The URL can be used to link to this page

02-06-96 Regular DFI. RA¥ BEACH CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ~ COMMISSION CHAMBERS The City will furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or acti- vity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph 243-7127 (voice), or 243-7199 (TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. RULES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: The public is encouraged to offer comments with the order of presentation being as follows: City Staff, public comments, Commission discussion and official action. City Commission meetings are business meetings and the right to limit discussion rests with the Commission. Generally, remarks by an individual will be limited to three minutes or less, (10 minutes for group presentations). The Mayor or presiding officer has discretion to adjust the amount of time allocated. A. Public Hearings: Any citizen is entitled to speak on items under this section. B. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public: Any citizen is entitled to be heard concerning any matter within the scope of jurisdiction of the Commission under this section. The Commission may withhold comment or direct the City Manager to take action on requests or comments. C. Regular Agenda and First Reading Items: When extraordinary circumstances or reasons exist and at the discretion of the Commission, citizens may speak on any official agenda item under these sections. 2. SIGN IN SHEET: Prior to the start of the Commission Meeting, individuals wishing to address public hearing or non-agendaed items should sign in on the sheet located on the right side of the dais. If you are not able to do so prior to the 'start of the meeting, you may still address the Commission on an appropriate item. The primary purpose of the sign-in sheet is to assist staff with record keeping. Therefore, when you come up to the podium to speak, please complete the sign-in sheet if you have not already done so. 3. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION: At the appropriate time, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. All comments must be addressed to the Commission as a body and not to individuals. Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the Commission shall be barred by the presiding officer from speaking further to the Commission unless permission to continue or again address the Commission is granted by majority vote of the Commission member present. Regular Commission Meeting February 6, 1996 APPELLATE PROCEDURES 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. AGENDA 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation. 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 4. Agenda Approval. Action: Motion to Approve. 5. Approval of Minutes: Regular Meeting of January 23, 1996 6. Proclamations: A. OF NOTE: American Red Cross Month - March 1996 7. Presentations: A. Annual Financial Report by Ernst & Young 8. Consent Agenda: City Manager recommends approval. A. AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO HANDLE ABSENTEE BALLOTS FOR THE FIRST NONPARTISAN ELECTION: Authorize Supervisor of Elections to handle and canvass absentee ballots and represent the City at Logic and Accuracy tests for the March 12, 1996, first nonpartisan election. B. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/PINE GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLAYGROUND: Approve the agreement between Palm Beach County, the School Board of Palm Beach County and the City of Delray Beach for Phase I Design and Construction of the Pine Grove Elementary School Park/Playground. C. GRANT APPLICATION/FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE: Authorize the City to submit an application to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Comunity Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program (80/20 matching grant) to replace funds cut from the Children's Services Council for the After School Program. -2- Regular Commission Meeting February 6, 1996 D. 1996 BUD LIGHT PRO/AM BEACH VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT: Approve changing the date of the 1996 Bud Light Pro/Am Beach Volleyball Tournament from March 23-24 to April 20-21, 1996. E. RATIFICATION OF SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL BOARD EXPENDITURES: Ratify various expenditures approved by the SCRWTD Board at its meeting of January 18, 1996. F. RESOLUTION NO. 11-96: Approve a resolution assessing costs for abatement action required to remove nuisances on 22 properties throughout the City. G. ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT DEED FROM 1045 BUILDING PARTNERSHIP: Accept an easement deed from 1045 Building Partnership for a utility easement over the south 8 feet of Lot 7, Seabreeze Park, for the installation of a 6" water main to serve the tenants of the 1045 Building. RESOLUTION NO. 12-96/UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Approve a resolution authorizing the Director of Environmental Services to enter into an agreement with FDOT for utility relocation or adjustments associated with FDOT's resurfacing of State Road 5 (U.S. #1) in the north end of the city. I. PINEAPPLE GROVE SUBSTATION LEASE: Approve the lease of property at 189 N.E. 2nd Avenue for use as a Police substation in the Pineapple Grove area. The term is for one year at the rate of $1.00 per month rent. J. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/~IARBOR CLUB REPLAT: Approve the final plat for Harbor Club Replat, a 14 unit fee simple townhouse development. The subject property contains 1.4 acres and is located on the west side of Florida Boulevard, between LaMat Avenue and Avenue "L". K. EMERGENCY REPAIRS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES/JOHNSON YOKOGAWA CORPORATION: Approve emergency repairs and professional services to the Program Logic Computers hardware that drives the Water Treatment Plant. L. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Receive and file the report of appealable actions made by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board during the period January 22 through February 2, 1996. M. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Bid award to Rust Off, Inc. for anti-rust chemical maintenance in City irrigation systems for a three year term, in an estimated annual amount of $34,000 from 119-4144-572-52.21, 001-4121-572-52.21, 001-4127-572- 52.21, and 001-4511-539-52.21. Regular Commission Meeting February 6, 1996 2. Bid award to Walcott and Sons for nuisance abatement lot clearing and mowing, at an estimated annual cost of $16,900 from 001-2741-524-34.30. 3. Bid award to Precision Solar Controls, Inc. for the purchase of a Solar Mobile Traffic Monitor for the Police Department, in the amount of $12,294 from 115-2112-521- 49.90. 4. Contract renewal for Vulcan Peroxidation Systems, Inc. for odor control services in the City wastewater system. Vulcan is proposing a contract increase in Hydrogen Peroxide from $3.74 to $4.00/gal, for an estimated annual amount of $125.120, from 441-5144-536-52.21. 5. Bid award to Marandola Construction, Inc. for the N.E. 1st Court utility improvements, in the amount of $134,800 from 228-3162-541-61.19, 442-5178-536-61.78, and 442-5178-5360- 61.37. 6. Contract award for construction of Phase I of an Aquifer Storage & Recovery facility at the North Reservoir site to Youngquist Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $855,290 from 440-5179-536-69.18. 7. Purchase of six (6) Gateway P5 - 120 Mhz computers with appurtenant token ring adaptors, cables, software and licenses from Gateway 2000 to complete Environmental Services Department computer upgrade program. Funding in the amount of $16,198.68 is available from 442-5178-536- 64.11. 8. Bid award for demolition of a structure located at 2300 N. Seacrest Boulevard to JJR Construction, at a cost of $22,900 from 001-6111-519-62.10. 9. Regular Agenda: A. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST/TURNER OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT: Consider a request for conditional use approval to allow the sale of all terrain vehicles and waverunners at Turner Outdoor Equipment, 2507 North Federal Highway. The subject property is zoned GC (General Commercial) district and contains 0.73 acres. QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING B. APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD ACTION: Consider an appeal of a waiver granted by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board at its meeting of January 10, 1996, to not require installation of a sidewalk along the east side of Gleason Street in conjunction with the Gleason Street Townhomes project. QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING C. 1. ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR CONTINUING SERVICES CONTRACTS: Consider approving the Selection Committee's list of five architectural firms to be used for continuing --4-- Regular Commission Meeting February 6, 1996 services, and authorize staff to prepare the appropriate agreements. 2. Interview and rank the top three firms; authorize staff to negotiate Service Authorization #1 with the top ranked firm for the City Hall Envelope Project, and negotiate Service Authorization #1 with the second ranked firm for the City Hall and Community Center Energy Audit Evaluation. By random selection, the order of interviews will be: ** Slattery & Root Architects ** MPA Architects, Inc. ** Robert G. Currie Partnership, Inc. D. CRC RECOVERY FOUNDATION REQUEST FOR EXTENSION: Consider a request from The CRC Recovery Foundation, Inc. to extend the note payment schedule on the property bought by the Foundation on August 31, 1995. E. ADOPTION OF MANDATORY IMPACT-RESISTANT PROTECTIVE DEVICES/PALM BEACH COUNTY BUILDING CODE ADVISORY BOARD: Consider recom- mending that Palm Beach County adopt codes for mandatory impact-resistant protective devices (windows and/or shutters) as recommended by the Building Code Advisory Board of Palm Beach County. F. PROPOSAL FOR A CITY MUSEUM/SOLOMON D. SPADY HOUSE: Consider a planning report by the EPOCH Committee (Expanding and Preser- ving Our Cultural Heritage) for the creation of another Historic District and for a Museum in the S.D. Spady House. G. APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Appoint a regular member to the Board of Adjustment to fill an unexpired term ending August 31, 1996. Commissioner Ellingsworth's appointment. H. APPOINTMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: Appoint a member to the Downtown Development Authority to fill an unexpired term ending July 1, 1997. Mayor Lynch's appointment. 10. Public Hearings: A. ORDINANCE NO. 7-96: An ordinance rezoning a 7.84 acre parcel of land from R-1-A (Single Family Residential) District to CF (Community Facilities) District for the Full Gospel Assembly Church. The ~ubject property is located at the southwest corner of S.W. 10th Street and Swinton Avenue. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING B. DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION HEARING FOR WATERFORD PLACE/DELINT DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI): PUBLIC HEARING to determine if the proposed change to the Waterford Place/Delint Development of Regional Impact (DRI) creates a Regular Commission Meeting February 6, 1996 substantial deviation requiring further development of regional impact review. C. ORDINANCE NO. 10-96: TRANSMITTAL HEARING/FIRST READING for an ordinance changing the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation from Commerce to Medium Density Residential (5-12 du/acre) (approximately 31 acres), and from Commerce to Transitional (approximately 4 acres), for a portion of the Waterford Place/ Delint Development of Regional Impact (DRI) located south of Linton Boulevard, between Interstate-95 and Lindell Boulevard. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING 11. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public- Immediately following Public Hearings. A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. B. Prom the Public. 12. First Readings: A. ORDINANCE NO. 11-96: An ordinance modifying the approved Waterford Place/Delint Special Activities District (SAD) to replace 322,413 square feet of office space with a 300 unit apartment complex and a 78 room residence/business hotel; and consideration of associated changes to the Development of Regional Impact - Development Order (DRI-DO). B. ORDINANCE NO. 9-96: An ordinance rezoning a 0.91 acre parcel of land from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District-Railroad Corridor). The subject property is located at the southeast corner of S.E. 1st Avenue and unimproved S.E. 6th Street, west of the F.E.C. Railway. If passed, quasi-judicial/public hearing February 20, 1996. C. ORDINANCE NO. 12-96: An ordinance amending Chapter 35, "Employee Policies and Benefits", "Retirement Plan", of the City Code by amending subsection (D), "Employee", of Section 35.089, "Definitions" If passed, public hearing February 20, 1996. 13. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items. A. City Manager B. City Attorney C. City Commission WHEREAS, the American Red Cross is one of the largest and oldest social service organizations in America; and WHEREAS, volunteers and financial contributions are needed more now than ever before to meet the needs of our citizens; and WHEREAS, the Red Cross is mandated by an Act of Congress to perform two vital functions for our nation; service to military families and disaster relief (including fire, flooding, and hurricanes); and WHEREAS, volunteers make it possible for the Red Cross to collect and provide blood to the ill and injured, provide emergency assistance to disaster victims and to respond to the emergency needs of armed forces personnel and their families and dependents; and WHEREAS, Red Cross volunteers conduct thousands of courses in health and safety and the Palm Beach County Chapter offers training in first aid and CFR, and HIV/AIDS education in our community; and WHEREAS, William Clinton, President of the United States, has proclaimed the month of March, 1996, as American Red Cross Month. NOW, THEREFORE, I, THOMAS E. LYNCH, Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on behalf of the City Commission, do hereby proclaim March 1996 as RED CROSS MONTH in the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and urge all residents to donate their time and their resources to support Red Cross activities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed this 6th day of February, 1996. MAYOR THOMAS E. LYNCH SEAL MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS ROM:CIT 1 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~'~' -MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 AUTHORIZATION FOR SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO HANDLE AND CANVASS ABSENTEE BALLOTS AND REPRESENT THE CITY AT LOGIC AND ACCURACY TESTS FOR FIRST NONPARTISAN ELECTION DATE: January 29, 1996 This is before the Commission to authorize Jackie Winchester, Supervisor of Elections for Palm Beach County, to handle the City's absentee ballots for the March 12, 1996, First Nonpartisan Election. The Supervisor of Elections' office is equipped with a computerized system for monitoring all requests for absentee ballots, including those mailed and those done on a walk-in basis, as well as electronic signature verification. Her office insures the absentee ballots are held in safekeeping prior to canvassing. Mrs. Winchester should also be authorized to represent the City at the canvassing of absentee ballots. It is further recommended that the Supervisor of Elections be designated to represent the City's canvassing board at the Logic and Accuracy (L&A) testing of the electronic tabulating equipment. The L&A tests will be conducted on Friday, March 8, 1996, at 10:30 a.m., as well as on election day both before and after counting of the ballots, at both the South County and West Palm Beach election office sites. Recommend the Supervisor of Elections of Palm Beach County be authorized to handle and canvass the City's absentee ballots for the March 12, 1996, First Nonpartisan Election, and also be designated to represent the City at the requisite Logic and Accuracy testing of equipment. £1TY OF DELRI:IY BEACH DELRAY BEACH ~1~ 100 N,W. 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 · 407/243-7000 AII-AmericaCity 1993 TO: David T. Harden, City Manager FROM: ,,~obert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Agenda Item # ~'City Commission Meeting, February 6, 1996 Approval Agreement Palm Beach County/Pine Grove Elementary School DATE: January 30, 1996 ACTION City Commission is requested to approve an agreement with Palm Beach County for phase I construction and design for the Pine Grove Elementary School Park/Playground project. BACKGROUND Commission approved an agreement with the School Board for this project in September, 1995. The County is also requiring a td-party agreement for this project which sets forth uses of the County funds, use of the facilities, and td-party responsibilities. The total estimated cost has been adjusted to $129,850, the total of contributions from all three government agencies. The agreement is structured so that the total of $40,000 is reimbursable from the County. If the project costs exceed the estimated cost, we would look to scale back the project. The School Board has already spent the $44,850 for playground equipment and we are storing it for them. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the agreement with Palm Beach County for phase I construction and design for the Pine Grove Elementary School Park/Playground project. THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS Printed on Recycled, a~er Board of County Commissioners County Administrator Ken L. Foster, Chairman Robert Weisman Burr Aaronson, Vice Chairman Karen t. Marcus A: ~ OCT ~ 8 t9~ Parks and Recreation Carol A. Roberts ~;~ Department of Warren H. Newell Mary McCarty ~ Maude Ford Lee October 11, 1995 Mr. Bob Barcinski Assistant City Manager City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, F1 33444 REt PINE OROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AOREEMENT Dear Mr. Barcinski= Attached are three originals of the Pine Orove Elementary School Park/Playground Agreement for execution by the City of Delray Beach and the School Board. Please add Exhibit B, a site plan and location map, to the Agreements. After Delray Beach has executed the Agreement, please coordinate with the School Board to obtain signature. Please make sure that either you or the School Board return all three Agreements directly to Susan Yinger, Contract/Orant Coordinator, so that we can have them executed by the Board of County Commissioners. We will then forward fully executed originals to you and to the School Board. If you have any questions on the Agreement, please contact Susan Yinger at 966-6653. Sincerely, ~ Dennis L. Eshleman, Director Parks and Recreation Department Copy to: Commissioner Mary McCarty Bill Wilsher "An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer" ~printedonrocycledpapor 2700 6th Avenue South Lake Worth, Florida 33461 (407) 966-6600 FAX: (407) 642-2640 [IT¥ I]F I]ELlllt¥ CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE W~ter's Direct L~c: (~ 243-7~1 DELRAY BEACH llI.A~ca City ~MORA~ DATE: Januau 19, 1996 199~ TO: David Harden, Ci~ Manager Bob Bamins~, Assistant Ci~ Manager FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney SUBJECT: Pine Grove Elementary School Park Interlocal Agreement Between Coun _ty SchoOl Board and the City. I have reviewed the above-stated agreement and make the following comment: The agreement states that the estimated cost of the project is $135,000.00. The County agrees to pay up to $40,000.00 (based on' listed invoices), the School Board is to fund up to $44,850.00 toward the project and the City agrees to fund up to $45,000.00. The total amount to be paid by the parties is $129,850.00. This amount does not meet the $135,000.00 estimated cost. The agreement does not state who shall pay the costs in excess of the committed costs if the actual costs exceeds the committed amounts. Further, it is not apparent in the agreement how the parties would allocate the cost sharing responsibilities between the parties if the cost was less than the amount projected. you h>a.y.e,~a~questions, please If call. cc: Barbara Gar'ito, Deput:¥ ¢±~:¥ Clerk pinepark.sar Pr~m;d;!n IlocycledPaper AGREEMENT BETWEEN PALM BEACH COUNTY, THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FOR PHASE I DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PINE GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARK/PLAYGROUND THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1995, by and between Palm Beach County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County", the School Board of Palm Beach County, a corporate body politic pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "School Board", and the City of Delray Beach, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Delray Beach" . WITNES SETH: WHEREAS, School Board owns and operates Pine Grove Elementary School which is located in the City of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, School Board has purchased land adjacent to Pine Grove Elementary School for a park/playground; and WHEREAS, Delray Beach desires to perform Phase I design and construction of a multi-use playground, a hard court area, an open play field, and fencing at Pine Grove Elementary School, hereinafter referred to as "the Project"; and WHEREAS,_. the total estimated cost of the Project is approximately ST-3w~ toward which the School Board has committed $44,850 and Delray Beach has committed $45,000; and WHEREAS, School Board and Delray Beach have requested that the County contribute an amount of up to $40,000 for the Project; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 1994, County approved funding of up to $200,000 per Commission District to be made available for recreation projects, and this project represents funding from the District 4 allocation; and WHEREAS, the Project shall be open to and benefit all residents of Palm Beach County for recreational use during after school hours; and WHEREAS, County, School Board, and Delray Beach desire to enter into this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises contained herein, the parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. County agrees to fund an amount not to exceed $40,000 for construction of the Project with improvements to include a multi- use playground, a hard court play area, an open play field, and fencing. 2. County will use its best efforts to provide said funds to Delray Beach on a reimbursement basis within thirty (30) days of receipt of the following information: a. A written statement that the Project has been completed; and b. A Contract Payment Request Form and a Contractual Services Purchases Schedule Form, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A", which are required for said reimbursement requested by Delray Beach. Said information shall list each invoice as paid by Delray Beach and shall include the vendor invoice number; invoice date; and the amount paid by Delray Beach along with the number and date of the respective check for said payment. Delray Beach shall attach a copy of each vendor invoice paid by Delray Beach and shall make reference thereof to the applicable item listed on the Contractual Services Purchases Schedule Form. Further, Delray Beach's Project Administrator and Project Financial Officer shall certify the total funds spent by Delray Beach on the Project and shall also certify that each vendor invoice as listed on the Contractual Services Purchase Schedule Form was paid by Delray Beach as indicated. 3. Delray Beach agrees to fund an amount of up to $45,000 for design and construction of the Project. 4. School Board agrees to fund an amount of up to $44,850 toward the Project. 5. School Board warrants that the Project, as depicted on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall be open to the Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation Department, the City of Delray Beach, and the general public at reasonable times except during normal day time school hours or when being used by the School Board for its activity programs. The School Board further agrees that the Project will be open on a non-discriminatory basis regardless of residency, race, color, religion, disability, sex, age, national original, ancestry, marital status, or sexual orientation. 6. Delray Beach is responsible for the design, construction and otherwise completion of the Project and shall complete same on or before one (1) year from the date of execution of this Agreement by the parties hereto. Within sixty (60) days of Project completion, Delray Beach shall provide accounting data to County for the Project. Upon written notification to County, at least thirty (30) days prior to that date, Delray Beach may request an extension beyond this period for the purpose of completing the Project. County shall not unreasonably deny Delray Beach's request for said extension. 7. School Board and/or Delray Beach shall be responsible for all costs of operation and maintenance of the Project. 8. The term of this Agreement shall be for ten (10) years commencing upon the date of execution by the parties hereto. 9. The parties may pursue any and all actions available under law to enforce this Agreement including, but not limited to, actions arising from the breach of any provision set forth herein. This Agreement shall not be construed against the County. 10. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida and any and all legal action necessary to enforce this Agreement shall be held in Palm Beach'County. In the event any action, suit .or proceeding is commenced with respect to interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs, expenses and fees, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by such party in connection therewith. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have signed this Agreement on the date first above written. ATTEST: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOROTHY H. WILKEN, Clerk By: By: Deputy Clerk Chair WITNESSES= SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY By: Chair ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH By: By: Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By: County Attorney PALM BEACH COUNTY Exhibit A PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONTRACT PAYMENT REQUEST (Date) (Grantee) (Project) Billing Period Billing # Project Costs Cummulative Project This Billing Costs Contractual Service Salaries and Wages Employee Benefits ( % of Salaries) Materials Supplies Direct Purchases Grantee Stock Equipment Travel Donated Real Property Indirect Costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS Certification: I hereby certify that Certification: I hereby certify that the above expenses were incurred for the documentation has been maintained the work identified as being accom~ as required to support the project plished in the attached progress expenses reported above and is avail- reports, able for audit upon request. Administrator/Date Financial Officer/Date PBC USE ONLY County Funding Participation Total project costs to date $ County obligation ko date $ County retainage (__%) ( ) County funds previously disbursed ( ) County funds due this billing $ Reviewed and Approved by: PBC Project Administrator/Date Department Director/Date 1of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER~ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~'~' - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 GRANT APPLICATION/FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is before the Commission to authorize the City to submit an application to the Comunity Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program (80/20 matching grant) for the After School Program, to replace funds cut from the Children's Services Council grant. This is a cooperative effort between the Parks and Recreation and the Police Departments. The City is requesting $60,000 in grant funds. The $12,000 in matching funds will come from in-kind services and other miscellaneous funding sources; i.e., Title XX, corporate sponsors, registrations fees, etc., to restore the enrollment capacity back to the original 400 children. Recommend authorization to submit an application to the Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program for the After School Program. Agenda Item No.: ~'~' AGENDA REQUEST Date: January 22, 1996 Request to be placed on: X Regular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda When: February 6, 1996 Description of.agenda item (who, what, where, how much): Request approval to submit a grant application to Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Gommunicy Juvenile Partnership Grant Program to obtain funds to assist in our After School Program to help replace some of the funding that was lost from Children's Services Council. This is an 80/20 matching grant. We are requesting $60,000 with $12,000 in match to restore the enrollment capacity back to 400 children. ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES~ Draft Attached: YES/NO Recommendation: Approval. Department Head Signature: _ _ v~ Determination of Consistency wi Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: YES/ NO Funding alternatives: (if applicable) Account No. & Description: Account Balance: City Manager Review: Approved for agenda: / NO ~__ Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved/Disapproved [lTV JIF I]ELAI:IY BEI:I£H ~ 100 N.W. 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 · 407/243-7000 AII-AmericaCity 1993 TO: David Harden, City Manager FROM: Joe Weldon, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Grant Application to the Florida Department. of Juvenile Just.ice DATE: January 24, 1996 We wish to make application under the Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program to obtain funds to assist in our After School Program. Due to funding cuts from the Children's Services Council, we are seeking other funding sources to replace this cutback. This is a cooperative effort between the Parks and Recreation Department and the Police Department. We are also asking for input and letters of support from various community groups and have asked Doug Randolph to assist in preparing the application. This is an 80/20 matching grant. The 20% may be in-kind. We are requesting $60,000 in grant funds. The $12,000 in match will come from in-kind services and other miscellaneous funding sources we are currently exploring, i.e. Title XX, corporate sponsors, registration fees, etc. This $60,000 would enable Parks and Recreation to service 400 elementary school age children in its After School Program which was the total enrollment before reductions in the grant from the Children's Services Council. I am asking that this be placed on the February 6, 1996 agenda for City Commission consideration. Jo~el~-on, ~rector of Parks and Recreation Re f .Wgrantapp THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS Pdnt~d on Recycled Pa~f STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE December 6, 1995 Dear Grant Applicant: The Department of Juvenile Justice is pleased to provide you with an application package for a Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant for the 1996-97 funding cycle, Approximately $5 million is available for 1996-97 grant awards. The Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program was established by the Legislature to actively address the problem of juvenile crime in Florida. The program encourages the development of local partnerships between law enforcement, public schools, the Department of Juvenile Justice, and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in providing programs that prevent juvenile crime. Priority will be given to programs that target juveniles from the ages of 10-17, and that provide services intended to reduce truancy, suspensions and expulsions; programs that enhance school safety; and programs that reduce juvenile crime by providing direct services for "at-risk" and/or delinquent youth. One original and six complete copies of the grant application must be received by the Department of Juvenile Justice Headquarters no later than February 15, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. It is anticipated that grant awards will be announced by May 15, 1996. Enclosed in this application package are the materials and instructions necessary for the completion of the grant application. Read, ahd follow all instructions carefully to ensure that the proposal meets all requirements for an eligible grant application. All questions pertaining to the grant application will only be answered at the technical assistance workshops and/or in writing. All written questions must be received in this office by January 20, 1996 and answers to all questions will be mailed out by January 30, 1996. Sincerely ARTHUR F. MAINWOOD Chief Administrator Attachments 2737 CENTERVIEW DRIVE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-3'100 LAWTON CHILES, GOVERNOR CALVIN ROSS, SECRETARY Information for the Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Application Package 1. Backeround The Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant (CJJPG) program was established by the Legislature to actively address the problem of juvenile crime in Florida. The program encourages the development of partnerships between law enforcement, public schools, the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in providing juvenile crime prevention programs in Florida communities. Priority will be given to programs that target juveniles from the ages of 10-17, and that provide services intended to reduce truancy, suspensions and expulsions; programs t.h_at enhance school safety; and programs that reduce juvenile crime by providing direct services for "at-risk" and/or delinquent youth. The funding cycle runs from July I through June 30 annually. 2. Who May Apply Local and community-based organizations, including those currently funded, are eligible to apply for partnership grant funds. While boards and councils are involved in addressing community needs and planning services, they are also directly involved in recommending awards of the partnership grant funds. For this reason, the boards and councils are not eligible to apply for or receive partnership grant funds. District ofrices of the Department of Juvenile Justice are ineligible to apply for partnership grants. 3, Writtcr~ Interagency Partnership Agreement As required by statute, the application form must be accompanied by a written Interagency Agreement. The agreement must be signed by each partner to the grant, and must explain how each partner will cooperate, collaborate, and share information. At a minimum, the agreement must be signed by representatives of local public schools, local law enforcement, the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Letters of support are not acceptable in lieu of a written interagency agreement. 4. Questions Regarding the Grant Application Questions regarding the grant application may be submitted to this office in writing and/or asked at the technical assistance workshops. The Department of Juvenile Justice will not answer questions regarding the grant application by telephone. Questions regarding the application may be fa. xed to (904) 922-6189 or Suncom 292-6189. The fa,xed questions should be marked Attention Partnership Grant Program. All questions regarding the grant application must be received by Janu.axy 20, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time in the Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Office. Mail all questions to: The Department of Juvenile Justice, The Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program, 2737 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100. The Department will provide written answers to all questions and they will be mailed out by January 30, 1996. 5, Grant Award Amount & Di.s. tribution The funds will be allocated by county, based on the percentage of youths age 10-17. Counties will be allocated a dollar amount rather than a number of grants, with a minimum of $10,000 and a maximum of $100,000 may be requested for any one grant. Although the maximum grant award is $100,000, applicants are encouraged to request only the. amount of funds that are essential to the success of a program. 6. Evaluation Criteria The evaluation criteria, developed by the department, will address statutory requirements for awarding the funds, requirements for programs to provide direct services for "at-risk" and/or delinquent youth and the requirement for funding recommendations are to be consistent with county and district juvenile justice plans. The county councils will make their final selections on the grant applications for their area, based on the established criteria. The district ~'. ~',~d will be responsible for assuring that all applications from Information con't. page 2 the ~istrict are consistent with the county and district juvenile justice plans. The board will only make funding recommendations for projects that cross county lines and/or if the county council did not make recommendations for their county. 7, Matching Contribution Section 39.025 (9)., requires that each applicant make a cash and/or in-kind contribution to the program worth at least 20% of the requested CJJPG funds. 8. Continuation Programs Although an applicant may currently receive funds for a 1995-96 grant, a 1996-97 grant application must be completed in its entirety. Applicants for continuation funding must answer all questions in full. Do not refer to a previous grant application to answer a question on this application. Applicants for continued funding must be in compliance with the current year contract requirements and must provide a copy of the Semi-Annual Evaluation Report of their current year program. 9, Submission Instructions a. A complete application package is one which contains all of the required documents listed below · with signatures affixed: · Completed Grant Application · Written Interagency Agreement · Semi-Annual Evaluation Report (required only if applicants received CJJPG funding in 1995-96 and who are applying for 1996-97 continuation funding) · Signed Certification on Page 1 of the grant application · Signed Technical Requirement Checklist · Signed Disallowed Expenditures Section (I) · Signed Certification of Assurances · Description of Organization, a Copy of its Current Budget, and a List of the Board of Directors b. The original application ar/d six copies for a total of seven (7) applications must be received in one envelope by 5:00 p.m. East~'rn Standard Time on February 15, 1996 in the CJJPG program office in Tallahassee. Late applications will not be considered. Mail applications to: Department of Juvenile Justice Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Note: This office will not accept any application in a folder or ring binder. Applications packet should be stapled together. This office will not accept replacement pages for the application after the application has been submitted. Additionally, do not submit pictures, letters of support or newspaper articles as part of the grant application. c. The applicant should retain one (1) copy of the grant application in their files. d. It is anticipated that applicants will be notified by the Department of Juvenile Justice of the status of their application by May 15, 1996. Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Evaluation Criteria The ~munity Juvenile Justice Partnership Grants will be evaluated and ranked by the County Juvenile Justice Council and reviewed by the District Juvenile Justice Board for consistency with the Juvenile Justice Plan. If the County Council chooses not to evaluate and rank the grant proposal, the District Juvenile Justice Board will evaluate and rank the grant proposal. In the event that the County Council and the District Board choose not to evaluate and rank the grant proposal, the Department of Juvenile Justice will evaluate and decide the grant award. The evaluation process will be as follows: I. Receipt of grant proposals by the Department of Juvenile Justice no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, February 15, 1996. A. The Department will review the Technical Checklist, which is part of the grant application. Any required item that is not included with the proposal will result in the grant application being disqualified from further review. B. The department may review prior year grant awards to determine grant compliance performance. II. Evaluation and review of Partnership Grants by the County Council and District Board. A. Grants will be evaluated in accordance with 39.025(8), F.S. EaCh section of the grant application was developed directly from the appropriate statute. B. The appropriate Juvenile Justice Council and District Board Mil use the statutory requirements as a basis for their evaluation and review. The criteria is as follows: A rationale and description of the program and the services to be provided, including the goals and objectives. (Sections A, B, C, of application) A method for the identification of juveniles who will be the focus of the program.(Sections A, B, C of application) · An evaluation component to measure the effectiveness of the program. (Section D of application) A program budget, including the amount and sources of local cash and in-kind resources committed to the program. The amount of local contribution must be at least 20% of the grant amount. (Sections G and H of application) · The extent to which the program targets highjuveni!e crime neighborhoods and those public schools serving juveniles f?.0Jn high crime neighborhoods. (Section B of application) · The validity and Cost-effectiveness of the program. (Sections A through H of application) · The number of youth 10-17 years of age to be served by the program and the geographical areas with the highest number of youth age 10-1.7 shall have priority for selection. (Section B of application) · The degree to which the program is located in and managed by local leaders of the target neighborhoods and public schools serving tl/e target neighborhoods. (Section E of application) · The number of students and youth to be served by the grant and the criteria by which they will be selected. (Sections A and B of application) · Provisions with the programs for participation of parents and guardians. (Section B) · Consistency with the county or district juvenile justice plan. (To be determined by the Juvenile Justice Council after grant submission.) III. The finalized recommended proposals will be submitted with a letter from the chair of the County Juvenile Justice Council confirming that the grant application has been reviewed and found to support one or more purposes or goals of the juvenile justice plan as developed by the council. IV. A technical review of grant recommendations will be made by the Department of Juvenile Justice. This will include a review of recommended programs, budgets, etc. to insure compliance with applicable state and departmental requirements. DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMUNITY JUVENILE JUSTICE PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM 1996-97 FUNDING ALLOCATION District I District IV District X Escambia $110,000 Baker $35,000 Broward $325,000 Okaloosa $65,000 Clay $50,000 Total $325,000 Santa Rosa $50,000 Duval $250,000 Walton $35,000 Nassau $35,000 District XI Total $260,000 St. Johns $45,000 Dade $425,000 Total $415,000 Monroe $35,000 District II Total $460,000 Bay $50,000 Distict V Calhoun $30,000 Pasco $85,000 District XII Gulf $30,000 Pinellas $250,000 Flagler $35,000 Holmes $30,000 Total $335,000 Volusia $110,000 Jackson $35,000 Total $145,000 -Washington $30,000 District VI Franklin $30,000 Hillsborough $250,000 District XlII Gadsden $35,000 Manatee $65,000 Citrus $45,000 Jefferson $30,000 Total $315,000 Hernando $45,000 Leon ' $85,000 Lake $50,000 Liberty $30,000 District VII Marion $85,000 Madison $30,000 Orange $250,000 Sumter $35,000 Taylor $30,000 Osceola $50,000 Total $260,000 Wakulla $30,000 Seminole $110,000 Total $505,000 Brevard $130,000 District XIV District III .- ~ Total $540,000 Hardee $30,000 · Highlands ' $45,000 Alachua $65,000 District VIII Polk $130,000 Bradford $30,00~) Columbia $35,000 Desoto $30,000 Total $205,000 Dixie $30,000 Sarasota $85,000 Gilchrist $30,000 Charlotte $30,000 DISTRICT XV Hamilton $30,000 Collier $65,000 Indian River $45,000 Lafayette $30,000 Glades $30,000 Martin $45,000 Levy $35,000 Hendry $3~5,000 St. Lucie $65,000 Putnam $45,000 Lee $110,000 Okeechobee $35,000 Suwannee $35,000 Total $385,000 Total $190,000 Union $30,000 j~)istrict IX Total $395,000 TOTAL $4,985,000 Palm Beach $250,000 Total $250,000 Instructions for the Completion of the 1996-97 Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Application P_ag~'~ The Program Information, Contractor Information, out completely. and Certification section should be filled The Certification section must be signed. A. Proposal Summary_: State what type of program is being proposed. If your program is more than one type, rank the type of program. For example, (l) suspension (2) expulsion (3) truancy. Give the estimated number of juveniles to be served; broken down by age, sex and ethnicity. Discuss what the program is trying to accomplish. B. Statement of Need and Program Description: Explain the need for the program. Describe the services that will be provided and who will provide them. Describe what the program is designed to do and accomplish. Discuss what method or criteria will be used to identify youth to be served in the program. Discuss how parents and guardians will be involved in the program and what their role will be. C. Proposal Goals. Ob_iectives. and Performance Outcomes: This is the basis for the program proposal. Cover the goals and objectives of the program and indicate what services/strategies will be provided to achieve the goals and objectives. Discuss the current situation with targeted youth (use baseline data elements). Give the measurable outcomes of the program; these should be directly related.to the data elements discussed in the current community situation. D..Evaluation Plan: Describe the plan of evaluation to include both process and outcome evaluation data. Describe the data to be collected, when the data will be collected and who will collect the data, that will provide an effective measure of the program. F-~ Collaboration Plan: Describe how the proposed program will meet and support the purposes and goals of the juvenile justice plan developed by the local juvenile justice council. The local juvenile justice plan can be found at your local juvenile justice manager's office. A list of the managers has been provided with this packet. Name any social service agencies, drug and alcohol abuse programs and dropout and truancy prevention programs that serve the target population and how this program will interact with them. Describe the extent to which the program will be located in and managed by the local leaders of the targeted neighborhoods ant[ public schools serving the target neighborhoods. F. Program Design and Co?ti_nuation: State whether the current program is in operation. If yes, list the differences between the current program vs. the proposed program. If the program is not in operation, answer no. Describe the plan to continue funding this project after the grant funding cycle ends. Describe the organizational design of the program and the staff positions being proposed. G. Budget Summary.: This should provide a clear, distinct outline for funding. H. Budget Narrative: List each category from the Budget Summary, Section (G), and describe in detail the items or services that will be purchased with grant funds. This should describe the expenditure detail by line item, how costs were calculated, etc. Include the cash and/or in-kind matching contributions and indicate what they will cover. I. Disallowed Expenditures: This section needs a signature at bottom of the page to ensure that the listed costs will not to be charged to the Partnership Grant Program. J. Certification of Assurances: This section states that the grant recipients must comply with the statements and promises listed in order to receive and maintain grant awards. K. Techni.c~ll Checklist: This section must be checked off and signed by the applicant. This checklist will help the applicant to make sure all required documents are enclosed in the grant packet. L. Required Attachments: A description of the organization, a copy of its current budget, and a list of the board of directors and the interagency agreement is to be attached to the grant application. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER ~/~' 1 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~' D' - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 1996 BUD LIGHT PRO/AM BEACH VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is before the Commission to approve changing the date of the 1996 Bud Light Pro/Am Beach Volleyball Tournament. The tourna- ment was previously approved for March 23 and 24. However, Exclusive Sports Marketing would like to reschedule the event for April 20 and 21 due to a conflict in scheduling. Recommend rescheduling the 1996 Bud Light Pro/Am Beach Volleyball Tournament to April 20 and 21, 1996. AGENDA REQUEST Date: Jauuary 23~ 1996 Request to be placed on: X Regular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda When: February 6~ 1996 Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much): Request approval to change date of hostin§ 1996 Bud Light Pro-Am Beach Volleyball Series from March 23 and 24~ 1996 to April 20 and 21, 1996. The previous date was approved b~ Cit~ Commission at their December 5, 1995 meeting. ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YE/N~ Draft Attached: YES/NO Recommendation: Approval. Department Head Signature: Determination of Consistency ~i~h Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: YES/ NO Funding alternatives: (if applicable) Account No. & Description: Account Balance: City Manager Review: Appr°ved f°r agenda: ~NOHold Until: f/~/~ Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved/Disapproved CITY OF gELAI:IY BEI:I£H ~ 100 N.W. 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 · 407/243-7000 AII-/imerica City 1993 TO: David Harden City Manager FROM: Joe Weldon Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Change of Dates for Volleyball Tournament DATE: January 25, 1996 On November 15, 1995 I wrote you a memorandum listing the requests from Exclusive Sports Marketing for the Bud Light Pro/Am Beach Volleyball Tournament they wished to hold on our municipal beach March 23 and 24, 1996 (copy attached). This was approved by City Commission at their December 5, 1995 meeting. While these requests remain the same, they would like to change the date of the tournament to April 20 and 21, 1996 due to a conflict in scheduling. With your approval, I would like to place this on the agenda for City Commission consideration February 6, 1996. Director of Parks and Recreation JW: cp Ref: volybal2 THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS Printed on Recycled Pal~er 24I 3805 EXCI. SPORTS ttKT --> I C [ TV/DELRA'.r' BCH. P.O1 Friday, January 19, 1996 Joe Weldon City of Delray Beach Dear Joe: This letter will serve as a/request for the 96 Bud Light Pro-Am Beach Volleyball Series to once again be on Delray Beacl~ on April 20-21, The Bud Light Pro-Am will follow the same guidelines as was required In 95. / If you have any concerns or questions feel free to contact me at 407-241-3801. Thank you for your support and I look ft)rward to working with you again in 96. Sincerely, Gary Hallas i EXCLUSIVE SPORTS MARKETING 1060 HO .AND DR., SUITE 3L, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33487 ITV JIF DELRI:I¥ BEI:I[H D[LRAY BEACH ~ 100 N.W. lst AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 · 407/243-7000 AII-AmericaCity 199.3 TO: David Harden City Manager FROM: Joe Weldon Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Bud Light Pro/Am Volleyball Tournament DATE: November 15, 1995 Attached please find a request from Gary Hallas of Exclusive Sports Marketing to bring the 1996 Bud Light Pro/Am Beach Volleyball Tournament to Delray Beach once again on March 23 and 24, 1996. Exclusive Sports Marketing has requested the following: 1.) 20 temporary volleyball courts and ten 10' X 10' tents for players and sponsors. Seven spaces for staff parking at no charge Wednesday through Sunday and the placement of a large stage on the beach. 2.) A $2.00 fee per car per day with restricted parking at Sandoway and Anchor Parks. 3.) Allow vehicles on the beach for support Wednesday through Sunday. 4.) Allow signage publicizing this event and sponsors on the beach. Their sponsor is Bud Light, a commercial beer company. 5.) Provide overnight parking, extra trash cans, and 3 - 110 outlets, either at the S3 tower or Anchor Park area, and extra portalets at Sandoway and Anchor Parks. THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS Prln~ed On Recycled Paget 6.) I will be requesting an updated certificate of insurance. 7.) Exclusive Sports Marketing will donate $500 to the Beach Patrol to help fund their competition team. As you may recall, we previously hosted this event last year and it was very successful. I recommend approval for this event, and request you place it on the December 5, 1995 agenda for City Commission consideration. Please review and advise. Jo~eldon Director of Parks and Recreation Attachment cc: Sharon Morgan Agenda Coordinator JW: cp Ref:vollybal 11/I4/95 13:~0 ~ 407 241 3805 EXCL. SPORT~ HKT --> CITY/DELRA¥ BCH. P.~i TO: ~OB WELDQN-D~ ~TOR oF~p~s.!'~D. RECREATION FROM: GARY HALLAS4~XCLUSIVE SPORTS MARKETING RE: 96 BUD LIGHT PRO:AM BEACH VOLLEYBALL SERIES Joe, This letter is to fim~lize the 96 B id Light Pro-Ara Beach Volleyball Series coming to Dclray Beach once again in 96. This letter will also address the ~eeds and concerns of the Bud Light Tour pertaining to the City of De[ray Beach for the dates of March 2...... This lethe: will outline the sp~ific details involved with the operation and implementation of the series on the beact]. Exclusive S >errs Marketing requests that the City of De[ray Beach; · Provide Electricity f¢ the tour at an a[ready established curet provided in 95. · Provide '?:irking at th{ Sandaway Park for the players on March 23-24 with a staff member collecting a $2.00 fee. Number of these spots to be determined by City (75-t00) · Allow ESM's 4*4 on he beach from Wed. thru Sun. of the event for set-up and breakdown · Allow .F'.;M truck acc:ss to the beach Wed, thru Sun, of the event · Provide: ,.::~:tra trash re, :eptacles and dumpster for the series clean-up ' Staff [;;,'!ting (7) Wed thru Sun. · Provide overnight par 5ng for ESM truck · Sound Ordinance (afl '~r talking with Mr. Weldon, ESM will follow all roles and limits) · Restrooms will be at knchor Park · Waive ~.. restrictions as to signage placed on the beach for event · Provide ii",500 donatio to the De[ray Beach Lifeguards · Place City of Delray additionally insured policy of tour for the event. · Center c,.:urt set-up j~ st north of Sandaway Park. Joe, if there is any other questio as or concerns you might have fell free to call me at 407-241-3801. I will be in contact soon. Best Regards; Gary Halla~ Exclusive Sports ,..~',rketing MEMOR~ND~ TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~'~ - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 RATIFICATION OF SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL BOARD EXPENDITURES DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is before the Commission to ratify various expenditures approved by the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board at its meeting of January 18, 1996. By a vote of 8-0, the SCRWTD Board approved the following: · Expend $1000 from sinking fund to replace cranking batteries for large diesel generator in Blower Building. · Expend $7000 from sinking fund to replace flow measuring devices throughout the plant. Recommend ratification of the actions taken by the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board on December 21, 1995. RATIFICATION OF SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL BOARD ACTION OF JANUARY 18, 1996 WHEREAS, the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board did on January 18, 1996, by a vote of 8-0, approve Authorization to Expend $7,000. from Sinking Fund to Replace Flow Measuring Devices Throughout Plant. WHEREAS, said Board action requires ratification by the City of Boynton Beach and the City of Delray Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Boynton and the City of Delray Beach hereby ratify said Board action independently. The above action is hereby ratified in open session by the City of Delray Beach this ~ day of , , by a vote. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH By: Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approve as to form: · City Attorney RATIFICATION OF SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL BOARD ACTION OF JANAURY 18, 1996 WHEREAS, the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board did on January 18, 1996, by a vote of 8-0, approve Authorization to Expend ~1,000. from Sinking Fund to Replace Cranking Batteries for Large Diesel Generator in Blower Building. WHEREAS, said Board action requires ratification by the City of Boynton Beach and the City of Delray Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Boynton and the City of Delray Beach hereby ratify said Board action independently. The above action is hereby ratified in open session by the City of Delray Beach this ~ day of , , by a vote. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH By: Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approve as to form: City Attorney MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS 0iT SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~'F' - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. 11-96 DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is a resolution assessing costs for abatement action required to remove nuisances on 22 properties located within the City. The resolution sets forth the actual costs incurred and provides the mechanism to attach liens on these properties in the event the assessments remain unpaid. Recommend approval of Resolution No. 11-96 assessing costs for abating nuisances on 22 properties within the City. RESOLUTION NO. 11-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 100 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR ABATING NUISANCES UPON CERTAIN LAND(S) LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH AND PROVIDING THAT A NOTICE OF LIEN SHALL ACCOMPANY THE NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT; SETTING OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING THE COST OF SUCH ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE DATE AND INTEREST ON ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND DECLARING SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESS- MENTS. WHEREAS, the City Manager or his designated representative has, pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances, declared the exis- tence of a nuisance upon certain lots or parcels of land, described in the list attached hereto and made a part hereof, for violation of the provisions of Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 100.20, 100.21 and 100.22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, the City Manager or his designated representative has inspected said land(s) and has determined that a nuisance existed in accordance with the standards set forth in Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances, and did furnish the respective owner(s) of the land(s) described in the attached list with written notice of public nuisance pursuant to Sections 100.20, 100.21 and 100.22 of the Code of Ordinances describing the nature of the nuisance(s) and sent notice that within ten (10) days from the date of said notice forty-two (42) days in the case of violation of Section 100.04 pertain- ing to seawalls) they must abate said nuisance, or file a written request for a hearing to review the decision that a nuisance existed within ten (10) days from the date of said notice, failing which the City of Delray Beach would proceed to correct this condition by abating such nuisance, and that the cost thereof would be levied as an assess- ment against said property; and, WHEREAS the property owner(s) named in the list attached hereto and made a part hereof did fail and neglect to abate the nuisance(s) existing upon their respective lands or to properly request a hearing pursuant to Section 100.21 and 100.22 within the time limits prescribed in said notice and Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances, or if the property owner(s) did request and receive a hearing, said prop- erty owner(s) failed and/or neglected to abate such nuisance(s) within the time designated at the hearing wherein a decision was rendered adverse to the property owner(s); and, WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, through the City Administra- tion or such agents or contractors hired by the City Administration was therefore required to and did enter upon the land(s) described in the list attached and made a part hereof and incurred costs in abating the subject nuisance(s) existing thereon as described in the notice; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Delray Beach has, pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, submitted to the City Commission a report of the costs incurred in abating said nuisance(s) as aforesaid, said report indicating the costs per parcel of land involved; and, WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances desires to assess the cost of said nuisance(s) against said property owner(s), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That assessments in the individual amounts as shown by the report of the City Manager of the City of Delray Beach, involving the City's cost of abating the aforesaid nuisances upon the lots or parcels of land described in said report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby levied against the parcel(s) of land described in said report and in the amount(s) indicated thereon. Said assessments so levied shall, if not paid within thirty (30) days after mailing of the notice described in Sec. 3, become a lien upon the respective lots and parcel(s) of land described in said report, of the same nature and to the same extent as the lien for general city taxes and shall be collectible in the same manner as mortgages and fore- closures are under state law. Section 2 That such assessments shall be legal valid and binding obligations upon the property against which said assessments are levied. Section 3. That the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach is hereby directed to immediately mail by first class mail to the owner(s) of the property, as such ownership appears upon the records of the County Tax Assessor, notice(s) that the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach on the has levied an assessment against said property for the cost of abatement of said nuisance by the City, and that said assessment is due and payable within thirty (30) days after the mailing date of said notice of assessment, after which a lien shall be placed on said property, and interest will - 2 - Res No 11-96 accrue at the rate of 8% per annum, plus reasonable attorney's fees and other costs of collecting said sums. A Notice of Lien shall be mailed, along with the Notice of Assessment and this resolution. Section 4. That this resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of adoption and the assessment(s) contained herein shall become due and payable thirty (30) days after the mailing date of the notice of said assessment(s), after which a lien shall be placed on said property(s), and interest shall accrue at the rate of eight (8) percent per annum plus, if collection proceedings are necessary, the costs of such proceedings including a reasonable attorney's fee. Section 5. That in the event that payment has not been received by the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after the mailing date of the notice of assessment, the City Clerk is hereby directed to record a certified copy of this resolution in the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and upon the date and time of recording of the certified copy of this resolution a lien shall become effective on the subject property which shall secure the cost of abatement, interest at the rate of 8%, and collection costs including a reasonable attorney's fee. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the day of , 1996. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk - 3 - Res. No. 11-96 COST OF ABATING NUISANCES UNDER CHAPTER 100 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OWNER ASSESSMENT TOURIST NOOK, DELRAY, HERVIE & MAMIE TODD $ 64.00 LOT 24, BLK B, PB 1, 228 NW 8TH AVENUE 70.00 (ADM. FEE) P 1, PUBLIC RECORDS OF DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (228 NW 8TH AVENUE) OSCEOLA PARK, LOTS 5 & 6 FRITZ & MERITE PIERRE $ 55.00 BLK 8, PB 3, P 2, PUBLIC 722 SE 4TH AVENUE 70.00 (ADM. FEE) RECORDS OF PALM BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 COUNTY, FL (722 SE 4TH AVENUE) PINE TRAIL SECTION 4, CLEATYS S. STOTTLEMYER, JR. $ 51.00 ELY 48.71 FT. OF LOT 27, 5287 NW 5TH STREET 70.00 (ADM. FEE) BLK 8, PB 35, P 151, DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445 PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (5287 NW 5TH STREET) DELL PARK, TH PT OF PHILIP KAPLAN & $ 32.00 LOT 5 FOR THE N 1/2 OF MARY Y. KAPLAN 70.00 (ADM. FEE) DUPLEX, PB 8, P 56, 260 NE 13TH STREET PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 BEACH COUNTY, FL (260 NE 13TH STREET) TOTTERDALE ADDITION, DIANNA BARAN & $ 18.16 S 10 FT. OF LOTS 18 REINHARD BARAN H/W 70.00 (ADM. FEE) & 19, BLK 4, PB 23, 1310 LAKE DRIVE P 151, PUBLIC RECORDS DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (1310 LAKE DRIVE) WEST SIDE HEIGHTS, HATTIE L. HARDWICK EST. $ 56.00 HEIGHTS, DELRAY, LOT 4, c/o G. QUAIL 70.00 (ADM. FEE) BLK C, PB 13, P 61, P.O. BOX 7043 FDR STATION PUBLIC RECORDS OF NEW YORK, NY 10150-1908 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (37 NW 10TH AVENUE) ATLANTIC PARK GARDENS, DAISY M. RAY $ 51.00 DELRAY, LOT 13, BLK 2, P.O. BOX 74 70.00 (ADM. FEE) PB 14, P 56, PUBLIC LENOX, GA 31637-0074 RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (17 SW 13TH AVENUE) - 4 - Res. No. 11-96 TOWN OF DELRAY, S 1/2 ETHEL MACKEY $ 51.00 OF LOT 5, BLK 30, c/o SHIRLEY M. WALLCE 70.00 (ADM. FEE) PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC 1120 NW 64TH STREET RECORDS OF PALM BEACH MIAMI, FL 33150-4231 COUNTY, FL (129 SW 5TH AVENUE) TOWN OF DELRAY, LOT 16, GRACE BARNETT $ 58.63 BLK 35, PB 1, P 3, 1401 39TH STREET 70.00 (ADM. FEE) PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM WEST PALM BEACH, FL BEACH COUNTY, FL 33407-3631 (1309 NW 1ST STREET) TOWN OF DELRAY, W 50 FT. JOHNNIE MARTIN, JR. $ 59.00 OF E 200 FT. OF S 135 FT. 515 SE 2ND STREET 70.00 (ADM. FEE) OF S 1/2 OF BLK 22, DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 PB 10, P 38, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (515 SW 2ND STREET) TOWN OF DELRAY, W 55 FT. MARIE QUINCE $ 51.00 OF LOTS 11 & 12, BLK 23, 506 SW 14TH AVENUE 70.00 (ADM. FEE) PB 10, P 69, PUBLIC DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (SW 3RD STREET) TOWN OF DELRAY, LOT 18, MATILDA JOHNSON $ 51.00 BLK 23, PB 10, P 69, 225 SW 6TH AVENUE 70.00 (ADM. FEE) PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 COUNTY, FL (225 SW 6TH AVENUE) TOWN OF DELRAY, LOT 17, BERTHA PRESTON $ 51.00 BLK 23, PB 10, P 69, 1001 WEST 3RD STREET 70.00 (ADM. FEE) PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM RIVIERA BEACH, FL BEACH COUNTY, FL 33404-7815 (217 SW 6TH AVENUE) TOWN OF DELRAY, S 50 FT. STELLA HERRING $ 51.00 OF N 250 FT. OF W 135 FT. 701 SW 8TH AVENUE 70.00 (ADM. FEE) OF BLK 14, PB 1, P 3, DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (117 SW 7TH AVENUE) OSCEOLA PARK, LOT 11, BERTHA G. GRAUSSO $ 56.00 BLK 7, PB 3, P 2, 500 GROVE AVENUE 70.00 (ADM. FEE) PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM EDISON, NJ 08820-3647 BEACH COUNTY, FL (631 SE 3RD AVENUE) _ ~ _ Res. No. 11-96 TOWN OF DELRAY, S 50 FT. ARTHUR V. STROCK $ 51.00 OF N 100 FT OF W 1/2 829 SE 9TH STREET #201 70.00 (ADM. FEE) (LESS W 25 FT SW 7TH AVE DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33441 R/W) BLK 14, PB 1, P 3 PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (105 SW 7TH AVENUE) DELL PARK, LOT 14 & ANDREA MOREIRA $ 7.16 E 1/2 of LOT 15, BLK 5, 230 NE 12TH STREET 70.00 (ADM. FEE) PB 8, P 56, PUBLIC DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (230 NE 12TH STREET) TROPIC PALMS PLAT NO. 1, EDIN DEV. TRUST $ 40.00 LOT 60, PB 25, P 99, c/o ADEL KARABACHI 70.00 (ADM. FEE) PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM 5790 NW 74TH AVE. # 205 BEACH COUNTY, FL COCONUT CREEK, FL 33066 (LINDELL BLVD.) TOWN OF DELRAY, S 106.1 WILLIE C. HAYNES $ 24.00 FT. (LESS W 135.6 FT.) 400 NW 4TH STREET 70.00 (ADM. FEE) BLK 39, PB 11, P 34, BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33435 PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (305 SW 3RD STREET) DELRAY SHORES 1ST ADD. BERNITA F. SUTTON $ 64.00 LOT 35, BLK 12, PB 28, 3029 ANGLER DRIVE 70.00 (ADM. FEE) P 2, PUBLIC RECORDS OF DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (3029 ANGLER DRIVE) DELL PARK, LOT 9 & ADLER J. PIERRE $ 56.00 E 25 FT OF LOT 10, 238 NE llTH STREET 70.00 (ADM. FEE) BLK 8, PB 8, P 56, DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (238 NE llTH STREET) TOWN OF DELRAY, LOT 23, GRACE BARNETT $ 51.00 BLK 23, PB 10, P 69, 1401 39TH STREET 70.00 (ADM. FEE) PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM WEST PALM BEACH, FL BEACH COUNTY, FL 33407-3631 (509 SW 3RD STREET) VIOLATION IS: SECTION 100.01 - LAND TO BE KEPT FREE OF DEBRIS, VEGETATION, MATTER CONSTITUTING HAZARDS; DECLARED A NUISANCE. - 6 - Res. No. 11-96 [ITY OF DELRRY BERgH CITY ATTORNEY S OFFICE FA(:$!MII_E Writer's Direct Line: (407) 243-7090 DELRAY BEACH Ali. America City MEMORANDUM 1993 TO: City Commission FROM: David N. Tolces, Assistant City Attorneq~ SUBJECT: Acceptance of Utility Easement from Ten Forty-Five Building Partnership gast Road Utility Easement The Attached Easement Deed conveys an 8 (eight) foot by 144 (one hundred forty-four) foot easement to the City for the purpose of installing a 6 (six) inch water service line. Once construction is completed, the property owner has requested that the City abandon the existing 6 (six) foot easement to the south. Acceptance of this Easement Deed is recommended. Please call is you have any questions. 1045bld.dnt 407-24~-7514 ENGINEERING DEPT 582 PO1 JAN ~0 '96 14:51 DEPART1VtE~ OF E .NyIRONMIr~NTAL SERVICES MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID TOLCES, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY FROM: BARRON CARONITE, ENGINEER DATE: JANUARY 30, 1996 SUBJECT: EAST ROAD PROJECT 95-20 1045 BUILDING EASEMENT Under the East Road P~oject the existing 6" cast iron water main fl~a! is located bet~vecn Atlantic Avenue and Lowry Strcet is being abandoned. The existing 6" cast iron water main currently provides service to the 1045 Building as well as the properties located on the west side of Seabrceze Avenue and the east side of East Road. The properties located on Seabreeze Avenue will bc scrved by thc ncw water main that was installed under project 92-02. The properties locatcd on East Road will be served by a new 8" water main that will be installed on East Road· The 1045 Building easement is needed for the installation ora new 6"water main that will serve the tenants ofthcl045 Building. File: 95-20 (A) 01/30/96 TUE 15:38 [TX/RX NO 6403] Prepared by: RETURN: David N. Tolees, Esq. City Attorney's Office 200 N.W. 1st Avenue · " f' Delray Beach, Florida 33444 THIS INDENTURE, made this ~'%y of (~t'~a~ , 199~"'between TEN FOURTY-FIVE BUILDING PARTNERSHIP, whose address is 222 Kingfisher Way, Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411, party of the first part, and the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, whose address is 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Defray Beach, Florida 33444, a municipal corporation in Palm Beach County, State of Florida, party of the second part: WITNESSETH: That the party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars and other good and valuable considerations to it in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and release unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, a right of way and perpetual easement for the purpose of: installation and maintenance of a six inch underground water service line with full and flee right, liberty, and authority to enter upon and to install, operate, and maintain such line under and across the following described property located in Palm Beach County, Florida, to-wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto Concomitant and coextensive with this right is the further right in the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, of ingress and egress over and on that portion of land described above, to effect the purposes of the easement, as expressed hereinafter. That this easement shall be subject only to those easements, restrictions, and reservations of record. That the party of the first part agrees to provide for the subordination of any and all mortgages or liens encumbering th/s easement. The party of the first part also agrees to erect no building or effect any other kind of construction or improvements upon the above-described property, other than paving and landscaping. It is understood that upon completion of such installation, all lands disturbed thereby as a result of such instailation or spoilage deposited thereon, will be restored to its original condition or better without expense to the property owner. 'Party of the first part, its successors and assigns, shall have full right and authority to use, maintain, restore, repair and replace any portions of the building, stairway, or other improvements which overhang the easement property, and nothing herein shall be deemed to limit that right. Party of the first part does hereby warrant the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under it, that it has good right and lawful authority to grant the above-described easement, Where the context of this Easement Deed allows or permits, the same shall include the successors or assigns of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Easement Deed set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. THE 1045 BUILDING PARTNERSHIP, a Florida general partnership WITNESS#l: .~ /Q BYr RAK AND NAPA, .INC. and{qIPH~ AND LAKHANA, INC., / / ~~~/~-'~c~/~~~ BY: both~~~/~.~Fl~orida ~ol~:~ration$, Go-noral P~-tners (name printed or typed) (name printed or typed) Vice Presid~t of each WITNESS #2: ~¢T g, OLff gE~96/4, [~ /~,~,.,.,~, ,~f'~.,..,.~ ~ (address, .' (name P~Snted or typed) s~^~ o~ COUNTY OF ¢~LU The foregoing instrumem was acknowledged before me [bis ~ day of OcT~6~.(< , 1995 by t4~v'iD ~FILI~OV'~(F,. (name~o[ omcer or ~gent, title officer or agent) of T/~E/o¥5 tClq)~ £/~gt~S#lP(name o~'~c~owledging), a or place of co oration ,? h f of the corpora.on. He/She is personally known to me ~ ~*Jt"-'t~ of iden*; ' ' ' ' and did (did-not) take an oath. Signature of Notary~l~ublic'~'tate of Florida No~.ar¥ Public, State of ~lOrMa My Commission E×~ires Dec ~at ~0ndzd thru Hucktel>erry & SEABREEZE A VENUE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER~I RESOLUTION MO. RELOCAT O ASREEME FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is before the Commission to approve Resolution No. 12-96 which authorizes the Director of Environmental Services, on behalf of the City, to enter into an agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the relocation or adjustment of utilities located on State Road 5 (U.S. Highway #1). FDOT proposes to repave the highway in the north end of the City. We have water and sewer utilities located within the pavement and, as a result, adjustments to three sanitary manhole covers and nine water valve boxes will be required. An agreement between the City and FDOT will allow their contractor to make the necessary adjustments. The cost is estimated at $2,448.00, with funding available from Water & Sewer Renewal and Replacement - Other Improvements (Account No. 442-5178-536-63.90). In order to enter into a joint project agreement, FDOT requires the City to adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Environmental Services to execute the necessary agreements with FDOT for the utility adjustments associated with this project. Recommend approval of Resolution No. 12-96. ref:agmemo5 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID T. HARDEN CITY MANAGER FROM: WILLIAM H. GREENWOOD~/~ DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE: February 1, 1996 SUBJECT: FDOT Resurfacing SR-5 (US 1) Project No. 96-29 The Florida Department of Transportation is proposing to resurface SR 5 (US 1) in the north end of the City. There are water and sewer utilities located in the pavement which will require adjustments on the sewer manholes and the water valve boxes. An agreement between the City and the FDOT will allow their contractor to make the necessary adjustments. Attached is an Agenda Request and a City Resolution/Utility Relocation Agreement (FDOT form 710-010-13) for the regular Commission Meeting on February 6, 1996. Approval of this Resolution will authorize execution of necessary utility agreements with the FDOT for utility adjustments on this project. The funding source for these adjustments is from the water/sewer R&R account no. 442-5178-536- 63.90 for $2,448.00. Please place this item on the agenda for commission approval. WHG:kjb Attachment cc: C. Danvers Beatty, P.E., City Engineer Richard Hasko, P.E., Deputy Dir. ESD, Public Utilities Joseph Safford, Finance Director File: Project No. 96-290E) AR-MEMO.DOC DELRAY BEACH I, ALISON MacGREGOR HARTY, City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, do hereby certify that the attached document is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 12-96, authorizing the City's Director of Environmental Services to enter into an agreement, on behalf of the City of Delray Beach, with the Florida Department of Transportation for the relocation, change or adjustment of facilities located on State Road 5 (U.S. #1). Resolution No. 12-96 was passed and adopted by the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, in regular session on the 6th day of February, 1996. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the official seal of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on this the 12th day of February, 1996. Alison Ma¢-Gre~or/Harty City Clerk City of Delray Beach, Florida SEAL (C~ ~SOL~ON NO. 12- 9 6 .om=~ ~~ ~LOCA~ON AG~E~ ~ 0~ ~I~ PRO~ ~ STA~ ~. CO~ DOC NO F~ ~ 4118666 93010-6505 5 (US- 1 ~ P~ B~CH NIA N/A A ~SOL~ON A~OR~G ~ ~S/ ........ Env&ro~ental Svcs Dep~O ~R ~O ~ AGR~, ON B~ OF ~ ~7~ D~Y B~ , ~O~A, ~ ~ ~O~A D~~ OF ~SPORTA~ON FOR ~ ~O~ON, C~GE OR ~S~ OF ~ FAC~S LOCA~D ON STA~ RO~ 5 ~S-I~ WI-IERF..AS, the State of Florida Department of Transportation proposes to construct or reconstruct a part of State Road 5 ~JS-D : and AND WHEREAS, in order for the State of Florida Department of Transportation to further and complete said project, it is necessary that certain utility facilities alone, over and/or under said State Road ~ (US-l) be adjusted, changed or relocated: and AND WHERF_~S, the State of Florida Deparunent of Transportation having requested the City/Cc:aW of ~eiray Beach , Florida. to execute and deliver to the State of Florida Department of Transportation a Utility Agreement. agreeing to make or cause to be made adjustments, changes or relocations of said utility facilities as set out in said Agreement, and said request having been duly considered; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY/COLrNTY COiV[MISSION OF THE CITY/COUNTY OF ~ELRAY BEACH , FLORIDA: That(nam~)I4±ZZ±am H. Greenwood. , (title~ D±rector o£ Env±ronmental Serv±ces behereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the State of Florida Department of Transportation a Utility Agreement for the adjustment. change or relocation of certain utility facilities within the limits of said State Road 5 CUS-t) A certified copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the State of Florida Department of Transportation along with the executed Utility Agreement. ON MOTiON of Mt'. Randolph , seconded by Dx-. .~lper±n , the above resolution was inu'oduced and passed by the City/C--~mm'y of DeZray Beach onthe6'Chdayof Feb. , t99~_. Cnue: 0/6, / 19oE RECYCT-~n PAPER U'T'~TI~ ~NST,,~[,I~OH ~¥ R*~GH~A¥ COHTR.~CTOR HOH~BURSA.~LE :::'"**:'~:'i$ ::::":*:::::':::::*' :::>.::::.'~*::~,' :::~: :** '~: :'~'::":: :':::' *::::::':R~':'*':'**'" '*'~* ~: '** ~'~" ~ ~,"..'..~ "~*' ' · · "~:~'::.~: ..... ****'. ..... ~...~.~z.~,~**a= ~ ~,~..~...~..~¥ .~,:,.~ · ~ ~ ...... ,-. , ~.. ~. ~ 411.8666 93010-6505 5 (US1) Palm Beach N/A I N/A THIS AGREE~NT, made and entared into this day of , 19 , by and betweaa the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTB~ENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as the FDOT, and the City of Delrav Beach , , hereinafter referred to as UTK.rrY, an organic,ion or. nib_ed and existing under the laws of Florida , with its prin¢ipnt plac= of business in Delray Beach , County of Palm Beach , State of Florida V~TTN'ES SE'tH: V~REAS, the FDOT is constructing, reeon~zucting or otherwise changing a portion of the State Highway System designated by the i=DOT as State Proj~ No. 9~010-6}0} , Road No. SR 5 (US 1) , betw~n Bond Way and the Bovnton Beach C~t~ , which shall call for the adjustment, relocation md/or installation of the Utility's facilities along, over and/or under said highway; and WHEREAS, the plans for the said construction, reconstruc:ion or other changes to be made, as above described, have been reviewed by the FDOT and the UTILITY, said above described UTILITY relocation, hereinafter referred m as "Utility Work"; and WHEREAS, the term "Cost of Utility Work" shall include the entire amount paid by the UTILITY properly am'ibutable to such work; and WHEREAS, the UTILITY has expressed its desire to assume ail costs incurred by this Utility Work and has requested the FDOT to include in said Project certain plans and specifications to meet the UTIL1TY'S needs; and WHEREAS, the FDOT and the UTILITY have determined that it would be to the best interest of the gene.al public and to the economic advantage of both parties to enter into a JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as '~IPA,' providing for such work; NOW, THEREFOKE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, it is agreed by the parties as follows: 1. The FDOT and the UTILITY shall participate in a JPA, the scope of which will cover only the UTILITY facility within the limits of the project as included in the plans and estimate of the FDOT contract, more specifically 10-E described as Adjustments to three (3) sa~qtary mmnhnl, env ..... d ~ ValVe The estimated cost of said proje~ is ~clud~g ~low~c~; '-~ '~ .... ~c~ ~: ....... : ' ' : 2. The UTILITY will prepare, at its expense, the design and plans for all of the nec~sary Utility Work specified above, and will furnish to the FDOT no later than N/A , 19 , complete original plans, same as FDOT's contract plans, all suitable for reproduction by the FDOT, together with a complete. set of specifications covering all construction requirements for the Utility Work. Final plans shall be complete in every detail and will include a "Summary of Quantities" sheet. It will be the responsibility of the UTILITY to coordinate the development of the Utility Work plans with the FDOT'$ plans. The FDOT, upon request by the UTILe, will fur~i-~h all available highway information required by the UTILITY for the development of the Utility Work plans; and the FDOT shall cooperate fully with the UTIZ1TY to this end. 3. All of the work on the 3PA is to be done according to the plans and specifications of the FDOT which plans and specifications are, by reference hereto, made a part hereof. The UTILITY will be responsible for verifying the accuracy of the FDOT'S underuound survey information, and will also be responsible for any changes to the UTIL1TY'S'plans made necessary by. errors or omissions in the FDOT'S survey information as furnished to the UTILITY. Ali errors, omi.~sions or changes in the design of the Utility Work will be the sole responsibility of the UTILITY. In any conflict between UTILITY and FDOT sp~ifications, the FDOT'S specifications will govern. All Utility Work covering facilities to be relocated to a position within the FDOT right of way will be accommodated in accordance with the FDOT "Utility Accommodation Manual." 4. The UTII.rrY, at its expense, will furnish all engineering inspection, testing and monitoring of the Utility Work, and will also furnish the FDOT'S engin~r with progress reports for diary records, approved q~,~_ntitJes and amounts for weekly, monthly and final estimates. All field survey control for the Utility Work will be furnished by the UTILITY under the supervision of the FDOT'S engineer. The coordination of the Utility Work with that of the FDOT contractor and other UTILITIES and/or their contractors will be the responsibility of the FDOT, and the UTILITY shall cooper'am fully in this 'matter. All information required for Changes or Supplemental Agreements pertaining to the Utility Work shall be prompdy furnished to the FDOT by the UTILITY upon the request of the FDOT. $. The FDOT will provide the necessary engin~ring supervision to assure construction is in compliance with the plans and specifications hereinafter referred to, and shall receive all bids for and let all contracts for said Utility Work all at the sole expense of the UTILITY. All bids for said Utility Work shall be taken into consideration in the award of bid on the FDOT Project and the UTILITY shall have the right to review and reje~ any and all bids on the Utility Work. If said bids exceed the FDOT'S estimated cost by more than ten percent (10%), the FDOT may ele~ to participate in the cost involved in the Utility Work. Such participation shall be limited to the difference between the FDOT'S official estimate plus ten percent (10%) and the amount awarded for the Utilit? Work. In the event the FDOT does not elect to participate in the manner prescribed above and the bid is rejected by the UTILITY, then the ~ shall arrange, at its own expense, for the prompt consu'uction of the Utility Work in accordance with the relocation schedule submitted by the tyrlLrrY. In the event the UTILITY elects this option, the UTO_iTY shall notify the FDOT of ~ intent and reques~ the refund of the deposited funds. Upon the receipt of such notice, the FDOT shall amend the highway contract documents prior to award. The UTILITY shall cooperate with the FDOT'$ contractor to schedule the sequence of the UTILITY'$ work so as not to delay the work of the FDOT'$ contractor. The UTILrrY shall defend any legal ct:~im-~ of the FDOT'S contractor due to delays caused by the UTILITY'S failure to comply with their relocation schedule, and shall comply with all provision of the law and the FDOT "Utility Accommodation Manual.' The U'I'R.I'rY shall not be responsible for delays beyond its normal control. 6. All adjustments, relocations, repairs and incidentals required to be performed t~ the existing ~tilities within this project., not included in this contract, will be the sole responsibility of the UTIL1TY and will be handled under a separate agreement and utility relocation schedule. Ail such work is to be coordinated with the construction of this project and in a manner that will not cause delay to the FDOT contractor. 7. Ail services and work under the construcxion contrac~ shall be pe.-formed to the satisfaction of the DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS or designee, and he shall decide all questions, difficult/es and disputes of whatever nanu'e, which may arise under or by reason of such contract for Utility Work; the prosecution and fulfillment of the services thereunder, and the character, quality, amount and value thereof; and his decision upon all c~:~im_% questions and disputes thereunder shall be final and conclusive upon the parries hereto. 8. The UTILITY agrees that it will, at least seven (7) days prior to the FDOT'$ advertising the construction project for bid, furnish the FDOT an advance payment, including allowances, in the amount of $ :~. s,s, 8.00 for payment of said Utility Work. In the event that the actual bid amount plus allowances is greater than the amount previously provided, the UTIL1TY agrees that, within fourteen (14) calendar days of notificat/on by the FDOT, it shall make an additional payment so that the tod amount provided prior to award of the bid equals the bid amount plus allowances. Both parties further agree that in the event final billing pursuant to the terms of this agreement is less than the advance payment, a refund of the excess will be made by the FDOT to the LrrIL1TY and that in the event said final billing is greater than the advance payment, the UTILITY will pay the additional amount within forty (40) days from the date of the invoice. The payment of funds as required above will be made as follows (choose one): Direct:fy to the FDOT for deposit into the State Transportation Trust Fund. Deposit as provided in the attached Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit A) between UTILITY, FDOT, and the Florida Department of Insurance, Division of Treasury. 9. Upon completion and acceptance of the work, the UTILITY shall own, control, maintain and be responsible for all of its facilities, according to the terms of the utility permit. The UTILITY fur,her agrees to comply with all provisions of the F'DOT 'Utility Accommodation Manual." 10. The UTILITY covenants and agrees that it shall, to the extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the FDOT from any and all legal actions, claims or demands by any person or legal entit~ against the FDOT arising out of the joint participation in this Agreement. 1 I. Upon final payment to the contractor for the entire project, the FDOT shall, within one hundred eight3, (180) days, furnish the UTILrrY with two (2) copies of its final and complete billing of all cost incurred in connection w/th the work performed hereunder, such statement to follow as closely as possible the order of the items contained in the job estimate. The final billin§ will show the description and site of the project; the date on which the first work was performed or the date on which the last work was performed or the last item of billed expense was incurred; and the location where the records and accounts billed can be audited. All cost r~cords and accounts shall be subject to audit by a representative of the UTILITY within three (:~) years after acceptance of the project. In the event final cost is less than the advance payment, the FDOT will refund the balance to the UTILrrY. If the final cost exceeds the advance payment, the I. YTILrrY will be invoiced for the balance. Upon receipt of the final invoice, the UTILITY will reimburse the FDOT in the amount of such actttal cost within forty (a3) days. The UTILITY shall pay an additional char!~e of 1% per month on any invoice not paid within the time specified in the preceding sentence until the invoice is paid. 12. The UTIL1TY shall pay the I:DOT'S re2sonable attorneys' fees and court costs if the FDOT prevails in litigation for the enforcement of the provisions of paragraphs 1, 8 or 1:2 of this a, greement. 13. This document incorporates and includes all prior negotiations, correspondence, conversations, agreements or understandings applicable to the matters contained herein, and the parties a~ee that there are no commitments, agreements or understandings concerning the subject matter of this Agreement that are not contained in this document. Accordingly, k is agreed that no deviation from the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any prior representation or agreements whether oral or written. It is further agreed that no modification, amendment or alteration in the terms or conditions contained herein shall be effective unless contained in a written document executed with the same formality and of equal dignity herewith. 14. This Agreement shall be l,~overned, interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of Florida. 15. If any pan of this Agreement shall be determined to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by any other legally constituted body having the jurisdiction to make such determination, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect provided that the pan of the Agreement thus invalidated or declared unenforceable is not material to the intended operation of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the pard~s he. rexo have caused th~se presents to be executed by their duly authorized officers, and their official s~als hereto affixed, the day and year first above written. urltrrY: cstv of De!ray Beach William H. ~-~eenwood ~r~e:Bir~ctor of Environmental Services) (SEAL) Alison MacGregor HaSty (Title: ~i~y Clerk FDOT Approved as to Form, Legality ~ud Execution BY: BY: Attorney District Utility Engineer STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY: (Title: Dim'itt Se~etarv ) (SEAL) ATTEST(s): (Title: UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT ur~rn~s (AT OWNER'S 07/95 EXPENSE) ~a~ ~ of 2 WPI NO. STATE PROJECT NO. STATE RD. COUNTY DOC NO. FAP NO. 4118666 93010-6505 5 (,US-l) PALM BEACH N/A N/A THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,199 , by and between the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter called the DEPARTMENT, and THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH , with its principal place of business in the City of Defray B~ch , County of Palm Beach ' , State of Fioritla , hereinafter referred to as UTILITY OWNER. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT is constructing, reconstructing or otherwise changing a portion of the State Highway System designated by the DEPARTMENT as State Project No. 93010-6505 Road No. 5 (US-I) . from Bond Way to the Bovnton Beach Canal , hereinafter referred to as the "Project", which shall call for the location (vertically and horizontally), protection and/or relocation and adjustment of the UTILITY OWNER's facilities on said Project, hereinafter referred to as "Relocation Work"; and WHEREAS, the plans for the said construction, reconstruction or other changes to be made have been reviewed by the DEPARTMENT and the UTILITY OWNER, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, it is agreed by the parties as follows: 1. The UTILITY OWNER shall make or cause to be made all arrangements for this Relocation Work at its own expense and in accordance with the plans, designs and specifications of the DEPARTMENT for the construction or reconstruction of the Project and the provisions of the DEPARTMENT's current Utility Accommodation Manual, which, by reference, is made a part of this Agreement. 2. The UTILITY OWNER shall perform all Relocation Work so as to cause no delay to the DEPARTMENT or its contractor in the prosecution of the Project, and all such Relocation Work shall be done under the direction of the DEPARTMENT's engineer. The UTILITY OWNER agrees that it will be directly responsible for any legal claims that the Project contractor may initiate due to delays caused by the Relocation Work; provided, however, the UTILITY OWNER shall not be responsible for delays beyond its control. 3. The UTILITY OWNER agrees to locate (vertically and horizontally), and protect its facilities throughout the Projects life. The UTILITY OWNER also agrees to relocate its facilities upon the DEPARTMENT's right-of-way according to the terms of the relocation schedule and the DEPARTMENT's utility permit. 4. The UTILrrY OWNER accepts sole responsibility for obtaining all Federal and/or State permits required for this Relocation work. 5. The UTILITY OWNER shall perform all such Relocation Work either with its own forces or by a contractor paid under a contract let by the UTILITY OVOCER and under the direction of the DEPARTMENT's engineer. The UTILITY OWNER shall neither proceed with prosecution of the Relocation Work with its own forces nor let a contract of such Relocation Work until it has received the DEPARTMENT's written authority to proceed. 6. The UTILITY OWNER shall maintain the Relocation Work in good repair in accordance with the DEPARTMENT's current Utility Accommodation Manual. 7. The DEPARTIVIENT shall furnish the UTILITY OWNER with all necessary construction plans that are required by the UTILITY OWNER to facilitate the Relocation Worlc The UTILITY OWNER's plans, maps, or sketches showing the Relocation Work are made a part hereof by reference. 8. To the ex,mt pwv/ded by law, the UTILITY OV~NER shall indemnify, defend, save harmless and exonera~ ~he DEPARTIVfENT, i~ o/~c~m agmm md emplo.~e~ of and from all l/~)ility, claim, loa~. dam,%~, cost, chin-ge, expense ~nd dcmandm m/sing out of ~hc Relocation Work uadm'mkm by ~h~ UTILITY OWNER, i~ employee~, age. nm, r~presentm~/ve~, or su~onwaaor~ due in whole, or in pan to conditions, m:~iorm, or om/,~/o~ done or ~m~niv~d by ~e ~~ O~ subcOn~w~, employs, ng~n~ or ~en~v~. It is s~cifi~ly unde~d ~d %~ ~ ~ ~d~fi~on d~ no[ cover or ~d~ ~e D~~ for i~ own neg~genc~ or b~h of con~ 9. ~e UT~ O~ER s~l ~o~ ~e D~~'s ~ffin~ ~ ~fini when it s~, swps. ~ md E~sh~ ~e R~on Wo~ I0 ~s ~men~ s~l ~m~n in ~ll fore ~ ~celled. md ~y ~ ~lled by ei~ p~ upon (50) days ~n node:. ]~ V~TNESS ~rI=fl~REOF. the pa~/e~ ~ hav~ ~mmed the~e pmmm~ ~) be execumd by ~Sr duly authorized officer~. ~nd ~heir official ~ h~w affix~ the d~y and year first above wrir~'n. LVI1~: City of Delray Beach Environmental Services Willla~m H. ~eenwood ~l~tle: D~ factor of Environmental Services (~) ~,.Alison Macgregor H~rty ' _~. I .. - t~me: , ~y ~ler~ ) Recommend Approval by the District UffiRy Office BY: DATE: FDOT Approved as to Form and Lega~ty BY: DATE: Distr/ct General Counsel STATE OF FLORIDA DEPAR'I2vlF_,NT OF TRANSPORTATION BY: DATE: (Title: ) ATTEST(s): (SEAL) (Tit~e: ) I:ITY OF DELRAY BEACH CiTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TELEPHONE 407/243-7823 · FACSIMILE 407/243-7816 POLICE LEGAL ADVISOR Ali.America City 1993 TO: David Harden, City Manager FROM: Eric D. Hightower, Police Legal Advisor DATE: January 31, 1996 SUBJECT: Pineapple Grove Substation Lease Enclosed for your review and Commission approval is a lease establishing a substation in the Pineapple Grove area. The Department feels such a station will greatly enhance our effectiveness in that area of the City as officers will be in that area on a more regular basis thus enhancing our presence and having a more direct impact on crime in that area. Cost will be minimal as rent will only be $1.00 per month. Additionally, liability on our part will not increase as Section 20(al of the agreement covers our sovereign immunity per F.S. 768.28. If this lease meets your approval, please place the lease on the Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience as all parties are anxious to begin the substation as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter. EDH:Ibg .,,~. ;~'///- xc: Susan Ruby, City Attorney Chief Richard Overman Printed on Recycled Paper RESIDENTIAL LEASE Apartment - Condominium - House BY THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on , 199_ between Pineapple Grove Inc. herein referred to as Lessee, the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, herein referred to as Sublessee. Lessee leases to Sublessee the premises situated at 189 N.E. 2nd Avenue in the City of Delray Beach, County of Palm Beach, State of Florida, and more particularly described as follows: 189 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach Florida 33444 together with all appurtenances, for a term of 1 year, to commence on ,1996 and to end on ,1997 at 11:59 P.M. 1. Rent. Sublessee agrees to pay, without demand, to Lessee as rent for demised premises the sum of One Dollars ($1.00) per month in advance on the 1st day of each calendar month beginning ,199_ at , City of Delray Beach, State of Florida, or at such other place as Lessee may designate. 2. Quiet Enjoyment. Lessee covenants that on paying the rent and performing the covenants herein contained, Sublessee shall peacefully and quietly have, hold, and enjoy the demised premises for the agreed term. 3. Use of Premises. The demised premises shall be used and occupied by Sublessee exclusively as a police substation, and neither the premises nor any part thereof shall be used at any time during the term of this lease by Sublessee for the purpose of carrying on any business, profession, or trade of any kind, of for any purpose other than as a police substation. Sublessee shall comply with all the sanitary laws, ordinances, rules, and orders of appropriate governmental authorities affecting the cleanliness, occupancy, and preservation of the demised premises, and the sidewalks connected thereto, during the term of this lease. 4. Condition of Premises. Sublessee stipulates that he has examined the demised premises, including the grounds and all buildings and improvements, and that they are, at the time of this lease, in good order, repair, and a safe, clean, and tenantable condition. 5. Assignment and Subletting. Without the prior written consent of Lessee, Sublessee shall not assign this lease, or sublet or grant any concession or license to use the premises or any part thereof. A consent by Lessee to one assignment, subletting, concession, or license shall not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment, subletting, concession, or license. An assignment, subletting, concession, or license without the prior written consent of Lessee, or an assignment or subletting by operation of law, shall be void and shall, at Lessee option, terminate this lease. 6. Alterations and Improvements. Sublessee shall make no alteration to the buildings on the demised premises or construct any building or make other improvements on the demised premises without the prior written consent of the Lessee. All al{erations, changes, and improvements built, constructed, or placed on the demised premises by Sublessee, with the exception of fixtures removable without damage to the premises and movable personal property, shall, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between Lessee and Sublessee, be the property of Lessee and remain on the demised premises at the expiration or sooner termination of this lease. 7. Damage to Premises. If the demised premises, or any part thereof, shall be partially damaged by fire or other casualty not due to Sublessee's negligence or willful act or that of his employee, family, agent, or visitor, the premises shall be promptly repaired by Lessor and there shall be an abatement of rent corresponding with the time during which, and the extent to which, the leased premises may have been untenatable; but, if the leased premises should be damaged other than by Sublessee's negligence or willful act or that of his employee, family, agent or visitor to the extent that Lessee shall decide not to rebuild or repair, the term of this lease shall end and the rent shall be prorated up to the time of the damage. 8. Dangerous Materials. Sublessee shall not keep or have on the leased premises any article or thing of a dangerous, inflammable, or explosive character that might unreasonably increase the danger of fire on the leased premises or that might be consider hazardous or extra hazardous by any responsible insurance company. 9. Utilities. Sublessee shall be responsible for arranging for and paying for all utility services required on the premises. 10. Maintenance and Repair. Sublessee will, at his sole expense, keep and maintain the leased premises and appurtenances in good and sanitary condition and repair during the term of this lease and any renewal thereof. In particular, Lessee shall keep the fixtures in the house in good order and repair; keep the furnace clean; keep the electric bells in order; keep the walks free from dirt and debris; and at his sole expense, shall make all required repairs to the plumbing, range, heating, apparatus, and electric and gas fixtures whenever damage thereto shall have resulted from Sublessee's misuse, waste, 2 or neglect or that of his employee, family, agent, or visitor. Major maintenance and repair of the leased premises, not due to Lessee's misuse, waste, or neglect or that of his employee, family, agent, or visitor shall be responsibility of Sublessee or his assigns. 11. Animals. Sublessee shall keep no domestic or other animals on or about the leased premises without the written consent of Lessee. 12. Right of Inspection. Sublessee and his agents shall have the right at all reasonable times during the term of this lease and any renewal thereof to enter the demised premises for the purpose of inspecting the premises in all buildings and improvements thereon. 13. Display of Signs. During the last 30 days of this lease, Lessee or his agent shall have the privilege of displaying the usual "For Sale" or "For Rent" or '%/acancy" signs on the demised premises and of showing the property to prospective purchasers or tenants. Sublessee shall be allowed to display signs identifying the unit as a Police Sub-station during the period of the lease. 14. Subordination of Lease. This lease and Sublessee's leasehold interest hereunder are and shall be subject, subordinate, and inferior to any liens or encumbrances now or hereafter placed on the demised premises by Lessee, all advances made under any such liens or encumbrances, the interest payable on any such liens or encumbrances, and any and all renewals or extensions of such liens or encumbrances. 15. Holdover by Sublessee. Should Sublessee remain in possession of the demised premises with the consent of Lessee after the natural expiration of this lease, a new month-to-month tenancy shall be created between Lessee and Sublessee which shall be subject to all the terms and conditions hereof but shall be terminated on thirty (30) days written notice served by either Lessee or Sublessee on the other party. 16. Surrender of Premises. At the expiration of the lease term, Sublessee shall quit and surrender the premises hereby demised in as good state and condition as they were at the commencement of this lease, reasonable use and wear thereof and damages by the elements excepted. 17. Default. If any default is made in the payment of rent, or any part thereof, at the times hereinbefore specified, or if any default is made in the performance or of compliance with any other term or condition hereof, the lease, at the option of Lessee, shall terminate and be forfeited, and Lessee may re-enter the premises and remove all persons therefrom. Sublessee shall be given written notice of any default or breach, and termination in forfeiture of the lease, shall not result if, within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, Sublessee has corrected the default or breach or has taken action reasonably likely to effect such correction within a reasonable time. Likewise, if any default is made in the performance or of compliance with any other term or condition hereof, the lease at the option of Sublessee, shall terminate and be forfeited, and Sublessee may vacate the premises and remove all persons and personal property therefrom. Sublessee shall be given written notice of any default or breach, and termination in forfeiture of the lease, shall not result if within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, Lessee has corrected the default or breach or has taken action reasonably likely to effect such correction within a reasonable time. 18. Abandonment. If at any time during the term of this lease Sublessee abandons the demised premises or any part thereof for a period of thirty (30) days or more, Lessee may, at his option, enter the demised premises by any means without being liable for any prosecution therefor, and without becoming liable to Sublessee for damages or for any payment of any kind whatever, and may, at his discretion, as agent for Sublessee, relet the demised premises, or any part thereof, for the whole or any part of the then unexpired term, and may receive and collect all rent payable by virtue of such reletting, and, at Lessee option, hold Sublessee liable for any difference between the rent that would have been payable under this lease during the balance of the unexpired term, if this lease had continued in force, and the net rent for such period realized by Lessee by means of such reletting. If Sublessee right of re- entry is exercised following abandonment of the premises by Sublessee, then Lessee may consider any personal property belonging to Sublessee and left on the premises to also have been abandoned, in which case Lessee may dispose of all such personal property in any manner Lessee shall deem proper and is hereby relieved of all liability for doing so. 19. Binding Effect. The covenants and conditions herein contained shall apply to and bind the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of the parties hereto, and all covenants are to be construed as conditions of this lease. 20. Other Terms: A. Sovereign Immunity. Nothing herein shall be shall be deemed a wavier of the city's sovereign immunity as set forth in Florida Statute 768.28. B. Repairs Prior to Entry. Lessee shall be responsible for all repairs, and establishing apartment in good condition on the interior prior to entry, by SubleSsee. The Sublessee shall be responsible for all repairs and 4 establishing apartment in good condition on the exterior, prior to entry by Sublessee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this lease at City of Delray Beach, Florida, day and year first above written. By: Mayor Thomas E. Lynch, Sublessee Pineapple Grove Inc., Lessee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form and Legal Sufficiency: City Attorney - Delray Beach PlNEAPLJAORM'r CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER FROM: DIANE DOMINGUEZ, DIRECTOR~(~0~/~ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AN'D~Z"-'0~I-N(~ ~ SUBJECT: MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 HARBOR CLUB REPOT **CONSENT AGENDA** ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is approval of the final plat for Harbor Club, a 14 unit fee simple townhouse development. The subject property is 1.4 acres in size and is located on the west side of Florida Blvd., between Lamat and Avenue L. BACKGROUND: The subject property was originally platted in 1926 as Lots 23-27 in Block 28, Lots 30- 39 in Block 34, and a portion of Frederick Boulevard, in the DeI-Raton Park Subdivision. In 1984 it was replatted as the Harbor Club boundary plat and is currently developed with eight townhouse rental units with attached garages, guest parking, and an internal drive. The property is zoned Residential Multifamily (RM). The Harbor Club replat consists of 14 fee simple townhouse lots; Tract A (private street and associated landscaping); Tract B (recreation area); and dedication of drainage, sewer, and general utility easements. Essentially, this replat will change a boundary plat into a plat that consists of individual lots for each of the existing and proposed townhouses, as well as common areas and easements. All technical issues have been satisfactorily resolved. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION: The Planning and Zoning Board considered this item at its meeting of January 22, 1996. The Board unanimously recommended approval on a 7-0 vote. RECOMMENDED ACTION: [] By motion, approve the final plat for Harbor Club Attachments: · Location Map · Site Plan and Plat for the Harbor Club DUCKY DEN T'S BASEBALL SCHOOL SHER WOOD GMC TRUCKS T R 0? I C DELRA Y ¢ o~ l ~" TOYOTA LA-MAT AVENUE B A Y GARDENIA DR. H MORSE SA TURN HYACINTH DR. DUMAR MOBILE PLAZA EASTVIEW HOMES VILLAGE IRIS DR. SHERWOOD HONDA DELRA Y SHOPPING TROPIC JASMINE DR. MOBILE CENTER VIEW HOMES AVENUE L PELICAN HARBOR BOCA ISLE SHOPPES CONDO TROPIC ISLE DR. ~ "~ ~ O PELICAN POINTE o CONDO ..~ o N ~ HARBOR CLUB PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF 0ELRAY BEACH. FL -- DIGItaL ~SE MAP .,cYE;rCM -- MAP REF: LMO06 _,~ OEVA2'If)08 t,'OlE0 7-,-I .~_ _ __..-'-- .... .O0'Ogt ' ' I ~ ~ £ 107 ~ ~ ..... i '-'~ ............ I I v loyal .~.~. ~ , ............................... O0'Ogt ...... '~ ~'~ " ~ Ot Od '}t '~'d ~ ~EVd NOiVE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER S~B~CT: ~ND~ IT~ # ~R~C~ R~P~I~S ~ ~O~SSION~ S~RVIC~S~O~SO~ YOKOGAWA CORPORATION DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is before the Commission to approve emergency repairs and professional services to the computer hardware that drives the Water Treatment Plant. After a lightning strike on September 2, 1995 it became necessary to go to the original contractor, Johnson Yokogawa Corporation, to work on the affected hardware and software. They installed fiber optics so that lightning cannot be transmitted from the radio receiver to the computer, software communications were reestablished, upgrades performed, tape backup performed, surge arrestors installed, and other related safety measures. Recommend approval of the emergency repairs and professional services provided to the Water Treatment Plant by the Johnson Yokogawa Corporation. JAN 2 ! CITY M~'," ~ ...... n~_~lCt To: David Harden, City Manager .\ From: Don Haley, Manager of Water Treatment Plant '~ SUBJECT: PURCHASE ORDER//544063 Date: January 18, 1996 The Water Treatment Plant operates by utilizing personal computers (P.C.'s) that have a software program called B.J./Realflex. The plant also has Program Logic Computers (PLC), that actually drive the plant. The Water Treatment Plant also had an employee (Michael Blusiewicz) who could work with the software/hardware. Unfortunately, our M.I.S. Department does not work on control systems and is not familiar with our software. After our lightning strike on September 2, 1995, we had to go back to our original contractor, (Johnson Yokogawa Corporation), who has the expertise and knowledge to work on our system. Emergency repairs and professional services were required on the hardware/software. After detailed evaluation by Mr. Joseph Safford, Director of Finance, and his M.I.S. staff, it was recommended to contact Johnson Yokogawa because they are the only company that handles Realflex. The work that has been performed so far covers software, hardware and contractor's service of other related equipment. The work completed is being billed on a monthly basis, so there will be invoices forthcoming for the months of October, November, December 1995 and January 1996. During the month of September, they performed installation of fiber optics to prevent a reoccurrence because lightning will not be transmitted from the radio receiver to the computer. During the month of October, software communications reestablished, up grades on realflex (software) performed, worked on Monthly Operating Report (MOR), performed tape back- up, installed new printer on alarms and reconnected video splitters on monitors. In the month of November, they replaced the Serveo assemblies, reconnected the Uninterruptable Power Supply (U.P.S.) unit, reestablished Realflex communication with D.F.S., performed power shutdown procedure, tested surge arrestors to fiber optics, defragged historical file, deleted list of unnecessary operation files and worked on spread sheets. During the month of December, they worked on the lime silo level indicators, and the software (Realflex) locked up, so communications had to be reestablished with D.F.S DH/dk cc: William H. Greenwood, Dir. of Env. Services File: po544063 ..PI620U02 City Of Delray Beach Florida Buyer Processing 8:29:16 Requisition number : 0000037587.. Type information, press Enter. Type (F4) ....... 1 PURCHASE REQUISITION Reason ........ REPAIR~WTPCONTR~L'~'SOFTWAREYHARDW~iRE "EMERGENCY" By .......... ~kLEY/KOCH/CONFIRMED Date ......... Q~1595 Vendor number ..... 3402 Name (F4) ...... JOHNSON YOKOGAWA Search type ..... B=Begins with, C=Contains Contract nbr (F4) Ship to (F4) ..... WP WATER TREATMENT PLANT Deliver by date .... 011296 Type options, press Enter. l=Select for P.O. 2=Change 4=Delete 8=Item comments 9=Quotes Opt Line# Quantity UOM D~S..c~r~iption 1 1.00 EA REPAIR COMPUTER HARDWARE & MAINTENANCE TO SYSTEM. _ & SOFTWARE @ $90.00/ HR. $150.00 DAILY EXPENSES SEPTEMBER WORK AS PER INVOICE # 005646 - 12-29-95 COMMENTS EXIST ~ 'Total-: ~.~.10,1312.78 F3=Exit F4=Prompt F6=Add item F7=Alternate view F8=Req quotes F9=Generate P.O. F12=Cancel F24=More keys MEMORDR~DUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER ~. , SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # F.A. _ MEETING OF FEBRU~RY 6, 1996 REVIEW OF APPEkI~tBLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOkRD ACTIONS DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 Attached is the Report of Appealable Land Use Items for the period January 22 through February 2, 1996. It informs the Commission of the various land use actions taken by the designated boards which may be appealed by the City Commission. Recommend review of appealable actions for the period stated; receive and file the report as appropriate. CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER THRU: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FROM: ~ASMIN ALLEN, PLANNER SUBJECT: MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 * CONSENT AGENDA* REPORT OF APPEALABLE LAND USE ITEMS JANUARY 22. 1996 THRU FEBRUARY 2. 1996 ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is that of review of appealable actions which were made by various Boards during the period of January 22, 1996, through February 2, 1996. BACKGROUND This is the method of informing the City Commission of land use actions, taken by designated Boards, which may be appealed by the City Commission. After this meeting, the appeal period shall expire (unless the 10 day minimum has not occurred). Section 2.4.7(E) of the LDRs applies. In summary, it provides that the City Commission hears appeals of actions taken by an approving Board. It also provides that the City Commission may file an appeal. To do so: 1. The item must be raised by a City Commission member. 2. By motion, an action must be taken to place the item on the next meeting of the Commission as an appealed item. City Commission Documentation Appealable Items Meeting of February 6, 1996 Page 2 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 22. 1996 No appealable items were considered by the Board. The following agenda items which were considered by the Board will be forwarded to the City Commission for final action. Approved (7 to 0), the preliminary plat and certified the final plat as being consistent with the preliminary plat for Harbor Club Replat, to allow the conversion of a rental development to a townhouse development located on the west side of Florida Boulevard, between Avenue "H" and Avenue "L". · Recommended approval (6 to 0) of a rezoning from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District - Railroad Corridor) for a parcel of land located on the southeast corner of S.E. 1st Avenue and unimproved S.E. 6th Street immediately west of the F.E.C. Railway. · Recommended approval (6 to 0) of a conditional use request to allow the sale of all terrain vehicles and wave runners at the Turner Outdoor Equipment Facility, located on the east side of North Federal Highway, approximately 1,300 feet south of Gulfstream Boulevard. · Recommended approval (5 to 1) of a Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commerce to Medium Density Residential (5-12 du/acre) on approximately 31 acres, and from Commerce to Transitional on approximately 4 acres for the Waterford/Delint Development of Regional Impact (DRI), located south of Linton Boulevard, west of Lindell Boulevard. · Recommended approval (5 to 1) of a request to modify an approved Special Activities District (SAD) to replace 322,000 square feet of office space with a 300-unit apartment complex and a 78-room residence/business hotel for the Waterford/Delint DRI. · Recommended approval (7 to 0) of proposed amendments to the CRA's Community Redevelopment Plan. City Commission Documentation Appealable Items Meeting of February 6, 1996 Page 3 SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 24. 1996 A. Approved (7 to 0) with conditions, the site plan, landscape plan and building elevation plans for La Sedona, (fka Rockland Park), a proposed 66 unit townhouse development to be located on the west side of Military Trail, north of Atlantic Avenue. Concurrently, the Board approved the following waivers: · Reducing the required right-of-way width for the proposed private loop road from 60 feet to 40 feet, with a pavement width of 22 feet. · Allowing the installation of sidewalks on only one side of the street. · Reducing the required 25 foot building setback to 20 feet along the access road/tract; · Reducing the building separation requirements from 31.3 feet to 25 feet. B. Approved (7 to 0) with conditions, the site plan, landscape plan and building elevation plans for Elmore POC, a proposed 215,000 square foot office building on the Hardrives Property located on the west side of Congress Avenue, south of Germantown Road. Concurrently, the Board approved the following waivers: · Eliminating the required 5 foot landscape buffer along a portion of the eastern property line. · Relocating the preserve area and oak hammock. · Reducing the required parking from 753 spaces to 726 spaces. C. Approved (6 to 0) with conditions, the site plan, landscape plan and building elevation plans in conjunction with an expansion to Noland Company, an existing wholesale plumbing distribution center. The proposal involved a 29,340 square foot building addition. Noland Company is located on the east side of Congress Avenue, approximately 1/2 mile north of Atlantic Avenue. Concurrently, the Board approved several waivers, namely, City Commission Documentation Appealable Items Meeting of February 6, 1996 Page 4 Reducing the required parking from 57 spaces to 47 spaces. · Reducing the right-of-way width from 50 feet to 40 feet for Dr. Carol Krol Way and from 60 feet to 45 feet for N.W. 18th Avenue. · Eliminating the requirement for the installation of a sidewalk in Dr. Carol Krol Way and N.W. 18th Avenue rights-of-way. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD No Regular meeting was held during this period. RECOMMENDED ACTION. By motion, receive and file this report. Attachment: Location Map LOCATION MAP FOR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 L-~_ CANAL_ 1:2 ,.J i ~ L~E IDA MAD ~ ~. NW ....... r~::i ~-- ., ~w .... ~ i A~AN~C A o i LO~ B~LEV~D m i - ~ LINT~ 8~LEV~0 = L-~ C~AL C-15 C~AL S.P.R.A.B.: CITY LIMITS A. - LA SEDONA TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT B. - ELMORE P.O.C. MILl ] C. - NOLAND COMPANY I SCALE CITY OF DELRAY BFJ~CH, FL PLANNING DEPARTMENT -- D/G/TAZ B4E~ M,4P 57~1'EM -- MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER ~ ~.~'I SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM ~ ~' ~' - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is before the Commission to approve the award of the follow- ing bids: 1. Bid award to Rust Off, Inc. for anti-rust chemical maintenance in City irrigation systems for a three year term, in an estimated annual amount of $34,000 from 119-4144-572-52.21, 001-4121-572-52.21, 001-4127-572-52.21, and 001-4511-539-52.21. 2. Bid award to Walcott and Sons for nuisance abatement lot clearing and mowing, at an estimated annual cost of $16,900 from 001-2741-524-34.30. 3. Bid award to Precision Solar Controls, Inc. for the purchase of a Solar Mobile Traffic Monitor for the Police Department, in the amount of $12,294 from 115-2112-521-49.90. 4. Contract renewal for Vulcan Peroxidation Systems, Inc. for odor control services in the City wastewater system. Vulcan is proposing a contract increase in Hydrogen Peroxide from $3.74 to $4o00/gal, for an estimated annual amount of $125.120, from 441-5144-536-52.21. 5. Bid award to Marandola Construction, Inc. for the N.E. 1st Court utility improvements, in the amount of $134,800 from 228-3162-541-61.19, 442-5178-536-61.78, and 442-5178-5360- 61.37. 6. Contract award for construction of Phase I of an Aquifer Storage & Recovery facility at the North Reservoir site to Youngquist Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $855,290 from 440-5179-536-69.18. 7. Purchase of six (6) Gateway P5 - 120 Mhz computers with appurtenant token ring adaptors, cables, software and licenses from Gateway 2000 to complete Environmental Services Department computer upgrade program. Funding in the amount of $16,198.68 is available from 442-5178-536- 64.11. 8. Bid award for demolition of a structure located at 2300 N. Seacrest Boulevard to JJR Construction, at a cost of $22,900 from 001-6111-519-62.10. I Agenda Item No.: AGENDA REQUEST Date: January 25, 1996 Request to be placed on: X Regular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda When: February 6, 1996 Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much): Request award of Bid #96-08 (anti-rust chemical for irrigation systems) to Anti-Rust Chemical for a 3 year term beginninK February 1, 1996 for an estimated annual amount of $34~000. ~unding will come out of accounts #119-4144-572-52.21; 001-4121-572-52.21.~ 001-4511-539-52.21 and 001-4127-572-52.21. ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YEs/N~ Draft Attached: YES/NO Recommendation: Award Bid #96-08 to Anti-Rust Chemical. Department Head Signature: w~~~~~/ Determination of Consistency~ Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: ~/ NO Funding alternatives: ,,~ ~,~A ,,',~-~ ,..,~ , ~if.aDpl._~cab.~e)/~L.../..., Account NO. a DescrA~/pn: Account Balance: ~t~ ..... City Manager Review a en a: Agenda Coordinator Review: Action: AppZo~~proved DELRAY BEACH ~ 100 N.W. 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 · 407/243-7000 AII-AmericaCity 1993 TO: Joe Safford, Finance Director FROM: Joe Weldon, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Bid #96-08 - Anti-Rust Chemical for Irrigation Systems DATE: January 25, 1996 Attached please find Bid #96-08, Anti-Rust Chemical for Irrigation Systems. This anti-rust chemical is used in our irrigation systems connected to wells, which have a high level of iron oxide in the water and produces the reddish stains if not treated. The only bidder is Rust Off, Inc. at $1.95 per gallon. Rust Off, Inc. has the existing contract and its bid 3 years ago was $1.99 per gallon, $.04 more per gallon than the current bid. The contract is for a 3 year term beginning February 1, 1996. The estimated annual amount is $34,000. Area Account Number Amount Budqeted Homewood Boulevard 119-4144-572-52.21 $30,000 Linton Boulevard medians 119-4144-572-52.21 Congress Avenue medians 119-4144-572-52.21 Boy Scout Hut 119-4144-572-52.21 Miller Park (partial) 001-4121-572-52.21 $1,200 Pompey Park (partial) 001-4127-572-52.21 $2,000 Cemetery 001-4511-539-52.21 $2,280 Please place this on the agenda for City Commission consideration February 6, 1996. I recommend Rust Off, Inc. be awarded Bid #96-08. ~er:re~rsto:°:~d°~'fDirectOr of Parks and Recreation · ']-HE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS 8~ /V/ / MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Wetdon, Director of Parks and Recreation FROM: Jacklyn Rooney, Senior Buyer~ DATE: December 26, 1995 SUBJECT: Bid #96-08 Anti-Rust Chemical Maintenance In City Irrigation Systems Bids for the above referenced subject were opened on Thursday, December 21, 1995. The bid was advertised in Palm Beach Post on December 03, 1995, and bid invitations were mailed to fifteen (15) vendors on November 30, 1995. Bids received: Rust Off Inc. $ 1.95 per gallon Florida Water Processing Co. No Bid Attached are copies of bid(s) received for your review. Please forward your recommendation, including your estimated annual usage. Attachments cc: Ray Eubank, Parks Superintendent STATEMENT OR NO BID BID # 96-08 If you are not bidding on this service/commodity, .please complete .and return this form to: City of Delray Beach Purchasing Office, 100 N.W. First Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, 33444. Failure to respond may result in deletion of vendor's name from the qualified bidder's list for the City of Delray Beach. ~I.ORIDA WATER PROCES~N~ [~5) ??Z~lZ8 MINORITY OWNED ADDRESS: BUS INESS ( ) Black ( ) Hispanic TELEPHONE: ~/~-]~ ,.~ ( ) Women SIGNATURE: , speci fy WE, the undersigned have declined to bid on your BID # 96-08 for Anti Rust Chemical Maitenance in City Irrigation Systems because of the following reaSon(s). Specifications too "tight", i.e., geared toward brand or manufacturer only (explain below) Insufficient time to respond to the Invitation to Bid We do not offer this product or an equivalent ..~, Our product schedule would not permit us to perform Unable to meet specifications U~able to meet bond requirements Specifications unclear (explain below) Other (specify below) REMARKS: Agenda Item No.: f~ AGENDA REQUEST Date: J~nuary 26. 1996 'Request to be placed on:, X Reg~ular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda When: February 06~... 1996 Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much): Bid Award- Nuisance Abatements - Lot ClearinK And MowinK - Bid #96-18 - to Walcott And Sons, at an estimated annual cost of $16~900 Annual Contract For the Code Enforcement ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO Recommendation: Award to Walcott and Sons - Bid #96-18 - Annual Contract for lot clearing and mowing for Code Enforcement at an estimated mnn,,ml rn~ of $]6;900. F~nd~ng frnm ~nnmmt #DOl-274]-524-q4~qO Department Head Signature: "' -'~ ~"--~-~ ~,~~/} City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: ~/ NO Funding alternatives%-~. ' . ~ (i~ ~pD~ic.a~le)~ Account No, & Deslr' ion: ~i-2/~i-¢z4. L~--~ L~ t~f~ ,~ Account Balance: ~ Cl~'~ City Manager.Review: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved/Disapproved MEMORANDUM TO: David T. Harden, City Manager ~~n THROUGH: Joseph Saff ance Directo~r FROM: Jacklyn Rooney, Senior Buyer DATE: January 26, 1996 SUBJECT: DOCUMENTATION - CITY COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 06, 1996 - BID AWARD - BID ~96-18 NUISANCE ABATEMENTS - LOT CLEARING AND MOWING Item Before Commission: The City Commission is requested to award the annual contract for lot clearing and mowing to low bidder, Walcott and Sons, at an estimated annual cost of $16,900. Background: Bids were received on January 09, 1996, from five (5) vendors, all in accordance with City purchasing procedures. (Bid #96-18. Documentation on file in the Purchasing Office.) A tabulation of bids is attached for your review. The Community Improvement Director and Code Enforcement Administrator have reviewed the bids and recommend award to the low bidder, Walcott and Sons, per attached memo dated January 10, 1996. Recommendation: Staff recommends award to low responsible bidder, Walcott and Sons, at an estimated annual cost of $16,900. Funding from department's operating budget. Attachments: Tabulation Of Bids Memo From Code Enforcement Administrator Dated January 10, 1996 cc: Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director Richard Bauer, Code Enforcement Administrator MEMORANDUM TO: Jackie Rooney, Senior Buyer FROM: Richard Bauer, Code Enforcement Administrator THRU: Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director SUBJECT: BID 96-18 DATE: January 10, 1996 I recommend that subject bid be awarded to Walcott and Sons for all categories in the bid package. The bid package indicates Walcott and Sons to be low bidder in all categories except Category II, Item 5, where the low bidder was only $1.00/hour less than Walcott and Sons. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH TABULATION OF BIDS NUISANCE ABATEMENTS LOT CLEARING AND MOWING BID 96-18 January 09, 1996 I Walcott & I Tare Ocean Crown Delray Garden Item/Description SonI Landscape Env. Inc. ,Center Category I- Mowin8 Vacant and Occupied Lots: 1. Lots up to 3,375 sq. ft. Flat Rate 25.00 30.00 142.50 225.00 2. Lots over 3,375 sq. ft. to 6,750 sq. ft. Flat Rate 35.00 39.00 280.00 325.00 3. Lots over 6,750 sq. ft. to 13,500 sq. ft 45.00 45.00 500.00 450.00 Fiat Rate 4. Lots over 13,500 45.00 45.00 500.00 425.00 sq. ft. Flat rat~ per 1,000 sq.ft. ~over 1.75 sq. ft. 1.95 sq. ft. 42.50 sq. ft. 100.00 sq. ft. 13,500 sq. ft. Category II- Accumulatin~ and Removin~ Trash 5. Bid Per Hour 16.00 15.00 60.00 60.00 Comments/Exceptions CITY OF DELRAY BEACH TABULATION OF BIDS NUISANCE ABATEMENTS LOT CLEARING AND MOWING BiD 96-18 January 09, 1996 Item/Description IRPMS Co. Inc. C~tesor¥ I- Mowin8 Vacant and Occupied Lots: 1. Lots up to 3,375 sq. ft. 485.00 2. Lots over 3,375 sq. ft. to 6,750 sq. ft. 530.00 3. Lots over 6,750 sq. ft. to 13,500 sq. ft 550.00 4. Lots over 13,500 610.00 sq. ft. + Flat rate per 1,000 sq.ft. 'over 13,500 sq. ft. 60.00 sq. ft. Category II- Accumulatin~ and Removin~ Trash 5. Bid Per Hour 46.