The URL can be used to link to this page

11-11-97 Workshop CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - NOVEMBER 11, 1997 - 6:00 P.M. COMMISSION CHAMBERS AND 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. AGENDA PLEASE NOTE: The meeting will convene in the Commission Chambers for Item (1). The rest of the meeting will be held in the First Floor Conference Room. WORKSHOP (1) Regulation of ~arge home construction. (2) 3Joint workshop with ~he ~lanning and Zoning Board regarding traffic management/~treet closures. (3) JCRA Request for Proposal, ~lock 77. (4) Commission Comments. SPECIAL MEETING a OSED ~TTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION pursuant to F.S. 286.011(8) re: te v. City of Delray Beach and Lake Worth Drainage District. Attendees: Mayor Jay Alperin Commissioner Kevin Egan Commissioner Ken Ellingsworth Commissioner David Randolph Commissioner David Schmidt City Manager David T. Harden City Attorney Susan A. Ruby Assistant City Attorney David Tolces Bill Doney, Esquire A certified court reporter Purpose: Discuss settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the referenced case. 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. DELRAY BEACH ,TO: City Commission FROM: _~ Jay Alperin, Mayor DATE: November 11, 1997 -SUBJECT: Regulation of Large Home Construction Reason for Large Home Ordinance A. Neighborhood residents feel large homes being build are imposing on the character of the area, privacy and value of their properties (their personal property rights) (presently these areas are on or near water). The issue is not really square footage but height, set ~' acks and a combination of these two. B. Who do we represent? l. People who want the highest dollars for the sale of their property than move out. 2. People who want to buy property and build the largest possible houses, regardless of the interest of the existing neighbors. 3. The people who are residents in these neighborhoods'who have invested and want to ' stay. People who choose the existing neighborhood character and are not looking for quick profits. C. Possible Solution: 1. Thirty Five percent (35%) FAR (if we use these, then two story open areas must be counted twice (apparent bulk of houses) or set back variation related to height. 2. Height limit of 35 feet. 3. Permit variances of 5% each based on set criteria with a maximum of 2 variances, allowed by Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. 110~-11-1997 15:14 5619976917 P.01 DELRAY BEACH COMMISSIONERS DELRAY CITY HALL 100 NW 1st Avenue November 11, 1997 Re: ORDINARCE 44-97 NO NEW RESTRICTIONS NO C~ANGES TO ORDINANCE 44-97 As a homeowner in Tropic Isle I object to your discriminating against home owners who pay taxes and VOTE in our city, county and state. We should have the right to remodel or make changes to our homes, within the current limits, if it is necessary to meet our housing needs, improve the asthetics or to be able to sell our homes. PLEASE VOTE AGAINST ORDINANCE 44-97. Your cooperation is appreciated. Thank you very much, 941 Iris Drive Delray Beach, Florida 33483 '-11-1'997 1~: 1~ 5619976917 P. 02 DELRAY BEACH COMMISSIONERS DELRAY CITY BALL 100 NW 1st Avenue November 11, 1997 Re: ORDINANCE 44-97 NO NEW RESTRICTIONS NO C~ANGES TO ORDINANCE 44-97 As a homeowner in Tropic Isle I object to your discriminating against home owners who pay taxes and VOTE in our city, county and state. We should have the right to remodel or make changes to our homes, within the current limits, if it is necessary to meet our housing needs, improve the asthetics or to be able to sell our homes. PLEASE VOTE AGAINST ORDINANCE 44-97. Your cooperation is appreciated. Thank you very much, Miriam Hurwitz 941 Iris Drive Delray Beach, Florida 33483 TOTAL F'. 02 WEINER, MORICI, & ARONSON, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW The Clark House 102 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 MICHAEL S. WEINER Telephone: (561) 265-2666 ALFRED G. MORICl Telecopier: (561) 272-6831 CAROLE J. ARONSON OF COUNSEL: ROBERT MARC SCHWARTZ, P.A. Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer November 11, 1997 HAND DELIVERED Mr. David Harden City Manager The City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Re: Ordinance on a Limitation of Size of Residences Dear David: With great appreciation for the democratic process, I have watched the debate on the size of residential homes within the City limits. Mayor Jay Alperin was kind enough to take a few minutes with me to listen to a proposal of compromise. As you know, I represent a number of local homeowners and businesspeople within the City and while this does not constitute any specific group, an unofficial polling has indicated the following: 1. While no one wants their neighbors to mettle in their business, there seems to be strong sentiments on this issue by those who feel "mansionization" could disrupt the community. 2. As the name fixed to this issue implies, mansionization should be for control of only the lhrgest houses. 3. In that spirit, there should be the following "relief valves" for those who seek to have a more livable house but might be limited by a restrictive ordinance: A. There should be a "floor area ratio" ("FAR") of forty percent (40%); Mr. David Harden November 11, 1997 Page 2 B. There should be a five percent (5%) bonus for any infill lot below 10,000 square feet; C. There should be a five percent (5) bonus if all adjoining neighbors approve the design; D. There should be a five percent (5%) bonus through landscape mitigation and a landscape design approved by the Site Plan Review Board; E. No more than two (2) of these three (3) bonuses should be available to any one lot owner. 4. There should be restrictions on setbacks and height and the sizes of second and third floors. However, design controls requiring a "birthday cake" effect should be abandoned. 5. There should be a six (6) month moratorium before the effective date. This will allow people who have plans in process to complete their projects. This issue has been extremely divisive. We should be able to fashion an ordinance that does not cater to any extreme position. We should encourage our homeowners to invest in the community with the modernization of their houses and the use of a bonus system would have precisely that effect. Please stay away from the "no growth extreme". We are not advocating the "pro growth extreme". How about a controlled growth scheme? would appreciate it if this letter was read at the workshop or otherwise summarized for the Commissi~gt Mlcl~b~el S. Weiner MSW/mph 4998625 DELAIRE 410 P04 NOU 10 '97 13:38 Countr Property Owner's As ¢iation Inc. 4645 White Cedar Lane November 6, 1997 Delray Beach, FL 33445 499-9090 Mr. David Harden, City Manager 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Mr. Harden: The residents of Delaire Country Club are very concerned with the proposed "Large Home" Legislation and the negative effect it will have on our entire city. It would appear to us that our existing comprehensive plan and our zoning ordinance are excellent as they are currently constituted. To institute an ordinance which would even further restrict our city's citizens from expanding their homes just because a few residents in one small section of the city would like to restrict beneficial growth appears ludicrous. After last Tuesday's City Commission Meeting, it was obvious to all of us attending that the vast n~jority of Delray's citizens do not want the ordinance, which rightfully failed to pass. Here in Delaire, we have had a number of homes that have been tom down and replaced with new, larger homes. These replacement homes, as well as many other homes that have had substantial additions, add to the quality of our entire city. It also serves to add to our tax base without requiring any additional municipal services. Delaire has it's own Architectural Review Committee, which adequately controls building architecture and aesthetics to an even higher set of requirements than our municipal regulations, If the residences of Seagate are interested in maintaining a limited size home community, then a zoning overlay or other applicable zoning change should be created for that area. Certainly their wishes should not have to impact the rest of the city. We also feel the five foot set- back requirement for second storied homes is unfeasible. The cost of constructing a set-back to expand existing homes is prohibitive. Therefore, it' serious thought is going to be given to second story set-backs, existing homes should be exempted. Probably the only non-controversial issue in the aborted ordinance was the 35 foot maximum height provision. Surely no one could object to that reasonable requirement. We trust you will give serious thought to the feelings and wishes of your citizens. Daniel Cayne, Prresident Malcolm N. Levenson, President Delaire Property Owners' Association Delaire Country Club /arm NOV--11--97 TUE 04 .':~2 AM P. 01 P.O1 JO ANN K, PEART 107 N,w. 9th Street November 10, 1997 Dear: Mayor Alperin Commissioners Mr, Harden and plannhlg and Zoniog Staff At {tie Large Home Workshop, please ask your Plan~ing m~d Zoning two questions: 1. ls it tree ~ha_t a.40 F.A,R, would o~fly have affected two out oft he seven large houses studied by Large Home Task Team? 2. Is it true that even with the .35 F.A.R. the Desiderios on White Drive would still be able to build a house like the large one that went up next dom' to them? Two points of interest: 1. Gulf Sffemn has a .33 F.A.R. wi01 a .20 F.A,R. for anyfl~g over 20,000 square feet. 2. Ne.i~en: Ocean Ridge or Craig Strcatrt have had any lawsuits since they passed lheit restrictions, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Hov 10 S70~:~3p De$iderio !5Sl] ~43-4781 p.1 Dominic M. Desiderio Susan A. De.siderio 1000 White Drive , Delray Beach, FI. or,da 33483 ~----~-'--- Fax (561) 243-4781 ~5 . November 10, 1997 Delray City Hall 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Dear Mayor Alperin: Ten years ago we had the opportunity to live an}~here in the U.S.A. and ~,e chose Delrav. We loved it then and we love it more now. We have seen Delrsy rebuild, prosper and progress under competent Citv Leadership. This growth has occurred ~der the current wording of Ordinance No. 44-97. The Ordinance, as it is written today, gave our co~itv notoriety as ............................ "Delray, the All ~erican City" not "Delray, the Ail ~erican Village." Ordinance No. 44-97 has served us well in the past and will serve us well in the future. The Citizens of Delray have put their faith and trust in the City Coma~issioners of Delray, knowing that they would always do what is right for All and not the Few. This trust has been violated and the City Commissioners have successfully divided the Citizens of Delray into small factions. It is not too late to change this unfortunate course by making the right decision. THE DECISION: PERMANENTLY TABLE ANY CHAI~GES TO ORDINANCE NO. 44-97. Let's move on. Allow Delray to take a natural and unencumbered path toward prosperity as it has so successfully done in the past. Slncerelv, DOMINIC M. DESIDERIO SUSAN A. DESIDERIO 11/10/1997 2.!],: 11 14~727~4866 El, TALLEY PAGE 02 000 HYACINTH DRIVE OF..I.t=~AY 8E.,ACH, FL, 33483 (56 I } Z7;~477~ BARBARA 'rALLEY 900 HYACINTH DRiVE DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33483 November 10, 1997 DELRAY BEACH COMMISSIONERS DEAR SIRS:: THIS IS TO INFORaM YOU OF MY OBJECTIONS TO ANY CHANGES IN ORDINANCE 44-97. I LIVE IN TROPIC ISLES AND BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD OR REMODEL UNDER THE CURRENT RULES. WE MAY BE IN THE MINORITY BUT WE PAY MORE THAN THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER IN DELKAY BEACH. I FEEL THAT THIS WOULD CAUSE PROPERTY DEVALUATION BARBARA TALLEY Cc: JAY ALPERIN-MAYOR KEVIN EGAN-V. MAYOR DAVID RANDOLPH DAVID SCHMIDT KENNETH ELLINGSWORTH Venture Concepts International, Incorporated Mayor & Commissioners "Thinking Paper" Outlined below are a few thought provoking circumstances that we would ask that you give respectful consideration to as you deliberate the new building restrictions. 1) In the event a FAR of .35% or .40% was implemented and a home that had a FAR that previously exceeded .35% or .40% was destroyed through a humcane or other disaster would that homeowner be able to rebuild to the original size? Consider the insurance and mortgage ramifications if not. 2) How many non-conforming properties would be created by any new restrictions? 3) Why not implement the resthctions, if any, where you are being invited to do so? It seems quite clear that a few people in Seagate want the restrictions. Those on the beachfront, thru the Oceanfront Property Owners Association and in Tropic Isle do not. Why not implement them in Seagate, or allow them to do so as an individual homeowner association? Just like they did in Royal Palm in Boca Raton where it seemed to work f'me. 4) Are there certain covenants that are unique to a particular sub-division, such as Tropic Isle for example, that would prevent certain building restrictions from being implemented? 5) Do you wish to challenge the private property rights law with all that is at stake? There seems to be much more at stake than just a very large sum of money. Good will, proper representation of the people, all of Delray's momentum etc., etc. 6) In the event property values were to dip, even slightly, due to the implementation of the new restrictions, what would happen if a value or values dropped below mortgage balances? Would not equity be lost? 7) In the event an addition is needed to accommodate a larger family would that addition be permitted under "hardship" thru the variance process? 8) Are you considering furore generations of Delray Beach residents when the decision you make may effect the limited tax base of our City? The above represents only a small sampling of items for you to ponder prior to you making your decision. Do not allow pride to get in the way of a making a sound decision. It appears as though the support for no restrictions is much stronger than that for restrictions. Is all of the negativity and possible litigation worth the vote to restrict? 72 Southeast 6th Avenue ° Delray Beach, Florida 33483-5314, U.S.A. Telephone 407. 274.9696 ° Fax 407. 274.0850 MEMORANDUM TO: City Commission FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager ,~/ SUBJECT: Regulation of Large Homes DATE: November 7, 1997 The attached memo from the Planning Department summarizes the recommendations and actions taken on the subject issue over the last several months. The principal remaining issues seem to be whether .35 is the appropriate floor area ratio for Delray Beach and whether or not the properties east of A1A should be included. That is not to say there is no disagreement about other aspects of the proposed regulations, but these two issues seem to be the ones about which there is the most disagreement. Some have suggested that since most of the complaints about large homes have come from the Seagate neighborhood, the City could apply the floor area ratio limitation within that neighborhood only. While that is certainly possible, we have received complaints from other neighborhoods and there is a good chance the issue would come up in other neighborhoods as it becomes economically attractive to tear down existing homes and build new ones. In proceeding with a floor area ratio limitation, I would like to suggest for your consideration three possible different approaches: 1. Adopt a floor area ratio which would apply City-wide. This is the approach which has been contained in the ordinances previously considered by the City Commission. 2. Adopt different floor area ratios for different areas of the City. This would be consistent with the possibility I suggested at City Commission meeting of having a higher floor area ratio in the R1AAB zoning district than in other zoning districts. You could also have a higher ratio for the area east of A1A. 3. A third approach which has been used in some cities is to have a higher floor area ratio for smaller lots. So, you might allow a ratio of .4 or .45 for lots, say smaller than 12,000 square feet, with a lower floor area ratio for larger lots. I think some floor area ratio east of A1A would be appropriate, even if it is high enough to keep all the existing homes conforming. Without any limitation, it is physically possible to build a home which would have a floor area ratio approaching 1.5 if you built a three story structure. DTH:kwg Attachment I ~::~::~:: ~::~::~::~:.::~ I ~:: :..~?:~ o o ~ ................ ======================== . z z ~ z z ~ ~ Z (~1 '~- 0,1 Z 03 o,I ~ Z EO ~ ~ Z cO 0,4 Z 03 '~' ,r-- Z 03 04 03 TO: DAVID T. HARDEN THRU: DIANE DOMINGUEZ) DIRECTOR D~~_TMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FROM: PAUL DORLING, P~ICIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 11, 1997 CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE REGULATION OF LARGE HOMES At the public hearing on November 4, 1997 the City Commission denied Ordinance No. 44-97 on second reading and requested the item be workshopped at their November 11, 1997. To assist the Commission in its consideration of this issue, the following is a summary of the recommendations and actions taken to date. Large Home Task Team's Recommendation: The Large Home Task Team (LHTT) met for 2-1/2 months and it was their unanimous consensus that regulations involving style issues (i.e. aesthetics, colors, architectural features or landscaping) should not be considered. The task team concluded their deliberations on April 9, 1997 and recommended the following LDR changes on an 8-2 vote: · Modification of the definition of height to allow a maximum height of 35' to the highest part of the roof (with the exception of chimneys and cupolas), for all residential structures. · A maximum 40% FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for all single family zone districts. · That homes east of A-1-A be exempted from the new restrictions. Implementation of these recommendations also required the addition to the LDRs of a definition of Floor Area Ratio and Gross Floor Area. City Commission Documentation Recommendations Concerning the Regulations for Large Homes Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommend the following to the Planning and Zoning Board: · Adoption of the recommendations of the Large Home Task Team · Modification to the definition of Floor Area Ratio to require areas which are 15' or higher to be counted as double square footage (exempting the first 200 feet in order to accommodate limited entries and atrium spaces). Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Board considered the recommendations at their August 19, 1997 meeting and continued the item with a request for additional information. The Planning and Zoning Board reconsidered the item at their September 15, 1997 meeting and recommended the following to the City Commission on a 4-2 vote: · Adoption of the recommendations of the Large Home Task Team for a 35 foot maximum height and 40% FAR; · Adoption of a definition of floor area and gross floor area as recommended by the task team (i.e. did not include language recommended by staff relating to the double counting of areas with ceilings higher than 15'); · That an additional 5' setback be required for second and third floors in the R-1AAA, R-1AAAB, R-1AA and R-1AAB zone districts; and, · That the new regulations would not apply to properties east of A-1-A. City Commission Direction After First Reading (October 7, 1997): The City Commission had concerns with applying the additional second floor setbacks to the R-1AA zone district and the lack of height limits for building appurtenances. The Commission requested additional information on height and the impact of increased setbacks. The Commission directed staff to amend the ordinance and to provide ordinance options which would incorporate the following: · Provide an alternative definition of height to include language limiting the height of chimneys, cupolas and building appurtenances on residential buildings to a maximum of 5' above the highest portion of the building. The maximum restriction is to apply to all residential structures including those east of A-l-A; · Provide two alternatives for the R-1AA zoning districts, one including and one excluding the district from an increased second and third floor setback; and, City Commission Documentation Recommendations Concerning the Regulations for Large Homes Page 3 · Incorporation of the LHTT's recommendations as they related to height, definition of floor area and gross floor area, and application of the regulations to homes west of A-1-A only. City Commission Direction After First Reading (October 21, 1997): The City Commission considered the ordinance options and approved on first reading an ordinance incorporating the following: · A change to the definition of height as recommended by the Large Home Task Team with the addition of language limiting the height of chimneys, cupolas and building appurtenances on residential buildings to a maximum of 5' above the highest portion of the building. · The addition of a definition of floor area and gross floor area as supported by the LHTT; · A maximum FAR of 35%; · An 5' increased setback for second and third floors for the R-1AAA, R-1AAAB, R- 1AA and R-1AAB zoning districts; and, · Exempting the properties on the east side of A-1-A from the above regulations, with exception of the height restriction on chimney, cupolas and building appurtenances. City Commission Denial and Direction (November 4, 1997): At the second reading on November 4, 1997 the City Commission denied the ordinance and recommended the issue be discussed at the November 11, 1997 workshop to discuss certain aspects of proposal. Among the main issues was the appropriateness of the 35% FAR and to what properties the regulations should apply. The following table provides additional information summarizing the buildable square footage within each zoning district given varying FAR ranges. 220 n.e. 1st street, delray beach, fl. 33444-3710 November 6, 1997 Mr. David Harden, City Manager City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Re: Ordinance #44-97 (AKA Mansion Law) Mr. Harden: I support the commissions desire to restrict excessive development of residential lots. I do, however, feel that a ratio of 35% is too restrictive. I believe a 50% ratio is far more appropriate, with a height limitation of 45'. The reasons being: a two story 5000 square foot home with 2500 square feet per floor only utilizes 25% of a 100' x 100' lot. This allows for a maximum green area on a modest size parcel. This foot print would be smaller on a three story home. I believe that with the proposed upper level floor set backs are also unnecessary. However, the height restrictions of 35' will not allow adequate height for a modest (smaller) third story. Forty five feet allows for proper mechanical and architectural treatment. Please consider these recommendations in your upcoming workshop. Respectfully submitted, MEISNER ELECTRIC INC. Tim D. Onnen President TDO/bh cc: toordinance 4497 (561) 278-8362 · facsimile (561) 278-8397 Lic. No. EC 0000418 TO: DAVID T. HARDEN CITY MANAGER FROM: " ~' IAN~DO M INGUE Z%l/I~ECT OR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SUBJECT: WORKSHOP MEETING OF NOVEMBER 11, 1997 PRESENTATION BY lAN LOCKWOOD ON TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES lan Lockwood, Transportation Planner for the City of West Palm Beach, has graciously agreed to make a presentation to the City Commission and Planning and Zoning Board on the use of traffic calming measures (i.e. roundabouts, narrowed lanes, meandering streets, etc.), to control traffic in and around neighborhoods. These measures represent a viable alternative to closing streets off altogether, lan is a recognized authority on these devices, and we felt that the City Commission and the P & Z Board, as well as City staff, could benefit by his presentation. Attached is a recent article from the Palm Beach Post describing lan's background and philosophy. Attachment: · PB Post Article Traff' ' ' ' ' A young, engine Amedca s car c s~A=~ L Saes WEST PALM BE Lockwood, because .y the road suddenly trolleys for a traffic lan drive you Ioopy, you know whom to blame. His office walt is streets made !' u~ed to driving'slowly your suspens~qn fixed. He is either a L~d whether you want to top down or cross it A mischievous grin spreads on his elfin face as he Please see SPOTUGHT/$B planner, espouses a.'tmn~ cmmmg' Planner: 'Calming' makes safer roads; SPOTLIGHT ' ' Fro,. lan M. Lockwood Crash talk Lockwood fi.om a private consult- ing tlrm in Ontario, Canada, last WHO IS HE- Transporta- year after meeting him at a confer- tion planner, City of West West Palm Beach's tralf~c planner objects to the way cncc. Palm Beach Ilired as the city's traffic plan- P[RSONAL -- 35, married to Lockwoocl, ~ min~s ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ B ~$ net, he arrived a year ago with his Joanne Taylor. They have hand-drawn ca~oons illustrating a two F. hildren, Sara, 3, and 0OO't say... Whell you meatl... profound change in the philosophi- Evan, 2. Street Im/~-ovemant change cai underpinnings of modem trail upgraclingthe street wMan/ng tic planning: Pedestrians good. EDUCATION -- Bachelor's acc/dent crash or col/Is~on Cars bad. degree in civil engineering tratT~c motor veh/c/e traffic And that can translate into sar- in 1987 fi.om Carleton Uni- protect the right of way gxn'chase the right of way er roads anywhere in the city, versityin Ontario, Canada. e~c./antroads faster county or country, Lockw~xxl in- Master's in dvll engineering alternative transportation wa/k/ng, cycl/ng, s~ating, etc. sists in his talks and lectures to in 1995, also fi.om Cadeton. 'Plann. ing departments and engi- neenng students throughout the CAREER ~ Served in the ' Canadian Armed Forces areal~ut not everyone has greeted fi.om leff'/8-1988 in an engi- this concept with enthusiasm, par- neering squs on; joined Northboro Park traffic calming plan ticularly the notion that any road at J.P. Braaksma & Assoc. ail can be made easier on pedestri- Ltd. a tr'~fic planning con- C Traffic circle N Narrowing · Tree .k School aris and cyclists. Yamato? Hypo- sultancy in Ontario, in 1987; ' crossing "lan is proposing things that .. on the surface are fairly radical," QUOTE ~ 'Business, ceie- said George Webb, the county bral~ons, leisurely walks, so- - engineer. "l'm still trying to un- cialhing, commerce. All of · derstand what his vision is." these things used to happen. on streets on a regular ha- Praotlcal, Iow-cost fixes sis, until the c~r got a mo- Lockwood's goal is to create nopoly.' practical, inexpensive solutions to traf~c nightmares that don't re- ~ Park's llve. square quire addinsg six lanes or a dozen blocks are tucked between 36th stop lights m the name of szt'ety, and 40th streets, bordered by Instead, lanes can be narrowed, .Broadway and Poinsettia Avenue, sidewalks widened, 'landscaping both busy thoroughfares for those made more lush and intersections headed downtown. Too often, peo. Narrowing one's .range.of vi. blocks looking for a way ~round sion or creating obstacles inspires traffic of the thoroughfiu'ea. · caution in chivers, the thinking , The challenge was to restore a · This idea is a salve for the ..roads altogetlier, as Old North- Scores of yuppies rediscovering -wood had done for nine Mocks just city life, who took back streets · from drug dealers and prostitutes, ~ Working with residents, Lock. only to lose them again to speed. ,wood selected several methods for ers and shortcut-seekers. !,.