05-21-96 Regular DELRAY BEACH
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ~
All-AmedcaCity
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 activi-
ty conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 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
May 21, 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 May 7, 1996
Special Meeting of May 14, 1996
6. Proclamations: None
7. Presentations:
A. Resolution No. 40-96 recognizing and commending Robert Garland
for 40 years of service to the City of Delray Beach
B. Pam Gerig, Executive Director, Palm Beach County Sports
Commission, and Jim Watt, Arena Task Force Chair, regarding the
arena project for Palm Beach County
C. Kathleen Daley - 1996 Legislative Session
8. Consent Agenda: City Manager recommends approval.
A. RESOLUTION NO. 41-96: Approve a resolution requesting the
Florida Legislature undertake an unbiased and comprehensive
study of the total life cycle costs of overhead versus
underground electric utilities.
B. AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES/LAND DESIGN
SOUTH: Approve an Agreement for Landscape Architectural
Services between the City and Land Design South for the 1-95
sound barrier walls landscape design.
C. AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES/COTLEUR HEARING,
INC.: Approve an Agreement for Landscape Architectural
Services between the City and Cotleur Hearing, Inc. for
services related to the Lake Ida Road beautification project.
--2--
Regular Commission Meeting
May 21, 1996
D. SERVICE AUTHORIZATION #I/COTLEUR HEARING, INC. (LAKE IDA ROAD
BEAUTIFICATION) : Consider Service Authorization #1 in the
amount of $20,632.25 to Cotleur Hearing, Inc. for landscape
architectural services in connection with the Lake Ida Road
(Congress Avenue to Swinton Avenue) beautification project,
with funding from 334-4144-572-63.31.
E. SERVICE AUTHORIZATION #2/COTLEUR HEARING, INC. (I-95 OVERPASS
ON LAKE IDA ROAD): Consider Service Authorization #2 in the
amount of $5,694.36 to Cotleur Hearing, Inc. for landscape
architectural design services related to beautification of the
1-95 overpass on Lake Ida Road, with funding from
334-4144-572-63.31
F. AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE WITH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY: Approve an Agreement and General Release between the
City and the Community Redevelopment Agency, as Owner, for the
use of property at 18 S.W. 1st Avenue for fire rescue training
exercises.
G. AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE WITH DELRAY/NEW WAVE, A GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP: Approve an Agreement and General Release between
the City and Delray/New Wave, a General Partnership, as Owner,
for the use of property at 107 N.W. 1st Avenue for fire rescue
training exercises.
GRANT OF EASEMENT TO BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.:
Approve granting a 20 foot by 15 foot easement to BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc. for the placement of equipment in the
southwest corner of Barwick Park.
I. FUNDING SUBSIDY/DELRAY BEACH RENAISSANCE PROGRAM: Approve a
funding subsidy in the amount of $13,405.46 for an eligible
applicant under the Delray Beach Renaissance Program
($10,054.46 from HOME Account #118-1923-554-83.01 and $3,351.00
from SHIP Account #118-1924-554-83.01.
J. CHANGE ORDER #2 AND FINAL PAYMENT/RPM GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
Approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $4,368.43 and final
payment in the amount of $14,836.94 for Fire Station #4 from
228-2311-522-61.59, and final payment in the amount of
$14,860.57 for Fire Station #3 from 228-2311-522-61.60, to RPM
General Contractors, Inc.
K. CONTRACT AMENDMENT #3/FLORIDA ENERGY EFFICIENT WATER PROGRAM:
Approve Contract Amendment #3 to the City's contract with the
Tri-County Community Council in conjunction with the Florida
Energy Efficient Water Program (FEEWP) to extend the contract
expiration date to June 30, 1996.
L. AMENDMENT #002/CHILDREN'S SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION GRANT:
Approve and authorize execution of Amendment #002 to the
Substance Abuse Prevention Grant contract funded through the
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS)
-3-
Regular Commission Meeting
May 21, 1996
on behalf of MAD DADS' Excel Focus Five program at Pine Grove
Elementary.
M. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept
the actions and decisions made by the Site Plan Review and
Appearance Board and the Historic Preservation Board during the
period May 6 through May 17, 1996.
N. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Bid award to Regal Contractors for the Pine Grove Elemen-
tary School Playground/Park project, in the amount of
$84,863 from 334-6111-519-62.15.
9. Regular Agenda:
A. AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT/DUBIN & ASSOCIATES: Consider
amending the management agreement with Dubin & Associates to
add the Tennis Center.
B. APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD ACTION/NANMYER
4-PLEX: Consider an appeal of the Site Plan Review and
Appearance Board's action on April 24, 1996, denying the
request for site plan approval for the Nanmyer 4-Plex Townhouse
Development. The subject property is located at the northeast
corner of N.E. 14th Street and N.E. 3rd Avenue. QUASI-JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING
C. APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD ACTION/DELRAY
LINCOLN MERCURY MASTER SIGN PROGRAM: Consider an appeal of the
Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's action on April 24,
1996, denying the master sign package for Delray Lincoln
Mercury located at 2102 South Federal Highway. QUASI-JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING
D. APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD ACTION/
INSURE-WISE PROGRESSIVE FLAT WALL SIGN: Consider an appeal of
the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's action on April 10,
1996, denying a flat wall sign for Insure-Wise Progressive at
14530 South Military Trail (Delray Square II Shopping Center).
QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
E. WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT IN LIEU OF ANNEXATION: Consider a
request to execute a Water Service Agreement in lieu of
annexation for a proposed single family residence located on
Lot 3 of the Foxe Chase subdivision on the south side of
Germantown Road in unincorporated Palm Beach County.
F. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF LIENS/TED CENTER, INC.: Consider a
request from the TED Center, Inc. to release liens in the
amount of $14,847.16 from properties located on S.W. 13th
Avenue.
G. REMOVED
-4-
Regular Commission Meeting
May 21, 1996
H. CONTRACT ADDITION/RIO LINDA CHEMICAL CO.: Consider a contract
addition to the annual contract with Rio Linda Chemical Company
(f.k.a. Vulcan Peroxidation Systems), to install a hydrogen
peroxide dosing point at Lift Station #34 located at Lindell
Boulevard and Dotterel Road, in the amount of $11,680 from
441-5144-536-52.21.
I. PALM ACTS CONTRACT: Determination of the status of the Palm
Acts contract, including consideration of the Charisma contract
with Palm Acts.
J. APPOINTMENT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD: Appoint a regular
member to the Civil Service Board to fill an unexpired term
ending July 1, 1996. Commissioner Kiselewski's appointment.
K. CLOSED ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION pursuant to F.S. 286.011(8) re:
V. & J. Cook, Ritfeld, Williams, Lucas and Mitchell v. the City
of Delray Beach.
