04-08-97 Special/Workshop CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING - APRIL 8, 1997 6:00 P.M.
FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
The City will furnish auxiliary aids and services to afford an
individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in and
enjoy the benefits of a service, program or activity conducted by
the City. Contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127 (voice) or 243-7199
(TDD), 24 hours prior to the event in order for the City to accom-
modate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available.
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
(1) RESOLUTION NO. 29-97: Consider approval of a resolution
authorizing the Community Redevelopment Agency to acquire
property located within Block 76, Town of Delray (29 N.E.
1st Avenue).
Alison MacGregor Harty
City Clerk
WORKSHOP AGENDA
Workshop with the Code Enforcement Board.
(~) Progress report on Pineapple Grove Main Street Program. (Tom
Fleming)
(3) Direction concerning Town Hall meeting participants.
(4) Discuss street closure policy.
(5) Commission on Local Government II - Video.
(6) Commission Comments.
Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision
made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered
at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal
is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record.
Community
Redevelopment
Agency
Delray Beach
March 28, 1997
Mr. David Harden
City Manager
City of Delray Beach
100 NW 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
RE: Request from CRA to Acquire Property
Dear Dave:
Last night the Board of Commissioners passed Resolution 97-3 requesting the City Commission
of Delray Beach the authority to acquire a certain property by gift, purchase, or eminent domain.
The property located in Block 76 of the Central Business District fronts NE 1st Avenue. The
purpose of acquiring the property is to provide additional parking for the downtown which is direly
needed. As background information, I am forwarding to you the following documents:
1. Excerpts from the city of Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Plan related to this
acquisition of property in Block 76.
2. Resolution 97-3 of the CRA, passed on March 27, 1997.
3. Parking demand study conducted by Plummet & Associates, dated March 24, 1997.
We would appreciate your placing this item on the agenda at your earliest convenience. You will
find enclosed a City resolution drafted by James Vance for your review.
~,~for your assistance. Executive Director
Enclosures
24 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (561) 276-8640/Fax (561) 276-8558
RESOLUTION NO. 29-97
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED
BY THE DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR EMINENT DOMAIN; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 46-85 adopted by the City of
Delray Beach, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, created the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.370(1) (e) (2), Florida
Statutes, the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency possesses
the power to acquire by gift, purchase or eminent domain any real
property within the community redevelopment area; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, has been requested by Resolution No. 97-3, adopted by the
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, to authorize the
acquisition in fee simple by gift, purchase or eminent domain, of
certain property described therein; and
WHEREAS, Section 163.370(1) (e) (2), Florida Statutes,
further provides that a community redevelopment agency may not
exercise any power of eminent domain unless the exercise has been
specifically approved by the governing body of the municipality which
established the agency; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, desires to approve or authorize the acquisition of the
property hereinafter described by the Delray Beach Community
Redevelopment Agency by gift, purchase or eminent domain.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment
Agency is hereby authorized to acquire fee simple title by gift,
purchase or eminent domain that certain property more specifically
legally described as follows:
See Attached Exhibit "A"
Section 2. That this Resolution shall take effect
immediately upon passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in special session on this the 8th day
of April, 1997.
ATTEST:
/ City~ ~ierk- - r
- 2 - Res. No. 29-97
Writer's Direct Line: (561) 243-7091
DELRAY BEACH
Ali.America City
~ DATE: April 1, 1997
1993
TO: David Harden, City Manager
FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Acquisition of Property. by the CRA Located in Block 76
Chris Brown has called our office and requested that the City Commission vote on the
attached resolution which authorizes the CRA to acquire the property as described in
Exhibit A to the resolution by gift, purchase or eminent domain.
As requested by Chris Brown, please place the resolution on the April 8, 1997 agenda as
a special meeting item.
Enclosures
cc: John Weaver, Chairman, CRA
Chris Brown, Executive Director, CRA
Robert Federspiel, Esq.
Alison MacGregor Harry, City Clerk
Anita Barba, Executive Assistant
crapurl .sar
EXHIBIT "A"
OF ~D~P~ ~ ~ORD~B WZ~ T~
P~S~S ·
~, ~s Delsey Beth C~nity R~evelo~nt Agen~
has duly adopted a C~nity aedeve1~n~ P~an for the are~ w~thin
~te Juriedlction} and
WB~, as ~ of i~ C~n~ty Redeveloper Plan,
(t~ "Plea'), the C~un~ty ~eve~o~flt Agency
g~Le ~d ~tLvem w~th zeepect to the :ev~aliza~Lon o~
d~tm business diet:act ~d the enoouzag~nt o~ n~ c~ial
actlv~ties within the c~nity r~evelo~nt a:ea~
~AS, one of ~e proJ~tl ee~ fo~h in the Plan is the
in the Plan, enco~ssing certain pro~rties lying within Bl~ks 76
a~ 84, ~ OF DEL~Y, acco~din~ ~o Plat B~k 1, Page 3 aa ~re
~zticulazly deec~ heroinafte: In this Resolution; and
W~, a c~nent of the a~ve descried project
in=l~n9 the ~tovi~ng of p~king for adjacent develo~nt
:~evelo~ent; and
~, the C~unitg Redevelo~n~ Agency has
dete~m~ that it ia in the p~lic's interest to pr~eed with the
ac~iaition o~ the profiles ~:ei~ter desct~ ~ gift,
~u~hase, or e~nent d~in ~d ~su~t to Chapter 1~3.330, et
seq., ~, ~ing :he 'C~unity Redevelo~t Act
1969, it i8 appropziate to r~est the City of ~lzay ~aoh
aut~rize the Delray ~ach C~uni:y R~evelo~ut ~ency to
bel~.
NOW, TBBI~EPORB, BE ZT USOLV~D by the Boa=d of
Commissioners o£ the ~Zr&y Beach Community Redevalol~nt Agency
thatz
See=ion Onel T~e City C~ss~on o~ ~ Ci~ of Delr.y
See Attached Sxh~blt
by gi~t, purchase, o: e~tnant d~ain as dascr/bed in
163.330, et seq., Florida Statutes, being the =Community
Rldevelol~ent Act of 1969,' a~ Chapters 73 a~ ~4 Florida
~tatutes. ~e Delray ~ch C~ity Redeve~o~nt ~l~y shall
a~ire fee e~le title Co said ~roperties followin~ the
delegation o~ the above de,crUd p~= o~ e~nent d~in by qi~t,
punches, er ~in,nt
Secticn~cl The Boa~d et C~seione~a o~ the Co~nity
active the ~o~y deacrih~ ab~e pureu~ to ire C~ity
~evel~n= Plan and ~re p~icularly the
Redevelo~nt Prcjec~ aa contained there,.
S~tion Tb~e: This Resolution .h~ll take effect
P~SED ~D ~P~D this ~ day
1997.
by:
The City of
Delray Beach
Community
Redevelopment
Plan
Amended by City Ordinance No. 8-96
March 5, 1996
The City of Delray Beach
Community Redevelopment Agency
for proceeding.
o The schedule for Phase Four will be determined upon the completion of Phase Three.
o The Phases set forth above are illustrative only and may be combined with one another as the
circumstances dictate.
# 2.5: "Block #76 & #84 Redevelopment"
Background
These blocks, located between N.E. 1st. Avenue and the FEC Railroad, between Atlantic Avenue
and N.E. 1st. Street, are adjacent to the Old School Square Cultural Arts Center. This location makes this
a principal area to take advantage of spin-off activity generated by the Center. Both blocks contain
structures in deteriorated condition and uses which have a blighting influence on the surrounding area and
are inconsistent with the ultimate goals and proposed image for the Pineapple Grove Neighborhood. The
primary land use in Block #84 is the former home of the now defunct Ocean City Lumber Company. This
property was purchased at an RTC auction in 1992 and is now planned for redevelopment by a private
developer.
