:~ m n ~`., tA l` E'7 f!) ~ , ~~ti ro ° ~ ~' a a Q _.. O i ~~ Cl7 ~° ~ ~ ~ °_ ~ ~~' ~ ~ U~' ~ Q. Q Cu 7,'; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ,. o ~ ~ .. ~ ~~ r- ~; co a~o ~ o ~r^' ~ O _ r; m' z ~ cn ~t ~ m `~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ' O ~ ~ Lr ~"~: . N ~ fn (A D O ~ ~ O ~ ~,~ ~ ~; ~ ~ Ep t (D -, .~., ~ ~ .~ c~ ~ L,~~ N rl; ~ ~ ....~ ii ~ ~, _ pF . ~;' if ~ ~_ ~ ~ v ': m . {7 Q Cs C A {/J "3"1 ~ ~ ~ {/~; ~ ~ ~ n ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-,- n ~ ~ ro ~ o~° ~' a c r ~ m _ ~`= rn f O i ~ n ~u o v tv ~ w ~ ~ (p ~ ~,, ~ _ ~> ~ u' a, ~: CD C7 Ll in ~ ~" :-ti Q rt ~ (7, iL~ ~~~ ~ m u~ ~-~.y: ~ ~- o ~ ~ ci, ns ~ ~ .. ? D rn 7E7 C "t7 fl) ~/3 m m --~ ai ~ pf ro u, ~ ~ -' ~" o c o ro ~ m can ~ .~~. n c D ~ ~ ~ c ~_ ( ~- ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ En')' ~ ~\ n ~, C -' ~ Q "~ ~-~- n'~ ~, 0 ~; .-,. ~ ' ~ n ~ ~. ~r .~. ~. ~ v ~ o c ~. ~ ~ Q- v ' ni ~ ~ ~ , ? ~r~, ~ - ~n, NroKi, n, a ~n ~ta v ~~m ~~ ~ o ~ ° ~ ~~ ~ o ~ v ~ ~ ~ c ._. ~ ~ ~ ~ , ro m ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~m roo ~'~ % 'ro r~ ~ o~ ~ ~~~ ~~ a -o, Q m ~. ~~ ro ~ c , ~ m i ~ Q- ~ ~ ~. c ~ ~ ~ m = ~> ~ ~ ~ ~ o rn ~ ~ ~ nroi ~ ~ c o ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~,. . Ce w -~s o ~ ~. ro ~. ~ m C3 -~s sv ~ ~ o _, o ,..,. ~ n c ~ " v ro ro . Cp ~ ~ N ~ O ~ ro ~ N ~ ~ t p ~ ~ O N Lt5 ~ . ~. ~ ~ Q- , C P ~ ~ m Q ~ u ~ ~ , ~ . cP ~ ~~ ' o ~ C ~ _ ~~ n3 ~ Q ~.~ ~ ~ n. n a.~' ~~ . ro c~. ro ro~ ~~ a, ~ ~ ~ ~; ro ~ ~' m ~' ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~~ ~ ~ Al n Sit N tD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~" ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ Q c7 "O ~' ~ ~ C `~ ~ ~ n n ~ '' . ~ S2o 3 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro O '_ ~` p C 7 ro ~ ~ ~ n ~ .... -, n ~ c~ h -p ~ t1. GL LU ~ ~ C ~ ~. N ~ ~ ~ ~ O o ~~, m~ ~ ~N n mm ~~° ~ ~ ro`~ E ~ ~~ tD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ O • a p~ ~o ~ ~m ~ ~ n N~ ~~ ro ; ~ ~~° ~ ~~ N C ~~ ~~ ~ ~"' ro ^' ~ am ~ ro ~ C ~ fl1 QS ? C fD `C ED ( D .~ .-~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ sv ~, ~ ~ -o ~z, L, . O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• O -~ .p u7 ( €~ N c Cs -. ~. (D ~ ~7., cn ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~. (~s u+ O ~ ~' ~ a (A ~ ~ O Iv ~' 4.1 ~ ro _1 : r (~ ~~ n ~ ~ ro ~ ~ . ~ L 2>_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ' ~• ~ W ~ to .t ~ os cn ~ u~ in ~ to c o ~p ~ ~ ~- ° ~_ o c ~ ~ N fll ~ ro ~ i ro ~ ct~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ b' (6 n C rn m "'~ r~ n i~ 0 w .p w 0 3~ N O O o~ N O W I ~_ I~ 0 ~a rn m X r ~ ~ z ~ C) o ~ rn D ~ D . ra D C1 7 ~, ~~ ~' o co a n m r . o r». ~; ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ci O~° o ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ U7 J ~` ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ . N ~ ~ fl C/1 C" .'"''.i ~ ~ am '-'~ ~ .-r `c {A -~ ~D ~ ~,~' ~' ai~ o~ ~_~m~ • ~ fA (h fA QS - _ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~» cn ~; . ~~_ o n ~ ~ ~ g x.. °- 1 n m ~ m m ° ~ U~ , 1 f~ n 7C X' ~ s ~ r7 r7 '': {,~ iD tP 2 ro rt ...~, ' , n ~ ~ ~ ~'iTk~ ~ O O fl C3 O O ~ . o ~. ~ rr lil, m iii ~~ ~, ~ !: ~, «, },~,~. ~_. -_ ~ ~>'~co ~: a ~ w v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~' ~ ~ ~ ~ a i ~ ~ v ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ro -~ N ~ ~ ~ " ~ t n ~ -a' ~ ~ w ~ m ~ c~ ca ~~' tn. " m m O ~ ~ ~ C n p fll ~ _s (i7; t11 V1 O ~ _ ~ O ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `C-' ,mow: ~ ~ "C3 iv iU ~ ~ .-r Q ~ ~ ~ " C2. ~ i~ O C ~ ~ ~.; © 7 `~ ? (~D n , ~:~ () rw' O ~ :s% tt d. W ~. ~ ~ "[I 42 LT.. ~ ' ~ N ..Y °o ! ~' 0 rn O N m rn "t7 z C~ :C1 ?> 2 z (7 a ~ ~~ ~ m o c~ ~. o o ~ mm m~' rr[ ~ o ~ ~ rn ° m ~ c ~ ~ ~ c oc` -I' na ~ ~ o ° ~ro cm; p. ~ ~ ~ ~ x © ~~ ~rn' ` W rn ~ ~ CD ~ ~ rt ~ Rl C ~ ~ N -~ ~ Q ~ (~ O ~~ 'ITi ' N ~ ~ ~ N ~ rZa D CP S ' ' ;C l ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~ ~ O ~ , ice' ~ ~' ~ O p ~ m [Ti ' ~, U> Q ;: O -~ _" D ~ m a i ~ ~ Q ~ ~ m m ~. ~ _ ~• cn U> fn tn cn cn p cn ~ ~< c° ~C cn; D D D D D D ~- ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ c , fn cn to cn cn cn ~ cn ~ ~ ~ m 'n C') n ~ n C'3 C7 ~~ O ~.a ~.o 'rn: v v m m s~ ~a n a- ~cr ~c~ ~ m cn m cta ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~~ o~ ~ ~ a =• ~. -- ; : ~ (n Cb (A tD ' b ~ ~ O ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ fl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D O D .A N .~ rn ~ ru {~ C7 `cis ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~• ~• ~~ us to to ~ u, © -~ "~. 3 ~ ~ -, ~ 0 ,~. n n 1717 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ m m a -n -n C~7 (D (D A ~ (A ~ ~ ~ T n ...a ..a. ~ ~ O ~' C' O 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ Cis O ~* ~ ([~ ~' to ~ © N ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ N O ~j C:? q O A C D Z -~ D m c v_ m ...~ .-.a, a ._a. p -~ -a -~ o ~ • ro n_ cxs -x v, -~ ro ~^.. g rn . zs ns ~ cn ~ ro ~ w ro w - ~ ~s ~ c n ro ~ W -~ sv . -~ a cn -„ m . + n_ m n_ ~ x n ro ~ ~ m ~ © ~ ~ D ~ ~ Q y ~D ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ?' m © -~ ~ os ro ~ ~' . ~- ~ -~" < ~ a ~ ~' ~C ° C ~° n C °~ C Sts ~ Q. Q N ~ ~~~ ' o ~, a ~s ~~ ""' c O ~ ..« a u _ `~ :.+: C2. . ~ R. ~~ •~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~- N Q C70 ~ ~ ~ ~ [Q ~ ~ ro X a n t ~ r ~-" cy ~ c ~ ~. ~ ~ C o n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !U ~ ~ cD ro ~ ro a ro „ ,*, -~ o cn .-.. a m cs~ n~ ~- ro Q ~ ~~ •-~- Q v. m u, ro c s ~ ca " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'7 !11 f ~ "71 ~ ~ ~ D i3J ""Y ~ ( ) ~ ~ ~ : E'~ ~ V1 ( B ro ~ ~ n `C~ ~ py , ~ ro ~ ~ . ro ~ C - ~ O ~ . + ro , wrt ~ ~ , . o~ ~ ~-~ is -r~~ .-« ~ ~- ~ n~ . cQ -, ~a ro~ ~ n ~n~a..~ ~.~ ,..,. ~«~..n . ~~ ~, ; m a ~•rs~6 _ w ~ a ' v n ~ Q ~ m ~~ ~ cQ ~ ~ cn x 3 `n ~ ~ ~ ~3 ° rn ~' n. m ° ~ -*~ v ci ~ ro ~ ~ ~' ' ~ m 'a o v , ~ ~ ro cn ~ . ro ro v -~ w roc rv ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~m ro 3~ci' ~ ._, ~ a ~ °- ~ -v ~ ~ 3 ° ~. sv to ~t7 ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ .~ s . ~. ~7 ro c ~ c€sD ~ c o0 o ,-~ m ~~ ~ ~ 3~ n ~ nm n ~ E ~ -, ~ ~.*mcn ro ~ °~ ~ ~ rom ~ n ~ ~- ~ n ~ a h ~ __ ~~ (D cs Q a oro . ~,. ~~, w¢- C~ c ~ rnC1 a ~ a m n ~ N c~ ~ ~ m -v ~ cn 3 ro c ~ a -r'E .-+ ~ a to ~ ~ ~ c~ ~, Q ~ 1 ~ ~ ' n N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ro tam m ro ~ C° n ~~s '~Dn o a .~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~~ , ~m o~ Oro m nQ- maw ron~. v~ ~Dron ~ci. ,~:rn .~ o.in~-~ , ~ ~ om ~ V ~ ~ c N ~ ~ p - s ~p ~ ° C3 ~ ,~ ~' ~ ~ ~- ro ~ ~ " a Q ~ cn '~"~ m `~ ~ c ~ m .... ~: ` p- ~ _ ~. ~ h v ~ zs v, ~ ~ ~ ttx ~- -* ~ .,,~ M, ~ ,g C ro O ~ ~ m ~~ ~n ro ~~ n'~z ro `~' ~ ~~rsm ~ ~ ~~ ro ~~~•~ :v: , ' ~ a . ro~ m~, m r sm • a s n L] . ~ ~a ~ . ~s-m~ Cf U1 .-r Q a U3 ~" "~s ~ ~ ° (~. N ~ . C2. -5 • ~ m ~ ro C ro ° ro ~ U! ~` t? n o v n ~ a m o ~ ~ n .~. ~ - o - cn m . ~ ~, C3 v n ~ U' ~ ~ -a --+ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ c ro m ~ ~ ~ -, .-« a o ro ro n c~ o ~ C~ rW C"3 ~ ~ cn n cc~ ~ ~' o ~ m ~. cc~ ~ m .. . fn N c~. cn C~ -~ t~ m -c~ ns ns a (/J ~; ~ o ci ~ ~. r} ~ ro ~~ _ i ' `e , . ~~~- ~:~ ~ ~~a ~•~ _ ~~ ~, `o~ °o ~ '. emu, .-.. ~ c> 3 ~ ~ rn a n rn ~ ~ Q ~- ~ m ~ Q - ~ c~ ~ cn' '~ ~ n - ro ~ ~ , ~_; --« ~ , ~ N ~ ro ~ O ~ a' . ~ ro a Q - - fP j' t n . ~ ~ O ~ .~ ro ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~ O r ro~ ' " cz~ ro a ~ro s ~ a.==.,~n ~o a ~ ~ z `~ ~~ ~ s C~~ Q ~ o~ro ~-~ ~ Q•~,~. roro ~ ro moo O am z'- C7 ~' ~'oro ~ ° ' roc ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ Q~ roo ~' ~ n~~' ro o m ~ - cs3 ~ ~m ro c ~ m. ~ `~ `~7, ' - ' ~ ~~ ~ , ~ sv , ~ ~ u ~ Q ~ ~N D ~ ~~a ~~ ° s ~.~a v rom a h~ c ~ ~ ~ c~ n~i .~ ~ ~ C° as ~' snis m rs ~ ~ a v o a (~ ~ cn ~' _ ° m °a ~ ro -~ ' ~' n ro mom m ~N ~ ~ ~ -~ `° ~ ~ scam ns rn co c ~ ~ ~ ©~ ~- ~ ro ~. ~ m ~ a ~ ro ~- n ca„ in m .~-. ~- ~ ~. b x• x ~' ~ ~- ~ -~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~'~ f7 Q Q v c ---t N ~ e ~ ro ~ cD . ~ c ~ ~ p y (n ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ N p c a ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ m (Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ,..,. ~ ro ~ ~ . Q `~ N ro S u ro ~ ro ~ c n t? D to ~ a ~ ro ~ ro .-« ro ~ -, ~ ~. sn ~, ~ ~ ~- s ~. ~ ~ ° ° ~ ro ~ ~ ~• D ~ ~- --- ~ ~, ~ w n 4s ~ a ~ . co ~ cs D a o ~- o m ~. n j ~ ~ v m ~- o ~ ~' c n ~ ~ ~ °. ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ro N © ~ , ~ ~ to ~' ~ ~ ~ , W N ~ f rn ~ ~ ~rn~ A ~ ~ ( ~' nm n ~ ~ ~ X v ~ - ~ ro ~ m ~ ~ ° m '~ a ~ .~ ~ Q ro , ci; m ro ~ n ro~ 3 ~' ~ es m ~ r i ~ ~ m D o ~ ~ ~ ~ ro . cn cQ ~ ~ a ~ ci v ~ ~ ~ o ~ D ~ - ca ~ - w ~' ns ~ ~ `~ ~" ~ ro c~ ~u MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director Elizabeth Alpert, Neighborhood Services Administrator THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 20, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 AMENDMENT NO. 1/DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE/HOUSING REHABILITATION GRANTS/CONTRACT AWARDS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval to amend the agreement between the City and Palm Beach County for the Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) Housing Rehabilitation Program. BACKGROUND At the January 31, 2008 meeting, City Commission approved an Agreement between the City and Palm Beach County for $980,000 to complete up to 24 housing rehabilitation projects for income-eligible residents who suffered damages from Hurricane Wilma. There are currently 12 housing rehab projects underway in various stages of the process. The original deadline to expend funds was December 31, 2008, however the County has agreed to extend this deadline to August 15, 2009. In addition, Amendment 1 allocates $35,881 to reimburse a portion of the salary for the Housing Rehabilitation Inspector position. FUNDING SOURCE Disaster Recovery Initiative 118-1960-554-49.19 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Amendment 1 to the Agreement between the City and Palm Beach County for the DRI Housing Rehabilitation Program in order to extend the deadline for completion to August 15, 2009 and allow for salary reimbursement. Amendment 001 entered into this day of , 20_, by and between Palm Beach County and the City of Delray Beach. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Palm Beach County entered into an Agreement (R2008-1482) with the City of Delray Beach, on January 31, 2008, to provide $980,000 of 2005 Disaster Recovery Initiative Program funds for housing rehabilitation projects; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to modify the Agreement to reallocate funds made available under the Agreement, to adjust the scope of the project, and to extend the project completion date, and WHEREAS, both parties mutually agree that the original Agreement entered into on January 31, 2008, is hereby amended as follows: A. Part III -Section 1 -Maximum Compensation: Substitute "August 15, 2009" for "December 31, 2008". B. Part III -Section 2 -Time of Performance: Substitute "August 15, 2009" for "December 31, 2008". C. Exhibit A -Section I.D -Program Inspector: Delete the contents of this section and replace them with the following: The Municipalityshall employan "Inspector" in connection with thisAgreement. The Inspectorshall be able to carry out the tasks described in this Agreement and be able to demonstrate the qualifications that enable him/her to do so. The Inspector shall at minimum perform inspections of residential structures for compliance with housing and building codes, determine the feasibility of undertaking rehabilitation, prepare construction specifications and cost estimates, review construction bids, inspect rehabilitation construction work in progress, and review and approve contractor payment requests. The Inspector shall be able to review lead-based paint inspection and risk assessment reports and determine the actions to be taken to comply with federal lead- based paint regulations, maintain inspection records and reports, prepare change orders, initiate various notification letters and conduct necessary correspondence. Ifthe Municipalitywishes to request HCD for reimbursement ofthat portion ofthe Inspector's salary which is attributable to work done in connection with this Agreement, then the Municipality shall provide HCD the following as apre-requisite to its reimbursement request for each Inspector: - Documentation showing that the position of the Inspector (if such position was filled as a new position as a result of this Agreement) was competitively solicited prior to the Inspector's appointment to the position, and showing that the opening for this position was advertised in a public forum to elicit applications from other prospective applicants. - A copy of the letter notifying the Inspector of his/her appointment to this position. - Documentation showing the annual or hourly salary paid for the position of Inspector. - Personnel policy relating to vacation and sick leave. When requesting reimbursement for the Inspector's work hours in connection with this Agreement, the Municipality shall submit the following: - With each reimbursement request, a copy of the daily time sheets which account for all time worked by the Inspector on all assignments. These time sheets must be detailed enough to allow HCD staff to distinguish between hours worked on rehabilitation projects being pursued in connection with this Agreement and other hours worked by the Inspector. The time sheets must also show the specific tasks undertaken by the Inspector on such projects as well as the time taken to complete each task. The Municipality shall ensure that time is kept to regular hours as much as possible and shall ensure that no excessive overtime is spent on these projects. -With each reimbursement request, copies of the payrolls and paychecks to the Inspector corresponding to the above time sheets, as well as copies of documents proving that FICA was paid for the period corresponding to the one for which the reimbursement is being vuvo~i~u ~c vvow vi ~i is n ioNccwi , uo ucoci ivcu i ici cn i, ui iu vvi ici c u ocNui u~c vuuyc~ io Ni vviucu under this Agreement" for "Costs of consultants to provide the services of an Inspector and/or an Advisor as described herein, and where a separate budget is provided under this Agreement". E. Exhibit A -Section I.M(b) -Funding Limits and Security: Substitute "$40,000" for "$37,000". F. Exhibit A -Section I.U -Reports: Add the following to this section: (c) CLOSEOUT REPORTS: After the completion of all activities funded under this Agreement, the Municipality shall submit to HCD the closeout reports identified as the Housing Benefit Report and the Beneficiary Data Report in the from provided as Attachments 1 and 2 to this Amendment. (d) OTHER REPORTS: The Municipality agrees to submit to HCD any other reports required by the State in connection with activities undertaken through this Agreement including, but not limited to, reports associated with Section 3. G. Exhibit A -Section II.A(a): Substitute "$939,119" for "$975,000". H. Exhibit A -Section II.A: Add the following to this section: (c) An amount of $35,881: For the costs of the Municipality's employee to provide the services of the Inspector to carry out the tasks described in this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, all items in the previous Agreement in conflict with this Amendment shall be and are hereby changed to conform to this Amendment. All provisions not in conflict with this aforementioned Amendment are still in effect and shall be performed at the same level as specified in the Agreement. (MUNICIPALITY SEAL) (COUNTY SEAL) ATTEST: Sharon R. Bock, Clerk & Comptroller By: Deputy Clerk Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency CITY OF DELRAY BEACH By: Rita Ellis, Mayor By: Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Chair Board of County Commissioners Document No.: Approved as to Terms and Conditions Dept. of Housing and Community Development By: By: r H Z W 2 V Q O d a O aj ~ ~ d Q am O ~~ ~~ L L U (6 m A (6 L O .~ O ~2 N ~_ U c°~ .. '~ ~ J N ~ ~U N T ~ ~ co NiZ O O (0 ~ C'1~~in N ~ .~ ~ ~,~~ a- ° ~ ~~z U ~ ~ N U ~ Q ~... = p O O ~ Z ~ N 00 N o ~ ~ Z (0 N ~ ~ ~ ~ o co Z ~ ~ N N ~ ~ N N (0 O. D ~ O U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~° ~ > ~ ~ o ~o~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a o a~ ~ a co . O N 'O >, ~ Q U ~ . N ~ ~ ~ ~"' N Q N L O ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ U (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 z U fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn O a~ E z Project Name: City of Delray Beach - 2005 DRI Housing Rehabilitation Prepared By: Report Date: //////////////////////////////////////////////// Number Total Beneficiaries: Proposed Total Beneficiaries: Actual LMI Beneficiaries: Proposed (80% of AMI or less) LMI Beneficiaries: Actual (80% of AMI or less) VLI Beneficiaries: Proposed (50% of AMI or less) VLI Beneficiaries: Actual (50% of AMI or less) Male Female Disabled Female Head of Household Elderly Hispanic Ethnicity No. of Units No. of Units //////////////////////////////////////////////// Owner Renter Occupied Occupied White N/A African American N/A Asian N/A American Indian or N/A Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian N/A Pacific Islander American Indian or N/A Alaskan Native and White Asian and White N/A African American and White N/A American Indian/Alaskan N/A Native and African American Other Multi-racial N/A Total: N/A (same as Total Beneficiaries: Actual shown above) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Jasmin Allen, Planner Mark McDonnell, AICP, Acting Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: November 21, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 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 November 17, 2008 through November 26, 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 November 17, 2008 No 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. A. Recommended approval with conditions (5 to 0, Francisco Perez-Azua absent and Joseph Pike stepped down), of a conditional use request to allow the re-establishment of the Delray Beach Yacht Club, an existing two-story 8,316 square foot yacht club building with dining facility, boat docks, pool and outdoor snack bar, located at 110 MacFarlane Drive. B. Recommended approval with changes (5 to 0) the transmittal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2009-1 to the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, which includes the following: it Privately Initiated Text Amendments a). 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. b). Future Land Use Element -Modification of the description of 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. c). 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. ii) Privately Initiated Future Land Use Map Amendment a). Future Land Use Map amendment from TRN (Transitional) to GC (General Commercial) for an approximate 6.15 acre parcel of land known as the Floranda Mobile Home Park, located on the west side of South Federal Highway, approximately 660 feet south of SE 10th Street and north of the Plaza at Delray. C. Recommended approval (6 to 0) of a rezoning from POC (Planned Office Center) district in part, MH (Mobile Home) district in part, and R-1-A (Single Family Residential) district in part to PC (Planned Commercial) district for parcels of land comprising approximately 8.18 acres known as the Floranda Mobile Home Park and Executive Quarters, located on the west side of South Federal Highway, approximately 320 feet south of SE 10th Street and north of the Plaza at Delray. Site Plan Review and Appearance Board -Meeting of November 20, 2008 1. Approved (4 to 0, Cris Stray and Andrew Youngross absent, Shane Ames arrived late), a request for a color change for Duffy's Sports Grill, located within the Plaza at Delray at the northwest corner of South Federal Highway and Linton Boulevard. 2. Approved (5 to 0), a request for a color change for Creations by Gigi, located on the south side of East Atlantic Avenue, between SE 4th Avenue and SE 5th Avenue (428 East Atlantic Avenue). 3. Approved (5 to 0), a Class I site plan modification associated with architectural elevation changes for an awning and wind shield on the front (east) elevation for Cafe Luna Rosa, located on the west side of Ocean Boulevard, south of East Atlantic Avenue. 4. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a Class II site plan modification and landscape plan associated with the expansion of the vehicle display at Sherwood Honda, located on the west side of South Federal Highway, south of Linton Boulevard (3000 South Federal Highway). Historic Preservation Board - Meeting of November 19, 2008 5. Approved (6 to 0, Keith Snider absent), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with exterior window alterations for a contributing structure located at 524 NE 2nd Avenue. No other appealable items were considered at the Historic Preservation Board. The following item which was considered by the Board will be forwarded to the City Commission for action. Recommended approval with modification (6 to 0), Resolution 55-08 by recognizing the resurvey of the Marina Historic District conducted by GAI Consultants, Inc. and acknowledging the findings and recommendations made in the final report. RECOMMENDATION By motion, receive and file this report. Attachment: Location Map N SPRAB HPB 7. DUFFY'S SPORTS GRILL 5. 524 NE 2ND AVENUE 2. CREATIONS BY GIGI 3. CAFE LUNA ROSH 4. SHERWOOD HONDA ~~~~~~~~~~ CITY LIMITS ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ONE MILE ~ GRAPHIC SCALE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 2008 MAP REF: S:\Planning &Zoning\DBMS\File-Cab\CC-DOC\12-2-08 --olGlraLaasEMaPSVSreM-- 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: November 21, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.F.1 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 PURCHASE AWARD/CROSSMATCH TECHNOLOGIES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The Delray Beach Police Department requests approval of the purchase of a Live Scan finger print system from Crosshatch Technologies in the amount of $30,532.76. BACKGROUND This system replaces the current, obsolete system which is no longer fully supported by the manufacturer. Currently all applicants and detainees are fingerprinted using this system. Originally scheduled for replacement last year, procurement was delayed due to budgetary constraints. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has mandated that all sworn applicants be fingerprinted electronically. Crosshatch is the sole manufacturer of the Florida State certified system, and as such, is currently under State Contract #680-370-07-1. Further delays risk system failure which would leave the department out of compliance with the FDLE mandate and unable to efficiently process detainees. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is approved and available in account number: 334-2111-521-66.10. RECOMMENDATION The Police Department recommends approval. Sales Quotation 1000P Live Scan System Date: Account Manager: Phone: 561-622-2688 or 561-630-0875 Fax: 561-828-2307 11/17/08 Scott Clinton/Dave Bronger Mobile: 561-379-5509 Email: Scott.Clinton(c~crossmatch.net dave.bronger(c~crossmatch.com QUOTE#SC-1117408-11 Cross Match Technologies, Inc. 3960 RCA Boulevard, Suite 6001 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Phone: 561-622-1650 Fax: 561-828-2307 Website: www.crossmatch.net FL State Contract # 680-370-07-1 Company: Contact: Address: Phone: Fax: Email: Website: BILL I U: Delray Beach Police Bill Jones 300 West Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 (561) 243-7888 x669 (561)243-7816 JFiIY I U: Company: Contact: Address: SAME Phone: Fax: Email: Method: Ship UPS GROUND { Ship to address must be a complete direct mailing address with telephone contact } Qty CMT Part # Description Unit Price Extended 1 925147 Cross Match 1000P Palm&10 Print Live Scan System (FDLE/FBI certified Hardware) Bundled system includes 1000 DPI Palm/fingerprint Scanner, LSMS software, and Desktop PC. (Monitor and Printer sold seperately) 16,474.05 16,474.05 1 930098 1000P Hardware and s/w Maintenance/Su ort ear 1 2,700.00 2,700.00 1 930098-36 1000P Hardware and s/w maintenance/Su ort ear 2 thru 4 8,748.00 8,748.00 Suomission Software License to FDLE will be transferred from old machine 1 960005-02 "Pricing for the 1000P bundle is discounted off state contract per the Trade Up program .Also includes 1 year Enhanced Maintenance at No Additional Cost- Total Savings of $5400.00 per unit -5,400.00 -5,400.00 1 930012 S. FL Implementation and training, on-site one day 1,500.00 1,500.00 1 900230 1000Pvs -Large Supply Kit for Palm platen $366.09 366.09 1 900235 1000Pvs -Large Supply Kit for Fingerprint platen 141.00 141.00 1 920107-103 Universal Cabinet for 1000P/LiteUE with UPS power backup, Footswitch cable assembly No Monitor included $3,307.50 3,307.50 1 420030 17" Touch Panel monitor $755.06 755.06 1 900266-420360 FBI Approved Network System Printer with Duplexer. $1,464.36 $1,464.36 1 420042 FL mag strip DL reader $118.50 $118.50 1 930084-36 Xerox Years 2 thru 4 Maintenance FBI approved printer $358.20 $358.20 Pricing: ^' State Specific ^ GSA ^ Standard S81es TaX: ^ Non Exempt ^~ Exempt Sales Tax: $0. If Tax Exempt, Certificate Shipping: Included in equip. cost Payment Terms: Other: ~ ^ New Customer ^ Credit Card ^ Wire Transfer ^~ Net Terms ^~ Current Customer TOTAL: $30,532. Site Survey: ^ Complete ^ Expected Completion: Notes: rll hardware line items are priced FOB destination per the ITN requirements. CMT systems can be set up to transmit electronic records to FDLE for app/civil only. This system can create Palm Cards and laser print them on the FBI approved >rinter. These EFT files will be set up to be saved in a folder for their Tracker AFIS to use. Trade-ins stem information Dimensions: Weight: Required information on scanner being returned to receive credit for Model ID1000&ID1500 Trade-U Serial #M-21371 & ID1500-01050 Please enter Yes or No for the following questions. If Yes for any question, order must go through upgrade process. Yes/No Does customer have a demographic interface? (Click File>Import) NO Does customer want to keep current fingerprint files? ? Does customer submit to more than one agency? NO Does Customer have Cross Match Child ID or VisTrak software on system? NO Does Customer have peripherals- Printers, Flatbed Scanner, DL ? General terms and conditions Cross Match Limited Warranty is for one year depot repair only. Enhanced Warranty is ncluded for 24x7 customer care, remedy for software media defect, next business day :placement of hardware, and software updates. Quoted system configured per attached SDA. This quote does not include: other taxes, export fees, duties, or export charges. Prices are valid for 90 days from date of quotation. Payment terms are net 30, from date of invoice, with approved credit. Existing or New Cross Match Customers will need to return back any older Livescan (Deck Only) hardware. Cross Match will supply Return Box and will pay for Shipping. back to CMT. Must return scanner being traded in within 60 days of invoice to receive Trade-Up discount Quote Presented By: Scott Clinton Date: 11/17/2008 Quote Accepted By: Name Title Signature Date ;f, ~~ V lR~ R ~~~ 3 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 8.F.2 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 PURCHASE AWARD/DEVLAND SITE DEVELOPMENT, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to approve a blanket purchase order in the amount of $219,000.00 for sludge removal and disposal "as needed" by Devland Site Development, Inc. The blanket will cover a period of November 2008 through September 30, 2009. BACKGROUND The Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) generates a large amount of sludge due to enhanced coagulation with ferric chloride. The average amount, including sludge processed by dewatering and sludge removed from the lagoon, is 3 trucks per day. The average weight of each truck load is 19 tons. The WTP had an agreement with the Solid Waste Authority (SWA) to dispose of sludge at no cost, until March of 2007, because they were stockpiling it for a future lime recalcination project. SWA determined at that time that they were not going ahead with the project and informed us that we would have to begin paying the going rate of $65 per ton if the City dumped there. This would have amounted to a yearly cost of $1,352,325 (3 x 19 x $65 x 365) . Other sludge haulers were contacted along with Devland Site Development, Inc. to see what arrangements they would be able to provide the City of Delray Beach for sludge hauling and disposal. Devland Site Development, Inc. offered the City an agreement to haul and dispose at a rate not to exceed of $200 per truck load with assurance that Devland would have enough demand for sludge to carry on for at least four (4) years. With Devland's offer, the annual estimate is $219,000 (3 x $200 X 365), a substantial savings of $1,133,325.00 compared to the City hauling the sludge to the SWA. All other trucking companies that the has City dealt with over the years would only be able to dispose of sludge if there was a major project going on such as a roadway expansion. Otherwise they could only offer to haul to a landfill such as the SWA with the City paying the $65 per ton dump fee. The offer from Devland was unique in that they could haul and dispose of a large amount of sludge for an extended period of time. The City began using Devland's services in April of 2007. Devland has provided the Water Treatment Plant with exceptional service and John Bullard, Water Treatment manager highly recommend that the City continue with Devland because of their unique offer and the City's excellent working relationship with them. FUNDING SOURCE 441-522-536-34.90 WATER/SEWER SERVICES/OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVS RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of a blanket purchase order in the amount of $219,000.00 for sludge removal and disposal "as needed" by Devland Site Development, Inc. The blanket will cover a period of November 2008 through September 30, 2009. 11/21/2008 11:20 FAQ 561+243-7316 DELRAY 4YATER TREATMENT [7j 0002/0003 9/9/2Q07 10:26'x'FROM: Fax ©ev].and SiCa developmenic T0: 29i ~16 PAGE: D02 OF D02 ~~ ~ ~ . Devland Site Development, inc. 1302 Wixrgfleld Street Lake Worth, Florida 33450 ~ROpos.~z~ Phone:- (551) 5&5-b370 Fag: (561) 732-0].06 Date: 04/04/07 TO: City of Delray Beac~i Pro3ect: Sludge Rezxzaval Water Dept. / Attn: John The following proposal is submitted for your review and acceptance and consists of: A.) REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL Off' SLUDGE MATERIAL @ $18.0.00 PER LOAD WI ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTION. (Not to exceed $200.00 per load depending on disposal.location} B.) EQ~TIPMENT USEAGE 1 LOADER WIOPERATOR @ $85.00 PER HOUR. PROPOSAL TOTAL: AS INDICATED ABOVE. ,Nate. Our company owns an extensive list of equipment, if you are interested in a price quote for other machinery, please contact our office. Submitted by: ~/~~2 Carl Deveaux Vice-President Accepted by: ~elray Beach Representative ,.- 11/21/2008 11:20 FAg 581+243+7316 DELRAY WATER TREATMENT l~0003/OD03 PRAM :DEVLANDSITEDEUELOP~IENT ~"AX NQ. :5615472929 Qct. 16 2~@8 f~B ; 49AM P~. D~~~ SI'T'S I)~~V'~I.,.aP:~1~~TT, ETC. 1342 wingfieid suet Lake Worth, ~'l. 334&0 1'1~nae: (56t} 585-6370 Fax_ (S~1) 732-4106 Send ta: Ti7~W'~' From. Car]. Deveau~ " .A,tkention: ~'aLn Date: X.d-08-dS O€fine location.; O~cc location: Pa~~nuzx~ber: ~ "~ ' Phaue3ztxsnber: CJrgent ~~ ~l~y ASAP 1~ Please comment f ~,~ Please ~reviev-r ~~ Far your ir~'ormation Tt~ea! pages, inelu~ing rover: rolan- As per our conver5atian relating to vur siud~e removal contract Y um con~rrning that the cost froxz~ our arm will not increase our rates for a period of 1 to 1 '/~ years, a$er irhat't;vs do not ~nticipato lyavi~xg to increase our prices more than 3°/n to 5%. If'you have any que.4#ians, please give szke a call at 56l -348 233, =~, _. ~. Ff2QM :I~EULAND5ITEIlEUELOPMENT FAX N0. :5615472929 Nov. 07 2008 12:54PM P1 ~er~~a~r~d~ ~~te ~3~v~~0•p~1~~~, ..r~~. ~ 3ff2 Wing~etd b`treet Phone: ~56~) 585-637t} Lake Worth, Florida 334G0 Fax: (561) ?3Z-0106 October g, 2048 City of Delray Beach WWII' Attn:. ,Inhri Re: Ate! Contract..