~00 Comments/Exceptions AGENDA REQUEST Date: 3anuary 26.1996 Request to be placed on:, X Regular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda When: Fahr,lary 06; lqq6 Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much): Purchas~ . award for the purchase of a Solar Mobile Traffice Monitor for the Police Department, Frnm Prm~qmlnn ,qA]mr Controls_. In~_. at a total cost of $12.294.. for monitoring speeding violations within the City. ORDINA~CR/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO Recommendation: Award the purchase of a Solar Mobile Traffic Monitor for Police Department from Precision Solar Controls Inc. at a total cost of $12~294. Fllndqn~ from ~aOllnt #115-2112-521-49,90, Deteai~tion of Consistency wit~prehensive P~n: City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds}: Funding available: ~/ NO Funding alternativeg-~. , ~ ~_ (if applicable) City Manager Review: Approved for agenda: NO Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved/Disapproved MEMORANDUM TO: David T. Harden, City Manager THROUGH: Joseph Saf~~inance Director FROM: Jacklyn Rooney, Senior Buyer ~ DATE: January 26, 1996 SUBJECT: DOCUMENTATION - CITY COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 06, 1996 PURCHASE AWARD - SOLAR MOBILE TRAFFIC MONITOR Item Before Commission: The City Commission is requested to approve the purchase of a Solar Mobile Traffic Monitor to low bidder, Precision Solar Controls, Inc., at a total cost of $12,294. Background: The Police Department has requested to purchase this equipment to monitor and more effectively address the problems of speeding in the City of Delray Beach. This monitor is available from Precision Solar Controls, Inc., and can be purchased with an optional traffic/speed counter. With this device and optional traffic/speed counter, the City would be able to address more severely the speeding violations and see in the future a decline in these violations. Three quotes were obtained by the Police Department (listed below) and they have thoroughly reviewed this equipment, and recommend award of the purchase of this solar mobile traffic monitor and traffic counter to Precision Solar Controls, Inc., per attached memo dated January 03, 1996. Precision Solar Controls, Inc. $12,294.00 Lake Technology Products Inc. 15,500.00 Kustom Signals, Inc. 15,685.00 Recommendation: Staff recommends the purchase of a solar mobile traffic monitor from Precision Solar Controls, Inc., at a total cost of $12,294.00. Funding from the Police Department Federal Forfeiture account $115-2112-521-49.90. Attachments: Memo From The Delray Beach Police Department Quotes From Lake Technology and Kustom Signals cc Chief Richard G. Overman Major Richard M. Lincoln DELRAY BEACH Delray Beach Police Department {~07) 243-7888 ~ (407) 243-78~ ~MO~~ 1993 TO: Director Joseph S~ord Fin~ee F~OM: C~ef~e~d G. Ov~ DATE: Janu~ 3, 1996 As you ~e aw~e, the Poli¢e Dep~ment ~onst~tly re,ives ~ls from ¢it~ns t~ou~out the City eonee~ng speeders in their respective neighborhoods. O~ tra&tion~ response is to assi~ ~s problem to the P~trol Di~sion for Selective E~or~ment follow-up by the zone tr~ u~t. With the ~emasing t~e demands created by P.OP. Projects, ~d a reduction in the n~ber of o~ers assi~ed to the Tr~e U~t, m~t~g the~ reque~s has b~ome more ~ult. I world; th~efom, meo~end that w~ pumh~se a Solar Mobile Tra~c Monitor ~ order to more effeCtively address the problem of speeding ~ our City. It is my belief that we ~ould operate a proem of t~s nat~e ~th t~s d~e, utili~ng our volunte~ work rome. B~ed upon eit~ ~d o~er e~ls reg~ding s~eding, t~s de~ee wo~d then be assi~ed to a ~ven neighborhood during spe¢~e time ffmes. A tern of at least ~o (2) volunteers would mo~tor the loeation ~d the de~ ~d also record the ta~ number of the speed~g ve~eles. A W~ng Fo~ L~ on Police Dep~ment le~erhead would then be sent to the registered o~er of the ve~ele, ¢autio~ng that on a sp~¢ date and time their ~e~le was obse~ed spading at a p~ieul~ lo~ation ~d that t~s w~ng was simply a eou~esy ~d ~ditional speeding ~olations would be addressed more severely. ~ that the de~ e~ be pumhased ~th ~ option~ tr~e/speed eounter, we should be able to note a d~re~ in the number of spewing ~olations ~er the ~l~ive h~s b~n establish~. the event that ¢onsidemble speeding ~olations persist, we would then assi~ the problem to the Tr~e U~t for md~ e~omem~t ~d citations. It is my op~on that t~s pro,m, st~ed by volunteers, ~ould be yet ~other oppo~ for our citizens to p~eipate ~ msoM~ problems ~t~ our City. The ~o~ bm~do~ to pumh~e t~s de~¢¢ is as fo~ows: Sol~ Mobge Tr~e Mo~tor $ Tr~e counter 1,604.00 ~e loek . 19~.00 T~s cost does not include t~ ~d s~pping. The m~ufae~ estimates the s~pp~g costs from $600.00 to $8~.~, delive~ ~ be m~de ~t~ four (4) w~ks of the order. Ple~e ~her ~omtion is needed vls At t aehment ,.......~ (352) 742-1777 RICK IRVlNE (352) 742-8~.~ FAX Senior Project Engineer LAKE TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS, INC. Manufacturers of Electronic Changeable Message Signs & Computerized Traffic Control Systems 28248 County Road 561 ' P.O. Box 267 ' Tavares, Florida 32778 SPEED YOUR LIMIT.'\ SPEED on or before [] Handle [] Please Call [] Note & File [] Please See Me [] Note & Return [] Please contact [] For Divisional circulation · [] Urgent .... [] Per Your Request .. "' [] For Your Information ' '.. [] For Your Authorization [] For Department Circulation [] Give Your Recommendations Remarks/Message~ ~-96 THU 1-2:48 KUSTOll SIGNALS, INC. [ F~ NO. 9134921703 P. 02 k ((((((( QUOTATION FORM KUSYQM SIGNALS, INC. Dabe .... 1125/g6 93251:~tun'~n,t.~mexa. KS 66215-~347 ~e... 407-243-7800 91~-1~ F~ 91~17~ F~X ~,,. 40~-243-7816 To.,. ~OR R~K ~Z~CO~ C/~ ~... DEL~Y ~ POL~ DEPT Re~ ~... 300 W A~XC A~ 0uok~ ~. 14~7 0144 ~iO~ ~ DE~Y BCH, FL 3344&-3695 ~e ~ires' after 60 Days SMART BASE SYSTEM i 10095.00 10,095.00 AXLE LOCK FOR SMART SYSTEM ' ~ 100.00 100.00 SPE~D SIG~RACK FOR SMART SYST~I 110.00 110.00 CUSTOM STRIPING FOR SMART SYSTEM 395.00 395.00 TRAFFIC STATISTICS COM~UTE~ WITH P INTER FOR SMART 4190.00 4,190.00 SYSTEM FUI~NITU~E VAN ~IGHT 795.00 792.00 TObal ** 0uote does NOT include any appl Sa Title s ile~ Representative Mike Hubchfnnon (800) 458-7866 9325 gflum~ Rd (913) 492-1400 Lenexa, KS 6621S-3347 Agenda Item AGENDA REQUEST Date: 01/31/96 XX Regular Agenda __ Special Agenda __ Workshop Agenda When: 02/06/96 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Staff requests Commission approval of a one year contract renewal for Vulcan Peroxidation Systems, Inc. for provision of odor control services in the City wastewater system. Due to chemical cost increases to Vulcan Peroxidation, they are increasing the contract price by approximately 7% from $3.74/gal. to $4.00/gal. ($116,987.20 to $125,120.00 annually). Staff has reviewed the proposal and considers the increase reasonable. This renewal will require the waving of contract terminology requiring firm pricing for any renewal period. Funding source is Lift Station Maintenance Acct. #441-5144-536-52.21, Chemicals. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YE~) ATYACItED YE$~ Recommendation: Staff recommends renewal of contract with Vulcan Peroxidation Systems, Inc. for a one year period. DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE: Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: ComprehensivePlan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if Applicable) Budget Director Review (requ~ all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available f~YE~NO Funding alternatives ~ applig;ible), Account No. & DeScription: ~F+(-cSt44-~.52-~l Account Balance: !1~; City Manager Review: Ao rov .o, Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved TO: David T. Harden, City Manager FROM: Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Deputy Director ofPU ~ SUBJECT: VULCAN PEROXIDATION SYSTEMS, INC. ODOR CONTROL CONTRACT RENEWAL DATE: January 31, 1996 Attached is an agenda request for the February 6 Regular Commission meeting requesting a one (1) year renewal of the subject contract with Vulcan Peroxidation Systems, Inc. The current contract price for chemical dosage for odor control is $3.74/gal. of 50% solution Hydrogen Peroxide. Applied to the estimated sulfide removal volume, the annual contract price was $116,987.20. Due to incremental chemical cost increases during the initial contract period totaling approximately 20%, Vulcan Peroxidation is proposing a contract increase from $3.74/gal to $4.00/gal, or, approximately 7%. This will increase the City's annual cost for odor control to $125,120.00. It should be noted that, prior to award of this contract, the City's annual cost for this service was $160,000.00. Since all vendors using Hydrogen Peroxide for odor control will pay the same relative price for the chemical and Vulcan Peroxidation is not proposing an adjustment equating to 100% of their cost increase, staff' views the proposal as reasonable and recommends renewal of the contract for a one (1) year term in the amount of $125,120.00. Staff also requests a waiver of the contract clause requiring prices to remain firm for any renewal period to accommodate this renewal request. Funding is from Lit~ Station Maintenance Account #441-5144-536-52.21, Chemicals. RCH: jem c: William H. Greenwood Jackie Rooney 8uC,j~'r 0]I 13100 HYDROGE~ BULFXDB COBFTROT. SYSTEM 1 · 01 WORK INCLUDED A. The intent is to establish an annual contract for the provision of a total turnkey hydrogen sulfide control system. B. The Vendor shall successfully furnish all engineering, labor, equip- ment, materials and necessary chemicals to install, adjust, test, operate and maintain a system for the control of hydrogen sulfide within the City of Delray Beach's sanitary sewer transmission system, complete, as specified herein. C. Work shall also be understood to include all necessary incidentals and additional chemicals to provide all services specifically mentioned within this specification throughout the term of the VENDOR' S contract. D. Where applicable, like items of equipment and components provided hereunder shall be the end products of one manufacturer in order to achieve standardization for appearance, operation and maintenance. 1.02 A. VENDOR: Pre-qualified company, organization or individual capable of providing a complete turnkey hydrogen sulfide control system consisting of but not limited to providing all personnel, equipment, testing, chemicals, maintenance, system optimization and progress testing and reports. B. OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. C. Point of Discharqe= The Delray Beach sample point location is a 2-inch force main sample line and valve located at the existing pit northeast of the headworks building at the SCRWTDB site. D. PPM~ Parts per million. E. NIOSH= National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. F. SCRWTDB = South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board. A. The contract resulting from this specification shall be a term contract for the time period specified herein. It shall be understood that the City of Delray Beach is not obligated to purchase any specific quantity of service under this contract. B. The period of contract shall extend for 12 months from the date of the Notice to Proceed. C. The contract shall be renewable annually to a maximum term of 3 years by approval of the City Commission unless the CITY or the successful VENDOR receiving award shall give notice to the other party of intent not to renew the Agreement, which notice must be delivered by certified mail and must be received at least sixty (60) days prior to the end of 10/31/94 13100 215.EOA i HYDROGEN SULFIDE CONTROL SYSTEM the initial contract period. ~All terms, prices and conditions shall remain firm for the initial ~eriod of the contract and any renewal r od. D. The CITY may cancel this contract, in whole or in part, by giving thirty (30) days prior notice in writing. Any costs related to termination of this contract shall be subject to negotiation. Termination of the contract may result from the VENDOR's failure to meet and maintain the system performance criteria specified herein. E. No warranty or guarantee is given or implied as to the total amount of service, chemical or both to be purchased as a result of this contract. 1.04 B~STEM PERFOR~d~CE D28C~IPTION A. The system shall provide hydrogen sulfide control in compliance with current CITY, OSHA and NIOSH Standards and as follows: 1. The total liquid level of hydrogen sulfide in the waste stream at the point of discharge to the South central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board (SCRWTDB) shall be maintained at an average level of 7 parts Per million (PPM) at all times. 2. The hydrogen sulfide control system shall not cause any d~-~ge or deterioration of the CITY's sanitary sewer system or the SCRWTDB Regional Treatment Facility. 3. The system must address and provide control for hydrogen sulfide related problems associated with lift stations #50 and %80. (Exhibit A attached}. The system shall meet the following criteria at the named lift stations: a. Maximum dissolved hydrogen sulfide level shall be main- tained at or below 2 ppm. 4. The VENDOR shall monitor and inspect all equipment and system appurtenances on a continual basis as needed to ensure proper and continuous operation. 5. The VENDOR shall monitor and record hydrogen sulfide levels on a weekly basis and submit monthly reports to the CITY indicating recorded hydrogen sulfide levels and compliance or non-compliance with these performance standards. 6. The CONTRACTOR shall respond to all odor complaints in a maximum four (4) hour time period. 7. The system equipment and appurtenances shall be aesthetically non-intrusive with respect to its surrounding area and environ- ment. 1.05 ZND~I'ITY, SAFET]~ AND INSURANCE PROVISION A. The VENDOR shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Delray Beach, its employees and agents, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expense, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of his operations under this contract. 10/31/94 13100 215.EOA 2 HYDROGEN SULFIDE CONTROL SYSTEM 1996 city of Delray B~ch 434 South Sw/nton Avonu~ D~lray Be. ach, FL 33444 Att~ Mr. Richard C. Hasko, P.E. De, ar Mr. Halo: Per our discussion on Friday, Jamm~ 26, 1996, Vulcan Pcroxidation Sys/zms, Inc. (VPS1) bas passing a portion of~ corn on to our ctmom~rs. Th~ City ofDzlray B~u:h (City) is a vahmi customm to VPSI and bas been for 6 y~rs now. During this timz, w~ haw nc, mr incrr, zs~ pric~ to th~ Cit~. Since Octobcr 1994, th~ markzt pric/n$ for 50% hydrogen peroxide Ires bct, n increasing slightly cv~ fzw months. ~ ~ haw ~ a rcsponm to incrr, as~ d~nands for product with offlist pricc~ for 50% hydrollca pmoxidz since 10/1/94. Be, c, ansc VPSI has a multi-year contract with the City, VPSI is not scck/n~ to pass on a 20% increase to thc City. It is nccc~m~ howmmr, to increase pric/n$ from $3.74/gallon of 50% H~O~ to $4.00/~11o~ This ~ equals slishtly 1~ than 7% ofth~ p~wiom coa Ewn though w~ r~grct ~ ~, it is ncc~ to continuz thc quality ofm-ei~ to which thc City is Thaalcs for your continuzd business and please lct mc know if I can answcr any quc~ons for you. Sincerer, Bill Stratton Southe.~ Rzgional Manager ss/j 61~eroxidation I' SOLVAY SOLVAY INTEROX January 1, 1996 Mr. Donald I-Lager Vulcan Peroxidation Systems 5151 East Broadway, Suite 600 Tucson, AZ $5711 Dear Mr. Hager; Eff~e January 1, 1996, or as contracts permit, Solvay Interox will increase off-list pricing for technical and dilution grades of hydrogen Per0. xide by $0.05/Ib. (100% basis); e.g., $0.035/1b. (70% basis), $0.025/Ib. (50% basis) and $0.0175/Ib. (35% basis). Canadian prices will increase CDN $150/metric ton (100% basis). Enclosed is our press release on this change. We thank you for your support and look forward to a continuing strong relationship. Sincerely, Carl H. Johnson Director of Sales cc: J.G. Neidinger Solva,: Interox 3333 ~,cmmond Avenue. Houston, Texas 77(Y38-3099 Maqing Address: P.O. Box 2?328, Houston, Texas 77227-7328 1-800-1NTEROX 713/525-6500 Fax: 713/524-9032 R~'~P°n$1l}llcaree SOLVAY so v^¥ INTEROX NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: John E. Braid 1-800-INTEROX SOLVAY INTEROX TO RAISE OFF-LIST PRICING FOR TECHNICAL AND DILUTION GRADES H202 HOUSTON (December 6, 1995)...Solvay Interox will raise North American off-list pricing for technical and dilution grades of hydrogen peroxide effective January 1, 1996, or as contracts permit. Pricing will increase US $0.05 per pound and CDN $150 per metric ton for 100% hydrogen peroxide; Other normal concentration and package differentials apply. Higher prices are required to justify additional capital spending for new capacity to meet the growing needs of the North American market. Hydrogen peroxide is expected to remain in short supply through 1996. The Solvay Interox companies are the world's leading producers of hydrogen peroxide and its derivatives, with over 100 years of experience in peroxygen chemistry. The 19 Solvay Interox and associated companies operate ProdUction units worldwide. Solvay Interox is wholly owned by Solvay S.A., one of the 200 largest industrial companies in the world. -30- Sob~y Inte~ox ~ RIclwnon~ Avenue. Houston. Texas 77098.3099 MiYE.~ Address: RO. ~ 27328. Houston. Texas 77227.7328 1-600-1NTERC0< 713/525-6500 Fax:713/524-~332 AGENDA REOUEST Date: January 30, 1.996. Request to be placed on: Regular Agenda Special Agenda __ Workshop Agenda When: February 6, 1996 Description of item (who, what, where, how much) :Award of Construction Contract to Marandola Construction. Inc. for the construction of the NE 1st Court Utility I~Drovements, Project ~95-63. This contract consists of the ~onstruction of an 8" sanitary sewer alonq the Intracoastal Waterway from NE 1st Court to Veterans Park: the construction of an 8" water mai~ on NE 1st Court: and a pavement overlay of the road. Marandola Construction, Inc. had the lowest responsible responsive bid in the amount of S134.800.00. Fundinq for this contract is as follows: PAVING AND D~INAGE DECADE OF EXCR?.?,~NCE (pHASE II) 228-3162-541-61.19 $30.380.00 WATER WATER/SE~R R/R 442-5178-536-61.78 $32.720.00 SE~R WATER/SE~R R/R 442-5178-536-61.37 $71.700.00 ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO DRAFT ATTACHED YES/NO Recommendation: Staff recommends award of the NE 1st Court Utility Improvements. Project ~95-63. to Marandola Construction. Inc. in the amount of ~134.800.00. Department head signature: ~.~~z~..,_~~ Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: YES/NO Funding alternatives , (if applicable) Account No. & Description ~Z~- ~2-5%//-~/~ l~(~r2~/ g7~,~T ~=~ Account Balance ~ ~ ~ 7 City Manager Review: ~,q/ Approved for agenda: ~/NO qUg'~775'~-~-g~V(Wf~'~R'~gr$7~q> Hold Until: ~7~1' ?~/~ ~ ~'~ Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MEMORANDUM REL;~IVED TO: DAVID T. HARDEN '~ ~ 1996 cra, . ,.,/Y, ....... FROM: WILLIAM H. GREENWOOD DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE: January 29, 1996 SUBJECT: NE 1st Court Utility Improvements Project No. 95-63 Attached is an Agenda Request and bid tabulation for the regular Commission Meeting on February 6, 1996, requesting award of the construction contract for the referenced project to Marandola Construction, Inc. They are the lowest responsible responsive bidder with a proposed contract amount of $134,800.00. This project consists of demolishing Lift Station 9 and constructing an 8" gravity sewer main from NE 1st Court to Lift Station 100A at Veteran's Park. Also included in this project is the construction of an 8" water main on NE 1st Court and an overlay of the pavement. The funding source for Paving & Drainage is from the Decade of Excellence (Phase II) account no. 228-3162-541-61.19 for $30,380.00. The funding source for Water is from the R&R account no. 442-5178-536-61.78 for $32,720.00. The funding source for Sewer is from the R&R account no. 442-5178-536-61.37 for $71,700.00. Please place this item on the agenda for commission approval. WHG:kjb Attachment cc: C. Danvers Beatty, P.E., City Engineer Richard Hasko, P.E., Deputy Dir. ESD, Public Utilities Joseph Safford, Finance Director Jackie Rooney, Buyer File: Project No. 95-63(D) AR-MEMO.DOC Agenda Item No. AGENDA REQUEST Date: 01/~ 1/96 XX Regular Agenda __ Special Agenda __ Workshop Agenda When: 02/06/96 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Staff requests Commission award of a construction contract for Phase I of an Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) facility at the North Reservoir site to Youngquist Brothers, Inc. In the amount of $855,290.00. Youngquist is the lowest responsible responsive bidder for thc work which includes construction and capacity testing of the ASP,. Completion of thc surface improvements which include pump motor, electrical and yard piping will be constructed under Phase II of the project. Funding is fi'om 1993 Bond account//440-5179-536-69.18, Aquifer Storage & Recovery (budget transfer attached). PN 93-055 ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES N(~ATI'ACHED YES~ Recommendation: Staff recommends contract award to Youngquist Brothers, Inc. DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE: Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: ComprehensivePlan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if Applicable). Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available ~lO Funding alternatives ~ ~- (if applicable) Account No. & Description: ~[-L~- 9-( 7~- ~ ~ct. I ~- ~v-rg, ~[~ ~o~, ~) Account · ~ ~''~ ' ~ ....... ~ .... ~ B~ance. ~.- -/~ ~ ~ ...... ~, ~-,~ ~ ~, City Manager Review: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approve~i~approved MEMORANDUM TO: David T. Harden, City Manager FROM: Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Deputy Director of PU ~ SUBJECT: AQUIFER STORAGE & RECOVERY WELL NORTH RESERVOIR SITE: PN 93-055 DATE: January 31, 1996 Attached is a bid tabulation and Agenda Request for Contract Award of the first phase construction of the subject project. The lowest responsive bidder is Youngquist Brothers, Inc., with a total evaluated base bid, including alternate No. 1, of $855,290.00. Since reference inquiries have resulted in positive responses regarding work experiences with Youngquist, we concur with CH2M Hill's recommendation (copy attached) to award to the low bidder. We are recommending bid award based on the base bid materials and add alternate No. 1 to accommodate the potential need for additional well depth to locate a suitable geologic strata in the aquifer. Since the primary operational aspect of the ASR will be to retrieve stored potable water directly to distribution, well materials that minimize the potential for turbidity and suspended solids introduction are desirable. Of the four alternate casing materials bid, the two most suitable for this application are stainless steel (base bid) and FPP Fiberglass (casing alt. #3). Since the base bid for stainless steel casing materials is less than the FPP alternate, we recommend award of the base bid. This phase of the construction is for development and capacity testing of the ASR. Phase II will require another bidding process for the "Surface" work which will include pump, motor, electrical and yard piping. Budget estimates for Phase II total approximately $250,000.00 for a current overall facility cost including engineering of approximately $1.4 million. While this represents an approximate 33% increase over the feasibility study cost estimate for this installation, caused in part by the use of 316 stainless. Steel casing materials, and inclusion of additional casing depth in the bid, it is below the $1.5 million estimate originally reported by staff and upon which the project budget was based. The funding source for this project phase is 1993 bond account #440-5179-536-69.18, Aquifer Storage & Recovery (budget transfer attached). Please place this item on the February 6 agenda for City Commission consideration. RCH: jem c: William H. Greenwood BID TABULATION Construction of the Aquifer Storage Incl Recovery Well et the North Stcxege Re.wok )TE~ 0E~.,~-¥~ QUANTITY UNtT ~.xlt:~DED" UNiT f. xl ~:NC)ED ~ EXTENDEO ~NtT EXTENDED' UNIT EXTEM~F.D PRCE TOTN. ~MOUNT pRICE TOTAJ. AMOUNTPRICE TOTAl. AMOUNT~qlCE TOTAL AMOUNT I~ TOTAl. MOMiZitlQfl I LB 1110,000 1110,(X)0 ~10~8 S28CI.548 115CI,~O ~150,OGO 1135,040~125.0C0 1141,18~1 114~,183 12-1rG~ PIM ~4Xe (111~ ~') 1,000 FT S100, $100.00O ~35 131.000 120 ~1.000 ~q0 SS0,M~0 112 )0-rneh Ibm.d H~ (mud KNMy) 400 ri' 140 I ,4.GO0 MO I2..OO0 S30 I' ZOG0 $71 S30.0OQ 120 I23.032 10-fnd't Pmamed HeM (mud mm'y) 1200 FT140 I 120.000 $4~ S22.500 S24 I1~..000 $71 S37..qo0 120 12.b'1,h P'dot ~ (r~x~m 4i~ 300 FT 1120 S38,000 M0 11~S.000 836 11Q.~0 150 S15.04)0 120 St 1,4-1neb P44m~l HeM (m~rM lit)100 FT ~ i $4.000 180 ~.GQ0 144 SdL40O ~ $4.000 I136 S~3.4~4 ~0-#1ch ~ 811M ~ 400 PT 1180 i I'~Z.GO0 W1 S~.400 S2ffQ 1104.0~0 13ffO 1'140.0O0 $4~ 11'/0.404 t 4.itoh ~ ~ Celktg CO0 FT 11101 S~e.0O0 I1SO 120.G00 11g6 It 17.000 11M 1111.000 1273 1113JQO 4 Ned C4mml 1.200 ~< $4 1 $4J00 S11 S21 .e00 S.IS $42.000 18 Se J00 120 ~ wi 4% Beme.-~ 1 ~Q0 SK $4 $4J00 ~22 S26.400 13~ $45.K0 M ILS00 129 ~ Bofld LoG (O'..gO0') ! EA ~4..0001 ~4..~0 M.200 S5.200 ~G.S00 SG.~Q 15.0(X) $S.0~1 ~.173 11.173 ~lK( Come I EA It0..000 120,G00 $~00 115.(300 IL0~0 f4a.000 ~ S12,0(30 S~M S1Z336 ? ~ TMI (14-. ~0-kldl MMngl) ? EA 110~Q0 110~00 N~00 M,000 IS,0~0 SS, QCQ I10.0Q0 110.0C0 $7J4e 17~ ~ TI . ~4 HR ~ ! 14.100 1221 ~.4QQ ~ ~ SlQQ ~2.4Q0 ll le P='e~om~ TM ~,. ~ $4~00 $22~ M,400 ~ $4J00 llQ0 S2.q 1174 reel 8Mu~ 3 EA 115AQQ IM..QQQ 13A(X) I10.BOQ $4JQQ 113.SQQ 12.qQQ I?.SQQ MJ)S4 111.1~ 1! ~ I:~ml~ Tlal ~4 HR I~Q0I kG S~Q0 S4~ ISS0 Se,~30 11~K 13.000 I1M 12001 120..000 S121 112~q00 SIS0 I15.0C30 11o'~ $1 ~..SG0 ~1 S23~0 12 ~¥ell Dewl~ 100 HR 16 W 1 ~ S40.OQO iS4Q.QOQ SIS,GO0 11S,O00 115.0Q0 SI 8.00Q ~0~.000 ~3.000 S31,MS S31~ robd ~on~tn~cUon S?J~,I~O S81S,~el ST~6,44X) M14,100 ~7 3~4yCQMk~ I ~-q SIO~X)Q 110,(X)0 110,0~0 1~0,0~0 110.0Q0 18 Te,~g' -bcm~=rl, I LS 110.000 110.000 I10.000 115.000 110.000 10 Wolt Oullk~ Canlm~ D~4xm-4nm 1 LB S21.000 S2S.D00 ~ ~ 125.000 ~0 ~4utn~e Ind,n'.nty I 1.8 I10 S10 S10 110 S10 Total B~e BM $778,140 $~63,89~ $630,410 $639,110 $907,910 Z1 14-1ndl ~ HMe ~ Mi~ ~X) Irt 171 120..q00 $40 112.000 IM ~_ _~_ 140 112.~0 $4G S14~ ~ IO-Ifldt ~ ~ ~ ~00 FT ~/~ i ~37,-q00 ~ $4~.~q00 11e0 120.0C0 11~Q S75.000 1174 ~ w~4% ~ IQQ ~K $41 1700 S21 S4,371 ~16 S~.I~4 M 11,400 1111 11B.8~8 Z4 3mvd IS CY ~0 $1.M0 1270 $4.06O S3C0 $4..I00 120 $3OO 1137 ~6 ~mm~J~ Teel (10-,14-~04flcIt Ge~nge) 1 EA 110,Q00 110.000 ~2.000 S~.0Q0 S~,(XX) S8.000 ~ ~22.000 $7.889 Totld Additive Altemete No. 1 $77,1S0 $77,62S $134,32S S~ 16,S00 ' $161,631 · 1 14*ln~ P~¢Q4x~ ~144 SQ0 FT S4QI $24.000 S37 S22,~00 S3~ S22JQG S31 I~1,000 S~1 S3~,474 b2 ~Q-Imh Epo3o/.,c~)a~l CM)Qn 8Nd400 FT~K31 S21.2G0 ~18 S27.~0 $75 120.000 1100 S40.0G0 I123 S40.072 ~3 ~0-1mh FRP 4QQ FT S1~ ! 17~.QQQ S141 SM.QOQ S~ ~4.0Q0 I~'~O Sa4.QQ0 S212 lb314..Inch FI:IP 8Q0 FT $140 $~4.G00 $14~ S87,e00 S110 ~ llM Sl11.0G0 S23~ 113G.482 ~2¢~10-1rch FRP SO0 FT S100 150.GO0 1121 S60.S00 M8 134.000 11~S M2~00 S13t ~S, S4S Engineers Planners Economists Scientists January 24,1996 117813.A0 Mr. Richard Hasko, P.E. Deputy Director, Public Utilities 434 South Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, FL 32a~a~ Dear Mr. Hasko: Subject: Evaluation of Bids for the Construction of the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well at the North Storage Reservoir - City of Delray Beach; BidNo. 96-15 Bids for the construction of the aquifer storage and recovery well at the North Storage Reservoir were opened on January 18,1996, at 3:00 p.m. at City Hall. A total of five bidders submitted proposals for the project. A bid tabulation has been prepared (copY attached) with the apparent low bidder listed first with the remainder of the bids numerically ordered according to their bid total. That list is as follows: 1. Youngquist Brothers, Inc. $855,290.00 2. Diversified Drilling Corp. $938,523.00 3. Well Water Systems, Inc. $964,735.00 4. Meridith Associates, Ltd. $975,610.00 5. All Webbs Enterprises, Inc. $1,069,541.09 Each bid proposal has been reviewed for submission of the proper attachments and for mathematical accuracy of quantity, unitt price and extended total amount. Based on the lowest bid ($855,290), completeness of the proposal package, and work experience, CH2M HILL recommends the contract for the construction of the aquifer storage and recovery well be awarded to Youngquist Brothers, Inc. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me or Tim Sharp at (407) 737-6665. Sincerely, CH2M HILL Rick Nevulis, P.G. Project Manager DFB/10014D29.DOC c: Bill Greenwood/City of Delray Beach lackie Rooney/City of Delray Beach Tim Sharp/CH2M HILL Southeast Florida Office Hl#sboro Executive Center North, 800 Fairway Drive, 305 426-4008 Suite 350, Deerfleld Beach, FI. 33441 - 1831 Fax No, 305 698-6010 ,,,..,,. ,,.m AGENDA REQUEST Date: 01/31/96 XX Regular Agenda __ Special Agenda m Workshop Agenda When: 02/06/96 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Staff requests Commission approval of the purchase of six (6) new computers required to complete the Environmental Services Dept. computer upgrade program. Purchase and installation of these machines will provide access for all necessary personnel~ the new ESD LAN as well as enhanced AS400 communications. Total cost for the machines with all appurtenant hardware, soft-,yarc and licenses is $16,198.68. Funding is from R&R account #442-5178-536-64.11, computer equipment (budget transfer attached). ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES ~)ATTACHED YESES) Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of purchase of six new computers for ESD DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE: ~,~.///~__~ Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: ComprehensivePlan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if Applicable). Budget Director Review (requir~Loa~ll items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available ( YES/~O Funding alternatives Account No. & Description: t_/¥~ applicable) Account Balance: ~ ~ City Manager Review: Approved for agenda: ~)~NO Hold until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved TO: David T. Harden, City Manager FROM: Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Deputy Director ofPU ~' SUBJECT: ESD COMPUTER UPGRADES/FINAL PHASE DATE: February 2, 1996 In order to complete the computer hardware upgrade program for Environmental Services, we will require the purchase of six (6) new machines with appurtenant token ring cords, cables and standard software and licenses. M.I.S. has provided cost information in this regard (memo attached) totaling $16,198.68. Funding is from R&R Account/t442- 5178-536-64.11, Computer Equipment (budget transfer attached). Purchase and installation of these machines will provide access by all necessary personnel to the new LAN as well as enhanced AS400 communications. We will also have in place the necessary hardware to accommodate software for systems inventory, and O&M tracking and scheduling for water, sewer, drainage and street facilities currently under review by staff The machines requested are replacement units to be purchased under a current state contact. Please include this item on the February 6 Commission agenda for consideration by City Commission. RCH: jem c: William H. Greenwood Richard Zurcarro David Miller Memorandum To: Richard C. Hasko, P.E. Deputy Director of Public Utilities From: Richard Zuccaro, Information Systems Manager Date: January 22, 1996 Subject: ESD Equipment for the Final Phase of the ESD Project Attached is a copy of the prices for the equipment (Gateway P5 120MHz Computers, Token Ring cards & Cables}, as you requested at our January 17, 1996 meeting, to complete the final phase of the ESD Re-engineering Project. It was understood that the prices were needed to get Commission approval to encumber the required funds, however the equipment would not be ordered at this time. Summary of equipment cost: Six (6) Gateway P5 - 120 MHz pcms ~ $2,332 $13,992.00 Six (6) Madge Token Ring Cards ~ $367.78 $ 2,206.68 Sis (6) 8'Token Ring Cables ~ $12,00 $ 72.00, Total $16,198.68 If you have any questions please call me at ex. 7149. Thank you. cc: Joseph Saffo~d, Finance Director ~. ..... ~ William Gree~oO~,'DtreCtO~iOf EnvirOnm~h~ai services MIS Staff esd_dh_eqp Date= January 18~ 1996 Attn: David ~iller Fax$: 407-243-7192 GW Quote#= RWO0118.0B P5-120 BEST BU~ Intel 120M~z Pentium processor 16MB EDO Performance DRAM exD~ndable to 128MB 256KB Pipeline Bu~st~RAM cache 1.0GBEIDE Western Dlgltal hard drive PCI Enhanced IDE interface ATI PCI local-bus graphics accelerator with 2MB DRAM 4X CD-ROM drive 3.5" 1.44MB d/skette drive 15" Vivi~ron color monitor (13.9" viewablek Slots= two 16-blt ISA, three 32-bit PCI & one PCI/ISA slots Desktop case with 145-watt power supply 104+ Keyboard Microsoft mo~se and Gateway mouse pad MS-DOS 6.22/M$ Windows for Wor~groups 3'11 and .MS Office Professional 4.3 on CD, Bookshelf 94 and Money 3.0 Gateway Gold service and support PRICE: $25~2.00 ~ellvered SERVICE Gaeewa~ Gold Premium ..................................... a4d~ $ 99 Gateway. Gold onsite s~s%em installation .................. a~d~ $ 129 MasterCard, VISA, American Express ~ud Discover accepted. C.O.D. cashier's check acceptable in the continental United States. Net 30-day credit terms and leasing options are available to qualified commercial customers. *Prices and specifications are subject to change without notice or obligation. Sales tax will be collected where applicable. When placing ~our order, please attach this quote %o your Purchase Order. Ralph Oxley Account Executive RWO\,js 610 C~=~'ly D~ve · P.O. B0.~ TeJ~pbone 605.23"-2000 - Fron: l~anc¥ I~eaCe 1-18-95 4:06pa p, ~ of ~ " ~~~ ~0 Eas~ Br~h~on Aven~, Sy~cuse, NY f32fO Ne~ork Sales: 315.476-31~ Cor~rate' 31~47~-3020 Mainframe Sales: 31~476-3~ Fax: 31~476.3034 January 18,1996 Barbara Flynn City of DelRay Beach 100 NW First Avenue DelRay Beach FL 33444 RE: Quote # 10960, Expires on 02/17196 Dear Barbara: CABLExpress is pleased to submit the following proposal for your review: QTY CBX PIN DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE 6 DS101 -~1,~-c~ 515084MADGEPCl/EIISA1614ADA 367.78 6 E-TRACBL-8-45 8' TOKEN RING NETWORK ADAPTER 12.00 Terms and Conditions Thank you for the opportunity to quote on the above. Should you have any questions please call me at any time. Sincerely, Approved and Accepted by: Thomas Moore Sales Consultant Title: AGENDA REQUEST Date: February 02, 1996 Request to be placed on:, x Regular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda When: February 06, 1996 Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much): Bid Award- Bid #96-~4 - Demolition of Site located at 2300 North Seacrest Blvd. to 33R Construction at a'total cost of $22,900. ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO Recommendation: Award ~o 3JR Construction Inc. for the demolition of site located at 2900 North Seacrest Blvd. at a cost of $22,900. FundinK from account #001-6111-519-62.10 pepartment Head Signaturel~ ........//~/~~' ~ ~_.. ~~~ Determination of Consistency wi~th/~omprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds}: Funding available: ~ NO Funding alternative .B~-~ 0~. I-~;;/-~7~-~Z.lo (if applicable) Account No. & Description: Account Balance: tm ctP Fu~ City Manager Review: Approved for agenda: ~ NO Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved/Disapproved MEMORANDUM TO: David T. Harden, City Manager THROUGH: Joseph Sa~nance Director FROM: Jacklyn Rooney, Senior Buyer ~ DATE: February 02, 1996 SUBJECT: DOCUMENTATION - CITY COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 06, 1996 - BID AWARD - BID #96-24 DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2300 NORTH SEACREST BLVD. Item Before Commission: The City Commission is requested to award to low bidder JJR Construction Inc. at a total cost $22,900 for the demolition of structures located at 2300 North Seacrest Blvd. at a total bid cost of $22,900. Background: Bids were solicited for the demolition two sites located across from Atlantic High School. Site #1 - Former gas station located at 2228 North Seacrest Blvd. and Site #2 Cluster of four buildings known as 2300 North Seacrest Blvd. Twelve (12) bids were received on January 29, 1996, all in accordance with City purchasing procedures. (Bid #96-24. Documentation on file in the Purchasing Office.) A tabulation of bids is attached for your review. Per the bid specifications, it was stated that the demolition of Site #1 will commence approximately within six months. As the City has not purchased this property yet, the City Attorney's office has advised that we award only Site #2 at this time. The Community Improvement Director and Code Enforcement Administrator have reviewed the bids and recommend award to the low bidder JJR Construction, Inc. for the demolition of Site #2, per attached memo. Recommendation: Staff recommends award to low responsible bidder, JJR Construction Inc., at a total cost of $22,900 for Site #2. Funding from department's operating budget. Attachments: Tabulation Of Bids Memo From Code Enforcement Administrator Dated February 01, 1996 cc: Lula Butler Richard Bauer MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Barcinski, Assistant City Manager r~~~// THRU: Lula Butler, Community Improvement Directo [ FROM: Richard Bauer, Code Enforcement Administrator ! SUBJECT: DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS ACROSS FROM ATLANTIC HIGH SCHOOL DATE: February 1, 1996 Bid 96-24 requested quotes to demolish structures across from Atlantic High School on North Seacrest Boulevard. The bid was two tiered and can be awarded as follows: Tier 1: Demolition of the former gas station known as 2228 North Seacrest Boulevard. The low bidder on this site is Phoenix Wrecking Corporation at $3,750. We checked two of Phoenix's listed references and they gave a satisfactory response on Phoenix's performance. We recommend awarding the demolition of the gas station at 2228 North Seacrest Boulevard to Phoenix Construction Corporation. Tier 2: Demolition of cluster of four (4) buildings known as 2300 North Seacrest Boulevard. The low bidder on the above site is JJR Construction, Inc. at $22,900. We recommend awarding the demolition of the four buildings at 2300 North Seacrest to JJR Construction, Inc. TABULATION OF BIDS BID #96-24 DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES LOCATED AT Jan. 29,1996 2228 AND 2300 NORTH SEACREST BLVD. Phoenix J.J.R. I Cobra Southeast .Contractor: Wrecking Construction Incorporated Environmental of Corporation Inc. Palm Beach Inc. Site #1 - 2228 N. ISeacrestBlvd. $ 3,750.00 $ 4,300.00 $ 5,350.00 $ 5.390.00 iMasonry Single Story Former Gas Station Site # 2 - 2300 N. Seacrest Blvd. $ 38,500.00 $ 22,900.00 $ 31,730.00 $ 39,439.00 Four Single Story Masonry Buildings Comments/ Acknowledged Acknowledged Acknowledged Acknowledged Exceptions Addendum #1 Addendum #1 Addendum #1 Addendum #1 TABULATION OF BIDS BID #96-24 DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES LOCATED AT Jan. 29,1996 2228 AND 2300 NORTH SEACREST BLVD. GDI International Big Chief K & K Wrecking Contractor: Contractors Salvage Inc. Demolition, Inc. DBA Cuyahoga Wrecking Corp. Site #1 - 2228 N. Seacrest Blvd. $. 6,578.00 $ 6,800.00 * $ 7,500.00 $ 8,500.00 Masonry Single Story Former Gas Station Site # 2 - 2300 N. Seacrest Blvd. $ 54,863.00 $ 35,960.00 ** $ 46,000.00 $ 49,000.00 Four Single Story Masonry Buildings Comments/ Did not acknow- * Price does not Acknowledged Acknowledged Exceptions ledge Addendum include any Addenum #1 Addendum #1 #1 asbestos or tank removal · * Price does not · include removal of any friable asbestos Acknowledged Addendum #1 TABULATION OF BIDS BID #96-24 DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES LOCATED AT Jan. 29,1996 2228 AND 2300 NORTH SEACREST BLVD. Cushing Terracon Dakota L.E.B. Demolition Contractor: Demolition Construction Construction & Consulting Inc. Contractor Inc. Site #1 - 2228 N. Seacrest Blvd. $ 8,900.00 $ 9,271.00 $ 27,300.00 $ 28,840.00 '~k Masonry Single Story Former Gas Station ~ Site # 2 - 2300 N. ~ Seacrest Blvd. $ 36,700.00 $ 96,554.00 $ 58,500.00 $~ 6,840.00~ ~ Four Single Story Masonry Buildings Comments/ Acknowledged Did not acknow- Did not acknow- Vendor faxed bid, Exceptions Addendum #1 ledge Addendum ledge Addendum not submitted in #1 #1 a sealed envelope. Acknowledged Addenum #1 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER~.'i SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~ - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 CONDITIONAL USE REOUEST TO ~$TABLISH THE SA~ OF ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES AND WAVERUNNERS AT TURNER 0UTDOQR DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is before the Commission to consider a request for conditional use approval to allow the sale of all terrain vehicles and waverunners at Turner Outdoor Equipment located at 2507 North Federal Highway. The property is zoned GC (General Commercial) district and contains 0.73 acres. On January 23, 1996, Commission adopted Ordinance No. 1-96 which amended Section 4.4.9(D) of the Land Development Regulations by adding "Sales and service of all terrain vehicles and personal watercraft (waverunners, jet skis), with no outside display, outside storage or outside service" as a conditional use in the General Commercial zoning district. With the LDRs so amended, the applicant has submitted for formal approval to allow this use in addition to the current outdoor equipment sales. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the matter at public hearing on January 22, 1996, and voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the conditional use request be approved, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Conditional Use Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and subject to the following conditions: (1) That there is no outdoor display, storage or service of all terrain vehicles or watercraft; and (2) that a 10 foot right-of-way reservation be provided for future expansion of Federal Highway. Recommend approval of the conditional use request to establish the sale of all terrain vehicles and waverunners at Turner Outdoor Equipment, based on the findings and subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. ref: agmemo6 CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER THRU: DI~~TOR DEPARTMEI~T/©F PLAJ~NING AND ZONING FROM: ~ ///S EI~OR PLANNER SUBJECT: MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST TO ESTABLISH THE SALE OF ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES AND WAVERUNNERS AT TURNER OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is that of a.oproval of a Conditional Use request to establish the sale of all terrain vehicles and waverunners at Turner Outdoor Equipment in the GC (General Commercial) zone district. The subject property is located on the east side of North Federal Highway, approximately 1,300 feet south of Gulfstream Boulevard and contains 0.73 acres. BACKGROUND: The subject property is Lot 35 of Delray Beach Estates, less the east 80 feet thereof, and consists of 0.73 acres. On March 22, 1995, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approved a site plan modification to allow the construction of a 4,000 sq.ft, addition along with parking and landscaping improvements. The addition and associated improvements are currently under construction. On January 23, 1996, the City Commission approved on second reading an LDR text amendment to the GC zone district regulations to allow, as a conditional use, the sale of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and personal watercraft (i.e. City Commission Documentation Meeting of February 6, 1996 Sale of All Terrain Vehicles and VVaverunners at Turner Outdoor Equipment - Conditional Use Approval Page 2 Waverunners, Jet Ski) with no outside display, outside storage or outside service. The proposal is to establish the sale of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and personal watercraft (i.e. Waverunners, Jet Ski) in addition to the current outdoor equipment sales. The applicant is in the process of obtaining a Polaris dealership, which specializes in all terrain vehicles, waverunners and jet skis, thus the basis for the request. There will be no outdoor display, storage or service, associated with this request, and there are no site modifications associated with the conditional use request. An analysis of the request is found in the attached Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION; At its meeting of January 22, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing in conjunction with review of the request. There was one member of the public who spoke regarding the proposal. The person was a resident of the Town of Gulfstream whose property abuts the subject property. The resident was opposed to the request due to potential noise from the demonstrations of vehicles. After some discussion the Board voted 6-0 (Schmidt absent) to recommend to the City Commission that the Conditional Use request be approved based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Conditional Use Findings) of the LDRs, subject to conditions. One of the conditions, that the Conditional Use be contingent upon final adoption of the LDR amendment allowing the use, has been met and is no longer applicable. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion, approve the Conditional Use request to establish the sale of all terrain vehicles and waverunners at Turner Outdoor Equipment subject to the findings by the Planning and Zoning Board with the following conditions: A. That there is no outdoor display, storage or service of all terrain vehicles or watercraft; and, B. That a 10 foot right-of-way reservation be provided for future expansion of Federal Highway. Attachment: Board Staff Report and Documentation of January 22, 1996 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: January 22, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: VoB. ITEM: Conditional use request to allow the Sale of All Terrain Vehicles and Waverunners at the Turner Outdoor Equipment Facility, Located on the East Side of North Federal Highway, Approximately 1,300 Feet South of Gulfstream Boulevard. GENERAL DATA: Owner/Applicant ............................. David and Sheila Tumer Turner Outdoor Equipment Location ......................................... East side of North Federal Highway, approximately 1,300 feet south of Gulfstream Boulevard. Property Size ................................. 0.73 Acres Future Land Use Map .................... General Commercial Current Zoning ............................... GC (General Commercial) Adjacent Zoning ................... North: GC East: GC South: GC West: GC Existing Land Use ......................... Existing lawn care equipment sales facility with associated storage and repair facilities (John Deere Dealership), consisting of a 6,400 sq.ft, building with associated parking and landscaping improvements (under construction). Proposed LandUse..;. ................... In addition to the existing lawn equipment sales, .establishment of the sale and service of All Terrain Vehicles and personal watercraft (Waverunners, Jet Skis) with no outside display, outside storage or outside service. Water Service ................................ Existing on-site Sewer Service ................................ Existing on-site ROYAL pALM 8L~O. I I The action before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the City Commission on a Conditional Use request and attendant sketch plan to establish "the sale and service of All Terrain Vehicles and personal watercraft (Waverunners, Jet Skis) with no outside display, outside storage or outside service" for Turner Outdoor Equipment, pursuant to Section 2.4.5(E). The subject property is located on the east side of North Federal Highway, approximately 1,300 feet south of Gulfstream Boulevard. :~:~:~:~.>~->~::~::>~::::::~`~:~:.~:~:~:::~::::~::~::~:~:~:~::~;~:::~:::~:~:$~::~:~:~::~:::::::::~::::::~:~: :::..' ':::: ~...~! ,.-':~' :::: ¢.: ':~: :: ::: :~ ~::~:~::::~:~:~:~:~`(~:~::~:;~i:~?~::~>~::~:~:~`~:::::~::::~`:~:::::::::~:~`~:::~:~¥&:::::~:~:~;~: The subject property is Lot 35 of Delray Beach Estates, less the east 80 feet thereof, and consists of 0.7'3 acres. Prior to June of 1989, the building was occupied by an adult bookstore, which subsequently vacated the site. In June of 1989, the property was purchased by the City of Delray Beach. On August 22, 1989, the subject property was annexed into the City with the GC (General Commercial) zoning designation, as part of the North Federal Highway voluntary annexations. In December of 1989, in order to accommodate the current owner of the property Turner Outdoor Equipment / John Deere Dealership), the Planning and Zoning Board determined that lawn mower sales and service was similar to other retail uses allowed within the GC zone district. In March of 1990, the property was sold to the current property owner. With the adoption of the Land Development regulations in October 1990, "lawn care equipment" was incorporated into the GC zone district regulations as a permitted retail use. On March 22, 1995, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approved a site plan modification to allow the construction of a 4,000 sq.ft, addition along with parking and landscaping improvements. The addition and associated improvements are currently under construction. At its meeting of December 18, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended to the City Commission approval of an LDR text amendment to the GC zone district regulations to allow as a conditional use the sale of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and. personal watercraft (i.e. Waverunners, Jet Ski) with no outside display, outside storage or outside service. On January 9, 1996, the City Commission approved the LDR text amendment on first reading with second reading and the public hearing to occur at the Commission's January 23rd meeting. Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Sales and Service of All Terrain Vehicles and Waverunners for Turner Outdoor Equipment - Conditional Use Approval Page 2 The property owner has submitted a conditional use request to establish the sale of All Terrain Vehicles (A'rVs) and personal watercraft (i.e. Waverunners, Jet Ski) which is now before the Board for action. The proposal is to establish the sale of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and personal watercraft (i.e. Waverunners, Jet Ski) in addition to the current outdoor equipment sales. The applicant is in the process of obtaining a Polaris dealership, which specializes in all terrain vehicles, waverunners and jet skis, thus the-basis for the request. There will be no outdoor display, storage or .... service, associated with this request. There are no site modifications associated with the conditional use request. ii ~.-'.:~.~ .~ i~.:.-'~ ~:.:i .:~ ~-"." i;: ii.: i..'~ ~.-'..' ~;-'i-:. :~iiii. :i .'-.: ~!~.".: ~iiii i.:.: ~ ~ii !' :'"":~i.:i :-?'-~:~ ~.:.-' ~it" '"" ~:'""~!~.:"~ ~'""~'~i~i'": ii.::' :'"" ::iii'" :: ~"'~ii: :"~i~i ~:'"~!~ ~.:..'i.: ~.:.: :" ~"'iii-" :'"'~..':j, :f "i~.-'. :.:~. :. :. :. :. :!~-:~"i~ ~ii :" !~"i~ ~ :-: :'"", :"'"';". :?'~!~il i.:.: ';.'. :? :.:'"i~ :"':'.:.:~ ?..'i: :-'-".-'..-'..'J ~i.:i.:!J~."~.:~ ~J~ J:J~'~ ~!i! .~J.~i~i~i.:~ .:.-'Jj~.:.: i~ !~: ii!iii J~ ~.~J~i~.:i ~.:i :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -.--': : .-:: :: ':5; ::::: :: :5 :::~ ::: ::--::::;:::: : ::::. '~ :::;:::::::; :5: :::: ;:.::: :::::::::..::'~.. -:: ::.-:: CHAPTER 3 (REQUIRED FINDINGS): (Performance Standards - L.O.S.) Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, prior to approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to the following four areas: FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The use or structures must be allowed in the zone district and the zoning district must be consistent with the land use designation. The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of General Commercial and is zoned GC (General Commercial). The zoning is consistent with the FLUM designation. As previously stated, an LDR text amendment is being processed to allow "the sale and service of All Terrain Vehicles and personal watercraft (Waverunners, Jet Skis) with no outside display, outside storage or outside service" as a conditional use in the GC zone district [ref. LDR Section 4.4.9(D)(15)]. Second reading of the ordinance is to occur at the City Commission's January 22nd meeting. Thus, if the Board recommends approval of the conditional use request it will be conditioned upon the approval of the LDR text amendment. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map. Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Sales and Service of All Terrain Vehicles and Waverunners for Turner Outdoor Equipment - Conditional Use Approval Page 3 CONCURRENCY: Facilities which are provided by, or through,'the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan. With the major site plan modification of March 22, 1995, positive findings were made with respect to concurrency. The proposed use will not have any impact on level of service standards. CONSISTENCY: Compliance with performance standards set forth in Chapter 3 and required findings in Section 2.4.5(E)(5) for the Conditional Use request shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency ....... is to be made. Other objectives and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in making a finding of overall consistency. A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and no applicable objectives and policies were identified. Future Land Use Element Policy C-1.6 - (in summary) ...the North Federal Highway Corridor is designated as a blighted area. This policy calls for the preparation of a corridor improvement program that will, among other objectives, promote the improved appearance of the area, provide for economic stimulation and investment in the area, and identify appropriate uses for parcels adjacent to Dixie Highway and the FEC railroad tracks. Preparation of the corridor plan described in the policy is underway. One of the main elements of that plan will be to provide flexibility for the use of sites along Federal Highway, in order to encourage investment in and redevelopment of the corridor. In March 1995, the applicant received site plan modification approval to construct a 4,000 sq.ft, building addition along with parking and landscaping improvements, which are currently under construction. This addition represents a substantial investment in the property, and in the area as a whole. The proposed use will enable the applicant to diversify the business, thus allowing it to be more viable and stable, which is needed in the North Federal Highway corridor. Traffic Element Table T-4 Pursuant to the County's Thoroughfare Map and Traffic Element Table T-4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the ultimate right-of-way width for Federal Highway in the subject area is 120 feet. Currently only 100' is provided. Technically, the applicant should be required to provide an additional 10' of right-of-way along Federal Highway. Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Sales and Service of All Terrain Vehicles and Waverunners for Turner Outdoor Equipment - Conditional Use Approval Page 4 It is noted that the Department of Transportation has developed plahs for the improvement of North Federal Highway which include resurfacing, a reduction in median cuts, and provision of bikeways. All of the improvements are to be accommodated in the existing 100' of right-of-way. The widening of North Federal Highway is not included in any of the County's improvement programs, nor has it been seriously contemplated. In light of this, it would be acceptable at this time to require that the applicant reserve rather than dedicate the right-of- way. Reserving the right-of-way will make the west 10' of property available to the State if needed for future widening. SECTION 2.4.5(E)(5) REQUIRED. FINDINGS: (Conditional Use) ..... Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter 3, the City Commission must make findings that establishing the conditional use will not: A. Have a significantly detrimental effect upon the stability of the neighborhood within which it will be located; B. Nor that it will hinder development or redevelopment of nearby properties. The subject property is surrounded by the GC zone district. The adjacent land uses are: Backdraft Restaurant to the north; National Security Services, Inc. to the east; to the west, across North Federal Highway, are Ellie's Deli and Badcock's Economy Furniture; and to the south, retail, contractor's offices, and nonconforming light industrial and pawn shop uses. Compatibility with the surrounding commercial uses is not a concern as the conditional use is a Iow intensity use and any outdoor display, storage and service of vehicles is prohibited. The addition of the proposed use may promote investment and redevelopment along this corridor. Outdoor Display Under Section 4.6.6 all uses within a commercial zone are to be conducted in a completely enclosed building. However, an outside display component is normally allowed and is limited to a maximum of 10% of the building square footage [Section 4.6.6 (C)(3)(b)]. The proposed conditional use specifically prohibits the outdoor display, service and storage of the all terrain vehicles or waverunners/jet skis. It is noted that presently outdoor lawn equipment is displayed within the landscape area in front of the building along Federal Highway. While the display of such equipment may remain, the display of all terrain vehicles, waverunners and/or jet skis is prohibited. Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Sales and Service of Ail Terrain Vehicles and Waverunners for Turner Outdoor Equipment Conditional Use Approval Page 5 The development proposal is not within a geographical area requiring review by the DDA (Downtown Development Authority or the HPB (Historic Preservation Board). Community Redevelopment Agency: At its meeting of January 11, 1996, the CRA reviewed and recommended approval of th& conditional use request. Public and Special Courtesy Notices: Special courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowner's and neighborhood associations: El Deborah Dowd, Northeast Neighborhood El Al Brock, La Hacienda El Stan Milosky, North Federal Highway Task Team Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property. Letters of objection or support, if any, will presented at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The proposed use is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan as well as Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, provided the LDR text amendment to the allow the proposed conditional use in the GC zone district is approved. Therefore, the conditional use request is subject to adoption of the text amendment. Positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Conditional Use Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, provided that there is no outdoor display, service, or storage of the vehicles, which has been attached as a condition of approval. 1. Continue with direction and concurrence. 2. Recommend approval of the conditional use request for "the sale and service of All Terrain Vehicles and personal watercraft (Waverunners, Jet Skis) with no outside display, outside storage or outside service" for Turner Outdoor Equipment, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Sales and Service of All Terrain Vehicles and Waverunners for Turner Outdoor Equipment - Conditional Use Approval Page 6 2.4.5(E)(5) (Conditional Use Findings) of the Land Degelopment Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions. 3. Recommend denial of the conditional use request for "the sale and service of All Terrain Vehicles and personal watercraft (Waverunners, Jet Skis) with no outside display, outside storage or outside service" for Turner Outdoor Equipment, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Conditional Use Findings) of the Land .. Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, ..... with the basis stated. Recommend to the City Commission approval of the Conditional Use request to establish a "the sale and service of All Terrain Vehicles and personal watercraft {Waverunners, Jet Skis) with no outside display, outside storage or outside service" for Turner Outdoor Equipment, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Conditional Use Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: A. That this approval be contingent upon the approval of the LDR text amendment to allow the proposed use in the GC zone district; B. That there is no outdoor display, storage or service of all terrain vehicles or watercraft; and, C. That a 10 foot right-of:way reservation be provided for future expansion of Federal Highway. Attachment: Site Plan (Approved 3/22/95) Report prepared by: Jeff Costello. Senior Planner MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER ~J~/ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~'~' - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD ACTION DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is the Commission's appeal of a waiver granted by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board at its meeting of January 10, 1996, to not require installation of a sidewalk along the east side of the Gleason Street Townhomes property, within the Gleason Street right-of-way. There is some existing sidewalk in the first block of Gleason between Atlantic Avenue and Miramar Street. South of Miramar, there is no existing sidewalk. When I lived on Bay Street, I noticed that there is a significant amount of pedestrian traffic in the beach area. Even when I went to inspect this site, there were pedestrians walking in the street on Gleason Street. Since Gleason is a fairly long north/south street, it also has signifi- cant vehicular traffic. As the Commission is aware, we are receiving requests for sidewalks with increasing frequency. While there are not many vacant parcels of land east of the Intracoastal, we are seeing a high level of redevelopment activity. In my opinion we should take advantage of the opportunity redevelopment affords and require installation of sidewalks where needed. Even though it will be some years before a complete sidewalk system would be installed, we have to start somewhere if we are ever going to install sidewalks. I recommend that the developer be required to install at least a four foot sidewalk on the Gleason Street frontage of this property. CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, Cl,,]:~, MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FROM: JAI~ET MEEKS, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 APPEAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A WAIVER REQUEST TO NOT REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A SIDEWALK ASSOCIATED WITH GLEA~ON STREET TOWNHOME$ ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is that of consideration of an appeal of a waiver granted by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) to not require the installation of a sidewalk along the east side of the subject property within the Gleason Street right-of-way. The subject property is located south of Ingraham Avenue on the west side of Gleason Street. SPRAB action was taken on January 10, 1996. The waiver granted by SPRAB to not require the installation of the sidewalk along Gleason Street was appealed by the City Commission at its meeting of January 23, 1996. BACKGROUND: The site currently contains a duplex and 4 back-out parking spaces onto Gleason Street. The development proposal incorporates the following elements: construction of three new 2 story townhomes to the east of the one story duplex; · facade changes to the duplex to give it architectural characteristics of the new townhomes; · provision of a swimming pool for each unit with a 4' high wood fence enclosure; · elimination of two back-out parking spaces along Gleason Street; · addition of 5 parking spaces taking access from the private road located along the northern property line; and · a request for a reduction in parking and a waiver to the requirement to install a sidewalk along the east property line within the Gleason Street right-of-way. City Commission Documentation Appeal of SPRAB Action - Gleason Street Townhomes Sidewalk Waiver Page 2 During the technical review of the project, it was identified that the installation of a 5' wide sidewalk would be required within the Gleason Street right-of-way immediately abutting the subject property [REF: LDR Section 6.1.3(B)]. The applicant responded to that specific comment by stating the following: At this time there are presently no existing sidewalks along Gleason Street. Since there is no sidewalk system currently in p/ace the construction of a sidewalk along our property will not serve its intended purpose. Thus, we respectfully apply for a waiver from LDR Section 6.1.3 requiring a sidewalk be instal/ed along Gleason Street. Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(D)(1)(b) Relief from Sidewalk Installation, where it is clear that the sidewalk system will not serve its intended purpose, a waiver to the requirement may be granted during site plan approval. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CONSIDERATION: At its meeting of January 10, 1996, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board reviewed the request to waive the sidewalk requirement. Following staff's recommendation, the Board voted 5-0 to approve the waiver request based upon positive findings pursuant to LDR Section 6.3.1(D)(1)(b), namely: that there are no sidewalks along Gleason Street to the north or south of the subject property, that development along the street is predominately built-out which leaves little opportunity to obtain additional sidewalks from future developers, and that the installation of sidewalks in this area is not in the 5-year capital improvement program. Subsequent to SPRAB's action, the City Manager called the City Commission's attention to the waiver. Mr. Harden noted that the lack of sidewalks in residential areas has been a common complaint that the City has received from neighborhood associations. The costs of installing sidewalks are high and he questioned the granting of a waiver in light of those circumstances, and especially in an area that receives as much pedestrian traffic as Gleason Street. The Commission agreed with those concerns, and appealed the waiver. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Commission's discretion. Attachment: * Site Plan .,~ RM ~ co. oo ~ (,.= BARR TERR /~// a? creme ~ '" ~ SEAC~'r SPANISH HOTEL CONDO (z4-~) ' ' 'AVE'---- '-"' WATER ~WW FAST COMMERCIAL, CONDO' GARDEN BAR AP'I~ ZN4 ,, HARBOUR CO-OP ' ( I- , 5) CONDO MIRNVlAR DOVER HOUSE: CON~O ~ (I-~) z, ,VI ® ,ou~.co.~ SEA FIELDS SEC. i,.ac~ ', CLU~. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER~ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # q'O' - MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 1996 REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS DATE: JANUARY 19, 1996 Attached is the Report of Appealable Land Use Items for the period January 8 through January 19, 1996. It informs the Commission of the various land use actions taken by the designated boards which may be appealed by the City Commission. With respect to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approvals for the Gleason Street Townhomes, I recommend that the Commission give further consideration to eliminating the sidewalk along Greason Street. Recommend review of appealable actions for the period stated; receive and file the report as appropriate. CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER THRU: MIN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING A/ND ZONING / FROM: /JASMIN ALLEN, PLANNER SUBJECT: MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 1996 * CONSENT AGENDA* REPORT OF APPEALABLE LAND USE ITEMS JANUARY 8., 1996 THRU JANUARY 19. 1996 ACTION REOUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is that of review of appealable actions which were made by various Boards during the period of January 8, 1996, through January 23, 1996. BACKGROUND This is the method of informing the City Commission of land use actions, taken by designated Boards, which may be appealed by the City Commission. After this meeting, the appeal period shall expire (unless the 10 day minimum has not occurred). Section 2.4.7(E) of the LDRs applies. In summary, it provides that the City Commission hears appeals of actions taken by an approving Board. It also provides that the City Commission may file an appeal. To do so: 1. The item must be raised by a City Commission member. 2. By motion, an action must be taken to place the item on the next meeting of the Commission as an appealed item. City Commission Documentation Appealable Items Meeting of January 23, 1996 Page 2 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD No Regular meeting was held during this period. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 10. 