A major obstacle to this "Ocean City Redevelopment" project is the lack of adequate parking in the
immediate area. Since this is also a problem for Old School Square, the CRA decided to make this the
major focus of its redevelopment effort within these two blocks. With this goal in mind, the Agency began
its program with the purchase of another former Ocean City Lumber property offered at the RTC auction
in 1992. This property is located in Block #76, which is ideally situated between Old School Square and
the Ocean City Lumber Redevelopment Project (Block #84). In order to provide adequate parking for the
area, the CRA plans to purchase additional property within Block #76, including the Pierce Tire property.
It should also be noted, that this is one of the few locations which may take advantage of $500,000
of redevelopment seed money available under the Decade of Excellence Bond. In fact, the City has
already allocated some of this seed money to reimburse the CRA for its prior purchase of the Ocean City
Lumber property. The CRA has requested that the City allocate the remainder of these funds as necessary
for the additional land purchases.
Project Objectives
o Eliminate the blighting influences within these blocks
o Redevelop the blocks to take advantage of its prime location within the downtown area adjacent
to Old School Square
o Increase the economic vitality of the CBD through the attraction of new businesses
o Provide parking for adjacent development and redevelopment
Project Description
o Construction of a parking lot to meet the needs of adjacent uses including Old School Square and
the Ocean City Lumber Redevelopment Project.
o The parking lot constructed on the project may be a municipal lot entirely for public use, may be
sold or leased to private entities or may be a combination of both. Private users located in the
Redevelopment Project may make arrangements to pay the CRA or other public or private entity
a fee to lease or purchase enough parking spaces to meet City parking requirements for their use.
In addition to providing parking the CRA may offer other incentives to facilitate the redevelopment
effort
o One or more redevelopment projects located within this two block area which are compatible with
Old School Square in theme (i.e., arts, crafts, cultural and entertainment).
o Strong Pedestrian linkages to Old School Square, the downtown and the Pineapple Grove
4.15
Neighborhood will be established.
o Phase One of the project(s) shall include preliminary planning, marketing and land acquisitions
(refer to Appendix "D" for Land Acquisition Map)
o Phase Two shall include demolition and parking lot construction
o Phase Three for the project(s) may include, but is not limited to, the solicitation of RFP's from
private developers, selection of developer(s), sale or lease of all or a portion of CRA owned
property and building construction.
Project Participants and Administration
o The Ocean City Redevelopment Project (Block #84) will be administered by a private developer.
o The CRA shall be the lead agency in the acquisition of land for parking lot construction in Block
o Other participants may include, but are not limited to, the City of Delray Beach, DDA, Chamber of
Commerce, Council of 100, Parking Management Team, and other Developers.
Funding Sources
o The CRA, and others, as appropriate, shall provide the funding for Phases One and Two.
o The City's funding role in Phase One shall be to allocate funds from the Pineapple Grove
Redevelopment Seed Money to reimburse the CRA for property acquisition
o Funding sources for Phase Three shall be determined
o The CRA's Subsidized Loan Program and Business Development Program are available to provide
additional assistance to property owners and businesses
Pro}ect Schedule
o Phase One began in FY 1991/1992
o Phase Two in FY 1994/1995
Phase Three in FY 1994/1995
# 2.6: "South County Courthouse Expansion" ~11
Background
The location of the South County Courthouse on West Atlantic Avenue was originally seen by the
City as a significant opportunity to secure both public and private investment along this important corridor.
Due to its potential as a catalyst project on the Avenue, the Courthouse became a cornerstone of the 1986
Community Redevelopment Plan. The City successfully lobbied the County to locate the facility in the City
in 1986. In its 1986 agreement with the County, the City donated 6.8 acres of land for Phase I of the
project and pledged, through the CRA, to acquire an adjacent block and then donate it to the County
sometime after 1996 for expansion of the facility. ~11
The 8 million dollar South County Courthouse, Phase I, opened in August, 1990. Although Phase
II of the project had not yet been programmed, through its inclusion in the County's 5-year Capital
Improvements Program, the Community Redevelopment Agency has already acquired several properties ~11
within the expansion area. These include, the 7-Eleven/Coin Laundry (1987), a six-unit Apartment
Complex (1987) and Boca Auto Parts (1991).
In 1993, the County, City and CRA amended the interlocal agreement (see Appendix "C"). This
amended agreement states that the CRA will transfer the southern portion of Block #51 (south of the
east/west alleyway) by October 1994. The County expects to construct a parking lot on this property to
meet both existing and future demands of the Courthouse. Since the County is now planning to construct
4.16
Property Acquisition Map
Block # 76 & 84 Redevelopment
NE 1st Street
I
!
,
I
,
,
!
E. Atlantic Avenue
A. 12--43-46-16-01-076-0030 Lots 3 to 5, inc.( Less W. 10 Ft, Road R/W) & Lot 6 (Less S. 40 FL & W. 10 Ft. Road R/W)
Block 76, Town of Linton I
B. 12-43-4~-1 6-01-076-0061 S. 40 Fi. of Lot 6 (Less W, 10 Ft. Road R/W), Block 76, Town of LJnton
C. 12-43-46-16-01--076-0100 Lot 10, Block 76, Town of Linton I
D. 12-43-46-16-01-076-0111 W. 50 Ft. of Lot 11 (Less N, 9.4 Ft.) & W. 50 FL of LOt 12, Block 76, Town of I.Jnton
E. 12-43-46-16-01-076-0121 Lot 12 (Less W, 50 Ft.) & Lot 11 (Less W, 50 of S. 65.3 Ft.), Block 76, Town of I_inton
D~RAY BEACH CRA
BIX)CK ?~
PARKING FACILI'I"~ S'II~Y
Davi~ ~lumm~ & ~, Inc.
March 24, 1997 We~'I~m l~w..~, ~ 3~fl
DEl, RAY BEACH CRA
BLOCK 76
PARKING FACILITY STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENT~
TABT.~ OF CONTEN'I~
LIST OF ~
INTRODUCTION 1
STUDY ARF~ 2
METHODOLOGY 2
LAND USES
· F.~ sting 4
· Future 4
PA~k'~G SUPPLY
PARKING ANALYSIS
· Exist~ Ut~fiza~ion 8
· Future Demand 9
· Futur~ Nee~ 11
CONCLUSION~ 12
DELRAY BEACH CRA
BLOCK 76
PARKD;G FACILITY STUDY
i,]ST oF ~rrs
~ 1 Study Ar~
EXHIBIT 2 Study Area Redevelopment Plan
~IT 3 Study Area Parking Inventory
EXHIBIT 4A Weekday Survey Sumnuay
EXI-IIB1T 4B Weekend Day Survey Summazy
F. XHIBIT 5 Maximum Futur~ Land Usgs Parking ~
F_XHIBIT 6A Furur~ Projected Weekday Parkb~g Demand
EXHIBIT 6B Futu~ Ptojcc',.~l Weeltcnd Day Patldng Deaumd
EXHIBIT 7A Future Projected Parking Needs A.nnly~ -Wee. k~y
EX/~IT 7B Future Projected Parking Needs Analysis - Weekend D~ty
DELRAY BEACH CRA
BLOCK 76
PARKING FACILITY STUDY
II~7'RODUCTIOIV
In 1993, the Communlv] Redevelopment Agency (CRA) of Delray Beach underiook a program
to d~velop four a~-grade parking facilities in the downtown ar~ of ~he City of Delray Beach.