Attendees: Mayor Jay Atperin
Commissioner Karen Kiselewski
Commissioner Kevin Egan
Commissioner Ken Ellingsworth
Commissioner David Randolph
David T. Harden, City Manager
Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
Leonard Carson, Esquire
Lucille Turner, Esquire
Purpose: Discuss settlement negotiations and strategy
related to litigation expenditures.
L. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL/V. & J. COOK, RITFELD, WILLIAMS, LUCAS
AND MITCHELL V. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Consider filing an
appeal in the referenced matter.
10. Public Hearings:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 18-96: An ordinance amending LDR Section 4.4.28,
"Central Business District - Railroad Corridor", Subsection
4.4.28(D), "Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed", to
further restrict the location of automobile repair and
detailing uses.
B. ORDINANCE NO. 19-96: 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 FEC Railway. QUASI-
JUDICIAL HEARING
C. ORDINANCE NO. 20-96: An ordinance changing the Future Land Use
Map (PLUM) designation from General Commercial to Commerce
(small scale amendment) and rezoning from POC (Planned Office
Center) District to LI (Light Industrial) District for a 1.86
--5--
Regular Commission Meeting
May 21, 1996
acre parcel of land. The subject property is located on the
east side of Wallace Drive approximately 1,300 feet north of
Linton Boulevard (formerly occupied by HRS). QUASI-JUDICIAL
HEARING
D. ORDINANCE NO. 22-96: An ordinance amending LDR Section 4.6.16,
"Landscape Regulations", regarding compliance with minimum
landscape requirements for existing properties.
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. From the Public.
12. First Readings= None
13. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items.
A. City Manager
B. City Attorney
C. City Commission
-6-
CITY OF DEi/t~Y BEACH~ FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - MAY 21~ 1996 - 6:00 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
AGENDA ADDENDUM
THE AGENDA IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
ADD ITEM 9.M. TO THE REGULAR AGENDA~ AS FOLLOWS:
~ESOLUTION NO. 42-96 URGING GOVERNOR CHILES TO VETO HB 557: Consider
a request from the Florida League of Cities to adopt a resolution
urging Governor Chiles to veto HB 557 known as the "Property
Appraiser's Presumption of correctness" bill.
RESOLUTION NO. 40-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, RECOGNIZING AND COMMENDING ROBERT
GARLAND FOR FORTY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, Robert Garland was hired by the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, on May 24, 1956; and
WHEREAS, Robert Garland will reach a milestone in his career on
May 24, 1996; and
WHEREAS, this milestone is achieving forty (40) years of
full-time public service with the City of Delray Beach; and
WHEREAS, Robert Garland has been a faithful and dedicated
employee in Public Works and the Environmental Services Department
(Water/Sewer Network) these past forty years; and
WHEREAS, he has consistently performed any and all duties
required of him in an exceptionally mature and professional manner,
exhibiting competence and loyalty; and
WHEREAS, the services and knowledge provided by this dedicated
employee are sincerely appreciated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray
Beach, Florida, hereby recognizes and commends Mr. Robert Garland for
forty years of dedicated and faithful public service.
Section 2. That the Delray Beach City Commission hereby
expresses sincere thanks and appreciation to Mr. Garland, and wishes him
the best of health and happiness as he continues his career with the
City of Delray Beach.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 21st day of
May, 1996.
ATTEST:
~ City C~erk --
PALM BE ACH COUNTY
SPORTS COMMISSION
April 11, 1996 ~,0~ ~' ;i ? -
Mr. David Hardman "~C/.
City Manager
City of Delray Beach
100 NW First Aeenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Dear Daee:
As you are aware, the City of West Palm Beach has made a decision to demolish the West
Palm Beach Auditorium in 1998. The PBCSC feels it is ~ery important the County look at this
issue to determine if a new sports and entertainment arena should replace the facility.
We would like to be placed on the May 21, 1996 agenda to make a formal presentation
regarding the arena project for Palm Beach County. We feel this issue is ~ery important to
the community since it adds to our "quality of life' proeiding a facility for many events
including the circus, ice skating shows, concerts, trade shows, graduations, etc..
Please let me know if Jim Watt and I can ha~e the opportunity to speak before your
organization. If I am not a~ailable, please speak with Maryann Guarascio on my staff who
can handle any questions you may ha~e.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to your council on this project. If you ha~e any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me on 233-1015. If I am not available, please speak
to Maryann. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Executive Director
cc: Jim Watt, Arena Task Force Chair
o: [dept l$ ¢ l arena lspeakin ~. req ldelray, ltr
1555 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD. SUITE 202 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
TEL. (407) 233-1015 FAX (407) 233-1012
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FRC~: CITY MANAGER ~
RESOLUTION NO. 41-96 (OVERHEAD VERSUS UNDERGROUND UTILITIES)
DATE: MAY 17, 1996
This is before the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 41-96 which requests
the Florida Legislature undertake an objective study of the total life
cycle costs of overhead versus uD~erground electric utilities. We received
a request to support this issue from The Undergrounders, Inc., a group of
officials from a number of Florida communities who are interested in the
idea of replacing urban overhead with underground power distribution.
The resolution endorses a study to review all aspects of the subject,
includ_ing design, construction, maintenance, operations, as well as an
equitable distribution of costs associated with such a transition among all
benefitted parties. It further requests that the study committee be
composed of engineers, economists, public administration professionals,
local political leaders, sociologists, business persons, health
professionals and environmentalists not associated with any electric
utility or the Public Service Commission.
An article entitled "Benefits of Urban Underground Power Delivery" from the
Spring 1996 issue of IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers) Technoloqy and Society Magazine is provided for your review.
Recommend approval of Resolution No. 41-96.
ref:agmemo9
RESOLUTION NO. 41-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REQUESTING THE FLORIDA
LEGISLATURE UNDERTAKE AN UNBIASED AND COMPREHENSIVE
STUDY OF THE TOTAL LIFE CYCLE COSTS OF OVERHEAD
VERSUS UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UTILITIES; REQUESTING
THAT THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSITION FROM
OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN A
FAIR AND EQUITABLE MANNER TO ALL BENEFITTED PARTIES
BE CONSIDERED; FORWARDING A COPY OF SAID RESOLUTION
TO THE PALM BEACH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES AND THE
UNDERGROUNDERS, INC.; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, much interest has been generated in the
installation and/or relocation of electric utilities from overhead
to underground for reasons of health and safety, environment,
disaster and storm damage mitigation, aesthetics and life cycle cost
savings; and
WHEREAS, weather-related costs to above ground utilities
(including hurricanes, tropical storms, high winds and salt spray)
are substantial with respect to damage, outages and inconvenience to
residential and commercial customers; and
WHEREAS, no independent, unbiased and comprehensive study
has been performed comparing overhead and underground electrical
utilities within the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, finds that specific actions would be beneficial to the
residents of the City of Delray Beach.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray
Beach, Florida, endorses and requests the State of Florida
Legislature undertake an unbiased and comprehensive study of the
total life cycle costs of overhead versus underground electric
utilities including design, construction, maintenance, operations
and all ancillary activities.