~. eati~'what Biroach terms "You're not just driving ~lraoatdaustrophobiceffect."The. through an unknown neighbor-! ~'~eighborhood will get 200 new~ hood," said Dale Birosch, of the i ,.tree~, whose foliage will overhang Northboro Park neighborhoc<l. [ ihe roadd .Already, they have a ,But one that's cared for, where roundabout, or ~ circle. people are out in the streeC" Sp,ruc~ Avenue and a speed hump, · :where part of 38th Street has been "/air, ed.. . ~'; Another test of the new cra in ~ '...~fi¢. control ~ come m the Pract{~ what's ~ity's.southern end, where Lock- He didn't invent the idea of ~(~~ wood will unleash the most ambi. "ti'at~ calming." the name given · .tiousofhisplans. . for all these driver-enraging giz- .':',,.' Pictm-e South 0live Avenue! mos. 'going from a five-lane thorough-, But he takes it personally. At · fare to a meandering, two-lane i ~e .~5, he. doea his commuting by street. Thestatelsalreadydeslgu-i tcycie, ~e same one he has 'ihg it, much to the neigi~borhood's t owned.since college. At $ a.m., he delight. I do. ns .h? rellective vest and begins. · , wneenng the 5-mile trek to the S. Flagler Dt|vo next target o~ce from his home in the city's . l~ex~ on ~ne agenoa Is 5out~ south end. O ~,i . .Flagler Drive, which residents He can drive, he says, but ~ o hope will one day become more usually chooses not to. He leaves ~ .o di~cult to navigate, favoring those it to his w if, J--e Taylor. to whojogorakateorcyclealongthe ~hepherd their two toddlers ' .! . waterfi'ont, said Ken Tillman, who around in a minivan. · heads a traffic safety committee Soft-spoken but direct, Lock- ~o/' the Southside Neighborhood wood will hush crowded conunis- ~ ~": ' ti 't ~.'-! ~.'" ~ :,,.-., '. ~.ssociation. sion meetings, he methodically ~~ ',., Like those in Northboro Park, points out why a giant used-car lot - e , i , residents of Southside want to makes no sense near quiet, rest- slowdown those whocut through dential streets, or how a high ' '~.~- · sidi streets. But no one wanted to schoors parking lot force~ kids to close streets, or put up unsightly dart between buses. signs that drivers usually ignore "lan'sprettylncredible,seelng' ... AND TI'I~-'Y anyway, Tillman said. Lockwood is him present ideas," said Birosch. THA'T PROT~CTIMG THE [IGblTOF guiding them cautiously, steering of Northboro Park. "He can make them away eom quick fixes or people see, in s non-confi'ont~tion- ~tAY' 14E~T TO :~OE~S HOt/~ merely sticking circles every- alway." WAS/s where. The idea of manipulating traffic "One thing ! learned from lan appealed to Lockwood as a young is that you can't just pick amea- civil engineer out of Carleton Uni- sure." Tillman said. "Every place versity in Canada, where he grad- ' L(~T.~OO~'S has its own identity. You have to uated in 1987. It seemed more pick the measure appropriate for human to him than designing ~ bridges or airports. that area." He joined an Ontario consult- cartoo~'lS back for Lockwood. What wo~s lng firm that specialized in traffic on city streets, laid out in careful planning, and earned a master's grids, may not he appropriate for degree at Carteton in 1995, writing the wide, suburban boulevards critically about how cars and peo- typical of newer areas, argues the pie share space on thc street. county's Webb. In West Palm Beach, he sees a At besL such. devices are un- chance to work in one place, in- necessary in the d~ives that gently stead of juggling many clients. The Of~g~?l traff~. loop through subdivisions. At proposals keep coming, some of wont, they can create new haz- them tantalizing, if far-fetched: a ards for drivers. · trolley linking Clematis Street "I'm not convinced that plant- with the Kravis Center and train ing trees along the side of the road s~tlo~, using cobblestone ou good. slows people down," Webb said. raised intersections, or closing "If you plant it right in the curb. do iI two lanes of Flagler Drive down- you create potential liability? If a ~ town for a linear park. .1 car (driver) hits it and sues, th.e}, i "Business, celebrations, lei- Pedestrians arc to urban spacci can say 'I wouldn't have hit it if st " ' were back 4 feet.'" surely walks, ,socializing. cons-. merce," Loc~wo~ said. "All o~ AS canaries were to mines Lockwood bristlos at such con- these things used to happen on ventio~l thinking. "Most tnmsportation engi-I' streets on a regular basis, untilthe! neera believe if you make streets / car got a monopoly:' straighter and wider, they'll he ! . .: safer," Lock-wood said. "But all/ that does is increase speeds and ! ~ make it less safe." [ ! 1993 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CI'I~ OF DELR~Y B~CH THE NOVEMBER 10, 1997 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORKSESSION HAS BEEN CANCELED. THERE WILL BE A JOINT CITY COMMISSION - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORKSESSlON ON NOVEMBER 11, 1997 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, TO DISCUSS "TRAFFIC CALMING" MEASURES. POSTED ON: NOVEMBER 3, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: City Commission FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager~/ SUBJECT: Redevelopment in Block 77 DATE: November 7, 1997 Block 77 is located on the south side of East Atlantic Avenue, between S.E. 1st and S.E. 2nd Avenues. Within this block the CRA owns a parcel indicated by "C" on the attached map. The City owns the three parcels indicated by "B" on the attached map. Approximately the north half of the large parcel designated with a "B" is Worthing Park. The south half is public parking. The CRA intends to solicit proposals for the redevelopment of the parcel which they own in this block. In discussing this with Chris Brown, it seemed to us that there was greater potential for an attractive redevelopment proposal, if the CRA's parcel could be combined with that portion of the City's land which is currently used for public parking. The attached RFP includes this option. The RFP also requires, as you can see in paragraph D on page 2 and paragraph L(1)(b) on page 4, that replacement public parking be provided. The City's parking lot in this block cannot be laid out to function most efficiently because of the configuration of the land we own. From the City's prospective, I think the objective of putting out this RFP would be to see if we can get a proposal which would allow for a more significant redevelopment to occur in this block, while preserving an equal amount of public parking and hopefully achieving a parking configuration which would more efficiently utilize the land. For these reasons, I would recommend that the City Commission approve issuance of this RFP as drafted, in so far as it relates to City owned property. DTH:kwg Attachment File:u:graham/ccomm Doc.:Block77.CRA East Atlantic Avenue - SE 1st Street -1 1[ A. 12-43-46-16-01-077-0010 Lots 1, 2, 3, 8 & 9, Block 77, Town of Linton B. 12-43-46-16-01-077-0040 Lots4to6&Lots7&13(LessN. 16FL Road R/W), Block 77, Town of l_inton ~/'/'?"~ C. 12-43-46-1 6-01-077-0140 Lot 14 & N. 65.2 Ft. of Lot 15, Bloc~ 77, Town of Linton ~' ~. ~ Oto ~J ~/~ D. 12-43-46-16-01-085-0011 Lot 1 (Less S. 79.3 Ft.), Block 85, Town of LInton E. 12-43-45-16-01-085-0060 S. 79.3 Ft. of Lot 1, Block 85, Town of Llnton Community Redevelopment Agency Delray Beach MEMO TO: David Harden, City Manager Diane Dominguez, Director of Planning & Zoning cc: Robert W. Federspiel, Esq. FROM: Chris Brown DATE: October 31, 1997 RE: Block 77 "RFP" Pertaining to our discussions of Block 77, please find attached a dral~ of the RFP for two properties, one owned by the CRA and one by the City. Please advise. Thank you. /d Attach. 