This program was de,ggned ~o in~ ~¢ parkin~ supply ami provide oppomm~'~ f~r
economic developing, both goals of the CRA. Parking.studies were compleied which anaIyzed
lt~ exi.s~g and funn'e pafldng demand and supply for each of ~e four propo~l lo~ from ~
i~ own block and from the agjacent blocks. With this information, a demrmina~ was made
regarding the approximate numbe~ of parking spat~ ~_~__ed ~ each of ~he proposed lots ~
haz coutinued to prosper anti redevelop since ~e ~1~ ~ ~ 1~3 ~. N~us
1
8~z~19~7 1~:55 FRCM )P~ ~PE 5~I $~ 8~7~ ~0 1551~$85~' P.86Y~2
Block '/6 is bounded by ~ 1st Street on the north, Atlantic Avenue on thc south, NE 2nd
Avenue on the east and 1~ 1st Avenue on the west. The study area analyzed for this lo~ is
bounded by the FEC Railway on the east and Swinton Avenue on the west. The north and south
boundaries of the study area include the non-residential land uses from ~ 1st Street on the
.north and SE Ist Street on the south. A map of the stud), are~ is'provi_a~__ on Exhibit 1.
METHODOLOGY
Land uses in proximity to the Block 76 p~rki~g ~ were i~vmtoziefl and evaluated. The
study area boundaries wer~ establi~ed based on an estimate of curmat and futur~ ~ use
intensities that could util~?e the proposed expanded facility, adjacent parId~ availability,
pedestrian linkages and walking distances. Within the study area boundaries, only existing ~
proposed noo-resideatial uses were included.
In order to determine the approximale number of spaces needed, for the proposed expansio~ of
thc Blcck 76 parking facility, both existing and fumr~ land use parking demands w~re examined.
Several methods wei, e uttl~ _~a in the analysis of existing and future parking demand. For
existing conditions, parking utili~tion surveys were conduc-~d for non-residential parking spa:es
wiu'~in the de,~ed study ar~a. Surveys were conducted on the half hour during one weekday and
one weekend day. Peak uti~i,:,tlon periods from 12:00 Noon to 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM to 10:00
PM were surveyed on' Thursday, March 6, 1997 and Saturday, March l, 1997. From the.se
surveys, both day and evmin~ peak usage we~'e identified.
2
The~e survey result~ provide a basis for de. terrnin~ug the current latent ba~round u~lizafion for
the Block 76 facility. The survey periods we~ utilize~ ~o capture the peak period of utilization
f~ ~h¢ study area and m:a for each individual use. Dufin$ both survey ImHods, normal business
and eut~'~ainme~t open,OhS were occurring for tim study area ~'~d us~, and ao majof ~ve~ts
were scheduled hnmed~ately befor~ or after ~¢ survey pefiod~.
In delerminini futur~ parkins demands, chanse~ in land ,_~__~e~_ a~l inteasitie~ w~t~ examined.
Proposed land use information was provided by the CRA either directly or hatirecfly through
contacts wi~h tenants and owuers. Parking standards of uhe City of Delray l~each land
Drvelopnmat Regulatious were utilized to project l~rking demand for flume uses.
The 199:3 study examined ~he~e standard~ as well as national parking stnndards, as.~mbled and
summarized by the American Planning Associalion (APA) in a report entilllxl "Off-Street
Parking Requ~ments". From the summary of ~_t!_'onal parking standards, high and low p~king
rates w~re obtainS. Additionally, the hs~it'ute of T~anspo'~:m F_~ o'rE), ~
C~n~on, 2~t Edition ~ort, was examined r~udin'g poUm~ial l~t~ing demamts for several
land uses. With ~, ~n of fl~se alUm~a~e m~hodolog~, i~ w~ de~rn~ tha~ ~he
DeLmy ~ code w~z ~n e/fecfive s~andard for projec~ug futur~ [mrking demand.
The ove~fll projected parking demands for the study ar~a w~z based tm three methodologies;
(1) the survey resuRs, (2) the application of Deltay Beach s~andards and, (3) discu~ons with
tenants and building owners. Sharing of parking b~tweeu the uses w~ analyz~, ba.s~ on the
3
Uzban Land Institute (ULI) ~ report. Hourly at. dance projections a~/scheduled
events were cons/doted w dcterminc the pcak period parking demaod for the study area. The
ze~uliant demand was finally compared with the fulur~ pa~kin~ supply wihhout the proposed
With/n the study area there are numerous commerc/al ~ ~~ by ~~
~d ~ ~~. N~ of A~fic A~ue ~d ~ of S~ A~ue h ~ Old
~h~l Sq~ ~ ~. w~t of Old Sch~l Sql, ~ Bilk 76, ~v~ ~~
~~u~t~~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~ ~~k76~-~.of~~
.~th of Athndc Avenue, several restaurants front Atlantic Avenae with a four sW~ office and
xestaurant complex being refurbished between SB Ist Avenue and SE 2nd Avenue, Other uses
SOUth of Atlallti~ A'/e. llue wi~_hin tho study area include office, retail and. n~aurants.
Land use changes.are pt'opo~d both internal to Block 76 as well.as to the east in the Ocean City
Lumber redevelopment of Block 84 and within Blocks 69, 77 and 85 south of Atlanti~ Avenue.
4
The internal land use changes includc ~he demo]h/on of the ~ Mesls grocery sa,re to
provide acld/tional padd. ng and thc cxmvers/on of some of the exotiC, re,ail uses to reatam--ants
fronting At/antic Avenue. Land usc cha~es external to Block 76 include office,-retail and
re.~urant in Bloc~ 69, 7'/, 84 and 85. Exhibit 2 l, reseats a sketch of the proposcd
red~elopm~t wiOda the study area showin~ the exh~ug and Proposed land uses and [utem~tie~.
p~/VG SrYPP£Y
CurrenQy with/n eie. study area, several of the bushesses ~ theh- owe on-site l~arki~.
The~e pd. vate Pa~king spaces, which to~I 212 for the study .a~ea,'are uQlized by u~e individual
land uses during the day, but can be considered as a part ef.r, hc overall supply for u~e by other
developments during t~ evening. For the office land uses, :paxld~ in the evea/~ is typically
vacant a~d there, fore can be utilized by patrons of othe~ .hnd ~es. Other uses such as Old
Scboot Sci~xe I~ .or!dc no on-ate padd~ and rely ca oHtr~ pmld~ and other l~b~ parldng
lo ~atisf'y ~ paU'o~' ~ needs.
On-street Parki~ is .also provided along Athm/c Avenue, i'¢B 2ad Avea~, NIt 1st Avenue and
NB 1st Street total]in[ 1.44 spaces within the study ~rea. In ~dition to the 131 space facility
located in Block 76, another munici~ parking f~cility localed ~calh of Atlantic Avcrme be.~ween
SE ls~ Avenue ami SE 2~d Avcnuc provides 6~ spaces.
lqon-re~deutiaI land use parking supplies immediately at the noflh boundary of ~he study area
~ also examined. The former Winn-Dixic food s~re located in the northeast quadrant of ~
2nd Avenu~ and NE 1st Street provides on-site parking which is under-uti~h,~.~_ today. However,
given full occupancy of this building, this parking will be utilized for its patrons'and employees
and the~efo~ can not be considered available for other users. '. Contracts ar~ ~y to
n~,vetop a~d occupy this site. On an awr'ag~ daily bash, the orl-s/ie pri~ate parking provided
at the other land uses north of KE 1st Street ~ sufflCieat to-rt~t the needs of the individual
had uses.