Section 2. That the City Commission of the City of Delray
Beach requests that the study committee be composed of engineers,
economists, public administration professionals, local political
leaders, sociologists, business persons, health professionals and
environmentalists not associated with any electric utility or the
Public Service Commission, to review and study all aspects of this
subject including any studies undertaken by the Legislature.
Section 3. Since benefits accrue to the State, local
governments, people in general and the utilities themselves, the
distribution of costs associated with the transition from overhead
to underground electric utilities should be allocated in a fair and
equitable manner to all benefitted parties.
Section 4. That the City Clerk of the City of Delray
Beach is instructed to send a copy of this Resolution to the Palm
Beach County Commission, the Florida League of Cities and The
Undergrounders.
Section 5. That this resolution shall take effect
immediately upon passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this 21st of May
1996.
City Cl&rk~ ;
2 Res. No. 41-96
The Undergrounders, Inc.
Jeff Stone, PhD, President Tom Maney, P.E., Vice President ' /~',~4
408 6th Ave. N. Tierra Verde, FL 33715 635 Chesser Rd, DeFuniak Springs, FL "-,.., --~'~'
813-864-9966 32433 904-892-6344
Charles McCool, City Manager
Daytona Beach Shores, FL 32118
Treasurer, 904 322 5000
Members of the Board
Harold Radcliffe, Mayor, N. Redington Beach, FI, 33708, Chairman
Nancy Ciummo, City Manager Brad Baker, Solar Systems Engrg.
Golden Beach, FL 33160 Port Orange, FL 32119
Deborah Evans, Wellington, FL 33414 Nancy Flemming,
Sue Huffman, Oldsmar, FL 34677 Citizens for Responsible Power,
Paul Deutschlander, Trenton, FL 32693 Tampa, FL. 33624
25 March 1996
Mr. David T. Harden, City Manager
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Ave..
Delray Beach, FL 33444-2698
Dear Mr. Harden;
Please accept the enclosed article with our compliments.
The need for safer urban electric power delivery is
becoming more apparent daily and the only way we can get
it at a fair price is through legislative action.
The Undergrounders are trying to get a large number of
cities to pass resolutions urging an objective study be
made of the ia~e. Please read the enclosed Resolution and
consider passing a similar one in your city. If we all work
together, we can win.
Sincerely,
Tom Maney, PE
Vice President
Benefits of
Urban Under. ground
Power Delivery
Hurricane Opal a Category 3 storm, struck the Florida Panhandle on October 4, 1995. Several hu,dred
thousand people in three counties were without power, some for several weeks.
Ill istorically, the standard procedure force the use of underground systems, or unless,
adopted by electrical utility companies in the case of the more affluent housing devel-
has been to use overhead lines for urban opments, the citizens therein pay the extra costs
areas for all voltages, unless economic reasons associated with underground installations. In
most analyses comparing the two concepts, it
C. Thomas Mane)', P.E., is a retired Profes- has been customary to consider only the direct
sor of Electrical Engineering at the University costs to the utility companies, i.e., investment,
of Kentucky and also a retired senior systems maintenance, operations, etc. However, if corn-
analyst for the USAF. He is Vice President of the munity costs were considered as well, the para-
Florida Undergrounders, Inc. He can be digm for urban power delivery quite likely
reached at 635 Cresset Rd., RFD 6, DeFuniak would shift to underground service for all urban
Springs, FL, 32433. lines, transmission and distribution.
0278-OO79/96/S5.00~19961EEE IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Spring 1996
Interest in Underground DeliYev/ Most of these groups are based on public appre-
During 1981-1989, when I served ftrst as a hension concerning the perceived and possibly
member of the Fort Walton Beach, FL, planning real adverse health effects from electromagnetic
fields along with the recognized effects on prop-
board, and later as a member of the city council, erty devaluation associated with nearby over-
I often heard comments from the public regard- head urban power lines.
lng the desirability of having power lines placed
underground. Also, while serving as a council- A few examples of the citizen organizations
dedicated to obtaining safer power delivery
man, I often heard comments from other munici- through undergrounding include The Electro-
pal officials at League of Cities meetings on the magnetic Radiation Alliance (national and inter-
same subject. As a result of these frequent corn- national), Citizens Opposed to Unsafe Power
ments, and due to my background in electrical
engineering and systems analysis, I was asked (PA), Alliance to Limit Electromagnetic Radia-
tion Today (CT), Coalition for Safe Electric
by the the city council to investigate the concept. Power (VA), Parents Against an Unsafe Envi-
This request led to a review of the prevailing ronment (PA), Michigan Safe Energy Fund
attitudes by the three utilities using wires or
cables (power, telephone, and television) as well (MI), Concerned Citizens for Power Line Safety
as the prevalent attitudes in the fifty states. It (FL), Citizens for Power Lines Underground
further led to the formation of"The Undergroun-
ders," a group of officials from a number of
Florida communities who were also interested in
the idea of replacing urban overhead (OH)with COSTS to the public for loss
underground (UG) power distribution.
During 1987 and 1988, this group worked
with the Florida Legislature and succeeded in of life due to electrocution
causing the legislature to require the Florida
Public Service Commission (FPSC)to conduct and vehicle-pole accidents
a full systems analysis into the cost effectiveness
comparison of OH and UG. That study, how- illiff
ever, was limited to the pros and cons of OH are s..n cant,
versus UG power delivery at distribution voltage
levels, because it was "assumed" by the FPSC
staff that no transmission level voltage line could
be made cost effective if placed underground. It
was also observed that since the telephone indus- (NY), Indiana Families United for Safe Energy,
try was voluntarily converting to underground Neighbors Opposing Power Encroachment
cable and the television industry was converting (WA), Customer Advisory Panel on Under-
to satellite signal delivery, their inclusion was grounding (WA), Rhode Islanders for Safe
deemed irrelevant. Power, Residents Against Giant Power (NJ),
Virginia Residents Against Giant Electric, Mas-
Growing Demand ter Planning for Power Committee (UT), The
Princeton Citizens Coalition on EMF (NJ), and
The current situation regarding electric The Undergrounders (FL). A few of these or-
power delivery in almost all urban areas in ganizations have met with success, but by and
the U.S. is that it is customary for most trans- large their efforts to date have been rather futile.