1996 A. Denied (5 to 0), the request to delete a previous condition of approval which required Bermuda shutters along the north and south elevations of The Palm House, a townhouse structure located at the southeast corner of Avenue "C" and Florida Boulevard. B. Approved (5 to 0) with conditions, the site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan for Gleason Street Townhomes, a proposed three unit townhouse development adjacent to an existing duplex located on the west side of Gleason Street, south of Ocean Terrace. Concurrently, the Board approved the following waivers: · A reduction in the parking requirement from 12 spaces to 10 spaces; · Eliminated the sidewalk requirement along Gleason Street; and, · A reduction in the right-of-way width from 60 feet to 50 feet. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD No Regular meeting was held during this period. RECOMMENDED ACTION. By motion, receive and file this report. Attachment: Location Map LOCATION MAP FOR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 1996 L-30 C/k~IAL LAKE IDA ROAD NW SW A'll. AN TIC A~NUE ! ! LOWe'~ON 80ULEVARO UNTON BOULEVARD i L-38 CANAL C-15 CANAL S.P.R.A.B.: CflY UI~ITS ~ A. - THE PALM HOUSE B. - GLEASON STREET TOWN HOMES i MILE crrY oF DELEAY BF. ACH. FL P~NNING 0[PARTMIrNT I MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER--~'~i~'? SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # q'c~'- MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 SELECTION OF ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR CONTINUING SERVICES CONTRACTS DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is before the Commission to consider acceptance of the Selection Committee recommendation of five firms for continuing services contracts for architectural services. One of these firms would be selected to do the City Hall Envelope project and the other firms would do future projects as they become necessary. The firms selected were as follows: Slattery & Root Architects, Boca Raton Robert G. Currie Partnership, Inc., Delray Beach MPA Architects, Inc., West Palm Beach David Miller and Associates, West Palm Beach Digby Bridges, Marsh & Associates, Delray Beach The first consideration for approval is to approve the Committee's selection of the five firms. The second consideration is to interview and rank the top three firms; authorize staff to negotiate Service Authorization No. 1 with the top ranked firm for the City Hall Envelope Project, and negotiate Service Authorization No. 1 with the second ranked firm for the City Hall and Community Center Energy Audit Evaluation. By random selection, the order of interviews will be: o Slattery & Root Architects o MPA Architects, Inc. o Robert G. Currie Partnership, Inc. Recommend approval of the selections and the recommendations made by the Selection Committee as outlined in the attached material Agenda Item No. A~ENDAREQUEST Date: February 1, 1996 Request to be placed on: X Regular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda When: February 6, 1996 Description of item (who, what, where, how much):staff request city Commission approve staff recommendation for the followinq: (a), accept the five architectural consultants for continuing services, as needed, and prepare the Consultant Services Agreements; (b), negotiate Service Authorization #1 with the selected number 1 firm for the City Hall Envelope Project; and (c), negotiate Service Authorization #1, with the number 2 firm, to use their mechanical consultant to prepare an Energy Audit of City Hall and the Community Center to determine if the Energy Storage System is a viable option to the project. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: Not required Recommendation: Staff recommends City Commission approve staff recommendation of Five (5) architectural firms for continuing contracts, as needed, and prepare the Agreements; negotiate Service Authorization #1 with the selected firm for City Hall Envelope Project; and Service Authorization #1 with the number 2 firm for City Hall and Co~u~y Center Energy Audit Evaluation. Department head signature:~~ Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: YES/NO Funding alternatives (if applicable) Account No. & Description Account Balance City Manager Review: Approved for agenda: ~NO Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: David T. Harden City Manager From: Jos6 Aguila Construction Manager Date: January 31, 1996 Subject: City Hall Envelope Project No. 95-60 Attached is an Agenda Request for City Commission consideration of acceptance of the Selection Committee recommendation of five (5) firms for continuing services contracts for Architectural Services. On November 12, 1995, the City published a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Architectural Services in anticipation of selecting both a firm to do the City Hall Envelope project and provide a list of five (5) firms which could be used, as needed, for future projects as they become available. The last time this was done was in 1991. The Selection Committee was composed of the following members: 1. William Greenwood, Environmental Services Director 2. Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director 3. Diane Dominguez, Planning Director 4. George Diaz, Deputy Building Official 5. Jos6 Aguila, Construction Manager On December 14, 1995, the City received ten (10) RFQ's which were reviewed by the selection committee with the following five firms selected for continuing contracts: 1. Slattery & Root Architects, P.A., in Boca Raton 2. Robert G. Currie Partnership, Inc., in Delray Beach 3. MPA Architects, Inc., in West Palm Beach 4. David Miller and Associates, P.A., in West Palm Beach 5. Digby Bridges, Marsh & Associates, P.A., in Delray Beach All of the above firms have performed professional services for the City, except Slattery and Root, and MPA Architects. On January 30 and 31, 1996, the Committee participated in public discussions with the five firms. Following each firm input, and other discussion, the Committee recommends the above listed firms for continuing contracts with the City. Furthermore, the Selection Committee recommends that the top three firms make a public presentation to the City Commission at the February 6, 1996, City Commission meeting, for selection of one firm to negotiate an agreement for the City Hall Envelope project. The Committee felt that any of the three firms could do the anticipated project. Additionally, an Energy Audit will be required of the City Hall Facility and the Community Center to determine if the replacement of the existing rooftop DX (Direct Expansion) units with the Static ice based Thermal Energy Storage (TES) system makes economic and practical sense. Staff recommends the City seek a proposal from the number 2 firm to utilize their mechanical engineer for this study. This evaluation and report will take four to six weeks to complete, and could cost in the range often to fifteen thousand dollars. Florida Power and Light will contribute $2,500 towards the cost of this study. With your concurrence, staff request the City Commission take the following action: 1. Accept the recommendation of the Selection committee regarding the five firms, 2. Interview the top three firms for selection of a firm for the City Hall Envelope Project, 3. Authorize staff'to prepare Agreements for Architectural Services with the five firms for continuing contracts, 4. Begin negotiations with the selected firm for Service Authorization No. 1 for construction documents necessary to implement the City Hall Storm Hardening Envelope scheme, and 5. Begin negotiations with the number 2 firm for an Energy Audit of the City Hall Facility and the Community Center. cc: William Greenwood File 95-60 (A) es&9560~fqawrd SLA~-FERY & ROOT ARCHITECTS December 14, 1995 Mr. Joseph Safford Finance Director City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Flodda 33444 RE: RFP NO. 96-11 GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES STORM HARDENING FOR THE CITY HALL FACILITY CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Safford: Slattery & Root Architects is pleased to present its professional architectural qualifications to you for consideration concerning the implementation of Storm Hardening measures for the City Hall Facility. We know that after you have reviewed our credentials it will be apparent to you why municipalities throughout South Flodda have been completely satisfied With our architectural services. Siattery & Root Architects has provided Professional architectural services for fourteen years in South Florida With offices in Palm Beach Gardens and With our main office in Boca Eaton. We have earned over fifty design awards including an award for medt for the Boca Raton Municipal Complex from the Palm Beach Chapter of the Amedcan Institute of Architects. Dudng this time we have completed work on a vadety of projects for a vadety of local municipalities. This work has included the new Municipal Complex for the City of Boca Eaton, additions and renovations to the Deerfield Beach City Hall, renovation to The City Hall for the Town of Palm Beach, renovation to the Old City Hall for the City of Greenacres, a Fire Station for Metro Dade on Fisher Island, and in association with our other consultants, vadous public works projects, fire stations and police stations. Dudng this same time pedod we have completed a number of other addition and renovation projects that have included major structural and extedor architectural changes to existing facilities. In Delray Beach we have iuSt completed major renovations to the Hamlet Countw Club clubhouse. 1098 N.W. Boca Raton Blvd. · Boca Eaton, FL 33432 · (407) 392-3720 ° FAX (407) 392-1399 · Palm Beach Gardens Office (407) 775-1334 Mr. Joseph Safford December 14, 1995 Page 2 We are also proud of the fact that for the School Board of Palm Beach County, the Town of Palm Beach, the City of Boca Raton and for Flodda Power and Light, we have been selected to serve on a continuing contract basis over the last five years. For all these reasons Siattery & Root Architects knows what it takes to satisfy the needs and the desires of communities that have specific goals to better serve the people of that community. Siattery & Root Architects has engaged the services of a team of professional consultants to help ensure that this project will enjoy the success that our other municipal projects have. We have successfully worked with these consultants before on a majodty of the projects mentioned above and feel that as a team our services cannot be equaled. Heiler-Weaver and Cato, dvil engineers and surveyors, O'Donnell, Naccarato & Mignogna, structural engineers, R. A. Kamm & Associates, mechanical and electrical engineers, A. Grant Thombrough, landscape architect, John Robbins, construction cost estimator, and John Shoup of the architectural firm of McKinleylShoup Architects, offer their expertise and professional skills so as to eliminate any concern that the City might have regarding all aspects of this project. All the firms that make up this team have professionals on staff that oversee the construction administration of each and every project This aspect of any project takes on more and more importance especially in the public sector because the bidding process allows for construction bids from any and all parties that meet only the most basic qualifications. Slattery & Root Architects along with the rest of the team members commit their principals to every project This ensures that the project is not left to junior staff members alone to ; make the critical decisions that accompany a project of this nature. We are aware of the sensitive relationship that exists between the community, the City's staff and the City Commission with each part playing a specific role in the development of a project We understand these roles and have been successful in the past in satisfying each part for the overall good of the whole. For this project Paul J. Slattery, Henry Heller, William Mignogna, Art Kamm, Grant Thombrough, John Robbins and John Shoup will personally be involved in every aspect of the project from contract negotiation to project dose-out. Slattery & Root Architects also commits Philip F. Luchner, Architect to this project in the capacity of Project Architect. Mr. Luchner has served with Siattery & Root Architects for six years and has a total of over eighteen years of experience in Flodda as a practicing architect He has acted as project architect on all of Slattery & Root Architects' public projects for the last five years which includes the Boca Raton Municipal Complex. His responsibility will be to coordinate the team effort through all phases of the work, administer the contract and interface with the City on the daily decisions that will be necessary to facilitate the completion of the project. Even though our team bdngs to the City professionals who have the expertise that comes with large firms, we maintain the ability to Mr. Joseph Safford December 14, 1995 Page 3 respond to your needs on a one-on-one basis. This allows all parties to directly relate, thus eliminating the' feeling that the client is nothing more than just another architectural commission. Slattery & Root Architects realizes that the success of any given project is not only measured by its design, but also by its ability to bdng the project in on budget and on time. This is especially crftical for a project in the public sector because of the pubic money used to finance the construction. Slattery & Root Architects has recently completed Meadowpark Elementary School for the School Board of Palm Beach County for 1/2 of 1% above the estimated const~'uction budget and within the time schedule determined pdor to the start of construction. Also, Slattery & Root Architects has recently received construction bids for the Boca Raton Municipal Complex of $8,088,000 which was actually below the available funds of $8,100,000. Siattery & Root Architects, with the other members of our design team, feel that the City of Delray Beach deserves the best possible professionals to complete all that is necessary to insure that the present City Hall will serve the community well into the future. Siattery & Root Architects fulfills all the criteda that you have established and looks forward to meeting with you to further discuss our credentials and the needs of the City. Sincere/~ // ~ ~LATTERY & ROOT ARCHITECTS, P.A/ / PJS/bll ~ ROBERT G. CURRIE PARTNERSHIP, INC. Ro~e~ _Atv. hitects, Planners & Interior Designers Jes~ M. $owards. RA AA0002~71 Gary P. Eliopouios, RA December 14, 1995 Mr. Joseph Safford, Finance Director CITY OF DELRAY BEACH 100 Northwest 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Fiodda 33d4~. RE: Request for Qualifications General Architectural Services RFQ #96-11 Dear Mr. Safford: On behalf of the ROBERT G. CURRIE PARTNERSHIP, I am pleased to express our interest in providing ongoing services to the City of Delray Beach. Having practiced architecture in this community for the past 27 years, I feel a tree sense of commitment as well as pride in the city's architectural integrity. ROBERT G. CURRIE PARTNERSHIP is a full service architectural, planning and interior design firm, located just one block from City Hall. Since our establishment in 1969, we have received numerous local, state, and national awards for our projects. Our practice has been highlighted by a cross-section of projects in both the public and private sectors. We have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with many of the municipalities in the South Florida area including the cities of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach, Boca Raton and Delray Beach; Palm Beach County; the Department of General Services and the Mobile District US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. The firm has unofficially served the City of Delray Beach in a continuing services arrangement for the past eight years. Our commitment to the city, its officials and residents has been exhibited continuously on projects of varied scope. But regardless of project size - lifeguard stand prototype to multi-million dollar fire station - we have delivered services and projects which can be measured for technical adeptness, design sensitivity and attention to detail. In addition to our professional contribution, the firm's staff have served on numerous city boards including Planning and Zoning, SPRAB and the Board of Adjustment. In specific response to the City Hall Storm Hardening Measures, we have reviewed the study and options produced by the City's engineering department and commend the department's efforts. We concur that Option D is the most logical and least intrusive approach to the problem and look forward to the opportunity to contribute to the solution. Related projects to our credit which are relevant in scope to those to be advertised through this Request for Qualifications include: · Old School Square Historical Restoration - Delray Beach · Renovation of Boca Raton Community Center · Community Child Care Center Phase I and II - Delray Beach · Delray Beach Fire Rescue Headquallera - Delray Beach · Delray Beach Fire Station No. 2 - Delray Beach · Palm Beach County's South County Civic Center - Delray Beach · South County Complex - Delray Beach · Camlno Real Holiday Inn - Deiray Beach 134 Northeast Ist Avenue Delray Beach. FL 334d,4 Tel,: (407} 276-~951 Fax: (407) 243--8184 Mr. Joseph Safford, Finance Director December 14, 1995 Page Two We feel that our-extensive history with the engineering department as well as the building, planning, zoning and fire departments will assist in our ability to respond to this effort. Additionally, we are joined in this endeavor by firms and qualified professionals with whom we have worked with in the past and have the highest level of respect and confidence. Upon review of the enclosed information, we hope you will recognize the experience, commitment and sincere interest the ROBERT G. CURRIE PARTNERSHIP offers the City of Delray Beach.. If you should, however, have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Thank you for this opportunity and we look forward to your favorable response and to the prospect of a continued working relationship with the City of Delray Beach. Sincerely, RO~RRIE P, ARTNERSHIP Robert G. Curfie, AIA Pfinbipal encl. M P A Architects, Inc. Architects. Planners. Interior Designers Est. 1959 License #AAC000630 1551 Forum Place Suite 400-A December 14, 1995 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2381 (4071 683-7000 iX/Ir. Joseph Sa:fiord, Finance Director F~0( CFIW OF DI~r_R~Y BEACH, FLORIDA (407) 478-399~ 100 N.W. 1st Avenue De!ray Beach, FL 33~5 Richard J. Logan Daniel T. Canavan RE: LI~GA.L NOTIC~ - ~ OF DlaSI'RA.¥ BF_.A.C~ FLORIDA. REQUEST FOR QU~rl1~ICATIONS RFQ~ 96-11 Dear Mr. Sa.fford: in accordance with your request for qualifications, please consider this letter az expressing our formal interest in providing professional services for the referenced project. Since the inception of M~PA Architects, Inc., 35 years ago, we have built a successful professional architectural practice with public work berg its nucleus. M:PA has developed a reputation for attention to derail in design, correct integration of building systems in detailing and construction documents and extreme care in budgetary' considerations. These reasons have made NWA Architects the choice for a variety of public projects, including the original PaLm beach international Airport Terminal Building, the West Palm Beach City Hall Building, Fourth Dkstrict Court of Appeals, several major high schools acid Palm Beach Community College projects. Perhaps ~e most importation indicator of our Fa'm's success in satisfying clients is in its continuing and repeated professional commissions. These clients include - Board of City Commissioners, City of West Palm Beach; ~e Board of County Commissioners, Palm Beach County; The School District of Palm Beach county; the District Board of Truste~ of PaLm Beach Community College; Lrnitcd Technologies, Pratt & Whimey. The managing principals of MPA Architects, Inc., Richard J. Logan and Daniel T Canavan, have been with IMPA Architects for 16 and 17 years respectively. Together they' have been responsible for a variety of projects, which range individually in construction value to 27 million. Mx'..loseph Safford December 14, 1995 Page - 2 M 1986, MPA. A.rchitec~, Inc. implemented the complete integration of computer aided design and drafting hardware and software. Currently all graphic documents are produced using resources which offers our clients the advantages of magnetic media archiving. MPA ARCHI'rEcTS. ll~rc. IS A CER~D MINORITY BUSINESS ~ TI~ CrlW OF WEST PALM BEACH. PALM BEACH CO~, COTRAN, DEiPA_R~ OF AIRPORTS. THE SCHOOL DLSTRICT OF P.~Z,4M B~CI:i COUN'IW AND SOLrI~ FLORIDA WATER MANAGti~M'~.~ DISTRICT. MPA ARCHI'~CTS. I~C. IS A.N EQUAL OPPOR~ EMPI~OYE1L N~A has had recent experience in derailirtg hidden roll down storm shutters on a cra'rent project for FideLity Federal Savings Bank located in West Boy'nton Beach. We are also extremely versed in the detailing of Mediterranean style architecture. We feet the new wrap arotmd struc~ wall creates an exciting opporu.mity for the architect to create and ex'tend the ex:iztmg local Mediterranean design theme at City Hall. Ln summary, MI~A Architects, inc. appreciates the opportunity to make th.is proposal to you and the Architect Selection Committee. We believe we have assembled a team of highly qu:~li~ied consultants wko can successfully implement the storm hardening measures for the City Hall facility. Based or* our curze=t worklo_~d, we see no cota~l~cts in completing thi~ project ~ a timely manner. We are e.x'ra'emely interested in this project and hope that we may be of service. Your favorable consideration will be sincerely appreciated. Very tm/y yours, Enclosures David Miller and Associates, P.A. David Miller, A.I.A., NCARB December 14, 1995 City of Delray Beach Review Committee Architectural Services for RFQ #96-11 c/o Mr. Joseph Saffard, Finance Director City of Delray Beach. 100 N.W. First Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Dear Committee Members: Please accept this as my Letter of Transmittal for the Architectural Services Request for Qualifications #96-I1. Enclosed along with this letter are eight (8) completed Qualification Packages as well as the additional required submittal information. I would like to offer the following information in support of my team's consideration for this project. My firm was selected by the City as the Architect (prime consultant) on a continuing contract basis in 1991 under the Decade of Excellence Bond Program. This contract is still in place and we have provided services to the City on a regular basis over the previous four years. Over that time period, twenty separate service authorizations have been approved by the City. Of these twenty, fiReen have been successfully completed, two are substantially finished, two are currently under construction, and one is on hold. The cost limitations of all the service authorizations have not been exceeded, and in some instances, the projects have been closed out under the authorized amounts. These projects have been performed for Engineering, Maintenance, Parks and Recreation, City Attorney, Fire, Finance, and City Managers Departments, as well as work performed at the direct request of the City Commission. Detailed information listing the projects is included in the package. My cOnsultant team for this RFQ is essentially made up of the same consultants working under my existing continuing contract. The MEP Engineer is the only new Consultant, yet, we have all worked together previously. As a group, for both City and other projects, we have willingly performed those professional services necessary for the successful implementation of our projects. This has resulted in successfully completed projects with the consultant costs as well as the ultimate project costs in line and under budget. Architecture · Planning · Construction Management · Interior Design 319 Clematis Street Suite 210 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (407) 655-1775 City of Delray Beach RFQ #96-11 December 14, 1995 Page 2 One very, important aspect of the City Hall project I would like to bring to your attention is my previous work on this facility. On an informal basis, my finn provided input, research, sketches, and structural analysis resulting in the original idea for the storm hardening of City Hall. The concept of enclosing, or wrapping the existing facility in a new envelope was mine. This idea was based upon a review of the existing construction documents, and a previously prepared report resulting in a careful determination of those construction measures which would be most cost effective and least disruptive to the ongoing use of the facility. My feeling is that City Hall can be storm hardened, and also solve the roof, mechanical, and moisture intrusion problems at the same ume. The resulting design, as shown in the RFQ, keeps the current aesthetic qualities of the existing building. By performing the bulk of the construction work on the exterior of the building, the ongoing operation of City Hall is minimally disrupted for a project of this complexity. I hope my submittal package is favorably considered by you for this new project, as well as the ongoing contract being considered. Both my project team and I would consider it an honor to continue to serve the City of Delray Beach. Thank you for your time and consideration. Davi . Encls. DRM/cmm DIGBY BRIDGES, MARSH & ASSOOATES, P.A. 14 D~ember 1995 Mr. Joseph S~ord F~ce DN~tor Ci~ of De~y ~ch 1~ N.W. 1st Avenue Delmy ~ch, ~ ~: ~Q ~5-11 De~y ~ch City HaH - Sto~ Study D~ ~. S~ord, Digby Bridges, M~sh & Ass~iates h~ fo~ a t~ to provide Profession~ Se~iccs for your Sto~ ~ot~fion of ~e Ci~ of Delny B~ch Ci~ H~I. Our com~tment is to have s~ ~sign~ to ~is p~cul~ proj<t who ~e f~ ~ ~e govemmen~ agencies' pr~ess, =d who will be av~able to res~nd to ~e n~s of ~e Ci~ ~roughout ~e pre-design =d pl~ing pr~ess~, cons~c~on d~ument ph~e, ~d cons~c~on. We, as architects, have worked on the City Hail and understand the structure as it now exists. We have also carried storm protection studies for the Town of Palm Beach. We have on our team all the specialists, details of whom are given within this proposal. All have worked with us on the existing City Hall and other renovations. We would very much like to work with the City of Delray Beach and its' Staff and provide the highest quality service at the least cost. We look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Yours sincerely, DIGBY BRIDGES, MARSH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 124 N.E. Fifth Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33483 407/278-1388 Palm Beach: 736-5866 Fax: 4071278-7841 [ITY OF DELRFIY BEfl[H Writer's Direct Line: (407) 243-7091 DELRAY BEACH AIl.lm~ica City MEMORANDUM DATE: February 1, 1996 1993 TO: City Commission FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney SUBJECT: CRC Recovery. Foundation Request for Extension I have reviewed a request to extend the note payment schedule on the property bought by the Foundation on August 31, 1995. Attached please find a copy of the current note. The request is to extend the payment schedule one year from 2001 to and including the year 2002 and to commence paYment to the City on September 1, 1998 instead of September 1, 1997. By copy of this memorandum to David Harden, our office requests this matter be placed on the February 6, 1996, City Commission agenda for consideration. If approved, our office will amend the promissory note to comply with the Commission's SAR:ci cc: David Harden, City Manager Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk Pr/nR~d o,'~ F-?gc'/c/od P;]per THE CRC RECOVERY FOUNDATION, INC. 241 N.E. 2nd Avenue · Delray Beach, Florida 33444 · (407) 278-8004 OFFICERS and DIRECTORS Mr. Lawrence C. Eaton Mr. Clark F. MacKenzie VicePresident Mr. Michael W. Tiernan Secretary Mrs. George T. Francis, Jr. Mrs. Laban Jackson Mr. Heath Lar~ Dorothy M. Turner Mr. & Mrs. Quentin Alexander Mr. & Mrs. Charles M. Beeghly Mr. & Mrs. Wi(~am ConneHy M r.&MMrs. Janers'Eberts"" Dye Mr.& Mrs. William H. Evans Mr. & Mrs. William S. Farish III Mr. Horace M. Huffman, Jr. Mr. & Mrs. Jonn H. McConnell Mr. & Mrs. Dona,d C. McGraw. Jr. Mr.&Mrs. Bernard H. Ridder Mr.Mr''Mrs', Mrs. Christopher ,.Robert SchumannP' Rodgers Mr.&Mrs. Henry S. Taylor Mrs. George B. Turner Mr. & Mrs. William L. Wallace PROH~SSOR¥ $280,000.00 ~ ~ Delray Beach, F~orida ~/~KT- ,.7/ , 1995 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, (jointly and severally, if more than one) promises to pay to the CITY OF DELRAE BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, or order, in the manner hereinafter specified, the principal sum of Two Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($280,000.00) bearing no interest. The said principal shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America at 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, or at such place as may hereafter be designated by written notice from the holder to the maker hereof, on the date and in the manner following: Commencing on the 1st day of September, 1997 and on the 1st day of September of each consecutive year thereafter up through and including the year 2001, The CRC Recovery Foundation, Inc., will pay to the City of Delray Beach the sum of Fifty Six Thousand Dollars ($56,000.00) each. If default be made in the payment of any of the sums herein or in the performance of any of the agreements contained herein, then the entire principal sum shall at the option of the holder hereof become at once due and collectible without notice, time being of the essence~ and said principal sum shall bear interest from such time until paid at the highest rate allowable under the laws of the State of Florida. Failure to exercise this option shall not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise the same in the event of any subsequent default. Each person liable hereon whether maker or endorser, hereby waives presentment, protest, notice, notice of protest and notice of dishonor and agrees to pay all costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee, whether suit be brought or not, if, after maturity of this note or default hereunder counsel shall be employed to collect this note. Whenever used herein the terms "holder, .... maker" and "payee" shall be construed in the singular or plural as the context may require or admit. Maker's Address THE CRC RECOVERY FOUNDATION, INC. 24i NE 2nd Avenue '~" ~ ---~ -'-~.:. ./.' Delray Beach, FL 33444 By: r DEL£A¥ BE^CH --'a mm am CITY CLERK 1993Mr. Ken Foster, Chairman Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners Governmental Center 301N. Olive Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Impact-Resistant Protective Devices Dear Mr. Foster: On February 6, 1996, the Delray Beach City Commission considered a measure proposed by the Building Code Advisory Board that Palm Beach County adopt an ordinance requiring the installation of impact-resistant protective devices (windows and/or shutters) on new residential construction. After discussion, the Commission voted 4 to 1 (Commissioner Randolph dissenting) to support adoption of mandatory protection devices as an effective means for reducing property damage from hurricanes or severe storm events. While supporting mandatory impact-resistant standards, the City Commission feels strongly that unless the insurance industry puts in place provisions to serve as incentives to property owners for using protective shutters, the mandatory requiring of such devices will not necessarily accomplish anything other than increasing the cost of a home. Criteria must be established which will motivate or reward homeowners for making the effort to protect their property. We discussed the use of incentives such as reduced premiums for those who have shutters as well as penalties such as increased deductibles for those who have shutters but do not use them. This Commission feels the imposition of penalties is likely to prove more effective. To that end, included in the Commission's action was direction to contact the Insurance Commissioner and encourage the establishment of penalties and/or incentives in this regard. A copy of our letter to Mr. Nelson is attached for your consideration. Mayor TEL/AMH/m Attachment lITe' OF DELRfl ' BEflEt'I, 1993 Mr. Bill Nelson Treasurer & Insurance Commissioner State of Florida 200 Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Re: Impact-Resistant Protective Devices Dear Mr. Nelson: The Delray Beach City Commission recently considered a measure proposed by Palm Beach County's Building Code Advisory Board that the county adopt an ordinance requiring the installation of impact-resistant protective devices (windows and/or shutters) on new residential construction. Our Commission voted to support adoption of mandatory protection devices as an effective means for reducing property damage from hurricanes or severe storm events. While supporting mandatory impact-resistant standards, the City Commission feels strongly that unless the insurance industry puts in place provisions to serve as incentives to property owners for using protective shutters, the mandatory requiring of such devices will not necessarily accomplish anything other than increasing the cost of a home. Criteria must be established which will motivate or reward homeowners for making the effort to protect their property. We discussed the use of incentives such as reduced premiums for those who have shutters as well as penalties such as increased deductibles for those who have shutters but do not use them. Our Commission feels the imposition of penalties is likely to prove more effective. To this end, the Delray Beach City Commission strongly encourages your serious consideration with respect to the establishment of penalties and/or incentives in this regard. T~/A~H/m THE EFFO,~7 ALWAYS MATTERS MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER ~?~[ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM ~ ~ - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 ADOPTION OF MANDATORY IMPACT-RESISTANT PROTECTIVE DEVICES BY PALM BEACH COUNTY DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is before the Commission to consider whether to support Palm Beach County adopting codes for mandatory impact-resistant protec- tive devices (windows and/or shutters) as recommended by the Building Code Advisory Board of Palm Beach County. As a result of Hurricane Andrew, various study groups developed standards to evaluate products to protect windows and openings. The standard is known as SSTD 12-94, and emulates the results of 110 mile per hour winds projecting debris 35 miles per hour. Adoption of changes to the Standard Building Code governing the provision for wind impact protection would reduce injury and damage to housing in the event of a hurricane. At the first reading of the Building Code amendment before the County Commission, the Commission voted 4-3 to not mandate impact-resistant protective devices. However, some of the Commissioners who voted with the majority indicated they might change their vote if the majority of the cities supported mandatory protection. At the last Municipal League meeting this issue was debated at length. In the end, the League adopted a motion that cities should consider adopting mandatory protection. Mayor Lynch requested that this item be placed on the agenda so that Delray Beach could take a formal position on the issue. The City staff supports mandatory protection as the most effective means available for reducing property damage from hurricanes. The clarification of the motion's intent is as follows: That it is purely voluntary. Carmela Starace was concerned that it would be construed as mandatory. The discussion which followed was that the cities give some consideration to the mandatory aspect, and then decide what is going to work best for them. Diane who did the minutes said discussion was heated - pretty evenly divided on both sides (whether it should be voluntary or mandatory), but apparently they decided that emphasis be placed on the word "consider" Motion: That the cities consider adopting mandatory impact-resistant protective devices as recommended by the building code advisory board. Motion Passed 18-7. MR. DOMINIC SIMS, INTERIM DIRECTOR, PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT, REGARDING UPDATE TO 1994 EDITIONS OF THE BUILDING, GAS, MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING CODES--Mr. Sims explained that every three years the Building Code Advisory Board of Palm Beach County, comprised of seven muni~ipal and nine industry representatives, makes a recommendation to update the model code. The mission of the BCAB, which was created by a special act in 1974, is to promote consistency and uniformity in terms of building code enforcement in PBC. This year they are recommending that the BOCC adopt an ordinance that would update our standards from the 1991 edition to the 1994 editions of the model codes. President Abrams indicated that the League Board of Directors has endorsed the County's adoption of the 1994 editions of the codes; secondly, with regard to the issue of impact-resistant windows or shutters the Board passed a motion that the cities consider adopting that standard; thirdly, the Board recommended that the League write to the Insurance Commissioner and the County commissioners requesting that credit be allowed for use of the impact-resistant windows. Executive Director Jack Horniman advised that Mayor Bob McDonald asked to be on record as saying he would support the position that cities should be able to act independently on this through a local ordinance and that he would not favor a mandatory requirement but rather a voluntary requirement. Mayor Arlin Voress stated for the membership's information that the Board of County Commissioners have on first reading voted 4-3 against mandating impact-resistant treatment of windows. Much input was heard from local officials pro and con to mandatory standards. Mr. Sims indicated that he and his staff will return for future discussions with the League on this issue and at that time some of the viable suggestions made at this meeting could be discussed. North Palm Beach Councilman Charlie O'Meilia spoke in strong favor of mandatory requirement of impact-resistant standards. Mr. O'Meilia requested that the League endorse a mandatory requirement for impact-resistant windows or shutters rather than the County version of the amendment which addresses this standard on a voluntary basis. 8e indicated that North Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach have passed mandatory impact-resistant standards. The mandatory standard applies to new construction and additions/extensive renovations. Mr. O'Meilia advised that impact-resistant windows eliminate the need for hurricane shutters. At this point President Abrams called for a motion to endorse the County's adoption of the 1994 Editions of the Building, Gas, Mechanical a~d Plumbing Codes. Councilman Charlie O'Meilia so moved; Councilwoman Carmela Starace seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Next, President Abrams asked for a motion on the i~sue of impact-resistant windows. Mr. Abrams stated that what was requested was that the cities ~o~sider adopting mandatory impact-resistant protective devices as recommended by the BCAB; Councilman Charlie O'Meilia so moved. Mayor Arlin Voress seconded. Discussion on the main motion ensued so ae to clarify the motion's intent. Upon being put to a vote, the motion carried 19-7 (bY a show of hands), being revised to 18-7 when the fact was brought to the President's attention that an Ex Officio (non-voting) member was included in the first count. The third item discussed and voted upon by the Board of Directors was that the League contact the Insurance Commissioner and the County Commissioners requesting that credit be allowed for use of these impact-resistant items. Motion by Arlin Voress, seconded by Charlie O'Meilia; motion carried unanimously. 2 Memorandum To: DAVID T. HARDEN - CITY MANAGER From: LULA C. BUTLER - DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT I,J~ Date: JANUARY 30, 1996 Subject: REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF MANDATORY PROVISION FOR WIND IMPACT PROTECTION BACKGROUND: As a result of Hurricane Andrew a great deal of study was conducted to determine what could have curtailed the damage done to South Dade. Several wind study groups evaluated and assessed what would have mitigated the damage done by the hurricane. These study groups included a State task force, a Federal wind study group, and a SBCCl wind study group. These groups determined that if windows and openings were protected the damage would have been much less. The study further determined that windows and openings should be protected. The study resulted in SBCCl producing a standard to evaluate products to protect windows and openings. This standard is known as SSTD 12-94. The standard emulates the results of 110 mile per hour winds projecting debris 35 miles per hour, which may not penetrate a window or opening by protecting it with plywood, shutters or other material. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of changes to the Standard Building Code governing the provision for wind impact protection to safeguard our citizens and reduce the damage to housing in the event of a hurricane. JS:dc Attachments: SSTD 12-94 SBC Chapter 1606 SSTD12Cj4.CC CHAPTER 16 STRUCTURAL LOADS 1606 WIND LOADS 1601.1 APPLICATIONS All Buildings, structures and parts thereof shall be designed to withstand the appropriate wind loads prescribed herein. Decreases in wind load shall not be made for the effect of shielding by other structures. Wind pr_essures.shall be assumed to.._a_c.t_normal to the surfaces considered.l~'E~e'~5~,q~~nin,~s in bUildi'r~l~ 10Cated'e'i'tlier ~it~i~-fi~,~-~il~si~ of.the coa s~a l'~a-"n"'t-i~'~,~h~t'~'r?h~n-e'~vh~r-e' t he basic Wind 'speed 'is~q'reater t~''':h~an'~9Omph' or"~ ~area~~ wher'e~the b.a.?E'wi~:~ee'?. ~{-,qre~ter~th~-n"t 0OmDhshall bol.desi, ne? for imoacts, ,' . inaCC0i'dar~ce~Witli:1606,:4~The large missile impact requirement~ or1606:~,~l'iall appl¥'~:':~~. ~: ~b~.exteri~?~.qlazed openin,qs'anY'portion ofwhich' is located in' the' lowe~t30 feet above ~:~' .. ~',qrade;'::-~.~Small missile~;impact.;requirements of 1606.4 shall apply; to~'~exterior ,qlazed .-,. /' openin,qs located more than 30 feet above ,qrade.~.,~.~.~ ....-~, ~ ..... ;:'~ See local Coastal Construction for special requirements in the Coastal C~hstrUction'v .;?COntrol Zone;'F.S:'Chapter 161.' "~ ~ 1606.3 ROOF SYSTEMS 1606.3.1 ROOF DECK. The roof deck shall be designed to withstand the wind pressures determined under 1606.2 for buildings 60 ft (18.3 m) or less in height or ASCE 7 for buildings of any height. See TABLE 2306 and FIGURE 2306 for structural panel fasteninq 1606.3.2 ROOF COVERINGS. Roof coverings shall comply with 1606.3.1. Rigid tile roof coverings that are air-permeable and installed over a roof deck shall be permitted to be designed in accordance with 1606.3.3. See 1509.3.3 for test standards for wind resistance. 1606.3.3 RIGID TILE. Wind loads on rigid tile roof coverings shall be determined as the lifting moment M., The lifting moment shall be determined in accordance with the following formula: M. = q~ CL bLL. [1.0 - GC,] where: M. = aerodynamic uplift moment (ft-lb) acting to raise the tail of the tile. qh = wind velocity pressure (psf) determined from TABLE 1606.2A. CL = lift coefficient determined from TABLE 1606.3.3. b = exposed width (ft) of the roof tile. L = length (ft) of the roof tile. L, = moment arm (ft) from the axis of rotation to the point of uplift on the roof tile. The point of uplift shall be taken at 0.76L from the head of the tile and the middle of the F:\COMMON\BADMIN',AMEN D\CABBCA94.WPD 11 9/28/95 exposed width. For roof tiles with nails or screws (with or without a tail clip), the axis of rotation shall be taken as the head of the tile for direct deck applications and as the top edge of the batten for battened applications. For roof tiles fastened only by a nail or screw along the side of the tile, the axis of rotation shall be determined by testing. For roof tiles installed with battens and fastened only by a clip near the tail of the tile, the moment arm shall be determined about the top edge of the batten with consideration given for the point of rotation of the tiles based on straight bond or broken bond and the tile profile. GC_p = roof coefficient for each applicable zone determined from Figure 1606.2E. Roof coefficient shall not be adjusted for internal pressure. L~$6 lald, ~r mechar'ticatiy-Pasle~ed Concrete and clay roof tiles complying with the following limitations shall be designed to withstand the wind loads prescribed in this section. 1. The roof tiles shall be either loose laid on battens or mechanically fastened, · modar set or adhesive set. 2. The roof tiles shall be installed on solid sheathing which has been designed as components and cladding in accordance with 1606.2.3.3. 3. An Underlayment shall be installed in accordance with 1509.7. 4. The tile shall be single lapped interlocking with a minimum head lap of not less than 2 inches (51 mm). 5. The length of the tile shall be between 1.0 and 1.75 ft (305 and 533 mm). 6. The exposed width of the tile shall be between 0.73 0.67 and 1.25 ft (223 203 and 381 mm). 7. Maximum thickness of the tail of the roof tile shall not exceed 1.3 inches (33 mm). 8. Roof tiles usinq mortar set or adhesive set systems shall have at least 2/3 of the tile's area free of mortar or adhesive contact. TABLE 1606.3.3 LIFT COEFFICIENTS FOR L-OOSE-EAIEHgR-MEGHANIGAL-L-Y-FA~E~ RIGID ROOF TILE Roofing Material C, Concrete & clay tile 0.20 i::1606~4 IMPACTS FROM WIND BORNE DEBRIS ~.'~ 1606.4.1 EXterior RlaZed openinRs in buiidinRs with a use factor of 1'~15~ When desiRned.~';. ~,;.-in accordance with 1606.:2 or classified as cateRory II or III, when desiRned in accordance. with ASCE 7, shall comply with SBCCI SSTD 12-94 by either bain(3 desi~3ned for impact' resistance or bein.q protected by impact protective systems. 1606.4.2 Exterior RlaZecl"Openinqs in buildinqs with a use factor less than 1.15 when'.~,~. desi.qned in accordance with 1606.2, or classified as cateRory I or IV,'when desiRned in F:\COMMON\BADh, llhI~AMEi',ID\CABBCA94 WPD 12 accordance with ASCE 7, shall comply with SBCC! SSTD 12-94 by either bein,q designed for impact resistance or beinq protected by impact protective systems. Exceptions: 1. Group A buildinqs and pads thereof desiqned as open or partially enclosed. 2. Group B buildinqs and pads thereof desiqned as open or padially enclosed. 3. Group F buildin,qs and pads thereof desi,qned as open or partially enclosed. 4. Group H1 and H2 buildinqs. 5. Group M buildinqs and pads thereof desi.qned as open or padially enclosed. 6..~ Non habitable spaces in group R1, R2, and R3 occupancies desiqned as open or padially enclosed 7~ Group S1 and S2 buildinqs and pads thereof desi,qned as open or padially enclosed. 8...~ All enclosed surfaces which are below the 100 year base flood elevation and which are desiqned to break away. 1606.4.3 Impact protection systems shall be desiqned and installed such that they do not come in contact with the qlazin.q under uniform, impact or cyclic pressure Ioadin,q 1606.45 Stability Anchorage shall be provided to resist excess ovedurning, uplift and sliding forces. The overturning moment due to wind load shall not exceed two-thirds of the dead load stabilizing moment unless the building or structure is anchored so as to resist the excess moment. CHAPTER 17 STRUCTURAL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS 1707 MATERIALS AND ASSEMBLY TESTS 1707.4 EXTERIOR WINDOW AND DOOR ASSEMBLIES 1707.4.1 Glazed window assemblies and factory built impact protective assemblies shall be labeled to indicate compliance with the SBCCI SSTD 12-94. Site built impact protective devices shall be fabricated and installed in accordance with plans, samples of which have been tested successfully to requirements of 1606 and the SBCCI SSTD 12-94. CHAPTER 18 FOUNDATIONS AND RETAINING WALLS 1804 FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS 1804,1.1 Foundations shall be built on undisturbed soil or properly compacted fill material. Foundations shall be constructed of materials described in this chapter. All footin.qs and, concrete pads shall be formed full depth. Exception: Where conditions allow, as authorized by the Building Official. F:\COMMON~ADMINV~MEN D\CABBCA94.WPD 1 3 9r~s/9s SBCCI TEST STANDARD FOR DETERMINING IMPACT RESISTANCE FROM WINDBORNE DEBRIS SSTD 12-94 FIRST PRINTING COPYRIGHT© 1994 BY SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 900 MONTCLAIR ROAD BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35213-1206 205-591-1853 PRINTED IN U.S.A. . ~ ~ -'- ; ..'-!'" TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 ADMINISTRATION 101 Purpose and Objectives ...................................... 1 102 , Label ..................................................... 1 103 Quality Assurance ........................................... 2 CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS 201 General ................................................... 3 202 Definitions ................................................. 3 CHAPTER 3 TEST PROCEDURES 301 Test Specimen Requirements .................................. 5- 302 Large Missile Impact Test ..................................... 6 303 Small Missile Impact Test ..................................... 8 CHAPTER 4 TEST REPORTS 401 Required Report ........................................... 11 CHAPTER 5 TEST APPARATUS 501 General .................................................. 13 · ' 502 Major Test Components ..................................... 13 Impact Resistance Test Standard 1994 CHAPTER 1 ADMINISTRATION 101 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 101.1 Purpose The purpose of this Stand~d is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to wind and windborne debris damage to glazed openings and impact protective systems. 101.2 Objectives The objective of this standard is to evaluate the performance of glazed opening systems or their protective systems that are subject to impxcts from windborne debris in high wind events by establishing test procedures and acceptance criteria for such systems. 102 LABEL 102.1 Quality of Label A permanent label shall be applied to glazed window assemblies and factory built impact protective assemblies in such a manner that the label remains legible and visible after installation. EXCEPTIONS: I. Manufactured assemblies where a certificate of compliance is provided. 2. Glazed wall assemblies that are assembled or glazed at the project site where a certificate of compliance is provided in accordance with the following: a. Where each component of the assembly used at the project site has a certificate of compliance verifying that each is as specified in the test specimen report, and b. Where a certificate of compliance is provided by the installer indicating that the components have been installed in accordance · with the requirements of the assembly as specified in the test specimen report. 102.2 Content of Label The label shall contain the manufacturer's identification, designation "SSTD 12-94," indicate whether the assembly was tested for the large and/or small missile impact test, and the maximum positive [Pmax +] and maximum negative {Pmax -] wind pressure, or the lower absolute value. The wind pressure shall be expressed in pounds per square foot (psf). Impact Resistance Test Standard 1994 1 103 QUALITY ASSURANCE 103.1 When the product is labeled with the designation "SSTD 12-94," the manufacturer affirms that samples of the product were tested in accordance with this standard by an approved laboratory and have been found to meet the requirements of this standard. 103.2 The test report shall be issued by an approved independent testing agency. 2 Impact Resistance Test Standard 1994 CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS 201 GENERAL The definitions used in this standard shall be the same as those used in the Standard Building Code. 202 DEFINITIONS POROSITY, IMPACT PROTECTIVE SYSTEM--the sum of the porosity attributed to openings in the surface area of the impact protective system (czl) and the porosity attributed to any open areas between the~impact protective system and the surface of the structure to which it is attached (cz2)- The porosities are calculated by dividing the areas of the openings by the total surface area of the impact protective system. The value of o~2 used for purposes of calculating cz shall not exceed 0.30. cz = czl + cz2 where cz2 < 0.30 Impact Resistanco Test Standard 1994 3 CHAPTER 3 TEST PROCEDURES 301 TEST SPECIMEN REQUIREMENTS 301.1 A test shall consist of three identical specimens, at least two of which shall pass the criteria of this standard. 301.2 Test Specimens All parts of the test specimen, including glazing and structural framing, shall bc full size, using the same materials, glass type, details, and methods of construction and fastening as proposed for actual use. The specimen shall consist of the entire assembled unit and shall contain all devices used to resist wind and windbome debris. 301.2.1 Additions to the tested product such as insect screens or security devices and those furnished for energy conservation, decoration, or reflecfivity shall not require a separate test. 301.2.2 Test specimens for glazed wall assemblies shall be one panel between mullions of the largest lite size (width and height) with the thinnest glazing of the type and construction for which conformance is desired. 301.3 Substitution Criteria The following ~ubstitution criteria for a test.~' assembly shall be permitted either individually or in combination. 301.3.1 Successful tests shall qualify assemblies with thicker glazing of the same type and utilizing the same methods of fabrication, provided the anchorage of the lite is unchanged and no individual component of the glazing is reduced in thickness. 301.3.2 Successful tests shall qualify smaller sizes of sash, panel or lite (width and height) with glazing at least as thick, of the same type and utilizing the same methods of fabrication, provided the anchorage of the lite is unchanged and no individual component of the glazing is reduced in thickness. 301.3.3 Specimens tested with single glazing shall qualify assemblies with insulating glass provided at least one lite of the insulating glass is at least as thick and of the same type and construction and the anchorage of the lite is unchanged. 301.3.4 Specimens successfully tested shall qualify assemblies that are tinted, heat-absorbing, reflective (except for reflective coatings applied to internal surfaces of laminated glass), or otherwise aesthetically modified provided the glazing is at least as thick and of the same type and construction and the anchorage of the lite is unchanged. 301.3.5 Manufactured assemblies successfully tested can be combined provided the structural supports and connections between assemblies have been designed for the wind loads. Impact Resistance Test Slandard 1994 5 302 LARGE MISSILE IMPACT TEST 302.1 The large missile shall be comprised of an 8'-6" (_+3") section of American Lumber Standard Committee accredited agency grade marked 2x4 · · lumber with no knots within 12 inches of the impact end having a spherical surface with a 48 inch radius on the impact end. The combined weight of the missile and sabot shall be 9 lbs. (__.1/4 lb.). 302,2 The large missile shall impact normal to the surface and "end on" of each test specimen at a speed between 50 and 52 ft/s. 302.3 The test shall be conducted in accordance with 302.3. l or 302.3.2. 302,3.1 Each test specimen shall receive two impacts, except as noted in 302.3.1.1: the first within a 5 inch radius circle having its center on the midpoint of the test specimen and the second within a 5 inch radius circle in a comer having its center in a location 6 inches away from any supporting members. For hung windows, sliding windows, sliding doors, doors with glazing, and similfir test specimens containing multiple panels, the innermost panel shall be impacted at its center and at an upper corner of the same panel closest to the midspan of the test specimen. For hinged or swinging windows, or doors with glazing, the panel closest to the midspan of the test specimen shall be impacted at its center and at a corner of that same panel furthest from the lock and hinge hardware. 302.3.1.1 Where a sash, panel or lite is sufficiently small such that the 5 inch radius circles at the center and comer overlap, two separate sash, panels or lites shall be impacted; one at the center and one at the comer. Where only one such sash, panel or lite is contained within the test specimen, only the center of the panel shall be impacted. 302.3.1.2 For window and skylight t~st specimens comprised of different types of glazing, the thinnest and largest glazing shall be impacted in accordance with 302.3. ! 302.3.2 A test shall consist of six identical specimens. The specimens shall be separated into two sets, Set A and Set B. At least two of each set shall pass the criteria of this standard. Each test specimen in Set A shall be impacted once within a 5 inch radius circle having its center on the midpoint of the test specimen. For hung windows, sliding windows, sliding doors, doors with glazing, and similar test specimens containing multiple panels, the innermost panel shall be impacted. Each test specimen in Set B shall be impacted once within a 5 inch radius circle in a comer having its center in a location 6 inches away from any supporting member. For hung windows, sliding windows, sliding doors, doors with glazing, and similar test specimens containing multiple panels, the innermost panel shall be impacted. 6 Impact Resistance Tesl Standard 1994 302.4 After the test specimen is subjected to the missile impact(s), it shall then be subjected to the cyclic pressure loading specified in Table 1. : EXCEPTION: The cyclic test is not required for assemblies where at least one ply of the impacted lite does not fracture during the large missile impact test and the ply is designed to withstand the design wind pressure. 302.5 If air le/~kage through the test specimen is excessive, tape may be used to cover cracks and joints through which leakage is occurring. Tape shall not be used when there is a probability that it may significantly restrict differential movement between adjoining members. It is also permissible to cover both sides of the entire specimen and mounting panel with a single thickness of polyethylene or other plastic film no thicker than 0.050 mm (2 mils). This technique of application shall permit the full load to be transferred to the specimen and shall not prevent movement or failure of the specimen. The film shall be applied loosely with extra folds of material at each comer and at all offsets and recesses. When the load. is applied, there shall be no fillet caused by ' tightness of plastic film. 302.6 The test specimen shall be subjected to the missile impact(s) and resist the cyclic pressure loading with no crack forming longer than 5 inches through which air can pass or with no opening forming through which a 3 inch diameter sphere can pass. 302.7 For impact protective systems, both impacts shall be to the thinnest section of the assembly. For impact protective systems with horizontal and/or vertical bracing, both impacts shall be within a single area which is not reinforced and shall be in accordance with 302.3. 302.7.1 Porous impact protective systems used to protect glazed openings shall resist the large missile impacts specified in 302.1 and 302.2 without penetration. Maximum deflection under impact and cyclic pressure loading shall be measured and recorded, and shall determine the required installation separation distance between the device and the glazing over which it is installed in service. Where there is a gap between the impact protective system and the surface of the structure to which it is attached, the protective system shall extend past the edges of the glazed opening a distance greater than or equal to the gap. 302.7.2 Non-porous impact protective systems used to protect glazed openings shall resist the large missile impacts specified in 302.1 and 302.2 and resist the cyclic pressure loading with no crack forming longer than 5 inches through which air can pass or with no opening forming through which a 3 inch diameter sphere can pass. Non-porous impact protective systems intended to replace the wind load resistant functions of the glazed assembly shall have a porosity (o0 of 0.05 or less. Impac! ~osis~anco TOM Sland,'~rd 1994 7 302.7.3 Following the large missile impact test, impact protective systems shall resist applications of forces corresponding to the pressure cycles specified, with Pmax replaced by (l-c~)Pmax. without detaching from their mountings, where ~ is the porosity of the impact protective systems. EXCEPTION: Impact protective systems with a porosity of 0.5 or more used to protect glazed openings need not be subjected to the cyclic wind pressure loading. The porosity attributed to openings in the surface shall be uniformly distributed over the surface of the impact protective system. 303 SMALL MISSILE IMPACT TEST 303.1 Test specimens passing the large missile impact test need not be tested for the small missile impact test. EXCEPTION: Impact protective systems with horizontally projected openings greater than 3/16 inch. 303.2 The small missiles shall consist of spherical steel balls each weighing 2 grams (_+ 5%). Missile impacts shall be successive from a single propelling device. 303.3 Each missile shall impact the surface of each test specimen at a speed between 130 and 132 ft/s. 303.4 Each test specimen shall receive 30 small missile impacts as follows, except as noted in 303.4.2: the first 10 distributed uniformly over a 2 sq ft area located at the center of the test specimen, the second 10 distributed uniformly over a 2 sq ft area located at the center of the long dimension of the specimen near the edge, and the third 10 distributed uniformly over a 2 sq ft area located at 'a comer of the specimen. For hung windows, sliding windows, sliding doors, doors with glazing, and similar test specimens containing, multiple panels, the innermost panel shall be impacted at its center, at the center of the long dimension of the same panel, and at an upper comer of the same panel closest to the midspan of the test specimen. For hinged or swinging windows, and doors with glazing, the panel closet to the midspan of the test specimen shall be impacted at its center, at the center of the long dimension of the same panel, and at a comer of the same panel furthest from the lock and hinge hardware. 303.4.1 Where a sash, panel or lite is sufficiently small such that the 2 sq ft areas at the center, midspan and corner overlap, two or three separate sash, panels or lites shall be impacted; one at the center, one at the midspan and one at the comer. Where only two such sash, panels or lites are contained within the test specimen, only the center and corners of the panels shall be impacted. Where only one such sash, panel or lite is contained within the test specimen, only the center of the panel shall be impacted. 8 Impact Resistance Tesl Standard 1994 303.4.2 For window and skylight test specimens comprised of different types of glazing the thinnest and largest glazing shall be impacted in accordance with 303.4. 303.5 After the test specimen is subjected to the small missile impacts, it shall then be subjected to the cyclic pressure loading specified in Table I. EXCEPTION: The cyclic test is not required for assemblies where at least one ply of the impacted lite does not fracture during the small missile impact test and the ply is designed to withstand the design wind pressure. 303.6 If air leakage through the test specimen is excessive, tape may be used to cover cracks and joints through which leakage is occurring. Tape shall not be used when there is a probability that it may significantly restrict differential movement between adjoining members. It is also permissible to cover both sid6s of the entire specimen and mounting panel with a single thickness of polyethylene or. other plastic film no thicker than 0.050 mm (2 mils). This technique of application shall permit the full load to be transferred to the specimen and shall not prevent movement or failure of the specimen. The film shall be applied loosely with extra folds of material at each comer and at all offsets and recesses. When the load is applied, there shall be no fillet caused by tightness of plastic film. 303.7 The specimen shall be subjected to the small missile impacts and resist the cyclic pressure loading with no crack' forming longer than 5 inches through which air can pass or with no opening through which a 3 inch diameter sphere can pass. 303.8 For impact protective systems, all impacts shall be to the thinnest section of the assembly. For impact protective systems with horizontal and/or vertical bracing, all impacts shall be within a single area which is not reinforced and shall be in accordance with 303.4. 303.8.1 Porous impact protective systems used to protect glazed openings shall resist the small missile impacts specified in 303.2 and 303.3 without penetration. Maximum deflection under impact and cyclic pressure loading shall be measured and recorded, and shall determine the required installation separation distance between the device and the glazing over which it is install in service. Where there is a gap between the impact protective system and the surface of the structure to which it is attached, the protective system shall extend past the edges of the glazed opening a distance greater than or.equal to the gap. 303.8.2 Non-porous impact protective systcms used to protect glazed openings shall resist the large missile impacts specified in 303.2 and 303.3 and resist the cyclic pressure loading with no crack forming longer than 5 inches through which air can pass or with no opening forming through which a 3 inch diameter Irnpac~ Fqesis~ance Tes~ S~andatd lcj(34 g sphere can pass. Non-porous impact protective systems intended to replace wind load resistant functions of the glazed assembly shall have a porosity (o0 of 0.05 or less. 303.83 Following the small missile impact test, impact protective systems shall resist applications of forces corresponding to the outward acting pressure cycles specified in Table 1, with Pmax replaced by (l-ot)Pmax, without detaching from their mountings where ~z is the porosity of the impact protective systems. EXCEPTION: Impact protective systems with a porosity of 0.5 or more used to protect glazed openings need not be subjected to the cyclic wind pressure loading. The porosity attributed to openings in the surface shall be uniformly distributed over the surface of the impact protective system. Table 1 Cyclic Wind Pressure Loading Pressure Loading Range Cycles1 Direction Sequence Inward Acting 1 0.2Pmax to 0.5Pmax 3,500 Pressures I 2 0 to 0.6Pmax 300 maximum positive wind 3 0.5Pmax to 0.8Pmax 600 pressure in accordance 4 0.3Pmax to 1.0Pmax 100 with SBC 1606 Outward 5 0.3Pmax !o 1.0Pt~ax 50 Acting Pressures 6 0.5Pmax Io 0-8Prnax 1,050 Pmax= maximum negative wind 7 0 to 0,6Prna~ 50 pressure in accordance 8 0.2Pmax to 0.5Pmax 3,350 with SBC 1606 1. Each cycle shall have a minimum duration of one second and a maximum duration of three seconds and must be performed in a continuous manner. I0 Impact Resistance Test Slandard 1994 CHAPTER 4 TEST REPORTS 401 REQUIRED REPORT 401.1 The following information shall be reported: 1. Date of the test and report. 