Tt~ proposed ~n of the Block 76 facility inchdcs 4~ additional' al-grade ~ Along
wkh the redevalopment of ~e Ocean City Lumber pruper~_'~. 49 priva, ie oa-site parking spaces
aze being provided. Based on the ~ean CRy Lumb~ site ,pl~m, the fou~ spaces in front of
l~mer Elect~ would oontinue to b~ uu'lized for parking .it/.-th~ futm~. Th~ developm~t of
a mmll retail site alo~ Swinto~ Avenue within Block 69 will .r~lm:z the existing parkin~ lot
spac~ flora 1:5 to I2.
W'm/n alock T/, whe~ currently 64 municipal l~arking ~l~ces.exi~'it i~ a~umed tl~ in the
fvm~ t~se same number of sp~..es will r~nain. However, the four story office building, wlfich
cunen~y is adding an additional 1,572 square feet of space, wiil'c°ntain 42,1~4 squa.~ feet.
Their under, round garase and surface lot behind tl~ mtmicil~l'lot provide a total of 73 l)ark/ns
spaces. W'tth ~;onfi~utatio~ of the existin~ lot, & tolal of' ~ spa~ ~ be provided.
6
Assuming a 6,000 mqua~ foot restauraat will occupy the ground floor and the tadance will b~
office space, the buildin{ will requir:, acco~din~ to the DeIray Beach Co4e, 217 spaces which
resuIU in & deficit of 132
F~o~e, it is assumed that the City Park nad a lot owned by the CRA will be r~developed,
~ in a project of 20,000 ~.uare f~et of r~tail and office, ct'entin; a demand for ~ parking
adjacent to the municipal parkin~ lot would satisfy '/~% of time
Th~ Block 85 redevelopment plan shows an increase of 29 spaces with the construction of Phase
II ~o include 3,100 SF ofFtce bringinl the total number of aisigned on-~/~ space~ to 57 for tae
block. Ex.it 3 shows the loca~io~ of the exi~/n~ and futt~'e patkin~ Sul~ly w/thin the study
area. The ~kini supply is s~mmar/zed below.
7
PARKII~G AlgAL
F.~tin~_ O'tilization
The in'st sup in analy~$ t3e existing parkin~ uti~a~ was to complete the weekday and
w~ke~ day parking aurvcy~. In addition to surveying the grivate on-site parking uRliz~on
got' the individual land uses, parking utilization along Atlantic Avenue, NE 1st Avenue, N'E 2nd
Avenue and NB 1st Street as wen as utilization of the public parking facilMes was included in
the analysis. The parking occupancies along these streets and pubIic fa~a~ea represent
utm,~,~o~ from all land uses. Determination of the speaifi¢ land.u~ which al~,lizes the on-su-~t
lnU'kir~ and public facilities ia not n~ to determ~e the overall parking ~on fo~ th~
~tl~.
The parking util~ation sutweys were conducted on both a weekday and weekend day. Typical
buaiacss operating conditions we. re occurring at most oommgrc-ial locations within, the study area.
Mu__,-i_cal cnmnaiamcnt was occurring at City Limits (te.ntam-anO .and the Mnaician's Exeb. ange
during both $ucvey i~'iods. Old School Square events ware OcgUn'ing in thc theatgr during both
survey pe~ods while the gymnasium was only uti~,~ with a' .weddiag on Saturday.
The l~lm Beach ~hic C~ter, located in ~ 84, tm'four (4) claa.nmoms each of
which opec~ at a 15 perac~ capacity during the day. These ~ being ulilized during the
weekday survey period. Lectures are a/so scheduled at night-from 7:30 to I0:00 PM on
weekdays with typical attendaace of 150 people. 1% lecau~ w~ occUn, ing during the ~
of the surveys. Based on discussions with the owners during tt~ Fora Fusion Festival, uh~
8~-'24~1~9~ t4:0~ F~¢N DPR ~g 561 686
indicated h~ai the ~xi.s~g ~l~k 7~ facilit~ is compl~ely fill,ed and ~/) additional vehicles are
Exhibi~ 4A and 4B provide a summary of the survey re~l~s fo~ ~i weekday and weekend day
surv~s show/ng the ~ p~riod utilization and detenni~tion of muphs or defic/! for the survey
l~riod. The ~ u~lizafi~ ~4od occurs o~ ~e weelmad (~day) from g:~0 ~ 10:00 PM
wi~ ~ defter of 67 sp~c~ withia th~ stsdy ~ ~ of ~ ihos't~ of p~rldn~, mucl~ of
tl~ exit/rig l~rkin$ demand is occupying illegal ~ ~m v~:a~tt'~. ~ vacant
i~ lh~i~ ~) a~d !t5 south o/Atlantic Avenue lind ov~ S0 vekicle, pad/ed o~ tl~se
T~s existin~ demaud can aot be accommodami by ~he ~ supply. ~ proposed 44 space
exlmns/on on Block 76 will meet o~]¥ 66~ of the ex/.~i typic~ weei~end need.
T~ overall ~ demand is base~ o~ ~ existhg demand, c/n'r~mt ~d fi.um.e land ~ and
Ciiy code parkin~ requ/~mems. Survey da(a was ~til/zed for e~b~ the latent back/round
demand for tl~ ex/sti~ hnd use,. The surv~ed demand associated with the land uses that a~
wi/h these land uses w-o subtnct~ lmm the to~l survey~ 4em~. ~l~or tbs fi~m land
shown in ~e redevelopment phn, the Delray Be~ch/mrkini code wa~ ~l/li~d. The maximum
p~rld~ ~u/r~ fo~ the futm~ 1and u~ arc shown oa Exl~'bit 5~
In analyzing U~ demand for the proposed expanded facility, ~e parkini demand for Old School
Square was examined in deta/1. As documented in the previous (1993) analysis, discu~ions with
Old School Square staff indicated that the demand for the gymn~.~um and museum would utilize
the Block 76 l~bUc facility based on the location of the uses. Paimons of the flmamr would be
attracted w the public fadlity wo~ of Swinton Av~uo beca~ the euu'anc~ to the thea~ faces
Swinwn Avenue.. l~kin{ demand projeo~l for Old School Squ~'e based on ~heduled
ixwlrams and atmmdanco figores for the gym~,~,s!um was added .to the backEround demand for
the wo&,day ~u'vey bo~au.~ no proirammed ovmt occun~ .dufia$ the day of the survey.
However, for the weekead day survey, pro~s w~'~ ~ conducted in the {~nu~.~iuxu, so
the typical usa{e of Old .~-..hool Square was included ia the murv~s.
In addition to the Old School Square cven~, lectures occur at fl~ Palm Beach Photographic
Center. These leclures axe typically conducted on Wednesdays and Fridays, and were therefore
not included ia the parking uti~i,-~tion surveys of Thurghy and Saim'day. The parking demand
for this event was tlso added to the background demand for.~e weekday survey based on
discussions with ~ own~s of Palm Beach Pho~ograttfic Ce~Izr'
Attendance figures and schedule of events w~r~ obtained for lhe study ~ These f~res ar~
included in the Appends, These events create significant paridng.demand in/he area. For this
analysis, typical events such as Old School Square D~ma~inm. nsc and Photographic Center
lectur~ havo been included.
A sha,.in& of parking between la~d ~ occurs due to the different peak utilization pedod~ of
each land u~. The hourly uti~tion for the variou~ lam/ u,~ waa deterrnLned baaecl on
~andards included in the Urban Land Ins~itute'$ ~ survey re,ts .and hourly
al~eadance figures. The reatfl~ of the future projected hom'ly util~,~tlon analyses are provided
on Exhibi~ 6A and 6'B for the weekday and weekend day survey periods r~vely. The
results show a peak parking demand of 846 and 926 spaces for a typical weehiay and weekend
day ,= ,ectt y.