mission and subtransmission lines to be in- The advances in technology referred to are
stalled overhead. Distribution lines are also discussed at length in a 1994 issue of the
generally overhead, except in high-density Electric Power Research Institute Journal,
commercial and some residential areas. In which concludes that "many utilities expect
many locations, however, utility companies that by the year 2000 virtually all of their
offer underground laterals to individual cus-
distribution construction ~ whether new or
tomers. The basic paradigm of overhead de-
replacement circuits ~ will be underground"
livery may be about to change, however, as
growing public demand, coupled with ad- [1]. The reasons for this expected change
vances in technology are together generating include the development of very high quality
a major push toward having all urban electric and relatively low-cost dry-cured cross-
power delivered underground, linked polyethylene cable, improved tech-
The growing public demand is seen from the niques for locating underground faults [2],
formation of numerous citizen activist groups and major advances in laying cable, such as
organized throughout the nation in opposition to the well-known direct burial horizontal bor-
existing or proposed new overhead power lines, lng system.
IEEE T~ndogy ,,nd Society MogazJne, S~gring 1996
Hurrican Erin, barely a Category 1 storm, knocked down many trees and overhead lines in the Fort Walton
Beach, FL, area in August 1995.
Current Policy no competition within the industry itself to cause
such change.
Utility companies are no different from other
Yet another reason the utility companies are
corporations in that they consider their near-
somewhat reluctant to change parallels the situ-
term profits to be of primary importance in sat-
ation which still exists to this day in the tobacco
isfying their stockholders. Overhead urban lines industry. It is well known that in a recent public
are superior from this point of view. Overhead hearing in the U.S. Congress the chief execu-
lines are easy to install and maintain. Moreover, tives of each of the major tobacco companies
costs for recovery from storm damages can be stated that they believed that tobacco was neither
routinely passed on to the public. The technol-
addictive nor carcinogenic, in spite of numerous
ogy required for customary power delivery with medical tests and statistics that had indicated
overhead lines has been in place for many dec- otherwise. The parallel between that testimony
ados. The lines are simply bare wire with ce- and the electric power industry's position is that
ramic insulators at poles and air as insulation
even though the utility companies are all aware
between poles, of the relative safety data for underground and
Underground lines, on the other hand, must overhead systems, they never discuss it in public
be carefully insulated, and also must carry the because common sense says that if a corporate
extra burden of heat dissipation. The heat trans- official were ever to make a public admission
for problem has two disadvantages. First, the that his company's product delivery method was
operating engineers must be much more careful
not sufficiently safe, he would be subjecting his
in designing for temporary overloads. If bare
company to much litigation.
wires on overhead systems carry excess current,
they simply heat up and sag. If, on the other
Cost Factors
hand, an underground cable becomes over-
heated, a short circuit could result from insula- Historically, power companies have consid-
tion failure. The second disadvantage is that ered only the usual corporate costs (investment,
utility engineers must make use of a higher level operations, maintenance, etc.) for determining
of engineering skill in designing underground the cost to deliver power to a community. How-
systems due to the heat transfer problem for ever, it is becoming increasingly evident that a
continuous loading, total system approach to costing is far more
Another reason utility companies are reluc- appropriate. In other words, the total cost to the
tam to change from their current model of over- community for power delivery is the more rea-
head lines except for special cases is that there sonable and sensible way to determine which
is no legal requirement for any utility company method of power delivery is used. After all, it is
to consider so-called societal costs, and there is the community that pays for the power delivery.
IEEE lechrlololly ~ Society t~gnzine, Spfi~ 1996
Costs to the public for loss of life due to ing property values [16]-[17]. If it tums out that
electrocution and vehicle-pole accidents are sig- the cancer "clusters" near power lines in many
nificant and may be considered to be as much as cities are in fact not coincidental but are actually
3 to 5 million dollars per life lost according to caused by some element in the magnetic fields
the National Safety Council [3]. (The Talla- of power lines, then the costs to society for living
hassee Democrat newspaper on July 15, 1990, or working near power lines will be so high as to
printed an Associated Press article addressing force drastic corrective action. In this regard, it
this issue. This article asserted that the U.S. is noted that basic electrical theory tells us that
Consumer Product Safety Commission valued a external magnetic fields will be reduced very
human life at $2 million but the Environmental significantly if power delivery is made under-
Protection Agency put the value at $8 million, ground simply due to the very close proximity
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, however, of the conductors in the cables. Moreover, if one
uses $5 million.) Regardless of what figure is were to make use of ferrous conduit material, the
used, it is clear that the societal costs for loss of external fields would, of course, be reduced still
human life are a very real part of the total cost of further.
power delivery and should be minimized for the Careful attention to designing ground return
benefit of all. circuits such that the earth return is minimized
The costs to the public for power outages and and ground wire return is maximized will reduce
power surges should also be included in any the external magnetic field even more.
assessment of power delivery costs [4]-[9]. In other words, reliable and affordable tech-
However, the articles and reports in [4]-[9] deal nology for all urban underground power delivery
only with the "willingness to pay approach." is here (at up to 345 kV or more).
None addresses more than relatively short inter-
ruptions, ranging from momentary up to several Societal Costs:
hours. Costs for brief interruptions usually have Accidental Deaths and Injuries
been stated in terms of dollars per kilowatt-hour
not sold and range from a few dollars up to The most important societal cost of overhead
several tens of dollars per unit. electric power delivery is the very significant
This measure, however useful, has two major difference in numbers of accidental electrocu-
drawbacks. First, the impact of electrical voltage tions per mile of wire per year compared to
surges and dips, though trivial in terms of"kilo- underground power delivery systems. Tragic ac-
watt-hours not sold," may be very significant incidents occur during a variety of situations, e.g.,
terms of damage to electrical equipment, lost kite flying, tree trimming, or sailboat launching,
computer memories, etc. The second drawback as well as in the use of construction machinery,
is that the method does not lend itself to estimat- etc.
ing the costs of long-term outages caused by Data from two states illustrate this issue. Data
weather and other natural phenomena. Data is were made available through the systems studies
included here on long-duration outages, and done by the Florida Public Service Commission
though these extended several days (even out- staff in 1988-1990 and in a letter to the author
ages lasting for several weeks occur at irregular dated Oct. 3, 1994, from the FPSC. The data
intervals), they occur sufficiently often so that address the four large investor owned utilities in
costs to the public for these outages should be the state (see Table I). In terms of relative safety,
addressed. (Note that the author has found no the data show 57.73 times more fatalities asso-
studies in the literature which address the costs ciated with OH contact than with UG contact on
to the public for extended outages.) A moment a per-mile basis.
of reflection suggests that the costs associatedFor the case of another state's record, con-
with long-term outages may well tend to rise sider California. The California Public Utilities
exponentiallywiththedurationoftheoutagedue Commission staffwas asked in 1987, 1988, and
to food spoilage, water, sewer systems becoming again in 1994 to furnish data. The Commission
inoperative, etc. staff provided the figures shown in Table II [38].