24 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (561) 276-8640 / Fax (561) 276-8558 Draft 10/28/97 BLOCK 77, TOWN OF DELRAY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE PURCHASE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES OWNED OR TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA November 1997 Request for Proposals The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Delray Beach ("CRA") hereby requests redevelopment proposals from interested parties for the purchase of commercial properties owned by the CRA and the City of Delray Beach. The properties include twofronting on SE St. Avenue and SE 2nd Avenue in Delray Beach, FL. The properties consist of both vacant land and existing public parking. The sale is being offered as an entire set or in less than an entire set, depending upon the proposer's redevelopment plan and proposal. The CRA and the City each own only one property in the set. The CRA may acquire the City's land after it receives at least one bona fide redevelopment proposal on terms and conditions set forth in this document. The CRA is vested by the State of Florida with the authority to request proposals for the redevelopment of an area within its district prior to acquiring properties within the redevelopment area. Factors that the CRA will use in judging the proposals include, but not limited to, the size of the redevelopment, the number of parking spaces being proposed, the disposition and replacement of public parking, the number of new jobs created, the quality of the site planning, landscaping and building development, the land uses, the economic impact on other businesses in the downtown, and the effect the project will have on the CRA's tax increment revenues. Based upon a proposal acceptable to the CRA pursuant to this Request, resulting in a negotiated contract with a successful proposer, the CRA may acquire the City of Delray Beach's property as described in this Request which the successful proposer would tot currently own in order to effectuate redevelopment pursuant to goals and objectives of the 2RA Redevelopment Plan. The specific properties that comprise fl redevelopment area are listed below: A. Location & Legal Description: 1. Address: East Atlantic t ~enue Owner: City of Delray I~ ~ach Legal Description: Bloc ~ 77, Lots 4-6 and 7 & 13 (less Worthing Park and less N. 16 Ft. of Road Right ff Way), Town of Delray Beach, FL Property Control No.: 2-43-46-16-01-077-0040 Land Area: approximate ~, 20,000 Sq. Ft. Appraised value: $000,0 ,0 (as of 11/97) 2. Address: SE 2nd Avenu? Owner: Delray Beach C~nunity Redevelopment Agency Legal Description: Bloc~ 77, Lot 14 &N. 65.2 Ft. of Lot 15, Town of Delray Beach, FL 1 Property Control No.: 12-43-46-16-01-077-0140 Land Area: approximately 20,000 sf.. Ft. Appraised Value: $000,000 (as of 11/97) Please note that the above listed properties include two (2) parcels of land in Block 77. Prior to entering into a contract for purchase the CRA will provide the exact legal description of each parcel. Depending upon the development proposal, the CRA may request that the City abandon the alleyways within the project; however, no assurance of such abandonment may be given. B. Land Use Regulations Pursuant to City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations, use of the property is limited to those uses permitted in the CBD (also known as "Central Business District"). A copy of the permitted uses is included with this RFP. No ground floor rentable space facing Worthing Park and Atlantic Avenue may be used for residential purposes. The ground floor space must be occupied by retail uses, businesses, and general professional uses and services and facility uses as defined by the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations. The proposer should consider land uses on the ground floor facing Atlantic Avenue which have the greatest economic impact for downtown retailing. Proposers should confer with the City of Delray Beach Planning Department concerning any changes, updates or contemplated changes to the Land Development Regulations, particularly for the zoning for the Central Business District C. CRA Redevelopment Plan The redevelopment project is described in the CRA Redevelopment Plan, a full copy of which is available at the offices of the Agency. An excerpt is included in this document. D. Block 77 Public Parking and Alleyway The City of Delray Beach owns the property described in Paragraph A, which includes Worthing Park, which fronts on Atlantic Avenue, and approximately 60 parking spaces, which are located south of Worthing Park and south of the privately owned building known as 110 East Atlantic. The parking is currently available to the public with a limit of two hours and four hours during the business hours depending upon the geographic location. The lot is in need of physical improvement. The intent of the City to offer their property, the parking area only, is to provide a site for a larger development if combined with the CRA property. Howell not consider a sale of their pro__qp_9_~~ 2j22_oser substitutes the public__parking with the same or a greater number of s_paces on Block 77 or in close proximity to the displaced parking spaces. The alleyway separating the 110 East Atlantic building and the City property may not be abandoned unless it is replaced with a similar alley. The alleyway serves as an alternative 2 route for truck traffic which cannot use Atlantic Avenue. The alleyway serves as a delivery route for the 110 East Atlantic building. The City of Delray Beach's intent with Worthing Park is to encourage its redevelopment but retain ownership of the park. E. Aerial Photograph A recent aerial photograph of the area in which Block 77 is located is available at the CRA office. F. Survey The CRA will provide a survey of the properties in the redevelopment area at the proposers request. G. Environmental Audit The CRA will provide a copy of a Phase I environmental audit of the properties being offered for redevelopment. H. Appraisal The CRA will provide a copy of an appraisal for each property in the redevelopment area and for the entire area being considered for redevelopment. The current value of the properties, appraised by Jenkins Appraisal Services, Inc. on November 15, 1997, is $400,000. I. Broker The CRA will pay a commission of 3 % to a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida only if the sale of the property is consummated to the broker's client. The broker must register its client on the enclosed registration form in order to receive a commission. J. Bid Bond The proposer must submit with his proposal a Bid Bond from an acceptable surety or a 3 cash sum represented by a Cashier's Check, or an irrevocable letter of credit, in favor of the CRA in an amount equal to twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). In the event a proposer is selected to negotiate a contract with the CRA, the proposer will be required to submit an additional bid bond, cashier's check or letter of credit in favor of the CRA in an amount equal to twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). The bid bond will be returned after one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of delivery, as stated in Paragraph X, to any proposer who has not been selected to negotiate a contract with the CRA during that period or with any proposer with whom any .negotiations have been terminated. K. Deposit The contract for purchase between the CRA and the successful proposer will require a deposit at the time of execution. The proposer must provide a deposit equal to ten percent (10%) of the purchase price or the appraised value of the property, whichever is the greater. L. Purchasing Alternatives The proposer may choose one or more alternatives of purchasing the properties included in the Request for Proposal. The following describes certain conditions the CRA would require for each alternative: 1. Purchase of Two Properties The prospective purchaser should consider the following: a. Purchase the two properties, described in Paragraph A, in their entirety, "as is," including parking improvements and vacant land as described herein. The purchaser may add to its proposal the inclusion of additional properties in Blocks 77, including but not limited to properties owned or under contract for purchase by the proposer. b. T__he proposer must state how the existing_pg_r~king owned by the City_gf pelray Beach will be replac_ced, including location, number of spaces, and, schedule of completion. The proposer should indicate if temporary public ~e provided during the time the proposer's__project is being. c. The proposer must state the anticipated use of the proposed redevelopment project. The uses must be currently permissible under the City of Delray 4 Beach Land Development Regulations and, in particular, under the Central Business District zoning district's regulations. d. If the proposer anticipates that greater than 50 % use of the project will be residential, then the proposer must submit a market study justifying the feasibility of such use. The study must be performed by a professional engaged in the business of real estate market research and/or commercial real estate appraising. If an appraiser is utilized, then he or she must be licensed by the State of Florida. The study must include the anticipated absorption rate for the project, the anticipated mix of unit types, the projected rent (in case of a rental project), or the projected sales price (in case of a for-sale project). If accessory uses include retail and/or office, then the market study should address the feasibility of including the accessory uses. e. If the proposer anticipates that greater than 50 % use of the project will be office, retail, or a mix of both, then the proposer must show that at least fifty percent (50%) of the project is preleased to financially sound tenants, evidenced in the proposal by bona fide letters of intent signed by interested tenants. The bona fide Letter of Intent is intended to be a third party, arm's length, non-binding Letter of Intent specifying the reasonable conditions under which parties would intend to consummate a lease. The proposer may elect to include a market study stating the feasibility of the project. The study must be performed by a professional engaged in the business of real estate market research. Please note that a market study will not replace the requirement for letters of