The final step in ~ analys/s of parldng demand i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ly of ~g
~ ~ ~ p~ ~ de~d
~ ~ a~ W ~ ~e n~s of ~ l~d u~. ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~o
~o~; pfi~ ~ ~ pubic ~g. ~v~
by ~ ~vid~ I~ u~ ~ may n~
~y~s, ~y ~ ~ly ~ ~e p~m
u~ by ~ ~ ~ ~us, ~e ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~~. ~t
ue~e~ of ~ ~ ~, ~e ~ n~ ~ ~ ~.
Exhibi~ 7A and 7B provide the parking needs analysis for the weekly and weekend day
re~eclively. On a typical weekly and weekend day within the study area, there is a projected
future need for 208 and 288 parkin~ spaces respectively.
11
14:07 FRCN DP~ ~P8 561 686 887e TO ~$6127£$$5~' P.O~
For the e~s~ng land uses, the surveyed peak weekend day denumd o~ 584 results in a erdstin~
deficit of 67 spaces. The pz~osed 44 space expansion lo the Block ?6 pas'king lot will mee~
66'~ of the ex~6n~ typi~ weekend da)' need.
Nor the futm-e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ typical usa&,e for the weekday and the weekend
day periods shows the need to provide 208 and 2~ ~+~_-eal spaces within the study are~ for
a typical w~_ _-~ and weekend day. The proposed 44 spece expansion to I~ Block 76 parking
lot w~ only meet 21~ of the l~'ojecte~ typical weekday need and 15'~ of the projected ty~c~tl
12
E33-n1:ITT$
8~24-'19~? 14:0~ FRCM 3PA WPB 561 &~6 8~7e TO i5612~S855~ P,02
NE 1ST STREET ,--.
· ~-t ~., ~ ~~, , ~ ["~.
" ~ '
ATtiC AVENUE
BLOCK
~T~ ~E ~ PRO~D~ BY C~ 3/2*/97
P~NG FACILI~ STUDY ~EA
14::2 FRCM ~PR dPE 561 $~6 $~7~ TO ~$$12~$553· P.04
prat,f, 4t, pALKN~ S4PA~
' EXHIBIT 2
DELRAY BEACH CRA I REDEVELOPMENT PLANe °r ~)
PARKING FACILITY STUDY BLOCK 76
° ~
~ -~ o
~
~5 .~ BLOCK
:
28
'~ LEGEND
~ * ~T ~UZED TODAY.
~ % ~ UN~ CO~UOT~ON.
~TE: ~E ~ PRO~ BY ~ ~/2~/g7
P~R~NG FACILITY S~DY P~RKING INVENTORY
~/24/L997 14:!~ ~RCM ~P~ ~P~ 561 $~$ 8~78 TO ~$61~855~ P.O~
14:24 F~CH 3P~ ~PE $6! ~,3~ ~ TO ~56127~$$$~ P.O?
~3,24~1957 14:2~ FR¢:~ ~,=A ~PE 561 6~6 8~7~ TO :56.1~55~ P.~6
ESTIMA~ ANNUAL TOURIST VISITS TO
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
Evont D~grlptlon No. V~totm ]D~tm
Dow~own ~ Fm~ ~,~ 3 Tim~e~
Ewent ~scrlptlon
Old Sch~l ~c
~ldr~'a P~o~ " ~,~
M~e~ l~,~ $~r
M~utor ~ ~0 Y~ R~nd
Olympic Torch Relay
CiW/~~ ~v¢~ 1~..'-:-'. Y~r
~Ir~y ~ ~~ ~
~que Sh~- & ~
Bud Li~ ~ Volley ~ Toum~t 7~
Source: Oty of Delray Beach, Orceter Dd:W Beac{a :~b~r of. Commerce, end local
O~'~nizatio~
TOTnL P.03
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 2, 1997
TO: David Harden, City Manager
FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement
RE: City Commission/Code Enforcement Board Workshop Meeting
Discussion Items
The chairman and members of the Code Enforcement Board has asked that the
following items be presented to the City Commission as discussion items for the April 8
workshop meeting:
City Commission support and/or direction to the Board on its current philosophy of
encouraging compliance. What does the Commission expect of the Board?
· Funding allocation for potential Foreclosures.
· Reduction of Fines upon compliance.
· Limitations on Extension Requests.
· Noncompliance regarding homestead single family residences - issuing NTA's that
would send these items through the courts.
· Consider the possibility of appointing a second Board or extending the meeting
times for the existing board to reduce the length of time it takes to have a case
heard before the Board.
The Board anticipates all of these issues could be addressed within a 45-minute
time period.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # WS 3 - SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1997
TOWN HALL MEETING PARTICIPATION
DATE: APRIL 4, 1997
For several years the Community Redevelopment Agency has partici-
pated in the Town Hall meeting. This year the Downtown Develop-
ment Authority and Old School Square asked well in advance to be
added to the agenda, which we did. At the last meeting the Public
Library asked to be added. We told them it was too late but they
could come in under the public comments section. They chose not
to do that. However, Tom Fleming gave a report from the Pineapple
Grove Main Street under the public comments section.
The staff would like direction concerning which organizations
should be included in the Town Hall meeting. We can add the
Library and the Main Street program. It just makes the presenta-
tion portion of the meeting longer. We would also like any other
suggestions the Commission might have for improving the format of
the Town Hall meeting.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
ANNUAL TOWN HALL MEETING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PUBLIC HEARING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1997, AT 7:00 PM
THE CREST THEATER AT OLD SCHOOL SQUARE
ORDER OF PRESENTATION
7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
- City Commission Roll Call
- Planning and Zoning Board Roll Call
7:05 p.m. WELCOME
- Mayor Jay Alperin
7:10 p.m. LAND USE ISSUES/TRENDS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPORT
- N. Willard Schwartz,
Planning and Zoning Board Chairperson
7:20 p.m. CITY ADMINISTRATION STATUS REPORTS
Introduction
- David T. Harden, City Manager
Parks Improvements, Youth Programs
- Joe Weldon, Parks & Recreation Director
Police & Community Relations
- Richard Overman, Police Chief
Fire & Emergency Services
- Robert Rehr, Fire Chief
Neighborhood Improvements
- Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director
Infrastructure Enhancement
- Dan Beatty, City Engineer
Financial Matters
- Joe Safford, Finance Director
7:50 p.m. CRA STATUS REPORT
- John Weaver
7:55 p.m. DDA STATUS REPORT
- Mike Listick
8:00 p.m. OLD SCHOOL SQUARE
- Joe Gillie
8:05 p.m. STATE OF THE CITY
- David T. Harden, City Manager
8:10 p.m. TOWN HALL MEETING & INFRASTRUCTURE HEARING
OPEN MICROPHONE
- Public Comment
- Concluding Remarks by Commissioners
ANNUAL TOWN HALL MEETING--FEBRUARY 11, 1997
SUMMARY OF SPEAKERS' TIMES
Schwartz 7:06 to 7:15 9 -1
Harden 7:15 to 7:17 2 -3
Weldon 7:17 to 7:25 8 +3
Overman 7:25 to 7:32 7 +2
Rehr 7:32 to 7:40 8 +3
Butler 7:40 to 7:47 7 +2
Beatty 7:47 to 7:54 7 +2
Safford 7:54 to 8:06 12 +7
CRA 8:06 to 8:17 11 +6
DDA 8:17 to 8:27 10 +5
OSS 8:27 to 8:39 12 +7
Harden 8:39 to 8:40 I -4
Public comments were scheduled to begin at 8:10, they actually began at 8:40. The
meeting adjourned at 9:50.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY I~2~IAGER~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # WS 3 - SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1997
STREET CLOSURE POLICY AND PROCEDURE
DATE: APRIL 4, 1997
This is before Commission for discussion regarding the City's
traffic pattern modifications (i.e. street closures) policy and
procedure.