Another factor which should be included is These data show 21.99 times as many people
the increasingly publicized fear of the possiblekilled contacting OH lines as compared with UG
linkage between proximity to electric power lines on a per-mile basis.
lines and cancer. The "jury is still out" concern- The data for the two states should obviously
lng whether or not exposure to pulsating mag- not be directly compared as their baseline peri-
netic fields causes cancer. Many referenced ods of comparison are different and the two do
studies show a significant correlation between not include all of the same types of accidents. It
cancer incidence and exposure; however, others is valid to say, however, that no matter how the
do not [10]-[15]. A corollary to this real fear is data are analyzed, it is apparent that under-
the impact adjacent power lines have on reduc- ground lines are far safer than are overhead lines.
~ t~dmdmy ~ Sod~ k~g~, Spdm I~S
T~ble I
PERIOD TOTAL FATALITIES AVG. DEATHS PER YEAR TYPE OF SERVICE
1981-1993 153 12.75 OH: 65 524 mi
1981-1993 1 0.08 UG: 23 807 mi
Avg, annual deaths per mile: OH: 0.000194, UG: 0,00000336
Relative Safety: 57.73 times as many fatalities for people contacting OH compared with UG
Note 1. Mileage data are taken for 1991, hence the per mile data are approximate.
Note 2. These data do not include either employee accidents or vehicle/pole accidents. During the reporting period, these same
utilities reported the deaths of five of their employees who were working on overhead lines and zero deaths of employees who
were working on underground systems. In addition to these deaths, the Florida DOT accident data as analyzed by the PSC staff
in 1989 showed an average of 27 deaths per year for vehicles striking poles in urban areas but none for vehicles striking
undergrounding transformers.
Table II
PERIOD TOTAL FATALITIES AVG. DEATHS PER YEAR TYPE OF SERVICE
1988 44 44 OH: 322 100 mi
1989-1993 143 28.6 OH: 402 625 mi
6 year avg.: 31.16, OH 362 000 avg. mi.
Average annual deaths per mile: 0.0000860
PERIOD TOTAL FATALITIES AVG. DEATHS PER YEAR TYPE OF SERVICE
1988 3 3 UG: 189 000 mi
1989-1993 2 0.4 UG: 237 125 mi
6 year avg.: 0.833, UG 213 000 avg. mi.
Average annual deaths per mile: 0.0000039
Relative Safety: 22 times as many people killed in contacting OH lines compared with UG lines on a per mile
basis.
Note: The California data include all fatalities, public contact, vehicle pole impacts, and employee accidents.
Note that most states have in their statutes specific application is beyond the scope of the
concerning electric utilities the stipulation that National Electrical Safety Code Committee."
utility facilities built in conformance with the The above figures do not include any of the
National Electrical Safety Code shall be deemed costs associated with injuries (many of which
adequately safe for the general public. What is required hospitalization)nordotheyinclude any
not generally known, however, is that the regu- property damage estimates. In this regard, per-
iation responsible for the safety of electrical haps one anecdotal example will suffice toillus-
equipment, wiring, etc., for the public is the trate the nature of the losses involved in a
National Electrical Code. The National Electri- vehicle-pole accident.
cal Safety Code is unrelated to the former and is According to Okaloosa County, FL, police
used solely for establishing safe construction records, on September 24, 1994, a vehicle-pole
and maintenance procedures for utility compa- impact occurred in Shalimar, FL [18]. The iro-
nies. A letter to the author from the Secretary of pact not only demolished the automobile and
the National Electrical Safety Code Committee, sent the driver to the hospital, but the trans-
dated Sept. 8, 1987, included the statement, "A former on the pole shorted, causing a mainframe
judgment as to which type of construction OH computer in a nearby building to be damaged
or UG will provide maximum public safety in a beyond repair. This required the purchase of a
lEE TKhr, d~9¥ on~ ~ie~/l,~gez~, ~i~ 1996
new computer. In addition, the cost of the loss of Industrial customers on transmission lines
stored information and loss of employee work did not have long outages. Others on major
time was considerable. If these ancillary but very feeders got back in service before residen-
major costs were to be included in the costs of tial customers. Some Charlotte residential ;
accidents involving vehicles and poles, the rela- customers were without power for almost
tive safety of underground to overhead would one month.
become even more apparent. There was a lot of food spoilage in gro-
cery stores, food stores, restaurants, mo-
Storm I.o$$®s tels, etc., due to the storm. There were also
problems with food supplies, water sup-
Weather is a cause of many serious losses of plies, and sewers not being available [26].
life and property as it particularly affects electric
The North Carolina PSC also reported that on
power systems in urban areas. Let us first look
at some reported effects of ice, sleet, and other September 22, the day Hugo went through the
storms. According to reports in the NW Florida state, a total of approximately 850 000 custom-
Daily' News, in the summer of 1994, tropical ers lost power. A full week later, 271 000 cus-
storm Alberto that went through Northwest Flor- tomers were still without electricity. Power was
ida left more than 1800 customers without power essentially restored by October 10.
andmanyofthosewereoutforseveraldays[19]. One of the worst recent hurricanes to hit
Moreover, just for the twelve months ending in Florida was Hurricane Andrew in 1992. To gain
March 1994, the Richmond, VA, Times Dis- information regarding the extent of damage
patch reported that Virginia suffered five done by this storm, the FPSC requested that the
storms, each of which knocked out power for Florida Power and Light Corporation evaluate
hundreds of thousands of customers for weeks at that situation. The corporation reported that
a time [20]-[24]. prior to Hurricane Andrew on August 22, 1992,
in Dade County, FL, there were 5453 overhead
Specifically noted in the Times Dispatch was
that these extended outages in Virginia caused pole miles in service and 3242 trench miles of
44 000 customers to lose power in the March 15, cable including both distribution and transmis-
1993, storm; 60 000 during the June 4, 1993, sion systems [27].
storm; 20 000 in the storm of August 22, 1993; As a direct result of Hurricane Andrew, 114
273 000 in the storm of February 12, 1994; and milesor3%oftheircablehadtobereplaced, and
180 000 in the storm of March 2-3, 1994. 3349 miles or 61% of their overhead line had to
The record for resistance to hurricane damage be replaced. These figures coupled with the re-
is just as bad if not worse. When the Category 3 cord of OH versus UG during Hurricane Hugo
Hurricane Hugo tore through the Carolinas in clearly show the superior survivability of under-
1989, the damage due to downed power lines was ground systems.