intent. f. The proposer must submit a site plan of the proposed redevelopment project at a scale of one inch equals thirty feet (1" = 30'). The site plan should include, as a minimum, the location of proposed buildings. Parking, walkways and major landscaping features should be illustrated. If the project is to be built in phases, then a site plan should be submitted for each phase. The site plan should include Worthing Park and any proposed improvements to the park. g. The proposer must submit floor plans of the proposed buildings. At least two architectural elevations must be submitted of the proposed buildings, one fronting Atlantic Avenue and one fronting SE 2nd Avenue. The floor plans and elevations should be drawn at a scale of one inch equals eight feet (1" = 8'). h. The proposer must state the purchase price of the property subject to the terms of a sale and purchase agreement, a form of which is a part of the 5 RFP package and is available at the offices of the CRA. The purchase should state the terms of payment, closing date, and any conditions, contingencies, and additional requirements relating to the purchase not stated in the form purchase and sale agreement. i. The proposer must submit a time schedule for completion of renovations, if any, new building construction, if any, and on-site parking. If the project is to be redeveloped in phases, then the time schedule should reflect the phases. j. The proposer must submit a total project cost analysis stating, by category, the major elements of the redevelopment and their respective costs. The major cost items shall include, as a minimum, land costs, building costs, tenant improvement costs, parking lot costs, landscaping costs, Worthing Park reconstruction costs, other site costs, architectural and engineering costs, and any other significant costs. k. The proposer must submit a financing plan which may include a preliminary financing commitment by a lending institution or other primary source of investment financing and for adequate security acceptable to the CRA (e.g. payment and performance bond, cash deposit, etc.) for the construction of the project. The financing plan must also account for all debt and equity investment required to fund project costs. A firm financing commitment by the sources described above must be provided prior to the award and execution of the contract to a successful proposer. 1. The proposer must submit information which would permit an understanding of the proposer's structure, qualifications, and financial strength as well as those of key project participants. The CRA reserves the right to research the background of each principal with respect to both credit and police records. The proposer must submit a signed consent form as part of their proposal. The consent form is enclosed with this RFP. The following is the minimum information required in the submission for this paragraph. (i) Description of the organizational structure of the proposer (and its parent entity, if it is a subsidiary). (ii) Identification of the proposer's principals, partners, officers or co- venturers, (including names, addresses, telephone and fax numbers, and social security and federal business identification numbers. (iii) Information concerning the relevant experience of the proposer and key project personnel, including listing and description of past projects, role, nature of continuing role and responsibilities. (iv) References for relevant projects. (v) Current audited financial statement and three year history of income and expense for the proposer (and its parent entity, if it is a subsidiary). Information regarding any legal or administrative actions, past or pending, that might impact the capacity of the proposer (or its principals or affiliates) to complete the project must be disclosed. Disclosure of any bankruptcies by any of the above or related entities during the past ten years must be made with the RFP. m. The CRA will require a buy-back provision to be negotiated as a part of the final contract in the event the purchaser fails to complete its obligation for the completion and occupancy of the project within the agreed upon time. n. The proposer should state the number of parking spaces their project intends to provide and if the extent to which the spaces will would be available to the public, either during peak hours and/or during off-peak hours. If the parking will be available for public use, then the proposal should state the terms and conditions including the time of day. 2. Purchase of One Property The prospective purchaser should consider the following: a. Purchase the one property, owned by the CRA, in its entirety, "as is." The purchaser may add to its proposal the inclusion of additional properties in Blocks 77, including but not limited to properties owned by the proposer. b. The proposer must state the anticipated use of the proposed redevelopment project. The uses must be currently permissible under the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations and, in particular, under the Central Business District zoning district's regulations. c. If the proposer anticipates that greater than 50 % use of the project will be residential, then the proposer must submit a market study justifying the feasibility of such use. The study must be performed by a professional engaged in the business of real estate market research and/or commercial real estate appraising. If an appraiser is utilized, then he or she must be licensed by the State of Florida. The study must include the anticipated absorption rate for the project, the anticipated mix of unit types, the projected rent (in case of a rental project), or the projected sales price (in case of a for-sale project). If accessory uses include retail and/or office, then the market study should address the feasibility of including the accessory uses. d. If the proposer anticipates that greater than 50 % use of the project will be office, retail, or a mix of both, then the proposer must show that at least fifty percent (50%) of the project is preleased to financially sound tenants, evidenced in the proposal by bona fide letters of intent signed by interested tenants. The bona fide Letter of Intent is intended to be a third party, arm's length, non-binding Letter of Intent specifying the reasonable conditions under which parties would intend to consummate a lease. The proposer may elect to include a market study stating the feasibility of the project. The study must be performed by a professional engaged in the business of real estate market research. Please note that a market study will not replace the requirement for letters of intent. e. The proposer must submit a site plan of the proposed redevelopment project at a scale of one inch equals thirty feet (1" = 30'). The site plan should include, as a minimum, the location of proposed buildings. Parking, walkways and major landscaping features should be illustrated. If the project is to be built in phases, then a site plan should be submitted for each phase. f. The proposer must submit floor plans of the proposed buildings. At least two architectural elevations must be submitted of the proposed buildings, one fronting Atlantic Avenue and one fronting SE 2nd Avenue. The floor plans and elevations should be drawn at a scale of one inch equals eight feet (1" = 8'). g. The proposer must state the purchase price of the property subject to the terms of a sale and purchase agreement, a form of which is a part of the RFP package and is available at the offices of the CRA. The purchase should state the terms of payment, closing date, and any conditions, contingencies, and additional requirements relating to the purchase not stated in the form purchase and sale agreement. h. The proposer must submit a time schedule for completion of renovations, if any, new building construction, if any, and on-site parking. If the project is to be redeveloped in phases, then the time schedule should reflect the phases. 