2. A description of the test specimens, including all parts and components of a particular system of construction together with manufacturer's model number if appropriate or any other identification. 3. Detailed drawings of the specimen, showing dimensioned section profiles, sash or door dimensions and arrangement, framing location, panel arrangement, installation and spacing of anchorage, weatherstripping, locking arrangement, hardware, sealants, glazing details, test specimen sealing methods, and any other pertinent construction details. Any deviation from the drawings or any modifications made to the specimen to obtain the reported values shall be noted on the drawings and in the report. 4. Results for ali three specimens with each specimen being properly identified, particularly with respect to distinguishing features or differing adjustments. A separate drawing for each specimen shall not be required where all differences between them are noted on the drawings provided. 5. Location of impacts on each test specimen. 6. The large and small missile velocities. 7. The weight of the missiles. 8. Maximum positive and negative pressures used in the cyclic wind pressure loading. 9. A description of the condition of the test specimens after testing, including details of any damage and any other pertinent observations. 10. When the tests are made to check conformity of the specimen to a particular specification, an identification or description of that specification. 11. A statement that the tests were conducted in accordance with this test method. 12. A statement of whether or not, upon completion of all testing, the test specimens meet the requirements of 302.6 and 303.7. 13. A statement as to whether or not tape or film, or both, were used to seal against air leakage, and whether in the judgment of the test engineer, the tape or film influenced the results of the test. 14. The name of the author of the report. 15. The names and addresses of both the testing agency that conducted the tests and the requester of the tests. Impact Resistance Test Slandard 1994 11 16. Signatures of persons responsible for supervision of the tests and a list of official observers. 401.2 All data not required herein, but useful to a better understanding of the test results, conclusions or recommendations, should be appended to the report. 12 Impac! Resis!ance Tesl Standard 1994 CHAPTER 5 TEST APPARATUS 501 GENERAL Pendulum impact apparatus which will produce the same energy, impact surface, and duration as the device described herein shall be acceptable as an alternate. 502 MAJOR TEST COMPONENTS 502.1 Pressure Chamber The test specimens shall be constructed as described in 301.2. Specimens shall be mounted on a test frame and a pressure chamber in a man~er which will permit impact testing as described in 302 and 303 followed by pressure cycling as'specified in Table 1. Mounting of specimens may be achieved by employing either of the two following procedures: "Procedure 1" - mounting the specimen to a frame which, in turn, attaches to a flat structural wall, or "Procedure 2" - mounting the specimen to a structural box that has been built especially for the specimens to be tested. In "Procedure 1," the specimen and the flat structural wall comprise the front and back, of the pressure chamber and the frame comprises the sides. In "Procedure 2," the specimen comprises the front of the pressure chamber and the box is fabricated to form the remainder of the pressure chamber. The structural wall or box shall be designed for the pressures which will be experienced during testing. The test chamber shall not deflect under test pressures in such a manner that the performance of the specimen will be affected. A controllable blower or a compressed air supply and/or a vacuum system or a reversible controllable blower shall be provided which is capable of providing the required maximum air pressure differences (inward.acting and outward acting) across the specimen. The air supplies shall be connected to the pressure chamber in a manner which will permit pressure to be applied without impinging directly on the test specimen or affecting pressure measuring instrumentation. Prescribed pressure differences across the specimen may be imposed by manually operated valves, an electric logic board which operates electric valves, or by computer controlled servo~valves. Pressure differences across the specimen shall be measured by manometers, mechanical pressure gages, or pressure transducers. Test pressure differences shall be measured within a tolerance of__ 2% or _+ 0.1 inches of water column. 502.2 Large Missile Cannon The large missile cannon shall use compressed air to propel the large missile. The cannon shall be capable of producing missile impact at the speed specified in 302.2. The large missile cannon shall consist of five major components: a compressed air supply, a pressure release valve, a pressure gauge, a barrel and Impacl Resislance Test Standard 1994 13 support frame, and a timing system for determining the missile speed. The barrel of the large missile cannon shall consist of a nominal 4 inch inside diameter pipe and shall be at least as long as the missile. The barrel of the large missile cannon shall be mounted on a support frame in a manner to facilitate aiming the missile so that it impacts the specimen at the desired location. The distance from the end of the cannon to the specimen shall be between 2 feet and 6 feet greater than the.length of the large missile. The large missile is prescribed in 302.1. A sabot shall be attached at the trailing edge of the missile to facilitate launching. The weight of sabot shall not exceed 1/2 lb. 502.3 Small Missile Cannon The small missile cannon shall use compressed air that is capable of p?opelling missiles of the size and speed prescribed in 303.2 and 303.3. The cannon assembly shall be comprised of a timing system as prescribed in 502.4, compressed air supply and gauge, a remote firing device and valve, and a barrel. The small missile cannon shall be mounted on a frame designed to permit movement of the cannon so that it can propel missiles to impact the test specimen at points defined in 303.4. The timing system shall be positioned to measure missile speed within 5 feet of the impact point on the test specimen. 502.4 Timing System The timing system, shall be comprised of two, through-beam photoelectric sensors spaced a known distance apart and used to start and stop an electronic clock, and shall be capable of measuring speeds accurate to _+ 2%. The speed of the missile shall be measured after it exits the cannon. The missile speed shall not be measured while the missile is accelerating. The through-beam photoelectric sensors shall be the same model. The electronic clock shall be activated when the reference point of the missile passes through the timing system. The electronic clock shall have an operating frequency of no less than l0 kHz with a response time not to exceed 0.15 milliseconds. The speed of the large missile shall be determined by dividing the distance between the two, through-beam photoelectric sensors by the total time interval counted by the electronic clock. 502.4.1 The timing system shall be calibrated and certified at six-month intervals using one of the following methods: I. Photographically, using a stroboscope, 2. Photographically using a high speed camera with a frame rate exceeding 500 frames per second, 3. Photographically, using a high speed video camera with a frame rate exceeding 500 frames per second, or 4. By using an independently certified timing system with an accuracy of _+ 1%. i 4 Impact Resistance Test Standard 1994 Calibration of the timing system shall be certified by an independent agency. The calibration report shall include: the date of the calibration, the name of the agency conducting the calibration, the name and signature of the person(s) conducting the calibration, the distance between the through-beam photoelectric sensors (if used), the speed of the missile as measured by the timing system, the speed of the missile as determined from the calibration system, and the percentage' difference in speeds. The timing system shall be deemed to be accurate if the speed of the missile measured by the timing system and the speed measured by the calibration system agree with 2%. Impact Resislanco Test Standard 1994 15 Palm Beach Coullly MUNICIPAL LEAGUE ~.O, BOX-i~)iIGovERNMENTAL CENTER. WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIOA 33402 (407)3§5-4484 Fax Number: (407) 355-6545 FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM PHONE NO.~ NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: FROM{ _~~~ PHON~ NO.~ IF ANY PART OF THIS M~SSAGE IS MISSING, PLEASE CALL (407) 355-4484. ,, ~j~ ~'~ / ~_.~ '~. ~~.. FOR THE FEBRUARY 6 COMMISSION MEETING RE: PBC Municipal League meeting of January 24, 1996 It's not clear what transpired as to mandatory impact resistant hurricane shutters (protective devices) which were discussed. The County opted for voluntary (4-3). Aaronson may change his vote to mandatory. Motion: That the cities consider adopting mandatory impact resistant protective devices as recommended by the building code advisory board. Motion Passed 18-7 Our Commission is being asked to discuss at 2/6 meeting, for an official position on the issue. Two sources for information are Jerry Sanzone, and Jack Horniman. Diane, in Jack's office, will send the minutes on this item Wednesday. 355-4484. ~MR. DOMINIC SIMS, INTERIM DIRECTOR, PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT, REGARDING UPDATE TO 1994 EDITIONS OF THE BUILDING, GAS, MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING CODES--Mr. Sims explained that every three years the Building Code Advisory Board of Palm Beach County, comprised of seven municipal and nine industry representatives, makes a recommendation to update the model code. The mission of the BCAB, which was created by a special act in 1974, is to promote consistency and uniformity in terms of building code enforcement in PBC. This year they are recommending that the BOCC adopt an ordinance that would update our standards from the 1991 edition to the 1994 editions of the model codes. President Abrams indicated that the League Board of Directors hag endorsed the County's adoption of the 1994 editions of the codes; secondly, with regard to the issue of impact-resistant windows or shutters the Board passed a motion that the cities consider adopting that standard; thirdly, the Board recommended that the League write to the Insurance Commissioner and the County commissioners requesting that credit be allowed for use of the impact-resistant windows. Executive Director Jack Horniman advised that Mayor Bob McDonald asked to be on record as saying he would support the position that cities should be able to act independently on this through a local ordinance and that he would nO~ favor a mandatory requirement but rather a voluntary requirement. Mayor Arlin Voress stated for the membership's information that the Board of County Commissioners have on first reading voted 4-3 against mandating impact-resistant treatment of windows. Much input was heard from local officials pro and con to mandatory standards. Mr. Sims indicated that he and his staff will return for future discussions with the League on this issue and at that time some of the viable suggestions made at thi- meeting could be discussed. North Palm Beach Councilman Charlie O'Meilia spoke in strong favor o~ mandatory requirement of impact-resistant standards. Mr. O'Meilia requested that the League endorse a mandatory requirement for impact-resistant windows or shutters rather than the County version of the amendment which addresses this standard on a voluntary basis. Be indicated that North Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach have passed mandatory impact-resistant standards. The mandatory standard applies to new construction and additions/extensive renovations. Mr. O'Meilia advised that impact-resistant windows eliminate the need for hurricane shutters. At this point President Abrams called for a motion to endorse the County's adoption of the 1994 ~ditions of the Building, Gas, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes. Councilman Charlie O'Meilia so moved; Councilwoman Carmela Starace seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Next, President Abrams asked for a motion on the i,sue of impact-resistant windows. Mr. Abrams stated that what was requested was that the cities ~nsider adopting mandatory impact-resistant protective devices as recommended by the BCAB; Councilman Charlie O'Meilia so. moved. Mayor Arlin Voress seconded. Discussion on the main motion ensued so as to clarify the motion's intent. Upon being put to .a vote, the motion carried 19-7 (bY a show of hands), being revxsed to 18-7 when the fact was brought to the President's attention that an Ex Officio (non-voting) member was included in the first count. The third item discussed and voted upon by the Board of Directors was that the League contact the Insurance Commissioner and the County Co.~,issloners requesting that credit be allowed for use of these impact-resistant items. Motion by Arlin Voress, seconded by Charlie O'Meilia; motion carried unanimously. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER ~'~/ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM ~-- -'~'~' - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6. 1996 PROPOSAL FQR MUSEUM AND HISTORICAL DISTRICT DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 We have received a request from The EPOCH (Expanding and Preserving Our Cultural Heritage) Committee to consider a proposal for the creation of an historic district and the potential use of the Solomon D. Spady House as a museum. A copy of their planning report is attached. At this point, I recommend the Commission receive the proposal and refer the historic district to the Historic Preservation Board for consideration. As for the museum proposal, I recommend it be scheduled for further discussion at the February 13th work session. ref:agmemo8 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners of Delray Beach FROM: EPOCH Committee DATE: January 22, 1996 RE: Proposal for Museum & Historical District Enclosed you will find an idea for a positive use for one of our City's historic buildings. The picture on the cover is the former home of Solomon D. Spady, a former high school principal of our local school. Mr. Douglas T. Williams is the present owner. He is desirous of selling the building to any person or agency who is willing to assure the building gets the recognition it deserves. The EPOCH (Expanding and Preserving Our Cultural Heritage) Committee is a study group. All members are citizens of Delray Beach who envision the building being refurbished to supplement the Cornell Museum and the Cason Cottage Museum which presently serves our archival needs. We feel that the City needs more space to display the likeness of persons and historical items of interest. The Community Redeveloping Agency (CRA) is doing an excellent job in restoring areas in Delray Beach. The Spady house, as an extension of the City Museum, will restore and add importance to an area that had a definite impact on the founding of Delray Beach. The EPOCH Committee is also proposing that a section of the area where the Spady House is located be recognized as an Historic District. The Committee has noted with curiosity and concern that there are several Historic Sites in Delray Beach west of Swinton Avenue that should be designated and preserved in an Historic District. To recognize the contribution of African American pioneers in one area where they settled in 1894, we are proposing that the area bounded by West Atlantic Avenue on the South, Northwest Third Avenue on the East, Northeast Sixth Avenue on the West and Northwest Second Street on the North, become the West Settlers Historic District. (See map on following page.) Delray Beach is a place of attraction with people always coming and going. Having a museum on Northwest Fifth Avenue in an Historical District will broaden the area of attraction. The proposed museum is an excellent way to help cement race relations and provide knowledge and respect for the contributions of minority citizens. This would truly make us the "All American City." PROPOSAL FOR A CITY MUSEUM S. D. SPADY HOUSE 170 NW 5TH AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FL CONSTRUCTED IN 1926 A PLANNING REPORT BY THE EPOCH COMMITTEE EXPANDING AND PRESERVING OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE t January 26, 1996 BRINGING INTO SHARPER FOCUS THE HISTORICAL CULTURES AND AWARENESS OF WEST DELRAY BEACH Delray Beach is a city that is and always has been, a multi-ethnic area. This is due mainly to its geographic location and climate. Each person who migrated here brought with him his culture and used it to make the City what it is today. Although we have a couple of places where early contributions and contributors are recognized and displayed, we propose the S. D. Spady house or another building in that area as the perfect location. It should become another museum to recognize and preserve the history and culture of our City. The Spady house is our first choice. It is listed on the City's register as an historic site. As an extension of our City Museum facilities, it would: Provide another site for displaying memorabilia and exhibits of the City's cultural heritage. It would allow additional space for archives and lectures. Establish a center of attraction in an area that has historical significance. Provide knowledge and respect for contributions of minority citizens to the City. Provide awareness of and allow for the restoration of more historical information of the City. Develop more respect and initiative for the upkeep of the area. A City-Wide Multi-Cultural Educational Museum (Executive Summary) We are proposing a multi-cultural educational museum (name yet to be determined) for all the residents of Delray Beach. The museum will be a place to assemble, care for, and research materials worthy of preservation and exhibition and to present these historical materials to the public for their enjoyment and education. The citizens of Delray Beach have archival materials and artifacts, presently stored in private homes, which trace the history of our forebears back to 1894. It is time that these materials are assembled in a central location to be cataloged and given the specialized care that such valuable historical evidence should be to preserve it for future generations. The need for a centralized location is one of the reasons we have chosen the proposed site as the home of our future museum. The proposed building for the City Museum is located at 170 Northwest FitCh Avenue, in the heart of Delray Beach and within easy walking distance of main thoroughfares. It is a former private home in an area that the City of Delray Beach has recognized as having historical significance. The house is of sufficient size (1500+ square feet) to accommodate storage and restoration facilities, exhibit areas, a small reference library, and lecture rooms with audio/visual facilities. Initially, we will be dependent on the citizens of Delray Beach to donate their collections of archive materials and artifacts. In time, the museum will be able to purchase desirable materials. These collections will help to fulfill the most important objective of the Museum -- education. It is our intention to have a close relationship with local schools in order to introduce and promote interest in Delray Beach's historical heritage to students and their parents through programs in the schools and museums. Developing and conducting appropriate programs for children and adults will be the concern of a salaried Director/Curator. A Board of Trustees and Business Manager will join other volunteers in bringing the dream of the Museum to fruition. We propose that the Museum be maintained under the ownership of the City of Delray Beach to ensure the museum's long-lived stability and usefulness to the community. PLANNENG TEAM Planning Team Coordinators: Vera R. Farrington C. Spencer Pompey The EPOCH (Expanding and Preserving Our Cultural Heritage) Committee Members: Ruth Pompey Tommy Stevens Elmore Watkins, Sr. Gertrude Greene Preston Wright Mary Randolph David Randolph Charlotte Durant Dorothy Ellington Anne Williams R. Louise King Yvonne Baine Support Persons (Direct Descendants of Pioneers) Essie Robinson Virginia Robinson Tysena Moss Margueritte McKay Salome Fashaw Alice Muse McCray LeBell Priest Clark Laurence Zill *Will Robinson Videotographers: Eric Akers Clarence Vaughn City Liaison: Patricia Cayce, Delray Beach Historic Preservation Planner Community Liaison: Dorothy Patterson, Archivist, Delray Beach Historical Society Mary Swinford, Director, Delray Beach Historical Society Gloria R. Adams, Director, Old School Square Cultural Arts Center, Delray Beach Owner: Douglas Williams Educational Consultants: Henrietta Smith, Ed.D., Professor Emerita, School of Library & Information Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL Mae Neilander, Florida Atlantic University Student of the Schmidt College of Humanities, History Department Special Consultant: Roy Simon, Architect, Architecture/Land & Space Planning Charlene F. Jones, Technical Assistant (Computer Analysis) *Recently Deceased EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT The staff of the Spady house museum will develop a program for educating the community about the exhibits it will house and care for. The program and exhibits will involve participation of all ages. However, our educational efforts will be specifically directed toward children in intermediate grades in school and older adults (ages fifty and above). Children in intermediate grades (fifth and sixth) have a high level of curiosity and are easy to motivate to learn about their heritage. Elementary grade children may not have the necessary imagination and be too young to care.. Older children and younger adults may be too busy with social activities to realize the need. The Museum's staff will review the public schools' curriculum and determine what input and activities are appropriate. This will also determine the appropriate time for children to visit the museum. Therefore, public classroom methods will be used in our presentations at the museum. The staff will also accept recommendations from school authorities as to the types of special and temporary exhibits to acquire. School teachers will therefore be able to, and expected to, assist with the presentations at the museum. Many motivational and educational activities will be utilized. However, the two most stimulating we will use more extensively are: 1. Comparison Comparing materials and lifestyles of the past to those of today. As often as possible, students will be e encouraged to touch, try on, use and have other personal contact with artifacts. 2. Storytelling Oral stories by staff and other certified persons (e.g., guest lectures, historians, etc.) will relate information about early Delray Beach. Students will be expected to become involved by asking questions and demonstrating, if possible. (Example, an old dance, canning vegetables, etc.) Videos and other types off audio/visuals will also be used to show and stimulate learning. Staffwill also visit schools and circulate small archival collections in strategic areas of the school. The older adults may be more elusive in that they are not required to visit any educational facility. But, many persons in this age range begin to reminisce about their lives and become curious about if and how the history of their community is recorded. We will keep the museum attractive and visitor friendly so as to entice this age group of fifty and above. This could add to our intellect through personal historical recollections (stories about their past). Special activities for older citizens will include: needle point, gardening, quilting, specialty cooking, health care programs, holiday preparations, and positive interaction and socializing. This may be the time in their lives when they are interested in ridding themselves of personal property and would like to make donations of inherited artifacts to the museum. This is one way we expect to expand our permanent exhibits. INITIAL FLOOR PLAN FOR USE OF SPADY HOUSE The exterior will be landscaped according to City specifications. Properly identified plans and shrubs that were used by the early settlers for various reasons will be included. The original green paint for the exterior of the house will be matched as closely as possible. The front (east) walkway and entrance will resemble as closely as possible, with maximum security, the original door that is shown in early photographs of the house. All windows will also be duplicated. The enclosed porch on the let~ will be used as a reception area and a small girl shop. A guest book will be provided to account for the number of visitors and friends. A receptacle for monetary donations will be available and small, relatively inexpensive souvenir type articles will be sold. A portrait of Mr. Spady will be displayed on a wall near or in the immediate entrance area of the house. (First floor, north side) The area that is presently shown in the illustration as a shower will be transformed into a modern, attractive, handicapped accessible powder room for use by the public. This will serve as a turning area for wheel chairs. The area under the stairs will be used for utility storage. The kitchen area will remain a kitchen. Appropriate cabinets will be installed, as well as a cooking range, refrigerator, food preparation area, a table and chairs. These furnishings will be in the style of the 1920% if possible. This room will be designed for demonstrations as well as a catering kitchen for use by staff' and guests. Plans for rental of the building and/or rooms for community service will be considered. (First floor, continued, south side) The south east room will be outfitted with cabinets and cases and will be used to exhibit Florida history. This will be a flexible, unmanned exhibit; therefore, protective glass and locks will be installed. The second room will be furnished as a 1920's public school classroom and will be used as a lecture/classroom for small meetings. It will also be used at various times for temporary or special manned exhibits. The room in the rear will be used as the office for the Director/Curator of the Museum. Office equipment and some office supplies will be stored in this room which is conveniently located near the rear entrance. Pictures, portraits and stationary artifacts will adorn the hallway. The back door will be altered to accommodate wheelchairs. A ramp will lead to the back door near the required handicapped parking spaces. The general parking area will be located on the north side of the building. Handicapped and one designated parking space for the director will be in the rear. Arrangements for shared parking with St. Paul AME Church will be made by the person(s) or group(s) who will need extra parking. (Second floor, north side) The room east of the building (front) will be used as a library. Therefore, it will be furnished with book storage shelves and other library necessities. The open space that is shown in the illustration will house a permanent unmanned exhibit of Delray Beach. The exhibit will be flexible to allow for the on-going activity of updating and adding materials that are easy to care for. Again, precautions will be made to prevent vandalism. The full bathroom upstairs will remain for use by the museum staff. If possible, the bathroom will have 1920's fixtures. If space permits, a portion will be used to store some office supplies. (Second floor, continued, south side) The south east room (front) across the hall from the library will be the audio/visual room and also serve as an overflow area for the library. A stationary viewing screen and other audio/visual equipment will be stored in appropriate cases and cabinets. The two remaining rooms will be separated by a folding wall. This will allow for use by larger audiences. We anticipate classes, receptions, seminars and other performances and activities. (Weddings, plays, skits, teas, senior citizens gatherings, educational programs.) Provisions will be made for a fire sprinkler system as well as a burglar security alarm system. The initial salaried staff will consist of a full-time Director/Curator and part-time secretary/receptionist. EPOCH will actively recruit and rely on volunteers to maintain the museum. COST ANALYSIS The cost for purchasing the Spad¥ House is $55,000. The cost for renovations is approximately $50,000. Initial equipment and supplies include: Built-in cabinets Floor display cabinets Two television sets One computer/printer One video camera Storage kit for archival products Record storage boxes One Slides Carousel and storage box Slide Sleeves negatives (photo) file Photograph preservation kit Flat files for archival storage Multi-use envelopes for storage of pamphlets, documents and prints Collectors record file (for inventory) Copy paper Acid free paper Pencils Pens Plastic clips Labels Miscellaneous The total cost for these items is approximately $7,000. The total initial cost for establishing the museum is approximately $100,000. The EPOCH Committee feels that the $150,000 it would cost the City to purchase the Spady House and convert it into a museum is a small investment into the intellectual and social well- being of our City. PROPOSED EXHIBIT MATERIAL ORIGIN OF THE EDUCATION OF AFRICAN AMERICANS IN DELRAY BEACH The land we call Delray Beach was purchased in 1868 by Captain George Gleason of Jacksonville, Florida. He paid $1.25 an acre to the United States Government under the Homestead Exemption Act. We trace the migration of African American citizens to Delray, which was then called Linton, as early as 1894. In that year, Joseph and EstelIe Hanna came by boat from the Bahamas; Theodore and Nellie Monroe came from Gadsen County, Florida and Joseph Green from Gadsen County, Florida. The occupations of these Settlers were fishing and farming. In 1894 these Afro-American Pioneers petitioned the Superintendent of Dade County for a teacher for their children. Linton was a part of Dade County and was not established as Palm Beach County until 1909. There was no building to house the school, plus the citizens had to prove that the stream of water was clear of shrubbery and other infestations to assure safe passage by boat to and from ,,Miami. That stream is now the Intracoastal Waterway. They had to wait until the following year to open the school. In October, 1895, (beginning of the school term), Mr. B. F. James was sent to Linton to teach the "colored" children. Schoolhouse # 4, Delray colored, began operation on Linton Lot which is now Northwest Fifth Avenue. The building was a thatched hut. In 1901, Cornell and Frances Bright came to Delray from Madison County. He was a farmer, she was a teacher, who formed a team with Mr. James. Thus, Nh'. James was the first teacher and Mrs. Bright was the first female teacher in the African American community of Delray Beach. We consider these persons and their families as founders of education in the African American community of Delray Beach. Pleased with their success in starting a school the settlers moved quickly to take advantage of Henry Flagler's "land set aside" for cultural institutions. Within five years (1897 - 1899) they constructed a two story school building. During this time, other settlers came to Delray and became involved. They were: 1885 - Joseph Smith from the Bahamas, a fisherman 1895 - Ed Smith from the Bahamas, a fisherman 1896 - George and Josie Hanna from the Bahamas 1896 - Alsada Clark from the Bahamas 1896 - Albert and Mary (Ma Cohen) from West Florida, farmer and mid-wife 1897 - Austin and Georgeanne Phoenix from South Carolina, farmer and housewife 1898 - Fagan Henry and wife Jan 1898 - Ed and Carrie Chambers 1898 - Elijah and Laura Simms 1898 - Eddie Lee and Emma Simms Despite the obvious importance of education to the closely knit community, African American children were entitled to only six months of annual educational instruction. Their Nwhite" counterparts received nine months under the "Separate but Equal Educational Program" which ended in 1943. Early African American children in Linton (Delray Beach) were used to provide cheap labor for farmers and budding hoteliers. They were programmed to understand that they were to become educated only until they became old enough to work full-time in the fields or hotels. Students became discouraged and lost interest in school. The school board minutes of February 12, 1907 reflects that the superintendent "suspended school # 4 colored for poor attendance." The school building, seldom used for school, was unkempt and misused by citizens for unsavory activities. It soon became, dilapidated and surrounded by palmetto shrubs. But the determination of African American parents to educate their children was unfaltering. In 1914, Mr. William Robinson who migrated here in 1901, wrote to Dr. Booker T. Washington in Tuskegee, Alabama. He asked for help to improve the school educational program and building. Mr. Clarence C. Walker was recommended and came to Delray (the former Linton) in 1915. This was the kind of challenge that Mr. Walker enjoyed. His philosophy as the same as Dr. Booker T. Washington; "to be successful we must educate the head, heart and hands." Therefore, with the help of William Robinson, who at this time was affectionately known as "Bro Rob," he mobilized the citizens to work with he City Commissioners. They succeeded in changing the attitudes and social morals of the community. He established in Delray, the first Smith-Hughes Vocational School in the State of Florida.* He introduced and taught manual arts to boys; his wife taught domestic arts to gSrls. Pleased with his accomplishments in Delray, he left in 1921 to do the same in Palatka, Florida. Delray Beach African American citizens again sought the help of Dr. Washington to maintain and increase the level of education for their children. On February 1, 1922, Mr. Solomon D. Spady came to Delray Beach as a principal/teacher of the renamed Delray County Training School. The school had grown to five teachers and 118 students and provided no higher than an 8th grade education. Mr. Spady soon became affectionately known as "ProP' Spady to students, teachers and the community. His philosophy and objectives, similar to those of Booker T. Washington and Clarence C. Walker, was to educate the head, heart and hands. He taught the male students agriculture and manual work. He hired a homemaking teacher to teach the female students domestic arts. We have authentic documents which show the regard given for his professional accomplishments by the community, Palm Beach County School System and the State of Florida School System. Mr. Spady retired in 1957. His 35 years produced a high school in the African American section of Delray Beach that had an "A" rating issued by the Accreditation Association of Education of the State of Florida. A separate elementary school was built and named in his honor. * Smith Hughes was the name of a Federal Act that supplemented salaries of teachers in vocational schools. Nh-. Walker's salary from the County was $25.00 per month. e:\~dnwordXda~ljsXhlsUli~ doc M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: VACANCY ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE: JANUARY 29, 1996 With the appointment of Robin Bird to the Planning and Zoning Board, a vacancy has been created for a regular member on the Board of Adjustment for an unexpired term ending August 31, 1996. In order to qualify for membership, a person shall either be a resident of, or own property in the City, and/or own a business within the City. Pursuant to commission direction, a check for code violations and property liens was conducted. None were found. The following persons have applied and have submitted their applications and resumes for your review: Donald Allgrove Janet Baron - (currently serving as an alternate member to the Board) Richard Brautigan David Cohen Anne Hoctor Leo Koppman Janet Phipps Benjamin F. Ricker, III Nicole Sarlo Sid Soloway Leonard Syrop C. Lee Wilder, Jr. - (currently serving as an alternate member to the Board) The appointment will be made by Commissioner Ellingsworth (Seat #3). Recommend appointment to one (1) person as a regular member to the Board of Adjustment with a term ending August 31, 1996. lllboa.doc BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1996 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jess Sowards P John G. Baccari P Cheryl Lee-Bennett P Michael G. Park P Robin Bird P ALTERNATES C. Lee Wilder, Jr. Janet Baron (appnt 1/~6) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Michael G. Park P P/P P P P Robin Bird P P/P P P p John Baccari (appnt 8/95) P/P P P P Cheryl Lee-Bennett P P/P P P P Jess Sowards (appnt [1/95) P P Alternates C. Lee Wilder Ex A/A P P CITY BOARD HE.~tSER APPLICATION NAME Carney L. Wilder Jr. 5%0 Eldorado Lane Delray Bch. Fl. 33444 HOME ~DRESS (Street, City, Zip Code) (LEG~ RESIDENCE) 510 Eldorado Lane, Delray Bch. Fl. 33444 PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ~DRESS (Street, City, Zip Code) HOME PHONE(~7).. 265-1772 BUSINESS PHONE (407) 265-1772 ON ~T BOA~S ~E YOU INTERESTED IN SERVING Board of Construction Appeals LIST ALL CITY BOARDS ON WHICH YOU ARE CURRENTLY SERVING OR HAVE PREVIOUSLY SERVED (Please include dates) None EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Graduated Atlantic Hiqh School - 1975 Attended Davidson College - Davidson, North Carolina 1975-1977 LIST ANY RELATED PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS ~ND LICENSES WHICH YOU HOLD State Certified Plumbinq Contractor, License # CF 0039973 GIVE YOUR PRESENT, OR MOST RECENT EMPLOYER, ~ND POSITION Owner - Lee Wilder Plumbin~ DESCRIBE EXPERIENCES, SKILLS OR KNOWLEDGE ~ICH QUALIFY YOU TO SERVE ON IHIS BOARD Have worked in all phases of plumbing, from commercial work to c~stom homes to service plumbing and re~edelinq PLEASE ATTACH A BRIEF RESUME. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL THE ABOVE SIAIEMENTS ARE IRUE, AND I AGREE AND UNDERSTAND THAT ANY MISSTATEMENT OF MAIERIAL FACTS CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICA- TION MAY CAUSE FORFEITURE UPON MY PART OF ~NY APPOINTMENT I MAY RECEIVE. ~IGN~TURE ~/ DAIE , 4/90 LEE WILDER PLUMBING P.O. Box 1051 Delray Beach. FL 33447-1051 CFC039973 265-1772 Resume Apprentice plumber, January 1982-June 1984 Employed by EMAC PLUMBING CONTRACTORS INC., Melbourne, Fl., and FIVE STAR PLUMBING CONTRACTORS June 1984, passed Journeymans test, became foreman-Commercial Work Employed by DAVID BISHOP PLUMBING INC., September 1985-September 1986 Custom and service Employed by TIDWELL PLUMBING INC., September 1986-September 1987 Re-modeling and service September 1987 to present, sole proprietor - LEE WILDER PLUMBING,. service oriented M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: VACANCY ON THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 James Stahl has resigned from his position on the Downtown Development Authority creating a vacancy to an unexpired term ending July 1, 1997. Board member qualifications, pursuant to Chapter 71-604, Laws of Florida 1971, as stated in Section 8.2.2(C)(3) in the Land Development Regulations, states the following: "To qualify for appointment to the Authority, and to remain qualified for service on it, a prospective member or member already appointed shall reside in or have his principal place of business in the City, shall not be serving as a City officer or employee, and that at least three of the members shall be owners of realty within the downtown area, a lessee thereof required by the lease to pay taxes thereon, or a director, officer, or managing agent of an owner or of a lessee thereof so required to pay taxes thereon." Mrs. Bright, Mr. Listick and Mrs. Wenzel, current members on the DDA, own both a business and real estate in the downtown area. Mr. Listick, Chairman of the DDA, has stated that the three (3) member requirement has been met. The following persons have submitted their applications for consideration: David I. Cohen Jon Levinson Tim D. Onnen Pursuant to Commission direction, a check for code violations and property liens was conducted. None were found. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Mayor Lynch (Seat #5). Recommend appointment of one (1) person to the Downtown Development Authority to an unexpired term ending July 1, 1997. dda.doc James F. Stahl 2020 Spanish Trail Delray Beach, Florida 33483 January 16, 1996 Downtown Development Authority Michael Listick, Chairman c/o Chamber of Commerce 64 S.E. 5th Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Dear Michael: This is to advise you that I must resign from the Downtown Development Authority. I'm involved with a business in Deerfield Beach that is requiring serious attention. Thank you for allowing me to serve on the Downtown Development Authority. I hope my resignation will not create an inconvenience. Sincerely, ~ahl CITY OF DELRAY BEACH " BOARD MEI~BER APPLICATION NAME Tim D. Onnen 946 Seasage Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33483 HOME ADDRESS (Street, City, Zip Code) (LEGAL RESIDENCE) Meisner Electric Inc. of Florida; 220 N.E. 1st Street~ Delray Beach, FL PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ADDRESS (Street, City, Zip Code) 33444 HOME PHONE 407-272-4503 BUSINESS PHONE 407-278-8362 ON WHAT BOARDS ARE YOU INTERESTED IN SERVING Downtown Development Authority LIST ALL CITY BOARDS ON WHICH YOU ARE CURRENTLY SERVING OR HAVE PREVIOUSLY SERVED (Please include dates) Code Enforcement Board January 1989 to January 1996 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Graduate of St. Olaf College (see ~tt~ched) LIST ANY RELATED PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS AND LICENSES WHICH YOU HOLD (see attached) Certified Electrical Contractor State of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina GIVE YOUR'PRESENT, OR MOST RECENT EN~LOYER, AND POSITION President, Meisner Electric Inc. of Florida DESCRIBE EXPERIENCES, SKILLS OR KNOWLEDGE WHICH QUALIFY YOU TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD Journeyman, Master Electrician, Certified Contractor PLEASE ATTACH A BRIEF RESUME. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ~L THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE, AND I AGREE AND UNDERSTAND THAT ANY MISSTATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICA- TION MAY CAUSE FORFEITURE UPON MY PART OF ANY APPOINTMENT I MAY RECEIVE. SIGNATURE DATE 4/90 Resume of Tim Onnen Delray Beach, Florida 33483 40?-272-4503 Personal Data: Birthdate - May 25, 1948. Social Security #478-58-4154 Married to Janet Onnen 16 years. Two children Erik and Sarah ages 12 and 9, attending Trinity Luthern School. Church - Trinity Luthern, Delray Beach. Occupation: President of Meisner Electric Tim Onnen, having graduated from St. Olaf College in 1970, entered the construction field with Meisner Electric in 1971. Tim was continuously employed with this Newton, Iowa electrical contractor until 1981. At this time Tim and his family moved to Delray Beach to assume control of this Florida Division. Tim and Janet purchased and incorporated the activities here in Delray Beach in 1984. Meisner Electric Inc. of Florida, a wholly owned separate electrical contractor, has since become one of the largest electrical contractors in the Palm Beach, Broward and Martin County areas. Having operated successfully in Delray Beach since 1977, Meisner Electric relocated to its present facility on N.E. 1st Street in March of 1987. Tim and Janet Onnen along with the other stockholders of Meisner Electric have a desire to make a positive contribution to the growth, development and improvement of Delray Beach. 'SAINT OLAF COLLEGE NORTH FIELD. MINNESOTA ; THIS DIPLOMA MAKE,~ K1qO~/N TI IAT THE BOARD OF REGENTS " ON NOMINATION OF THE FACULTY HAS ADMITTED ,~:'. TIMOTHY DALE ONNEN TO THE DEGREE OF -.-', ' BACHELOI~ OF ARTS ;. · i~." TO~I[R WITH ALL TIlE RIGHT$.RE,3PON~IBILITIE$ AND MARKS OF DISTINCTION . 'TI'I~T Is~t~AIN TO THAT DEGREE. IN TE,3TIMONY WHEREOF. THE SEAL OF THE COLLEGE · . ~ T]~ ~IG'~L~IJRE$ OF ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFF1CER3 ARE HEREUNTO AFFIXED THIS ..- " . THIRTY-FIRST DAY OF MAY, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORE) ,:_-: ..'.' NINETEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY. LICENSING F~D BY TIM D. ONN~N Location Type License State of Florida Electrical Contractor EC0000418 City of Columbus, Chio Contractors License 0161 City of Des Moines, Iowa Electrical Contractor 771 State of Minnesota Master Electrician 029118 State of North Dakota Master Electrician 1207 State of South Dakota Electrical Contractor EC-1048 State of South Carolina Electrical Contractor 8804 VOlHOq~ 20 2iris D E L R A Y B E A C H''~ ~ntractor-Electri~l I~ATIO~IAL AssOCIATION~F ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS " I~O IU$$E HIGHWAY · PARK RIDGE, IL 0006~.2398 , Thank you fm ymJr ~m f~f~nce. ~ affix ~r ~Mlure ~b~ly Im ~fllil~liOfl ~r~s. , .:,:.- THIS IS YOUR MEMBERSHIP CARl) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTO~ . : ~ IU~E HIQHWAY PARK RI~ IL :' PAZ It 30 · OD , ~IMO~HY D 564426 EX~AI~ .. '" tUT :STREET ~EACH FL 33444 ts A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING ":.5' t6.1.?. A~SOC s 16 1 ASSOC ~'. ~C CHAP ~M~R ~AT~E ~C~TARY t ~ '~: ~ 1 !~ ~h.. ;".. 2 ;' ~:.'i..' ' Moi ' ? ' , TIM D. ONNEN - ~ ~ President : ' - "f ~ 220N.E. 1stStreet '-~' . i ." ~''' ' I Delray Beach, Florida 3~44 '; . ; 305~278-8362 · 7~-5885 · 421-1902 · · :, ~ ,. FAX e 278-8397 ~.'~~.. -~:~.. '.~., · . MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER ~/t t ORDINANCE NO. 7-96 DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is second reading and public hearing for Ordinance No. 7-96 rezoning a 7.84 acre parcel of land from R-1-A (Single Family Residential) District to CF (Community Facilities) District for the Full Gospel Assembly Church. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of S.W. 10th Street and Swinton Avenue. The development proposal is to rezone the parcel to accommodate the construction of the church and its accessory uses such as a school and day care. Three associated parcels that are currently developed with residential structures will remain in the R-1-A district. At its meeting of June 19, 1995 the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning. Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 7-96 on second and final reading. ORDINANCE NO. 7-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED R-1-A (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT IN THE CF (COMMUNITY FACILITIES) DISTRICT; SAID LAND BEING GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 10TH STREET AND SWINTON AVENUE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1994"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the property hereinafter described is shown on the Zoning District Map of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, as being zoned R-1-A (Single Family Residential) District; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of June 19, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Delray Beach, as Local Planning Agency, considered this item at public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning, based upon positive findings; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the Zoning District Map of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, be amended to reflect the revised zoning classification. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: SectiQn 1. That the Zoning District Map of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, be, and the same is hereby amended to reflect a zoning classification of CF (Community Facilities) District for the following described property: Lots 1 through 23, inclusive, Plat No. 3, Southridge Subdivision of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, as per the Plat thereof on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 24, as well as that parcel or quantity of land abandoned by the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on March 7, 1960, which quantity of land comprises the 50 foot right-of-way of S.W. 10th Court, less that portion of the subject property involved in the widened right-of-way of South Swinton Avenue, as described by deed recorded in Official Record Book 1659, Page 937, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. (Parcel 8) AND The west 99 feet of the east 287.74 feet of the north quarter (N 1/4) of the east half (E 1/2) of Lot 13, Section 20, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, less the east 15 feet of the south 85 feet thereof, according to the Plat thereof on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in Plat Book 1, Page 4, and also less the north 40 feet thereof for right-of-way of S.W. 10th Street (Germantown Road). (Parcel 5) AND The west 175 feet of the north 120.9 feet of the east half (E 1/2) of Lot 13, Section 20, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, according to the Plat thereof on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in Plat Book l, Page 4, less the north 40 feet thereof for right-of-way of S.W. 10th Street (Germantown Road), and also less the west l0 feet thereof. (Parcel l) AND The south half (S 1/2) of the north half (N 1/2) of the east half (E 1/2) of Lot 13, Section 20, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, according to the Plat thereof on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in Plat Book l, Page 4, less the west l0 feet thereof and also less therefrom that portion conveyed to the City of Delray Beach in Official Record Book 1659, Page 929, for right-of-way for Swinton Avenue. (Parcel 4) AND The west 175 feet of the north half of the northeast quarter of Lot 13, Section 20, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, according to the Plat thereof on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 4, less and except the north 120.9 feet thereof, and less and except the west 10 feet thereof. (Parcel 4A) - 2 - Ord. No. 7-96 The subject property is generally located at the southwest corner of S.W. 10th Street and South Swinton Avenue; containing 7.84 acres, more or less. Section 2. That the Planning Director of said City shall, upon the effective date of this ordinance, amend the Zoning Map of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to conform with the provisions of Section 1 hereof. Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the 6th day of February , 1996. ATTEST: J citY ~erk -' First Reading January 23, 1996 Second Reading February 6, 1996 - 3 - Ord. No. 7-96 S.W. 8TH C'T. S.W. 10TH S'IRE CF II'ILiON AVE. "~,~.. ,_ [ RM,. " --,'1,-" ,, ~ - STE.RUNG AVE. - - CENTRAL AVE. S.E. SOUTHRIDG~ ~ FULL GOSPEL ASSEMBLY Pt. ANt~JG' O,~PAR1~FJ.,rI' -- ox~r,4z 845~ z,~.P 575-7~4 - - CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION TO: DA~(ID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER THRU: D TOR DEPARTMENT 0 ,NNING ZONING SUBJECT: MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 1996 REZONING OF A 7.84 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND (FULL GOSPEL ASSEMBLY PROPERTY) FROM R-I-A (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL/TO CF (COMMUNITY FACILITIES/. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the Commission is the approval on first reading of the rezoning of the Full Gospel Assembly property from R-1-A (Single Family Residential) to CF (Community Facilities). The subject property is a 7.84 acre parcel, containing a commercial nursery and several associated residential structures, located at the southwest corner of S. Swinton Avenue and SW 10th Street. The legal description for the subject property is attached as Appendix "A." BACKGROUND: A portion of the subject property (Parcel 8) was platted as Southridge Plat #3 in 1953. The remainder of the property is unplatted. Parcel 8 contains a number of structures that were part of a nursery operation established under the C-2 zoning district. Parcels 1, 4, and 5 are vacant. The entire property has been zoned R-1-A since 1972. The development proposal is to rezone a 7.84 acre portion of the property from R-1-A to CF to accommodate the construction of a church and associated accessory uses. Three associated parcels that are currently developed with residential structures will remain in the R-I-A district. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan which shows a 500 seat church with 173 parking spaces. The church and parking take up 4.36 acres of the site. The remaining 3.48 acres will be reserved for the addition of accessory uses (such as a City Commission Documentation Full Gospel Assembly - Rezoning from R-1-A to CF Page 2 school and day care) at a later date. Refer to the attached Planning and Zoning Board staff report for a full analysis of this rezoning request. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION: The Planning and Zoning Board considered this item at its meeting of June 19, 1995 and voted unanimously to recommend approval. There was no public comment on the item. The item has been on hold since that time due to discrepancies between the submitted survey and the legal descriptions of the subject parcels. Those issues have since been resolved. The establishment of churches in the southwest area of the City has created some controversy, due to the number of churches in the area and their impact on the neighborhood. This particular rezoning was considered by the P&Z Board prior to the conditional use hearing for the Emmanual Evangelical Lutheran Church, and was one of the approved churches included in the list and map provided as the basis for that denial. It is noted that the Full Gospel Assembly is not located within a neighborhood, rather, it is at the corner of two collector streets. It is not likely to bring significant traffic into any neighborhood. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve on first reading the rezoning of the subject property (Full Gospel Assembly property) from R-1-A (Single Family Residential) to CF (Community Facilities) Attachment: ~1 Appendix "A" [] P&Z Staff Report APPENDIX "A' Legal Description of the Subject Property · Lots 1 through 23, inclusive, Plat No. 3, Southridge Subdivision of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, as per the plat thereof on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 24, as well as that parcel or quantity of land abandoned by the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on March 7, 1960, which quantity of land comprises the 50 foot right-of-way of SW 10th Court, less that portion of the subject property involved in the widened right-of-way of South Swinton Avenue,'as described by deed recorded in Official Records Book 1659, Page 937, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. (Parcel 8) and · The west 99 feet of the east 287.74 feet of the north quarter (N 1/4) of the east half (E 1/2) of Lot 13, Section 20, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, less the east 15 feet of the south 85 feet thereof, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in Plat Book 1, Page 4, and also less the north 40 feet thereof for right-of-way of SW 10th Street (Germantown Rd.). (Parcel 5) and · The west 175 feet of the north 120.9 feet of the east half (E 1/2) of Lot 13, Section 20, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in Plat Book 1, Page 4, less the north 40 feet thereof for right-of-way of SW 10th Street (Germantown Rd.), and also less the west 10 feet thereof. (Parcel 1) and · The south half (S 1/2) of the north half (N 1/2) of the east half (E 1/2) of Lot 13, Section 20, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in Plat Book 1, Page 4, less the west 10 feet thereof and also less therefrom that portion conveyed to the City of Delray Beach in Official Record Book 1659, Page 929 for right-of-way for Swinton Ave. (Parcel 4) and City Commission Documentation Full Gospel Assembly - Rezoning from R-I-A to CF Page 2 · The west 175 feet of the north half of the northeast quarter of Lot 13, Section 20, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, According to the Plat thereof on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 4, less and except the north 120.9 feet thereof, and less and except the west 10 feet thereof. (Parcel 4A) 'PLANNING & ZONING BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH' STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: June 19, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: V.B. ~EM: Rezoning from R-1-A (Single Family Residential) District to CF (Community Facilites) District for a Parcel of Land Located at the Southwest Corner of Swinton Avenue and S.W. 10th Street for' the Full Gospel Assembly Church. liiiiliiiiiliI Jiilli ~i i .......... ' I "~ , , , ,, ...... ,,,,, I t,,,,,I,,,llrb'.'",L' i GENERAL DATA: Owner .............................................. Full Gospel Assembly Agent ............................................... Dan Carter Location ........................................... Southwest comer of ~W 10th street and South Swinton Avenue. Property Size ................................... 7.84 acres Future Land Use Map Designation.. Residential - Low Density (0-5 d.uJacre) Existing Zoning ................................ R-1-A (Single Family Residential) Proposed Zoning ............................. CF (Community Facilities) Adjacent Zoning ..................... North: R-1-A East:R-1-A and RM (Medium Density Residential) South: R-1-A West:R-1-A Existing Land Use ............................ Commercial nursery with associated residential structures. Proposed Improvements ................. Construction of a 500 seat church with associated parking and landscaping. Water Service .................................. Existing 6" water main in S. Swinton Avenue, existing 6" main in SW 10th Street. Sewer Service ................................. Existing 6" sanitary sewer main in S. Swinton Avenue. '¢°]3° The action before the Board is making a recommendation on a rezoning request from R-1-A (Single Family Residential) to CF (Community Facilitates). The subject property consists of Lots 1-23 of Plat #3 of Southridge, the abandoned right-of-way of SW 10th Court and 3 metes and bounds parcels with a total area of 7.84 acres. The parcel is located on the southwest comer of S. Swinton Avenue and SW 10th Street. Pursuant to Section 2.2.2(E), the Local Planning Agency shall review and make a recommendation to the City Commission with respect to rezoning of any property within the City. ! A portion of the subject property (Parcel 8) was platted as Southridge Plat #3 in 1953. The remainder of the property is unplatted. Parcel 8 contains a number of structures that were part of a nursery operation established under the C-2 zoning district. Parcels 1, 4, and 5 are vacant. The entire property has been zoned R-I-A since 1972. The development proposal is to rezone the 7.84 acre parcel from R-1-A to CF. The rezoning would accommodate the future construction of a church with associated accessory uses. Three associated p~rcels that are currently developed with residential structures will remain in the R-1-A district. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan which shows a 500 seat church with 173 parking spaces. The church and parking take up 4.36 acres of the site. The remaining 3.48 acres will be reserved for the addition of accessory uses (such as a school and day care) at a later date. The applicant tentatively plans to leave all of the existing residential structures on the property. Three of the structures (parcels 2, 6, and 7) will remain in the current R-1-A district. Two residences on the parcel to be constructed with the proposed church (parcel 8) would be in the CF district. The sketch plan is not subject to approval or denial at this time, and is submitted for illustrative purposes only. P&Z Staff Report Rezoning from R-1-A to CF for Full Gospel Assembly Page 2 REQUIRED FINDINGS: (Chapter 3) Pursuant to Section 3.t.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to the following four areas. Future Land Use Map: The use or structures must be allowed in the zoning district and the zoning district must be consistent with the land use designation. The current Future Land Use designation for the subject property is Low Density Residential. The requested zoning change is from R-1-A (Single Family Residential) to CF (Community Faculties). The proposed CF zoning designation is consistent with the Low Density Residential Future Land Use Map designation. Concurrency: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan. Traffic: .The applicant has submitted a traffic study for the proposed church indicating that the site will generate 186 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Capacity is available on Swinton Avenue to accommodate the 186 ADT. Concurrency findings for a rezoning must, however, consider the ultimate development potential of the site under the proposed zoning compared to the existing. The current R-1-A (Single Family Residential) zoning designation generally permits only single family residential at a maximum density of 5 units per acre.. The Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance establishes traffic generation rates of 10 ADT per unit for single family residences. With R-1-A zoning and a density of 5 units per acre (39 units) 390 trips would be generated. The ultimate development potential of the site would be the proposed church with associated facilities, such as a school and day care. Based on a development scenario in which the church adds a day care facility serving 50 children and a school accommodating 200 students to the site, the church would generate a total of 587 ADT. Thus there is a net potential increase of 197 ADT from the proposed rezoning. P&Z Staff Report Rezoning from R-1-A to CF for Full Gospel Assembly Page 3 The 197 net trips which could be generated by development under the CF district can be accommodated by the directly accessed roadway link (Swinton Avenue). Based on the above a positive finding can be made at this time with regard to traffic concurrency. Additional concurrency findings will be required with future proposals for the site. Water: Water service is available to the site via an existing 6" water main located in the SW 10th Street right-of-way and a 2" main in Swinton Avenue. Development of the site will require extension of a water main through the property and looping of the system. Addition of a fire hydrant will be required to rheet maximum spacing, Sewer: Sewer service is available to the site from an existing 6" sewer main located in Swinton Avenue. Parks and Recreation: Parks and Recreation dedications do not apply to non-residential developments. Solid Waste: The proposed 20,000 square foot church will generate 615 pounds of solid waste per week. The church, however, only takes up about 4 acres of the total 7.83. If the remaining 3.83 were developed with a school associated with the church, an additional 6,173 pounds per week could be generated. Thirty-nine single family residences would generate 2,985 pounds per week. The Solid Waste Authority indicates in its annual report that the established level of service standards for solid waste will be met for all developments until 2021. Consistency: Compliance with the performance standards set forth in Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions) along with required findings in Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in the making of a finding of overall consistency. Chapter 3 findings include the required findings of Section 3.t.1 (Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Compliance with LDRs and Consistency). These Chapter 3.1.1 findings are discussed in other sections of the report. P&Z Staff Report Rezoning from R-1-A to CF for Full Gospel Assembly Page 4 Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezonin_o Actions): The applicable performance standards of Section 3.3.2 and other policies which apply are as follows: A) That a rezoning to other than CF within a stable residential area shall be denied. The subject property is not located in a stable residential area and the rezoning ," '- is to CF. D) That the rezoning shall ,result in allowing land uses which are deemed compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses both existing and proposed; or that if an incompatibility may occur, that sufficient regulations exist to properly mitigate adverse impacts from the new use. Parcels adjacent to and near the subject parcel to the north, south, and west are primarily residential. As churches are permitted in the current R-1-A zoning district, the proposed use will be compatible with the residences. The scale of the proposed church makes the CF district, which provides for greater setbacks and buffering, more appropriate for the property. The setback and buffering requirements of the CF will ensure compatibility. To the east (across the F.E.C. tracks) is a mix of dilapidated commercial, residential, and industrial uses. Those properties will not be impacted by the proposed rezoning. Standards "B" and "C" do not apply to this proposal Section 2,4.5(D)(5).(Rezonin_~ Findin§s): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D)(1) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Section 3.l.J, the City Commission must make a finding that the rezoning fulfills one of the reasons for which the rezoning change is being sought. These reasons include the following: a. That the zoning had previously been changed, or was originally established, in error; b. That there has been a change in circumstances which make the current zoning inappropriate; c. That the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed under the Future Land Use Map and that it is more appropriate for the property based upon circumstances particular to the site and/or neighborhood. The applicant submitted a justification statement as a part of the rezoning application. The statement indicates that the applicable reason is "c." The justification statement is summarized below: P&Z S[aff Report Rezonin9 from R-1-A to CF for Full Gospel Assembly Page 5 The CF district is a special purpose district which is intended to permit uses which serve public or semi-public purposes. The CF district is deemed to be appropriate in any Future Land Use Map category. The proposed church or other CF uses (park, child care, etc.) are included as conditional uses in the R-1 districts and can, therefore, be considered to be similar in intensity. As the site is a small property located at the corner of two collector streets, the-development proposal may be more appropriate" '.