extensive through both states and included trans- After Hurricane Andrew, initially 1.4 million
mission lines as well as distribution lines [25]. It customers were without power. Local newspa-
was noted, however, that South Carolina Electric pets reported that two weeks later 97 000 were
company responded to the Florida PSC informa- still without power and 35 days were required
tion request that their initial count of customers for Florida Power and Light to restore power to
without power was 273 000. After five days of the last neighborhood able to receive power [28].
cleanup there were still 138 000 customers with- Though no hurricanes hit Florida in 1993, a
out power. After ten days of cleanup, 55 000 freak winter storm did manage to leave several
were still without power. Power was not restored million people without power for an extended
to all customers whose facilities could accept period. The Electric Utilit3' Weekly [Mar. 22,
power until the eighteenth day. The report also 1993, p. 13] summarized this situation as fol-
stated that "they had relatively little problem lows:
with their underground system." Though the to-
tal power delivery system repair costs ran into A winter storm that spawned tornadoes
the hundreds of millions of dollars, the relative in Florida before dumping deep snow
survival and costs of overhead and underground from Carolinas to Maine resulted in more
systems was not well documented, at least for than 3.5 million electricity customers los-
the public record, lng power from high winds damaging
North Carolina was also hit very hard by power lines.
Hurricane Hugo. According to the North Caro- The hardest hit area was Florida's west
coast, with winds gusting to nearly 100
lina PSC: mph when the storm hit late on March 12.
Commercial and industrial customers By March 13, 1,238,540 electric custom-
were considerably affected by Hurricane ers, or about 3.1 million people, had been ~ .~
Hugo, in addition to residential customers, knocked out of service, according to the
IE~ Technology and Society k~gazine, Spring 1996
Florida PSC. Because of the high winds, sissippi a few days earlier. The Associated Press
which continued through March 14, utili- wire story included the following:
ties were unable to use helicopters to lo-
cate downed lines and repair crews could Five days after an ice storm robbed an
not use aerial buckets to reconnect lines, estimated 80,000 Mississippi Power and
Light customers of electricity, about
Obviously, though not yet quantified in the 10,000 were still without power late Fri-
literature, the economic losses to the affected day.
communities for extended power outages is ma- The significance of the time of year when this
jor, especially when one considers that extended
outages can cause businesses to go bankrupt and storm occurred is evident by the following para-
residents to go into debt for long-term motel and graph in the same news story:
restaurant living far from home. Most highs statewide were only in the
The weather in 1995 was a near record year 30's for most of the week and lows were
for hurricanes. By early November, some nine- in the 20's with wind chill factors in the
teen storms had reached hurricane status in the teens. Temperatures Saturday wanned up
Gulf and Atlantic. Two of these storms, Erin and into the 50's and 60's.
Opa/, hit Florida. Erin, a Category I storm, hit
Florida twice in August, initially crossing the Storms such as these have devastating effects
central portion of the state on August 2 and later on overhead power delivery systems and they
on August 3 hitting the Panhandle. Each impact occur all over the nation. The most recent storm
caused hundreds of thousands of persons to be up to this writing is the storm which swept in to
without power for several days [29]. Seattle, WA, on November 17, 1995. According
On October 4, 1995, Hurricane Opal, a Cate- to the Seattle Times of Nov. 18 and 19, that storm
gory 3 storm, hit the same area of the Panhandle put 100 000 customers out of power initially and
that Erin had struck. Damage was in the hun- 20 000 were still out more than 24 hours later.
dreds of millions of dollars [30]. Two utilities
serve the area, Choctawhatchee Electric Co-op Other Weather-Related Problems
(CHELCO) and Gulf Power Inc. CHELCO lost
all 26 512 of its customers, and though 15 283 Another example of weather-related prob-
were restored power within three days, 1240 lems that cause severe distress to the public is
were without power for a week or more [31]. due to salt spray corrosion (causing fallen live
Gulf Power reported that immediately after the lines and short circuits) in densely populated
storm, 260 000 of their customers were without coastal areas. The St. Petersburg Times for Feb.
power. After three days, however, they had 21, 1991, reported the following incident:
power hack on to all but 6000. Both finns A 30 year old Canadian man was killed
achieved this rapid recovery for most of their and five cars were bumed when an electrical
customers with the help of overtime work by power line fell to the ground Saturday mom-
hundreds of line crews from nearby states. As of ing near a vacation complex.
this writing, neither CHELCO nor Gulf have The man was s~uck as he tried to move
reported on the relative survivability of their his car to a safer location, officials said.
overhead and underground systems. Gulf A spokeswoman for Florida Power said
Power, however, reported that neither overhead unusually high levels of salt spray on the
nor underground systems survived in the narrow power line are thought to have caused sparks
beach front area which bore the brunt of the that arced and burned the crossarm holding
12-15-ft storm surge [32]. In this regard, I, as a up the line, which carries 7,200 volts.
resident of this area, also noted that none of the "Although salt buildups have been
conventional utility services survived in the noted throughout the county, there is no
storm surge area. Even water and sewer lines
cause for alarm", said Karen Raihill, the
were broken, collapsed, or filled with sand.
power company spokeswoman.
Another interesting fact that was readily ap- "People are not in imminent danger,"
parent to local residents was that many of the Ms. Raihill said, "This was a highly un-
people who lived inland and suffered relatively usual set of circumstances."
little damage to their homes had to endure ex-
tended power outages lasting up to a week. Whether or not this occurrence of fallen live
Even smaller storms can and do wreak havoc wires is rare or not may be in the eyes of the
with overhead utility lines. Though this sort of beholder. Though this condition is viewed as a
event occurs many times each year, one example serious problem to the community, it apparently
will illustrate the problem. Written up in the NW is not viewed as serious by the utility. Consider
Florida Daily News for Feb. 12, 1989, was a the following situation which resulted from the
story about an ice storm that went through Mis- occurrence of a number of these "wire downs."
In December 1991, in response to a formal pany had to make emergency power buys
complaint registered with the FPSC by the town from the Southern Company.
of Golden Beach, FL, which was concerned by The salt contamination caused most
"excessive wire-downs," the Florida Power and damage to equipment in the Tampa Bay
Light Company presented the following infor- area, where more than 21 000 customers
mation to the Florida PSC in their defense of this were out for sustained periods and tens of
charge (Docket 90081-E-1, p. 14): thousands more lost power for up to an
hour.