8 i. The proposer must submit a total project cost analysis stating, by category, the major elements of the redevelopment and their respective costs. The major cost items shall include, as a minimum, land costs, building costs, tenant improvement costs, parking lot costs, landscaping costs, reconstruction costs, other site costs, architectural and engineering costs, and any other significant costs. j. The proposer must submit a financing plan which may include a preliminary financing commitment by a lending institution or other primary source of investment financing and for adequate security acceptable to the CRA (e.g. payment and performance bond, cash deposit, etc.) for the construction of the project. The financing plan must also account for all debt and equity investment required to fund project costs. A firm financing commitment by the sources described above must be provided prior to the award and execution of the contract to a successful proposer. k. The proposer must submit information which would permit an understanding of the proposer's structure, qualifications, and financial strength as well as those of key project participants. The CRA reserves the right to research the background of each principal with respect to both credit and police records. The proposer must submit a signed consent form as part of their proposal. The consent form is enclosed with this RFP. The following is the minimum information required in the submission for this paragraph. (i) Description of the organizational structure of the proposer (and its parent entity, if it is a subsidiary). (ii) Identification of the proposer's principals, parmers, officers or co- venturers , (including names, addresses, telephone and fax numbers, and social security and federal business identification numbers. (iii) Information concerning the relevant experience of the proposer and key project personnel, including listing and description of past projects, role, nature of continuing role and responsibilities. (iv) References for relevant projects. (v) Current audited financial statement and three year history of income and expense for the proposer (and its parent entity, if it is a subsidiary). Information regarding any legal or administrative actions, past or pending, that might impact the capacity of the proposer (or its principals or affiliates) to complete the project must 9 be disclosed. Disclosure of any bankruptcies by any of the above or related entities during the past ten years must be made with the RFP. 1. The CRA will require a buy-back provision to be negotiated as a part of the final contract in the event the purchaser fails to complete its obligation for the completion and occupancy of the project within the agreed upon time. m. The proposer should state the number of parking spaces their project intends to provide and if the extent to which the spaces will would be available to the public, either during peak hours and/or during off-peak hours. If the parking will be available for public use, then the proposal should state the terms and conditions including the time of day. n. The CRA will require a buy-back provision to be negotiated as a part of the final contract in the event the purchaser fails to complete its obligation for the completion and occupancy of the project within the agreed upon time. o. The proposer should state the number of parking spaces their project intends to provide and if the extent to which the spaces will would be available to the public, either during peak hours and/or during off-peak hours. If the parking will be available for public use, then the proposal should state the terms and conditions including the time of day. M. Selection Criteria Factors the CRA will use in evaluating proposals include, but will not be limited to are as follows: 1. The qualifications (experience and capabilities) and financial capacities of the proposer as they would indicate ability to complete the project. 2. The level of direct financial invesWnent required of and return to the CRA from the project. 3. The prospects for market and fmancial feasibility and financibility of the proposed project. 4. The level of commitment and financial strength of proposed prelease tenants, if any. 5. The level of commitment of financing sources. 10 6. The potential tax revenues generated by the project and the project's effect on the CRA's tax increment revenue. 7. The economic impact on other businesses in the downtown. 8. The number and character of new jobs created in the downtown. 9. The number of parking spaces created, including replacement public parking, if choosing the two property alternative, and their abailablility for complimentary downtown use. 10. The extent to which the mix of the proposed land uses supports the other land uses and planning goals of the CRA district. 11. The quality of site planning, landscaping and building design proposed for the project and the quality of proposed improvements to Worthing Park, if applicable. N. Sealed Proposals Sealed proposals must be filed with the CRA at its offices located at 24 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, no later than the ~ day of ,1997, at 12:00 noon and such proposals shall remain irrevocable for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days thereafter. The CRA will review all proposals filed and evaluate the same as to the merit for a successful redevelopment project in conformity with the selection criteria listed in Paragraph L and the redevelopment philosophy and concepts held by the CRA in the CRA's sole discretion. In the event the CRA determines that one or more of the proposals is feasible and is acceptable to further the CRA's redevelopment effort, in conformity with its Community Redevelopment Plan, the CRA may rank the acceptable proposals and elect to proceed with the negotiation of an award of a contract to the top- ranked proposer. The CRA reserves the right to negotiate such terms and conditions with the successful proposer as it deems in the public interest. In the event a contract is not negotiated to the CRA's satisfaction, the CRA may abandon such negotiation, and if it determines it appropriate, to then commence negotiations with the net ranked proposer. All proposers should be familiar with the requirements of Florida Statutes Chapter 163.380 (1994) to which this Request for Proposal is subject. O. Addenda All proposers should register their name, address, and phone number with the CRA at the time of obtaining this Request for Proposal in order to be on the mailing list for any addenda issued by the CRA. 11 P. Right to Withdraw Chapter 163.380 requires that once a contract is negotiated, the same must be filed with the City of Delray Beach Clerk with the Notice of Intent to award such contract thirty (30) days prior to the execution of such contract. The CRA specifically reserves the right to refrain from awarding a contract for the sale of any or all of the subject property to any person and to withdraw from the process and/or negotiations at any time as it determines at its sole discretion. The CRA reserves the right to enter into a contract with any of the proposers on the basis of the impact on redevelopment by the proposed project in the CRA's sole discretion and not necessarily to the proposer offering the highest purchase price. The CRA expressly reserves the right to obtain economic feasibility studies with regard to any or all of the subject proposals. Q. Minimum Offer The CRA will not consider proposals for less than the appraised value of the property. A copy of the appraisal is available upon request. The appraised values are indicated in Paragraph A. R. Site Visits Any interested party may arrange, by appointment, to visit the site. Please call Diane Hervey at the CRA office at (561) 276-8640 for an appointment. S. Interpretations Questions and inquiries concerning the proposal and specification of the solicitation shall be submitted in writing and directed to Mr. Christopher J. Brown, Executive Director, CRA, 24 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 for receipt no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date set for receiving proposals. Oral explanations, information and instructions shall not be considered binding on the CRA. All prospective proposers are encouraged to independently verify the accuracy of any information provided. Neither the CRA nor any of its agents or employees shall be responsible for the accuracy of any oral information provided to any proposer. T. Prebid Conference A prebid conference will be held on and , 1997, at 12 9:30 a.m. at the offices of the CRA at 24 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL (561) 276-8640. U. CRA Offices The CRA is located at 24 North Swimon Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444. The telephone number is (561) 276-8640. The fax number is (561) 276-8558. REGISTRATION OF CLIENT 13 The Community Redevelopment Agency of Delray Beach, Florida, ("CRA") and the City of Delray Beach ("City") own property at 2nd Avenue in Delray Beach, Florida, and intends to sell the property pursuant to a procedure known as "Request for Proposal" wherein imerested purchasers file an intent to acquire the property with the Agency. The CRA will advertise the sale of the property in 1997. The CRA is willing to pay a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida a commission of 3 % of the purchase price in the event the sale in consummated to such broker's client. The licensed real estate broker must register its client on this form as stated below in order to receive a commission at closing. Broker Co-Broker Address Address. Phone No. Phone No. State of Florida License No. State of Florida License No. Date. Date. Purchaser Co-Purchaser Address Address. Phone No. Phone No. Date. Date Acknowledged this __ day of , 1997 by the Community Redevelopment Agency. Christopher J. Brown Executive Director 14 £1T¥ DF DELRI3¥ BEKI£H CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755 Writer's Direct Line: 561/243-7091 DELRAY BEACH MEMORANDUM ~ t O R I O n AII.Ameioa ¢it~ DAT~: November 7, 1997 'llll i y ommiss on 1993 FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney SUBJECT: Tare v, City_ of Delray Beach and Lake Worth Drainage District The purpose of this memorandum is to call for a closed attorney-client session pursuant to Florida Statutes 