~,enewa~ Deax .lottn:~ As per our conversation relaitng to aen• shtdge renewat contract ~ am r,~nfirming t5a€ our Firms casts will not increase for a Period of I to 1 '/z years, awe that we do not anticipate having yto increase our prices more than 3% to~ 5%, if you have any questions, please give me a call at SbI-3Q8 2334, `I'har~ you and it has been a .pleasure doing business with the City of Delray Teach and yom' departmesyt. vu~ wu STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND VENDOR THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 20^, by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH (hereinafter called CITY} and Devland Si#e Development, Inc. (hereinafter called VENDOR). WITNESSETH: The CITY and the VENDOR in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: ~ . The undersigned VENDOR hereby represents that he has carefully examined all Contract documents, and will perform the contractual requirements pursuant to all covenants and conditions. 2. The VENDOR, as evidenced by the execution of this contract, acknowledges that it has examined the physical characteristics of the fob requirements. The VENDOR further acknowledges that the bid price includes all costs and expenses required for the satisfactory completion of the contracts requirements. 3. The contract between the CITY and the VENDOR include the following documents which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference of the following: CONTRACT DOCUMENT ~Sj Standard Form of Agreement Corporate Acknowledgment Certificate Original Pricing Proposal Pricing Renewal PAGE NUMBERS 1 -~ 5 6 7 8-9 1 4. The term of this contract shall commence upon execution of this agreement by both parties. The CITY may terminate this contract, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to VENDOR- VENDOR may terminate this contract, with or without cause, upon 90 days written notice to the CITY. 5. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida as Now and hereafter in force. The venue for actions arising out of this agreemen# shall be Palm Beach County, Florida. fi. All notices, requests, demands, and other given if personally delivered or mailed, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: As to City: City of Delray Beach, 1=L 100 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 As to VENDOR: Devlan Site Development, Inc. 13 ngfiel re t -- ort , id 33 8r" ~ „~ 7. The VENDOR shall not, withou# prior written consent of the CITY, assign any portion of its interest under this contract and, specifically, the VENDOR shall not assign any moneys due or to become due without the prior written consent of the CITY. 8. The CITY and the VENDOR each binds himself, his partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto in respect to all convenants, agreements and obligations contained in the contract documents. z 9. In considera#ion of #en dollars ($'10.00) and other valuable consideration, the VENDOR shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the CITY, its of#icers, agents and employees, from or on account of any liabilities, damages, lasses and costs rECeived or sustained by any person or persons by or in consequence of any negligence {excluding the sole negligence of the CITY), recklessness or intentional wrongful misconduct of the VENDOR and any persons employed or utilized by the VENDOR in the performance of this Project. VENDOR agrees #hat negligent, reckless or intentional wrongful misconduct includes, but is not limited to, use of any improper materials or liabilities, damages, losses or costs caused by or on account of the use of any improper materials. VENDOR agrees that negligent, reckless or intentional wrongful misconduct also includes but is not limited to the violation of any Federal, State, County or City laws, by-laws, ordinances or regulations by the VENDOR, his subVENDORs, agents, servants or employees. VENDOR further agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the CITY from all such claims and #ees, and from any and all suits and actions of every name and description tha# may be brought against the CITY on account of any claims, fees, royalties, or costs for any invention or patent, and from any and all suits and actions that may be brought against the CITY for the infringement of any and all paten#s or patent rights claimed by any person, firm, or corporation. The indemni#ication provided above shall obligate the VENDOR to defend at his own expense or to provide for such defense, at the CITY'S option, any and all claims or liability and all suits and actions of every name and description that may be brought against the CITY which may result from the operations and activities under this Contract ~. whether the construction operations be pertormed by the VENDOR, his sub-VENDOR 3 or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by either. This indemnification includes all costs and fees including attorneys fees and costs at trial and appellate levels. The CITY will pay to the VENDOR the specific consideration of ten dollars and o#her good and valuable consideration as specific consideration for the indemnifcation provided herein_ Furthermore, the VENDOR acknowledges that the bid price includes said consideration for the indemnification provision_ ~ 0. This Agreement shall be considered null and void unless signed by both the VENDOR and the CITY. ~ ~ . The contract documents constitute the entire agreement be#ween the CITY and the VENDOR and may only be altered, amended or repealed by a duly executed written instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney WITNESS: {Print or type name and title) 4 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: Rita l~llis, Mayor VEN Devlan Site evelopment, Inc. BY. /--~ ~~f ~~~ {Print or type name and tl#le) CORPORATE ACKNOWLE©GMENT STATE OF ~10~~"df~ COUNTY DF ~f~I~ ~~~~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of pV~C.~-. ~ ems- , 20d_~ by ~C~'t~~-•~ ~ -P~~l~ {name of of#icer or a ent, title of officer or agent), of ~~~~ _._._ ~~ ~'~~ {state or place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He1She is {personally known to me) (or has produced identification) and has used his/her ,1~2 ~ V c ~ ~ ~ c~ ~, s E {type of identification) as identification_ Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment p,2 , ~ ~~ {`'L `- Name of Acknowledges Typed, Printed or Stamped rotary ~~k. ~ ~ F~ ~y camm, uc~. ,Jun. 25, Yti-1fl comm. Na. DD t~~B40 CERTIFICATE (If Corpora#ion) STATE OF FLORIDA ) ~~~/' ) SS COUNTY OF ~,~/~ ~~°.~j } HEREBY CERTIFY that a meeting of the Board of Directors of ~'f 7"y~~ , , a corporation under the laws of the Stag of ~l ~7/'r ~~~. _ held on ~ /V~/P~6~~ ~~~_.._, 200 the following resolution was duly passed and adopted: "RESOLVED", that ~/.-1~~.C /Log/,ova chi/; , as President of the corporation, helshe is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement dated , 20 /~~' between the City of Delray Beach, Florida and this corporation, and that his execution thereof, attested ~_y_ the Secretary of the Corporation and with corporate seal affixed, shall be the official act and deed of this corpora#ion"_ 1 further certify that said resolution is now in full force and effect. IN..-AI`tTNESS WH~REQF, l haue hereunto set my hand and affixed-the official= seal of the corporation this ~•2 day of ~IOr/ri~~~'___ , 20 ~ . (Secretary} {Seal} i! U MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Sharon L'Herrou, Administrative Officer Anthony W. Strianese, Chief Police THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 21, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.F.3 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 PURCHASE AWARD/DGG TASER ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The Police Department requests approval for the purchase of 25 Tasers and related parts from DGG Taser for $23,405.520. BACKGROUND Tasers are an important non-lethal law enforcement tool. The department currently deploys over 100 of these units from DGG Taser. However, the model currently in use has become outdated and nearly obsolete. New technology became available several years ago which is more effective and 60% smaller and lighter. Rather than replacing all of the current tasers at once, the department has chosen to phase in the replacement process as a cost saving measure. This will be accomplished through using the latest model, X-26, to replace tasers that are broken or in disrepair as well as when ordering additional units as needed for new hires. Since DGG Tasers and equipment are currently in use throughout the department, it is important to work with the same vendor to in order to maintain equipment consistency. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available in the amount of $8,400 from #001-2111-521-52.27 and $15,005.20 from Federal Forfeiture funds, # 115-2112-521-64.90. RECOMMENDATION The Police Department recommends approval. i n. ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ n r~ ~ ^ ~ ~ti~ ~i ~ ~~ ~~ ~r MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Victor Majtenyi; Deputy Director of Public Utilities Richard C. Hasko, P.E.; Director of Environmental Services Department THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 17, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.F.4 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 PURCHASE AWARD/PROMIUM ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request to approve an award to Promium LLC in the amount of $24,860.00 for the purchase of a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) for the Environmental Services Compliance Laboratory at the Water Treatment Plant. The purchase will provide a complete software program to log data, track tests, and generate reports on collected water samples in meeting water quality compliance. BACKGROUND The Environmental Services Department (ESD) was granted funding for the purchase of a Laboratory Information Management System with current year's budget allocation at $27,000. The Compliance Division in ESD performs state required analytical testing for monitoring water quality at the City's Water Treatment Plant and in the water distribution network to insure it is safe to drink. LIMS will be used to track all samples run by the laboratory through centralized data input and data logging, electronic laboratory data validation, and providing automated report generation of all samples collected by the City. This computer software program is necessary for the laboratory to meet compliance under the state's requirement for sample tracking and reporting (attached State of Florida Department of Health letter dated 12Jun08, reference ID #8). This program will provide full compliance under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP). Staff received quotes from three vendors providing packages; Perkins Elmer Life and Analytical Sciences at $69,300.00, Zumatrix at $37,250.00, and Promium LLC at $24,860.00. Promium LLC was selected based on a comparison of basic system functionality, tools provided, LIMS Demos, number of users, and quoted price. Promium is successfully used by several cities in Florida (St. Petersburg, Titusville, Jacksonville), as well as private and EPA laboratories at different locations. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from account #441-5161-536-66.10,Water and Sewer Fund/ Software. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends an award to Promium LLC in the amount of $24,860.00 for the purchase of a Laboratory Information Management System for the Water Treatment Plant's Compliance Laboratory. Itemized notation for Software and Services: Element DataSystem quotation from Promium LLC -~°t 3.J [_ 'z .' - ~~~1 ~,~, P R ®11~ U f1~ 1~~f The environmental LIIAS company PROPOSAL FOR ELEMENT DATASYSTEM FOR 2 CONCURRENT USERS Lab: Ci of Dedra Seach, FZ Contaet flame{s): Juan A. Manzano Date of Quote: 13-Oct-08 Item Description Price (US) Soft~tiare `` Element DataS stem'-core program 2 Concurrent user licenses $I2,603 Initial Yeaz Su ort A Bement First ear of Hel Desk Su ort and S stem U odes Included Element Messa e Manager Utility program for atttomating reporting, login, work lists and e-mail notifications Included Element Web Web Browser Based Re ortin Module Included Data Tool & Instrument Interface Libra Instrument Data Ca tore & U load tool for all common s stems Included Standard EbD Libr + EDD Builder Com rehensive electronic data deliverable formats lus enerator Included Element Facka e Mana er PDF based data acka a assembl enerator, a inator Included Element Import / E ort Utility Send & Receive custody forms, transfer files, re-log files Included Extensive su ortin modules Report formats, stattts reports, bar codes, consumables inventory, maintenance logs, waste tracking, historical data and more Included QA / QO Module Cam lete QA re ortin , chartin & mans erctent functionali Included Sea ate Software C stal Re orts~ Pro am for desi in custom re ort formats (standard edition Included hi:utfcnance Subscription Annual Maintenance Subscri tion -Standard Standard level of system updates and technical support for subsequent ears. Must be renewed annual] $ I,644 Annual Maintenance Subscri tion - Fremium Premium level inclctdes standard support plus package of premium services far subse uent ears. Must be renewed annuall . lmpicmcntafiot & Trainiu~ Fstlrlate Fundamental -'Implementation, system confi oration and trainin Total Moms 40 Rate per hour 5145 $5,800 Travel & Ex enses Total Davs 7 Rate per day $490 $3,430 Advanced -Includes Ptmdamental plus continuin & refresher training, confi anon Total Hours 0 Rate per hom 5145 $0 Reportc ~~ b lcctrunic.'.F1ata Dclicc~'ablcs Customization of Element feature set for your lab as required by contract specifications. Any custom reports and deliverables will be speciffed and noted se azately at a later date. otal Hours n/a Rate per ltom 5175 /a [ I ardwarc &c ~fioftr~-arc Primary Database Software Microsoft SQL Server 2005 'Workgroup Edition $$76 Client Com cater 1 Dell O tiPlex 740 deskto com cater or com arable com cater $ ] ,275 Barcode Scanners, Re ort Printers 1 Zebra LP 2844-Z label printer and 1 Symbol LS 2208 barcode scanner or com arable items $&76 Network Hardware and Cablin>;, Re ort Printers Promium will work with customer's hardware assets as currently confie red- If additional IT infrastructure is required, it fs not provided bS'the vendor- Sales Tas O.t)0"/' '1 a Iratirll on softNarc & it4tial maie,elenancc: 572,6k13 !~{I 54'STEM'[CY1"AI~ $?-T,86i1 QIIVtatlnn Tcrrns L~ COndItI6n C. - 1 This proposal remains effective for 90 days from date quoted. 2 Some implementation and system configuration may be performed off-site. 3 Invoices fox Implementation & Training cvi11 be for actual use, but not to exceed estimate without prior approval. 4 Payment terms, conditions and alterations must be reviewed and signed by appropriate personnel from both organizations. 5 A Iicable sales tax will be char ed for CA & WA clients. 29, Simpson Lane, Unit D1, Falmouth, MA 02640 Telephone (508) 457-7911 Juan Manzano City of pel Ray Beach Florida September 22, 2008 Budgetary Estimate Item Descri tion Cost $ US 1. Matrix Gemini LIMS license with 3 concurrent full users and three database groups 22,150.04 far production, development /test and archive for implementation on Oracle or SQL Server database (not included). Provides both web and Windows client interfaces. Includes the following functions: • Sample and batch registration • Sampie receipt • Sampie and test assignment • Sample preparation • Test result entry by sample, test, runsheet • Result import from files and instruments • Test validation and sample approval • Reporting via Crystal Reports • `One Time Configuration' TM tools 2. LimsLink for 3 instruments 2400.00* *PC controlled instruments finked to a network do not re wire a LimsLink license. Total License fee 24,550,00 3. Crystal Reports Developer Edition 700.00 4. Professional Services to configure, install and test the system 12,000.00** ^ Daily on-site rate $1,800.00 ^ Hourly off site rate $150.04 ~~Estimate of configuration cos#s including two onsite visits. Total 37,250.00 5. Annual Support and Maintenance Agreement 4419.00 Terms and conditions: 1. Quotation is valid far 60 days. 2. No applicabie taxes or duties are included. 3. Customer is responsible for providing the host database license. 4. Terms are net 30 days from invoice. 5. Licenses wil! be invoiced 40% on delivery, 40% on installation and 20% on completion. 6. No #ravel and living expenses are included for on-site services -these will be invoiced at cost. www.zumatrix.com PerkinE[mer~ precisely. 710 BridgeportAvenue Phone: 1-844-762-4000 Shelton, CT 08484-4794 Fax: 203-944-2513 To: Juan Manzano CITY OF DELRAY BEACH 200 SW 6TH STREET DELRAY BEACH FL 33444 TELEPHONE NO. FAX NO. YOUR REFERENCE QUOTE NO.: QUOTE VALID TO: QUOTE DATE: PAY. TERtVIS: FREIGHT TERIvIS: ULTIMATE DEST.: PAGE 1 of 3 Quotation 20270951 11/19/2008 0 911 712 0 0 8 Due Upon Receipt FOB Factory -Prepay & Add UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STEM iVL~T`ERIAL DESCRIPTION (~T~'.F;1 TNTTI?I{TC'F. TOT,~1L N5170060 LABWORKS 4'(+ATERLIIvIS FOA SQL SERVER t 25,000-00 25,000.00 Sales Discount 2,500.00- LABWORKS v5 waterL[MS package delivers the core flexibility and reliability of LABWORKS LIM5, with a suite of productivity modules selected for applicability to Water/Wastewater Laboratories. The waterLlMS package includes the care software license and media for the LABWORKS LIM5 version 6 application software. Available far either SQL Server or Oracle database platforms, the LABWORKS L1-NIS core software delivers the tools needed to configure and maintain LABWORKS. A two user network license for NWA is also provided as part of the core software. The waterLIMS package includes: LASWORKS 6 Administrator Suite, far simplified management of high level system configuration. Includes Gateway Administrator for managing databases, warkstations, and users, and the Translation Toolkit far local language support. Also includes Data Archival and Restoration capabilities. LABWORKS 6 Quality Suite, delivering the core capabilities needed to implement and demonstrate control over processes, system usage, and electronic records. This suite includes Audit Trail, Workflow Architect for process change control, Ownership management, User Privilege management, Personnel Training retards, and instrument Maintenance and Calibration tracking. Also licenses the use of the software to create an additional, filly functional database for non-production purposes, such as system development or testingltraining. Use of this license is restricted to same site- LABWORKS 6 Connectivity Suite, providing the core technologies needed for supporting and SEND PURCHASE ORDERS TO: PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences 710 Bridgeport Ave. Shelton, CT 06484-4794 Phone: 1-800-762-4000 SALES REPRESENTATIVE: TERRY LOMINAC13228 Fax: 203-944-2513 PREPARED BY: Terry Osenbach ACCEPTANCE OF THiS QUOTATION IS LIMITED TO TFIE ATTACHED TER,~LS ANA CONDITIONS TERMS SUBJECT TO CREDIT APPROVAL PerkinElmer~ precisely. 710 Bridgeport Rvenue Shelton, CT p6484-4794 Phone: i-800-7&2-4000 Fax: 203-944-2513 To: Juan Manzano CITY OF DELRAY BEACH QUOTE NO.: 20270951 QUOTE VALID TO: 111.1912048 QUOTE DATE: 09/17/2008 PAGE 2 of 3 Quotation I '1TE~r 1 I~'IA~ILR_I_t~Ll DE~t`lili'~IIC)I~ I c~T~r1~L.~1 11JNTT'~1z1cE 1 TOTAL' ..I automating interfaces between LABWORKS and instruments, data, or information systems. Includes Serial Interface Manager, File Parsers, Scan and Process Manager, and licenses for up to floe pre-built interfaces from the LABWORKS standard instrument library. LABWORKS 6 LIMSLaunch Suite, for creating and maintainingyour waterLIMS environment, including all of the tools needed to build and maintain Product, Location, Analysis, Calculation, and Specification/Limit definitions. L[MSLaunch also includes LABWORKS Report -esigner, a fully integrated report writing tool using the market leading Crystal Reports® technology. The package comes bundled with I2 fully functional and ready tp use example reports that include sample receipts, analysis turnaround reports, charts & graphs, etc Includes license for Crystal YI Developer. LABWORKS 6 Desktop, the confgurable launch point for sample registration, work assignment, results collection and evaluation, review and approval, and report generation. The Desktop also serves as a launch point for Lab Management tools such as Backlog, Exceptions, and Monthly Operations Reports, and provides the LABWORKS Message Manager. Process Scheduler for scheduling routine sampling, and for monitoring sample status. Sample groups are maintained far organizing times and frequencies of sampling events, as well as the locations and analyses associated with those events. Process Scheduler can also provide an alternate user interface for many LABWORKS activities, launched from atime-refreshed sample status monitor. Discharge Monitoring Report Generator uses exported data from LABWORKS LIMS to generate NFDES DMR form 3320-1. PerFortns Functions such as min., max., average concentration and average and max loading. Note: Due to complexity and differences in reporting requirements, additional on-site consulting time is required to setup this module. Please be prepared to provide examples of report formats needed to get proper estimate of consulting requirements. A Full Single User License for LABWORKS is included in the waterLIMS package- The Full Single User License provides Windows Client access to all modules. A Single User License for the read-only LABWORKS Explorer module is also included in the waterLIMS Fackage. LABWORKS Explorer provides an easy to use, browser type interface for those who use but do not generate laboratory data. LABWORKS Explorer may be deployed as either a Windows or Web based application. LABWORKS v6 waterLIMS includes one year of LABWORKS Assist Support, effective from the date of shipment. PerkinElmerW precisely. 710 Bridgeport Avenue Shelton, CT 06484-4734 PAGE 3 of 3 Quotation Phone: 1-800-762-4000 Fax. 203-944-2513 To: Juan Manzano CITY OF DELRAY BEACH QUOTE NO.: 20270951 QUOTE VALID TO: 11/19/2008 QUOTE DATE: 09/17/2008 ITEM ~ 1.1.A'TFRI~'1I.~DFS(RTf'TIOT~ f c,?'1'1'/E,~''f Urll"I' PRICE:...,! TC3T,~L 2 NSI70054 ADDITIONAL USERSLASWORKSWATERLIMS Sales Discount 3 N0202620 waterLIIvIS Fundamental Services Sales Discount 2 4,000.00 8,000.00 800.00- 1 44,000.00 44,400.00 4,400.00- TataI iVet Price in UST]: 69,300.00 Customized Financing Solutions are available - We offer competitive rates with a wide range of structures to assist in acquiring your PerkinEImer technology -Speak to your Sales Engineer today or tail us at 1-800-559-2755 ext. 69608 TERRY LOMINAC13228 PR~WIIUM ~~ PROPOSAL for ELEMENT DATASYSTEM LABORATORY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TABLE OF CONTENTS Itemized Quotation for Software and Services :.....................................................................................................3 Purchase Order Information :.................................................................................................................................5 Payment Terms and Conditions :............................................................................................................................6 General System Overview :......................................................................................................................................7 EULA Terms and Conditions :................................................................................................................................8 Annual Maintenance Agreement -Example .......................................................................................................10 Promium and Element DataSystem are protected trademarks of Promium LLC. z Itemized Quotation for Software and Services: element ~~ ~ ~~. ~~~;ro~~,~~~t ~~~~ ~~~a PROPOSAL FOR ELEMENT DATASYSTEM FOR 2 CONCURRENT USERS Lab: Cit of Delra Beach, FL Contact Name(s): Juan A. Manzano aeo Quote: 13-Oct-08 Item Description Price (US) S o ft era re Element DataSysterri -core program 2 Concurrent user licenses $12,603 Initial Year Support Agreement First year of Help Desk Support and System Upgrades Included Element Message Manager Utility program for automating reporting login, work lists and e-mail notifications Included Element Web Web Browser Based Reporting Module Included Data Tool 8c Instrument Interface Library Instrument Data Capture 8c Upload tool for all common systems Included Standard EDD Library +EDD Builder Comprehensive electronic data deliverable formats plus generator Included Element Package Manager PDF based data package assembly generator, paginator Included Element Import /Export Utility Send 8c Receive custody forms, transfer files, pre-log files Included Extensive supporting modules Report formats, status reports, bar codes, consumables inventory, maintenance logs, waste tracking historical data and more Included QA / QC Module Complete QA reporting charting 8c management functionality Included Seagate Software Crystal Reports® Program for designing custom report formats (standard edition) Included Maintenance Sulx,criplion Annual Maintenance Subscription -Standard Standard level of system updates and technical support for subsequent years. Must be renewed annually. $ 1,644 Annual Maintenance Subscription -Premium Premium level includes standard support plus package of premium services for subsequent years. Must be renew ed annually. Implcmcnlalion 1. Training Estimate 1FUndamental - luipleuientation, system configuration and training Total Hours 40 Rate per hour $145 $5,800 Travel 8c Expenses Total Days 7 Rate per day $490 $3,430 Advanced -Includes Fundamental plus continuing 8c refresher trainine_ configuration Total Hours 0 Rate per hour $la5 $0 Re~n~ls & Electronic Dala Deli~~erables Customization of Element feature set for your lab as required by contract specifications. Any custom reports and deliverables ~~ ill be specified and quoted separately ^t .~ later date. otal Hours n ii Rate per hour $175 /a Hard rare & Sofl~~~ur Primary Database Soft~~ arc Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Edition $876 Client Computer 1 Dell OptiP1ex740 desktop computer or comparable computer $1,275 Barcode Scanners, Report Printers 1 Zebra LP 2844-Z label printer and 1 Symbol LS 2208 barcode scanner or comparable items $876 Network Hardware and Cabling Report Printers Promium will ~wrk with customer's hardware assets as currently configured. If additional IT infrastructure is required, it is not provided by the vendor. Saks Tas fl.flfl"/ Tas based on sofl~ca rc ~1k initial maintenance: ti12, 6f13 SO SYS ~ LIVI l O l AI . ~24,8G0 Q unlalion Terms 1. Conditions 1 Phis propu~.~l rcm.~iu~~ cLLcuticc for 90 d.~~, Ii~~m d.ue quoted. ~ Some implementation and system configuration m.i~ be performed off-site. ~3 Invoices for Implementation 8c Training will be for actual use, but not to exceed estimate without prior approval. 4 Payment terms, conditions and alterations must be reviewed and signed by appropriate personnel from both organizations. 5 Applicable sales tax will be charged for CA 8a WA clients. Purchase Order Information: When you chose to proceed with the purchase of Element DataSystem, please provide the following information: Company Information: Company: Location Name: Address: County: City, State, Zip Contact Points: Implementation Maintenance & Support Same as previous Accounting _ Same as previous Name Title Phone Fax Email Purchase Order Number: GSA Status (if applicable) Authorized Agent Name Signature Title Date Payment Terms and Conditions: Products or Services When Invoiced Payment Terms Other conditions Software Licenses and Initial Date software is Due upon receipt Installation services will be Maintenance shipped of invoice scheduled after Software license invoice is paid On-site Installation Services At end of each week Net 30 EDD Programming and Custom At end of each week Net 30 Report Design Services Training and Consulting Services At end of each week Net 30 Annual Renewal Maintenance 30 days before Net 30 renewal date Software Licenses and Initial Maintenance is invoiced when the software is shipped to the customer. This invoice is payable upon receipt. Installation services will not be scheduled until payment for software licenses and initial maintenance has been received. On-site Installation Services are invoiced weekly. The work week begins on Sunday and ends on Saturday. These invoices are due Net 30. Delay in payments could result in discontinuation of services. EDD Programming, Custom Reuort Design Services are invoiced weekly. Element offers standard report formats & EDD's. Any additional programming requests will incur charges and be invoiced accordingly. These invoices are due Net 30. Delay in payments may result in discontinuation of additional support for these services. Training and Consulting Services are invoiced weekly. The work week begins on Sunday and ends on Saturday. These invoices are due Net 30. Annual Renewal Maintenance is invoiced 30 days before your maintenance period expires and is due on receipt. Past due accounts In the event that Customer fails to make timely payment under this Agreement, Promium reserves the right to terminate this Agreement by providing Customer written notice of its elections to do so. Venue and Governing Law The laws of the State of Florida shall govern and venue for any action, claim or suit, shall be in Palm Beach County, Florida. Please read the above terms and conditions and sign below, Signature Title Date 6 General Svstem Overview: Element DataSystem (Element) is aclient-server LIM system designed for use with 32-bit Windows® client machines. The database for the system may be contained in a Microsoft SQL Server, Microsoft Data Engine (MSDE), Oracle Server, or Microsoft Access database. Access and MSDE are recommended for small to medium-sized facilities (<15 users) while either SQL Server or Oracle Server should be used for medium to very large facilities. Database licensing for SQL Server and Oracle Server must be purchased in accordance with the database vendor's licensing policies. For these policies please reference the web page of your vendor. Electronic Data Transfer Element includes capability to receive files containing analytical data from other laboratories who are using Element or those who are able to provide electronic files in a predefined transfer format. Samples may also be electronically subcontracted to and from other laboratories using Element. The specification document for non- Element transfer files is available on the Promium downloads section of the Support page on the web site (http://www.promium.com/su~ort). Message Manager Utility Element includes the capability to automatically generate email messages, execute saved queries, work lists, status reports to internal users and/or external clients. The Message Manager utility is designed to run on a single computer somewhere within the facility. It periodically polls the database and uses the email client application on its host computer to actually send any email it finds in the message queue on the primary database. The Message Manager application is not required for routine use of the Element and may be purchased separately at a later date. Policy on Technical Support Technical support is available to customers who have a valid Maintenance Agreement. Telephone support is available Monday through Friday, Sam to Spm Pacific Time, not including national holidays. At other times, a telephone or email message may be left and Promium personnel will respond within one business day. Each facility must designate one contact person to handle technical support requests. Inquiries that can be resolved within 20 minutes and do not require additional programming or support are free of charge. Inquiries requiring more than 20 minutes to resolve and projects such as programming of custom reports, proprietary electronic deliverable programs or special program functions on behalf of the user will be charged at the hourly rate for technical support posted on the Promium web site. Software Update Policv Software updates, including major revisions, are free to customers who have a valid Maintenance Agreement. System components such as executables, libraries, controls, report formats and supporting files for Element are available from the Promium downloads section of the support page web site. Updated components are released approximately once every calendar quarter. Major revisions are released approximately once every two years. License Structure Promium grants licenses for Element based on the number of concurrent users within a single facility. Users may install the client software on as many computers within the facility as they feel necessary. The system will limit access to the primary database if the number of users simultaneously logged into the system exceeds the license count. Please see Promium's End User License Agreement for further details. Hardware & Software Please reference http://www.promium.com/ for current hardware and software requirements. EULA Terms and Conditions: END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ELEMENT DATASYSTEM ®Version 5.0 IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Promium LLC for the Promium SOFTWARE PRODUCT identified above, which includes computer software and associated media and printed materials, and may include "online" or electronic documentation ("SOFTWARE PRODUCT" or "SOFTWARE"). By installing, copying, or otherwise using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed, not sold. 