...according to Exhibit 20, the number
of 'wire downs' which were fallen electri-
cal conductors (live), during the almost Lightning Surges
four year period covered was thirteen. In addition to storms and salt spray, other
Of the thirteen incidents of fallen con- weather factors also affect utility lines. Probably
ductors, nine occurred on the east side, and
six of these were on a section of "tree" one of the more onerous problems caused by
wire located from 101 Ocean Drive to 335 weather is that of voltage surges and dips result-
ing from nearby lightning strikes. The relative
Ocean Drive. Of the four that occurred on
the west side, each occurred in a different effect of those occurrences on equipment served
year in a different area. The one wire down by overhead and underground lines was dis-
a year on the west side of golden Beach cussed in a paper prepared by the Navy compar-
covering approximately 3.25 miles is not lng failure rates of computer equipment at ten
sites in Washington, DC, Norfolk, VA, and
indicative of a chronic problem. The ap- Charleston, SC [33]. They averaged 20 electrical
proximately two "wire-downs" on the one
mile stretch of conductor serving the east surge caused failures per year on computers
side of Golden Beach should have merited served by OH lines and 14 surge caused failures
special consideration, on computers served by UG cables.
Because of this case, Florida Power and
Light is in the process of modifying its Environmental Damage
data base to track "wire-downs" to iden-
In addition to the factors discussed in the
tify abnormal conditions so that they can
be investigated, previous paragraphs, the conversion to under-
ground urban lines would trigger a major reduc-
Note that no corrective action was promised, tion in the use of millions of wood poles. This
It is also useful to note the perspective from issue is significant as poles are treated with
theindustrypointofviewonalargerviewofthe highly toxic chemicals which leach into the
same salt spray problem. (Salt spray will accu- ground and then into the food chain. According
mulate on insulators and wires near coastal areas to an article by biologists Judith and Peddick
under the influence of sea breezes.) This prob- Weis, poles used on dry land are treated with 0.4
lem is, of course, unique to overhead systems, lb/ft3 of CrO3, CuO, and As2Os, and poles
Consider the following four paragraphs from the designed for marine use receive 1.5-2.5 lb/ft3 of
Electric Utility Weekly of Mar. 29, 1993: these chemicals [34]. With millions of poles in
Just as Florida utilities were getting each state, it is not difficult to visualize how
systems back on line after the March 12- many tons of these toxins are leaching into the
14 (1993) storm that blacked out 1.2 mil- ground yearly.
lion customers, salt contamination last Not only are the poles themselves a source of
week shut down plants and lines on the toxic materials, but pole treatment plants consti-
state's west coast, tute an even more critical problem due to the
The problem occurred after high winds concentration of toxic materials used in process-
from the storm carried salt spray from the lng. The Florida DER staff reported to the FPSC
Gulf of Mexico inland coating electrical staff that there are 18 pole treatment sites in
connections and insulators. When it dried, Florida, four of which are on the U.S. Superfund
the salt remained. Then on March 17-18, toxic site cleanup list. These sites have contami-
a light misty rain wetted the salt, and arc- hated over 20 public and private wells including
lng resulted. Utilities had to pressure wash the main well field of the City of Miami. In
the equipment before restoring service, addition, these sites have contaminated portions
At the peak of the problem March 18, of surface waters in Pensacola Bay, Bayou
all five units at Florida Power's 3,000 MW Chico, Hogtown Creek, St. Johns River, and the
Crystal River Plant -- half its capacity -- Peace River [35].
were out of service, two for scheduled The ultimate effect these bioaccumulating
maintenance and three tripped because of carcinogenic and mutagenic compounds have on
salt contamination. Florida Power com- our food chain is left to others to determine.
IE~ Technology ,,nd Society IAagazine, Spring 1996
Property Devaluation ject to the influence of overhead high voltage
There are two fundamental factors affecting power lines" [16]. The article further notes that
property values insofar as power lines are con- this negative impact on property values is a
cerned. First, and the factor which has generated rather recent phenomenon as the "preponder-
the most public interest in recent years, is the ance of research dating from the mid-50's to the
devaluation resulting from the perceived ad- late 1980's found no or negligible impact on
verse health impact on nearby residents through property values from power lines."
exposure to power line generated magnetic The second type of adverse effect the pres-
fields. Second, is the devaluation imposed by ence of nearby power lines has on property
values is that which is caused by fallen poles and
lending agencies in being reluctant to provide live wires. These situations are common in bur-
mortgages for property that has buildings on
which poles or lines could fall. ricanes and involve both transmission and distri-
bution poles. As has been previously noted, the
The issue of magnetic field exposure, com-
monly termed "EMF" exposure, and the result- fallen live wire problem also occurs in coastal
lng possible adverse health effects and property areas where salt spray is common. In recognition
devaluation, is a very unsettling and controver- of the adverse effects nearby power lines can
sial subject. A paper by Swedish investigators have on property values, the U.S. Department of
Feychting and Ahlbom in 1992 showed a signifi- Housing and Urban Development several years
cant elevation of cancer rates for persons living ago directed "All Members of the Fee Appraiser
in close proximity to power lines [36]. Since Panel" that paragraph 4-24 of Rule 4150.1
then there have been many studies, most of headed "Overhead High Voltage Transmission
which support the findings of the Swedish study Lines" be revised to read in part that:
but some of which are contrary. At present, All dwellings and related property ira-
however, the evidence tends to be predomi- provements (such as garages and swim-
nantly on the side of affirming that the danger ming pools) shall be located at a safe
does in fact exist. Dr. David O. Carpenter, M.D., distance from overhead electric transmis-
Dean of the School of Public Health at the Uni- sion lines.
versity of New York at Albany has concluded,
"On the basis of the present evidence only the What this has meant in FHA implementation
most obstinate can deny that there is adequate is that any property which lies within the fall
cause for concern and an urgent need for addi- distance of such lines and poles is not eligible
tional study ... I ... strongly advise people to for FHA mortgage insurance. Obviously, this
reduce their exposure to magnetic fields" [10]. factor has a very significant negative effect on
What has resulted from these studies along property resale value for those affected proper-
with the continuing debate is the emergence of ties.
the concept of "prudent avoidance" or trying to What is the sum and substance of all of these
limit public magnetic field exposures from factors? In brief, all the criteria for major change
power lines to 2 mG. has been met and therefore the change could
Rationale for the 2 mG figure stems from the come rapidly. The need is apparent as is the
findings in the Swedish study that elevated can- solution. The problem is how to reach the solu-
cer risks were not found at levels of exposure at tion.
or below 2 mG. The significance of this figure
for this analysis is that it is relatively easy to Attempts to Obtain Action:
reduce urban public power line exposure to this Political Approach
level if underground cables are used.