The following are some of the issues which should be considered in
discussion of this subject:
1. Should the policy be modified so that a minimum traffic
volume would have to exist before a street closure will even
be considered?
2. Should the responsibility for funding the installation and
future maintenance of street closures be borne by the
association or by the City?
3. How should the maintenance of temporary closures be handled?
4. If closing a street generates a need for additional infra-
structure such as fire hydrants, how should the cost of
those improvements be handled?
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
FROM: D G PLANNING AND ZONING
SUBJECT: WORKSHOP MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1997
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY'S TRAFFIC PATTERN
MODIFICATIONS (I.E. STREET CLOSURES) POLICY AND
PROCEDURE
The action requested of the City Commission is to give direction to address
problems in the implementation of the Traffic Pattern Modifications policy and
procedure.
~:~:~:~:~:~:?:~:.:~:~:~i~i~i~i~:~:~i~~~;~i~i~i:i:i~i~~~i.i~i~:~i~i~~~i?~~i~~~:.i~~~i~i~~~i~i~;.:.i~i.i~i~i~i~i~i.i.i?i~i~:~:~:~:.:.:.:~:~:~:~:.:.:.:~:.:~:~:~:~:~:~:.:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:.:~:.~.:~:.:~:~:~:.:.:~:~:~:.:~:.:~:.:~:~:~:~:.:~~~:.:~:.:~:~:~:.:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:.~~~~:~:~:~:~:~~~~~:~:~:~:~:~:~~.~~:~:~:~:~:~:~~~~~~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~~.:~:~:~:~:~:~~.~~:~:~:~:~:~:~~~:~~~:~:
A formal procedure to address requests for the modJfication of traffic patterns,
including street closures, was adopted by the City Commission on March 5,
1996. Prior to that adoption, there was an ad hoc procedure through which
several street closures were allowed. These included N.W. 9th Avenue in the
West Atlantic area, and N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 5th Street in the Palm Trail
area.
The procedure attempts to address all of the active physical controls that could
be used to control the pattern of traffic on public streets to restrict speed,
direction or movement. The process requires evidence of strong support in the
affected neighborhood; a detailed staff review of the alternatives available; public
input concerning the selected method of modification; installation of a temporary
solution for a six month trial period; and payment of the costs of the modification
by the property owners in the affected neighborhood. The procedure is more
complicated than many in the City, since City staff shifts from reviewers to
designers as the process proceeds from concept approval, through design of the
modification by staff, to establishment of an assessment district to pay for the
improvement.
City Commission Documentation
Traffic Pattern Modifications Policy and Procedures
Page 2
Status of Approved, Privately Initiated Street Closures
None of the street closures which have been approved at least partially under
the current procedure have been completed. Their status is as follows:
Eve Street: Temporary closure in place for nineteen months; the neighborhood
association has not accepted responsibility for funding a permanent closure.
S.E. 4th Avenue: Temporary closure in place for eight months; complaints have
been received from adjacent areas concerning increased traffic due to the
closure; the neighborhood association has not formally accepted responsibility
for funding a permanent closure.
N.E. 3rd and 5th Streets: Temporary closures in place for more than 2 years.
These closures were approved prior to the adoption of the policy, and required
the installation of two fire hydrants, which triggered the upgrading of water mains
in the area, all of which has been completed. Installation of a permanent closure
was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in June 1996 subject to the
execution of an agreement for the maintenance of the landscaping by the
homeowner's association. The association has agreed to maintain the
landscaping, however, they have not agreed to accept responsibility for the costs
of the installing the permanent street closures.
Several problems and concerns have been identified in the implementation of
the procedure over a one-year period.
· The applicants' expectations of the purpose and goals of traffic pattern
modification differ from those in the policy. The policy is to assess the value
of employing traffic calming techniques from a pallet of potential solutions to
solve a neighborhood traffic issue. In this assessment, closing off a street is
seen as the most radical technique and, therefore, the last resort. The
applicants often view the closure of one or more streets as the only
acceptable solution. The perception among residents desiring street closures
is that the other measures (stop signs, humps, one-way streets) will not
eliminate or decrease the problem(s) they experience.
· The length of the process concerns some of the applicants. From application
to installation of the temporary control method can easily take several
months. This time frame allows for: review by six City departments, and up to
seven service providers (i.e. postal service, BFI, etc.); gathering data on
traffic speed and volume, crime rates, etc.; design of the control method;
City Commission Documentation
Traffic Pattern Modifications Policy and Procedures
Page 3
additional review by the applicant; and public input. Applicants seem to
believe that the correct processing time should not exceed one month. This
view has resulted in feelings of frustration in the applicants.
· It has been difficult to obtain commitments from the neighborhood
associations for funding the permanent closures. At least 55% of the
property owners within 500 ff. of the proposed modification must sign the
application for a street closure. If approved, temporary closures are installed
based on this expression of support. Prior to the installation of a permanent
closure, commitment to funding is sought in the form of an assessment
district. If such commitment is not forthcoming, the project is stalled awaiting
resolution of the funding issue, which is the status of most of the current
temporary closures.
· The street closures sometimes trigger the need to install additional fire
hydrants in order to provide service to both sides of the closure. Installation
of new hydrants can cost approximately $5,000 each. If the water mains in
the area are substandard, as was the case for N.E. 3rd and 5th Streets, they
have to be upgraded prior to installation of the hydrants, which can become
quite costly. While the City intends ultimately to upgrade all substandard
mains, street closure requests can have the unintended effect of given one
area priority over another.
· Most of the homeowners associations that have been involved in these
closures are voluntary and loosely organized, with varying levels of
commitment on the part of the members and officers. In some cases the
designated contact person has changed during the process, or has gone
north for the season, making it difficult for staff to obtain the necessary follow-
through on the part of the association. It seems that once a temporary
closure is installed and the traffic problem goes away, the association's
motivation and interest in the matter is greatly reduced.
· Several citizens believe the City should bear the cost for street closures,
whether the closure is privately initiated or City initiated.
· Street closures which have been approved have produced complaints from
residents in adjacent and nearby areas. Closure of a public street tends to
shift traffic - and traffic problems - onto nearby streets. It may be that the
benefits of street closure to one neighborhood will nearly always be balanced
by adverse effects in another neighborhood.
City Commission Documentation
Traffic Pattern Modifications Policy and Procedures
Page 4
· Maintenance responsibility for the temporary closures has been sporadic.
Again, with volunteer associations, it is difficult to obtain a commitment for the
regular upkeep of landscaping. Consequently, the City ends up with the
maintenance responsibility.
In attempting to implement the procedure as adopted, it appears that none of the
stakeholders are particularly satisfied. While every policy is in some sense a
compromise, the level of discontent with the traffic modification procedure
indicates the need to revisit the issue and make changes.
The following are some of the issues which should be considered in the
discussion of this subject:
1. Should the policy be modified so that a minimum traffic volume would have to
exist before a street closure will even be considered? This would help to
make the evaluation criteria less subjective, and could force the issue of
considering alternative, less extreme traffic calming devices.