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following rights: a. You may use an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT identified above on an unlimited number of computers within a single physical laboratory or business facility. Facilities connected via Wide Area Network (WAN) or similar distance networking technologies are considered separate physical facilities and must obtain separate licenses for the software. The SOFTWARE is in "use" on a computer when it is loaded into temporary memory (i.e., RAM) or installed into permanent memory (e.g., hard disk, CD-ROM, or other storage device) of that computer. However, installation on a network server for the sole purpose of internal distribution to one or more other computer(s) within a single physical facility shall not constitute "use" for which a separate license is required. b. Solely with respect to electronic documents included with the SOFTWARE, you may make an unlimited number of copies (either in hardcopy or electronic form), provided that such copies shall be used only for internal purposes and are not republished or distributed to any third party. 2. OWNERSHIP a. Title. Promium retains all proprietary rights, including patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark and other proprietary rights, in and to the Software and any corrections, bug fixes, enhancements, updates or other modifications, including custom modifications, to the Software, whether made by Promium or any third party. You shall own all rights, title and interest to the information contained in any database created by you for use with the Product. You shall not, however, own any right, title or interest to the schema, structure or design of any databases developed for use with the Product by Promium and may not disclose such schemas, structures or designs to a third party without the expressed written consent of Promium. b. Transfer. You may transfer the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, but only if the recipient agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you transfer the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you must transfer all computer programs and documentation and erase any copies residing on computer equipment. Your previous license is automatically terminated if you transfer the Software Product. 3. COPYRIGHT All title and copyrights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, code libraries, sub-components and "applets" incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Promium or its suppliers. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is protected by copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Therefore, you must treat the SOFTWARE PRODUCT like any other copyrighted material except that you may (a) make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely for backup or archival purposes and (b) copy the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to a network server for the sole purpose of internal distribution to one or more other computer(s) within a single physical facility. You may not copy the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. 4. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS a. Restrictions on Use. You agree to use the Software only for your own business. You shall not (i) permit any parent, subsidiaries, affiliated entities or third parties to use the Software, (ii) process or permit to be processed Element DataSystem quotation from Promium LLC the data of any other party, (iii) use the Software in the operation of a service bureau, or (iv) allow access to the Software through any terminals located outside of Customer's Site. b. Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation. c. Unauthorized use. You may not distribute, rent or lease or sublicense the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. 5. LIMITED SOFTWARE PRODUCT WARRANTY For 120 days from the date of shipment, we warrant that the media (for example, diskette) on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is contained will be free from defects in materials and workmanship. This warranty does not cover damage caused by improper use or neglect. We do not warrant the contents of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or that it will be error free. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is furnished "AS IS" and without warranty as to the performance or results you may obtain by using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. The entire risk as to the results and performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is assumed by you. To obtain warranty service during the 90-day warranty period, you may return the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (postage paid) with a description of the problem to Vendor. The defective media in which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is contained will be replaced at no additional charge to you. 6. REMEDY If you do not receive media which is free from defects in materials and workmanship during the 120-day warranty period, you will receive a refund for the amount you paid for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT returned. 7. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY AND LIMITATION OF REMEDIES a. The warranties in this agreement replace all other warranties, express or implied, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Promium and its suppliers disclaim and exclude all other warranties. In no event will our liability of any kind include any special, incidental or consequential damages, including lost profits, even if we have knowledge of the potential loss or damage. The user assumes the entire risk of using the program. Any liability of provider or manufacturer will be limited exclusively to product replacement. b. We will not be liable for any loss or damage caused by delay in furnishing a Software Product or any other performance under this Agreement. c. Our entire liability and your exclusive remedies for our liability of any kind (including liability for negligence except liability for personal injury caused solely by our negligence) for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT covered by this Agreement and all other performance or nonperformance by us under or related to this Agreement are limited to the remedies specified by this Agreement. d. Some states do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so the above exclusion may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may also have other rights which vary from state to state. 8. U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS The software product and documentation are provided with restricted rights. Use, duplication, or disclosure by the government is subject to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) of the rights in technical data and computer software clause at dfars 252.227-7013 or subparagraphs (c)(1) and (2) of the commercial computer software-restricted rights at 48 cfr 52.227-19, as applicable. Manufacturer is Promium, LLC Attn: Robert R. Wilson 22522 29th Dr SE, Suite #205, Bothell, Washington 98021. 9. TERMINATION Without prejudice to any other rights, Promium may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. 10. MISCELLANEOUS This software is copyright ©1999-2008 Promium LLC, Bothell, Washington. All rights are reserved. If you acquired this product in the United States, this EULA is governed by the laws of the State of Washington. Element DataSystem quotation from Promium LLC Annual Maintenance Agreement -Example Covered Software Products: Element DataSvstem Services Provided by Promium Technical support services under this Agreement are limited to the two most recent major versions of the covered software products and are available to customers who have a valid Maintenance Agreement. Telephone support is available Monday through Friday, Sam to Spm Pacific Time, not including holidays recognized by Promium. At other times, a telephone or email message may be left and Promium personnel will respond within one business day. Each facility requiring support must designate one contact person to handle technical support requests. Inquiries that do not require additional programming or development resources are free of charge. Emergency technical assistance provided outside of normal business hours may incur additional charges. Online Documentation and Frequently Asked Questions are available at www.promium.com. Support requests should be directed to: Promium Support (Help Desk) 425286.9200 phone or toll free at 877-Promium (776-6486) 425286.9201 fax or toll free at (800) 878-7158 support@promium. com Software updates, including major revisions, are free to customers who have a valid Maintenance Subscription Agreement. Updated system components such as executables, libraries, controls, report formats and supporting files for the covered software products and its companion applications are available from the Promium downloads section of the web site: www.promium.com/support. Additional Custom Programming Services Requests requiring programming of custom reports, proprietary electronic deliverable programs or special program functions on behalf of the user will be charged at the hourly rate for technical development as quoted by your Promium Sales Engineer. Development ofnon-proprietary electronic deliverables may also be charged if the client requests development on a rush basis. Services Not Included Promium reserves the right to charge for support or programming services that are unrelated to the direct operation of its software products. This includes conflicts that may cause software failure due to firmware or device drivers or micro code problems introduced by the manufacturer or other parties. This also includes other software programs that may interfere with its software products. This agreement does not provide services for computer equipment, network equipment, database software, or any other product that may malfunction unless the malfunction is directly related to Promium's software. This agreement does not include any additional custom development or programming required to customize Promium software, after purchase, for client's particular needs. Training over the phone is not available as part of this agreement. Term & Renewal This Maintenance Subscription Agreement is effective for one year. Effective (service start) and expiration (service end) dates are as set forth above. Upon the expiration of the initial one year term (and unless otherwise terminated), this Agreement shall automatically be extended for successive one-year periods unless either party gives written notice of its intent to terminate the Agreement before the initial term orthen-current renewal term expires. Element DataSystem quotation from Promium LLC 10 Payment & Cost Each year's annual maintenance subscription shall be paid in advance. Promium will notify each customer of the coming year's annual maintenance charge no less than 45 days before the renewal date (the "Payment Deadline"). In the event that Customer fails to make timely payment under this Agreement, Promium reserves the right to terminate this Agreement by providing Customer written notice of its election to do so. The annual maintenance charge shall be at the rate as set forth in the proposal and may only increase upon the consent of both parties. Miscellaneous Any services not covered under this Agreement will be billed at Promium's hourly rates as set by Promium in its course of business. As of 2008, the rates are $145/hr (US). Promium agrees that prior to incurring any charges that are in excess of the initial cost or annual maintenance fee set forth in the proposal it shall first obtain the written consent of the Customer. Limitation of Liability Promium's liability shall be limited to the amount paid for licensed software product acquired hereunder. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL PROMIUM BE LIABLE FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF PROMIUM'S SOFTWARE PRODUCTS BY THE USER. Promium's liability will be limited to refunding the amount paid for such licensed software products by a prorated amount that is based on 24 months of use from date of invoice. After 24 months of use, the customer would be entitled to a zero dollar refund. Promium shall not be liable for delay in furnishing or failure to furnish service if an act of God, labor action, governmental action, theft, vandalism, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of Promium, causes such delay. General If Customer breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, as determined by a Court of Law, Promium, in addition to any other legal remedy it may have, may cancel this Agreement effective upon written notice to Customer. The terms and conditions of this Agreement prevail over the terms and conditions of any other order submitted by Customer for maintenance service under this Agreement. This Agreement or other proof thereof must be presented as valid Maintenance coverage upon request. The entire agreement between the parties hereto is contained in this Agreement, and this Agreement supersedes all of their previous understandings and agreements, written and oral, with respect to this transaction. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument executed by the parties subsequent to the date hereof. Element DataSystem quotation from Promium LLC 11 Of Delray Department of Environmental Services M E M O R A www. mydelraybeach. com TO: Victor Majtenyi, Deputy Director Public Utilities FROM: Juan Manzano, Manager Compliance Division SUBJECT: Planned Budgeted LIMS Purchase DATE: October 30, 2008 Several vendors were contacted to quote a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) basic package. A comparison of basic system functionality, tools provided, LIMS Demos, conferences attended, number of users and quoted price by vendors was used to select the vendor. See cost comparison below. Promium LLC was the vendor selected based on price and features offered. Promium is installed in several cities in Florida (St. Petersburg, Titusville, Jacksonville), as well as private and EPA laboratories at different locations. Funds in the amount of $24,860.00 are available in account 441-5161-536-66.10 to purchase the system (after a budget transfer). I am submitting for your review and approval, as well as inclusion in commission consent agenda. ~~'endor Item Perkin Elmer Promium LLC. Zumatrix Basic S stem Included Included Included Instrument Interfaces No Cost No Cost $800 Each Yearly Maintenance Included 1st Year) Included 1st Year) Included 1st Year) Electronic Data Deliverable ADAPT) Not Included Included Not Included Florida Department of Environmental Protection Drinking Water Reporting Format Not Included Included Not Included Access/SequeUOracle Com liant Oracle/Sequel Access/ Oracle/Se uel Oracle/Sequel Number of Current Users > 300 Clients > 200 Clients 75 Clients Total Pricc Quotcd $69,3(10.00 $24,~h0.00 $1,669.00 Vendor Selected ~ /jam Charlie Crist Governor ~~~ ,.. ~~.~, ~ ~ ~E. ~ ~ _ _ [~ T u. _~~ .~ ~'1 ;11.,.,~~ 1 1 ~._ ~ _.J City of Defray Beach Environmental Services Laboratory 200 SW 6th Street, Delray Beach, FL 33444-2698 Dear Laboratory Director: Ana M. Viamonte l=ies, M.D., M.P.N. State Suraeon General June 72, 200$ l.D. # E56367 Your proposed Plans of Correction to deficiencies ideatified during the on-site assessment of your laboratory on April 23-24, 2008 were received in this office on June 9, 2008. These corrective actions have been reviewed and determined acceptable. The next on-site assessment of the laboratory shoaid verify correction of the pretiously cited deficiencies and shoWd demonstrate the efficacy of the corrective action plans. However, if you da have any questions regarding this matter or any o#her requirements for certification, please feel free to contact me at (904) 797 -7 587. Sincerely, Lewis Denriy Biological Scientist !I! Environmental Laboratory Certification Program LDlld Bureau of Laboratories P. O. Box 210, Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0042 n R_E~On ~. - ~N k ~ ~ ~le~a~ City of Delray Beach Environmental Services Laboratory ELCP ID# E56367 I.D. Laboratory Plan of Correction Completion Prefix Date Tag 1 (I) The test method section of QM Section 6 was 06/02/08 updated (2) An SOP for Document Control is now in place. . 2 (1,2,3) Title page updated 05/30/08 3 Login/Saimple Acceptance SOP provide to operations 06/04108 4 City has Overflow Lab Contract Procedure, QM 06/03108 Section 19 updated 5 New Doc~.unent Control Procedure is being 0713010$ ,implemented, changes will be completed by completion date 6 QM Section S updated to include test with no 06/03/08 Proficiency Testing or Quality Control Standards comrriercially available 7 QM Section 19 updated to include environmental 06/03/08 occurrences $ Anew Laboratory Information Management System 10/01/08 . will be purchase that is documented in sufficient detail for use. Quotes and funding is being procured to purchase system. 9 A dehumidifer was purchased to minimize humidity 05/30/08 in central lab to maintain the integrity of test data. In addition, a study of air conditioning system will be conducted to determine if system is operating as intended. ~~ Compliance Manager: '.~ ~ l-i ~ ~ Date: ~~~~~~1~~ STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES AND PLAN OF CORRECTION READ INSTRUCTIONS ON BACI( CAREFULLY BEFORE COMPI_Ei"ING LABORATORY: LAB LD. NO. City of Delray Beach Environmental Services Laboratory E56367 PARAMETERS SURVEYED: . DATE SURVEY COMPLETED: SURVEYOR: 22-24. 2008 Lewis Den Drinking Water -Microbiology, Primary Inorganic Contaminants, Secondary Inorganic Contaminants, Other Regulated Contaminants, Group II Unregulated Contaminants, Non-Potable 1Nater -Microbiology, Metals, General Chemistry, Volatile Organics (~) I:D. PREFIX TAG (2) (3) SUNINfAF2Y STATEMENT OF DEFIClfNCfES LABOf~ATORY'S ]?LAN OF CORRECTfON (Each corrective action should be cross refere~cedto fire apprapriata:deficieney) (4) COMPLETION DATE 7. NELAC 5.4.11.1 - If preventive action is required, action plans are not developed, implemented, and monitored to reduce the occurrence ofnon-conformances and to take ~~'~~~~~~ advantage of opportunities for improvement which must include environmental occl~rrences. ~ ~ '~ 8. NELAC 5,5.4.7.2(x) -The laboratory's computer software is not documented in sLrfficient ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ O detail and suitably validated as being adequate far use. ~. 9. NELAC 5.5.4.7.2(c) -Computers and automated equipment are oat provided with the ®,~ 1 ~~~~ environmental and operating conditions necessary to maintain the integrity of test data. ~~~.. SIGNATURE: , ~ '~'" ~~/ ~ / ~ ~ Page.~2,_,~ of „~2_ Respon Official DATE DH FORM 1.137, 3197 Please see reverse side of form MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP Richard C. Hasko P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 31, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 S.A. N0.07-O1/MOCK, ROOS & ASSOCIATES, PN 2007-062 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Requesting Commission approval/authorization for the Mayor to execute Service Authorization 07-01, with Mock, Roos & Associates for the design only of the Intracoastal Waterway Educational Passive Park. The cost of this Service Authorization is $72,090.00. BACKGROUND The Intracoastal Waterway Educational Passive Park Project was brought forward by the Downtown Development Authority, and is located along the eastern side of the Intracoastal Waterway and approximately 150' north and south of Atlantic Avenue. The proposed improvements will include brick paver sidewalks, boardwalks, lighting, signage, and landscaping. The purpose of the park is to provide an educational experience of South Florida native species and to beautify a blighted area that is located in the heart of downtown Delray Beach. The educational component is proposed to be tied to programs at the Sandoway House. Some $208,000 was budgeted for this project in the Beautification Fund 2007- 08 Capital Budget. The City will be applying for a Florida Inland Navigational District (F.LN.D.) grant for the construction of this park. Prior to applying for the grant the City must obtain a maintenance agreement from Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). FDOT will not enter into a maintenance agreement until the design is 100% completed. Therefore, this Service Authorization is limited to design of this park. A separate service authorization will be brought forward to Commission for permitting, bidding and construction administration services if the City is successful in obtaining the F.LN.D. grant. Current consulting fee estimate for permitting, bidding and construction administration is approximately $40,000.00. FUNDING SOURCE The funding source is account #119-4151-572-68.35 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. SCSG i3 i1 ~ :a9i..~~i > da: ~~ ~ f IF~'~i: ~i;;. ~.~'C' SE~~'.~.~'~.'.~~~" ~_ ~`1t~>,,.1zL!-1 ~ _.~"E ~ `a: `t~~ t~~l3l a~~ t;'i'.Sf 2 ~Liits ~3C(;'~~~~_t. 'T :C~ti'~7C'~_'E~ ~"(' ;d%'9~'_'I1 ~ '11' .~a ryy . { i t S 1 f%'x~ I~e 1, .:e. 1 ~~ 1 ~ ... t.~! en i~. ~J. ~ 1.... ?~ i).1.,~~i ~~ ,~' (~f t, ~~~l".}.i l..?. ~~~: L(~ i :~l ~ ~ 1~7 ~.15 i_):-~~:;'~~ ~}. \. !~~ ~,'~-~.. '~it3b'lE~~ .... LLL~~ _Ciitlt=l%tii..~_:t:J ~IiL i3S'l':~f~. _? t _~ ti~i"_~! ~~ ~:~~_C ~~1~~a~ti ~c~1 ?t t. ,i_tiI~1C~I- C;€~,,~~,~t.a~.)~?-°.~~ bE-tiC3f.,~ `:t l .'C. )Jt~~l~a~, 1i iti~?.1'.:~1~. :D. ~ !)~~ ~~~ _ ~a. .:i 1C,+ ~~.. ~J ~;J`'~ i~!I~i <<1L' ~~~:~~. t_. ~~.. ~~~ ~ll~l~~ ~(; ~. ~t (t:`!.~C`.~ Jl1C~ ~:'~,_i. ,:j` .!~ ~.~1~~C`F ,'l ~. ~~lt:' f~ AC~:i11'I~' ~~`; _ j;> > ,i.;~. {~4 1/E`..It ,~ ~ 6~',.'t"~ ;> %;~i a~ ,..91Ck? ~~~ f.; 1 '?1'~" : I S ~r'ii ,~~~,.1. ,- .. ,_.~~t%l' (.t1 1 (,..,~ ~';.L;:IIEi1,'E`i. E t e,,.(i. C.; ,.',e .. °~e.'~ f_ ,~, .'~i l~'. :~'. ~_C;~"Ti 11O~ t ilE~Fl`,tls ~~ ;.IiC~9.l(.i;.:i.`. ii' i~li ;'1i:.li~'Pi,' itE ~:ti'(',l-}~.. -, ~_,E' ~ ,. ;~:3Ei ~ ,till ,ilt (.[Elt'. ~` <_„1~;~. :'~~1%<i ~ i ~st C>, ~~ a ,,~_.;~ I' ;r ~ ';'~,i1`:' ~. ~C, ~±r~?°YI4~i~.11)J?~ ~; ~' ~C."::~ ~'~f E~i)a'~'n;iir, ;;.~,(' 'r; ~~r'~ i;~ 17:-~5, , fYi, ~i ~z~= ~~lc~~~~o~a~e:~~ '~~°r~~ ~¢°~• ~,(~4 ,~~ie 1.~ t~r';Vll`;.,', 1 -"~~,. 'i;~;~l.lifC.;.~ i~C;, ~;) i,.'•,~ Y~~.clE! ~ (i1~~i.C;bs~(Ce~ (~I` I >~IIV ,'. ~s'-,~,~ 1~C`,`'~ .~.i.4?t~;i, .E ~_^ `._,,,•.L,E(`i'~El ?. c:i1'~' .ll, E,~t~ ..1 ..?'' _.1{i ;ayliC~E~E(zE; 7'~."a -lL1E?) s ~c '-[ `iC.'1'°, 1Y .~ i~YOltl~ifC'•.~ 1„~?f.`?i`1 t:?° c.~,,..;~f~1~S~ '.i~~„1 ,fi'C%f',.. ~!~~1<~a a+`-i~E3 `SC'1'\ a~,t, i.;dii. p~1~.' f'7EC V' ~`:i~',,_f ,~~\; :,,i~C,I HiI <~ 3~..i1 <1 !t~?~-~~. ~Ifai~., `a;?~-"k )~ ~~il~- E ,~~~ <~~)C;A~C `~~.~~:?~. i1'~i~wr .t~.~•:; 7vC~ii~t~11~- 6~C;+L;^i il(11 .,1. ~L ~~~ ~~l;iY1l_ ;~C','b1C,t~~ ~~f~ l~ <<. ~ -~1_:~i t:°(iv"i::~`'i.u :'1:'iV L~~ :zd~d:,:,;tt'`> li) (tit.:_li~ ~:'~ ~~;'tiJ -a ~.~ . t.'~~wa~~t$g?aa ~~~~~~ ~~~1~ f.,?I.;~ .. ~'((SI: ~<l(~.°'> 1•.~; ,..tiq:7 `.'~`i?9~~i 1~' ~ ;~]: ~ti i11~~~J1~-~ ~` il~~!__~,, ~l ;~":. `.~.i ~~_i'~~°`~l(7- rYC-,7Ct.°Ci~,F. PtiL t;~i fit.) _~li. l~lr'f,~ F~rC_~'1 ~> •'~IC'iil,.e~i~_ Y7~1?1.~'_-[ ~CT`~"1C~°s ~sl'•~~~t't"~~ i`~C ~ C.:T1E_~~.;1~~~1'lic' _~ ~ __., ~ ~s ~ ,. ~__ ~ ~_~__~,~ _~_ ..,.<~...,. ';1::~~:~.'uns - ~'-' ._. ,... ,~,fu •,. ~~ ... ,ii) i ~'_.. .,_,_ .. MEMORANDUM TO: David Harden, City Manager FROM: Alberta Gaurr3., Pxaject Coordinator SUBJECT; Atlantic Ave. Intracoastal Waterway Educational Passive Park DATE: August 28, 2007 Request your approval to re-submit an agenda request, dated April 8, 2008, far the Mayor to execute Service Authorization 0`Z-O1, with Mock, Raos & Associates for the design, permits and bids of the Intracoastal Waterway Educational Passive Park. The cost of this Service Authorization is $95,000.00. In March, 2008, I went to Florida Inland Navigational District to discuss the prospect of financial assistance for the development of the Intracoastal Park. At that time, Mark T. Crosley, FIND Assistant Executive Director, stated that the City of Delray Beach must have a 25-year management agreeri~ent with Florida Department of Transportation before we could apply for funding. See attachment 66B-2.008 ~- Project Eligibility #2 PropeYty Control. After several emails to FDOT, Randal Kxejcarek, City Engineer, finally received direction as to how to proceed with implementing an agreerrlent between FDOT and the City of Delray Beach. In summary, we are to submit 100% of the plans and application through the West Palm Beach Operations Center detailing; roadway access, landscaping, maintenance of traffrc, plans, pavement, cost estimate, and contingencies. After all FDOT designs and structural concerns are completed we may then go for a Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement (MMOA} which could take up to 8 weeks. See attachment. Applications for funding through Florida Inland Navigation District will be available in January, 2009 and due in the District office by 4:30 pm, April 1, 2009. Prior to March 1, 2009, -the application process requires a conversation with our local FIND Cammissroner. I will need the FDOT Agreezx~ent far the March 1, 2009 meeting and presentation. Please advise. Cc: Linda Karch, Director of Parks and Recreation Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer Doug Smith, Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: lVlayor and City Canunissioners FROM: Timothy Taek, Project Manager ESD/CRA Richard C, Haska P.E., Enviaronmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: April 8, 2008 SU$IECT: GE A ITEM 8.~'. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETYNG OE MAY G, 2008 S.A. NO.O'7~01/MOC ROOS & ASSOC ATES ITEM BE ORE CONIlV1l<SS ON Requesting Commission appravallauthorization for the Mayor to execute Service Authorization 07--01, with Mack, Roos & Associates far the design, permitting and bidding of the Intracoastal Waterway Educational Passive Park. The cast of this Service Authorization is $95,000.00. B~.CKGROUND The Intracoastal Waterway Educational Passive Park Project was brought forward by the Downtown Development Authority, and is located on lands east of the Intracoastal Waterway and approximately 150' north and south of Atlantic Avenue. The proposed i.praverrients will include brick paver sidewalks, boardwalks, lighting, signage, and landscaping. Tl~e purpose of the park is to provide an educational experience of South Florida native species and to beautify a blighted area that is located in the heart of downtown Delray Beach. The educational component is proposed to be tied to programs at the Sandaway House- FUND~.NG SOURCE The funding source is account #11.9-4151-572-6835 RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Service Authorization No. 07-01 to lVlack, Roos & Associates in the amount aI $95,000.00 for the design of the Intracoastal Waterway Educational Passive Park. http://n~iwe6001/CouncilAgendalBluesheet.aspx?Itena.ID=866&MeetingID=164 5/5/2008 FIND Application Ins'tructians 1 ATTAC~~iVtENT D 668-2.006. -Disaster Relief Applications. Disaster Relief applications may be submitted to the District and considered by the Board at any time during the year to provide assist~.nce to an eligible applicant for the removal of navigation obstructions and repaix or replacement of waterway facilities damaged by a declared natural disaster. The District shall consider these applications in accordance with these rules. Specific Authority 374.9762) FS. Ltxw .Implemented 374.976(1} FS. History -New 6T24-93, Amended 2-5-97, Formerly 16T 2.O1J61, [mended 424-06. 66B-2.OOS ~- Pr©ject Eligibility. (1}Eligible Projects: Financial assistance and support through this program shall be used to plan nr carry out public navigation, public recreation, environmental education, boating safety, acquisition and development of spoil sites and publicly owned cornn~erciaUindustrial waterway access directly related to the waterways, ac uisition and develo meet of ublic boat rain s launchin facilities and boat dockin and moorin facilities, and inlet management, envirnn~nental mitigation and beach renourishment directly related to the waterways (a} Prngraxn funds may be used far projects such as acquisition, planning, development, construction, reconstruction, extension, improvement, operation ar maintenance of the following types of projects for public use on land and water. These project types will be arranged into a priority list each year by vote of the Board. The priority list will be distributed to applicants with tlae project application. 1. Public navigation channel dredging; 2. Public navigation aids and markers; 3. Inlet management projects that are a benefit to public, navigation in the District; 4. Public shoreline stabilization; 5. Acquisition anal devc;lnpment of publicly owned spoil disposal site and public cammerciaVindustrial waterway access; 6. Waterway signs and buoys fnr~safety, regulation or infar~nation; 7. Acquisition and development of public boat ramps and launching facilities; S. Acquisition and development of public boat docking and mooring facilities; 9. Derelict Vessel Removal; 10. Waterways related environmental education programs and facilities; i l .Public fishing and viewing piers; 12. Public waterfront boardwalks; 13. Waterways boating safety programs and equipment; 14. Beach renourishment on beaches adversely impacted by navigation inlets, navigation structures, navigation dredging, or a navigation project; and 15. Other waterway related projects. (b} Ineligible Projects or Project Elements. Project costs ineligible for program funding or matching funds will include: contingencies, miscellaneous, reoccurring personnel related casts, .. ~. ,irrigation equipment, ball--courts, park and playground equipment, and any extraneous recreational amenities not directly related to the waterway such as the following: 1. Landscaping that does not provide shoreline stabilization or aquatic habitat; 2. Restrooxx~s fnr non-waterway users; 3. Roadways providing access to non-waterway users; 4. Parking areas for non-waterway users; 5. Utilities for non.-waterway related facilities; 6. Lighting for non-waterway related facilities; 7.1Vlaintenance equipment; $. Picnic shelters and furniture; 9. Vehicles to transport vessels; 1(?. Operational items such as fuel, oil,,etc.; FIND Application Instructions 2 ATTACHMENT D l 1.Office space that is not incidental and necessary to the operation afthe main eligible public ' building; and l2. Conceptual project planning, including: public surveys, opinion pa11s, public meetings, and organizational conferences. (c} Project Elements with Eligibility Limits: Subject to approval by the Board o£ an itemized expense list: 1. The following project casts will be eligible far program funding or as matching funding i£they are performed by an independent contractor: a. Project management, administration and inspection; b. Design, permitting, planning, engineering or surveying costs for completed construction project; c. Restoration of sites disturbed during the construction o£ an approved project; d. Equipment costs. Before reimbursement is made by the District on any of the costs listed in subparagraph 1. above, a construction contract for the project, approved and executed by the project sponsor and project contractor must be submitted to the District. 2. Marine law enforcement and other vessels are eligible for a maximum of $30,000 in initial District funding. ,All future replacement and maintenance costs of the vessel and related equipment' will be the responsibility of the applicant. 