~ than a 39 unit residential development. The site is also in close proximity to industrial development and the F.E.C. railroad tracks, which decreases the likelihood that I will be developed with single family residences. A review of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan was undertaken and the following applicable Policies were identified. Conservation Element Policy B-2.1: - Submission of a biological survey and a habitat analysis shall accompany land use requests for...rezonings... However this requirement shall not apply.., where it is that there are not such resources. The subject parcel is in use as a commercial nursery and has been extensively cleared. Thus, no significant biological resources exist on the site. A tree survey will be required with the site plan submission. Housing Element Policy .A-1,5: Each neighborhood organization shall be apprised of all land use matters whi(Jh impact their territory and which require review by the Local Planning Agency. Courtesy notices have been sent to all neighborhood groups in the area. See the Neighborhood Notice section under the Review by Others portion of this report. Housing Element Policy C-2.5: Development of remaining vacant properties which are zoned for residential purposes shall be developed in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. This requirement refers primarily to the Site and Development Plan process. Regardless of the zoning district (R-1-A or CF) assigned to the parcel, compatibility with adjacent properties will be of utmost importance when considering a Site and Development Plan for this parcel. Based on the above, positive findings can be made with respect to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) regarding compatibility. Compliance with Land Development Regulations: The proposed use is to be in compliance with the Land Development Regulations. P&Z Staff Report Rezoning from R~I-A to CF for Full Gospel Assembly Page 6 Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on a land development application/request. The applicant has submitted a Sketch Plan with this proposal. While the submitted sketch plan is not being formally considered at this time, the following comments are provided. LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix: The site's improvements, as proposed in _the sketch plan, will meet or exceed all requirements of this section. LDR Section 4.4.21 (H) CF District Special Regulations The CF district requires special setbacks to adjacent residential properties of a fifteen foot landscaped area. This requirement is met by the proposed church and parking lots. However, two existing structures encroach into the special setback. Those structures will be removed with the development of the site. LDR Section 4.6.9 Parking: The parking requirement for churches is '1 space per three seats. The site plan shows a 500 seat sanctuary, requiring 167 parking spaces. A total of 173 spaces are shown on the sketch plan. Of the required spaces 5 are required to be handicap spaces and none are shown on the sketch plan. Parking spaces, aisleways, and roads on the sketch plan generally meet City design standards. A more thorough review of parking lot design will be conducted during Site and Development Plan review. LDR Section 4.6.16 Landscaping: ' No landscape plan has been submitted at this time. The submission of a landscape plan meeting all requirements of Section 4.6.16 will be required with the Site and Development Plan submission. Other Items: Several existing residential structures and accessory structures associated with the former nursery use are proposed to remain on the site. As the structures would be non-conforming and are in poor condition, removal should be a condition of the site plan approval. P&Z Staff Report Rezoning from R-1-A to CF for Full Gospel Assembly Page 7 The rezoning is not in a geographic area requiring review by the HPB (Historic Preservation Board), DDA (Downtown Development Authority) or the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency). Neighborhood Notice: Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500' radius of the subject property. A special certified notice has been sent to each of the property owners of record. Courtesy notices have been sent to: E~ JuneCarr Silver Terrace who have requested notification of petitions in that area. Letters of objection, if any, will be presented at the P & Z Board meeting. The proposed rezoning of the subject 7.84 acre property to CF accommodates a use which is a conditional use in the current zoning district. The CF district would give the church greater flexibility to establish various accessory uses such as a school or day care while requiring larger setbacks and buffers for adjacent residential properties. All required public facilities and services.are available to serve the proposed development. The CF zoning district is consistent with the Low Density Residential FLUM designation. Required positive findings with respe~;t to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (rezoning findings), Section 3.1.1, and the performance standards of Section 3.3.2 can be made. Based on the above, the proposed rezoning of the Full Gospel Assembly property to CF is recommended for approval. A. Continue with direction. B. Recommend rezoning of the subject property from R-1-A to CF, based on positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (rezoning findings), Section 3.1.1, and the performance standards of Section 3.3.2. P&Z Staff Report Rezoning from R-1-A to CF for Full Gospel Assembly Page 8 C. Recommend denial of a rezoning of the property, based on a failure to make positive findings. Recommend approval of the rezoning request for the Full Gospel Assembly property from R-1-A (Single Family Residential) to CF (Community Facilities), based, upon positive findings with respect to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings) and Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions), Section 2.4.5(D)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and Attachment: Location Map O Sketch Plan Report prepared by: Jeff Perkins, Planner MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER~ DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION HEARING FOR A CHANGE TO THE WATERFORD PLACE DRI DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is a public hearing to determine if the proposed change to the Waterford Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI) is a substantial deviation to the previously approved DRI requiring further regional impact review. The developer has submitted a Notification of Proposed Change to delete the 322,413 square feet of office space, and replace it with 300 multi-family residential dwelling units and a 78 unit residential hotel. In making the determination whether the proposed change is a substantial deviation, the City is to consider the regional issues such as transportation, education and employment rather than local issues. Staff finds that the proposed change does not create a substantial deviation for the following reasons: 1. Traffic impacts are reduced. 2. The increase in school population levels is not significant, and will likely improve the racial balance of area schools. 3. Some potential employment opportunities will be eliminated, but it is questionable whether the market demand would produce those opportunities on this site in the foreseeable future. There have been no arguments forwarded by any of the regional review agencies that the proposed changes should be considered as a substantial deviation. Absent an objection by those agencies, these issues can all be considered on a local level as part of the review of the Future Land Use Map amendment and modification of the SAD (Special Activities District). Recommend a determination by motion that the proposed change to the Waterford Place Development of Regional Impact is not a substantial deviation requiring further Development of Regional Impact review. CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION TO: DAVID~T,~ HARDEN, C~ MANAGER THRU: DIAN UEZ, ONING DIRECTOR ooo. SUBJECT: MEETING OF FEBRUARY6, 1996 DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION CONCERNING A CHANGE TO THE WATERFORD P~CE DRI ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is that of determining whether the proposed change to the Waterford Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI) creates a substantial deviation requiring further development of regional impact review. BACKGROUND: The Waterford Place DRI, located south of Linton Boulevard and east of 1-95, was approved in 1985 for construction of 811,413 square feet of office space, a 250 room hotel, and 236 multi-family residential dwelling units on 86.5 acres. Several modifications have been approved since the initial development order, such that the approved DRI is now composed of 322,413 square feet of office space, 136,000 square feet of general retail use, and 236 multi-family residential dwelling units. Currently, the retail use (Builder's Square) and the 236 multi-family units (Waterford Village) have been built. The 35 acre office park remains vacant except for infrastructure including water and sewer mains, and the entrance road. The developer has submitted a Notification of Proposed Change to delete the 322,413 square feet of office space and replace it with 300 multi-family residential dwelling units and a 78 unit residence hotel. Both Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) have been notified of the public hearing and invited to participate. TCRPC has submitted a letter dated January 26, City Commission Documentation RE: Waterford DRI, Determination of Substantial Deviation Page 2 1996 indicating that they have requested that the applicant submit additional traffic information. Their comments will be forthcoming, based on the results of the requested information. The TCRPC comments will focus only on transportation as a regional issue. Palm Beach County has identified some issues of concern with respect to the associated amendment to the Future Land Use Map, but has not commented on the issue of the substantial deviation. ANALYSIS: The processing of a change to ~ DRI is pursuant to Chapter 380.06(19), F.S. This includes an action by the local government to determine if the proposed change creates a substantial deviation to the previously approved DRI. The proposed change consists of simultaneous increases and decreases of at least two of the uses within the multi-use development, and is therefore governed by Chapter 380.06(19)(e)5c, F.S., which directs that the proposed change is presumed to create a substantial deviation, but that such presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. This interpretation has been confirmed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (see letter of November 30, 1995). The City, in this public hearing, must consider whether the' proposed change is or is not a substantial deviation requiring further development of regional impact review. In making this determination, the City will consider the regional, rather than local, issues potentially impacted by the proposed change. A meeting was held on October 30, 1995, including the developer and regional reviewing agencies, to identify those regional issues. The main regional issue identified was transportation, although the proposed change will also have an effect on education and employment. Transportation The developer asserts that the proposed change is not substantial since the major regional issue - traffic - is improved by the change from office to residential and hotel uses. As rebutting evidence, the developer submitted a traffic analysis with the Notification of Proposed Change. The Waterford DRI is vested for 10,651 daily external trips. This includes the approved 322,413 square foot office park. The proposed changes, to multi- family residential units .and a 78 room hotel will reduce the daily external traffic at build-out by 556 trips to 10,095. In addition, the AM and PM peak hour trips will be reduced by approximately 36% and 23% respectively. A change from office use to residential and hotel creates changes in the direction of traffic flows in the peak hours. For office use, the inbound trips are greatest in the morning, and the outbound trips are greatest in the evening. With a change to residential, this flow is reversed, as illustrated below. City Commission Documentation RE: Waterford DRI, Determination of Substantial Deviation Page 3 Approved Plan Proposed Plan Net Change AM Inbound 555 197 - 358 AM Outbound 227 307 + 80 PM Inbound 338 402 + 64 PM Outbound 561 291 - 270 AM Total 782 504 -278 PM Total 899 693 -206 The reduction in total traffic generation and peak hour traffic generation indicates a reduction in the overall impact in the proposed land use mix. The increases in morning outbound (+80) and afternoon inbound (+64) trips are substantially less than the decreases in morning inbound and afternoon outbound. Review of the directional changes indicates that the level of service of impacted roads will not be negatively impacted by the proposed change in the land use mix. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has expressed concern over the directional increases and the impact on the adjacent 1-95 ramps. The applicant has addressed those concerns by performing an arterial capacity analysis and ramp capacity analysis. The results of the analyses show no significant impact on the 1-95 ramp in the AM and PM peak hours, and no degradation of the Level of Service on Linton Blvd. and the affected intersections in the AM and PM peak hours. Education There is no concurrency requirement, and therefore, no established level of service, relative to school capacity. However, it has long been recognized that the County's school system is overcrowded. The proposed change in use from office to residential will add population to an already crowded school system. However, while the addition of 300 residential units will impact local schools, it is not in and of itself significant from a regional standpoint. A positive impact from the change will be realized in terms of the racial balance of area schools, due to the middle income character of the proposed housing. The students from this development will be assigned to Pine Grove Elementary School (currently 79% black), Carver Middle School (36% black), and Boca High School (15% black). Should Pine Grove become a magnet school in the future, students from the development will be assigned to Orchard View Elementary School (42% black). With the exception of Boca High, the student population would have a positive effect on the racial balance of the affected schools. City Commission Documentation RE: Water/oral DRI, Determination of Substantial Deviation Page 4 Employment The remaining 35 acres of the Waterford DRI is currently approved for office/research and development. This use has an employment potential of approximately 1637 jobs, using the estimates included in the DRI application. Most of these job opportunities would be lost with the proposed change to residential and residence hotel uses. The loss of employment opportunities should be weighed against the actual potential for large office users to occupy the site in the coming years. This property has been unsuccessfully marketed for office development for twelve years. The "Waterford Land Use Summary Analysis", submitted by the developer, analyzes the development potential of the site from a demand perspective. The report looks at the vacant land that is available in the South County area for office and light industry, and concludes that at current absorption rates, the site will take 10 years or so to develop with "build to suit" space. Per the approved Development Order, the date by which the entire Waterford DRI is to be "built out" is November 30, 1997, which is also the date to which the project is vested in terms of concurrency. While time extensions are possible, an extension of the build-out date beyond November, 1999 would be presumed to create a substantial deviation, and place the project vesting at risk. It is reasonable, therefore, to consider November 1999 as the "foreseeable future" when assessing the realistic potential for development of the site as an office park. This 35 acre site is the last large tract of Commerce land use within the City. Eliminating it from the City's inventory could reduce the City's potential to attract medium to large size businesses. It is noted, however, that over 90% of "commerce" type businesses in Palm Beach County employ 20 or fewer people, while less than 1% employ more than 500. This indicates that the smaller vacant tracts within the City may satisfy the need for office and light industrial type land uses. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: Review of the three regional issues relative to the proposed change of the Waterford DRI from office use to residential and hotel uses presents a mixed picture. The impacts or) transportation corridors are reduced by a minor amount. The introduction of more students into the school system increases over- crowding, but will likely improve the racial balance of impacted schools. A significant number of potential employment opportunities will be eliminated, but it is questionable whether the market will produce those opportunities, on this site, in the foreseeable future. City Commission Documentation RE: Waterford DRI, Determination of Substantial Deviation Page 5 In conclusion, staff finds that the proposed change does not create a substantial deviation that would require further regional review for the following reasons: 1. Traffic impacts are reduced. 2. The potential negative impact on school population levels is not significant from a regional standpoint, and is offset somewhat by improvements to the racial balance of area schools. 3. Changes in the corporate climate and the amount of available vacant office/light industrial land relative to demand make it unlikely that the site will develop as an office park prior to the expiration of the ultimate build- out date. Therefore, the question of the potential loss of job opportunities is probably moot. 4. There have been no arguments forwarded by any of the regional review agencies that the proposed changes should be considered as a substantial deviation. Absent an objection by those agencies, these issues can all be considered on a local level as part of the review of the Future Land Use Map amendment and modification of the SAD (Special Activities District). P,ECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion, determine that the proposed change to the Waterford Place Development of Regional Impact (DP, I) does not create a substantial deviation requiring further development of regional impact review. Attachments: * DCA letter * TCRPC letter S:~adv\VVTFD4 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS EMERGENCY/vlANAGEMENT · HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT LAWTON CHILES JAMES F. MURLEY Govemor Secretary November 30, 1995 Mr. Alan J. Ciklin Boose, Casey, Ciklin et al Northbridge Tower 19th Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Waterford Place Development of Regional hnpact Dear Mr. Ciklin: This letter is to confirm our conversation regarding Section 380.06(19)(e)5.c., Florida Statutes. This statute allows for the "simultaneous increase and decrease ofat least two of the uses within an authorized multiuse development of regional impact which was originally approved with three or more uses specified in Section 380.06(3)(c),(d),and (g) and residential use." This statute could be applied to the change that you have proposed for the Waterford Place DRI. It is my understanding that the City of Delray Beach issued a development order for the Waterford Place DRI which approved three uses. These three uses are Hotel or Motel Development (Section 28-24.026), Office Development (Section 28-2-1.020), and Residential Development (Section 28-24.023). You have proposed to convert the remaining undeveloped 322,000 square feet of office to 300 residential dwelling units, and a 60-room hotel. The Waterford Place DRI has an approved development order with three or more uses. A proposed change to increase the residential development by 300 units and decrease the office by 322,000 would then be considered a "simultaneous increase and decrease of at least two of the approved uses within an authorized multiuse development" pursuant to Section 380.06(19)(e)5.c., Florida Statutes. PLM~NtNG & ZONING 2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE * TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 FLORIDA KEYS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN SOUTB [LOKID~ RECOVERY OfflCt GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONC[R,N fIELD OFFICE P.O. Bc.~ 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 8~,3 N.V;. 3.~..~, S'..-t~ 1SS E~sl Summerlin t~rathon, Florida 33050-2227 Mr,_mi. lri0~.~ 311594022 Ba,ow, Flofid~ 338304641 Mr. Alan J. Ciklin November 30, 1995 Page Two I hope that this answers your question and confirms our conversation regarding Section 380.06(19)(e)5.c., Florida Statutes. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call me at (904) 487-4545. Gre,~ S~uart, A1CP Plarineg cc: John Walker, City of Delray Beach Liberia Scotto, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council ~qN-2G-I995 13:8G TCRPC 487 2~1 4857 coundl January 26, 1996 Ms. Diane Dominguez, Director Planning and Zonin8 Department City of Dalray Beach 100 N.W, First Avenue Delray Beach, FL 3]444 Subject'. Waterford Place DevelopmeaI o£Regional Impact - Review of Proposed Change Dear Ms. Dominguez: In accordance with the requirements of Section 350.06(19), Florida Statutes, we have reviewed the "Notification ot' a Proposed Change to a Previously Approved D~velopment of Regional Impact (DRr)" (NOPC) for Waterford Place DRI dated November i 15, 1995 and submitted to Council by Alan I. Ciklin on November 16, 1995 with mollifications on Dec~mb~r 29, I995. ; The NOPC proposes a simultaneous increase/decrease of land uses within W~terford Place DRI. On the und~eloped 34 acres of the project, the approved 322,000 squar~ f~t of office will be conwrted to a complex of 300 dwelling units on approximately' 3Q acres, and a r~sideace/business hotel of 78 units on approximately 4 acres. The proposed c,hange reduces the daily trips from this project, The Master Site Plan will be amended tO reflect these changes. The proposed conversion will r~uire an amendment to thc City ~ of:Delray Beach Comprehensive Plan. No other change is being proposed at this time. Pursuant to Section 380.06(19Xe)$.c., Florida Statutes, this change is presumM to create a substantial deviation which may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. [ To date, the applicant has not demonstrat~l that the conversion of uses will not result in u~ewed regional impacts, sp~if~ca/ly related to traffic on Linton Boulevard. While the proposed change reduc,~$ the number of daily trips, and AM and PM peak hour trips, the trips coming out of the project are increased during thc AM peak hour and the trips going into the project are it~'easecl during the PM peak hour. These changes are occurring due to the land use change from offie~ to residential which' effects the timing and direction of traffic. Council staff and tl~ Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) have requested additional information from the applicant including · 1) an arterial analysis of Limon Boulevard from 1- 95 to $.W. I0th Avenue, and 2) a ramp analysis for the northbound on-ramp 1-95/Linton Boul~ard interchange. palm ~, f~ 3~ ION-Z~-199~, 1~:07 TCR~g 487 ~1 4867 Ms. Diane Dominguez lanu~y 26, 1996 , Page Two Enclosed plcasc find & copy of the letter fi*om FDOT rcquesting supplemental ~affi¢ analyses, and the January 17, 1~96 letter from the applicant's transportation consultant ~ to thc request, If you have any questions, pica.se call. Sincerely, Mieha,1 I. Bu~h~ AICP Ex~"uti,~ Director MJB~E~ Erl¢losur~$ Denny Creep, TCRPC Chairman Orcg Smart, FDCA L. Martin Hodgkins, PBC Alan J. Cildin, Boose Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens McBane & O'Connell John Krane, FDOT 3~N-2~-1996 13:89 T3~3 487 221 48~7 9,84 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Subseq~nt m mu' letter of ]:)ecembcr tS, 1995, in wt~lt we sedew,*a the NOI~, We trove received a ~ ~. The Walm'fo~ Plaint DRI mas approved u a mixed ,se develepaleat eomainin[ 23~ residendal units, 3~,413 square feet of off'~e qN~e, ~md 1~6,000 ~lUam 6Bet Of ~ reUdL ~ Ixevtous NOPC mJb~tuted 300 qxutn,~m~ m'KI a 60 room hoigl for the ~Fic~ space. The modified NOPC ctmnfXs the ~0 mom bo~ to a ?$ momhoeL Oivcnthe changes in land ute proposed by bolh vergoa~ of this NOPC, we continue to presume it to be at subslantial deviation. The traffic m~alylis submitted by ~ Applicant ~p~e__~_ not nullify the not. bound mi ramp at ~ I-~/Linton Bouk. vazd lnw. rchanSe would opeme at an aeeeptable level ~ service. Our Wevima analysis 0e. fetm~ our letter to J. Thomas Beck dated Ianuaty 24, 19~) showed tlat the northbound on-ramp at the l.xJl/Linton Souieva~ iaterc~Se v/al be opeming at an unacoept~le level of service dmir~ the 1997 P.M. peak hour. According to Ihe DepatLqteflt's Oe. ne~i-ed Service Volume Tables, Linton Boulevard from t-95 to $.W.10th Avenue will be over-c~pacit¥ by 199'7. YqN-26-199~ 13:0g TCR~5 407 221 4~67 ~.35 iwevious l~:)l~. ~he l~t conducted in-bourn LOS antly~ o~ ~e 1-95 oeflbbomul ap~l~ rmqumst that the applicant lPmally cmidt~t tim trldTJ¢ sAIdyse~ that we pt*eviousl~ requested for the JMrthbotlfld off-romp at Iht l*~/LJnt0n Boutevard interchange, and Liflton Boultvtnf ~ Z-OS to $.W. 10th Aveaue. Please be~ ~ree to ~Mlltct ~ o~lqee if you hive any qtte#ions. Yq~,1-26-1~96 13:3~ TC~,3 487 221 4367 ~'~ ~ ~'~ Kirrley-H0rn ~ ~F.'~ anc Associates. Inc. En~r~ent,~ ~,~,~,~ JAN 1 9 19~6 Jan~ 17, 1~6 Ms. Lil~rta Scotto Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 3228 S.W. Martin Downs Boulevard Suite 205 Pakn City, Florida 33490 Re: Waterford Place DRI Notice of Proposed Change Apa, u~,ents/Hotel Dciray Beach, Florida 467?.27 Dear Ms, $cotto: On January 9, 1996, we had a telephone conversation with yourself, Mafia Palembo and John Krane with the Florida Department of Trar. sportazion. In that di,cussion, we were asked to provide supplemental traffic az~lysis information for me above reference. The rCClU~t was for two items which the following: 1. An arterial analysis of Lmten Boulevard from [-95 to S.W. 10th Avenue and, 2. A ramp analysis for the 1-95 northbound on-ramp. The three of you are of the opi_mon that the requested hzformalion i~ necessary for the project the rebut the presumption that thc proposed apartment/hotel modification of the DRI is a substantial deviation. Subsequent to that telephone discussion, we have had follow-up discussions with John Krane and with Maria Palombo do discuss the specifics of the analysis and to furthe~ discuss the two items of information which were requested. In our follow-up discussion with John Kra~,~e and Maria Palombo, we discussed the fact that the project with bSe proposed modification will not have a sigmficant impact on the northbound on-ramp at 1-95. This was stated in thc Department ot~ TranspotXation letler dated December 15, 199S l~ven with a · and Associates. In,:. ' ' slight increase of the hotel zooms from 60 to 78, the total project traffic impact on the northbound on-ramp will be less than 75 vehicles during the peak hour. Thus, the project's peak hour impact is less than the significant impact threshold value. Based upon this circumstance, we will submit documentation which clearly presents that the project impact is less than 75 peak hour trips on the 1-95 northbound on-ramp. This will be substituted for the on-ramp capacity analysis since we are of the opinion that we can clearly demonstrate that the project's impact on the ramp is not significant. An arterial capacity analysis will be undertaken for Linton Boulevard for the section between the 1-95 east ramp imersection and the $.W. 10th Avenue intersection. A total of three signalized intersections will be analyzed in the analysis. We will conduct AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts at the three i~tersections to determine existing 1996 peak season traffic volume movement.s. The turning movement counts will be adjusted to reflect average : peak season peak hour conditions which are comparable to the 100th highest hour which is the basis for the standards in the Department of Transportation's Level of Service Manual, The existing traffic count data will be adjusted and grown To reflect ! 997 background traffic conditions. The additional traffic to be generated by the proposed apam'nents and hote~ rooms will be added to Re 1997 background traffic voluraes to arrive at total 1997 traffic volumes. The three subject intersections will be analyzed using the tex, hniques, procedures, and software contained in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Signal progression information will be obtained from 10a.h,n I~each County such that the arterial analysis conducted for the subject section of Liaton Boulevard reflects the existing traffic signal control conditions. The arterial analysis wi, Il be conducted using ART-PLAN and/or Chapter 11 of the Highway CapacitT Manual. The results of the arterial analysis will be documented in report. The report will contain all of the information utilized tn conducting the analysis. The above outlines the information which will bt provided to address thc presumptmn that the proposed change does constitute a substantial Deviation. As discussed with Maria Palombo and John Krane, this is the extent of the traffic information which Treasure Regional Planning Council and the Florida Deparanent of Transportation believe are necessary to address the issue, if our understanding is not correct. ~,e ask that you, Maria Palombo or John Krane contact us i,v. mediately as we are proceeding with the data collection and the analysis efforts. If you have ~ question, pl~nsc ~11. V~D' ~ly yours, - ~P:jsl Copy ~o: Ma~a Palombo ~o~ Walker Paul Tom McMu~a~ ~7~ ] TDTq_ ='. 3:_: MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGE R~ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM ~ /0'G.- MEETIN~ OF FEBRU~.~Y 6. 1996 TRANSMITTAL HEARING & FIRST READING FOR ORDINANCE NO. 10-96 ~FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FOR A PORTION OF WATERFORD PLACE/DELINT DRI) DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is before the Commission for authorization to transmit a proposed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment to the Department of Community Affairs for review, together with first reading for the ordinance effecting the change. The FLUM amendment involves a change in the land use designation for a 35 acre portion of the Waterford Plaoe/Delint Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The current designation is Commerce. The proposed designations are Medium Density Residential (5-12 dwelling units/acre) for a 31 acre portion of the site, and Transitional for the remaining four acres. The Future Land Use Map change is accompanied by a Master Development Plan modification, SAD zoning modification, and a DRI Development Order modification to allow the replacement of the 322,4!3 sq. ft. office use component with a 300 unit rental apartment project and a 78 unit residence/business hotel. Please refer to the staff documentation for a complete analysis of this request. The Planning and Zoning Board considered this item at public hearing on January 22, 1996. After discussion, the Board voted 5 to ! (Schwartz dissenting; Schmidt absent) to recommend approval of the FLUM amendment. Concerns with the proposed amendment have been received from the Palm Beach County Planning Division and the Board of County Commissioners. They center around maintaining an inventory of commerce land uses and school siting. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed these issues before making the recommendation of approval to the Commission. Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 10-96 on first reading and authorize transmittal of the FLUM amendment, based on positive findings as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. ref: agmemo 10 Board of County Commissioners County Administrator Ken L. Foster, Chairman Robert Weisman Burt Aaronson, Vice Chairman Karen T. Marcus Carol A. Roberts Department Planning, Zoning & Building Warren H. Newell Mary McCarty ~ Maude Ford Lee January 30, 1996 The Honorable Thomas Lynch, Mayor and Members of the Delray Beach City Commission lO0 NW First Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Re: Your Plan Amendment for Waterford D.R.I. Dear Mayor Lynch, The Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is interested in this proposed plan amendment in that it has implications regarding two topics. These topics are maintaining an inventory of commerce land uses and school siting. At its meeting of January 23, 1996, the BCC opted not to object through the IPARC process in an acknowledgment that there are some local considerations which may weight against county-wide considerations. However, the BCC did direct its staff to continue to work with the City and to participate in reviews at the TCRPC and DCA levels in order to insure that the topics are thoroughly analyzed and all alternatives are considered. With regard to the inventory of commerce of land uses, maintaining a commerce land use on the Waterford site furthers implementation of the County Comprehensive Plan and its attendant growth management strategies. Specifics have been provided to the City through my letter of January 22, 1996, which was presented to your Local Planning Agency. I believe that such a direction is consistent with the City's desire to retain and develop its commerce land base. We understand that there is a potential problem pertaining to the protection of vesting of the DRI and its traffic allocation. We are willing and interested in working with TCRPC and DCA to see if the vesting can be retained since the commerce land use is that which is most consistent with both the City's and the County's adopted comprehensive plans. While we concur with the assumption that it is unlikely a commerce project would occur within the next two years, we do believe that soon thereafter, there will be a great desire to have thirty acres of commerce property available for immediate development. The second topic of interest is that of coastal revitalization and school siting opportunities. In your proposed amendment, we have a conversion from a land use which does not generate school children to a residential land use which does. As such there is an unplanned increase of demand upon existing school facilities. Also, since siting is currently predicated upon future growth projections, there are not additional facilities programmed for this part of the County. As you are aware, a key to "An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer" ~printodor~rec~,c/edpaper 100 Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 (407) 233-5300 The Honorable Thomas Lynch, Mayor January 30, 1996 Page Two community viability is the presence of adequate school facilities. While it would be desirable to have an urban elementary school site of ten acres, such a request is, perhaps, impractical in this situation, However, there is a need for coastal communities to engage in innovative and creative problem- solving when confronted with challenges. One such strategy is that of providing an "Early Child Learning Center" site. Not only would such a facility relieve nearby overcrowding, it helps maintain a sense of community for Dekay Beach students, and could be an amenity to the proposed residential land use. With these ideas before you, I ask that you give them due consideration; ask your staff to explore them further; and when the amendment returns from the TCRPC/DCA review that you consider its modification based upon those reviews. We, at the County Planning Office, are willing to assist in this effort. Thank you for consideration of our comments. espectfully, Director of Planning pc: David Harden, City Manager Diane Dominguez, City Director of Planning and Zoning Mary McCarty, BCC District IV Alan Ciklin, Agent for the petitioner Larry Zabik, Assistant Superintendent, PBC School District Agust Hernandez, Planning Specialist, PBC School District Michael Busha, Executive Director, TCRPC Charles Pattison, Director of Divsion of Resource Planning & Management, DCA Larry Pelton, President, Business Development Board Anna Yeskey, IPARC Clearinghouse Coordinator INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION Bob Weisman, County Administrator Patrick D. Miller, Deputy County Administrator Dominic Sims, Interim Executive Director, PZ&B Many Hodgkins, Director of Zoning Barbara Alterman, Assistant County Attorney Ann Hoctor, School Concurrency Task Force, Support Staff Harry Fix, Schools Element EAR Clarence Chavis, IPARC Coordination Barry Sussman, Waterford DRI Review Kathy Girard, Principal Current Planning File:l :\COM MON~LANNING~DATA~DJK~DELRAY .W AT ORDINANCE NO. 10-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE WATERFORD PLACE/DELINT DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, FROM COMMERCE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 5-12 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE FOR A 31 ACRE PORTION OF THE SITE, AND FROM COMMERCE TO TRANSITIONAL FOR A 4 ACRE PORTION OF THE SITE; PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 380.06(6)(b); PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the property hereinafter described is designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Delray Beach, Florida, as Commerce; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Delray Beach, as Local Planning Agency, considered this matter at public hearing and voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the FLUM designation be changed from Commerce to Medium Density Residential 5-12 du/acre for a 31 acre portion of the site, and from Commerce to Transitional for a 4 acre portion of the site, based upon positive findings; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan be amended to reflect FLUM designations of Medium Density Residential 5-12 du/acre and Transitional. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the legal description of the subject property is as follows: PARCEL "A" A portion of Parcel 4, LINTON CENTER, as recorded in Plat Book 3R, Pages 8 and 9 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, lying in Section 29, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, City of Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly right-of-way line of Lindell Boulevard as shown on said Plat of LINTON CENTER and the extension of the centerline of the right-of-way of Southwes= lOth Avenue as shown on said Plat; (1) thence, South 46 degrees 49' 15" West, a distance of 220.29 fee~; (2) thence, North 43 degrees 10' 45" West, a distance of 288.31 feet; (3) thence, South 46 degrees 49' 15" West, a distance of 204.94 feet; the last three (3) described courses being contiguous with the Southerly boundary of BUILDERS SQUARE - LINTON CENTER, as recorded in Plat Book 70, Pages 137-138 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence, South 00 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 143.49 feet; thence, South 46 degrees 49' 33" East, a distance of 159.16 feet to a point of curvature of a non-~angent curve, whose radius bears South 59 degrees !2' 31" East, having a radius of 390.00 feet and a central angle of 30 degrees 47' 29"; thence, Southeasterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 209.59 feet; thence, South O0 degrees 00' 00" West, a distance of 183.90 feet; thence, North 46 degrees 01' 26" West, a distance of 674.91 feet; thence, South 43 degrees 58' 34" West, a distance of 79.9~ feet; thence, South 00 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 46.31 feet; thence, South 45 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 287.25 feet; thence, South 45 degrees 00' 00" West, a distance of 289.49 feet; thence, South 31 degrees 55' 20" West, a distance of 414.80 feet; thence, South 00 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence, South 45 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 557.25 feet; thence, South 65 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 89.93 feet; thence, South 90 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 126.2! feet; thence, North 45 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 148.86 feet; thence, North 90 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 34.68 feet; thence, South 54 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 119.77 feet; thence, North 62 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 145.00 feet; thence, North 67 degrees 13' 21" East, a distance of 31.18 feet;, thence, North 24 degrees 30' 00" East, a distance of 20.73 feet; thence, North 49 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 227.50 feet; thence, North 44 degrees 51' 05" East, a distance of 242.41 feet; thence, North 38 degrees 00' 00" West, a distance of 132.36 feet; =hence North 00 degrees 00' 00" West, a - 2 - Ord. No. 10-96 distance of 70.00 feet; thence, North 45 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 158.39 feet; thence, North 00 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 148.50 feet; thence, North 22 degrees 30' 00" East, a distance of 19.13 feet; thence, North 81 degrees 47' 49" East, a distance of 197.56 feet; thence, North 46 degrees 49' 15" East, a distance of 46.26 feet; thence, North 38 degrees 11' 01" West, a distance of 123.10 feet; thence, North 45 degrees 00' 00" West, a distance of 540.00 feet; thence, North 46 degrees 49' 15" East, a distance of 119.20 feet; thence, North 43 degrees 10' 34" West, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; the last course being coincident with the Westerly right-of-way line of said Lindell Boulevard. The subject property is located south of Linton Boulevard, between Interstate-95 and Lindell Boulevard; containing 31.77 acres, more or less, and subject to easements, covenants, restrictions, reservations and rights-of-way of record. PARCEL "B" A portion of Parcel 4, LINTON CENTER, as recorded in Plat Book 39, Pages 8 and 9 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, lying in Section 29, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, City of Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the Westerly right-of-way line of Lindell Boulevard as shown on said Plat of LINTON CENTER and the extension of the centerline of the right-of-way of Southwest 10th Avenue as shown on said Plat; (1) thence, South 46 degrees 49' 15" West, a distance of 220.29 feet; (2) thence, North 43 degrees 10' 45" West, a distance of 288.31 feet; (3) thence, South 46 degrees 49' 15" West, a distance of 204.94 feet to the Point of Beginning; (4) thence, South 87 degrees 12' 58" West, a distance of 276.44 feet; the last four (4) described courses being contiguous with the Southerly boundary of BUILDERS SQUARE - LINTON CENTER, as recorded in Plat Book 70, Pages 137-138 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence, Sou~h 43 degrees 58' 34" West, a distance of 213.84 feet; - 3 - Ord. No. 10-96 thence, South 46 degrees 01' 26" East, a distance of 674.91 feet; thence, North, a distance of 183.90 feet to a point on a curve concave to the Southeast, having a radius of 390.00 feet and a central angle of 30 degrees 47' 29"; thence, along the arc of said curve a distance of 209.59 feet; thence, North 46 degrees 49' 33" West, a distance of 159.16 feet; thence, North, a distance of 143.49 feet to the Point of Beginning. The subject property is located south of Linton Boulevard, between Interstate-95 and Lindell Boulevard; containing 4.00 acres, more or less, and subject to easements, covenants, restrictions, reservations and rights-of-way of record. $$ctiQn 2. That the Future Land Use Map designation in the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property hereinabove described as Parcel "A" is hereby changed from Commerce to Medium Density Residential 5-12 du/acre. Section ~. That the Future Land Use Map designation in the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property hereinabove described as Parcel "B" is hereby changed from Commerce to Transitional. Section 4. That this plan amendment is made pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes Section 380.06(6) (b) wi~h respect to it being exempt from statutory limits on the frequency of consideration to amendments to the local comprehensive plan. Section ~, That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section .6~ That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 7. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the date a final o~der is issued by the Department of Community Affairs finding the amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Chapter 163.3184, F.S.; or the date a final order is issued by the Administration Commission finding the amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Chapter 163.3184, F.S. - 4 - Ord. No. 10-96 PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 1996, MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading - 5 - Ord. No. t0-96 CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION OMIN CT~ THRU: DE~/A~TMENT OF PLANNIN(~'ND ZONING FROM: PAUL DORLING, ~)INClPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 FIRST READING AND TRANSMITTAL HEARING FOR A FUTURE LAND U~E MAP AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCE TO A COMBINATION OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ( 5-12 UNITS PER ACRE ) AND TRANSITIONAL FOR A 35 ACRE PORTION OF THE WATERFORD DRI LOCATED SOUTH OF LINTON BOULEVARD AND EAST OF 1-95. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is approval on first reading and authorization to transmit to DCA (Department of Community Affairs) an ordinance amending the Future Land Use Map from Commerce to a combination of Medium Density Residential and Transitional for 35 acres of the Waterford DRI. The subject property is located south of Linton Boulevard and east of 1-95. BACKGROUND: The 87-acre Waterford DRI was approved in 1984, as was the SAD with a site specific development plan (Ordinance 79-84). The original Development Order (approved via Resolution 49-85 on May 28, 1985) consisted of 811,763 square feet of office park, a 250-room hotel, and 236 multifamily units. Several modifications and partial development of the site has occurred since the approval and the project now includes the Waterford Village Apartments (236 units) and Builders Square (136,000 sq.ft.), which have been constructed. The remaining 35 acres is currently vacant and has approval for 322,413 sq.ft, of office (office, research and development) within 8 buildings through an overall master development plan. The buildout date for the office park was recently extended to November 30, 1997. The applicant is requesting a Future Land Use Map amendment for the vacant 35 acre portion of the development from Commerce to Transitional (4 acres) and Medium Density Residential (31 acres). The Future Land Use Map change is accompanied by a Master Development Plan modification, SAD zoning modification and a DRI/DO modification to allow substitution of the 322,413 sq. ft. of office use for a 300 unit upscale rental apartment project and a 78 unit residence/business hotel. The change in Future Land Use Map designation, from Commerce to Medium Density Residential and Transitional abandons the possibility of a office/research and development park on this site. The developer asserts that, after a twelve year marketing effort, no opportunity to develop the site as a office park has appeared, and none is likely in the foreseeable future. As evidence, assessments of the potential absorption rate for commerce land uses in the area, and the need for rental housing have been provided by the applicant (see discussions in P&Z staff report ). PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION: The Planning and Zoning Board considered this item at its meeting of January 22, 1996. Several members of the public spoke regarding traffic congestion on Linton Boulevard. After a lengthy discussion comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the request, the consensus of the Board was to support the proposed changes for the following reasons: * The amount of office space would not be marketable in the foreseeable future; * The hotel use will be an asset to the City; * The City needs more high end residential units, and the project will attract a younger, middle to upper income tenant; * In terms of land uses, residential is more appropriate in the area than an office park; and, * Traffic will be reduced. The Board voted 5 to 1 (Bill Schwartz opposing, David Schmidt absent) to recommended approval of the FLUM amendment. Bill Schwartz opposed the change as he felt the office use is more critical to the City than the rental development. PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMENTS: Concerns with the proposed amendment have been received from the Palm Beach County Planning Division and the Board of County Commissioners. These concerns center around two issues, maintaining an inventory of commerce (light industrial / office) land uses and school siting (see attached letter). To summarize, the County's position is that retaining the commerce land use designation is consistent with the growth management strategies of the County Comprehensive Plan. These strategies involve land use policies which encourage job growth and retention of land uses which accommodate such growth. The concern with respect to schools revolves around the change in the land use category which generates additional school children in this part of the county. These issues and concerns were included with others discussed in the attached Planning and Zoning Staff report. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed these issues before rendering their recommendation of approval to City Commission. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion, approve on first reading and authorize transmittal of the FLUM amendment from Commerce to Medium Density Residential and Transitional based upon positive findings with respect to Comprehensive Plan policies Housing Element Objective C-2 (provision of a variety of housing types), FLUE Policy D-1.1 and D-1.2 (maintaining racial balanced schools) and a portion of FLUE Objective A-1 ( complimentary to adjacent uses). Attachments: P&Z staff report PBC Planning letter (January 22,1996) PBC Planning letter (January 30, 1996) MEETING DATE: January 22, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: v.c ITEM: Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commerce to Medium Density Residential 5-12 du/ac and Transitional for the Vacant 35 acre' Portion of the Waterford/Delint DRI, Located on the West Side of Lindell Boulevard, South of Linton Boulevard. GENERAL DATA: Owner/Applicant ............. Delint, Inc. Agent .............................. Alan J. Ciklin, Esq. Location .......................... South of Linton Boulevard, between 1-95 and Lindell .Boulevard. Property Size .................. Approximately 35 acres ~,., o. Existing FLUM ................ Commerce Proposed FLUM .............. Medium Density Residential 5-12 du/ac (31 acres) and Transitional (4 acres) .~urrent Zoning ................ SAD (Special Activities District) Proposed Zoning ............. SAD Adjacent Zoning ..... North: SAD and PC (Planned Commercial) East: SAD and RM (Medium Density Residential) South: SAD West: A (Agricultural) and 1-95 Existing Land Use ............ Vacant with development approval for 322,413 s.f. Office Park development. Proposed Land Use ......... FLUM amendment to accommodate development of the parcel with a 300- unit apartment complex and a 78-unit residence/business hotel. Water Service .................. Existing 12" main within the existing spine road of the approved Office Park (Waterford Park Drive). Sewer Service .................. Existing 8" main within the existing spine mad of the approved Office Park (Waterford Park Drive). -_ The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the City Commission on a privately initiated Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Amendment from Commerce to a combination of Medium Density Residential (5-12 units per acre) and .Transitional. The subject property is approximately 35 acres in size and is part of the Waterford DRI located south of Linton Boulevard and east of 1-95. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.2.2(E), the Local Planning Agency (Planning and Zoning Board) shall review and make a recommendation to the City Commission with respect to all amendments to the City's FLUM. Prior to 1984, the subject property had land use and zoning designations of PRD-4 (Planned Residential Development, 4 units/acre). In 1984/85, the Waterford/Delint DRI (Development of Regional Impact) and associated zoning to Special Activities District (SAD) were processed. The 87-acre Waterford DRI was approved in 1984, as was the SAD with a site specific development plan (Ordinance 79-84). The original Development Order (approved via Resolution 49-85 on May 28, 1985) consisted of 811,763 square feet of office park, a 250- room hotel, and 236 multifamily units. The infrastructure for the Office Park portion of the SAD and the water management lakes were constructed during the next two years. Also, several street improvements required through the DRI-DO were constructed, most through projects undertaken by the County (Linton Boulevard and Congress Avenue widenings). In November, 1987, the Waterford Village apartment complex was approved through an amendment to the SAD (via Ordinance No. 96-87). In addition to a change to the site specific development plan, the action included changing the basis for triggering certain street improvements from use intensity (floor area, number of units/rooms) to traffic generation (ADT). In November, 1989 a SAD/DRI modification which replaced the site specific development plan with an overall Master Development Plan (MDP) was approved. The MDP was more general and would allow minor site plan changes to occur without the necessity of concurrently amending the DRI-DO. This action was consummated through Ordinance No. 68-89 and Resolution No. 80-89. P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 2 In December, 1991 a SAD/DRI modification request was received to delete the use of a hotel and 233,000 sq.ft, of office space and add the use of general retail, specifically - a single tenant facility (Builders Square). A first step in processing the request was to determine whether or not it was a "substantial deviation" to the approved DRI. Such a determination dictates the manner in which the associated development application (SAD/DRI-DO modification) is to be processed. In August, 1992, the City Commission made a determination that the proposed changes did not constitute a substantial deviation. Subsequently, in September, 1992, the formal application for the proposed SAD/DRI-DO modification was accepted for processing. On December 16, 1992, the City Commission approved the SAD/DRI-DO to accommodate the Builders Square development. The project now includes the Waterford Village Apartments (236 units) and Builders Square (136,000 sq.ft.), which have been constructed. The remaining approximately 35 acres is currently vacant and has approval for 322,413 sq.ft, of office (office, research and development) within 8 buildings through an overall master development plan. The buildout date for the office park was recently extended to November 30, 1997. The applicant is requesting a Future Land Use Map amendment for the vacant 35 acre portion of the development from Commerce to Transitional (4 acres) and Medium Density (31 acres). The Future Land Use Map change is accompanied by a Master Development Plan modification, SAD zoning modification and a DRIIDO modification to allow substitution of the 322,413 sq. ft. of office use for a 300 unit upscale rental apartment project and a 78 unit residence/business hotel. The 300 unit luxury rental apartment complex will consist of 25 twelve ur3it buildings with a portion of the units containing private garages and security. The amenities include two clubhouse facilities with swimming pools .and spas; two tennis courts; a basketball court and a volleyball court. The residence/business hotel will contain a small meeting room (approx. 250 sq. ft.) an outdoor pool, exercise room and hearth room. The hearth room will serve as a breakfast area for complementary continental breakfast and as an evening gathering room for planned social hours and a group TV room. This staff report deals with the FLUM amendment while the other aspects of the proposed development change are addressed in separate staff reports. P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 3 Current Land Use Desiqnations: The current City Future Land Use Map designations for the approximately 87-acre Waterford DRI include: 21 acres of Medium Density Residential, 38 acres of Commerce, 19 acres of Recreation and Open Space (water bodies) and 9 acres of General Commercial. Requested Land Use Desi.qnations: The requested Future Land Use Map amendment proposes to change approximately 35 acres of Commerce to 31 acres Medium Density Residential (5-12 units per acre) and 4 acres of Transitional. With approval of the change the Future Land Use Map designations for the entire development would be: 52 acres Medium Density Residential (21 + 31 acres), 4 acres Transitional, 19 acres of Recreation and Open Space (water bodies), 9 acres of General Commercial, and 3 acres of Commerce. Adiacent Future Land Use Map Desi.qnations & Land Use: FLUM DesiRnations: Waterford DRI: Medium Density Residential (5-12 du/acre) General Commercial Recreation and Open Space Commerce Adjacent Properties: North General Commercial & Medium Density East Medium Density Residential South Medium & Low Density Residential West 1-95 & Conservation (west side of 1-95) & Open Space Land Uses: Waterford DRI: 136, 000 sq.ft. Builders Square ~'* 236 Apartments (Waterford Village) 35 acres vacant Adjacent Properties: North Delray Crossings Shopping Center (Target/Circuit City) &Laver's North East Laver's North & Lake Ray Apartments South Lake Delray Apartments & Tropic Palms Subdivision West 1-95/vacant conservation tract/vacant land P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 4 Allowable Land Uses: The proposed Medium Density Residential Land Use Map designation is consistent with zoning districts which allow single family to multi-family residential units. Under the Transitional Land Use Map designation residential uses from single family homes to multi-family buildings are allowed, as well as office uses, residence/business hotel and neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed Future Land Use Map amendment is accompanied by an SAD zoning request and master development plan modification. The SAD zoning district is deemed to be consistent with any Land Use Map designation. However, the uses allowed within a specific SAD zoning must be consistent with the land use category shown on the Future Land Use Map. The proposed uses being requested include 300 apartments, and a 78 room residence/business hotel. The apartment use is consistent with the proposed Medium Density Residential designation, while the residence/business hotel use is consistent with the proposed Transitional designation. Service and Concurrency Im=lications: With the development of the Comprehensive Plan the impact of this land use on City services was assessed for the approved DRI. The assessment for the 35 acre tract was based on the originally approved 811,763 sq. ft. of office park. The proposed change to 300 residential apartments and a 78 room residence /business hotel will have a reduced impact on drainage and solid waste. The impacts on water and sewer will be greater with the proposed change (approximate increase of 12,018 gals per day/4,386,570 gals per year), however, adequate capacity exists to accommodate the additional impact. The development proposal's impact on parks and recreation, schools, and traffic are discussed below. Parks and Recreation: The approved office development created no impact with respect to the need for Park and Recreation facilities. The apartment portion of the prbposed change will create an additional impact on the City's parks and recreation facilities. The proposed 300 units will create a population increase of approximately 687 persons (2.19 persons X 300 units) which will utilize the City's existing park systems. This anticipated population increase can be accommodated by the existing parks system, which is well above the established Level of Service of 3 acres per 1,000 persons. It is noted that the City park system currently provides approximately 8 acres per 1,000 persons. Residential development is required to provide park land or an in-lieu fee of $500/unit at the time of issuance of building permits. The proposed project will contribute $150,000 in in-lieu park impact fees. P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce*to MDR and Transitional Page 5 Traffic: The Waterford DRI is approved and vested for 10,651 daily external trips. This includes the approved 322,413 square foot office park. The proposed changes to multi-family residential units and a 78 room hotel will reduce the daily external traffic at build-out by 556 trips to 10,095. In addition, the AM and PM peak hour trips will be reduced by approximately 36% and 23% respectively. A change from office use to residential and hotel creates changes in the direction of traffic flows in the peak hours. For office use, the inbound trips are greatest in the morning, and the outbound trips are greatest in the evening. With a change to residential, this flow is reversed. ~: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:,:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Approved Plan Proposed Plan Net Change AM Inbound 555 197 - 358 AM Outbound 227 307 + 80 PM Inbound 338 402 + 64 PM Outbound 561 291 - 270 AM Total 782 504 -278 PM Total 899 693 -206 The reduction in total traffic generation and peak hour traffic generation indicates a reduction in the overall impact in the proposed land use mix. The increases in morning outbound (+80) and afternoon inbound (+64) trips are substantially less than the decreases in morning inbound and afternoon outbound. Review of the directional changes indicates that the level of service of impacted roads will not be negatively impacted by the proposed change in the land use mix. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has expressed concern over the directional increases and the impact on the adjacent 1-95 ramps. The applicant is addressing those concerns directly with FDOT. - Schools: While the City currently has no school concurrency requirement, it has long been recognized that the County school system is significantly overcrowded. To address that problem, Palm Beach County has assembled a task force to develop school facility, Levels of Service and a method for measuring concurrency for schools. That method will focus on the development of residential units. The proposed change of the Waterford DRI from an office use to a residential development will create additional impacts on an over burdened school system, and is a factor to consider in evaluating the overall effect of the land use change.. P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 6 It is noted however, that while the proposed development will add population to the school system, the middle income character of the housing is expected to improve the racial balance in area schools. This issue is addressed in more detail later in this report. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed change from Commerce to Medium Density Residential and Transitional are to accommodate residential uses which include 300 apartments and a 78 room residence/business hotel. The proposed land use designations are compatible with the adjacent and surrounding land use designations. The specific uses proposed under the SAD zoning request are consistent with the proposed Land Use Map designations and compatible with adjacent land use designations. The proposed Transitional (hotel site) will directly abut the commercial (Builders Square) to the west. The proposed multi-family residential use will border the hotel site and commercial uses to the east and will act as a buffer between these uses and the existing Laver's North and Waterford Village Apartment developments. Consistency with Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan: There are a several objectives and policies contained within the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan which give direction with respect to the development proposal. Future Land Use Element Policy A-2.3: Prior to recommending approval of any development permit application which comes before it, the Local Planning Agency must make a "finding of consistency" of the requested land use action with the objectives and policies of the Land Use Element. [LDR Section 2.2.2 (E)(8)] - As previously discussed the proposed land use designations along w(th the proposed uses requested under the SAD zoning and noted on the master development plan modification are consistent and ~,ompatible with the adjacent land uses. This portion of the staff report deals with the required findings of consistency with the objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element as well as other applicable elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. To make a finding of consistency it is not necessary to make a positive finding with respect to every policy within the Comprehensive Plan provided that the approving body specifically finds that beneficial aspects of the proposed project (hence compliance with some standards) outweigh the negative impacts of identified points of conflict. P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 7 Future Land Use Element Objective A-l: Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complementary to adjacent land uses,-and fulfills remaining land use needs. The Waterford SAD/DRI land area has been altered and prepared for development. Thus, there are no physical considerations which create concerns with respect to this objective. The proposed modifications may be considered complementary to adjacent residential uses to the east and south. The proposed residential uses act as a transition between the intensive commercial development located along Linton Boulevard, and the Tropic Palms single family subdivision to the south, and medium density uses (Laver's North & Lake Ray Apartments) to the east. The residential character of the traffic generated by the proposed uses would generally be more compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods than that of the approved office park. The applicant has submitted a market analysis of the apartments to address the issue of fulfilling remaining land use needs. This study concludes that the southeast Palm Beach County rental market area (portion of Boynton Beach, Delray Beach, Boca Raton) can absorb an additional 915 rental units of moderate and middle income tenants between the 1994 - 1999 period. Recent approvals within the City of Delray Beach alone include a number of comparable rental units within this market area which include the following: Citation Club 400 units (in for building permits) Vinings of Delray 228 units (under construction) - 628 units '~ ' This 628 total represents units which will be built by 1996 in the City of Delray Beach alone and do not include the balance of' the southeast County rental market area for 1996, nor any development potential for 1997-1999. With the addition of the proposed 300 units, 928 units will be constructed by 1997, exceeding the projected absorption rate through 1999 for the entire southeast County rental market. The City has conducted its own analysis of housing in the City, for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The study indicates that there is adequate land available to meet the projected housing demand through the 2010 forecast period. The findings do indicate that there may be a shortage of available land for single family housing. The study concludes P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 8 that the shortage will be made up by many smaller vacant parcels that are currently designated medium density residential but will most likely be developed as single family homes or townhouses, as they are not large enough to support the typical rental project. It should be noted that this finding was based, on the remaining large vacant parcels that are within the City boundaries. The City study projects that the greatest future demand will be for multi-family housing. It concludes that there is more than enough land with the correct zoning to support the demand. However, the study does indicate that there is an existing shortage of available units with monthly rents of $840 or more. Many residents of the City could afford to pay higher rents than they pay now, but units are not available. If such higher end rental units are not available within the City, it could be presumed that those residents who choose to remain in the rental market will seek housing in adjacent municipalities. On balance, a case can be made that the provision of upscale rental housing in the City helps to fulfill remaining land use needs. However, it is not clear that a land use change for this particular property is necessary to fulfill that need. The demand for upscale rental units may be met by currently approved projects and lands already correctly zoned for such uses. There was no market study provided to assess the viability of a hotel at this location. However, the City has identified the need to attract additional hotel rooms within the City boundaries. The development of new hotels east of 1-95 is listed as an Economic Development/Redevelopment action in the Visions 2005 assembly document. Future Land Use Element Policy A-1.4: "Commerce" Land Use which involves a mix of light industrial, commercial uses, and research and development are the most needed land uses during the City's final stage of build-out. Thus, changes to the Land Use Map which diminish this larval use are discouraged. City staff conducted an inventory of Commerce designated parcels, both vacant and developed. There is a total of 280 acres, of which 160 are developed and 120 are vacant. The 280 acres represents approximately 3% of the City's total acreage. The proposed modification will reduce the amount of vacant Commerce designated land by 29% If approved, there will be 86 vacant Commerce acres remaining, the vast majority of which are parcels less than 5 acres in size. In addition, the proposed modifications will diminish the Commerce potential of the Waterford SAD by 100% and also diminish P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 9 the approved and vested inventory of City wide Commerce floor area by 322,413 square feet. As a result of this reduction, there is a corresponding reduction in employment potential of approximately 1,637 jobs, using the estimates included in the Waterford DRI application. -Therefore, the proposed modification to the Waterford SADIDRI is not consistent with this Comprehensive Plan policy. This inconsistency must be assessed in relation to the realistic potential that Commerce land uses will be found to occupy this site. The Commerce land use designation allows the following zoning classifications: RT (Resort Tourism), PCC (Planned Commerce Center), MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial) and LI (Light Industrial). With the exception of RT, these zoning designations are primarily intended for industrial type uses such as manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, etc. An important factor to note in this analysis is that while the Waterford DRI is designated as Commerce, the approved use in the Development Order is as office/research and development. There is far more land throughout the City with land use designations other than Commerce (i.e. Transitional) that can be developed for these types of office uses, including the 15.5 acre Hardrives tract (west side of Congress) that was recently annexed into the City. That parcel is to be developed as an expansion of the Office Depot headquarters, with a total of 215,000 - square feet of office and more than 500 employees. The "Waterford Land Use Summary Analysis", submitted by the developer, provides an analysis of the development potential of the site from a demand prospective. The report argues that given the current downsizing trends of larger corporations; the reluctance of large users to build to suit verses occupying existing vacant built space; current job creation primarily by small firms; and the past marketing history of the parcel; attracting a large user to the site is unlikely. The report _further catalogs the existing inventory of vacant Commerce land use within the --~ ~ City and surrounding municipalities along with their current absorptibn rates. The report concludes that given current absorption rates (12 acres/yr, highest absorption rate versus 3 acre/ yr. lowest absorption rate), and the City's remaining 86 acres of vacant Commerce land (assuming approval of this amendment) that is currently available, it would take between 7 to 28 years for this property to become marketable for an office dev.elopment. With this change the last large tract of Commerce land use designation would be eliminated. The potential would then exist for the City of Delray Beach to lose future medium or large users to the surrounding municipalities. An attachment to the report notes, however, that over 90% of "commerce" businesses in Palm Beach County employ 20 or fewer P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 10 people, while less than 1% employ more than 500. This indicates that the smaller vacant tracts within the City may indeed satisfy the need for Commerce land uses. The report does acknowledge that some brokers believe interest in commerce (office/industrial) land is picking' up. This idea of renewed interest is supported by the Office Depot expansion and the recently announced Seagrams relocation to Delray Beach. In addition with the potential siting of the County Convention Center on Congress Avenue in Boca Raton, renewed interest in office uses may be generated. With the proposed changes, concerns over the potential impact with respect to the relationship between employment and availability of housing units to accommodate employment were raised. Within the "Waterford Land Use Summary Analysis" an analysis was undertaken using a methodology developed in consultation with City staff to provide a useful approach to determine if the proposed change would negatively affect the City in terms of a balance between employment and anticipated housing units. The method employed, and the conclusions reached in the report, are at best an approximation of the employment/housing balance, since the City is part of a larger, regional market and cannot be isolated with any degree of confidence. The report concluded that there is a current shortfall of dwelling units relative to employment potential which equates to a need/demand for additional housing units. Therefore, the proposed change in land use from Commerce to residential will serve to provide additional housing units and reduce employment thereby reducing the current shortfall. Given the above, the report concludes that maintaining the subject site in a commerce designation is not critical to Delray Beach in terms of providing available land for office/research and development _uses. Further, the report concludes that the weak long-term office market, as well as the trend toward downsizing and the apparent shortfall of housir~g units relative to employment potential, indicates that Commerce land use may not be the most needed land use for the City. Housing Element Objective C-2: Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to a, ccommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile. As previously noted, the applicant has provided a consultant report indicating that there is a need for 915 additional upscale rental units. A City commissioned study also indicates a need for additional high-end rental apartments. However, it is noted that the declared shortage of 915 P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 11 units was for a tri-City area through 1999. The rental units currently being developed along with this proposal exceeds this estimated absorption rate by 1997. This does not take into account any additional units within the southeast County rental market or units which may be developed between 1997-1999. Future Land Use Element Policy D-1.1: The City supports the School Board's adopted policies related to creating and maintaining racially balanced schools as part of an overall program to achieve this objective. The Boards policy strives toward a student population that is comprised of no fewer than 20% nor more than 48% black students, shall be achieved in the planning period. Future Land Use Element Policy D-1.2: Through pursuit of the "Sharing for Excellence in Schools 1994" plan and program as presented by residents of the city and endorsed by the City Commission, a racial balance reflecting student population that is comprised of no fewer than 20%, not more than 48% black students, shall be achieved in the planning period. The introduction of moderate to middle income rental housing in this location will improve the racial balance of the school zone 304~305 in which the property is located. Students of the development are assigned to attend the Pine Grove Elementary School which currently has 79% black students. This school may become a magnet school in the future at which time students with in this zone would be assigned to Orchard View elementary school which currently has 42% black students. Students of the development will be assigned to attend Carver Middle School and Boca High School which currently have 36% and 15% black students, respectively. With the exception of Boca High, this development would positively affect the racial balance of these facilities. - ::::::::::::::::::::: ~ :::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :: ~.:::~:::::-~:::~::~:: :~::!:i:~:i :':':';: :':<':': ::':' :': ':':':': i;:':':': :: ~[i:': :':'::: :':':~ :': :': ':':':': :':': : ~:~.:::::::: ::: :~: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Hotel Use: With the original DRI approval in 1984, a 250 room hotel was proposed. This hotel was eventually eliminated with the development of the Builders Square which was approved based on arguments that hotel space was not a viable use. The introduction of a residence/business hotel with this proposal raises similar questions with respect to viability and changing market conditions. The applicant has offered the explanation that the proposed residence/business hotel is considered a different market than a conventional hotel and that a viable market currently exists for the facility. The developer asserts that the residence hotel P & Z Board Staff Report .Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 12 type is the highest demand segment of the hotel market. The reintroduction of a hotel to the site is an attractive component of this proposal as it meets a long time goal of the City in providing additional hotel space. The hotel and apartment complex are proposed as a single phase which will be built concurrently. To eliminate the potential of'a future change (i.e. later request to delete the hotel), the Board may recommend as a condition of the SAD approval that building permits and construction commence on the hotel site prior to issuance of the apartment building permits. Build Out Date: The build out date is the date contained in the Development Order by which the DRI project must be completed. Extensions to the build out date are governed by Florida Statute. The current DRI development order has a build out date of November, 1997. This date is the result of two previous extensions, totaling 4 years and 11 months. While future extension requests are not prohibited, any future extensions would have the potential to be considered a substantial deviation pursuant to F.S. 380.06(19) as amended by House Bill 1659. The applicant has stated that one of the peripheral factors in the proposed land use change is the approach of the build out date. Pursuant to the Statute, additional extensions of the build out date may be granted. A public hearing is required to determine if the extension creates a substantial deviation and is therefore subject to additional development of regional impact review. Such additional review would include traffic analysis based on existing levels of traffic. In effect, this would be a new traffic analysis. If an extension of 2 years were requested (to November, 1999), it would be presumed not to create a substantial deviation. The City would need to present convincing evidence to Support a determination of substantial deviation. An extension beyond 2 years and 1 month would be presumed t..~o create a substantial deviation, but could be rebutted by evidence presented by the "~ - applicant. VVhile no build out date extension is being requested at this tim'e, the issue is relevant in a consideration of how long the developer can continue to seek office development for the site without jeopardizing the vesting advantages of the DRI. If the modification is approved, construction on both the hotel and apartments would commence as soon as possible to be completed by the current expiration date of the DRI. If the proposed modification is not approved, several options are available. The applicant could attempt to construct the 322,413 sq. ft. of office development within the build out time frame, presenting a potential of empty office space. The applicant could wait for tenant commitments and seek further buildup extensions, arguing that the change is not a substantial deviation. P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 13 [ ....... :::::..: ........................................................... ....... ............ ......... The FLUM amendment is not in a geographic area requiring review by the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), DDA (Downtown Development Authority) or the HPB (Historic Preservation Board). Palm Beach County Planninq Division: The Palm Beach County Planning Division was notified of the FLUM amendment and SAD/DRI modification. County Planning Director David Kovacs has informed City staff of his intent to ask the County Commission to object to the change. Briefly, his position is that the change negatively impaots the County's employment base, as well as school facilities. Specifies regarding the objections will be presented to the Board and/or City Commission when available. Public and Courtesy Notices: Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property. In addition, Courtesy notices were provided to the following: ~ Palm Beach County Planning [3 Laver's North - g~ City of Boca Raton 121 Southridge Homeowner's Association gl Helen Coopersmith (PROD) 121 The Crosswinds ~ Tropic Palms r3 Lillian Feldman, Delray Property Owners gl Town and Country gl Palms of Delray ~ Lake Delray Apartments Letters of objection or support, if any, will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The developer has requested a change in Future Land Use Map designation, from Commerce to Medium Density Residential and Transitional. In effect, this change abandons the possibility of a office/research and development park on this site in favor of an apartment complex and residence hotel. The developer asserts that, after a twelve year marketing effort, no opportunity to develop the site as a office park ha~a appeared, and none is likely in the foreseeable future. As evidence, assessments of the potential absorption rate for commerce land uses in the area, and the need for rental housing have been provided by the applicant. P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 14 The proposed FLUM amendment presents the City with both advantages and disadvantages, which are summarized below. Disadvanta.qes: Limits the ability of the City to accommodate medium to large office/ research and development uses in the future These users would presumably be lost to office parks located in adjacent municipalities. Eliminates approximately 1,637 job opportunities in the commerce sector. Eliminates 322,413 sq. ft. of vested Commerce land use from the City's inventory. Does not clearly fulfill remaining land use needs. Increases school population. Advantages: Enhances land use compatibility with surrounding residential uses. Reduces overall daily, AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at project build out. May reduce estimated shortfalls between housing and employment base in the City, especially in the high end rental market. Provides needed new hotel rooms. Creates a positive effect on the racial balance of the schools within d~-stricts .... 304/305. Some of the above relate directly to objectives and policies with in the City's Comprehensive Plan. In reviewing Objectives and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan the Future Land Use Map the change is clearly not consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy A-1.4 (diminishing Commence Land Use) and with a portion of FLUE Objective A-1 (fulfilling remaining land use needs/exceeds project(~d absorption rates). The proposed change is consistent with Housing Element Objective C-2 (provision of a variety of housing types), FLUE Policy D-1.1 and D-1.2 (maintaining racially balanced schools) and a portion of FLUE Objective A-1 (complimentary to adjacent uses).. P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 15 The proposal to change the land use designation of this property cannot be considered lightly. This property is the last remaining large parcel of Commerce deSignated land in the City, while there are numerous opportunities throughout the City for medium density housing. Market factors have obviously had a bearing on the inability to develop this site for its intended uses. This report has attempted to present all of the relevant information and available data on market conditions and the City's future land use needs in helping the Board to come to a recommendation on this item. The office market has been in a slump throughout south Florida since the late 1980's, due primarily to overbuilding in the previous years, and the subsequent recession and downsizing of large corporations. Rents for office space fell sharply and the building of new space virtually came to a standstill. As a result, the market has recently begun to rebound, mostly for Class "A" space. Delray is experiencing some of that trend, with the upcoming construction of an additional building for the Office Depot headquarters, and the recently announced move of Seagrams' Latin America headquarters into the Arbors office complex. Nevertheless, there is still very little new building activity in the market, and there is no indication that corporate downsizing is on the wane. In fact, the national trend is that the vast majority of new jobs are created by small companies. Therefore, while the City's Future Land Use Element formulated in 1989 stated that the Commerce land use designation is the most needed, that - position may no longer be realistic. In addition, the loss of this Commerce land, which was slated for office development, is being offset somewhat by the Hardrives annexation and development of the addition to Office Depot. The rental housing market data provided by the applicant and the study conducted for the City both indicate that this land use change is not necessary in order to meet the future demand for rental housing. There is already enough existing vacant land that is properly zoned for such uses. However, data has been provided that shows a shortfall in the availability of luxury apartment housing, which is the type of units proposed. The Waterford site is in many '~ - respects ideal for an upscale rental community--it is close to similar types ~)f apartments, shopping areas, and 1-95. It is likely to be quite successful as an apartment complex. The Reinhold Wolff study speculated that so,ne of the other areas in the City that are designated medium density may actually develop at lower densities, because of their smaller sizes and locations. Perhaps the likelihood of that occurring will increase if the demand for apartments is satisfied at the Waterford site. The provision of a hotel is clearly a positive component of this proposal. While not a large facility, it will help to provide needed rooms for tourists and business people visiting the community. Further, if the County decides to locate the convention center on the Knight property to the south, the hotel will be in an excellent location to serve it. P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI/SAD - FLUM Amendment from Commerce to MDR and Transitional Page 16 A. Continue with direction. B. Recommend approval of the FLUM designation change from Commerce to Medium Density Residential and Transitional based upon positive findings with respect to Comprehensive Plan policies Housing Element Objective C-2 (provision of a variety of housing types), FLUE Policy D-1.1 and D-1.2 (maintaining racial balanced schools) and a portion of FLUE Objective A-1 ( complimentary to adjacent uses). C. Recommend denial of the FLUM designation changes from Commerce to Medium Density Residential and Transitional based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to FLUE Policy ^-1.4 ( diminishing Commence Land Use ) and a portion of FLUE Objective A-l( fails to fulfill remaining land use needs/exceeds projected absorption rates) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. By motion: Recommend approval of the FLUM designation change from Commerce to Medium Density Residential and Transitional based upon positive findings with respect to Comprehensive Plan policies Housing Element Objective C-2) (provision of a variety of housing types), FLUE Policy D- 1.1 and D-1.2 (maintaining racial balanced schools) and a portion of FLUE Objective A-1 ( complimentary to adjacent uses). Attachments: · Map showing current FLUM designations · Map showing proposed ,FLUM designations s:\reports\water2 WALLACE WALLACE FORD WALLACE DODGE NISSAN LIN TON BLVD. LIN TON PLAZA ROSS CJRCLE LAKEVIEW APARTMENTS TARGET BUILDERS SQUARE DELRA Y CLUB WA T~RFORD ~ H~RO~ CURLEW ROAD LAKE DELRA Y APAR TMEN TS N ~ CURRENT F.LU.M. DESIGNATIONS PLANNING D~PART'M£N T CIT'Y Of' C~L~AY R~:AI:~I. FL FORD DOOGE NISSAN LIN TON BLVD. UNTON PLAZA CIRCUIT ROSS CIRCLE CITY LAKEVIEW APARTMENTS BUILDERS SQUARE DELRA Y ;LUB WA TERFORD (r HC~ON OR,VI APARTMENTS RO~ LAKE DELR~ ~ APA~ENTS N PROPOSED F.L.U.M. DESIGNATIONS OTY 0~' ~t. RAY B£ACH, FL TRANSITIONAL LAND USE DESIGNATION. MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION. -- DIGID4L 8~S£ ~ sY~r£M -- . ':-~, '~ ~-~ B d of County Commissioners County Administrator K4n L. Foster, Chairman Robert Weisman Burt ^aronson, Vice Chairman Karen T. Marcus C' ~ A. Roberts Department Planning, Zoning & Building ¥ .n H. Newell Mary McCarty ~ Maude Ford Lee January 30, 1996 The Honorable Thomas Lynch, Mayor and Members of the Delray Beach City Commission 100 NW First Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Re: Your Plan Amendment for Waterford D.R,I. Dear Mayor Lynch, The Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is interested in this proposed plan amendment in that it has implications regarding two topics. These topics are maintaining an inventory of commerce land uses and school siting. At its meeting of January 23, 1996, the BCC opted not to object through the IPARC process in an .. acknowledgment that there are some local considerations which may weight against county-Wide considerations. However, the BCC did direct its staff to continue to work with the City and to participate in reviews at the TCRPC and DCA levels in'order to insure that the.topics are thoroughly --- analyzed and all alternatives are considered. With regard to the inventory of commerce of land uses, maintaining a commerce land use on the Waterford site furthers implementation of the County Comprehensive Plan and its attendant growth management strategies. Specifics have been provided to the City through my letter of January 22, 1996, which was presented to your Local Planning Agency. I believe that such a direction is consistent with the City's desire to retain and develop its commerce land base. We understand that ..... there is a potential problem pertaining to the protection of vesting of the DRI and its traffic allocation. We are willing and interested in working with TCRPC and DCA to see if the vesting can be retained since the commerce land use is that which is most consistent with both the City's and the County's _ _ adopted comprehensive plans. While we concur with the assumption that it is unlikely a commerce project would occur within the next two years, we do believe that soon thereafter, there will be a ....... great desire to have thirty acres of commerce property available for immediate development. The second topic of interest is that of coastal revitalization and school siting opportunities. In your proposed amendment, we have a conversion from a land use which does not generate school children to a residential land use which does. As such there is an unplanned increase of demand upon existing school facilities. Also, since siting is currently predicated upon future growth projections, there are not additional facilities programmed for this part of the County. As you are aware, a key to "An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer" ~oeinto~ontec:¥cle4Oa~or 100 Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 (407) 233-5300 The Honorable Thomas Lynch, Mayor January 30, 1996 Page Two community viability is the presence of adequate school facilities. While it would be desirable to have an urban elementary school site of ten acres, such a request is, perhaps, impractical in this situation. However, there is a need for coastal communities to engage in innovative and creative problem- solving when confronted with challenges. One such strategy is that of providing an "Early Child Leam~g Center" site. Not only would such a facility relieve nearby overcrowding, it helps maintain a sense of community for Delray Beach students, and could be an amenity to the proposed residential land use. With these ideas before you, I ask that you give them due consideration; ask your staff to explore .. them further; and when the amendment returns from the TCRPC/DCA review that you consider its modification based upon those reviews. We, at the County Planning Office, are willing to assist in this effort. Thank you for consideration of our comments. Director of Planning pc: David Harden, City Manager Diane Dominguez, City Director of Planning and Zoning Mary McCarty, BCC District IV Alan Ciklin, Agent for the petitioner Larry Zabik, Assistant Superintendent, PBC School District Agust Hemandez, Planning Specialist, PBC School District Michael Busha, Executive Director, TCRPC ~_ Charles Pattison, Director of Divsion of Resource Planning & Management, DCA Larry Pelton, President, Business Development Board Anna Yeskey, IPARC Clearinghouse Coordinator INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION Bob Weisman, County Administrator Patrick D. Miller, Deputy County Administrator Dominic Sims, Interim Executive Director, PZ&B Marty Hodgkins, Director of Zoning Barbara Alterman, Assistant County Attorney Ann Hoctor, School Concurrency Task Force, Support Staff Harry Fix, Schools Element EAR Clarence Chavis. IPARC Coordination Barry Sussman, Waterford DRI Review - Kathy Girard,-Pdncipal Current Planning ...... File:I:\COMMON~PLANNING~DATA~DJ K\DELRA Y.WAT Board of County Commissioners County Administrator Ken L. Foster, Chairman Robert Weisman Burt Aaronson, Vice Chairman Karen T. Marcus C~rol A. Roberts Department Planning~ Zoning & Building en H. Newell Maude Ford Lee J~u~ 22, 1996 Diane Domin~uez, Director of Planning City of Delray Beach 100 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 3344~ Re: Notice of Intent To Object -. Waterford Plan Amendment Dear Diane, As you are aware, on behalf of Palm Beach County, I have filed a NOTICE OF INTENT TO OBJECT to the City's Future Land Use Map Amendment proposal pertaining to the Waterford (DELINT) DRI. The Board of County Commissioners will consider this subject and will decide whether to file a formal objection during the course of its regular meeting on Tuesday, January 23, 1996. Since the BCC has not taken a formal action, this Office will not have a representative at this evening's hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. However, in order to provide your office with more infprmation about our potential objection, I have enclosed a copy of an in-house memorandum which addresses the feasibility of employment based on land use in South County. As you faay know, there is a land use direCtive'in our Comprehensive Plan which calls for directing growth toward the coasm, 1. communities. Thus, the County has been consistent in seeing that large (30+ acre) industrial and office.park sites are retained along the 1-95 corridor. I believe that the City was supportive of that action .when the County filed its Notice to Object to the Knight Center Amendment in Boca Raton. The second basis for our potential objection deals with the planning and siting of school facilities. In this situation, a new residential land base is being created in an area in which schools are currently overcrowded and there are no additional school sites being planned. We believe that not addressing this situation is a default in the petition/application. A manner of mitigation would be to provide a school site commensurate with establishment of new residential land use. In fact, such an action is now required under last year's legislative amendments to Chapter 163. "An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer" ~t~i.t~on.,~wt~oa~r 100 Australian Avenue West Palm Beach. Florida 33406 (407) 233-5300 I bring these matters to your attention so that you may convey them to your Local Planning · Agency during their deliberations this evening. Also, if the Board of County Commissioners does make a formal objection and if you are willing to accept our objection, include it as a part of your transmittal action, and provide additional information during the continuing amendment review process. I believe that the need for a formal Fact-Finding Panel per IPARC will not be necessary and would be willing to waive the panel review. Thank you for the consideration of this information. ~J. Kovacs, A.I.C.P. ' Director of Planning Attachment: · in-house memo re market conditions C: Mary McCarty, District 4 Commissioner Bob Weisman, County Administrator Patrick D. Miller, Deputy County Administrator Dominic Sims, Interim Director, PZ&B Kathleen Girard, Principal Planner, Current Planning Barry Sussman, Senior Planner, Economic Development Steve Morales, Senior Planner, Intergovernmental Coordination IAe\p\d\djk\delray.lpa INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, ZONING AND BULLDOG PLANNING DMSION TO: David J. Kovacs, AICP Director of Planning FROM: Barry Sussman, AICP [/qt~q Senior Planner DATE: January 17, 1996 RE: Waterford Place Plan A[n. endment - Delray Beach Situation: On January 5, 1996, the Planning Division received information fi.om the Clearinghouse of a proposed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment in the City of Delray Beach concerning the Waterford Place project. The Dekay Beach City Council will hold a transmittal pubic heating on the proposed FLUM amendment on February 8, 1996. Pursuant to established policy, the Director of Planning has filed a Notice of Intent to Object with the' IPARC Clearinghouse. In order to continue with the IPARC objection process, it is necessary that the BCC authorize a formal objection. Thus, this item is before the BCC on Tuesday, January 23, as an add-on item. Background: The City of Delray Beach has received a petition to change the FLUM designation of a 35.19 acre parcel fi.om Commerce to Medium Density Residential (31.19 acres) and Transitional (4 acres). The Medium Density Residential parcel will be used for 300 "Luxury Rentals" and the Transitional parcel will be used for a residence/business hotel of 78 units. Waterford Place, part ofa DRI originally approved in 1984, is located in the City of Dekay Beach. The property is bounded by Interstate 95 to the west, Lindell Boulevard t6 the north and east, Dotterey Road to the east and Audubon Boulevard to the South. The original Development Order consisted of 811,763 square feet of office park, 250-room hotel and 236 multifamily residential units. Pursuant to various amendments, the project includes the Waterford Village Apartments (236 units) and Builders Square (107,000 square feet approximately). The remaining 35 acres has a Special Activities District (SAD) Zoning classification and a Commerce Land Use designation. The subject site has an approved Master Plan for an office park containing approximately 322,000 square feet. The buildout date for the office park was recently extended to November 30, 1997. The change is presumed to be a substantial deviation to the DRI. The Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Board, as Local Public Agency, will consider proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map on January 22, 1996. The governing Body of the City will consider the matter on February 6, 1996. Assessment: As described below, the City's proposed FLUM amendment is inconsistent with various County Comprehensive Plan provisions and directions. Among these' are: 1. Comprehensive Plan Economic Element Objective 1, which calls for a diversified economy by implementing land use policies which promote and encourage growth in manufacturing and other high wage sectors. 2. Economic Element Policy 2a, which instructs the County to ensure that an adequate amount of land will be available for high wage businesses. 3. Economic Element Policy 2b., which calls for the County to support the Palm Beach County Business Development Board in its effort to attract and retain high wage businesses. 4. Economic Element Policy 2c., which calls for the County to encourage and facilitate the expansion or relocation of basic industries and to expedite such development by ensuring land availability for high wage uses. 5. Various goals, objectives and policies of the County's Economic Public Policy Plan as they relate to maintaining an inventory of utility-served non-residential land to insure the County can attract high wage businesses. 6. Goal 5 of the County's Economic Development Business Plan which calls for the maintenance of an adequate supply of well-located non-residential land that fully addresses the future site location needs of non-residential growth. In addition, the proposed action will adversely impact the already over-crowded l~ine Grove Elementary school serving the site. According to current School Board statistics Pine Grove, '"- designed to accommodate 568 children, has a current (1995-96) enrollment of 721, 27% over ~lesign ' capacity. The proposed residential project will add 50 to 100 elementary school children, exacerbating an already serious problem. As a minimum, the developers should be required to provide a site on the property for an additional elementary school to serve the project area and surrounding households. Additional market data supporting findings 1 through 6 above are included as an attachment to this memorandum. Disposition: Based on the Assessment and supporting market data attached hereto, it is recommended that: 1. The County request a review by Delray Beach pursuant to imergovemmental coordination programs through the ]PARC Clearinghouse in order to evaluate the impacts of the proposed land use change with regard to the above listed items 'of concern: 2. The BCC formally object to the proposed FLUM Amendment and Staff'be directed to pursue the objection through the ]PARC process and at the Dekay Beach LPA and Transmittal Hearings; J:~/~OMMON~PLANNIN~PARC~ELRAY 11 .WPD SUPPORTING MARKET DATA Proposed Delray Beach FLUM Amendment Summary: The subject site has a strong chance of being absorbed within the next five years because ora dwindling supply of competitive developable land and a rapidly increasing demand for land and buildings. Background: 1. The Applicant claims he has been unable to market the property for the office use permitted under the existing plan. While this claim may be true, no evidence to support this claim has been presented. - The Applicant has provided no data to show the property was listed with any legitimate real estate brokers and advertised and marketed. - The Applicant has provided no data to show that any offers for the property were made and rejected. b. According to office and land market experts interviewed for this analysis, the Boca-Delray Beach sub-market -- which does NOT include properties north of Atlantic Avenue -- has been substantially over-built since the mid to late 1980s. As a result, there were relatively few land sales for new office or office/R&D construction, the uses permitted on the subject site. The few exceptions were several build-to-suit projects along the Congress Avenue corridor, particularly in the Arvida Park of Commerce (APOC). Consequently, the subject site suffered the same fate as land in other business parks in the sub-market. 2. The market for office space and land has improved dramatically over the past 1~ to 24 months in the Boca Raton-Delray Beach sub-market. _ a. Office vacancy rates have dropped from 38% in 1992 to well under 10% in early 1996. b. While demand has increased and no new supply has been added to the market. As a result, effective rents have increased sharply, by as much as 50% in most competitive buildings. c. The Boca Raton-Delray Beach sub-market remains the most active and desirable location for business expansion in Palm Beach County because of the availability of a quality work force, locational attributes (the ability to serve Dade and Broward Counties to the south, Palm Beach County, Martin and other counties to the north, Florida's west coast and the international market), and quality of life factors. d. Available property in APOC, the most significant project in the sub-market, has been reduced to under 100 acres. Of this total, nearly 25 acres, in four separate parcels, is under consideration for acquisition by the County's Environmental Resources Management agency (ERM) as the parcels are environmentally sensitive. Even if not acquired, development 0fthis property will likely be subject to strict development regulations reducing its buildable area. e. County ERM has recently completed the acquisition of over 211 acres of environmentally sensitive land, known as the Yamato Scrub, in the Boca Commerce Center, further reducing the inventory of well located prime office property. f. The remaining inventory of developed land suitable for office and R & D uses has been reduced to between 200 and 250 acres, according to industry experts. g. In addition, there may be as few as 60 and as many as 300 additional acres potentially available but not now on the market. This land is owned by corporations such as IBM and Siemans who have constructed buildings on other parts of their holdings. Under the right circumstances some or all of this land might be available for development over the coming years. h. Absorption of land in the Boca/Delray Beach sub-market for build-to-suit and owner-occupied office and R & D space has averaged 35 to 40 acres for the past several years. Demand has been steady to rising, fluctuating based on the County's success in attracting new and/or expanding corporation. Real estate industry experts expect demand to increase over the next several years as recovery from the recession solidifies and new speculative office construction commences. (No new speculative office buildings have been added to the inventory since about 1990, demand is strong as evidenced by the fact that office vacancy rates are under 10% and rents are increasing to the point where revenue will support new construction.) i. Existing, available land in the competitive area, under expected absorption - scenarios, is expected to be consumed within five to seven years. The attraction of a major user could condense this even more. The availability bfland owned by IBM and other corporate users is unknown. If made available~supply could expanded by up to an additional five years. j. The subject site is considered by most experts to be of secondary quality in today's market because of location. Demand continues to center on the Congress Avenue corridor in Boca Raton and Delray Beach. This partly explains the problem of marketability. k. However the site has several significant attributes that could improve its position in the market including the fact that it is a single large contiguous holding (35 acres) that can accommodate over 300,000 sq. ft. of development, its unique visibility and access fi.om 1-95, in-place utilities and approved land use and zoning. I. Consequently, as more desirable sites are absorbed over the coming few years, industry experts expect the marketability and x;alue of the subject site to increase significantly. Moreover, given the state of the market the subject site is desirable for a user needing to move quickly because zoning and utilities are in place and construction could commence promptly. In this rapidly improving market such a scenario is not unlikely. Consequently, the site, if aggressively marketed, could be sold and developed before the year 2000. m. If the property's land use designation and zoning are changed to residential the opportunity to develop the site for office use is forever lost. Consequently, the County will lose a valuable resource in its efforts to achieve its economic goals of attracting high wage businesses. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # /~' ~' - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 ORDINANCE NO. 11-96 (MODIFYING THE APPROVED WATERFORD PLACE/DELINT SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT) DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is first reading for Ordinance No. 11-96 modifying the approved Waterford Place/Delint Special Activities District (SAD) to replace 322,413 square feet of office space with a 300 unit apartment complex and a 78 room residence/business hotel; and consideration of associated changes to the Development of Regional Impact - Development Order (DRI-DO). The subject property is approximately 35 acres and is part of the 87 acre Waterford/Delint DRI, bounded by 1-95 to the west, Lindell Boulevard to the north, Lindell Boulevard and Dotterel Road to the east and Audubon Boulevard to the south. The SAD modification is being processed concurrently with a Future Land Use Map amendment request from Commerce to Medium Density and Transitional. Any action on this request is contingent upon the approval of the Future Land Use Map amendment. If the SAD modification is approved on first reading, action on a Resolution amending the DRI Development Order will occur at second reading of the SAD ordinance. At its meeting of January 22, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Board, after testimony with respect to potential traffic impacts, voted 5-1 to recommend that the SAD and Development Order be amended, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and LDR Sections 2.4.5(D) (5). Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 11-96 on first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 11-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 79-84, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NOS. 96-87, 68-89 AND 64-92, WHICH COMPRISE THE SAD (SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT) ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE WATERFORD PLACE/DELINT DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINTON BOULEVARD, BETWEEN INTERSTATE-95 AND LINDELL BOULEVARD, BY MODIFYING THE ALLOWABLE USES OF LAND; APPROVING A REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN; ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on October 9, 1984, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, passed and adopted Ordinance No. 79-84 which established the Special Activities District (SAD) zoning district on the Waterford Place/Delint property to allow for development of hotel, office, and multi-family uses on said property; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 1985, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 49-85 approving the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Application for the subject property, constituting the DRI Development Order (DRI-DO) and further setting forth conditions on the development of said property; and WHEREAS, on December 22, 1987, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 96-87 which amended Ordinance No. 79-84 by deferring construction of certain road improvements, amending the measurement of project phasing from a square footage basis to a traffic generation basis, and approved the site plan on the residential portion of the project (Waterford Village); and WHEREAS, on November 16, 1989, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 68-89 which amended Ordinance No. 79-84 to replace the site specific development plan for the property with a conceptual development plan; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 1992, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 64-92 .which further amended Ordinance No. 79-84 by replacing a 250 room hotel and 489,587 sq.ft, of office space for 136,000 sq.ft, of commercial/retail (Builders Square); and WHEREAS, the current owners of the property have sought a modification to the development to replace the proposed office/research and development use with the addition of 300 multi-family rental units and a 78 room residence/business hotel; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Delray Beach, as Local Planning Agency, considered this matter at public hearing and voted 5 to ! to recommend that the SAD Zoning Ordinance be amended, based upon positive findings; and WHEREAS, the City Commission on February 6, 1996, determined that such proposed modification would not constitute a substantial deviation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 79-84, as amended by Ordinances Nos. 96-87, 68-89 and 64-92, comprising the SAD Zoning Ordinance for the Waterford Place/Delint Development of Regional Impact (DRI), be and the same are hereby amended to incorporate the following components: (1) Addition of multi-family use and ancillary recreational facilities as an allowed use; (2) Addition of a residence/business hotel with ancillary recreation, meeting room, exercise room and hearth room as an allowed use; (3) Deletion of office, research and development use; (4) Modification of the Master Development Plan to accommodate: (a) Deletion of 322,413 sq.ft, of office space; (b) Addition of 300 upscale rental units and associated recreation amenities; (c) Addition of a 78 room residence/business hotel and associated recreation amenities. Section 2. That with development of the apartment complex and residence/business hotel site, the realignment of Lindell Boulevard for the purpose of de-emphasizing it'as a collector road shall be explored. An option to be considered is "T"ing Lindell Boulevard into a S.W. 10th Avenue extension within the Waterford SAD/DRI. - 2 - Ord. No. 11-96 Section 3. That construction commence on the hotel site prior to issuance of the apartment complex building permits. Section 4, That a full site plan application be submitted and reviewed by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board which includes addressing the following items: (1) The handicap accessibility be provided in compliance with ADA requirements; (2) That the issues with regard to parking (i.e. parking reduction, tandem parking, and back-out parking) be addressed with the full site plan submittal for the apartment complex; (3) That additional sidewalks be required on each side of the spine road, between the cul-de-sacs (northeast corner), around the lake and to the recreation parcels; (4) That tot lot locations as well as the type of playground equipment must be provided on the plans. Section $, That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 6. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 7. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 10-96. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 1996. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading - 3 - Ord. No. 11-96 CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER THRU: U ~. ~ND~ONING FROM: ~.~F~ t' A. COSTELLO ('SE~ PLANNER SUBJECT: MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE APPROVED WATERFORD/DEI_INT SAD I. SPEClAL, ACTIVITIES DISTRICT) TO REPLACE 322.413 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH A 300-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND A 78-ROOM RESIDENCE/BUSINESS HOTEL: AND CONSIDERATION OF ASSOCIATED CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT - DEVELOPMENT ORDER DRI-DO). ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMIS,~ION; The action requested of the City Commission is that of approval on first reading of an ordinance as follows: Modification of Ordinance 79-84, as amended by Ordinances 96- 87, 68-89, 64-92 which comprise the SAD Zoning Ordinance for Waterford/Delint DRI. The modifications include the following components: gl Addition of Multi-family use and ancillary recreational facilities as an allowed use [] Addition of a residence/business hotel with ancillary recreation, meeting room, exercise room and hearth room as an allowed use [] Deletion of office, research and development use [] Modification of the Master Development Plan to accommodate: 0 Deletion of 322,413 sq.ft, of office space P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI - Modification to the SAD Ordinance with Attendant Master Development Plan and DRI Development Order Page 2 0 Addition of 300 upscale rental units and associated recreation amenities 0 Addition of a 78 room residence/business hotel and associated recreation amenities. The subject property is approximately 35 acres and is part of the 87 acre Waterford/Delint DRI bounded by 1-95 to the west, Lindell Boulevard to the north, Lindell Boulevard and Dotterel Road to the east, and Audubon Boulevard to the south. The SAD Modification is being processed concurrently with a Future Land Use Map amendment request from "Commerce" to "Medium Density and Transitional". Any action on this request is contingent on the approval of the Future Land Use Map amendment. Action on the associated Resolutions and DRI Development Order will not occur at this meeting, however, it is appropriate to consider the items as they relate to the SAD. If the SAD is approved on first reading, action on the Resolution and DRI Development Order will occur at second reading of the SAD ordinance. BACKGROUND: The current approval for the Waterford DRI/SAD encompasses 87 acres of which 19 acres are presently in water areas. The Waterford DRI/SAD has three distinct use areas. These are: Waterford Village Apartments consisting of 236 multiple family units. Builders Square consisting of 136,000 sq. ft. of retail space. Office Park consisting of 322,413 sq.ft, of floor area for uses such as: office, research and development, and associated production use. The proposed changes affect the office park portion of the SAD/DRI by replacing the office use with medium density residential and residence/business hotel uses. Waterford Village Apartments (236 units) - no change Builders Square (136,000 sq.ft, of retail) - no change P & Z Board Staff Report Waterford DRI - Modification to the SAD Ordinance with Attendant Master Development plan and DRI Development Order Page 3 El Office Park: elimination of the entire office park use, 322,413 sq.ft, of floor area. El Multi-family apartment use: The addition of 300 upscale/luxury rental apartments consisting of 25 twelve unit buildings with a portion of the units containing private garages. The amenities include two clubhouse facilities with swimming pools and spas; two tennis courts; a basketball court and a volleyball court. Residence/business hotel use: The addition of a 78 room hotel on 4 acres. The 78 rooms will be a combination of studios, and one and two bedroom suites. The hotel will include a gatehouse with small meeting room, exercise room and hearth room as well as an outside pool. Primary access for both new uses will be taken from this roadway which extends from the intersection of SW 10th Avenue and Lindell Boulevard. Secondary access is maintained to Waterford Place via the Builders Square secondary access driveway. Additional background and an analysis of the request is found in the attached Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION: At its meeting of January 22, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing in conjunction with review of the request. There was public testimony primarily with respect to potential traffic impacts. After reviewing the staff report, the Board voted 5-1(Schwartz dissenting, Schmidt absent) to recommend that the SAD and Development Order be amended, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and LDR Sections 2.4.5(D)(5). RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion, approve on first reading an ordinance modifying an approved Special Activities District (SAD) Ordinance for the Waterford/Delint DRI based upon the findings and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board. Attachments: El P & Z Staff Report and Documentation of January 22, 1996 Ordinance by Others MEETING DATE: January 22, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: V.D ITEM: Modification of an Approved SAD (Special Activities District) with Attendant Master Development Plan 'for the Waterford/Delint DRI, located South of Linton Boulevard, between 1-95 and Lindell Boulevard. GENERAL DATA: Owner/Applicant ............... Delint, Inc. Agent ................................ Alan J. Ciklin, Esq. Location ........................... South of Linton Boulevard, between 1-95 and Lindell Boulevard. Property Size ................... 87 acres Existing FLUM ................. Commerce/Medium Density Residential 5-12 u/a/General Commercial/Open Space Proposed FLUM ............... A Portion of Commerce to Medium Density P,esidential 5-12 u/a (31 acres) and Transitional (4 acres) Current Zoning ................. SAD (Special Activities District) Proposed Zoning ..............SAD (Special Activities District) Adjacent Zoning ..... North: SAD and PC (Planned Commercial) East: SAD and RM (Medium Density Residential) South: RM and R-l-AA (Single Family Residential) West: A (Agricultural) and 1-95 Existing Land Use ............ Approved Development of Regional Impact for a mixed use development comprised of 136,000 s.f. of retail, 322,413 s.f. of office/research and development, and 256 units of multiple family residential. Proposed Land Use ......... SAD modification to replace the 322,413 s.f. office component with a 300-u.nit apartment complex and a 78- unit residence/business hotel. Water Service .................. Existing 12" main within the existing spine road of the approved Office Park (Waterford Park Drive). Sewer Service .................. Existing 8" .main within the existing spine road of the approved Office Park (Waterford Park Drive). The action before the Board is that of making a recommendation on the following items: Modification of Ordinance 79-84, as amended by Ordinances 96- 87, 68-89, 64-92 which comprise the SAD Zoning Ordinance for Waterford/Delint DRI. The modifications include the following components: El Addition of Multi-family use and ancillary recreational facilities as an allowed use El Addition of a residence/business hotel with ancillary recreation, meeting room, exercise room and hearth room as an allowed use El Deletion of office, research and development use E] Modification of the Master Development Plan to accommodate: 0 Deletion of 322,413 sq.ft, of office space Addition of 300 upscale rental units and associated recreation amenities 0 Addition of a 78 room residence/business hotel and associated recreation amenities. Modification of Resolution 49-85, as amended by Ordinance 96-87, Resolutions 80-89,132-92, 10-95, and 60-95 which comprise the Development Order for Waterford DRI. The modifications include the following: El Deletion of 322,413 sq.ft, of office space El Addition of 300 upscale rental units with associated recreation amenities El Addition of a 78 room residence/business hotel In addition, during project review, it was determined that the following conditions of approval of the Development Order also need to be addressed: El Condition #1 pertaining to information which is considered part of the ADA (Application for Development Approval) El Condition #15 pertaining to energy efficiency El Condition #19B pertaining to turn lane improvements on Linton/SW 10th Avenue El Condition #20 pertaining to special impact fee P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 2 El Condition #21A adding current ordinance relating to conditions El Condition #21B referencing date and ordinance of modified Master Development Plan [3 Condition #22B referencing traffic signal at S.W. 10th Avenue and Lindell Boulevard El Condition #22C requiring the four-laning of SW 10th Avenue The above actions are being processed concurrently with a Future Land Use Map amendment request from "Commerce" to "Medium Density and Transitional". Any action on this request is contingent on the approval of the Future Land Use Map amendment. The subject property is approximately 35 acres and is part of the 87 acre Waterford/Delint DRI bounded by 1-95 to the west, Lindell Boulevard to the north, Lindell Boulevard and Dotterel Road to the east, and Audubon Boulevard to the south. Pursuant to Section 4.4.25(C)(1), all SADs are established via an ordinance processed as a rezoning. Thus, all findings necessary for approval of a rezoning are applicable to approval of an SAD. Further, pursuant to Section 2.2.2(E), the Local Planning Agency (P & Z Board) shall review and make recommendations to the City Commission with respect to the rezoning of any property within the City. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.25(C)(1), a complete site and --~- development plan is to be processed concurrently with the rezoning-' (SAD modification) application. The applicant has submitted the Master Development Plan which the Director has determined to be sufficient for review of the SAD request. A more detailed site specific site plan will be required for review and approval by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. The process fo~ amending a DRI is contained in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, Section(19)(f)(2) which provides that" the local government shall issue an amendment to the development order incorporating the approved change and conditions of approval relating to the change." P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 3 In 1984/85, the Waterford/Delint DRI (Development of Regional Impact) and associated zoning to Special Activities District (SAD) was processed. The SAD (including use approval and a site specific development plan) was approved by Ordinance No. 79-84 in October, 1984. The subsequent DRI Development Order (DRI-DO) was approved by Resolution 49-85 on May 28, 1985. The original approval contained 811,763 sq.ft, of office space, a 250 room hotel, and 236 multi-family units; The Development Order was amended pursuant to Ordinance 96-87, Resolutions 80-89, Resolution 132-92, Resolution 10-95, and Resolution 60-95. The SAD ordinance was amended by Ordinances 96-87 (Waterford Village Apartments & basis for triggering street improvements), 68-89 (site specific site plan replaced with Master Development Plan) and 64-92 [replacement of a 250 room hotel and 489,587 sq.ft, of office space for 136,000 sq.ft, of commercial/retail (Builder Square)]. The DRI now includes the Waterford Village Apartments (236 units) and a Builders Square (136,000 sq.ft.) which are both constructed. The remaining 35 _ acres is currently approved for 322,413 sq.ft of office space (office, research and development) and denoted on an overall master plan. The entire 87 acre development has an SAD zoning district and a combination of General Commercial (Builders Square), Medium Density (Waterford Apartments) and Commerce (vacant office portion) Future Land Use Map designations. For a more detailed history of this property refer to the Future Land Use Map amendment staff report which is being processed concurrently with this request. I The current approval for the Waterford DRI/SAD encompasses 87 acres of whi~:h 19 acres are presently in water areas. The Waterford SAD/DRI has three distinct use areas. These are: El Waterford Village Apartments consisting of 236 multiple family units on 21 acres. Access is provided by a singular roadway which connects directly to Lindell Boulevard. This portion of the project is complete. There is no vehicular connection between Waterford Village and the Office Park, however, a pedestrian linkage between Waterford Village, the proposed apartment, and Builders Square is to be accommodated as part of this Master Development Plan modification. El Builders Square consisting of 136,000 sq. ft. of retail space having primary access from Waterford Place and a secondary access point to the east (office park portion ) to the intersection of S.W. 10th Avenue and P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 4 Lindell Boulevard. The building and both access points have been constructed. Office Pail< consisting of 322,413 sq.ft, of floor area for uses such as: office, research and development, and associated production use. The infrastructure (water & sewer) has been installed. A single roadway (Waterford Park Drive) which extends from approximately the intersection of S.W. 10th Avenue and Lindell Boulevard serves the park. With the exception of these infrastructure improvements the site is vacant. The proposed changes affect the office park portion of the SAD/DRI by replacing the office use with medium density residential and residence/business hotel uses. Waterford Village Apartments (236 units) - no change Builders Square (136,000 sq.ft, of retail) - no change Office Park: elimination of the entire office park use, 322,413 sq.ft, of floor area. El Multi-family apartment use: The addition of 300 upscale/luxury rental apartments on 31 acres and associated amenities. Residence/business hotel use: The addition of a 78 room hotel on 4 acres. The 78 rooms will be a combination of studios, and one and two bedroom suites. The hotel will include a gatehouse with small meeting room, exercise room and hearth room as well as an outside pool. Primary access for both new uses will be taken from this roadway which extends from the intersection of SVV 10th Avenue and Lindell Boulevard. Secondary access is maintained to Waterford Place via the Builders Square secondary access driveway. REQUIRED FINDINGS; (Chapter 3) Pursuant to Section 3.'1.t (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to the following four areas. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 5 FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The use or structures must be allowed in the zoning district and the zoning district must be consistent with the land use designation. The current City Future Land Use Map designation for the overall 87 acre Waterford DRI includes approximately 21 acres of Medium Density Residential (5-12 units per acre)', 38 of Commerce, 19 acres of Recreation and Open Space (water bodies), and 9 acres of General Commercial with the SAD (Special Activities District) zoning designation applied to the overall development. In conjunction with the SAD modification, a Future Land Use Map Amendment is being processed for the property which includes changing approximately 35 acres of Commerce to 31 acres Medium Density Residential (5-12 u/a) and 4 acres of Transitional. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.25(A) the SAD (Special Activities District) zoning is deemed consistent with any land use map designation however, the uses allowed within a specific SAD shall be consistent with the underlying land use category shown on the Future Land Use Map. The multi-family use is clearly consistent with the proposed Medium Density Future Land Use Map designation. VVith respect to the Transitional Future Land Use Map designation, the POC zoning district is consistent with that designation. Within the POC district the residence/business hotel use is allowed as a conditional use. Based upon the above, a positive finding can be made with respect to consistenCy with the land use map designations. CONCURRENCY; Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance_ of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan. - Water: Eight inch mains exist in the developed portion of the site (Waterford Village Apartments and Builders Square ) where no modifications are proposed. A 12" water main exists within the main road which extends into the 35 acre portion of the site proposed for h~odification. Hydrants also exist at the required 400' intervals along the roadway. With further development of the site additional main extensions and hydrants will be required. This item will be further addressed at the time of the full site plan submittal. There is adequate capacity at the City's Water Treatment Plant to serve the proposed multiple family and hotel developments. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 6 Sewer: The Waterford Village and Builders Square developments are currently served by 8' sewer mains. Eight inch sewer mains were installed along the existing road within the main read which extends into the 35 acre portion of the site proposed for modification. With further development of the site additional main extensions will be required. There is adequate capacity at the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant to accommodate the effluent from the proposed developments. Drainaae: The drainage system for the entire Waterford SAD/DRI, which includes retention lakes has been permitted by South Florida Water Management District and is installed. Two lakes were reconfigured to accommodate the Builders Square development and permitted accordingly. With the proposed residential and hotel developments, additional retention lakes are proposed which will required modification to the drainage permit for the overall Waterford DRI. Drainage concurrency will be accommodated through the SFWMD permitting process. There are no problems anticipated with meeting SFWMD requirements. It is noted that these new lakes will be subject to Development Order Condition #7 which requires installation and maintenance of a native upland edge vegetation around wetland and deepwater habitats. The edge habitat shall begin at the upland limit of any wetland or deepwater habitat and shall include a total area of at least 10 square feet per linear foot of wetland or deepwater habitat perimeter. This upland edge habitat shall be located such that no less than 50% of the total shoreline is buffered by a minimum width of 10' of upland habitat. In addition, the lakes will also be subject to Development Order Condition #10 which requires the establishment of a vegetated and functional littoral zone. As a minimum 10 sq.ff, of vegetated littoral zone per linear foot of lake shoreline shall be established. Streets and Tre, ffic: The original DRI approved in 1984 was vested for 10,184 daily trips. With previous modifications involving the addition of Builders Square and the reduction in office space from 811,763 sq.ft to 322,413 sq.ft the development is currently vested for 10,651 daily trips. The current proposed changes demonstrate a reduction in daily traffic of 556 daily trips and a reduction in both the total AM and PM peak hour trips of approximately 36% and 23% respectively. The decrease in overall daily, AM and PM trips is being used to rebut the statutory presumption and support a finding that the proposed change in use does not constitute a Substantial Deviation to the DRI. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 7 However, it is noted that while there is a reduction in total AM and PM peaks (AM peaks of 782 trips versus 504 trips, PM peaks of 899 trips verses 693 trips) there are directional increases in both the AM peak and PM peaks by virtue of the change of use. Traffic concurrency was addressed in detail in the FLUM amendment staff report. The reduction in total traffic generation and peak hour traffic generation indicates a reduction in the overall impact, in the proposed land use mix. Review of the directional changes indicates that the level of service of impacted roads will not be negatively impacted by the proposed change in the land use mix. Parks and Recreation: The proposed 300 units will not have a significant impact with respect to level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities. While the impacts of these potential residents were not factored into the park demands calculated on build- out projections, the City currently provides approximately 8 acres per 1,000 residents of recreation space which far exceeds the adopted standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents established in the Comprehensive Plan. With future residential development, a parks and recreation impact fee of $500 per unit will be assessed at the time of building permit. Thus, this development will be assessed an in-lieu fee of $150,000. Solid Waste; Pursuant to the Solid Waste Authority's generation rates, trash generated by the approved 322,413 sq.ft, of office use would generate approximately 870.51 tons/year. Trash generated by the proposed 300 multiple family units would generate 156 tons per year and the 25,800 sq.ft, hotel at 114.68 tons per year, for a net decrease of approximately 599.83 tons per year. Therefore,, this change has a positive impact with respect to solid waste concurrency. - CONSISTENCY: Compliance with the performance standards set forth in Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions) along with required findings in Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in the making of a finding of'overall consistency. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives and policies which relate to the SAD amendment are noted. Other applicable policies that relate to the FLUM Amendment are found in the FLUM Amendment staff report. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 8 Housing Element Ob_iective C-2 - Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile. Policies which will assure this objective include: Housing Element Policy C-2.4: Development of remaining vacant properties which are zoned for residential purposes shall be developed in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations .... The SAD modification request to convert the 35 acres of approved office use to hotel and multi-family uses enhances the property's compatibility with adjacent multifamily uses to the east and south and acts as an additional residential buffer between the intense commercial along Linton Boulevard. The issue of compatibility will be further addressed through the site specific development plan. Future Land Use Element Objective A-1 - Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complementary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. The Waterford SAD/DRI land area is altered and has been prepared for development. Thus, there are no physical considerations which would prohibit development of the property. The proposed modifications will be complimentary to adjacent multiple family residential uses to the east and south. The proposed residential development together with the existing Waterford Village apartments provide a transition ..~.. between the intensive commercial developments at the north end of the DRI and along Linton Boulevard, and the Tropic Palms single family subdivision to the south. The issue of fulfilling remaining land use needs is addressed in the Waterford summary submitted by the applicant and discussed in greater detail in the FLUM amendment staff report. In summary, the report identifies a need for rental apartments through 1999 however, given the currently approved and proposed units, the demand will be exceeded. A housing study conducted for the City by Reinhold Wolf indicated that there is a segment of the population that can afford to pay more rent than they are currently which would indicate there may be an additional market for higher end luxury apartments. Traffic Element Policy C-1.1 - Through and nonresidential traffic travel shall be limited and/or restricted in stable residential areas. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 9 Lindell Boulevard is a City collector roadway which runs through a stable residential area south of the subject property. With the SAD modification of 1992, Condition #8 of the SAD ordinance stated that "with further development of the Office Park portion of the SAD/DRI, the realignment of Lindell for the purpose of de-emphasizing it as a collector road shall be explored. An option to be considered is "T"ing Lindell into a S.W. 10th Avenue extension within the Waterford SAD/DRI". The applicant has submitted information regarding this condition in the traffic study. The report concludes that the realignment is not possible because the turning radii would not function properly. These alternatives should be submitted and discussed with the City Engineer. Further, the condition requires the submittal of plans for realignment along with other alternatives. This condition is to be addressed with submittal of the site plan. Sectiorl 3.3.2 {Standards for Rezonirlg Actions): Standards A, B and C are not applicable with respect to this rezoning request. The following is the applicable performance standard of Section 3.3.2: (D) That the rezoning shall result in allowing land uses which are deemed compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses both existing and proposed; or that if an incompatibility may occur, that sufficient regulations exist to properly mitigate adverse impacts from the new use. The portion of the property which is to be modified is bordered by the following zoning designations and uses: Direction Zoning Uses North PC & SAD Delray Crossings Shopping Center and Builders Square .-.- - West CD & A 1-95/vacant conservation tract and - vacant land South SAD, RM & R-1-A Waterford Village Apartments, Tropic Palms Subdivision & Lake Delray Apts. East RM & SAD Lake Ray Condominiums and Laver's North/The Vinings The proposed SAD/DRi modification involves the replacement of office use with a 300-unit luxury apartment complex, and a 78-room residence/business hotel. The proposed Master Development Plan layout places the hotel internal to the site adjacent to the Builders Square site while placing the residential units to the perimeter and adjacent to the abutting multi-family developments. This configuration enhances the compatibility of this parcel and provides a more compatible product than the approved SAD. Also, potential traffic impacts on the adjacent residential area will be lessened by the change from office to residential. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint Page 10 Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezonirlg Findings): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Section 3.1.1, the City Commission must make a finding that the rezoning fulfills one of the reasons for which the rezoning change is being sought. These reasons include the following: a. That the zoning had previously been changed, or was originally established, in error; b.That them has been a change in circumstances which make the current zoning inappropriate; c. That the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed under the Future Land Use Map and that it is more appropriate for the property based upon circumstances particular to the site and/or neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a justification statement which states the following: The requested change to the SAD includes both a change in circumstances and a more appropriate use of the property which result in a less intensity than allowed under the Future Land Use Map. 'The Thompson Consulting report which is referenced in the Project Information, indicates that the existing approved office development is not viable, and there is more than adequate inventory elsewhere in the City; and that there is an identifiable need for luxury apartments. Comment: Consideration of the changes to this SAD depends entirely upon the action taken on the proposed FLUM amendment. The justification statement provided by the applicant is an argument in favor of the change in allowable land "~' uses. If the FLUM amendment is approved, the existing SAD which consists-Of office uses will be inconsistent with the residential land use. Similarly, if the FLUM amendment is denied, the proposal to change the SAD to residential uses will not be consistent with the Commerce land use. Thus, the appropriate reason is "b", that there has been a change in circumstances (the FLUM amendment if approved) which make the current zoning inappropriate. Development Processing: Concurrent with processing of the SAD/DRI modification, a sketch/master plan and overall site plan modification was submitted. This master plan shows the general location of types of uses, points of access, and pedestrian walkways. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 11 The overall site plan shows the intensity, and general location of buildings, circulation, and parking. Under the current SAD approval process a specific site plan, landscape plan, and elevations are to be submitted and reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission. Further, any future modifications (i.e. addition of parking spaces, etc.) must be processed as a rezoning of the SAD requiring review by the Planning and Zoning Board and approval by the City Commission. An alternative processing is being proposed which would allow review and approval of the specific site plan, landscape, elevations, and engineering plans by the Site Plan and Review and Appearance Board. Substantial changes to an-. SAD including increases in intensity, change of uses, etc. would continue to be reviewed by both the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission, while minor changes to the plan itself would be processed as site plan modifications. Development Proposal: The master development plan depicts the proposed 300-unit upscale rental apartment complex on 31 acres. The development will include 25 12-unit apartment buildings, 2 clubhouses containing a fitness center, and 2 heated pools and spas. Additional amenities will include 2 tennis courts, a basketball court and a volleyball court. Two hundred of the 300 apartment units will have attached private garages with automatic doors and private door access. The site contains 727 parking spaces, 200 of which are garage spaces and 200 are tandem spaces behind the garages. Access is proposed from the existing spine road which was constructed for the previously approved office development. The spine road intersects with SW 10th Avenue and Lindell Boulevard. Secondary access will be provided to Waterford Place via an existing ..~ _ connection through the Builders Square parking lot. - The overall site plan also includes a 78 room residence/business-hotel use on 4 acres. The 78 rooms will be a combination of studios, one and two bedroom suites. The studios and one bedroom suites will be 500 sq.ft., while the 2 bedroom suites will be 700 sq.ft, in size. The hotel will include a gatehouse with small meeting room, exercise room and hearth room as well as an outside pool. The hearth room is de{igned to serve as a breakfast area since complimentary continental breakfast is served. This room is also used as an evening gathering room for planned social hours and serves as a group TV room. The hotel site contains 82 parking spaces with access from the existing spine road. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 12 COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGUI,ATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the ,body taking final action on the site and development application/request. A review was conducted of the overall site plan and the following comments are noted: Parking Lot Design Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c) the minimum distance between a right- of-way and the first parking space in a parking lot of 50 or more cars shall be a minimum of 50 feet. The plan depicts several parking spaces which do not maintain the setback and in some cases back directly into the central street system. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(c) the multi-family apartment development proposal is required to provide a total of 675 parking spaces. The overall site plan provides a total of 727 parking spaces, 200 of which are in garages and 200 are in tandem spaces behind the garages. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1), tandem parking is only permitted for single family homes and duplexes. The applicant will be seeking a relief pursuant to Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(g) (reduction allowed) based on the unique character of the development. If the relief is not granted redesign of the specific site plan will be required. The hotel component has provided an adequate number of regular parking spaces. Pursuant to ADA (American Disabilities Act) requirements, 1 handicap space will be provided for each required 25 spaces. A deficiency is noted for both the hotel and residential units. Provision of Ingress/Egress Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9.(D)(2)(c), parking is not allowed to back-out into an accessway/travel la'ne where the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) exceeds 200 daily trips. There are portions of the parking lots at the northeast and southwest portion of the site plan which do not meet this requirement. Pedestrian Links Traffic Element Policy D-1.1 and LDR Section 3.3.3.(B) require that all new developments shall provide for the installation of sidewalks or otherwise accommodate pedestrian traffic so that a pedestrian does not have to use P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order fOr the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 13 vehicular travelways to access common areas or neighboring properties. In addition Traffic Element Policy D-1.2 requires that the provision of a pedestrian system apart from the street as well as within public right-of-way systems shall be explored with the review of each development plan. Specific focus shall be given to access to waterways, to parks, between residential developments, and along access routes to schools including such systems through developments. The overall site plan prov. ides for a pedestrian link through the site from the existing Waterford Village Apartments to Builders Square. Pursuant to the above policies and LDR section additional sidewalks will be required on each side of the spine read, between the cul-de-sacs (northeast corner), around the lake and to the recreation parcels. Tot Lots Open Space and Recreation Element Policy A-3.3 requires that tot lots and recreational areas be features of all new housing developments which utilize any of the City's PRD zone districts or which have homeowner associations which must care for retention areas, private streets or common areas. While the overall site plan does indicate two recreation areas, tot lots have not been provided. Although the property is not zoned PRD (Planned Residential Development), it is a planned developed governed by a master development plan. Further, if conventional zoning were to be applied to the property, it would be developed under the RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning designation which also requires that tot lots be provided [ref. LDR Section 4.4.6(H)(3)]. There are open areas throughout the site where tot lots can be easily accommodated. In order to fulfill this Comprehensive Plan Policy as well as the LDR require_merit, tot lot locations as well as the type of playground equipment must be .-.~ - provided. - Florida Statutes Governing Modification to Develo_Dment of Regional Impacts (DRIs): Processing of a chang~ to a DRI is governed by Chapter 380.06(19), F.S. in which a determination as to whether the proposed change constitutes a substantial deviation to the previously approved DRI must be made. This change consists of simultaneous increases and decreases of at least two of the uses within the multi-use development, and is therefore governed by Chapter 380.06(19)(e)5c, F.S. Pursuant to the Statute, the proposed change is presumed to create a substantial deviation, but such presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 14 The City must consider whether the proposed change is or is not a substantial deviation, requiring further Development of Regional Impact Review. Both Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and the Florida Department 'of Community Affairs (DCA) have been notified of this public hearing and invited to attend and provide input. The developer asserts that the proposed change is not substantial since the major regional issue - traffic - is reduced by the change from office to residential and residence/business hotel uses. This assertion is sustained by the traffic analysis submitted with the Notification of Proposed Change, which shows a 556 daily trip reduction and AM and PM peak hour reduction with the proposed development. The proposed change will have no adverse impacts on other regional issues, such as air quality, drainage, water supply, and wastewater. Based upon the assertions, staff concurs with the developer that the proposal does not constitute a substantial deviation to the DRI. The City Commission will consider the Substantial Deviation issue concurrently with the FLUM amendment, and SAD, Development Order and Master Development Plan modifications. DRI Development Order: There are two aspects of the Waterford SAD/DRI which are to be analyzed. This includes the Modification to the SAD, which was previously discussed and the Waterford DRI Development Order. The following are the conditions of the development that require specific actions or changes with regard to the DRI modification. Condition #1 Application for Development Approval: This condition r_elates the contents of the application for development approval and currently includes the ADA submitted December 17,1987, supplementary information submitted February 4, 1985, October 8,1987, and the Conceptual Master Development Plan as approved by City Commission on December t6, t 992. The condition needs to be amended to add the applicable approval date of the accompanying Master Development Plan. Condition #15 Energy~ This condition requires that with final site plans, the developer shall incorporate those energy conservation measures identified on pages 25-4 and 25-5 of the Delint Center Application for Development Approval, and, to the extent feasible, measures identified in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Regional Energy Plan, dated May 1979. These energy conservation measures were to include: P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 15 A. Extensive landscaping to shade open areas throughout the site and increase shading to individual buildings. Landscaping would reduce air temperatures and reduce the demand for air conditioning. B. Underground parking for office buildings to reduce exposed, paved areas, therefore generating less heat. C. Utilization of mirrored glass in office building facades to reduce air conditioning load and lighting demands. D. Energy efficient insulation on office buildings. E. Inclusion of recessed glass surfaces in hotel rooms and residential units. F. Installation of air conditioning in individual hotel rooms. G. Placing common areas of the hotel on a zone system to cool areas when need is greater. H. A waste recovery system for hot water heating in the hotel. _ With the proposed modifications to replace the office buildings with apartments and a residence/business hotel, the specific items which relate to the office buildings will no longer be relevant (B, C & D). Condition #19 Transportation Improvements: This condition relates to improvements which are to be provided when the daily traffic from this project exceed 10,935 daily trips. These improvements include .,ty~_ items which have not been completed. These include: A. The construction of a second eastbound right-turn lane on Linton Boulevard at its intersection with Southwest 10th Avenue. (It is noted the pavement for this improvement has been installed and is currently striped out.) B. The construction of a second westbound left-turn lane on Linton Boulevard at its intersection with Southwest 10th Avenue. (It is noted the pavement for this improvement has been installed and is currently striped out.) C. The construction of a second northbound right-turn lane on Southwest 10th Avenue at its intersection with Linton Boulevard. As the project will be built out with the completion of the apartments and hotel it appears appropriate to determine the status of each of these remaining improvements. The improvements should either be constructed -- P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 16 (including appropriate striping), bonded or eliminated. The City's traffic consultant is reviewing each of the improvements and a recommendation on each will be provided to the City Commission. Condition #20 Transportation special impact fee: The developer shall contribute an additional fifty cents per square foot for all office and industrial buildings to be paid to the City of Delray Beach at the time of issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. The funds shall be placed into a Roadway Trust Fund by the City, and transmitted to Palm Beach County upon establishment by the County of a special purpose impact fee for the creation of additional interchange capacity for Interstate 95 within the project's area of impact. Should Palm Beach County decide not to establish such an impact fee, the funds shall be used by the City for roadway improvements within the impact area. The County has not created such an impact fee. Since the equivalent of 322,413 sq.ft, of office space is being converted to residential and hotel space, the corresponding fee ($.50 /sq.ft.) should be assessed to this modification. This process was followed with the previous change from office to retail for Builders Square and a payment of $212,000 made to offset the costs of constructing S.W. 10th Avenue north of Lindell Boulevard. The current proposal equates to $161,206 or $94.83 per daily office trip (322,413/3,400 trips). As the modification proposal represents a reduction of 556 trips it appears reasonable to reduce the fee accordingly as the impacts are reduced. The corresponding fee reduction would be $52,725 (556 x $94.83). Thus, the amount of $108,481 is to be paid to the City, to be used for future roadway improvements. Local Issues Condition #21A Approving Ordinances: This condition references the SAD ordinance which is in effect for the project. A modification referencing the new SAD ordinance will be required. Condition #2'lB A.oproving Ordinances and Master Plans: This condition references the approval date of the Master Development Plan and the related SAD ordinanc6. A modification referencing the new Master Development Plan and SAD ordinance will be required. Condition #22B: Within three months of the date of issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the General Retail use, an analysis of the intersection of SW 10th Avenue/Lindell Boulevard shall be submitted which shall determine if a traffic signal at the intersection is warranted. If warranted, P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 17 the signal shall be installed by the developer within three months of a directive by the City of Delray Beach. If not warranted, the requirement for an intersection analysis shall become a requirement of the annual report by the developer. If and when the intersection analyses show that a traffic signal is warranted, the signal shall be installed by the developer within three months of a directive by the City of Delray Beach. [Res. #10-95] The applicant submitted an analysis of this intersection with the last annual report, with the conclusion that a traffic signal is not warranted at this time. Buildout of this development will further impact this intersection. The 2,406 additional daily trips have not been previously reviewed, therefore an additional analysis should be undertaken to account for this impact and submitted with the site plan. It is recommended that this condition be modified to require that the additional analysis to be submitted with the site plan, and that the traffic signal be bonded prior to issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy of the hotel or apartment units. If after one year of issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy the signal is not warranted, then the bond would be released. Condition #22C: An intersection analysis of the intersection of SW 10th AvenuelLindell Boulevard and capacity determination for SW 10th Avenue shall be submitted with each site plan for further development in the Waterford Place DRI. Based upon such analyses and when so determined by the City, the developer shall improve the intersection and shall complete the four-lane section of SW 10th Avenue between Linton Boulevard and Lindell Boulevard. [Res. #10-95] The applicant has submitted a traffic report which analyze~ the --~ intersection and indicates the intersection operates at an acceptable level. The study also identifies current daily peak season traffic volumes on S.W. 10th Avenue of 11,800 trips and average daily traffic ~3f 10,620 trips per day. With development of the hotel and apartments plus natural growth (1% per year) the total of 13,233 average daily and 14,703 peak season trips will be present on the roadway at buildout in 1997. The capacity for a two lane road is 13,400 vehicles per day. As this roadway will be operating at a level of service E during peak season at buildout of this project, and the four-laning of the roadway is a condition of this DRI the improvement should be installed with this SAD modification. Further, given the current background rate the average daily traffic (not peak season) will exceed the level of service D by 1999. Given the above, it is recommended that Condition #22C be modified to require the four-laning of S.W. 10th Avenue with issuance of building permits for the development of the apartments and hotel. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order 'for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 18 Condition #22D: The developer shall submit plans to de-emphasize Lindell Boulevard as a collector road with any site plan for further development of the Waterford Place DRI, Such plans shall address, among other alternatives, the realignment of Lindell Boulevard into the Waterford Place Office Park. Designs to so de-emphasize traffic use on Lindell Boulevard may be required through site plan conditions. [Res. #10-95] The applicant has not submitted plans which address the de-emphasis of Lindell Boulevard with the master development plan. The applicant does address the issue in the accompanying traffic report. Within the report the applicant indicates that the realignment of Lindell was considered but the geometrics of the alignment would be such that it is not practical. Further, there are existing lakes which would have to be relocated to accomplish the realignment. It is recommended the applicant submit the above mentioned plans as required in this condition for review by the City Engineer for acceptable geometrics. The fact that the small lakes would have to be relocated or reconfigured is of little consequence as this SAD modification as well as previous one both involve either creation or reconfiguration of water bodies. The condition further references the realignment as one alternative which is to be explored. With the submittal of the site specific plan for this SAD modification, the reconfiguration as well as other alternatives are to be submitted. The SAD/DRI modification is not in a geographic area requiring review by the --;- CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), DDA (Downtown Development Authority) or the HPB (Historic Preservation Board). Site Plan Review and Ap_oearance Board If the SAD/DRI modification and the recommended processing modification language is approved, the associated site plan action will rest with the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB). The plans must be generally consistent with and accommodate the components of the approved master plan. Palm Beach County_ Planning Division The Palm Beach County Planning Division was notified of the FLUM amendment and SAD/DRI modification. To date, a response has not been received. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 19 Public and Courtesy Notices Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property. In addition, Courtesy. notices were provided to the following: El Palm Beach County Planning El Laver's North El City of Boca Raton . [3 Southddge Homeowner's Association El Helen Coopersmith (PROD) El The Crosswinds El Tropic Palms El Lillian Feldman, Delray Property Owners El Town and Country El Palms of Delray El Lake Delray Apartments Letters of objection, if any, will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. If the Future Land Use Map amendments are approved, the SAD Ordinance and associated Master Development Plan as well as the DRI Development Order must be modified accordingly in order to obtain Consistency. Likewise, if the FLUM amendment is not approved, action on the SAD and DO Modifications becomes moot. With this proposal the office component is being replaced with a 300 unit luxury apartment complex and a 78 unit residence/business hotel development. Therefore, the SAD Ordinance and DO modifications involve deletions, additions and modifications to their respective documents which include conditions of approval. There are a number of items that have been discussed through(~ut the staff report which must be addressed as conditions of approval. The most significant of these relates to the signalization of the Lindell/S.W. 10th Avenbe intersection, four-laning of S.W. 10th Avenue and the redesign of the Lindell/10th Avenue intersection in order to de-emphasize Lindell Boulevard' as a collector roadway. Many of the other items relate to the site specific development and will need to be addressed at the time of full site plan review. It is noted, however, th. at the hotel and apartment complex are proposed as a single phase which will be built concurrently. To eliminate the potential of a future change (i.e. later request to delete the hotel), the Board may recommend as a condition of the SAD approval that construction commence on the hotel site prior to issuance of the apartment building permits. A. Continue with direction. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 20 B. Recommend approval of the modification to the SAD/DRI for Waterford//Delint and Development Order based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to conditions. C. Recommend denial of the modification to the SAD/DRI for Waterford/Delint and Development Order of the based upon a failure to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) the modification fails to fulfill at least one of the reasons listed. By Separate Motions: SADIDRI and Associated Master Development Plan Modification Recommend to the City Commission approval of the modification to the SAD/DRI and associated Master Development Plan for Waterford/Delint based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Required Findings) and Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: A. Modifications of Ordinance 79-84, as amended by Ordinances 96-87, 68-89, 64-92 which comprise the SAD Zoning Ordinance for Waterford/Delint DRI, and incorporates the following components: El Addition of Multi-family use and ancillary recreational facilities as an allowed use El Addition of a residence/business hotel with ancillary recreation, m~eting room, exercise room and hearth room as an allowed use El Deletion of office, research and development use I;3 Modification of the Master Development Plan to accommodate: Deletion of 322,413 sq.ft, of office space 0 Addition of 300 upscale rental units and associated recreation amenities <) Addition of .a 78 room residence/business hotel and associated recreation amenities. B. That with development of the apartment complex and residence/business hotel site, the realignment of Lindell for the purpose of de-emphasizing it as a collector road shall be explored. An option to be considered is "T"ing Lindell into a S.W. 10th Avenue extension within the Waterford SAD/DRI. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order 'for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 21 C. That construction commence on the hotel site prior to issuance of the apartment complex building permits. D. That a full site plan application be submitted and reviewed by SPRAB which includes addressing the following items: 1. The handicap accessibility be provided in compliance with ADA requirements. 2. That the issues with regard to parking i.e. parking reduction, tandem parking, and back-out parking, be addressed with_ the.full site plan submittal for the apartment complex. 3. That additional sidewalks be required on each side of the spine road, between the cul-de-sacs (northeast corner), around the lake and to the recreation parcels. 4. That tot lot locations as well as the type of playground equipment must be provided on the plans. Development Order Modification: Recommend to the City Commission approval of the Development Order modification for the VVaterford/Delint SAD/DRI with the following conditions: A. Modification of Resolution 49-85, as amended by Ordinance 96-87, Resolutions 80-89,132-92, 10-95, and 60-95 which comprise the Development Order for Waterford DRI. The modifications include the following: El Deletion of 322,413 sq.ft, of office space -~ El Addition of 300 upscale rental units with associated recreation amenities El Addition of a 78 room residence/business hotel B. That Condition #1 be amended to add the applicable approval date of the accompanying Master Development Plan. C. That the City's traffic consultant make a determination with respect to Condition #19 (lane improvements). D. That the approved ordinances be modified and references made to the new SAD Ordinance and Master Plan Modification where applicable in order to comply with Conditions #21A and #21B. E. That Condition #22B be modified to require that additional analysis for the Lindell/S.W. lOth Avenue intersection be submitted with the site plan, and . P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance and Development Order for the Waterford/Delint DRI Page 22 that the traffic signal be bonded prior to issuance of the last CO of the hotel or apartment units. F. That Condition #22C be modified to require the four-laning of S.W. 10th Avenue with issuance of building permits for the development of the apartments and hotel. Attachments: Location Map Master Development Plan Overall Site Plan LIN TON PLAZA 9 ciRCUi T ROSS CIRCLE CITY LAKEVlEW APARTMENTS TARGET SQUARE D--CLRA Y 2J. UB N WATERFORD/DELINT D.R.I. ] PLANNING OEPARTMENT ~ PORRON OF' O.R.I. IMPACTED eY ~ REMAININ(~ PORTION Or CITY 0~' OI~LRAY IBEACH. FL ~ LAND USE MODIFICATION I"~.'~ WA"I'/RFORO/OELINT D.R.I. -- D~GIrAL 8.45E ~44P SyS,r£~ -- MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM CITY MANAGER ~o~,~! SUBJECT: ASENDA ITEM # MEETINS OF FEBRUARY 6,,1996 ORDINANCE NO. 9-96 DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1996 This is first reading for Ordinance No. 9-96 rezoning a 0.91 acre vacant, unplatted parcel of land from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District-Railroad Corridor). The subject property is located at the southeast corner of S.E. 1st Avenue and unimproved S.E. 6th Street immediately west of the F.E.C. Railway. At its public hearing of January 22, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board received no public testimony, and the Board voted 6-0 to recommend the rezoning be approved, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the LDRs, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and LDR Section 2.4.5 (D) (5). I have reservations about this rezoning proposal. When you look at the zoning map for the surrounding area, you will see that this property is surrounded on the south and west by Medium Density Residential zoning (RM), to the east across the railroad is R-1-A Single Family Residential zoning. All of these parcels to the east and west are developed in residential use. On the north the subject parcel does border CBD Railroad Corridor zoning which is developed for commercial purposes. However, the subject property could easily be separated from the commercial develop- ment to the north and take access off Swinton by paving Southeast 6th Street. I realize that some would argue that this property is not suitable for residential use because of its proximity to the railroad. I can only point out the numerous examples of residential development up and down the FEC right-of-way in Delray Beach, Boynton Beach, and Boca Raton. In my opinion, this proposed rezoning would constitute a commercial intrusion into a residential area and should not be approved. Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 9-96 on first reading in order to afford due process to the applicant. If passed, a quasi-judicial/public hearing will be February 20, 1996. ORDINANCE NO. 9-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT IN THE CBD-RC (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT- RAILROAD CORRIDOR); SAID LAND BEING LOT 5, PLAT OF ANDERSON BLOCK, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF S.E. 1ST AVENUE AND UNIMPROVED S.E. 6TH STREET; AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1994"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the property hereinafter described is shown on the Zoning District Map of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, as being zoned RM (Medium Density Residential) District; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of January 22, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Delray Beach, as Local Planning Agency, considered this item at public hearing and voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the rezoning, based upon positive findings; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the Zoning District Map of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, be amended to reflect the revised zoning classification. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: $~ction 1. That the Zoning District Map of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, be, and the same is hereby amended to reflect a zoning classification of CBD-RC (Central Business District-Railroad Corridor) for the following described property: Lot 5, PLAT OF ANDERSON BLOCK, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 45, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of S.E. 1st Avenue and unimproved S.E. 6th Street, west of the F.E.C. Railway; containing 0.91 acres, more or less. Section 2. That the Planning Director of said City shall, upon the effective date of this ordinance, amend the Zoning Map of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to conform with the provisions of Section ! hereof. Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 1996. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading - 2 - Ord. No. 9-96 S,W. ST. S,£. I I s.w. ! ~TH $.E. 5114 ST. S.E. 6TH S.W. 6TH STR. WA T£R · I TREATMENT PLAN T S.W. ST. $1. CT, S.W. 10TH STREET :. N ~ REZONING PLANNING DEPARTMENT OTY DE DELRAY BEACH. FL CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION TO: D~AVID T. HARD/EN, CITY MANAGER THRU: DIANE DOMINGOEZ, DIREOiTOR } DEPAR'r, MF_~, OF PLANNING AND ZONING FROM: -- ,~E,,F~?:~E~ Y A. COSTELLO /SEItlI~R PLANNER SUBJECT: MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, '1996 REZONING FROM RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO CBD-RC (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT - RAILROAD CORRIDOR) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF S.E. 1ST AVENUE AND UNIMPROVED S.E. 6TH STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE F.E.C. RAILROAD. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is that of apDroval on first reading of an ordinance rezoning a 0.91 acre parcel from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBDoRC (Central Business District - Railroad Corridor). The subject property is located at the southeast corner of S.E. 1st Avenue and unimproved S.E. 6th Street, immediately west of the F.E.C. Railroad. BACKGROUND: The subject property is an unplatted parcel of land which is currently vacant and consists of 0.91 acres. The development proposal is to rezone the property from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District - Railroad Corridor). If the rezoning is approved, it is anticipated that a development proposal will be submitted to construct a light industrial type development. Additional background and an analysis of the request is found in the attached Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report. City Commission Documentation Meeting of February 26, 1996 Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC for the Charles Lee Property Page 2 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION: At its meeting of January 22, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing in conjunction with review of the request. There was no public testimony regarding the request. After reviewing the staff report, the Board voted 6-0 (Schmidt absent) to recommend that the rezoning request be approved, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and LDR Sections 2.4.5(D)(5). RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion, approve on first reading the ordinance for the rezoning from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District - Railroad Corridor), and setting a public hearing date of February 20, 1996. Attachments: [] P & Z Staff Report and Documentation of January 22, 1996 [] Ordinance by Others S:IPLANNINGIDOCUMENT/REPORTSICCREZLEE.DOC PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: January 22, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: V.A. ITEM: Rezoning from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District-Railroad Corridor) for a Parcel of Land Located on the Southeast Corner of S.E. 1st Avenue and Unimproved S.E. 6th Street, West of the F.E.C. Railway. GENE~L DATA: Owner/Applicant ................................. Charles E. Lee Location .............................................. Southeast Corner of S.E. 1st Avenue and Unimproved S.E. 6th Street, West of the F.E.C. Railway. Property Size ............ : ......................... 0.91 Acres Future Land Use Map ......................... Redevelopment Area #5 Current Zoning .................................... RM (Medium Density Residential) Proposed Zoning ................................ CBD-RC (Central Business Distdct - Railroad Corridor) Adjacent Zoning ........................ North: CBD-RC and RM East: R-I-A (Single Family Residential) South: RM West: RM Existing Land Use .............................. Vacant land. Proposed Land Use ............................ Rezoning from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District - Railroad Corridor) to accommodate a light industrial development Water Service ..................................... Available to the site via a service lateral connection to an existing 16" water main located along the north side of the property within the unimproved S.E. 6th Street right-of-way. Sewer Service .................................... Available via a main extension and connection to the existing sewer main within South Swinton Avenue, approximately 180 feet west of the property. V.A The action before the Board is that of making a recommendation on a rezoning from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District - Railroad Corridor) for the Charles Lee Property, pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D). The subject property is located at the southeast corner of S.E. 1st Avenue (if extended) and S.E. 6th Street (unimproved), approximately 650 feet south of S.E. 4th Street, and contains 0.91 acres. Pursuant to Section 2.2.2(E), the Local Planning Agency (P & Z Board) shall review and make recommendations to the City Commission with respect to the rezoning of any property within the City. The subject property is a vacant parcel of land consisting of Lot 5, Anderson Block and containing 0.91 acres. City records do not indicate any land use activity on the subject property. On May 16, 1995, the City Commission approved on second reading an ordinance (Ordinance No. 22-95) creating the CBD-RC (Central Business District - Railroad Corridor) zoning district, and thus, amending the LDRs. The zoning district was created pursuant to Land Use Element Policy A-5.14 of the Comprehensive Plan to facilitate the establishment of industrial and commerce areas as envisioned in the "Village Center" scenario. The zoning district was to be applied to those areas in the downtown which have been traditionally developed for light industrial uses. At its meeting of June 20, 1995, the City Commission approved rezonings to CBD-RC for various properties along the F.E.C. railroad corridor (Ordinance No. 32-95). During the public hearings, the owner of the subject pr(~perty, Charles Lee, inquired with respect to adding his property into the CBD-RC, as he wanted to develop the property as light industrial and could not develop it as residential since the property abuts the railroad tracks. Due to the notification requirements, the property could not be included in the rezoning. The property owner was informed that he could submit a rezoning application, and that the LI (Light Industrial) zone district should be considered rather than CBD-RC, as the LI zone district development standards are more restrictive and the potential uses are somewhat limited. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.4 where industrial zoning is adjacent to residential zoning, the building setback requirements must be increased to 50 and 60 feet depending on certain circumstances. Due to the P & Z Board Staff Report Charles Lee Property o Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC Page 2 narrowness of the property and its location, the property would be undeyelopable unless a variance is granted. As a property cannot be rezoned with a condition i.e. obtaining a variance, the property could not be rezoned to LI. The CBD-RC is a mixed use zoning district that was intended to be applied to the central downtown core. As this area includes a mix of residential and commercial uses, the special setback requirements for industrial zoning would not apply. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to CBD~RC. The development proposal is to rezone a 0.91 acre parcel of land from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District - Railroad Corridor). If the rezoning is approved, it is anticipated that a development proposal will be submitted to construct a light industrial type development. REQUIRED FINDINGS: (Chapter 3) Pursuant to Section 3.1.'1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to the following four areas. Future Land Use Map: The use or structures must be allowed in the zoning district and the zoning district must be consistent with the land use designation. The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of Redevelopment Area #5 (Osceola Park) and is zoned RM (Medium Density Residential). The proposal is to rezone the property to CBD-RC Central Business District - Railroad Corridor). Unlike other land use designations, there are no zoning classifications that are automatically consistent with a Redevelopment Area designation. This rezoning petition is being processed pursuant to the "case-by- case" option more fully described in Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the above, a positive finding can be made with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map. Concurrency: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate P & Z Board Staff Report Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC Page 3 of Occupancy, These facilities shall be provided pursuant to !evels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan. Water & Sewer: Water service is available to the site via a service lateral connection to an existing 16" water main located along the north side of the property within the unimproved S.E. 6th Street right-of-way. 1:3 Currently, there is insufficient fire suppression to properly serve this site and the immediate area. Therefore, with development of the property installation of a fire hydrant will be required. r3 Sewer service is available via a main extension and connection to the existing sewer main within South Swinton Avenue, approximately 180 feet west of the property. With future development any main extensions and/or upgrades will be the responsibility of the developer and will be addressed with a full site plan submittal. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build-out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to this level of service standard. Drainage: With rezoning requests drainage plans are not required, however, they are required with a full site plan submittal. As the property is currently vacant, there are no problems anticipated with the ability of future development retaining drainage on-site and complying with Lake Worth Drainage District and South Florida Water Management District standards. Traffic: With a rezoning the maximum development under the existing and proposed zoning designation is assessed. Under the current RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning designation, the maximum development potential would be a 10-unit multiple family development generating 70 average daily trips. With development under the proposed CBD-RC (Central Business District - Railroad Corridor) zoning designation, the maximum development potential would be a 9,909 sq.ft, commercial building generating 1,666 average daily trips. This would result in a net increase of 1,596 average daily trips. However, the development proposal is to construct a light industrial project which would generate a maximum of 72 average daily trips for a net increase of 2 vehicular trips. Traffic P & Z Board Staff Report Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC Page 4 concurrency with respect to individual site development proposals_must be addressed with review of a specific site development plan. However, it is noted that there is adequate capacity on the surrounding roadway network to accommodate the traffic from any of the above development scenarios. Parks and Recreation: The rezoning from RM to CBD-RC will decrease any additional demand on the City's park facilities, as parks and recreation dedication requirements do not apply to the nonresidential uses. Thus, there will be no impact on this level of service standard. Solid Waste: Trash generated each year by the proposed industrial use would be equal to or slightly greater than trash generated from a multiple family development. Thus, development of this property under the CBD-RC zone district should not create an adverse impact on this level of service standard. Consistency: Compliance with the performance standards set forth in Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions) along with required findings in Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in the making of a finding of overall consistency. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives and policies were found. Redevelo_~ment Areas - The Redevelopment Area designation is applied to those areas which have been identified in the Land Use Ele .ment as being in need of redevelopment. Development shall occur pursuant to a specific "redevelopment plan" which is to be prepared pursuant to Objective C-2 of the Land Use Element. If a development proposal is presented to the City prior to the creation and adoption of a redevelopment plan, that proposal shall be handled in one of the following ways: E3 the application shall be placed on hold for not more than six (6) months while the redevelopment plan is prepared; I~ the application shall be processed on a case by case basis with the existing zoning map, the Land Use Element, and the Housing element P & Z Board Staff Report Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC Page 5 providing the Local Planning Agency with the policy guidance needed to properly dispose of the application. The description of the Osceola Park Redevelopment Area (#5) in the Comprehensive Plan is as follows: Lend Use Element Policy C-2.9 - The Osceola Park Redevelopment Area (Redevelopment Area #5) is bounded by S.E. 2nd Street, Federal Highway (S.E. Sth Avenue), S.E. 5th Street, and Swinton Avenue. This area which has industrial uses with inadequate parking to the west, commercial uses on the east, 'and a mixed residential area which has turned mainly into renter occupied units is also encompassed by wellfield protection zones. The primary focus of this redevelopment plan shall be to arrest deterioration, provide adequate parking and services for the existing industrial and commercial areas, and accommodate housing which is compatible with the other uses. The proposal involves a narrow parcel of land that has remained vacant for many years and is located adjacent to the F.E.C. railroad. Development of the property for residential purposes may not be appropriate or realistic with the existing industrial uses to the north and the abutting F.E.C. Railroad. Any new development will be required to comply with the Land Development Regulations, thus, adequate parking and landscaping will be provided. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to consider the proposal on its own merits, as permitted in the "case by case" option under the policies for Redevelopment Areas in the Comprehensive Plan. Under the Planning Department Work Program, the Osceola Park Redevelopment Plan is scheduled to be completed in the late 1996. As an alternatige, the Board could postpone action on this item and accelerate the schedule for the redevelopment plan. This would require reprioritizing redevelopment plans and thus, shift the North Federal Highway Redevelopment Plan to late 1996. Conservation Policy A-1,1: The practice of monitoring-groundwater conditions through installation of monitoring wells shall be continued. In addition, monitoring wells are to be installed for non-residential land uses which locate within zone 3 around the series 20 and eastern wellfields. Provisions shall be made for data from these private monitoring wells to be used in the City's on-going monitoring efforts. Pursuant to the Wellfield Zone Protection Map, the subject property is located within zones 2 and 3. The County Wellfield Protection Ordinance, administered by the Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), determines whether or not monitoring wells are required for any property. An P & Z Board Staff Report Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC Page 6 affidavit of notification is required to be transmitted to DERM which identifies the materials that are stored on the site or utilized in the processing aspect of the facility. This must be provided at the time of site plan submittal. This policy also addresses LDR Section 3.3.4(A), which requires assurance that provisions of the County Wellfield Protection Ordinance shall be complied with. Land Use Element Objective A-I - Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate and complies in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. The property has been disturbed and there are no physical conditions that would prevent development of the property. With regard to compatibility, the CBD-RC zoning classification allows primarily nonintensive light industrial uses. There are also special boundary requirements between the commercial and residential zoning to mitigate any potential impacts. The property can be developed under the CBD-RC zoning in a manner that would be complementary to the adjacent residential developments. The proposed zoning fulfills a remaining land use need of industrial development to provide additional employment as well as increase the City's tax base. Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions): Standards A, B and C are not applicable with respect to this rezoning request. The following is the applicable performance standard of Section 3.3.2: (D) That the rezoning shall result in allowing land uses which are deemed compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses both existing and proposed; or that if an incompatibility may occur, that sufficient regulations exist to properly mitigate adverse impacts from the new use. Properties to the north are zoned CBD-RC (Central Business District - Railroad Corridor) and RM; to the south and west are zoned RM; and, to the east, across the F.E.C. Railroad is zoned R-1-A (Single Family Residential). The land uses adjacent to the property include the following: north of the property is an industrial development, a multiple family development and Griffin Gate duplex development; west are 4 single family homes; south is vacant land; and, east is the Osceola Park subdivision consisting primarily of single family homes. Compatibility with the residences to the west and east, across the F.E.C. Railroad, is not a major concern. There are existing regulations in place to mitigate impacts with the residences such as trees every 25 feet with a continuous hedge or 6' high masonry wall adjacent to the residences. P & Z Board Staff Report Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC Page 7 Further, where commercial zoning abuts residential prop.erty, the proposed building must be set back 10 feet from the residentially zoned property [ref. LDR Section 4.6.4(A)(2)]. The hours of operation is not a major concern as most businesses normally operate between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Access to the site will be taken from S.E. 1st Avenue which is improved and serves the adjacent light industrial development on the east side of 1st Avenue and the duplex development on the west side. Thus, the potentia. I traffic would not be traveling through a residential street. While access could be obtained utilizing S.E. 6th Street, the street is unimproved and runs between two residential developments to the west of the subject site. It would be inappropriate to improve the road to accommodate industrial or commercial uses. S.E. 6th Street is not scheduled to be improved in the 5-year Capital Improvement Program, nor is anticipated that it ever will. Within this immediate area, abandoning unimproved rights-of-way and aggregation of land is encouraged to obtain additional site area and accommodate a larger well-planned development. In light of the above, the applicant may want to consider abandoning the 6th Street right-of-way as well as the alley right-of-way along the west side of the property. Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Section 3.1.1, the City Commission must make a finding that the rezoning fulfills one of the reasons for which the rezoning change is being sought. These reasons include the following: a. That the zoning had previously been changed, or was originally established, in error; b. That there has been a change in circumstances which make the current zoning inappropriate; c. That the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed under the Future Land Use Map and that it is more appropriate for the property based upon circumstances particular to the site and/or neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a justification statement which states the following: The subject property is has been vacant for many years. Development of the property under the existing RM zoning designation for residential purposes seems unrealistic as the property is a long narrow parcel of land P & Z Board Staff Report Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC Page 8 which abuts the F.E.C. Railroad to the east and indust~al to the north. The requested zoning is of similar intensity as other existing industrial and commercial uses which exist along the F.E.C. railroad, within the Osceola Park Redevelopment Area, and is more approprfate based upon the above stated circumstances. Comment: Item "c" is the basis for which the rezoning should be granted. The rezoning to CBD-RC is more appropriate given the narrowness of the property and its proximity to the F.E.C. Railroad and the industrial developments to the north. Rezoning of the property to CBD-RC will enable development in a manner that will be compatible with the adjacent residences as well as an asset to the surrounding area. Development of this parcel will be an inducement the area ...... and may encourage redevelopment and development of surrounding properties. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to rezone the property to CBD-RC (Central Business District- Railroad Corridor). The rezoning is not in a geographic area requiring review by the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) or the HPB (Historic Preservation Board). Community Redevelopment Agency At its meeting of January 11, 1995, the CRA reviewed and recommended approval of the rezoning from RM to CBD-RC. Site Plan Review and Appearance Board If the rezoning is approved, it anticipated that a site plan submittal will follow which requires action by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. Public and Courtesy Notices: Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property. In addition, Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowner's and neighborhood associations: El Osceola Park Homeowners Association El Old School Square Homeowners Association Letters of objection and support, if any, will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. P & Z Board Staff Report Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC Page 9 The rezoning from RM to CBD-RC is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations. Also, positive findings can be made with respect to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings), that the CBD-RC is more appropriate given the circumstances particular to the site. Development of the property under the RM zoning may be unrealistic. The CBD-RC zoning appears to be more appropriate given the narrowness of the property and its proximity to the F.E.C. Railroad and the industrial developments to the north. The property can be development in a manner that will be an inducement to the area and may encourage redevelopment and development of surrounding properties. A. Continue with direction. B. Recommend approval of the rezoning request from RM to CBD-RC based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. C. Recommend denial of the rezoning request from RM to CBD-RC based upon a failure to make a positive finding with respect to Chapter 3.3.2 (Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations, and that pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5) the rezoning fails to fulfill at least one of the reasons listed. Recommend to the City Commission approval of the rezoning from RM to CBD- RC for the Charles Lee Property based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: r~ Location/Zoning Map I~ Survey This Staff Report prepared by: Jeff Costello, Senior Planner [:lTV DF DELR CITY'ATTORNEY'S OFFiC; Writer's Direct Line: (407) 243-7091 DFLRAy BEACH Ali.America City , / TO: City Commission FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney EOO~a~' b ,v"r ' SUBJECT: Qualifications for General Employee Pension The City has routinely only permitted employees to be eligible to participate in the General Employee Pension Fund if they are regular full-time employees. The City has in its Personnel Policies a reference to regular full-time employees, as those employees with a schedule of regular, full-time working hours of forty hours a week. The City's past practice, is to permit employees who are scheduled to work forty hours per week to enter the plan. The City's past practice has not listed as eligible participants in the plan, employees who are regularly scheduled to work less than forty hours per week. The City's ordinance, however, contains language which appears to conflict with the City's past practice. The ordinance before you for consideration attempts to clarify the pension ordinance in a manner to conform to the City's past practice. By copy of this memorandum to David Harden, City Manager, our office requests that this ordinance be placed on the February 6, 1996 agenda for f'u'st reading and February 20, 1996 for second reading. cc: David Harden, City Manager Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk Joe Safford, Director of Finance General Employee Pension Board Members Attachment / ~. ~ ORDll~ANC~ NO. 1 2-96 AN ORDINANC~ OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF TH~ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 35, "EMPLOYEE POLICIES AND BENEFITS", "RETI~ PLAN", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (D) , "~MPLOYEE", OF SECTION 35. 089, "DEFINITIONS"; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, T~m. REFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF D~LRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Subsectio~ (~), "Employee", of Section 35.089, "Definitions", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows; Section ~.089 DEFINITIONS. (D) "~mployee" means any regular full-time employee of the city, except as otherwise provided herein. The term "employee" shall not include: City Commissioners; the City Manager (and assistants); the City Attorney (and assistants); department heads upon their written election not to participate in the plan; former department heads who have elected not to participate in the plan; any person not classified by full-time emDlo¥~ cr~l~ya~ = a tcm~cr~ ~-~-~ ~r for - :-- =~C -~ --. ..y calc~nr ~.a., any participant who retires and receives early or normal retirement benefits under the plan, is subsequently re-employed by the City, and elects to continue receiving retirement income during the period of employment pursuant to Sec. 35.090(~) of this subchapter; and firefighters and police officers employed by the city who participate in another retirement plan. ~ That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence or wor~ be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invali~ such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. ~ That =his ordinance shall =ake effect ten (10) days al=er second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final .I reading on =his =he : :~ day of , 1996. ' ' MAYOR City Clerk First Reading: Second Reading: c~b40bpen, ord i ORD NO. 12-96