286.011(8) for the November 11, 1997 City Commission meeting to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the above case. Strict compliance with Florida Statutes Section 286.011(8) is required by law. Therefore, prior to the commencement of the closed attorney-client session the Mayor should read the following: "The City has scheduled a closed attorney-client session pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 286.011(8) in the case of Stanley Tate vs. the City of Delray Beach and Lake Worth Drainage District. The estimated length of the closed session shall be 15 minutes. The following persons will be attending: Mayor Jay Alperin, Commissioners David Randolph, David Schmidt, Ken Ellingsworth, and Kevin Egan, David Harden, City Manager, City Attorney Susan Ruby, Assistant City Attorney David Tolces, Bill Doney, lawyer for the City, 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 November 11, 1997 and that the agenda item include the name of the case, the names set forth above of those persons attending the session, and identify the item as a closed door session pursuant to Florida Statute 286.011. Our office will arrange for a court reporter to be present as required by statute. Attached is a copy of Fla. Stat. 286.011. In addition, please place a separate item on the agenda entitled, "Settlement of Tatev. City of ~h and Lake Worth Drainage District", cc: David Harden, City Manager Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk / David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Bill Doney, Esq. FSA § 2S6.01 i. l~ablic meetings ~ncl records: public inspection: criminal md civil penalties Page 1 '29301 West's F.S.A. § 286.011 degree, punishab[e as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. WEST'S FLORIDA STATUTES A~NiN'OTATED (c). Conduct which occurs outside the state TITLE ~ PUBLIC BUSINESS which would constitute a knowing violation of CI:IAPTER 286. PUBLIC this section is a misdemeanor of the second BUSI?~ESS; M~ISCELLANEOUS de=re'ce, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or PROVISIONS s. 775.083. (4) W'henever an action has been filed against Current through En~t of I996 2nd Reg. Se. ss. any board or commission of any state agency or authority, or any agency or authority, of any 286.{)11. Public meetings and records: county., municipal corporation, or political public inspection; criminal and civil subdivision to enforce the provisions of this penalties section or to invalidate the actions of any such board, commission, agency, or authority, which (I) All meetings of any board or commission action was taken in violation of this section, and of any state agency or authority or of any the court determines that the defendant or agency or authority of any county., municipal defendants to such action acted in violation of corporation, or political subdivision, except as this section, the court shall assess a reasonable otherwise provided in the Constitution, at which attorney's fee against such agency, and may official ac:s are to be taken are declared to be assess a reasonable attorney's fee against the public meetings open to the public at all times, individual filing such an action if the court finds and no resolution, rule, or formal action shall be it was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. Any considered binding except as taken or made at fees so assessed may be assessed against the such meeting. The board or commission must individual member or members of such board or provide reasonable notice of all such meetings, commission: provided, that in any case where the board or commission seeks the advice of its (2) The minutes of a meeting of any such attorney and such advice is followed, no such board or commission of any such state agency fees shall be assessed against the individual or authority, shall be promptly recorded, and member or members of the board or such records shall be open to public inspection, commission. However, this subsection shall not The circuit courts of this state shall have apply to a state attorney or his or her duly jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the authorized assistants or any officer charged with purposes of this section upon application by any enforcing the provisions of this section. citizen of this state. *29302 (5) Whenever any board or (3)(a) Any public officer who violates any commission of any state agency or authority, or provision of this section is guilty of a any agency or authority of any county., noncriminal infraction, punishable by fine not municipal corporation, or political subdivision exceeding 5500. appeals any court order which has found said board, commission, agency, or authorit3' to have (b) Any person who is a member of a board or violated this section, and such order is affirmed, commission or of any state agency or authority the court shall assess a reasonable attorney's fee of any counry, municipal corporation, or for the appeal against such board, commission, political subdivision who knowingly violates the agency, or authority.. Any fees so assessed may provisions of this section by attending a meeting be assessed against the individual member or not held in accordance with the provisions members of such board or commission; hereof is guilty, of a misdemeanor of the second provided, that in any case where the board or Copyright (c) West Group 1997 No c!aim to original U.S. Govt. works FSA § 286.011. Public mee:ings and records: public inspection: criminal and civil penalties Page 2 commission seeks the advice of its attorney and No portion of the session shall be offthe record. such advice is followed, no such fees shall be The court reporter's notes shall be fully assessed against the individual member or transcribed and flied with the enfi.ry's clerk members of. the board or commission, within a reasonable time after the meeting. (6) All persons subject to subsection (I) are (d) The entity, shall give reasonable public prohibited from holding meetings at any facility, notice of the time and date of the attorney-client or location which discriminates on the basis of session and the names of persons who will be se~ age. race. creed, color, origin, or economic attending the session. The session shall status or which operates in such a manner as to commence at an open meeting at which the unreasonably restrict public access to such a persons chairing the meeting shall announce the facility., commencement and estimated length of the attorney-client session and the names of the (7) Whenever any member of any board or persons attending. At the conclusion of the commission of any state agency or authoriLy or attorney-client session, the meeting shall be any agency or authority, of any county., reopened, and the person chairing the meeting municipal corporation, or political subdivision shall announce the termination of the session. is charged with a violation of this section and is subsequently acquitted, the board or (e) The transcript shall be made part of the commission is authorized to reimburse said public record upon conclusion of the litigation. member for any portion of his or her reasonable '29303 attorney's fees. CRO 1 ,,,J (g) Notwithstanding the provisions of CREDIT(S) subsection fl), any board or commission of any 1997 Electronic Update state agency or authority, or any agency or authority of any county., municipal corporation. CROI Amended by Lm~,s 1991. c. 91-224, ~ 33: Laws or political subdivision, and the chief 1993. c. 93.232, ~ I. eft. June $0, 1993: Laws 1995. c. administrative or executive officer of' the 95.148, ~ 210, eft. July 10. 1995: Laws 1995, c. 95-355. ~ governmental entity., may meet in private with I. eft. June 17, 1995. the enti~'s attorney to discuss pending litigation < <For additional credits, if any, see I'[i~torical Note to which the entity, is presently a party before a court or administrative agency, provided that the field.>> following conditions are met: HISTORICAL NOTES (a) The entity's attorney shall advise the endty O( HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES at a public meeting that he or she desires advice concerning the litigation. 1997 Electronic Update (b) The subject matter of the meeting shall be Laws 1991. c. 91-224, a reviser's bill modified conHned to settlement negotiations or strategy provisions for punishment of misdemeanors as contained in sessions related to litigation expenditures, this secxion by deleting reference to punishment pursuant - to .~ 775.084 to conform with Laws 1988. c. 88-1.31 which deleted all references to misdemeanors imm § 775.084. (c) Thc ~ntire session shall be recorded by a certiHud cnurt reporter. The reporter shall Laws 1993, c. 93-2.32. § I. eft. June 30. 1993. added record thc times of commencement and subsec. (8~. terminati.n ct' the session, all discussion and Laws 1995. c. 95-148. a reviser's bill. removed gender- procccdint.3s, the names of all persons present at specific references applicable to human beings without any time, and tile names of all persons speaking, substantive changes in legal effect. Copyright (c) West Group I997 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works