3. Waterway related environmental education facility funding will be limited to those project elements directly related to the District's waterways. (d} Phasing of Projects: Applications for eligible waterway projects will be submitted as a phased project where Phase I will include the design, engineering and permitting elements and Phase II will include the construction o£the project. A description and cost estimate of the Phase II work shall be submitted along with the Phase I application for Board review. Applicants far construction prnjects that include elements that require state ar federal envirarimental permits will demonstrate that all required environmental permitting and ro rieta authorizations will be completed by the District's final TRIM hearing. This demonstration will be by the submission o£the required environmental permit(s) or by the submission of a letter from the agency(s) stating that a permit is not required. Should the environmental permitting element of an application that has construction elements that require state or federal enviroraz~aental permits not be completed by the District's final TRIM hearing, the construction portion of the project will not be considered for funding. The District will not deviate from the funding schedule, whereby funding decisions are completed at the final TRIM hearing, to accommodate any application deficiency. (2) Property Control: The site of a new proposed land-based development project, with the exception of those prnjects requesting Small-Seale Spoil Island Restoration and Enhancement funding, shall be dedicated for the public use for which the project was intended £nr a minimum period of 25 years after project completion. Such dedication, shall be in the form of a deed, lease, management agreement ar other legally binding document and shall be recorded in the public property records a£ the county in which the property is located. `I'bis property control requirement also applies to a project site owned by another governmental entity. The governmental entity that awns the project site may be joined as a co-applicant to meet this property control requirement. Existing land based development projects that are being repaired, replaced nr cnadified must demonstrate that the project site has been dedicated far public use for at least 2S years with at least 10 years remaining on the dedication document. Property shall also be deemed dedicated for public use i£ (a) The property has bean designated for the use for which the project is intended {even though there tray have been na formal dedication) in a plat ar map recorded prior to 1940, or (b) The project sponsor demonstrates that it has had exclusive control over the property for the public use for which the project is intended for a period of at least 30 years prior to submission o£the application, nr (c} There is no ongoing litigation chef lenging the designated use of the property as shown on the plat or reap, nor has there been any judicial determination contrary to the use by the public for the use shown on the plat or map. _----Original Message----- ~rom: dean, Jerry lmailto:Jerry.[7ean@dot.state.fl.usj Sen>r: Monday, August 1$, 2008 9:49 AM To: iCrejcarek, Randal Cc: Thompson, 5usana; Tack, Tim; Daum, Alberta; Bacomo, Christine; Drouin, Brett; Fiassett, Elisabeth Subject: Permit Project to include a F.I.N.D. grant appiication Randal., Sttk~i~nit 100% plans and application thru the West Palm Biach Opc;ratians C`cnter detailizlg the fallowing. C)nce all of the ~~ecessary reviewing Depaz•tn7ent's Dave give~7 their approvals, l will sLtbra~it tl-~e MMOA i~xfornaatian to the Maintenance Depat~~nent. ROADWAY ACCESS WlTurn Lanes A drainage report will be required to demonstrate that the design meets FDOT drainage criteria, such as Hydraulic Grade Line Clearance, spread criteria, etc. far impervious areas of over 100' in length within the existing FDOT drainage system. A signed and sealed- statement will be required to ensure the Engineer of Record has determined the proper design method for increased water runoff. PLAN NOTE that needs to be Added All materials and canstruetion within the FDOT right-of--way shall conform to the Latest FDOT Design Standards and Latest Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. LANDSCAPING These are landscaping and irrigation permit plans. On your next submittal, please only submit plans that detail the state road and FDOT R/W that will be affected by the landscaping. -Refer to FDOT Standard Index 544 for installation of vegetation -Refer to FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction Section 580 far landscape installation specs. MOT A reference must be detailed in the plans as to the appropriate Florida Department of Transportation Standard Index 600 series to be used. A lane closure analysis needs to be submitted when a travel lane is to be dosed. PLANS 1. Clearly detail the adjacent property driveway entrances as they relate to your property. Include measurements. 2. Ensure the FDOT Right of Way (RIW} is clearly detailed in the plans. Use the official line codes far the RJW, (1zne followed by twa dashes). 3. If R!W dedications are needed, we want to address them as early as passible. The attached f le (Right-of Way Dedication.pdf) details required documents that need to be recorded and filed with the Department. This file was generated by the District Right of Way (R/W} Department. It details the responsibilities of all involved parties, concerning R/W dedications. Please follow the guidelines and submit the proper documentation to one. 4. Show both sides of the state roadway to include pavement striping, radius, median, etc. S. Pavement Markings detailed per FDOT Standard 17346. b. ADA concerns compliant with FDOT Design Standard Index 304. 7. Begin working on the cost estimate. PAVEII~ENT THE DEPARTMENT NO LONGER PERMITS THE NOTE, "MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT". Plans must detail what types will be used. The Department no longer approves S-1 and S-3 asphaltic concrete to be used within the FDOT Right-of--Way. Your plans must detail SuperPave as the STRUCTURAL Course. Only specifyr: 1, The thickness (to nearest'/z inch, ]" ~ninirnurn) 2. The Traffic bevel (assume "C" if you don't know) The contractor may use SP 9.5, SP I2.5, or SP 19.0 as allowed per Specs. Your plans must detail the following for Friction Courses 1. FC-5 (always 3/~", replaces old FC-2) is only for Multi Lane Roads 50 mph anal over, all other applications use either 2. FC-9.5 (always 1") or 3. FC-1.2.5 (always 1'/z", replaces old FC-[i) Your plans should have 3" minimum asphalt thickness (33/4" minirnu~n if you have la'C-5) COST ESTII~!IATE 1. Please have me review and approve the cost estimate prior to sending the signed and sealed ones. We will need 4 original, signed and sealed Cost Estimates for the worlc performed within the State Right of Way. See attached file (TteinAvgUi~itCostArea 12.pdf) 2. The cost estimate table needs to show the following details: a. FDOT pay item #, b. Description, c. Unit of Measure, d. Quantity, e, Unit Cost, f. Estimated Cost. Use the attached~le below to entet~ cu~~^ent casts and etc foY the cost estimate. Maintenance Of Traffic {MOT) -Should equal 10% of the total project cost. Mobilization (MOB)- Should equal 8-10% of the total project cost. CONTiNGENCTES Contingencies Listed as a title within the cost estimate are prohibited. Tf we see contingencies, the estimate wi11 be rejected. This next step, MMOA. begins after all 'DOT design aid structural. conce~~ns have beea~ addressed by the a}~pficant. MA~NTEN.A.NCE iVJIEI~I.UR.A,.NDUI~ ~.F AGREE~I~iENT (1WJI..IV.~~A} This approval may take up to 8 weeks of time after ail FDOT Plans reviews have been addressed. To obtain a Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement (MMOA} or an Addendum to an existing MMOA, the permittee is required to provide the following information: PLEASE FILL iN THE INFORMATION BELOW FOR ITEMS ~, 3, AND 6. E-MAIL THIS BACK TO ME. PLEASE E-MAIL ITEMS 4 AND 5 BUT PLEASE, DON'T USE or SEND pdf FILES. PLEASE USE MIGROSOFT WORD FOR THE EXHIBITS AND THE MAINTENANCE PLAN. SEND HARD COPIES OF ITEMS 2, AND ~ THRU THE US MAIL SYSTEM. ~ . Maintenance Agency (s} Name City, Town or County} 2. Five ~5} sets of 1 ~" X 17" Plans 4copies of the original Signed and Sealed Plans} to be enclosed with the four executed MMOA or Amendment. Ensure Tabulation of Quantities sheet is included for Landscaping. The Agency (s} maintenance boundaries should be clearly delineated on the plan view (s}. 3. A complete description of the proposed job within the FDOT RIW that may include landscape, irrigation andlor any other kind of hardscape as for example brick pavers, privacy wall, concrete sidewalk etc. including any applicable maintenance. Ensure paver type, color and size is included. 4. Performance based Maintenance Plan by Agency (s} (8 1 f2" X 11 "). For your use with landscape and irrigation projects please see attached Maintenance Plan example. 5. Complete the three (3} MMOA Exhibits A,B & C (See attached examples} and forward them electronically to me once received from the permittee. 6. Contact name (the person at the Town, City or County to receive and track the agreement) title, address, phone number and email address. O O_ M N.E. N.E. v w Z 2N D ~ o z z O O m m ~ ~ O O cn z 0 Z S A T L A N T I C w Q w w > > Q Q isr S S ~ ~ Ln U= w li (n (I 2ND o = ~ ~ ~ M V Q W L.i Q 3RD 1 II n n n n n ~~, Q LiJ Q ~~. z 0 o= a w a A V E STREE AVENU N A S `. B A' ~ ~ CITY of DELRAY BEACH Intracoastal waterway DATE:2/13/08 ~~d ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Educational Passive Park 41}7 6©p 434 SOUTH SWINTON AVENUE, DELRAY BEACH, FLOPoDA 33444 Proj. # 2007-062 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Begona Krane, Engineer-in-Training Richard C. Hasko, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 12, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 CALL TO ARTIST/LANDSCAPE ARTIST IN RESIDENCY PRO,TECT/DEL IDA COMMUNITY PARK ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This agenda item is for Commission approval/authorization for the Mayor to execute the contract with Ms. Lois Brezinski for the "Landscape Artist in Residency Project" at Del Ida Community Park. The total cost of the project is $40,000.00. BACKGROUND The Public Art Advisory Board previously issued a Call to Artists for a Landscape Artist in Residency Project to create, plan and implement an art project in Del Ida Park with the help and participation of the community. The Board selected Ms. Lois Brezinski for the project. Ms. Brezinski is a self employed professional fine artist. Her proposed design includes: • A labyrinth or maze which takes the form of a circular intersecting stone path (double helix shape) with a grassy field surrounding the path Berms or dunes covered with native grasses and wildflowers on each side of the park Two types of lighting elements (with two options described for one of the elements) Landscaping A specially designed bench built from weather resistant teak Attached are pictures depicting the art, a project location map and a copy of the agreement to be executed. FUNDING SOURCE The total cost is $40,000.00. Funding is available in the Public Arts Program fund, account # 115-1702- 579-63.90. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND ARTIST FOR THE LANDSCAPE ARTIST IN RESIDENCY PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 20, by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH (hereinafter called CITY) and Lois Bresenski (hereinafter called ARTIST). WITNESSETH: The CITY and the ARTIST in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. The undersigned ARTIST hereby represents that he/she has carefully examined all documents attached hereto, and will perform all requirements, pursuant to all covenants and conditions, as provided by this Agreement and any attachments. 2. The ARTIST, as evidenced by the execution of this Agreement, acknowledges that he/she has examined all specifications and requirements of this RFP. The ARTIST further acknowledges that the "Call to Artist" price includes all costs and expenses required for the satisfactory completion of all requirements provided by this Agreement. The total cost for this project is $ 40,000.00 which shall be paid within 30 days of the completion of the project as determined by the City Engineer 3. The Agreement between the CITY and the ARTIST include the Agreement and the documents which are attached hereto. 4. The ARTIST shall complete construction of the art project, hereinafter referred to as the "WORK", within 90 days of receiving a notice to proceed from the CITY, unless extended by written agreement. 5. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida as now and thereafter in force. The venue for actions arising out of this agreement shall be Palm Beach County, Florida. 6. All notices, requests, demands, and other given if personally delivered or mailed, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: As to CTIY: City of Delray Beach, FL 100 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 As to ARTIST: Lois Bresenski 110 NE 7~ Street Delray Beach, FL 33444 7. The ARTIST shall not, without prior written consent of the CITY, assign any portion of its interest under this Agreement and, specifically, the ARTIST shall not assign any moneys due or to become due without the prior written consent of the CITY. 8. The CITY and the ARTIST each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto in respect to all covenants, conditions and obligations contained in the Agreement. 9. In consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration, the ARTIST shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the CITY, its officers, agents and employees, from or on account of any liabilities, damages, losses and costs received or sustained by any person or persons by or in consequence of any negligence (excluding the sole negligence of the CITY), recklessness or intentional wrongful misconduct of the ARTIST and any persons employed or utilized by the ARTIST in the performance of this Agreement. ARTIST agrees that negligent, reckless or intentional wrongful misconduct includes, but is not limited to, use of any improper materials or liabilities, damages, losses or costs caused by or on account of the use of any improper materials. ARTIST agrees that negligent, reckless or intentional wrongful misconduct also includes but is not limited to the violation of any Federal, State, County or City laws, by-laws, ordinances or regulations by the ARTIST, its agents, servants or employees. ARTIST further agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the CITY from all such claims and fees, and from any and all suits and actions of every name and description that may be brought against the CITY on account of any claims, fees, royalties, or costs for any invention or patent, and from any and all suits and actions that may be brought against the CITY for the infringement of any and all patents or patent rights claimed by any person, firm, or corporation. The indemnification provided above shall obligate the ARTIST to defend at its own expense or to provide for such defense, at the CITY'S option, for any and all claims or liability and all suits and actions of every name and description that may be brought against the CITY which may result from the operations and activities under this Agreement performed by the ARTIST, its agents or employees. This indemnification includes all costs and fees including attorney's fees and costs at trial and appellate levels. The CITY will pay to the ARTIST the specific consideration of ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration as specific consideration for the indemnification provided herein. Furthermore, the ARTIST acknowledges that the bid price includes said consideration for the indemnification provision. 10. The CITY may, in its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement upon 10 days notice to the ARTIST. Upon termination the Artist shall only retain such funds that have been expended to date. The remaining funds, if any shall be returned to the CITY within 30 days of the termination. 11. ARTIST shall provide the CITY with a written Bill of Sale conveying title to the CITY, and a sworn statement of no liens, claims or other encumbrances. Such documents shall be in a form acceptable to the CITY. 12. The ARTIST warrants that the WORK shall be free of defects in material and workmanship and that the ARTIST shall correct at his/her expense any such defects which appear for a period of one (1) year from delivery of the Bill of Sale for the WORK. 13. The ARTIST warrants that the WORK is an original and that the WORK does not infringe upon any copyright. 14. Title to the WORK shall vest in the CITY upon completion of the WORK. The CITY may reproduce images of the WORK, for non-commercial use, including but not limited to public information, educational and promotional purposes without written consent of the ARTIST. 15. The ARTIST retains (1) copyright of designs created (2) all rights to the Artists Rights Act of 1990, and any successor act, except that the ARTIST hereby waives the rights under 17 U.S.C. 106A, and (3) all rights expressly granted in this Agreement. 16. The ARTIST hereby acknowledges that the artwork will become an integral part to the streetscape and that installation and integration of the artwork may subject the artwork to future removal, destruction, or other modifications by reason of its removal from the structure or the renovation, destruction or redevelopment of the structure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the ARTIST hereby consents to the incorporation of the artwork into the streetscape and waives any rights in the artwork granted by 17 U.S.C. 106A, Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. 17. ARTIST's rights, including but not limited to all copyrights, if applicable, under this Agreement are not assignable and shall cease with ARTIST's death and do not extend to ARTIST's heirs, successors or assigns. CITY's rights and obligations under this Agreement may be assigned without the consent of ARTIST at any time, without prior notice to ARTIST. 18. ARTIST shall notify the CITY of any permanent change of address from that stated in Paragraph 14 hereof, and the failure of ARTIST to do so shall be deemed a waiver by ARTIST of ARTIST's rights to enforce those provisions of this Agreement that require the express approval of ARTIST. 19. The ARTIST shall provide insurance in a form and an amount as requested by the CITY. 20. This Agreement shall be considered null and void unless signed by both the ARTIST and the CITY. 21. This Agreement and the documents attached hereto constitute the entire agreement between the CITY and the ARTIST and may only be altered, amended or repealed by a duly executed written instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney WITNESSES: (please type orprint name) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: Rita Ellis, Mayor ARTIST: By: (please type or print name) (SEAL) CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20, by or agent, title of officer or agent), of place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation me) (or has produced identification) and has used his/her as identification. _day of (name of officer (state or He/She is (personally known to (type of identification) Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment CERTIFICATE (If Corporation) STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that a meeting of the Board of Directors of a corporation under the laws of the State of duly passed and adopted: held on 20~ the following resolution was "RESOLVED", that as President of the corporation, he/she is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement dated , 20~ between the City of Delray Beach, Florida and this corporation, and that his execution thereof, attested by the Secretary of the Corporation and with corporate seal affixed, shall be the official act and deed of this corporation". I further certify that said resolution is now in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the corporation this day of 20 (Secretary) BILL OF SALE KNOW TO ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that (ARTIST) for and in consideration of the sum of ,lawful money of the United States, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold, transferred and delivered, and by these presents does hereby grant, bargain, sell, transfer and deliver unto the City of Delray Beach, Florida, its successors and assigns, a work of art that is TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the City of Delray Beach, Florida, its successors and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ARTIST has hereunto set his hand and seal this day of 200 . (print or type name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 200 by ,who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification and who did take an oath. Notary Public My Commission Expires: CTA SIGNATURE FORM * PLEASE AFFIX SIGNATURE WHERE INDICATED (FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CAUSE FOR REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL) CTA #: Opening Date: CTA TITLE: Landscape Artist in Residency Project COMPANY NAME: NAME/TITLE: DATE: ADDRESS: CITY STATE ZIP CODE FEDERAL TAX LD. #: TELEPHONE: FACSIMILE ( ) *SIGNATURE PLEASE ATTACH LETTERS OF SUPPORT. I.~IS ~C~ZI#1Skl 110 NE 7~n St Delra Beach Florida 561 573 2413 info@Ibrezinski.cort~ C3bjec#ive Professional Fine Ar#is# Experience Self Err~ployed -4rtis# 1975- present ® Paint, exhibit and sell my work in primarily Watercolor and Oil media • Manage and market my art related products in the Cayman islands ® Manage and market my products in the l~nited Mates • Color consultant for residential and- commercial projects Exhibitions Kennedy Gallery Cayman Fine Art, Grand Cayman solo show 1996 ^ Kennedy Gallery Cayman Fine Art Salo show 200(} ^ Baca Raton Museurri Fine Art ,Boca Raton Fl, juried All Florida show 2gg1 Cornell Museum of Art, ©elray Beach, Fl, juried show 2082 ..• Wharf ,Grand Cayman solo show 2003, 2008 Ntuseum and Collections ^ National Gallery of the Cayman islands, permanent collection ^ Cayman Islands IVation~l Museum, permanent Collection • Ritz Carlton Grand Cayman, 5 permanent collection paintings in lobby ^ Avalon Gallery, Delray Beach; 1=1 ^ Delray Art and Frame, Delray Reach, FI Kennedy Gallery Fine Art, Grand Cayman ^ Pure Art, Grand Cayman Mullet Beach Gallery, St Augustine, Fl ^ My Own Cruising Journal Art Gallery, Pompano , FI ^ Little Palm lsiand Resort, Little Torah Key, FI Publica#ion Pos#ers in#ernational, Toronto Canada Publishing contract of 20 images .2004 to present. Educ®#ion Rhode Island School of C3esign, Providence, Rhode Island • 1966-1970 • BFA Apparel Design IV~ora#tlair 5#ca#e College, Montclair, New Jersey • 1978-1979 • Graduate Printmaking References References are available upon request. llVekasi#e nr.lbrexinski.conl ~rotri tie s~uc~io a~ A o www.lbr-czins~Ci.corr. ~fi f ~J3 2.x-1 3 cm~il: in~~a~~l~rczinsici.cam PREP®SPeI. FC3R 4X4 CC3MMi..1NIT~! ART PFtOJ~~"I~ august 1g, ~~08 IMy proposal encompasses three of the four design elements sir~;e it is my belief that the park can hav€: a wl'tolly i:ttegrated design from one vision. I Relieve I Dave that vision. I l~~ad punned an submitting a proposal far ail four elerr~ents thus you will see it7 rt~y visuals that- there is a pla€~~w> in place for landscaping, I`~lowever, tl~e award wlnflfng envirs~nPt°tental lar~r~sarape compaPty that I <~°.: had been working with backed out at the very last minute. Their concern was that the amount af. permitting, bonds, and cost of excavation of the site would be far too costly given the proposed.: budget. The construction of bog/wetlands appeared t® be the main issue for their withdrawal: -~ °;. Taking into account that the Del Ida neighl~c~rhoad is i•9istaric, that I live and ~rork a b6oc1• from the site, ar-td that I arri a founding member of the Delray Beach Preservation Trust, I feel that the d~:sign of this park should meet certain criteria. There ;should be nothing too trendy ar rnadern that would be out of character given the historic and modest ~~ature of the majority of homes in the rreighbarhood. The bark should be kept simple and above all, user friendly. I envision a place where moats with strollers, couples on an evening walk, or a neighborhood resident goes far a . cool breeze. ,4 park that offers a shady protected spot to sit, well lit and free of abstractions for crime, and a path with wildflowers and native grasses where folks can stroll, kids can ramp, ar one can contemplate nature while walling the "labyrinth". The y~verall design should offer a bit of whimsy, fire apes imagination and offer an entree ' into something above and beyond the ordinary. IA1ith the above thoughts in mind, I've designed a park that offers elements of sin°iplicity, functional design and splashes of rolarful original art. The labyrinth takes the form of a circular intersecting stone path reminiscent of a double- helix-the symbol of infinity. Surrounding the pant area is a grassy field l=flled with colorful wildflowers. C?n eacirt side of the park are salt undulating berms or dunes covered with native grasses and wildflowers. The natural mulch and ferns under the shady area of the existing Ficus tree are kept intact. The light fixtures are the "jewel" of the design, adding color and whimsy both during the day ar~~l of course when lit at night. The additional moon fighting in the tree will add drama as well as safety at night. If budgetary constraints allow, I would envision smaller elements of the lighting fixtures (without light) to be placed under the tree for additional artistic interest near the bench. While researching seating solutions, my thought eventually evolved to the purchase of a beautifully designed bench, unique and functional. My selection, "The Spirit Song" is an art object in every sense of the word. Besides being eye catching, it is built from weather resistant teak, solidly constructed and meant to last for years. In surrtmary, I believe this park design meets all the prcapo~;al requirements and can be easily constructed and implemented within a reasonable amos.~~~t of tinge. ~rom ~~c studio o~ s a a 1 3 d ~~ ~~ ~t ~~~ra~ ~ca~~, ~~- '~3 3-~. w~v~~rv.~l~r~z:inslci.cam ~~ 1 573 X413 c;rs~aii_ in~or~l~;rezii-~s~i.com /august 19e1, 2(}08 £'R®~~.JtS~ l"VR 4X4 L.'dftl"!!"tVltld 3 ! t'as'~T ~frQ~~6..~~ iABYRINTH C)R MAZE The reality of the design for the labyrinth is that the park area is really very small and there is not much allowance for a true labyrinth design consistirsg an many concentric circles. V~ere one to design one in that manner you would literally be walking a foot ar two from the next circle. In order to maintain a semblance of a circular path, my design Uses two loosely constructed circles which intersect, thus creating a doi.ible helix, also the sign of infinity. I wanted the path to be inviting you in from the street at all three corners, thus there are entrance paths that begin at the sidewalk and lead you into the center circle. Yau can have a few ga-rounds and exit at the bench under the shade of the 1=icus tree. The labyrinth will be surrounded lay a grassy meadow with wildflowers and native grasses sa there will be butterflies and colorful flowers for you to "meditate" an and enjoy. children can l°tave fun running long the path as weft. Nate that in my landscaping plan, i am not proposing any "lawns" or grasses that require mowing. In keeping with the natural elements of the park, I propose using native pea rack or river gravel three feet wide by three inches deep. The only maintenance involved will be an occasional weed spray of the paths. If budgetary constraints allow, it may be passible to edge the path with 4x4 wood pillars but is not necessary. ~ra~r- ~~e s~uc~sc~ c~~ ~~ 3 1 ~ ~~ Jef~ ~t ~~~r-ark ~~ac~r ~~. ~ j~-~-~}- www.~l~r-ezins~Ci.cam 5~ i j7~ X41 ~ ~rnail: irs{-a~~~rezir~slti.com ~,~l~ust ~~th ~~QB P~t~PCDSA~ FC)!~ 49C4 CCM89~l~fVITY AR`i~' PR~3J~~1" SEATING ~y proposal for seating came about in a rather practical way. After spending much tune in the park, during the heat of the day and the coolness of the evening, I am convinced that the only spat anyone truly would sit would be under the shade and protection of the tree. It's a natural thing to do. So then it became a quest to frnd comfortable seating that would hold as few as one person or as many as a small group. A tong beach curved to hug the trunk of the tree seemed like a great solution. After researching the ways and means tca create my own distinctive benchF I decided that it was crazy and expensive to "reinvent the wheel". So I began to research using a manufactured benct'~. And imagine my surprise when I stumbled upon one that is unique, inventive and functional with the added banes of truly being an "art piece". Ti'~e attached photo of the curved teak bench "Spirit Sonr~" captured my at~entivn immediately. The beauty of this bench is that it is made of teak which is known to withstand the elements. It can be set in cement using steel posts and its design blends perfectly with natural landscape design elements and the color is in harmony with the nafiural shady area of the tree. The bench is vandal proof, impervious to rain, sun and wind, and will last for many years, My proposal allows far a 96" tong by ~4"wide, by 33"high bench. That's 8 feet of comfortable seating under the tree, more than enough for a family of four, or a couple or mother and children. ~rom t~~ stuc~~o ck~ d r N~;e tivwrv.ii~rczias~€.com X61 ~7~ 2'4-€ J email: inks@f~rezinsi;i.carr3 ~uC]Clst ~.9tn ~~~~ pE~.~P©SAL FC~R ~~4 C®f~l~ItlhdlTY AftT pf?~JE=CT LIGHTING My proposal for fighting in the park encompasses two dif~'erent elements. The first element called for is vertical lighting. l~ty attached Lighting l~rawirigs show two separate designs for that rer~uest. had two ideas in my head so decided to work out both ideas. The light fixture opted for would be placed at the three corners of the park see attached overview drawing far placement } "~an~as~ Garden" is a fight fixture made from metal poles that have an ani:ic~ue patina in deference to the historic neighborhood. ~6arious organic and botanic shapes are cut out of aluminum, painted in various bright colors and soldered onto the pole creating a torchiere like flower or plant. The fight shines from within and colored plexi panels may be strategically affixed inside the "flower" to create soft glows of color. The buffo sire and wattage are yet to be determined, "~fbelmsk Art's, the second option allows for a more traditional abelfsk design. Four metal poles of equal distance support a platform an which the light source rests. The outer panels are constructed of opaque pfexi and have an original botanic watercolor painted with my art individually an each. The parcels are then bolted to the metal frame. Both concepts have been seen by an experienced fabricator who has found both to be reasonable to make has agreed to help with the construction of either design. Additionally, a licensed electrician would oversee the fabrication. "P~v~C1 Ligf~ting" is my second element for lighting and involves a method used frequently by my brother, an architect in NYG, who visited the park recently with me. Spat lights are placed fn the boughs of the tree, approx 1Q- I i ft from street level, and shining downward; thus creating a soft and dramatic fight through the tree limbs. Besides deviating from the traditional upward lighting, this has the advantage of soft overhead lighting in the seating area for evening hours. ~~-ara~ t~~ ~t~~a a~ d ~ a ~~.7~~ ~~ ~~fray ~~~C~, ~l. 3349-~- www.~brezin~~,i.com ~~6 ~~~ 29'1 ~ emas~; in~c~~~~r~zins~Ci.cprn PRCaP~~AL i"'®Ft ~~~ C®C~1MEJ~~ ~~T PF$.(].~~' : ~gt~st ~.9, 201~~ !~~®,~sGAp~: Grant Th®rnbraugh, iw.andscaiae design The landscape of the park will encar~tpass the eierrjents of raised berrxts and sandy dtanes with natural grasses, ~ bc~g area, and rrteadawland €asing ail nature i"Icarida species. ~s per the accarnpanying iaya~,t, the ~r~d~iating berm rings the earth and east side of the park raised tca an apprax. height of 4~ feet. The land ievels tawards the center of the triangular shaped park and dips rota a brag area in frcant of the bench seating area. The b®g will be shaded by the giant ~ccas tree and mill certain ferns, brat~eliads and ether v~etland plantsm The nat~rai rntalch and ferns ender the shady area of the existing ficus tree are kept intact. The g®ai of the iandscaping is t~ create a lpw maintenance yet attractive area of native Fiarida plants, The labyrinth takes the f~arrn of a circular intersecting stare {aath res~iniscent ®f a dcas~bie helix-the syrnbal of infinity. The landscaping will take cane ®n a °'rnini ja~arney" of cal®rd shape and texture while walking the path ar canternplating nature fro~~n the bench. Grant has advised me that plants e~ill be chaser accaring to their quality and availability at the time of instaliatian and will be happy to pravide a rr~are detailed landscape praasal at that time. ~ feel c®ni:fdent that Grant`s w®rk will carr~plirnent any desig€~s and welt®rne the expertise Grant will bring to any prapasal. ~ron~ t~~rc sftxe~tc.~ ca~ s a r wEa•w.~~~r~ezit~s~Ci.com ~fi'I ~~~ Z.~-1 ~ ~r,~~ii: in~o ~l~r-ezinski.com ~~~~~~ z~, zees TIME~.I(VE I"OR 4X4 CONii~[UNITY ~1RT PROJECT ®r+ce approved, all eiemer~ts that have been proposed can be ready !