2. Should the responsibility for funding the installation and future maintenance
of street closures be borne by the association or by the City? If by the City, a
funding source will have to be identified and the improvements programmed.
If by the association, the policy should be changed to require that the
temporary closure will be removed if a financial commitment is not obtained
within a specified time period.
3. How should the maintenance of temporary closures be handled?
4. If closing a street generates a need for additional infrastructure such as fire
hydrants, how should the cost of those improvements be handled?
Attachment: Traffic Pattern Modification Procedure and Application
S:\adv\closure2
Develop procedures and criteria to process requests to alter the traffic pattern on
existing streets.
Altering the pattern of traffic to achieve specific neighborhood purposes involves
physical changes to one or more streets. The usual purpose of a request for traffic
pattern modification is to make it more difficult for some of the through traffic to enter a
neighborhood, thus reducing traffic speeds, increasing pedestrian safety, reducing
crime such as drug trafficking or burglary, and increasing the perception of safety in the
· neighborhood. Requests generally come from neighborhood associations.
Street modification as a tool for traffic control and neighborhood security is a relatively
new phenomenon in Delray Beach. It has been used fairly extensively in other
locations, such as Fort Lauderdale, but only a few modifications have been completed
here, mostly involving the closure of a local street. Interest in modifying street patterns
is, however, increaSing in the City and we can expect more requests in the future.
The City is generally supportive of traffic pattern modifications where it satisfies
neighborhood desires and causes no adverse impacts to traffic flow. At present, the
procedures for handling a request and the criteria are on an ad hoc basis. We need to
establish a reasonable procedure to process requests and a set of criteria to determine
if a modification is appropriate.
Physical Control Methods
Active physical controls change the pattern of traffic, restricting the speed, direction or
movement along the street corridor. Examples are depicted in the attachment and
include:
- median barriers - cul-de-sacs
- semi-diverters - traffic circles
- chokers - changes in direction
- protected parking - diagonal diverters
- street closure (barricades) - forced turn barriers
- one-way streets - interrupted sight lines
Passive Control Methods
Passive traffic controls regulate speed and movement without affecting the pattern of
traffic along the street corridor. These methods are part of the City's normal street
operations function and will not be considered as part of this procedure. Examples
include:
- traffic signs and lights
- speed bumps
- speed humps
- rumble strips
- speed tables
Recommendations
A framework of review is recommended that will establish a repeatable procedure while
allowing maximum flexibility to address each neighborhood as a unique situation.
Neighborhood Association
A group of residents having membership in an association representing a specific
geographic area. Such associations include incorporated homeowners associations
and unincorporated neighborhood groups recognized by the City of Delray Beach
through its Neighborhood Association Program.
Local Street
A public street which is intended to serve residential properties located adjacent to the
street.
Traffic Pattern Modification
Any structural or street modification, including but not limited to barricades,
modifications to lane width, and cul-de-sacs, intended to limit or redirect traffic flow on
a local street. The installation of stop signs, speed humps, traffic signals, or speed limit
signs shall not be considered a street closure.
Neighborhood
A contiguous or nearly contiguous area containing local streets and including the
streets on which the traffic pattern is to be modified, and where more than 50% of the
land is used for residential purposes. The neighborhood may be smaller or larger than
a single neighborhood association.
-2-
The process will be initiated upon receipt of an application from the affected
neighborhood association(s) on the approved application form. The application must
be signed by 55% of the property owners on the street(s) proposed for traffic pattem
modification, within 500 feet, measured along the street, from the point of the proposed
modification. For purposes of determining 55% of the property owners, the following
guidelines shall apply:
1. An owner of more than one property within a residential neighborhood shall be listed
as one property owner.
2. If property is owned by a condominium, the property owner shall be the
condominium association and listed as one property owner.
Application
An application submitted by the affected neighborhood association(s) shall contain the
following:
1. The name of the neighborhood association.
2. Identification of the boundaries of the neighborhood association.
3. Identification of the problems experienced by the neighborhood association which
have caused it to propose a traffic pattern modification.
4. Identification of the local streets proposed to be modified.
5. Names and addresses of the property owners and identification of the property
location within the neighborhood. Telephone numbers of those property owners
who have executed the application evidencing their approval of the contents of the
application.
6. Names and addresses of a person or persons who have been authorized to
represent the neighborhood association(s) with respect to' the application.
Fees
The application fee shall be $100.
Costs incurred for the implementation of a street closure shall be levied and collected
as a special assessment against the property owners in the affected neighborhood in
accordance with Section 8.4 of the LDR's (Special Improvements and Special
Assessments).
-3-
Privately Initiated Modification
After the application has been found complete, Planning & Zoning Department will
distribute the application to the reviewing agencies and departments.
The application will be reviewed by a special review committee. The following
decisions will be recommended by the committee:
1. Whether a traffic pattem modification can be recommended.
2. If a modification cannot be recommended using any available technique, what are
the bases for denial.
3. If a modification can be recommended using specific techniques, what are the
bases for the recommendation(s).
Planning and Zoning Department will present the proposed committee recommendation
with its rationale to the applicant and the Development Services Management Group
(DSMG). At this point, the applicant may appeal the proposed staff recommendation to
the DSMG. DSMG will approve, approve with modifications, or deny the staff
recommendation.
Based on the DSMG direction, staff will develop a preliminary design for the traffic
pattern modification with cost estimate to accompany the staff recommendation. Such
design will be submitted to the applicant for their review and preliminary acceptance of
financial responsibility. The applicant will be required to provide mailing labels for
property owners within 500' of the street modification who did not execute the
application.
The staff report, including the preliminary design and cost estimate, and the applicants
comments and acceptance of financial responsibility, will be reviewed by the Planning
and Zoning Board at a public hearing. Planning and Zoning Board may approve, deny
or return the application to staff for further study with direction. An approval will be
conditioned upon the successful completion of a six month monitoring period, and
establishment, by the City Commission, of a special assessment district to pay the
costs of installing and maintaining the street closure.
Upon approval, a temporary modification will be installed at City expense for a six-
month monitoring period to determine its effectiveness and allow for additional public
comment related to real-world function. Monitoring will include, at a minimum, the
assessment of traffic volumes and turning movements on streets within the
neighborhood. Additional monitoring factors will be designed to assess the correction
of site specific problems (e.g. crime incidents)
-4-
At the end of the six month monitoring period, staff will re-review the traffic pattern
modification. A second public hearing will be held by the Planning and Zoning Boardto
consider a permanent installation. The Planning and Zoning Board may approve or
deny a permanent modification. If approved, the permanent installation will be
completed by the City upon formation of the special assessment district and completion
of the final design.
City Sponsored Modification
In the event that a neighborhood association is unable or unwilling to accept the cost of
installation and maintenance of a recommended traffic pattern modification, staff may
recommend the modification as a City sponsored project. In that case, the project will
be submitted to the budget process and installed if funds are appropriated by the City
Commission.
The following are the general parameters of review:
· Does technical review of application and data verify that a problem exists?
· Is the problem site-specific or covers an entire neighborhood?
· Is the community in agreement in regard to problem and solution(s)?
· Will traffic pattern modification solve the problem, or is the problem more complex in
nature?
· Does the change benefit only a small number of residents, or is there community
benefit?
· Will application of control(s) shift problem to another area?
Selection of modification technique depends upon the following:
- type of problem existing (speed vs. cut-through traffic vs. crime)
- characteristics of neighborhood
- cost
- neighborhood input
The selected technique will be reviewed for effects on:
- traffic volumes - traffic speed
- traffic composition - noise
- visual quality - accessibility
- parking - impact on bicyclists
- impact on pedestrians - impact on people with disabilities
- construction costs - maintenance costs
- added driving time/fuel costs - number of people affected
-5-
Planning & Zoning
- coordinate review process
- assess land use impacts
- assess physical form (land use pattern, condition of pavement,
redevelopment plans, street lighting, etc.)