~or installatie~r~ within ar,-. three rr~onth window and perhaps less. Once the excavation of the site is c:amplete, the planning of the path can d©ne within a fevu Jays. The prapabed seating should be deliv€~red as close as possible to the time of instaflati®n to avoid storage. ~ he three light fixtures will require a few months to make mcrdefs and then fabricate. Mc~~an lighting is only a rr~atter of a day or two to install conduits in the tree boughs. ~iJMh~tAR~' C3nce approved: ® ~,ll pa~rmitting will need to be submitted, if applicable • Lia~hting fixtures to be fabricated. • E:3ench ordered • River gravel ordered • Tvvo to three days to install path, community involvement to spread river rockJgravel • Light fixtures installed vertically and In tree • secure beach. ~ror~ t~se studio o~ wu~w.ll~s-ezins~Ci_cc>m 561 57'3 X41 ~ email: inky@~~arezinslci.co~~ AUC~tlSt ~.~, ~~Q~ PMO"T'O Il~~l11TIFICATION FOR 4~~ COMNrUNITY ART PR0.3ECT Please nt~te that the pages with photos of my a~tworle have the ~c~rnpletit~n date, size and media accompanying each photo. . All photos are ol• my original art. ~ror~ $~te s~tx&o ~~ wvuw.ii~rezis~s~CS.com 56 t 57~ Z°4-! 3 ~mas~: inn@~i~rezssss~t5.~om A~~gust 1.3, 2QC1~3 ~~1i~(~i~T/Ni~6~lf'iVAIVG i~'~R ~P.iC7~C~Ai~I~IC~ :4704 GC~i~M~.1tV~T1f ~~?~ Pi~C]3~7' Pr~parati~n ~f Sits, ail plants and tnstaiiati®n..4.o....~1~.,~.00 ~~IiVT~IV~,iVCE w ~V~~ci spaying o~ the rick path as n~~ded. ® R~g~alar trir~rr~ing ~~ plants as ea~~ded ® ~ic~s tray trirr~rr~ia~g nc~t ir~ci~rd~ci ~~!"CJ[TI ~Tle 5~Ut11o O1' • a ~• www,~brex..iris~.i.com ~!i # ~~'~ 2 r•1 ~ emai~_ in~ro~~~~rezi;~ski.com Auta'i;_+~t ~~f ~QQ~ BUDGE'/~iAINTENANG~ 1=C)R 4X4 COMMUNI~fI' ART PRO.I~C~' '~~ ~~~fi~i'~ lba~d~~~ es ~~~er~ ~~~sa the ~i~~/'~ ~r~a~t~tR~~ a~ i~~F~t ~f~~~~e ~r~~ ,: .it~ .:a b~~a~~~ ~~~ ~f ~~qul~~d, puG~~r~~ ~G~ p~~mit~. ~,. _.. :. i..ight fixt~are~ and Design ...............................................$13,~~a Path Desiq#~ ~rvith River rock/gravel ..............................r~~,~0€~. Beach seatir#g .....................................................................$B,SB(3. MAIN~"1=N~~N~'~ m Regular light t~u1b replacemer#t f®r the lighting ~xt~#re~. Yearly c~iiir#g of the teak bench for better durability. -~fee~l sf~ayir#g of the rack path as needed. ~~ t %. ~~ ;~ ~ ~ -; ~ ~ ,~ ~~,~ ~~ ~;~ ,~~~ ~~; m 8~, ~ ,~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~_~~~© ~~ ~~~~~ \ .. .~~.~; r~ ~'M~ l ~ . . .. ~~~ ,;; ; s ~ , ,-.'~'~' ~, ~..~ r~ ,~ ', ;~ ,~~- a=,~R ~ ,~ «~ ~~q•' .: t: ,~. r,~~„^,, ~.. ~" ~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~' ~ tf~ °-~ ~ ~ c1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ -- >~ ,_ ~e 1 ~~ ~ 0 f ' i , l ~ ~\ ~ ~Z ~. ~~ ~ ~- ~vr me~h~l pow w ~ ~- ap ~ie~t ~c S a~rx~1-~~-,J ori~M~ ~~Q ~Cfiu-~t~5 av~ e~c~ o~`~ ~~~Ls 0 U ~ E ~ j yyyppp ~ ~ ~~_~" Y~~~ ~~~ ] °~e/ + ;9gg -1 I ~~~~~~a~ ~~9 P ~ r w~e~t~ s~{"w~~ a cHed fee ~orM a~u,+uiwuM~ g(~es ,~Wra.,l o,~vun~d ° U~'hk~ Sou-~;e ~~~~~~: Sort Sony ~ur~e~ ~.~~le~s ~en~h Designed by Tiffany anal Tiffany, and crafted of Fir< European Quality {FEQ) teak, the Spirit Song Collection is the epitome of inventive artistic vision anal perfect function. The graceful Spirit Song backless bench can be included in an endless variety of arrangements and decors, indoors and outside. Whether intended for use as a seating bench, foot rest or a unique end table, its graceful, elegant curve and solid constntction will bring aesthetic grace to any setting. I'~rocluct Specifications: . 69" L, 32" D, 33!' H . 72" L, 32" D, 33" H . 77" L, 32" D, 33" H ® $4" L, 34" D, 33" H s 96" L,34" D,33" H ~ ® 98" L 3b" D 33" H . 100" L, 36" D, 33 " H t ~~~- ~` ~. ~. .~, k a~° N t ~ ~ (N~~ s 5C !_ i QO ". •~ N `h i' N Q `^N DG W ..y N fV N N ~C 00 ,--i Q N OQ r-E .~ 4 a H U c~ 4~ ~~~ ~~~ ~..ois $rre,~ins~a 247130 ~d ~at~r~o®rs 2a0S s n rv ~E ~"'~ r ~r ~ ~ ~W Q ~ y h'^1 n n~,d~, V v^N 4~ 4w . Q t~ • M N /i.a M ~~ ® L The City of Delray Beach, Florida Public Art Advisory Board DEADLINE FOR ENTRY: August 21, 2008 The 4 X 4 Community Artists in Residency project overview will be held at 10:00 a.m. at Del Ida Park on July 19, 2008 for questions and information concerning this project and application. Attendance is strongly recommended for all interested artists and artist teams. PROJECT GOAL: The goal of the Landscape Artist in Residency Project is to create, plan and implement an art prof ect in Del Ida Park with the help and participation of the community. To use one-on-one contact with the artists who as creative thinkers distinguish our community parks with insightful outcomes, and provide hands-on educational art experiences for our community. OVERVIEW: The City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board is seeking Artists to create four art elements to be installed in a Del Ida community park. Artists will coordinate with volunteers. The project should implement "out of the box" thinking and be uniquely intelligent and site specific to the space of the Del Ida Park. Artists may submit proposals for one or more categories, as listed below and artists who can present all 4 categories will also be considered. 1. Hardscape Labyrinth -horizontal maze and park path 2. Site Furniture (seating) - intriguing art connected with path and responding to landscape layout 3. Li~htin~ -Vertical objects with lighting - i.e. contemporary obelisks 4. Landscape -South Florida Native Landscape plant collections for 3 zones: Shade, Wetland Mini-Bog, and Upland plants for one bermed area (contoured earth mound) The board reserves the right to appoint one artist, if 2 or more are selected, to be the lead artist and coordinate the construction of the site. BUDGET: Project budget up to $40,000 for the total project. SHOWCASE: All Four Project Artists will be celebrated at the 4 X 4 Community Artists showcase slated for February 2009. LOCATION: Del Ida Parkin Delray Beach is a triangle shaped green area. The park is approximately 13,000 square feet and is bounded by North East 2"d Avenue between Dixie Blvd and North East 6th Street. The park has a central grassy open area with one large specimen Ficus tree. Please see attached aerial and perspective photos NOTE: Large Existing Ficus tree may be trimmed by artist with approved certified arborist and upon approval by the City. Project CRITERIA 1. Art must be sustainable, and constructed of permanent materials to withstand elements for outdoor longevity. 2. All artists will work together to coordinate the individual Art Elements in order to create one cohesive park. 3. Artwork submitted should be an attractor for neighborhood interaction. 4. Artists will attend neighborhood meetings with the PAAB board and the community volunteers. 5. Artists are responsible for all materials required for the completion of the artwork. 6. Artist will oversee the complete installation, and obtain any necessary approvals or permits working with the City Engineer (PAAB Liaison). Artist Qualifications: • Demonstrated and assessed ability to successfully execute the prof ect under the criteria developed and within schedule and budget constraints. • Previous works, excellence, and appropriateness of artist expression to the proposed project. • Outstanding potential of the community artwork concept. • Ability to work plan project, gather materials, implement artwork, and mentor the community. Payment schedule and reports: Upon selection, the artists may receive a deposit payment to be agreed upon with City. Final payments will be made upon completion and a final report that includes approval of the City Engineer, project receipts, and accomplishment of 2 meetings with Del Ida neighborhood volunteers and PAAB. APPLICATION FORM: A completed application form must accompany the proposal. Applications forms can be downloaded by visiting mydelraybeach.com and clicking on www. y elry ech.co ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE: • Call to Artists: (June 29, 2008 ) • Onsite Overview (July 19, 2008 at 10:00 O'clock) • Deadline: (August 21, 2008) • Artist Notification of Project Award: September 2008 ARTIST MUST SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: 1. Application Form 2. Artists biography or resume. 3. Written Proposal Narrative: Outline of the concept and project with details or, one page only, 4. Visual concept sketch on one 8.5"x ll" page 5. Photos of previous completed and realized work.* 6. Photo Identification page. 7. Timeline: Approximate installation timeline, and details of events 8. Budget/ Maintenance: Approximate cost of materials and maintenance requirements if any. 9. SASE :Supply an envelope with sufficient postage for the return of photos and sketch, or materials cannot be returned. *PHOTOS: To be considered for this project, artist(s) must submit up to 7 printed photos per artist of previously completed artwork Do not submit CDs or slides. All photos should be numbered and labeled with artist's name, title of work, location, medium, dimensions and date. * MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS: The artwork must be low maintenance, durable, appropriate to a seaside location, and able to withstand the effects of sun, rain, salt spray, and wind. The selected artists will provide the City Engineer with a list of maintenance requirements and specify how the work can deter vandalism. Landscape Artist in Residency Project Application Form: Please attach form to the top of your application copy I Hardscape Labyrinth Please check Selected Art Element Category: II Site Furniture III Lighting IV Landscape Date: Lead Artist Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Country: Phone Day: Phone Cell: Fax: Email: Website: Signature of Applicant(s): LANDSCAPE ARTIST IN RESIDENCY PROJECT SUBMISSION CHECK LIST • 1. APPLICATION FORM • 2. ARTISTS BIOGRAPHY OR RESUME. • 3. WRITTEN PROPOSAL NARRATIVE: outline of the concept and project with details, one page only. • 4. VISUAL CONCEPT SKETCH on one 8.5"x 11" page • 5. PHOTOS OF PREVIOUS COMPLETED AND REALIZED WORK.* • 6. PHOTO IDENTIFICATION PAGE. • 7. TIMELINE: approximate installation timeline, and details of events • 8. BUDGET: Approximate cost of materials. • 9. SASE -supply an envelope with sufficient postage for the return of photos and sketch, or materials cannot be returned. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH GENERAL INFORMATION CALL TO ARTISTS LANDSCAPE ARTIST IN RESIDENCY PROJECT DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Call to Artists, "Artist' shall mean contractors, consultants, artists, proposers, organizations, firms, or other persons submitting a response to this Call to Artists. PURPOSE The purpose of the Landscape Artist in Residency Project is to create, plan and implement an art project in Del Ida Park with help and participation of the community. To use one-on-one contact with the artists who as creative thinkers distinguish our community parks with insightful outcomes, and provide hands-on educational art experiences for our community. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND WITHDRAWAL The CITY will receive proposals at the following address: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PURCHASING OFFICE CITY HALL 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 To facilitate processing, please clearly mark the outside of the proposal package as follows: SEALED PROPOSAL FOR CALL TO ARTISTS: LANDSCAPE ARTIST IN RESIDENCY PROJECT and also include the date of the opening. The package shall also include the Artist's return address. Artists shall submit an original and eight (8) copies of the proposal in a sealed, opaque package marked as noted above. The Artist will be responsible for timely delivery, whether by personal delivery, US Mail or any other delivery medium THE CITY MUST RECEIVE ALL PROPOSALS BY 3:00 P.M. ON AUGUST 21, 2008. The CITY cautions Artists to assure actual delivery of mailed or hand-delivered proposals directly to the City's Purchasing Office at City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, prior to the deadline set for receiving proposals. Telephone confirmation of timely receipt of the proposal may be made by calling (561) 243-7163, before proposal closing time. Any proposal received after the established deadline will not be considered and will be returned unopened to the Artist(s). Artists may withdraw their proposals by notifying the CITY in writing at any time prior to the deadline for proposal submittal. After the deadline, the proposal will constitute an irrevocable offer, until August 25, 2008. Once opened, proposals become a record of the CITY and will not be returned to the Artists, therefore, all submittals should be copies, not an original. All Artists who apply will also be placed on the City's Artist Registry unless the Artist indicates otherwise. Upon opening, proposals are subject to public disclosure consistent with Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Artists must invoke exemptions to disclosure provided by law in the response to the CTA, and must identify the data or other materials to be protected, state the reasons why such exclusion from public disclosure is necessary and the legal basis for such exemption. CONTRACT AWARDS The City anticipates entering into an agreement with the Artist who submits the proposal judged by the City to be most advantageous. The City anticipates awarding one agreement per category but reserves the right to award more than one category to the same artist if in the City's best interest The Artist understands that this CTA does not constitute an offer or an agreement with the Artist. An offer or agreement shall not be deemed to exist and is not binding until a contract has been approved by the appropriate level of authority within the City, and executed by all parties. A sample Agreement is attached to this CTA. The City anticipates that the final agreement will be in substantial conformance with this Sample Agreement; nevertheless, Artists are advised that any Agreement that may result from the CTA may deviate from the Sample Agreement. The City reserves the right to reject all proposals, to abandon the project and/or to solicit and re- advertise for other proposals. The City reserves the right to cancel the CTA or portions thereof without penalty. The City reserves the right to waive any irregularities and technicalities and may, at its sole discretion, request a clarification or other information to evaluate any or all proposals. All terms and conditions of this CTA, any addenda, Artist's submissions, and negotiated terms, are incorporated into the contract by reference as set forth herein. Document files may be examined, during normal working hours, ten days after proposals have been opened. The proposal with the highest number of points/votes will be ranked first. The City reserves the right to further negotiate any proposal, including price, with the highest ranked Artist. If an agreement cannot be reached with the highest rated Artist, the City reserves the right to negotiate and recommend award to the next highest Artist or subsequent Artists until an agreement is reached. DEVELOPMENT COSTS Neither the City nor its representatives shall be liable for any expenses incurred in connection with preparation of a response to this CTA. Artists should prepare their proposals simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of the Artist's ability to meet the requirements of the CTA. INQUIRIES Interested Artists may contact Randal Krej carek, City Engineer, regarding questions about the proposal at the Engineering Department located at 434 S. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 -Telephone (561) 243-7322 or by facsimile (561) 243-7314. The City Engineer will receive written requests for clarification concerning the meaning or interpretations of this CTA, until fifteen (15) days prior to the submittal date. City personnel are authorized only to direct the attention of prospective Artists to various portions of the CTA so that they may read and interpret such for themselves. No employee of the City is authorized to interpret any portion of this CTA or give information as to the requirements of the CTA in addition to what is contained in the written CTA document. The City may record its response to inquiries and any supplemental instructions in the form of written addenda. The City may mail or post on its website written addenda up to ten (10) calendar days before the date fixed for receiving the proposals. Artists shall contact the City to ascertain whether any addenda have been issued. Failure to do so could result in an unresponsive proposal. Any oral explanation given before the CTA opening will not be binding. All Artists are expected to carefully examine the proposal documents. Any ambiguities or inconsistencies should be brought to the attention of the City Engineer through written communication prior to the opening of the proposals. DELAYS The City may delay scheduled due dates if it is to the advantage of the City to do so. ADDENDA If revisions become necessary, the City will post the Addenda on its website. All addenda issued by the City will include a receipt form, which must be signed and included with any proposals that are submitted to the City. In the event multiple addenda are issued, a separate receipt for each addendum must be included with the proposal at the time it is submitted to the City. NEWS RELEASES The Artist shall obtain the prior approval of the City Manager's Office for any and all news releases and/or other publicity pertaining to this CTA or the service, study or project to which it relates. LICENSES Artists must furnish satisfactory evidence that they have licenses, where applicable, as required to do business in the State of Florida, in Palm Beach County, and in the City of Delray Beach, including but not limited to, licenses required by respective State Boards and other governmental agencies responsible for regulating and licensing the services provided and performed by the provider. INSURANCE Once selected an Artist must provide insurance in a type and amount that is acceptable to the City, if applicable. PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted Vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime, may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on leases of real property to a public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor or consultant under a contract with any public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Section 287.017, for CATEGORY TWO (Currently $25,000) for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted Vendor list. CODE OF ETHICS If any Artist violates or is a party to a violation of the code of ethics of the City of Delray Beach or the State of Florida with respect to this proposal, such Artist may be disqualified from performing the work described in this proposal or from furnishing the goods or services for which the proposal is submitted and shall be further disqualified from bidding on any future proposals for work, goods or services for the City of Delray Beach. CITY CONTACT The City contact for this project will be Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer, 434 S. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 and the telephone number is (561) 243-7322, or Begona Krane (561) 243-7299. After the Artist has been selected the Artist shall be informed of who the City Contact will be. RULES FOR PROPOSALS All proposals must be received no later than 3:00 PM, on August 21, 2008. Whether a proposal is transmitted by US Mail or any other delivery medium, the Artist(s) will be responsible for its timely delivery. The proposal must name all persons or entities interested in the proposal as principals. The proposal must declare that it is made without collusion with any other person or entity submitting a proposal pursuant to this CTA. SELECTION PROCESS The selection process will occur in two phases. In the first phase, the PAAB will review the submission material and select no more than three semi-finalists per category. In the second phase, the semi-finalists will present an in-person, detailed proposal to the PAAB. The meeting will allow the artist to explain the design concept, garner community interaction and involvement. Following the presentations by semi-finalists, the PAAB board will select a finalist. Lastly the selected finalist will be reviewed and approved by the Delray Beach City Commission before final contracts are executed. The PAAB has an anticipated a not to exceed contract cost of $40,000 for the entire project. This contract amount is inclusive of all costs associated with the prof ect including but not limited to the Artist's design fee, other consulting fees such as structural engineering or material testing, permit fees, insurance to cover the scope of the project, materials, fabrication, transportation, installation including any site modifications required, travel to and from the site, per diem expenses, project documentation, signage, and a contingency to cover unexpected expenses. The City of Delray Beach will select the artist/firm that meets the best interests of the City. The City shall be the sole judge of its own best interests, the proposals, and the resulting negotiated agreement. The City's decisions will be final. RIGHT TO REJECT PROPOSALS Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the artist of the conditions contained in this Call to Artists unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between the City of Delray Beach and the artist selected. The City of Delray Beach reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to reject any or all proposals. SCOPE OF SERVICES LOCATION: Del Ida Parkin Delray Beach is a triangle shaped green area. The park is approximately 13,000 square feet and is bounded by North East 2"d Avenue between Dixie Blvd and North East 6th Street. The park has a central grassy open area with one large specimen Ficus tree. Please see attached aerial and perspective photos. NOTE: Large Existing Ficus tree may be trimmed by artist with approved certified arborist and upon approval by the City. Project CRITERIA 1. Art must be sustainable, and constructed of permanent materials to withstand elements for outdoor longevity. 2. All artists will work together to coordinate the individual art elements in order to create one cohesive park. 3. Artwork submitted should be an attractor for neighborhood interaction. 4. Artists will attend meetings with the PAAB board and the community ~-volunteers. 5. Artists are responsible for all materials required for the completion of the artwork. 6. Artist will oversee the complete installation, and obtain any necessary approvals or permits working with the City Engineer (PAAB Liaison). CONCEPT SKETCH: Include a color sketch or CONCEPT design of the proposed environment installation. PROPOSAL: Artist(s) shall submit a project statement describing their concept and its relationship to the sketch (one page maximum). PHOTOS: To be considered for this project, artist(s) must submit up to seven printed photos per artist of previously completed artwork. Do not submit CDs or slides. All photos should be numbered and labeled with artist's name. PHOTO LIST: Support your image documentation with a corresponding numbered list indicating the artist's name, title of work, location, medium, dimensions and date. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS: The artwork must be low maintenance, durable, appropriate to a community location, and able to withstand the effects of sun, rain, salt spray, and wind. Attach a list of maintenance requirements and specify how your proposal will deter vandalism. BUDGET: Include an itemized budget list for the project, including all aspects of design, for example, artist(s) fee, landscaping, base requirements, lighting, fabrication, and installation. The City's anticipated budget for this prof ect is approximately $40,000.00 for the entire project. RESUME: Submit a current resume. Catalogs and reviews may be included up to 6 pages for each artist. PROPOSAL WORKSHEET The undersigned, as Artist, hereby declares that the only person or persons interested in the Proposal, as principal or principals, is or are named herein and that no other person than herein mentioned has any interest in the Proposal or the Contract to which the work pertains; that this Proposal is made without connection or arrangement with any other person, company, or parties making a proposal and that the Proposal is in all respects fair and made in good faith without collusion or fraud. The Artist further declares that he/she has examined the Contractual Documents, including the Advertisement, Proposal, Scope of Services, Draft Contract, and has read all addenda prior to the opening of proposals, and is satisfied fully relative to all matters and conditions with respect to the work to which this Proposal pertains. The Artist proposes and agrees, if this Proposal is accepted, to contract with the City of Delray Beach in the form of a contract specified by the City, to furnish all necessary materials, all equipment, supplies, and labor necessary to complete the work specified in the Proposal and the Contract, and in the manner specified. The hereby undersigned representative of the Artist certifies that they are an authorized representative of the Artist who may legally bind the Artist: *SIGNATURE: Name• Printed Company: Address: City: Telephone No: State• Zip: Fax No: *Failure to affix signature will result in disqualification of proposal. Note: If there are any terms and/or conditions that are in conflict, the most stringent requirement shall apply. Acknowledgement of Addendums Acknowledgement is hereby made of the following Addenda received since issuance of Specifications: Addendum No. Dated: Addendum No. Dated: Name of Artist's Service Contact: Title: Address: Q ~ ~ CITY of DELRAY BEACH CALL TO ARTISTS DATE:11/12/2008 ®g NDSCAPI NG ARTIST I N RESIDENT PROJE 4x4 d ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ®~~ 434 80UiH BWNTON AVENUE, DELRAY BEACH ROFIDA 39414 ,~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement Elizabeth Alpert, Neighborhood Services Administrator THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 21, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AHAC) REPORT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Review and approval of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) Report. If approved by Commission, the recommendations will require an amendment to the City's Local Housing Assistance Plan. BACKGROUND At the April 1, 2008 meeting, Commission established the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) by Resolution. At the June 17, 2008 meeting, Commission appointed ten members to serve on the AHAC. Three meetings were held (September -November) to discuss eleven (11) specific incentives set forth by FL Statute 420.9076. The AHAC Report reviews each incentive, provides a review synopsis of the discussion which took place, a recommendation from the board, as well as a board action which was voted on during a Public Hearing on November 19, 2008 at 5:30. The following is a synopsis of the AHAC Reports recommended actions: Incentive A: The Committee recommends that the LHAP be amended to include an expedited site plan review and permitting process for affordable housing sub-divisions/developments (10 or more affordable units). Incentive C: The Committee recommends that the LHAP be amended to reference the City's policy regarding flexible densities pursuant to the Workforce Housing Ordinance Incentive F: The Committee recommended that the LHAP strategy be amended to include the following language: "regulations require two parking spaces per dwelling unit beyond the required front yard set back in Single Family Zoning Districts. As an incentive to affordable housing, one of the required parking spaces may be located within the 25' front yard setback reducing haphazard street parking." Incentive L• The Committee recommends that AHAC continue to serve as the review body for the approval process of items that would increase the cost of affordable housing, on an as needed basis. Incentive J: The Committee recommends an amendment to the current LHAP language regarding the printed inventory of locally owned public lands suitable for affordable housing. The amendments states that thelist shall be updated on an annual basis. Building Permit Fees:The Committee recommends a fifty percent (50%) reduction in building permit fees for new construction of affordable housing units or housing rehabilitation facilitated through anon- profitpartner organization. The Board took no action regarding incentives B, D, E, G, H and K. FUNDING SOURCE N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) Report. If approved by Commission, the recommendations will require an amendment to the City's Local Housing Assistance Plan. As City Manager I recommend that we not reduce building permit fees. The City does not have the resources to provide direct cash subsidies from our General Fund, and building permit fees are only a tiny part of the total cost. AFFORDABLE HOUSII~C ADYISOF~Y Go~~[~~r~~ AI-iAG R~poRT City of Delray Beach Affordable Housing Advisory Committee 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report I. Background Information: The City of Delray Beach Commission appointed ten members to the City's Affordable Housing Advisory Committee on June 17, 2008. The Committee was established by Resolution 12-0$ on April 1, 2008. The following meeting dates were established: 09/17/08 Introductory Meeting 10/22/08 Regular Meeting 11/19/08 Public Hearing -Adoption of AHAC Report 12/02/08 City Commission review of AHAC Report 12/09/08 Possible LHAP amendment -based on Commission Action 12/2/08 II. Public Hearing; Date of Public Hearin: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 5:30 PM. ~nopsis of Public Input: 2 members of the public were present. There was minimal public input. Ms. Pittaluga asked a question regarding the review synopsis for Incentive F. No further comments were made. NameslAddresses of those who spoke during Public Hearin 1. Christiane Pittaluga, 1444 E. Bexley Park Dr., Delray Beach, FL 33445 Names of members present: 7. Carmelita Smith 1. Jerry Crocilla 8. Connie Staundinger 2. William Hatcher 3. Alberta McCarthy Members absent: 4. Wanda Gadson 1. Chuck Halberg 5. Evelyn Dobson 2. Sandra Weatherspoon 6. Dorothy Ellington Staff Present: 1. Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director 2. Paul Dorling, Planning & Zoning Director 3. Elizabeth Alpert, Neighborhood Services Director 4. Ferline Mesidort, Community Development Specialist This Report was formally reviewed by the AHAC in a Public Hearing format at the November 19, 2008 meeting. Page 1 of 11 City of Delray Beach Affordable Housing Advisory Committee 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report III. Incentives & Recommendations: Incentive A: The processing of approvals of development orders or permits, as defined in s. 1b3.3164(7} and (8), for affordable housing projects is expedited to a greater degree than other projects. Review Synopsis: Community Improvement Director, Lula Butler, explained that the City implemented a "One Stop" permitting process approximately twelve (12) years ago that provides a streamlined approach to all permit applications submitted for approval. The program was enhanced three {3) years ago adding a new Plan Reviewer position who is the designated staff person assigned to expedite the review and approval of single family affordable housing applications within a fifteen {15) day period. The Director of Planning & Zoning, Paul Dorling, suggested that expedited permitting for affordable sub-divisions and/or developments might be considered by the Committee because presently expedited permitting for single family units is the currenfi focus. This is largely due to the fact that the majority of the affordable housing in Delray Beach has been in-filling of existing buildable lots. This incentive would include larger affordable housing developments that require site plan approval. Mr. Dorling stated that the expedited process would be 7-8 week turn around for site plan approval for larger scale developments. The site plan process generally takes 12 weeks. Staff recommended that the policy could include designating one staff person to oversee the process of expedited site plan review process which could include setting up one-on-one meetings between the designated .point person and the developer instead of the standard process of sending comments back and forth. It was explained that a new policy was created to expedite bio-tech projects and that this process could be similar to that new policy. Recommendation: The Committee agreed to recommend that affordable housing sub-divisionsldeveloprnenfs be eligible for an expedited process for site plan review and building permitting. Under- this recommendation, the Committee recommended that building permits for affordable sub-divisions be expedited to less than 30 days. Dorothy Ellington suggested that the bio-tech project process be used for affordable housing sub-divisions. The following is an outline of the proposed expedited process: EXPEDITED DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS "It is the policy of the City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning and Community Improvement Departments to implement an expedited permit Page 2 of 11 City of Delray Beach Affordable Housing Advisory Committee 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report process for affordable housing subdivisions. An affordable housing subdivision is one that: ^ Contains at least 10 affordable units. For projects .meeting the above criteria a single point of contact shall be designated (the Director of Planning and Zoning, and/or the Director of Community Improvement or either of their designees). This individuals} shall be responsible far coordinating alI matters relating to the review services for the project and shall provide periodic status reports to the business's project manager. A pre-application meeting shall be conducted and shall include the preparation of a time table for project completion. The project shall receive priority at every phase and project review shall include face to face meetings to facilitate the expediting process. Comments relative to the development review application shall be provided to the applicant within ten (10) business days (Development Application) and fifteen (15) business days (Permit Application) after the submission of a complete application by the applicant. Thereafter, ,the City and the applicant shall make a mutual commitment to provide development and permit application review comments and plans or revisions thereto in a thorough and timely manner. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.8(C)(1), with submittal of an application that is deemed complete Class IV and V site plan development proposals shall be processed within seven (T) weeks and applications involving re-zonings or Conditional Uses will require an additional four (4} weeks. Class I through III site development applications will be processed in five (5) weeks or less. As identified above, initial building permit comments shall be provided within fifteen (15) business days of a complete submittal. Thereafter all efforts shall be made to expedite building permits after all outstanding comments have been addressed with the goal of issuing the permits within thirty (30) business days after submittal." The Committee recommends that the above language be added to the City's Local Housing Assistance Plan (CHAP). Page 3 of 11 City of Delray Beach Affordable Housing Advisory Committee 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report Board Action: Dorothy Ellington made a motion to approve the above recornrnendations far incentive A. Alberta McCarthy seconded the motion. All were in favor ($-0). Incentive B: The modification of impact-fee requirements, including reduction or waiver of fees and alternative methods of fee payment for affordable housing. Review Synopsis: Ms. Butler explained that by Qrdinance - no impact fees can be waived. She continued by explaining that SHIP funds are eligible for paying impact fees. Recommendation: The LHAP already contains sufficient language pertaining to modification of impact-fee requirements. There were no Committee recommendations. Board Action: The Committee did not make any recommendations pertaining to Incentive B. Incentive C: The allowance of flexibility in densities for affordable housing. Review Synopsis: Mr. Dorling provided a detailed description of the City's current overlay areas which allow for increased densities when affordable and or workforce units are proposed within the project. He continued to explain that the City has expanded its use of flexibility densities over the past few years. A comment was made by Committee member, Wanda Gadsden that the impact of higher density in the SW 12~ Avenue area is not appropriate for the neighborhood and asked how traffic studies are considered in making these decisions. Mr. Dorling explained that traffic studies are completed as well as an analysis of mass transport, accessibility to driveways etc. He stated that the SW I2t~' area does have the capacity for increased traffic and that the thresholds for traffic have not been met based on the current density. Ms. Gadson referenced the traffic signal on Atlantic Avenue and SW 12~ Avenue and voiced her concern that the traffic light period is insufficient for North and Southbound traffic. She continued to explain that she is concerned that by increasing the density in this area, the traffic signal issue must be addressed to avoid gridlock traffic. Ms. Gadson is of the opinion that gridded residential streets should not allow the increased densities. Mr. Dorling stated that it is encouraged that people load in and off the alleys and that where multi family homes exist, alleyway access will be improved. Committee member, Dorothy Ellington, explained that the Delray Beach CRA has agreed to participate in creating an incentive to move parking to Page 4 of 11 City of Delray Beach Affordable Housing Advisory Committee 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report the alleys. Committee member, Jerry Crocilla, asked if increased density also pertains to the number of people per unit. Mr. Dorling responded by stating that the ordinance allows no more than 5 un-related people per unit. Ms. Butler mentioned that the SW neighborhood- plan dictated the increased density of the SW 12~ Area. Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the LHAP refer to the density bonuses allowed for by the Workforce Housing ordinance. Board Action: The LHAP be amended to reference the City's policy pursuant to the Workforce Housing Ordinance (as it is currently adopted and amended from time to time by City Commission). Connie Staundinger motioned to approved, Evelyn Dobson seconds. Ail in favor {8-0}. Incentive D: The reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing for very-low- income persons, low-income persons, and moderate-income persons. Review Synopsis: Ms. Butler explained that the City's standard concerning infrastructure is regulated by ordinance and that all neighborhoods, regardless of income, receive necessary infrastructure improvements, as needed. Current language in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) is as follows: "Section 5.1.2 (B): The purpose of this section is to promote the public health, safety, comfort and welfare of the City through the harmonious, orderly and, progressive development of land by insuring: (B) The efficient, adequate and economic supply of infrastructure and services to land developments." Current LHAP language is as follows: "Infrastructure facilities currently exist throughout the entire City. However, where there are visible signs of deterioration, Comprehensive Plan policy provides for prioritization in scheduling necessary improvements. As each year's infrastructure improvement schedule is prepared, priority is given to neighborhoods with concentrations of infrastructure deficiencies." Recommendation: The Committee agreed that the current language in the Local Housing Assistance Plan and LDRs sufficiently addresses this issue. Board Action: The Committee did not make any recommendations pertaining to Incentive D. Page 5 of 11 City of Delray Beach Affordable Housing Advisory Committee 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report Incentive E: The allowance of affordable accessory residential units in residential zoning districts. Review Synopsis: Mr. Dorling explained that present policy regarding accessory residential units states that a guest house shall only be occupied by a family member or employees of the main house. He explained that by allowing affordable accessory residential units in residential zoning districts would create an inconsistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. La Hacienda neighborhood was provided as an example of a neighborhood annexed into the City with accessory units. Recommendation: No Action. Board Action: The Committee did not make any recommendations pertaining to Incentive E. Incentive F: The reduction of parking and setback requirements for affordable housing. Review Synopsis: The current Local Housing Assistance Plan states that "regulations require two parking spaces per dwelling unit, beyond required front yard set back in Single Family Zoning Districts. As an incentive to affordable housing, one of the required parking spaces may be located within the side set back within one foot of the property line, provided the impervious area used for parking is sloped 'to drain on the lot being developed. This incentive will provide a cost reduction of approximately $800 per unit. The allowance of side set back parking improves the appearance and traffic flow by reducing haphazard street parking." Recommendation: The Committee recommended that the LHAP strategy be amended to "regulations require two parking spaces per dwelling unit beyond the required front yard set back in Single Family Zoning Districts. As an incentive to affordable housing, one of the required parking spaces may be located within the 25' front yard setback reducing haphazard street parking." Board Action: The LHAP be amended as recommended. Dorothy Ellington motioned to approve, Wanda Gadson seconds. All in favor (8-0). Page 6 of 11 City of Delray Beach Af#ordable Housing Advisory Cornrnittee 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report Incentive G: The allowance of flexible lot configurations, including zero-lot-line configurations for affordable housing. Review Synopsis: Discussion ensued regarding zero lot lines. Currently there is no provision for azero-lot line units within the residential neighborhoods developed under the grid system. Ms. Butler explained that this could not be accomplished on an in-fill basis. Committee member, Alberta McCarthy, stated that if there were 5 continuous lots -would it be possible for continuous houses to have zero lot lines? Mr. Dorling expressed his concern that this would affect the fabric of the neighborhood. Chuck Halberg stated that he did not see the benefit in this. Current LDR policy regarding flexible lot configurations are as follows: SECTION 1.3.2 Noncvnfvrmin Lots of Record: Any lot or parcel which qualifies as a lot of record maybe used only as allowed in Section 4.1.4. SECTION 4.T.4 {D) Within the R--1-A, RL and RM zoning districts, lots of record having at least forty (40} feet of frontage may be used for Workforce Housing, as long as the workforce housing unit meets the typical designs represented by the sketches set forth in Section 4.7.12{a}, the lot. is a minimum of 4,000 square feet and conforms to setbacks, provided, however, the minimum side setback may be reduced to a minimum five feet {5') if necessary to accommodate the designs set forth in Section 4.7.12(a) and meets other development standards in the zoning district. The Workforce Housing unit on a lot with frontage as herein described must include rear access via an alley, if available. The unit must also contain design features such as, but not limited to, front porches, eyebrows, outriggers, gables, dormers, arbors, trellises, shutters, balconies, decorative vents, siding, textured stucco finishes, undulating facades and other such appropriate architectural features. [Amd. Ord. 2U-d6 4/4/06 Recommendation: The Committee agreed that the current regulations provide this opporfixnity and that there is no need for action regarding this incentive. Board Action: The Committee did not make any recommendations pertaining to Incentive G, Page 7 of 11 City of Delray Beach Affordable Housing Advisory Committee 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report Incentive H: The modification of street requirements for affordable housing. Review Synopsis: Mr. Dorling stated that a possibility regarding this incentive could be a reduction in pavement widths (from 24 to 20 feet} for HOA neighborhoods. This is allowable in HOA neighborhoods where control can be exercised in prohibiting on-street parking in exchange for reduced pavement width. However, it was explained that this is an unwritten policy and that submissions are reviewed on a case by case basis. Recommendation: None Board Action: The Committee did not make any recommendations pertaining to Incentive H. Incentive I: The establishment of a process by which a local government considers, before adoption, policies, procedures, ordinances, regulations, or plan provisions that increase the cost of housing. Review Synopsis: It was discussed that there is a wide array of issues that the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee could consider in the future. Recommendation: Committee member, Wanda Gadson, recommends that the AHAC continue to be a recommending body as part of the approval process for any items that would increase the cost of affordable housing, on an as needed basis. Board Action: The Committee recommends that AHAC continue to serve as the review body for the approval process of items that would increase the cost of affordable housing, on an as needed basis. Dorothy Ellington made a motion to accept, Wanda Gadson seconds. All in favor {8-0}. Page S of 11 City of Delray Beach Affordable Housing Advisory Committee 2048 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report Incentive T: The preparation of a printed inventory of locally owned public lands suitable for affordable housing. Review Synopsis: The current LHAP language is as follows: "The Planning Department has compiled a complete list of City owned lands of 3 acres or more along with available single family lots. The Community Redevelopment Agency maintains a list of vacant parcels, which they own or have under contract suitable for in-fill residential construction. These lists are made available to the public, private developers and non-profit agencies." Recommendation: To amend current LHAP language: "The Planning Department has compiled a complete list of City owned lands of 3 acres or more along with available single family lots. The Cornmunit`y Redevelopment Agency maintains a list of vacant parcels, which they awn or have under contract suitable for in-fill residential construction. These lists are made available to the public, private developers and non-profit agencies. This list shall be updated on an annual basis. " Board Action: The LHAP be amended as recommended. Connie Staundinger motioned to approve, Wanda Godson seconds. All in favor (S-4). Incentive K: The support of development near transportation hubs and major employment centers and mixed-use developments. Review Synopsis: Mr. Dorling stated that in the Congress Avenue corridor area the densities have been increased between Congress and I95 to encourage development around transportation hubs. He explained that this requires a minimum amount of workforce or affordable housing. Dorothy Ellington referred to the MROC zoning code and the CMU {Congress Mixed Use} land use description in the COMP plan. Copies of those sections have been provided for discussion. Recommendation: None. Board Action: The Committee did not make any recommendations pertaining to Incentive K. Page 9 of 11 City of Delray Beach Affordable Housing Advisory Committee 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report IV. Additional Recommendations: List any other recommendations made by the committee, not required above, such as; modification or repeal of existing policies, procedures, ordinances, regulations, or plan provisions; the creation of exceptions applicable to affordable housing; or the adoption of new policies, procedures, regulations, ordinances, or plan provisions, including recommendations to amend the Iocal government comprehensive plan and corresponding regulations, ordinances, and other policies. 1. First Time Homebuyer -Alberta McCarthy brought up the issue of "First Time Homebuyer," its definition and why the City chooses to exclude repeat homebuyers in its program. She expressed that those who are currently home owners should possibly also be eligible for down payment assistance funds and that a "prioritized" system might be more effective to assist families who are upwardly mobile or whose household size has increased. Dorothy Ellington stated that regardless of a prioritized system, the demand from first time homebuyers will exceed the demand from repeat buyers. Recommendation: None. Board Action: None. 2. Building Permit Fees -Committee member, Connie Staundinger, asked about a possible reduction in building permit fees to increase affordability. Ms. Butler stated that the Commission considered this option at one point in time. However, due to serious budget constraints -the Commission decided against a reduction in Building Permit fees for affordable housing. It was discussed that government entities do not pay permit fees and non-profit organizations receive a 70% reduction. The example was made that if anon-profit organization such as AVDA was building a new facility that they would receive a 70% reduction in building permit fees. Recommendation: The Committee recommends a fifty percent (50%) reduction in building permit fees far new construction of affordable housing units or housing rehabilitation facilitated through anon-profit partner organization. Board Action: The LHAP be amended to include above recommendation in permit fee reduction. Alberta McCarthy motion to approve, Evelyn Dobson seconds. (7 in favor 1 opposed) Page 10 of 11 City of Delray Beach Affordable Housing Advisory Committee 2Q08 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report Attachments: AHAC Membership Adopting Resolution Public Hearing Advertisemen# Roster of AHAC members Page l I of x 1 ~' '1 RESOLUTION NO. lz-as A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND INCENTNES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature recently passed House Bill 1375 requiring cities and counties receiving SHIP funds to appoint an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to xecommend monetary and non-monetary incentives for affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach does receive SHIP funds; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delxay Beach desires for the City to continue receiving SHIP funds and desires to comply with the requirements of House Bill 1375. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: ctio That an Affordable Housing Advisory Conunittee shall be created to recommend incentives fox affordable pausing and shall be established as set forth below: "on 2. That the purpose of this committee is to recarnmend nnonetary and/or nan- monetary incentives for affordable housing. ection 3. The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee shall consist of eleven (11) members that meet the following critexia: (a) Dne citizen who is actively engaged in the residex}.tial home building industry in connection with affordable housing: (b) One citizen who is actively engaged in the banking ox mortgage banking industry in connection with affordable housing. (c) One citizen who is a representative of those areas of labor actively engaged in home building in connection with affordable housing. (d) One citizen who is actively engaged as an advocate fnr low-income persons in connection with affordable housing. (e) One citizen who is actively engaged as a for-profit provider of affordable pausing. . 1 {#) One citizen who is actively engaged as snot-far-profit provider of affordable housing. (~ One citizen who is actively engaged as a real estate professional in connection with affordable housing. (h) One citizen who actively serves on the local planning agency pursuant to s. 163.3174. (i) One citizen who resides within the }urisdiction of the Local governing body making the appointments. {j) One citizen who represents employers within the jurisdiction. (1~) One citizen who represents essential services personnel, as defined in the local housing assistance plan. Section 4. That the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee shall hold at least two {2) regularly scheduled meetings each year. fiction 5. That six {G) members of the committee shall constitute a quorum. Section G. That the approval by the advisory committee of its local housing incentive strategies recommendations and its review of local government implementation of previously recommended strategies must be made by affirmative vote of a majority of the membership of the advisory committee taken at a public hearing. Native of the time, date, and place of the public hearing of the advisory committee to adopt final local housing incentive strategies recommendations must be published in a Newspaper of general paid circulation in the county. The notice must contain a short and concise summary of the local housing incentives strategies recommendations to be considered by the advisory committee. The notice must state the public place where a copy of the tentative advisory committee recommendations can be obtained by snterested persons. ec ' n That the corrrmittee shall provide mentoring services to affordable housing partners including developers, banking institutions, employers, and others to identify available incentives, assist with applications for funding requests, and develop partnerships between various parties. 'on 8. That the committee shall create best practices for the development of affordable housing in the conununity. Sec ' That the committee shall submit a report to the City every three {3) years evaluating the implementation of affordable housing incentives i.n the foIlowing areas: ~ RES. NO. 12-D8 f ` i (a) The processing approvals of development orders or permits, as defined in s. 1G3.3164('~ and (S), for affordable housing projects is expedited to a greater degree than other projects. (b) The znadification of impact-fee requirements, including reduction or waiver of fees and alternatives methods of fee payment for affordable housing. (c) The allowance of flexibility in densities fox affordable housing. (d) The reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing far very-low-income persons, law-income persons, and moderate-income persons. {e) The allowance of affordable accessory residential units in residential zoning districts. (t} The reduction of parking and setback requirements far affordable housing. (g) The allowance of flexible lot configurations, including zero-lot-line configurations for affordable housing. (h} The modification of street requirements fax affordable housing. (i) The establishment of a process by which a local government considers, before adoption, policies, procedures, ordinances, regulations, or plan provisions that increase the cost of housing. ~} The preparation of a printed inventory of locally owned public lands suitable fax affordable housing (k) The support of development near transportation hubs and major exnplayment centers and mixed-use developments. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session ou this 15r day of April, 2[108. MAYOR Attest: ~~~ City Clerk 3 RES. ND. 12-08 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Wednesday, November 19, 2008, x;30 PM ESD Board Room, X34 S. Swinton Avenue CITY OF DELRAY BEACH The City of Delray Beach Neighborhood Services Division and the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee {AHAC) invites the Public to attend a Public Hearing on Wednesday, November 19, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. at the Environmental Services Department Board Room, 434 South Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach. The purpose of the meeting is to review and vote on recommendations regarding policies and programs that improve access to affordable housing. Florida Statute 420.9076 mandates a review every three years of existing City policies and recommendations regarding new policies. The committee is required to consider eleven policies: expedited permitting; modification of impact fees; flexibility in densities; reservation of infrastructure capacity; affordable accessory dwelling units; reduction of parking and setback requirements; flexible lot configuration; modification of sidewalk and street requirements; consideration of any proposal that may impact housing casts; printed inventory of public lands suitable for affordable housing; and development near transportation hubs, major employment centers, and mixed-use development. City residents are encouraged to attend the AHAC meeting which is the last opportunity for public comment before the Report is completed and presented to City Commission. More information about the policies under consideration can be found on the City's web site at www.mydelraybeach.corn or by calling Elizabeth Alpert, Neighborhood Services Administrator, at 56T-243-72$2 Affordable Housin Adviso Committee to Vote on Recommendations PRESS TZELEASE -For lmrnediate Release Date: November 4, 2008 Contact Person: Elizabeth Alpert, Neighborhood Services Administrator Phone: 56T 243-7282 Email: apert®ci.delray-beach,fl.us Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to Vote on Recommendations Delray Beach, Florida (November 4, 2008) -The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC} will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 19, 2008, at 5:30 p.m, at the Environmental Services Department Board Room, 434 South Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach. The purpose of the meeting is to review and vote on recommendations regarding policies and programs that improve access to affordable housing. Florida Statute 420.907b mandates a review every three years of existing City policies and recommendations regarding new policies. The committee is required to consider eleven policies: expedited permitting; modification of impact fees; flexibility in densities; reservation of infrastructure capacity; affordable accessory dwelling units; reduction of parking and setback requirements; flexible lot configuration; modification of sidewalk and street requirements; consideration of any proposal that may impact housing costs; printed inventory of public lands suitable for affordable housing; and development near transportation hubs, major employment centers, and mixed-use development. City residents are encouraged to attend the AHAC meeting which is the last opportunity for public comment before the Report is completed and presented to the Board of City Commissioners. For more information about the policies under consideration please call Elizabeth Alpert, Neighborhood Services Administrator, at 561-243-7282. 06 /OS AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERM EXPIRES REGULAR MEMBERS OCCUPATION CATEGORY TELEPHONE FILLING 06/17/2009 Appt Residential home Vacant buildin 06/17/2009 Home: 736-2181 Appt ail nlos Office: 272-6766 Cell: 573-2390 Dorothy Ellington Fax: 278-4937 8597 Windy Circle Executive Advocate for low- maeniale@aol.co Boynton Beach, FL 33437 Dir./Housing income persons m 06/17/2009 Hame: 276-3873 Appt 06/17/08 Wanda Gadson Office: 684-7660 145 NW 10`'' Avenue Finance-Executive Banking or Fax: 684-7670 Delray Beach, FL 33444 Director mortgage banking 06/17/2010 Home: 637-0136 .Spilt o~/1~/oe Office: 637--7902 Cell; 809-1266 Charles Halberg VI' of Fax: 637-7902 4870 S. Classical Blvd. Construction/Business Serves on local chalbexg@bellsout Delta Beach, F133445 Owner lannin a enc h.net 06/17/2010 Gerald Crocilla Office: 243-1544 Appt o~/a1/os 9370 Longmeadow Circle Represents essential Cell; 3$5-8267 Boynton Beach, FL 33436 Educator services personnel crocilj@palmbeach .k12.fl.us 06/17/2009 Home: 272-1250 Appt 06/ 17/08 Office: 330-2621 Cell: 441-1400 William Hatcher Axeas of labox Fax: 330-2670 233 NE 215L Street actively engaged in hatchergc@bellsau Delta Beach, FL 33444 General Contractox home buildin th.net OG/ 17/2010 Home: 376-1114 Appt o6/17/os Office: 954-467- 4317 Fax: 954-467- Alberta McCarthy 4331 2845 SW 22"d Avenue #108 Real Estate/Senate Real Estate Mccaxthy.alberta.s2 Delta Beach, FL 33445 Le ~slation Assistant Professional 9@flsenate. ov OG/ 17 /2010 Home: 272-2791 ftppt 06/17/14] Carmelita Smith Programrxring Citizen who resides Office: 266-9840 585 Coral way Manager/Housing within the Fax: 266-9843 Delta Beach, F133445 Coordinator Jurisdiction Lita1054@aol.cam 06/17/2009 Appt o~/i~/os Connie Staundinger For-profit provider Home: 620-0$98 2001 N. Ocean Blvd. #205 Director of of affordable Office: 278-3901 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Development Housing Cell: 926-0199 Fax: 278-3780 connie@auburngr ou .net 06/ 17/2010 Home: 278-7409 ApptD6/]7/0& Sandra Wearherspoon Represents Office: 381-2605 34 NW 12rh Avenue employers within Cell: 271-3584 Delray Beach, FL 33444 Assistant Principal the jurisdiction Fax: 381--2650 weathes@palmbea ch.kl2.fl.us OG/17/2010 Evelyn Dobson Engaged as a not- Home: 276-3593 Appt o7/D1/o8 130 NW 3rd Avenue for-profit provider Office: 243-7500 Delray Beach, FL 33444 of affordable Dobson@ci.delray O eratians Mana er housin -beach.fl.us Contact: Elizabeth Alpert 243-7282 S/City Clerk/Board U8/Affordable Housing Advisory Committee MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Linda Karch, Director of Parks and Recreation THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 21, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 NFL YOUTH FOOTBALL GRASSROOTS PROGRAM GRANT/HILLTOPPER STADIUM ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consider a request for matching funds required for the submittal of a proposal for two grants offered by the NFL Youth Football Fund Grassroots Program. BACKGROUND Request approval to submit a proposal for funding from NFL Youth Football Fund Grassroots Program for financial assistance to improve the quality, safety, and accessibility of local football fields. There are two levels of funding available: 1) general field support which includes bleachers, concession stand, lights, irrigation systems, etc. and, 2) field surface (natural grass) grants. Matching grants up to $50,000 and $100,000 respectively are available for improvements to football fields. Parks and Recreation Department would like to replace the bleachers, install a new pump for irrigation and re-sod at Hilltopper Stadium at the Old Atlantic School site, 2501 Seacrest Ave., Delray Beach, FL 33444. 1) The cost to replace the bleachers with handicap ramps is $57,368, the lowest quote, and approximate cost for the new pump including irrigation system is $35,000. Total project cost is $92,368 will submit a proposal for half the total cost $46,184 requiring the city to match these funds. 2) The cost to re-sod the field is approximately $100,000 which means the submittal proposal would be $50,000 requiring the city to match these funds. In order to apply for these grants the City will need to approve funding in the amount of $96,184 to meet the required match. The grant deadline is December 15, 2008. Letters of support are being submitted by Village Academy, Rocks Football, Booster Club, etc. RECOMMENDATION Parks and Recreation Department recommends approval of matching funds and authorization to submit the grant applications. NFL GRASSROOTS PROGRAM A Community Football Fields Program 2008 REC~UEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) Overview The NFL Youth Football Fund Grassroots Program (the "NFL Grassroots Program") is a partnership of the National Football League Youth Football Fund (NFL YFF), which provides funding far the Program, and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), which provides technical assistance and manages the Program. The goal of the NFL Grassroots Prograzxz is to provide non-profit, neighborhood-based organizations with f nancial and technical assistance to improve the quality, safety, and accessibility of local football fzelds. The NFL Grassroots Program provides grants of up to $200,000 far capital improvement projects. In order to be eligiblc for a grant under the NFL Grassroots Pragtam, projects must be sponsored by non-profit community-based organizations registered as exempt from Federal Income Tax under Internal Revenue Service Code Section 501 (c)(3) or middle or high schools. In addition, all vrganizatiovs applying for funds mast be located specifically avid exclusively r~vithin NFL Target Markets, listed iv Attachment A and serve low tv moderate income areas within these markets, Strong preference will be given to those proposals that {1) seek to upgrade existing facilities that are in poor condition or otherwise underutilized; (2) demonstrate active use of the fzelds; (3) attract matching funding that exceeds the minzmurn required match of 1:1; {~} involve local partnerships with non-profit community partners (i.e. Pazks and Recreational Departments, YMCA branches} to promote youth and community programming on the fields; and (5) provide for continuing maintenance and fzeld safety. As noted above, grants are given only far capital expenditures. Applicants may request a maximum of $200,000 from the NFL Grassroots Program to be used for capital improvements. Please see "Availability of Funding" for stipulations involved with a $200,000 maximum grant request. Page 1 of 6 Proposals are due on December ~ S, 200$. Please read the c©znplete RFP before submitting a proposal. The NFL Grassroots Pro ram Objectives Athletic fields can serve as tremendous comzrzunity assets by offering opportunities for recreation, education, and relaxation that contribute to the heal quality of life. The Nl~ L Grassroots Program seeks to redress the shortage of clean, safe, and accessible football fields in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Non-profit neighborhood-based organizations can play a leading role in the improvement of existing or creation of new athletic playing fields. With experience in both real estate development and cornznunity building, many of these organizations possess the capacity to address bath the capital aspects of playing f gilds development and the program elements (i.e. youth football leagues, sports tournaments, science fairs, summer festivals, community celebrations, and after~schaal events}. Equally important to this experience, neighborhood-based organizations have ca;nnections to their community that legitimize their operations and draw resident support for their work. if local residents have a sense of ownership and see themselves as stakeholders in the creation and maintenance of playing fields, these community assets are more likely to be protected and preserved far long-term use. The N~'L Grassroots Program is intended not only to respond to the immediate shortage of playing fields, but also to build an infrastructure through partnerships and resident involvement that will sustain these open spaces for community use. Availability of Fundin There are two levels of funding available: l }general field support (e.g. irrigation, bleachers, lights, etc.} and, 2} field surface grants. General_Field Support: applicants may submit requests of up to $50,000 far capital projects not associated with the actual field surface. This support includes the installation/refiixbishment of bleachers, concession stands, lights, irrigation systems, etc. Field Surface Grants: Matching grants of up to $200,000 are available to help finance the resurfacing of a community, middle school or high school football field. Matching grants of up to $200,000 will be available to applicants seeking to install new synthetic sports turf surfaces. The ability of these new surfaces to withstand constant use and require little ongoing maintenance casts makes this an attractive option for comrriuniiics, schools and youth groups to consider. A smaller number of matching grants of up to $100,000 will be available to help finance the resurfacing of a community, middle school or high school football field utilizing natural grass) sod surfaces. If applicants choose to utilize natural grass/sod surfaces as opposed to the synthetic sports surfaces, a minimum five-year maintenance plan and corresponding financial budget must be provided in order to demonstrate that the applying organization will maintain the f gild despite Page 2 of 6 projected wear and tear anal potential overuse by youth sports participants. Funds frorn the Program may not be used to maintain field surfaces, as all grant funds must be used for capital expenditures. In addition, please note that favorable consideration will he given to applicants who demonstrate that they have chosen a synthetic turf sports surface that is appropriate for their needs. Organizational Eli~ibilify Criteria To be eligible for the NFL Grassroots Program., organizations applying for grant funds must meet all of the criteria listed below: • Be a community-based organization, middle Schaal or high school serving a neighborhood consisting primarily of law- and moderate-income families and individuals (schools must demonstrate the ability of the community is also utilize the field); • Have at least one-full time staff person (all-volunteer organizations will not be considered); • Be in existence for at least three years; • Have a proven track record in real estate development and/or parks programming; • 501(c)(3) tax exempt status/school status; and • Be located in an NFL Target Market (Please see the list of Target Markets in Attachment A). Selection Criteria Organizations and their projects will be selected for funding based upon the following criteria: 1. Feasibility of the proposed project. The project budget must be based upon realistic costs, preferably written contractor's estimates. 2. Project readiness. Sources of funding for the entire budget should be identifed. Plans for field renovation should take into account the schedule of recreation activities over the course of the year. A project timeline should be specified in the proposal. 3. Impact upon neighborhood and support froaaa the community. Only proposals that locate projects in law- and moderate-income communities will be considered. The proposal should clearly state how the field improvements would benefit the community. It also must clearly detail how many youth and adults make use of the field far football and far other activities. Moreover, the proposal must also include a projected increase in the number of people that will use the facility as a result of the NFL Grassroots Program. improvements. Support letters from other neighborhood and partner organizations must be included. 4. Match funding. The NFL Grassroots Program requires a minimum local match of one dollar for every NFL Grassroots Program dollar (l:1). For example, if the proposal requests $200,000 from the NFL Grassroots Program, it must demonstrate sources and commitments for $200,000 in local funds. Match funding at a higher ratio will strengthen the proposal. S. Security of future Feld maintenance and safety. Proposals must have written commitments of maintenance funding for a minimum of five years and a detailed five-year maintenance plan in Page 3 of 6 order to demonstrate that the applicant wi11 maintain the field despite projected wear and tear and potential overuse by youth sports participants. 6. Capacity of ©rganization and its partners ~© carry out project. The applicant organization must demonstrate, through its current management team and previous experience, the ability to manage a project of this size and nature. Qther Terms & Uef~ltxons: Capital improvements refer to the physical development of the field and its surrounding amenities. Such projects may include, but are not limited to, new or renovated irrigation systems, topsoil, sod or seeding, lights, bleachers, public address systems, fences, restroom or locker roam facilities, goalposts, and. scoreboards. Public agencies (other than public schools) may not apply for grants from the NFL Grassroots Program. However, community-based non-profit organizations with SOl(c}{3} designation, middle schools and high schools meeting all other organizational criteria, and private schools with SO1(c} (3} designation may apply to make improvements on fields awned and managed by public sector entities (i.e. City, Parks and Recreation Depat~tments, etc.). In those cases, the applicant must show evidence that { l }the public entity supports the proposal; (2) the public entity authorizes the applicant to carry out the proposed capital improvements (this authorization must take into account relevant laborlunion regulations and liability issues}; {3} the public entity demonstrates its financial commitment to field maintenance; and {4} the field is open to and used by the community for organized athletics and other events. Anplicati©n Procedures To apply for funding under the NFL Grassroots Program, please submit an original plus three (3} copies of each of the following: Cover Sheet: A one-page cover sheet including the following information: -Name, address, e-mail address, telephone and facsianile numbers of the organization - Executive director and contact person (if different} for this application - Brief description of proposed project - Amount of funding requested Narrative: In no more than five (5} typed pages, address the following: Description of the organization: mission, history, and accomplishments, with a focus on capacity to develop the proposed project. Description of the neighborhood: boundaries of the catchment area, income levels and ethnicity of the population served, condition of housing stock and main commercial areas, existence and conditions of local parks and open spaces (including community facilities}. Page 4 of 6 .l.~escription of the project: location, current condition, plans far site use, progress on this plan (including status on site control, zoning, enviromncntal review, and physical improvements), project budget and match funding; connmwnity support for project, and agreements with partner organizations. 1"mpact of the project and future sustainability: planned ar asiticipaied programming in field space, plans far caratinued maintenance and safety of field (including long-term maintenance budget and timeline), and how project fits into community plans for neighborhood. Qrg~anizational Attachments:. Please attach the following items: • IRS 501(c}(3}determination letter • Twa most recent audited financial statements (preferably annual statements for 2006 and 2007) Mast recent IRS 990 farm (preferably 2007} Current List of organizations' Board of Directors (contact information) Project Attachments: Please include a copy of the following items: • Project budget • Financing commitment letters from match funding sources • Financial commitment letters and detailed maintenance plan from organizations responsible for fold maintenance. • Landscaping or park design plans • Environmental reports (if necessary) • Agreements and budgets for field programming (i.e. youth football) • Letters of support from field users and other community organizations • Lotter of support from local NFL team. Please submit three (3) copies of the completed application, including the relevant attachments ta: Attn: NFL Grassroots Program Beverly Smith, Senior Prograzra Director Local Initiatives Support Corporation 501 Seventh Avenue- 7~' Floor New York, NY 10018 Proposals roust be received by December 1~, 200$. No exceptions. if you have questions regarding this RFP, please contact Beverly Smith at LISC in New York at 212 ~55~98$1 ar b e-mail at hsmith a)itsc.or . 2005 NFL Grassroots Program -- Attachment A _ __ __ Note: Only organizations located in ~©w-moderate income areas within the following Target Markets are eli ible to a ly. Page 5 of 6 NFL Team Target Market Arizona Cardinals Phoenix, AZ, Tempe, Glendale Atlanta Falcons Atlanta, GA Baltimore Ravens Baltimore, MD Buffalo Bills Buffalo, NY; Lackawanna, Tonawanda, Rochester Carolina Panthers Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Raleigh, Greensboro NC; Columbia, Spartanburg, SC, York Coup Chicago Bears Chicago, IL; Gook County (Mayfield, Brookfield, Chicago Heights, Riverdale, Blue Island Cincinnati Bengals Cincinnati, OH,(Ha~nilton County, Clermont, Butler, Warren}, Northern Kentucky Boone Coun ,Cam bell, Kenton Cleveland Browns Cleveland, OH, Loraine, Youngstown, Canton Dallas Cowboys Dallas, Irving, Arlington, TX Denver Braneos Denver, CO, Colorado Springs, Pueblo Detroit Lions Detroit, MI Houston Texans Houston, TX Green Bay Packers Green Bay, WX; Milwaukee, Racine, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, LaCrosse Indianapolis Colts Indianapolis, IN Jacksonville Jaguars Jacksonville, FL; Nassau, Clay, St. John's, and Baker Counties, FL Kansas City Chiefs Kansas City, MO; Kansas City, KA Miami Dolphins Miami Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, FL Minnesota Vikings Minneapolis, MN; St. Paul, Duluth New England Patriots Boston, MA ,Springfield MA; Providence, RI, Nashua, NH New Orleans Saints New Orleans, LA Naw York Giants Newark, NJ; Paterson, Jersey City, Englewood, Hackensack, Mount Vernon, Yonkers, NY NeW York Jets New York, NY; Hempstead., Roosevelt, Morris County, NJ (Dover, Morris TOWr1Sh1 Oakland Raiders Oakland, CA; Alameda, Hayward, San Leandro, Berkeley, San Lorenzo, Castro Valle ,Union Ci , Richzxzond, Walnut Creek Philadelphia Eagles Philadelphia, PA; Lehigh Valley, PA; Camden, NJ; Trenton, NJ; Wilmington, DE Pittsburgh Steelers • Pittsburgh, PA, Fayette, Butler, Green, Indiana, Lawrence ,Washington, Westmoreland, Alleghen , Armstron , Fainx~ont, WV, Weirton, WV St. Louis Rams St. Louis, MO; East St. Louis, IL San Diego Chargers San Diego County, CA San Francisco 49ers San prancisco, CA; South San Francisco, San Jose, East Palo Alto, Watsonville, Pa~aro, Salinas Seattle Seahawks Seattle, WA; Tacoma _ Tampa Bay Buccaneers Hillsborough, Pinellas, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Counties, FL Tennessee Titans Davidson, Cheatham, Dickson, Sumner, Rutherford, Williamson, Wilson and Robertson Counties, TN Washington Redskins Washington, DC; Prince George's County, MD, Richmond, Virginia Beach, VA. Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Page 6 of 6 Gulfstrealxl parts Group 6278 N Federal Hwy' # l OS Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 33308 Name I Address City of laeiray Beach cJo Tom RE: Bleacher £or fnotbali field Quote Date Estirr~ate # 11/20/2008 795 Project Description QtY Cost Total Pravide and assemble/install angle frnrne aluminum elevated 1 43,985.00 43,985.00 bleacher. -Includes structural drawings far required 14S wind code. -lOrowx67'W - Ramp and stairs per code - ADA spaces per code -Net seating capacity: 364 - Quote is valid for 60 days Estimate far optional concrete slab for the above bleacher. 1 13,383.90 1.3,383.00 - 4" thick x 2,700 sq/ft - Site work far dirt Quote does not include permitting and all fees associated w/ permitting if required SUb~Ota~~ $57,368.00 $~I@5 TaX {Q.Q%~ 1;0.fl0 TQ~a $57,368.00 ~o Row Elevated Bleacher with Powder-Coated Seat & Riser, Press Sox, A.D.A. Ramp & Stair Access 'Elevated Bleachers" is a term used to describe a type of bleacher that when seated on the first row, your feet are at the height of the elevated front walkway. Several elevation heights are available. These elevations require entry stairs and front guardrail. A handicap ramp may also be required with ADA seating. more info... Elevated bleachers include: • Anodized Aluminum Seat Planks • (2) Aluminum Foot Planks • Riser Plank Under Every Seat • Chainlink Guardrails • Front Walkways w/Entry Stairs • Aisle w/Handrails • Optional A.D.A. Wheelchair Seating, Accessibility Ramps ,~~,~~ Seating Constrt~ctor5 USA, [nc. (~t10TP 8996PBC5 ~~ 2347 Circuk way t Broottsvllia, Flarlda 34604 ~~~rs~gna.. ~~~ Ph. 727-589-1017 Fax: 352-799-0308 INJOTE ,- Pro)ect Name Ch of Beira Beach bale 11lt8f2008 Address _ _ _ __. _.., _ .._~_.. FUB X8444 .--.,. Ciry betray reach _ State FL Z]P ~ Comsat Tom Kwtatak Phone 581-243.7255 Fax 561_243-7266 qty UBSCrI lion llntt Price TQTAL 7hta quoteuttlizes theCllrusCnunty Schools btd Bld Homo: Catalog Supply Bid eld #2008-51 Effective: Aprl) 2008 - April 2011 GC LtCEN5E # CGC150574$ 1 BLEACWEA: f q rows x 66' elevated aluminum angle frame bteachor $53,995.00 $53,995.00 intrudes chalnllnk guardrail system, handicap cutoure & atstes as per cede, 2x10 mill finish seat & footboards, 1x6 mill finish riser boards, {1) 30" ADA ramp, (1)30" stair, assembly~nstaltation, sealed engineering drawings t Cpnorete-2g75equarefeet $25,937.50 $25,937.50 Dees NQT include skiswalks, fenaing, power from nonfroi room disconnect box ib main €rartsfarmer, This project also does not Include locating andlor retaaating utilities (f.e., etectdc, plumbing, sewage, stprm dra]nga0o, sprird<lor system), locating andlor relonating fencing andlnr buildings, and rosatutian of any conflict of Ilna of sight due to existing cortdltians. fn addition, Seating Constructors is rrot rosponsibte for rasolutipn of any oaMllct of line of sight due to existing condtUans, underground damage or obstructions opt clearly Identtked In advance. Any redesign to awl unidentified underground obstructions will be done at owner's expense. F~rcluded §s also 3memional damage (La., vandalism). Prici irmtudescpntrantdiseoum ~ SrioTotal $79.332.50 Payment bstaifs Ne115 Acnepted Ey; Ph# ~...._. _ ..___ .._w_,.._.~... -. ~. bate . MandifnglPacking75hipping $3,275.cxr TpTAL $83,207.50 Otd Atlantic Wigh School 2501 SsanroslBlvd Delray Beach, FL 33444 Paymersts aralats tf net recrsived wtlhin 15 days of invoice dato and era subjectta a finance charge of t.6 % per morRh, or the maximum charge allowed by law I€less Shan 1.5°/ per momh, we accept VISA, Mastercard, Amertasjan F.>arress, checks & cash. quote remalnsvalid for 60 days from quote date. ComritirerA to gt~efiiry a customer satlsteCtlanl ~~ ~~ ~~ 1'.tU' 3.-0. 4`'n' 6'-0" SCALD: 11A" = 1=0" BLEACHER, PLAN ..Bliss Products and Services, Ina Quatat~On ~ ~'~'~ 5 6$31 S. Sweetwater Rd. Lithia Springs, GA 3fl122 (800} 246-2547 ' (770} 920-9 9151=ax w JIM CARRUTHERS (239) 248-7023 jcarruthers~ia blisspraducts.com Date Project 11/99/2008 GRANDSTAND Bil€ To CITY OF DELRAY BEACH 5fl NW 1ST AVE pELRAY BEACH FL 33444 Phone 561-243-7255 Fax 561-243-7268 Contact TOM KWIATEK ATHLETICS SUPERVISOR Terms 30 Days Approxlrrtate Ship Date Ship Via Part No. Description Qty Price Total GT GRANDSTAND5 5379-OS biSCOUONT 10 ROW x 69' BLEACHER FURNISH, ©ELIVt=R ANIO INSTALL ~fCLUL}!NG CONCRETE SLAB. 5Eln ATTACHEC3 DETAILS PEF2 CHARLOTTE COUNTY SCHOOLS BID Bid # 0710$-516 Freight 1 1 1 69,700.00 -9,500.00 0.00 89,740.40 9,50d.44 Q.dd INSTALLER ,: SLAB 4" CONCRETE SLAB W/8"x8" THICKI=NEI7 1=1]GE 2700 4.55 13,3S5.dD 270psq.ft, FOR BLEACHER AND RAMI~S AN(:3 STAIRS. DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SIDEWALKS lF NECESSARY. Freight 1 0.00 4.44 Note: PRICES FOR BLEACHER VALID THRU 3130149 Wf INSTALL NO LATER THAN 9134149. GONCRETE PRICI=S SUBJECT TO CHANGE ©UE TO MATERIALS PR€CE AT TIME ©F ORDER. installation prices are based an truck access to the site and normal soli conditions. Any buried rock or debris may be cause for additional charges. Any Site preparation or dernnlition not specified atrnve must be completer! prior to installation of the equipment. Site restoration, unless otherwise noted, is not inctuded, please refer to your Installation agreement for further details. Sales tax if applicable is not inciuded. Sates tax exempt certificate will be required for exemption. All orders are subject to approval artd acceptance by the manufacturer. Sub Total 73,585,04 Freight 0.00 Tax 0.00 Install 0.40 Grand Total 73,565.40 Signature Date Page 1 of 1 FEATTJRES OF PROPOSED GRANDSTAND The following is a description of the proposed 10 row x 69'0" Crrandstand for the City of Delray $each. • 394 net seats including 4 wheel chair spaces • Aluminum angle frame structure • 8" rise / 24" tread • Single 2"x10" anodized aluminum seat plank s Semi-Closed deck aluminum plank system {rejects 4" sphere) (2) 4'0" wide aisles • 5'2" wide front crosswalk, elevated 48" above grade r One exit stair and 1 ADA ramp • Chain link guardrail system on all sides of bleacher, stair and ramp • A two-line rail(no chain link) is provided at the rear of the wheel. chair locatians • Unit to be installed on concrete slab provided by others • Engineer sealed drawings included • Installation is included Not included in the proposal are the follawing: • Any necessary permit fees ar bonds required for bleacher or cancrete « Any electrical work (i.e. grounding, emergency lighting) • Excessive materials handling. It is assumed that access to the site is clear and accessible far deliveries and staging. • Site work not pertaining to the minimal excavation for the slab and the slab itself Slab excavation is understood to be just earth and grass. No structural materials. • Demolition of existing equipment + Relocation of any underground utilities or underground unknowns. November 19, 2[308 Mrs. Linda Karch Director of Parks and Recreation City of Qelray Beach 100 NW 1St Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Rl: Delray Rocks Football and Cheerleading Clrgarfixativn Dear Mrs. Karch: Please accept this fetter as my overwhelming support far the Defray Rocks. As a new parent to the Racks community and a mother to two bays, 1 often search for quality extracurricular programs far our ch'tfdren_ Vote have been told of the Rocks and their contribution to the youth of the camrnunity far the past 41 years taut have not fully experienced it until this past season. My ten year old son, Masan, played for the ~ 1~ pound team this year. Ta understand my endorsement one must look to our family's background to see the value this program brings to the City of Delray Beach. My family and I i[nmigrated to the US when Vietnam fell to Communism sa I often admire those communities where family and community ties can be traced hack mare than 30 years. Cur decision to have Masan join the football team was simply to provide him with a recreational outlet where he can learn a team sport in a diverse environment. Mason is a first degree black belt in the Ko Am Mu-Do Federation, when his Grandmaster is a world renowned Taekwandc~ head coach of the Korean and Bahrain National Teams. Flawever, Taekwanda is an individual sport and so Mason is a novice with respect to the group synergy involved in a team sport. Mason attends a local Ghristfan School and the opportunities far football are very limited. There is only flag football available due to the lack of interest and volunteers and funding to fully support this type of program. Notwithstanding, without gear or proper instruction, Masan continued to play flag football after school with his schoolmates due to his lave for the game. As one can conclude, the "flag football" that went on is mare ar less full contact With participants at varying weight and grade levels. Vilhen we first signed up for the Racks, Mason was vary hesitant being naturally shy and having known no other players in the league. The amazing change in his racial demeanor and confidence after one season solidifies for me the relevance of this program. It did not take our family long to realize why there is sa much valunteerisrn in this League in comparison to other athletic arganizatians. Generations of knowledge, and l don't mean just football knowledge, gave filkered through this league. k can honestly admit my knowledge in football only extends as far as the health benefiits not the cultural benefits, However, through my involvement with the Rocks, I have learned khat it is one of the mast powerful tools in this carnnnunity's taalkit. The coaches, leaders, and supporters have either been playerslcheerleaders themselves or have in2 N.. ~.2~`,S~YeCt .. ABI,rR-~ UeAch, ~L ~4~~ [5/oi) 26~ ~ns~ _. sl~~s.~s-9-~GE~.we~ ,,~. had family members invalved in the teams one way ar another. The countless volunteer hours they put in each season clearly show they have nothing more to gain than to ensure the "pay i# fiorward" concept. This is ane of the reasons why Delray Beach still has its community fabric intact. 1 was humbled by my experience and acceptance into the Defray Racks community since as a transplant to this country, state, anal city, ft was only my selfish desire to fay down strong mats for our boys that first motivated me. Haw~ver, it Eater became mare dear to me the true benefits of my efforts in advocating for this program. The life Lessons learned by the children through the modeling of hard work and dedication, teamwork, and community invr~lvement will bridge many cultural and social gaps, as well as, be transferable to every fiacet of their fives. f~lease do oat hesitate to contact me should you need anything else, 5incereiy, r ~-° -~ ,~ Thuy Shutt iQ2 N,~. ~.2~ 5~~: '~EGrfat~ 'g~&{G~3, ~Ll 33•k4~ (SF>~} ~F,S ~OSi 56~u~54~~~t.v4Et VILLAGE ACADEMY ELE. Fax~561~08865 lov 21 2008 1437 F'. 02 I.~r. Tammy Fe~~usvn Principal '~~~AGL~ ,A~.CAD~~ ~C~OOrL Ark a~.d Sara J~a ~~b~~ke~r ~a~n.~~is ~~ ~ir~dy Niel=-acle A,ssistat~~ Principai ~'i'itie i schoatwide kroject ~~~ S.W. ~2tll .F1ve~tue, Delray .leach, FL 33444 D~ l~.udy ~vllum ~~~~~ ~~~-~~~~ ~a~: (56~) ~~~"~~~~ .A551Stagt.Principsl Mgrs. Saa~tlra 'Westhe~sp©on, N,l.~d. ,~ssistaat Principal l~Tovemllaer 21, 2008 ,lV~[s, l~ixxda ~.arcla Director of Parks and ~.ecreatian City c~~'Delray Beau 50 NW 1ST ,avenue ~elzay Beach, FL 33444 Dear Ms. K.arch: We would like to request to use the football field apetated by ~e City cafDelxay Beach can Seaa~est Avenue follawiz~g the des~ed renovation of that field. ~e have rev athletic ~.elds on oux camlrus. The city's #'aatball £teld is otu ozxly laossibZe "home" Beld. ~Ve would also pra,ctxce there aver school, subject to tSae Meld's availability. Vill~~e Academy has 692 students and has l~iFtdergatten thi`augh tlZe tenth grade in owt single carnpfe~. fiver the axext two years we will become a full high school. ,As a xrtembe~c of the School I3istrzct of Palm Beach Catu~ty, our school, i.s located xu a very ecanam~'tcally depz'essed neigbbarhaod iza. l~elxay Beach. ~e axe a Title 1 school atxd our student population is 91 ~o Black and 9% hispanic. Village .Academy's £ocatball ~aaxa.es at thhe city's fcsrat'ball field wautd i'ie attended by avex S00 taus comprised of students, cheerleaders, faruilies, and cteighba:rs. Qur football team is vital to the educatiar~ and rriattuataan of oux student athletes, az~d Village .Academy hopes ~e xe~navat~aax offilae city's football field rxa.aves forward Please call xz~e if you have any q~.estions. Si~.cere , r. T y Ferguson l'xincipal ~~a ~~~ "It Talce~,ta, Vilia~e" paiaz Beach Cawaty SChAais - ~aEe€~ f`A" ByT3-eFlorid~ taepariroe~tafFiduc~uu .aA3n Tiquat Uggarfunity ~ta~lo-yer 2tlli5-,~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Terrill C. Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney DATE: November 3, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 APPEAL/SPRAB ACTIONS/BOSTON'S RESTAURANT 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. I I I I 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} Required 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, INC. Appellant(s), vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. 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, 2001 MEETING 1. This appeal has come before the City Commission on December 2, 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(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. 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(8)(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(8)(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 10'? Yes No b. To reduce the visibility triangle at the Ocean Boulevard driveway entrance from 20' to 8'? Yes No C. 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(8)(5) (above) and LDR Section 6.1.3(8), "Sidewalks" (attached hereto as Exhibit "D"). a. To eliminate the required sidewalk along Salina Avenue? Yes No II. 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 <<F„~. YES NO B. LDR Section 2.4.5(F)(5), "Finding of Compatibility", (attached hereto as Exhibit "G"); LDR Section 4.6.16, "Landscape 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 December 2, 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 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. Section 4.6.9(D)(1)(c) STACKING DISTANCE: 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 ACCESS 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. Appellant(s), vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. Section 4.6.14(A) Visibility 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 below shall provide unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between three (3) feet and six (6) 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 (6) 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 line 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) lines. 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. Section 6.1.3(6) SIDEWALKS: A. Principles of Design: The primarily purpose of sidewalks is to provide a safe place for pedestrian travel. Generally, sidewalks are required along both sides of all streets. B. Sidewalk Design Requirements: (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 with 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 (6"), 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 development either at a time certain or upon reaching a certain percentage of build-out of the development. (D) Relief from Sidewalk Installation: (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 Installation: 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" VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and BOSTONS ON THE BEACH, INC. Appellant(s), vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. A. CONDITIONS: IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 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 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: 1. Provide exfiltration 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 6. 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: Identify the landscape materials in the planter in the rear of the building on the 5t"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, INC. Appellant(s), vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Appellee. 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. 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 3.1.1(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, 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. 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: Hotels between 20,000 and 100,000 sq. ft. shall provide 2 loading spaces. 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 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. EXHIBIT "G" 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. 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: 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 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. Section 4.6.16 LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS: The following shall be considered the minimum standards for the design and installation of all plant materials within the City of Delray Beach. (1) Design: Xeriscape principles shall be utilized in landscape designs and installations. Copies of 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 irrigation 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 other less drought tolerant plantings to .be watered separately from more 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 soil 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: All 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 all 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 all planting areas adjacent to parking spaces, accessways, and/or 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 0" in the current edition of the "Roadway and Traffic 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. Landscape 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) Quality: All plant materials used in conformance with provisions of this ordinance shall conform to the Standards for Florida N0.1 or better as given in "Grades and Standards for Nursery Plants" Part I, 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 permitted 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 (10) 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 - 30 3 31 - 40 4 41+ 5 (6) 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 (6) feet of clear trunk at the time of planting. Minimum overall palm height may be increased if palms are of a nature that the fronds hang below an eight (8) foot clearance, and are further, located in an area where pedestrians may be adversely affected by the 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 (30) 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 or 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 traditional 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, lawn 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%) coverage must be achieved within ninety (90) days. Nurse grass must be sown for immediate effect and protection against soil erosion until 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 lieu of grass, in whole or part, shall be planted at such spacing to present a finished appearance and reasonably complete coverage within six (6) months after planting. All ground cover areas must be kept free from weeds. (10) Vines: 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) Organic Mulches: Organic mulches may be used in 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. Section 4.6.18(E), "Architectural Elevations and Aesthetics" 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. ii. 