- write staff reports
Environmental Services & Public Works
- water and sewer network impacts
- environmental data (traffic noise, air pollution, parked cars, etc.)
- traffic circulation impacts
- traffic data (accident statistics, traffic volumes, speed, etc.)
- right of way needs
- closure design and cost estimates
Parks and Recreation
- maintenance needs and cost associated with the modification
Police
- provide data on speed violations, accidents and crime rates.
- provide input on neighborhood character
- assess impact of closure on neighborhood safety
- assess impacts of closure on response time and patrols
Fire
- impacts on hydrant locations
- response time impacts
- turning radius on dead ends over 150' long
Community Improvement
- provide input on neighborhood character and needs
- closure design (landscape aspects)
- neighborhood coordination/education
- eligibility of the neighborhood for assistance
-6-
The following service providers, where applicable, will comment upon time and
accessibility impacts to their particular service and/or facilities:
· Florida Power & Light
· Florida Public Utilities
· Southern Bell
· Cable TV
· Post Office
· Waste Management, Inc.
· Palm Tran
S:PLANNI~DOCUMI~,DV~CLOSE6,DOC
-7-
DELRAY BEACH
1993
.... -.':~:~:~:~:~:~,:.. :..'.%.:'.,': ..... :::::,:,.': .... ..-~i.-.~:.::~::.~.:~ ....... ~¢~:.';,...,. ~iii- *~ ~-~*~*~'~.:.*~:.'-'.~
:~i~::--:i..::,~..:::::.. ~:-<:~..:,~:.::.:::~::~:. ..:,~:~:!~:.::~:~:.::.::~:..::::::~:::::~.~ :~:,~,: ~.~.~, ~.;: '~::..,~. ..-,:~. .:::~,~.:.~:..::~,~.?~:::!:~?:i:~ii~.~;~.~.~L ·
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING AND FILING
THE TRAFFIO PATTERN MODIFICATION APPLIOATION
Applications for traffic pattem modifications may be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department at
any time between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday thru Fdday. Please print or type 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. Application information, as listed on Page 2;
2. Property Owner Signature List, as found on Page 3 & 4; and,
3. Processing fee of $100.00' (make checks payable to the City of Delray Beach).
A Traffic Pattern Modification is any structural or street modification, including but not limited to
barricades, modifications to lane width, and cul-de-sacs, intended to limit or redirect traffic flow on a local
street. Requests for modifications are reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board which holds its
regular meeting on the third Monday of each month. It takes approximately ten (10) weeks between the
date of application and action by they P&Z Board. If approved, the Traffic Pattern Modification will be
installed and monitored as a temporary measure for six (6) months. This will help determine if the
selected modification(s) sufficiently addresses the problems identified, or if an alternative measure(s)
needs to be implemented. Final action is taken by the City Commission, which meets on the second-
and fourth Tuesday of each month. Traffic Pattern Modifications are scheduled for City Commission
action once all conditions associated with the request have been addressed.
Please refer to the appropriate sections of the City's Land Development Regulations when designing
your project and completing this application. A pre-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 possible.
*Costs incurred for the permanent installation of a tra~c pattem modification shall be levied and collected as a
special assessment against the property own?rs in the affected neighborhood in accordance with Section 8.4 of the .
LDR's (Special Improvements and Special Assessments). In the event that a neighborhood association is unable or
unwilling to accept the cost of installation and maintenance of a recommended traffic pattern modification, staff may
recommend the modification as a City sponsored project. In that case, the project will be submitted through the
regular annual budget process and installed if funds are appropriated by the City Commission.
8/96
TPM NO.
Date Received:
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR TRAFFIC PATTERN MODIFICATION
Name of Neighborhood Association(s):
Name of Representative(s):
Phone Number(s) of Representative(s):
Identify Boundaries of the Neighborhood Association(s):
Identify the local streets to be modified (include map or survey depicting locations) and
type of modification proposed:
Identify problems experienced by the neighborhood association prompting the traffic
pattern modification request:
-2-
The process will be initiated upon receipt of an application from the affected
neighborhood association(s) on the approved application form. The application must
be signed by 55% of the property owners on the street(s) proposed for modification,
within 500 feet, measured along the street, from the point of the proposed modification.
For purposes of determining 55% of the property owners, the following guidelines shall
apply:
Q An owner of more than one property within a residential neighborhood shall be listed
as one property owner.
I:::1 If the property is owned by a condominium, the properly owner shall be the -
condominium association and listed as one property owner.
If necessary, additional pages may be attached.
Name Address Phone Number
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
-3-
Name Address Phone Number
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
-4-
FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES INC.
Memorandum '
TO: Mayors and Council Chairs
FROM: Jim Naugle, Mayor, City of Ft. Lauderdale ~;~/'-
President, Florida League of Cities (FLC)
DATE: March 21, 1997
RE: Commission on Local Government II-Video
The Commission on Local Government II was created during the 1996 Legislative Session for
the purpose of recommending appropriate reforms to the organization, structure, powers,
creation, duties, financing and service delivery capacity of Florida local governments. In
addition, the commission was directed to explore ways to eliminate overlapping jurisdictional
responsibility and duplication of costs among governments.
Since October 1996 the Commission has been meeting monthly to explore legislative and
constitutional reforms. FLC has been intensively involved with this effort by having staff
representatives at all Commission meetings, making presentations to Commission members,
assisting in logistics and planning for meeting agendas, and providing input to Commission staff
with regards to draft policy options prepared for Commission deliberations.
While Commission membership is represented well by city and county officials, five members
from each respective local government, the present goal is to get input from all elected officials.
To that end, Commission Chairman Sam Bell directed his staff to prepare the enclosed 12-minute
informational video to be distributed to all city and county commissions. The video is designed
to facilitate a workshop setting and stimulate discussion.
I strongly urge you and your council to view the video and workshop the seven identified issue
areas: Intergovernmental Relations, Internal Structure, Duties, Powers, Financing, Creation &
Dissolution, and Service Delivery Capacity. Specifically, please answer the following questions
during discussions:
· What are the three greatest challenges facing your city, town or village?;
What constitutional, legislative or other tools would help meet these challenges, and would
give your city, town or village the ability to provide its services and govern more efficiently
and effectively?;
Continued on back
201West Park Avenue · P.O. Box 1757 · Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1757 · (904) 222-9684 · Suncom 278-5331
March 7, 1997
Page two
What recommendations or testimony would you provide to the Commission on Local
Government II on each of the seven issues as each specifically relates to your city, town or
village?
Suggestions and comments should be forwarded to Commission staff at the
Florida Institute of Government, 325 John Knox Road, Building 300, Suite 301
EC, Tallahassee, Florida 32303. Comments will be received until September 1,
1997.
A calendar of the Commission's meeting dates is included in the video; I hope you will visit with
the members and take part in their meetings when it meets in your area.
This is a great opportunity for local elected officials to present creative and well thought out
solutions to complicated problems. The Commission on Local Government 11 will conclude its
work in January 1998 and make its final report to the legislature as well as to th6 Constitution
Revision Commission. Please do not miss the chance to contribute to this process, the impact of
the final recommendations could have tremendous impact on Florida's local government. Your
city's input is critically important!
If you have any questions or need more information, please contact Kelvin Robinson or Darcy
Foster at the FLC office at 1-(800) 342-8112.
Enclosure