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. 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, INC. Appellant(s), vs. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. 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. 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. 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: 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. 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: Terrill C. Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney DATE: November 3, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 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 December 2, 2008 and December 9, 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. I. 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 ublic 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 3 application/request. These areas include building setbacks, height, room size, space, 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: 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. 7 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. 8 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 driveways. An unobstructed view within this triangle visibility must be provided between the 9 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. 10 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. t ~~ '®® p 1 ! 1~~~1 ;1 ~~~ii ~ M z_ ~. _: l : ® 1 .r ~ ®~~~~~ x._: ~- ~~ #~t..; . ~, :- ~~ ~~~ ~®® '~ ~ ,~ , - ~ ~ ~ ® ~ _ ~:k ~ ~ ® t ~~ . .~ ®® 1®® ~ _ I ,~ .~ ~, o o 0 - ~U w O Uw ~ ~~ n o~ __i a ~U ui Q O ~ "i ',, ~ ~~ m ~ ~, i i ~ , _ ~~ u ~~ ~~ m ~, o vim, i i i e O ~~ 4 ~V~w ~~ ~ ~ D I'-o" _ _ IS ~.3 ~' Q 'NO PARKING' MANEUVERiNCs: 5F'AGE~ ELE TORE ^ a ~ 31 PARICINCs Sf~ACES 1, I i i i i r42' H I-1 IUALL 6' HIG I,UALL~ ro% 5L PE FOR MInN. $' p' V oou~N uP Q ~ ~ u~ o u cccLl 1~~ c c ' o 0 -~_ ~~~~ ~ _ ~ ~ 1'7 m c+1 r ~~ ~, L(1 z 'q z ~ Q ~:Q~ LOBBY EGPT a- ~ ~-i{]CI O z p~Z% ~O ~ ~ N:~~ BARK ~ ~ ~~m% 10(~ 5F. ~ '~ F-~~ . ~ BOST -~3' ~ ' ~ uPPE U DROP OFF .:_~ DI~E'1P5T' Q E~IGLOS. ~ ~~ ~~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ `Q O I I ~O I I I ' I i I u~ I I I i Q ~ I ~ I E l I t 1 u0 I I ~ ~ I ~ , ~ ~ ~~ u I ` i, ~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ L aDll*lG E I ` -~~~ ~ / / f ~ OFFICE ~ FFIGE o I ~ u~ ~ I ~ ~ u~ CL. up ~ ~ I.G. ~ F ~ ELE TORS i5'-8" ~, cr~o A _ ' I I ~ TRASN I __ ~ 8 ® GNUTE D LAUNDRY I I I ~ ® Q /'~ i - O 0 A O - I I ~ {.7-CJ I I I __ a ~ ~ ® -- I I -- ® ~ i ~ ,. ~ ~ TO R5 LOBBY' ~ - I 1 I I I I 12 13 14 ~ ~/ I ~ t3 ~ 15 16 ~__~ ~ ~ ~~ ~__~ 11 z z ~ ~ ~ F- D ~' ~ w ~ ~ z O ~ ~ ~ O y}m U Z Q <Y Q N w 0.~ ~n x Q 0 m U I I ................ ~------ ~ I L_. i I I ~ ~ j ~ ® Mal~~a RDOI"f ' I // ® ® \\ I ' I i ~ ~ C O ® ® 7 I : ~ ~ , . ~ ~ ~ ---~ i ~ / ~ \ o j ~ i I ~ ~ i i ~ ~ i I ~ i ~ ~ ® o ~ i i j ~ ~ ~ -` ~ ~ I ~ 18'-O" 0 ® ~ 10 15'-G ~~ ~ ~ I I I ~ / ~ ' ® OFFICE I ~ 1 0 I f ,.... ~ ~ VEl*1D'Cs I ELE TORS j I ~ LOBBY I I I--~ ~ Im i.... ~ ~ OW G7~ ~A ~ g S~TBAG{G I I ~ I ~. I 11 12 13 ~ ~ 14 15 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 16 17 _ _ 1 ~ ~~ -- ._~'_I - __-- I-- _ ~ $~- ~'_J ~b ~~ ~ 1 S~T iiBAG}~, ~ ~ I `~ I I ~ ~ I I I 12 13 1~L 15 16 ~ I I L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 17 18 I r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ € ~.... ~ ,_ e e ~ ~ I ® I !! , ' 5 ® ~ ® 9 O b-b .. ~ ~ 4 C! _ O A 1 ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ® o __ ~ ~ 24'-~ ° ~ 5~~ f I o ~ ; \ ` 3 ---~; Q '° I ~ ~, ....; ~__ - ~.__~~ t LUOOD TRELLIS TYPfGAL A5 SNOWN OVER ROOM BALGON I~ - ~ _ -_ ~__ _---- ~~ ~~_ ~_~~ fR `~ {.~ 1!~_ ~0 u~~' ~ ~~ rs1 ~ I fl~~ I 0`1 r_: ------ .~..._ __._ --- - -- _~ I / ,i i ..._._. L.. O O U O ~) C~ ~ [~ ~. ~ _~ ~ J 3 _U L~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ (L ~- }-- ~ ~- i !- 9- ~ ~ ~ _~ __.~ -- g J _1 ~l ~~_ `~. '~ J 1 2 Z ~~ c:~ -- .. ~ ~: ~~__ ~.,; ~ ~ Z U O C~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- _-- ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~L Q. ~ 4L ?- ?- } ~~ _~_~, i,' _..- E i L l 1_~ ! 1.1 _~ l~ T _V_ t~! <,~- ~l_ ~~~ f !~ 9 -Y ~~ - ;~eS 3~h~ -3E ~~ ~ : @ i 1~9~ao~~:C'a:,.,i Q ~~ _ ~o W u.~ '~ ~ 3 z h ~S 9 y ~ ~ ~ ~ F ii^•_~ an....s Q • ° ~ Z~ N ~Q ° ~ ~ E ~q ~~ .a 9~ g ~~~ ~~ Ss ~} r~ ~~ ~S ~ ~S~~~y~a: s C5 tltl~ ~ ~ ~~°°~1~ ~j~.. ° Co °C~~ p~ Q ca ~ ~ 4~ 4~ ~~~a n §~ '+~ 3: ~~ ~ ~ ~~bW~s>;da~3 ~ ai~C~~s iii ~ CC~-l ~o°oo ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ic ~ a~ z 34 ~i ~ d~'•S ~ is ~5~~ ~. z~i ~~ as ~ 3c~c~af3~~555~~ ~ s o`o_o o?oo C ~~oo_oo ~~~ll ~ k~ o00 5~~ dIJ ~ ~ ~ lld ~ ~b'-b-b~ AyMHJ1H 31d1S) N~ dfl~ lld Q2lb'A31nO8 Ny3~o H1npS L 1ii~ L ~ dl~ Z N~ G ,. 11 d ~--_~ I~~ .T ~s ~ 11 6 ~`\` a~ j F S ." JN~ ~~ g ~~^n~ ` ~~ , t ~Illl ~. ~ I , ," . ~: I ~' I Z / - ` ddr ~ 9 ~ ~ - - N `dX ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ 12J ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 lA I W ~ 1 l W " 9 J " I ~`~ a~ li .:' I li ~~/i ~. xtr~~o Hab'39 1 ObV'n3~E109 '~p'~N1~VS '3/~1Y^JfT132~4NV w ' a 33?J19 N~V'3~=] C5 a w a ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ c~ ~~~ n m~ ~~ ~ m ~ ~ w I~ 1 a~ 3 ~_ Z V o J a H W o W U a Q M a o ti ~ z a J ~ N ,~ ~ ~ N rn ~ H OD ~ ~ O tD ~ H trj ~ ~ N ~~ ~ [V r ti"' o r 0 r o r cD ,~ W d a U H ~ a a ~ ~- w a a ~ Cal Z OJ m o O ~ ~ ~ a ^ z~ rn o J ~ ^ ~ ~ O ~ W 2 o~c ~ o p x ~ ~ Z v m a r h ^ Z Y a ~ o Q ~ ~ = Z ~Q~ ~~o ado ~~~q o~~~ ~~~~ oW$J ~°da W~~~ ~a~ ~~ W = J J ~ LL ~ ra=~ j J Z J ~LLUu.a ~m~ ^ W ~ ^ W ~ U o a ~ a a u3 ~ ~ W ~ ~~ a a ~ ~ a N V `~ W CV Z O~ W N ~ w a _ a ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~"' ~ ~ ; ~, W a z a c i U .. .. a ; a a ^^ ~ o w w c~ U ~ ^ ~ Z ~; ~ r ~ ui O r Y W ~ K a! ~ ~a ~ a ~ ~ ~ @~ { a U U W W 1 as a ~ o a z ~~ `~ a = 00 c n ~ ~ ~ 0 0 o v o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~n y y m d O L L L L V (.~ V O I` ~ V ~ ~ ~ M 1~ CO ~ C~ ~ 00 ~ CO f~ ~c.icoo0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Q r J r ~ ~ J ~ $ $ Z C7 m f!1 y V) N N Q J (n .. ~~~~ ~~~N"' ~ ~ tiVC7U m z ~ ma = .. Z r 0 W ~ J ^ ~ o ~ U s ~ t" Q d ~ ^ O o UaC~UO ~ ~ ~ ~ a O ~ ~ a ~ co O ^ w Q a~cvn ^ W m = O U ~o rim ~r ~ ~ _ 5 ~ iiA MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: R. Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: City Attorney DATE: November 24, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 AMENDMENT TO THE CANNERY ROW DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT (SECOND HEARING) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Cannery Row has requested an amendment of the Cannery Row Developer's Agreement regarding the development located at the southwest corner of Lake Ida Road and Pineapple Grove Way. This is the second public hearing for this item. BACKGROUND The City entered into a Developer's Agreement with Cannery Row, LLC on May 8, 2007, (attached hereto) regarding the development of the Cannery Row project along the east side of the 300 block of Pineapple Grove Way. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement Cannery Row was required to dedicate a parcel of land, located in the north east corner, to the City for park purposes. Pursuant to Plat Book 109, Pages 133-134 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County (see attached), this area has been dedicated to the City. The developer wishes to amend the Development Agreement (see attached) in order to provide that the park land dedication condition has been satisfied. The developer has made this request in order to satisfy certain title comments made by mortgage loan lenders. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, two public hearings must be held in order to adopt this amendment. The first public hearing was held on November 18, 2008 and the Commission approved this amendment at that meeting. RECOMMENDATION Approve the amendment to the Developer's Agreement. Prepazed by, record and return to: ]ahn T. Metzger, Esp. McDa~1d Hapkirus LLC SUS S. Flagler Arive; Suite 304 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 AMENDIVILNT TO AGREEMENT TffiS AMENDMENT AGRE + MENT .(the "A»tendmeut") made as of (7ctober 2048 by and between the CITY DF DELRAY BF~ACH, a Florida municipal corpozation (the "Ciit~, CANNERY ROW, I~LC-(the "Developer") pnnrides as follows: ~, City and Develop' into that certain greement (the. "Agreement"} on the. 8th day of May, 2007, rec:omded May i 0, ZU07, is O R. Book 21718, Page 1872, of the Public R~ncords ofFalm Beacl:< County, Florida; ~~, Paragraph 2 of the Agreement required Developer to dedicate certain Park Land to the t:ity; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Developer has fulfilled said obligatirni; 2. The dedication affects only Parcel G of the flat of Cautery Row, es recorded in Plat Book 109, Pages) 133, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; 3. The dedication does riot affect an}+ other portion of the Plat; a~i 4. The dedication contemplat®d has been fiilfilllad by virtue of dedication of the. Park Landon the Plat. IN WITNE5S VVfi~REOF, the parties 'have e~ocuted. this Ame>adtnent on the date first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the CIT'E' OF DELRA~ BEACH Presenpe of: Name: By: Name: Title: Name: {1576?39:} CANNERY ROW, LLC. Name: Name: By: Ironwood Prop~r~ies, Inc., as Manager Cary Gliel~ein, Presidcut {]576739: ~1 a a ~~ ~ ) ;Q~~~ ~~ n ~~~~. 9 VCS ~t~Y 2y e~o~~ ~ z ~ ~ g~~~ ~ ~`~ ~ ~ 6 ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~e~~` ~~ ~ ~~ 5~ fig. ~` m.6~ W~a~ ~ ~ 0 ~a~ ~~ ~" ryr ~~~ ~Cv ~ ~~ ~Qe ~a~ ~~~~ ~ ~: ~4 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ e ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 3 ~ ~~g ~e ~ ~ ~.~ Z vi e e ~ ~. ~ ~a ~ e ~. q~~ 1:~ Qm~ !~tli U ~ ~ g ~ B a ~OL7{ 4 Lit-mA PArdC (PLA7 6YKME~5j PACK' $2J a eoa.~ wrAa+ur amr s wet s 11 h ti ~ o . ~o ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ Z4 n ~ ~ ~ '. i . (~ v~ ~~ ~~ ~~ LL ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ C ~j ~ ~ ~ F~ ~~~ y k~~ ~~~ U ~~~ ~ u I I ~` ~~~~ ~ ,~~~~~~. ~W~a~~~~~~~. ' ~'~ A~41. RAT G!~' WAY ~~.R~ f4:3, fi~9) 5~7' P.R.A•[ -;~ J JT ~" ~ ~~ .~ .. YI ffl~YIC1YL r . ~Q '~C .~ :° ~. J ti ;~~. I w 's !M a a t ,~-- ''.~ ~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~~~ r `~ Tla~s A~RI~Elv~rix en~ed into this day of , 24a~; by and betwerai the CrI`Y OF DELRAX BEADS, a Florida mwucipzd eorpofa#iox~, (heleinaftsr refr~red to as City} and CANNERY ROF~, LLC (hereinafter refen~ed to es Develope,), provides as follows: ~VSEREAS, aprojcct called Cannery Row is being developed along the west east side afthe 340 black df Fineapplr ¢tove Way ixc the City; and WHEREAS, Land Development Rcguiation Section 4.4.I3(FI} provides tl~t if the developer of a prvlect fron#iag on N,E. 2nd Avenue, between N.E. 3rd Street and N_E, 4th Street, chooses to dedicate as azea at~ the Hartbeest corner of the project to the City :for open spa~ae and to convey property and a building to the City fronting on N,E. 2tid. Avenue at the ,sautheast corner oaf the project, then the developer shall not be required to frunisYt eon-residential uses fronting an the west silo of N.E. 2nd Avenue between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street; and YV~,REAS, the Developer wi3l dedicate a parcel at the Hartbeest of the proj°ct to the City for park purposes and will transfer land and a completed shell structure, as more thoroughly described in this Agreement, to the City located atthe southeast corner of the proj ect and . ... .. , fraatiag on N.E. 2zid Avenue, to be used as an artist workshop/gallery as a condition of the Development; grid WHEREAS, pursuant to F:S, 153.3225 the City has held 2 public hearings regarding tkus Development Agreement and this Agreement is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Lazzd Development Regulations; and . WSEREAB, the De~+eloprx haS the Aptiaa to build a mined use project in :iccardasace with the City's Land Development Regulations b~xt chose instead to eater into this Development Agreement, in its sole end ahsoiute discretion, and be boned by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in coasideratian of the mutual covenants and undertakings set forth hcrrin and other gaud and valuable considcratian, the reeaip~t-and sufficiency of Which i~ hereby. acknowledged, the Developer and City lxareby agree as follows: 1. Retii~,atiaxts . The above-stascd rctitals are iacarporated a_c if fully set forth htreia. ~ `n ~ ~ ~] ~ ~S ~~ ~~ n~ ~a ~~ 4m ~~ ~-'1 7~ :~7 ~ o ~, ~~ m rrr ~~ s 3 ra D ?~ --1. m m :-~, u~a ,... Z. Dedication of park Land . The Developer shall dedicate, to the City, a paz~cel, as ShDWm on Exhlblt "A", for pant purposes which shall be maintained by the City. ~ lieu of the City paying the Developer the value of the lead, which is $414,fi45.DCy, the City shall waive xhe Impact Fee set forth in LI7R Section 5.3.2 (c) far alI units. Developer will provide a water ser~ce stub-~aut to the property live that the City can connect to an irrigation meter at a later date. Developer will sod the corner if the NE corset of the project has been la~ldscaped pricer to the City completixlg the landscape playa for the park. All mairltenamce of the park shall be by the City. Developer will have no other improvement requirennents for the park area, The property described is Exhibit "A" shall be dedicated to the City is perpetuity can the plat to be recorded by the Developer. 3. Canveyanu of Unit; Developer shall also convey fee simple title to the City of Lot 12 of the. Plat of Caaaery Ra~v with a completed shell structure, pursuant to fluor pleas, elevations, sad specifications as sex forth on F.ghibit "B", to the City to be used by the City for conzmuElity/airy projECts as it determtines; in its sole discretiott, The City shall pay xhe actual lead cost and costs of rxsmstruccion of the omit, which will not euaeed $530,000.DO. The parcel and structure shall be transferred to the City, or its assigns, in aocordamc:~ with the purchase sad sale contract between the City and Develop~ri,s iu the farm attached hereto as Exhibit "C". The approval of this Agrecme:xt is candixiomed vpoa the parties e~ecutimg a purchase sad sale agreement (Exhibit "C"~ vwithia~20 days of the execution of this Agreement. Failure to approve such as agreement within the time period set forth shall make this Agreement null and void. Developer will finish the ultrxor mf the unit at cost, provided that the Cixy providrs Developer with all necessary pleas, specifications, drawings, pcramits, ~., so that Developer may construct the interior of the-omit at the same time the interiors of xhe adjoil3illg wain ue ~g constructed, sn as to not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the adjacent units when sold for occupancy. Should the City desire to retain ~a third party to finish the interior- of the unit, the City will required to commence the wastrucrion ~ the Mme tinne that the Developer is ootlstrucxiag the interior of the ~adjailuag units, and subject to the Developer's site plan de3re~lopment, constructiozl scheduler and safety me4sures as implemented by Developer. Commencing upon canveys~nce of the unit from developer to the City, the City wvili responsible for Homeowner's Association (HQA) assesses. The HOA documents will reflect that all ~,mits 'will be charged the same unifnr.~n rate of assessmezYt, except for the Art F~ili#y, v~ich will be charged less, as it ws11 have no use of the common Greg facilities (pool, gazebo, playground, etc.). Any lease of the Art Facility by the City will specifically state that the tenant(s) do not have use of the comrnaa.area facilities and their occupancy shall be subiect to the. HQA docuaients~ including any Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Develgper andiox.Homeawna~s Association The proposed purchase and sale agr~eemet~t (Exhibit "C'~ contains a provision which allows the City the option to a) purchase the Canununity Facility wait at the developer's cost, not ~ exceed $53~},4fl0.{lQ; or b) not proceed with the purchase of the Community Facility, hat,. instead, Purchase Lot 12, anlyY to be used for park purposes only with appropriate deed restrictions, without aniy impmveFnexits thcrCta other thou water service (using Guy's water meter and City bea~eing all water usage charges), landscaping and irrigation far the Lot 12, whereby Lot 12 shall be owned by City {or the public for park purposes 'ozdy if so dedicated by City or by Developer thmagh an amendment of the Plat); or c) terminate the Agreement without penalty to the City if the Gity detexaoaines, in its sale discretion, that the purchase of Lot 12 far purposes of a Community Facility or a T~ is oat in the best iatcrests of the City of Delray Beach. In the event the City elects to terminate the Ag~ement pT purchaase: Lot I2. for park pwrposcs, the City shall not thereaRer impose upon the developer, or any successor israterest, a requiremcat to construct any commercial improvements within the Project. 4. e1 t (a) A. legal description of the land subject m the ag~ree:nent, and the nuaes of its legal and equitable o~rn,ers Lots !through 24, inclusive, Block 73 and the lb foot alley right of way lying Fast of and adjacent to the East lime of Lots f throt-gh 12, inclusive, subdivision of Block 73, wording to the Plat thereof as recx~rded is Plat Book 12, psge 62, Public Reasrds of Palm Beach Cauaty, Florida, less the North 15 feet thereof. Legal C)wners -Cannery ltow, LLC (b} Tlie duration of the agreement - Less than 10 years (c} The development uses permitted on the .land, including pbpuclatiop densities, and building intensitiesand height -Uses permitted are resideQtial and commercial; propase~d population density is 183E building density is a maximum. of 3~ uniu per acre; and r~na~iaAaurn height is 48'. (d) A description of public facilities that will service the development, including t~rho shall provide such fara7ities; the date any new facilities, if needed, vrill be constructed; and a schedule to assure public facilities are available concurrent with the impacts of the development; - The public facilities axe water and sewer and they arc already in place. (e} A description of any reservation or dedication of land for public purposes; -see the plat attached to this agreement. (~ A description of all Iocal develapmer~t permits appr~nved or needed tss be approved for the development of the land; - building permits, ~. t f This Agreement shall cr~mmence 31 days after the Department of Community Affairs is iit receipt of the Agreement, as~ per paragraph 5, and shall expire upon the conveyance and dedication of the parcels and building t~ the City frc~tn I?eveloper, however, in no event shall the term of this Agreement exceed 10 years. 6. Fa' ~~ to Address a C_on " ' n ~i~a.~tC.. If this Agreement fails to address ~a particular permit; condition, term, or restriction, Developer ,shall not be relieved of the aecessit3r of eamplying with the law governing said permitting requirements, conditions, terms or restrictions. 7. rd' . Purs+iant to F.5. Ib3.3239 this Agreement shall be recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County and a copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Depaitment of Comnxuaitp Affairs. 8. 1i,eyiew of t~~~greement .The City, at least once every Ix months, shall review this Agreement tv determine if there has been demonstrated good. faith coxxipliance 'with the terms of the Agreement. If the Ciry determines, based upon substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure tea comply with the terms of this Agreement, the Agreement may be revoked or modified by the City: 9. Anundrntnt/Canecllat~, purs~xant to F.5.163.3237, this Agreement Fray be amended yr canceled by :mutual consent of the parties . 10. ~4ssig~~. Tht puschase and sale ~gree~nent (F.~hibit "CAS may be assigned by the City to the Cotnlnunity Redeveldpmeat Agency or the Delray Beach Community Land Trust, Inc. without the approval of the Developer, if the City wishes tQ assign the purchase and sale agreement to another entity it mint fast a6tain consent of Developer, which shall not be unreasaFaably withheld. 11,. C.om.,pliance ~4~ Laws . If state or federal law's are enacted after the execution of this Agreement which are applicable to and preclude the parties' caa3pliance with the terms of this Agreement, rhea this Agreement shall be modified yr revoked as is necessary tea Comply with the relevant state law or federal laws. 12. Indemnification . Developer lFereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all claims, suits or any other cause of action arising cant of this Agreement including attorneys fees and costs impended by the Cite at trial ar appellate Zevels tv uphold. this agreement. i3. Co ce wi 'This Developers Agreement is in cvmpliaFZr.e with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. 14. Veacte. Any claims, lawsuits ar disputes. that Fray strise uxader This Agreement shall be gaverFSed by the Laws of plr~rida, ~-ith venue in Palm Beach County, Florida. 13. ~. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties.. There are no representatiaFas or uadeFStaFtdings of nay kind not set forth herein. Any aFnendFnents to this Agreement must be in ~oxiting and executed by both parties. (Signatures as Pollawing Page) I1V WETNESS 1~PHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the day and year first above ~avritren. ATTEST: $y: City Clerk CITY F tjEL'R.AY BEACH l~par, Rita Ellis Approved as to Farm: ~~ BY' ~ . . ~,,.~..+City Attorney WITNESS; Cannery Ro~v, I,I,G, 4p Ironro~ood Properties, Tae, NTeaubcr -- - _._ ~ (Name Printed or Typed) (Name ,Printed to Typed) STATE OF FLORIDA COUN'T'Y OF PALM BEACH BX: C Presideax The foregnix~ fnctntrr~wnr wy acknowledged before Y2xC th15 ~ day of May, 2007, by Cary Glickstein, as Presidern of Ironwood Properties, Int., a Florida corproasian, an behalf of the corporation. He is personailp known to me tir has produced (type of identification) as idcntif cation. ~~ ~ ~. ~ Sigaature of Notarg Public My Commissi~an Eapiress :~~*r`•Y~~. De~id iii Std ' :c ~~clrn~p~34&9J3 ?~ ~ , , ~ ~s Sp3rEC: OLT. QI, 2Dt~ '~~ ~r ~F- ~" 1W~3:~ t ~~~/ICI i4~~, ~liSi e~iC krnAr~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Terrill Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: Susan Ruby, City Attorney DATE: November 25, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 14.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 CLOSED ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Closed door session in the Frank E. McKinney, et al. v. City of Delray Beach, Case No. 502006CAOllllOXXXXMB; Village By the Sea, LLC, et al. v. City of Delray Beach, Case No. 502003CA010252XXOCAI; and Frank McKinney v. City of Delray Beach, Case No. 502003CA001062XXCTAY cases. BACKGROUND The purpose of this memorandum is to call for a closed attorney-client session pursuant to Florida Statutes §286.011(8) for the December 2, 2008 City Commission meeting to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation in the above-referenced cases. RECOMMENDATION N/A ,~~W ~- ~,~ `r1 ~~ ° ''~ Lam,, ~ ~-9 ~ ~I ~ IA! 6; CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DEiRAY BEACFI All-America C€ty MEMORANDUM F DATE: November 2b, 2008 1 ~~v ~ zr~iii TO: David Harden, City Manager FROM: Terrill C. Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: McKinnevNillaae by the Sea cases Writer's pirect Line: 5611243-7091 ~'~ Attached is a closed door session memo for #hese cases to be placed on the December 2, 2008 agenda. Please place this on the regular agenda. Following the closed door session, the City Cammissian will need to consider a settlement agreement regarding the cases referenced above as a separate agenda item. If you have. any questions, please feel free to contact me. TCP:jw Attachment cc: Chevelie Nubin, City Clerk Kim Wynn, Agenda Coordinator CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DELRAY BEACH MEMORANDUM I I I R 1 11 A DATE: November 25, 2008 All-Amedca Clty TO: City Commission ,~ ~~fic~ i SUBJECT: Frank E. McKinney. et aI. v. City of Defray Beach, Case No. 502006CA011110XXXXMB: Village By the Sea, LLC, et al. v. City of Deiray Beach, Case No. 502003CA1)10252XXOCAI; and Frank McKinney v. City of Delray Beach, Case No. 502003CA001062XXCTAY The purpose of this memorandum is to call for a closed attorney-client session pursuant to Florida Statutes §286.011(8) for the December 2, 2008 City Commission meeting to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation in the above cases. ,1,. FROM: Terrill C. Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney Law requires strict compliance with Florida Statutes §286.011 {8). Therefore, prior to the commencement of the closed attorney-client session, the Mayor should read the following: NThe City has scheduled a closed attorney-client session pursuant to Florida Statutes §286.D11(8) in the cases of Frank F. McKinney, of aI, v. Cify of Delray Beach, Case No. 502006CA011110XXXXMB; Village By the Sea, LLC, of al. v. Cify of Defray Beach, Case No. 502003CA010252XXOCAI; and Frank McKinney v. City of Delray Beach, Case No. 502003CA001062XXCTAY. The estimated length of the closed session shall be 30 minutes. The fallowing persons will be attending: Mayor Rita Ellis, Commissioners Gary Eliopouios, Fred Fetzer, Waadie McDuffie, and Mackenson Bernard, City Manager David Harden, City Attorney Susan Ruby, City Attorney, TerriA Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney and a certified court reporter." After the closed session is over, the Mayor should announce that the regular meeting is reopened, and the closed session is terminated. By copy of this memorandum to David Harden, our office requests that the agenda be prepared giving reasonable public notice of the time and date of the closed attorney-client session for December 2, 2008 and that the agenda item include the names of the cases, the names set forth above of those persons attending the session, and identify the item as a closed door session pursuant to Florida Statutes §286.011. Our office will arrange far a court reporter to be present as required by statute. Attached is a copy of Fla. Scat. §286.011. TCP:smk Attachment cc: David Harden, City Manager Chevelle Nubin, City Clerk Kim Wynn, Agenda Coordinator Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2008->Ch0286->Section 011 : Online Sunshine Page 1 of 2 Select Year: 2008 ~ Go The 2008 Florida Statutes Title XIX Cha°ter 28~ View Entire Chaeter PUBLIC BUSINESS PUBLIC BUSINESS: MISCELLANEOUS PRQVISIONS 286.01 "l Public meetings and records; public inspection; criminal and civil penalties.-- (7) All meetings of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at alE times, and no resolution, rule, or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting. The board or commission must provide reasonable notice of all such meetings. (2) The minutes of a meeting of any such board or commission of any such state agency or authority shall be promptly recorded, and such records shall be open to public inspection. The circuit courts of this state shall have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the purposes of tfilis section upon application by any citizen of this state. (3)(a) Any public officer who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a noncriminal infraction, punishable by fine not exceeding $500. (b) Any person who is a member of a board or commission or of any state agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision who knowingly violates the provisions of this section by attending a meeting not held in accordance with the provisions hereof is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. ZZ~~Q$Z or s. 7~5,.Q$-~ (c} Conduct which occurs outside the state which would constitute a knowing violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the second .degree, punishable as provided in s. _7~~~Q$~ ors. 775.0$ (4) Whenever an action has been filed against any board ar commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision to enforce the provisions of this section or to invalidate the actions of any such board., commission, agency, or authority, which action was taken in violation of this section, and the court determines that the defendant or defendants to such action acted in violation of this section, the court shall assess a reasonable attorney's fee against such agency, and may assess a reasonable attorney's fee against the individual filing such an action if the court finds it was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. Any fees so assessed may be assessed against the individual member or members of such board or commission; provided, that in any case where the board or commission seeks the advice of its attorney and Such advice is #ollowed, no such fees shall be assessed against the individual member or members of the board or commission. However, this subsection shall not apply to a state attorney or his or her duly authorized assistants or any officer charged with enforcing the provisions of this section. (5) Whenever any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency o.r authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision appeals any court order which has found said board, http:I/www.leg.state. fl.us/Statuteslindex.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Seareh_String-&[TR... 11025/2008 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2008->Ch0286-Section 011 : Online Sunshine Page 2 of commission, agency, or authority to have violated this section, and such order is affirmed, the court shall assess a reasonable attorney's fee for the appeal against such board, commission, agency, or authority. Any fees so assessed may be assessed against the individual member or members of such board or commission; provided, that, in any case where the board or commission seeks the advice of its attorney and such advice is followed, no such fees shall be assessed against the individual member or members of the board or commission. (6) All persons subject to subsection (1 }are prohibited from holding meetings at. any facility or location which discriminates on the basis of sex, age, race, creed, color, origin, or economic status or which operates in such a manner as to unreasonably restrict public access to such a facility. (7} Whenever any member of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision is charged with a violation of this section and is subsequently acquitted, the board or commission is authorized Co reimburse said member for any portion of his or her reasonable attorney's fees. (8} Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1 ), any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, and the chief administrative or executive officer of the governmental entity, may meet in private with the entity's attorney to discuss pending litigation to which the entity is presently a party before a court or administrative agency, provided- that tfte following conditions are met: (a) The entity's attorney shall advise the entity at a public meeting that he or she desires advice concerning the litigation. (b} The subject matter of the meeting shall be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures. (c) The entire session shall be recorded by a Certified court reporter. The reporter shall record the times of commencement and termination of the session, all discussion and proceedings, the names of al[ persons present at any time, and the names of all persons speaking. No portion of the session shall be off the record. The court reporter's notes shall be fully transcribed and filed with the entity's clerk within a reasonable time after the meeting. (d} The entity shall give reasonable public notice of the time and date of the attorney-client session and the names of persons who will be attending the session. The session shall commence at an open meeting at which 'the persons chairing the meeting shall announce the commencement and estimated length of the attorney- client session and the names of the persons attending. At the conclusion of the attorney_client session, the meeting shall be reopened, and the person chairing the meeting shall announce the termination of th.e session. (e) The transcript shall be made part of the public record upon conclusion of the litigation. History.--s. 1, ch. 67-356; s. 159, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 78-3b5; s. 6, ch. 85-301; s. 33, ch. 41-224; s. 1, ch. 93- 232; s. 210, ch. 95-148; s. 1, ch. 95-353. Copyright ®1995-2008 The Florida Legislature • P_riydt~+_5tatemen~ • ~.~ta~t. U5 http:/lwwvv.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.~fm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search String=&UR... 11125!2008