It may be many years before the true causal Probably the first group to recognize this
factors for the so-called cancer clusters near confluence of need and solution on a statewide
power lines are discovered. In the meantime, the basis was the Florida Undergrounders, a small
burial of lines would at least represent a good group of dedicated public officials and private
faith effort to minimize the problem. Moreover, citizens who were and are very concerned about
this action would tend to defuse the issue of the excessive number of deaths and injuries as-
devaluating property values near power lines, sociated with overhead power lines and with the
The decline in property values near power other factors discussed in this anicle. Thisgroup,
lines has been quantified in an article by Delaney back in 1989 and 1990, petitioned the Florida
and Timmons which states that property apprais- Legislature to require an objective total system
ers "report that power lines can affect residential study of the relative costs and benefits of over-
property values to varying degrees under certain head and underground urban power delivery.
circumstances and that the market value of these This approach was selected because, due to the
properties is, on average, 10.01% lower than the monopolistic nature of the electric power indus-
market value for comparable properties not sub- try, there are no competitive forces which could
IEEE Technology on~ Sociely Magozine, Spring 1996
be expected to force this sort of action for the Weather Service, perhaps their analysis would
public good. have been more credible.
The Legislature. in response to appeals by the The study team should have combined the
Undergrounders, directed the FPSC to conduct use of two mathematical models: a deterministic
this system study [37]. Unfortunately, the study one to model: the predetermined, regularly ex-
was a failure in that the Commission staff was pected costs such as the amortization of equip-
unable to address adequately the multiple issues ment, and a second probabilistic model to
involved, account for accidental injuries and deaths, along
The specific deficiencies which resulted in a with the long-term outage problems caused by
fatally flawed study included the following points: storms, etc., all of which can be reasonably esti-
1) The estimates of the costs submitted by the mated on a probabilistic level.
several utilities to install and operate an identi- 4) In estimating societal costs to prevent the
cai shopping center and subdivision load dif- fatalities expected to occur on urban overhead
feted by two orders of magnitude. Instead of and underground options, the staff used the Na-
recognizing this obvious case of either error or tional Safety Council (NSC) estimate of
misunderstanding of ground rules and returning $300 000. The staff ignored the NSC admonition
the data to the utility companies for review and that this figure was only appropriate for past
correction, the FPSC staff simply averaged the deaths and that the much higher figure of about
numbers. $3 million should be used for preventing future
2) The mathematical model used to simulate deaths in order to take into consideration the
the cost evolution for the selected life cycle of natural desire all people have to live [3].
thirty years was a simple deterministic model 5) The staffchose not to include the arguments
similar to actuarial models used to determine put forth by the Florida DOT and the Sierra Club
amortization. This type of model is not capable that with urban power lines underground, the DOT
of handling probabilistic events such as storms, could greatly reduce the number of wooden poles
lightning, and accidents. To illustrate this inade- in use by replacing all street lighting poles with
quacy, consider the issue of estimating at least frangible aluminum poles. Moreover, this would
to a gross degree the number of hurricanes that mean that the only rigid (and dangerous to traffic)
might hit Florida over the next thirty years. His- poles would be those used to support heavy loads
torical data for the previous 100 years was avail- such as traffic signal groupings. This replacement
able to the staff but was not used. Instead, the of thousands of wooden poles by aluminum poles
staff chose 1985 as a "representative year" to would have a doubly beneficial effect. First, the
simulate hurricane losses each year for the next poles would no longer be a traffic hazard, and
thirty years. Unfortunately, though two hurri- second, the reduction in the use of preservative
canes were in the Gulf area that year, neither one treated wooden poles would be decidedly more
crossed over any urban areas in Florida. The environmentally friendly.
study, therefore, effectively assumed that no 6) The fear of possible linkage of exposure to
hurrica,e would strike any Florida urba~t areas magnetic fields from power line currents and the
at any time during the ,ext 30 years. The storms subsequent combined costs of lowered property
of 1993, 1994, and 1995 have shown this as- values and medical costs were ignored by the
sumption to be gravely in error, study group on the grounds that there was no
3) The assumption that 1985 was a typical proof of the adverse effects of magnetic fields.
year for storms resulted in the conclusion that The omission of medical cost estimates is justi-
there would be no significant financial losses to fiable on these grounds, but the omission of
the public due to extended power outages any- lowered property values is not as these lowered
where in urban Florida for the next 30 years, values are based on the fear of possible adverse
Even when the staff did try to include outage effects and not on the adverse effects them-
losses to the public, they limited themselves to selves. There is ample evidence in State and
estimates which were based on the assumption Federal Court records of the recognition of low-
that people would get advance warning of the ered property values of property near overhead
pending outage and that the outage would be two power lines [39]-[43].
hours or less. What actually happened, however, 7) The undergrounding system configura-
is that hurricanes Andrew, Erin, and Opal, along tions used in the study were limited to the most
with an unnamed winter storm in 1994, struck expensive concepts available, i.e., cable in con-
Florida, causing massive long-term outages and duit installed by conventional trenching. Lower
subsequent financial losses to the public of hun- cost options were not addressed.
dreds of millions of dollars. Had the staff taken Needless to say, the FPSC study showed neg-
advantage of the data they had regarding the ligible economic benefits for undergrounding all
outages resulting from hurricane Hugo, along urban lines. The study, however, even with the
with the century long data given them from the limitations noted, did show significant economic ~21/
IE~ Tech~ogy ond Soci~ t~ag~ne, Spring 1996
D E L i
benefits for underground[ne in certain res[den- 112] "Assessment of children's long term exposure to magnetic
fields," EPRI Tech. Rep. 101407s, Dec. 1992.
ti a] areas. 031E.S. Cassedy. "Health risk valuations based on public consent,"
IEEE TechnoL & $oc. Mag., Tint. 1992/1993.
1141 M. Feychting and A. Ahlboro, "Magnetic fields and cancer in
Clear and Distinct Advantages children residing near Swedish high voltage lines," Amer. J.
EpidemioL, vol. 138, no. 7, Oct. ]993.
From the community point of view, there are [15] D. Savitz and C. Ananth, "Residential magnetic fields, wire
codes, and pregnancy outcome," Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 18. pp.
clear and distinct advantages in having all urban :71-273, 1994.
power lines underground. Utility companies, ap- [16] C. Delan¢ and D. Timmons, "High voltage power lines: Do they
crating in a regulated monopoly status, basically affect residential property value?" J. Real Estate Res.. vol. 7. Sum.
1992.
have no incentive to accommodate the public in 117] "criscuola vs. Power Authority of the State of NY," NY Court
the matters discussed. In general, citizen groups of Appeals Ruling. Oct. 12, 1993.
have been unsuccessful in working directly with il 8] aka/GOSS County. FL, Clerk/Police Rep. Memo., Oct. I 1.1994.
[ 19] Front page articles./v'W Florida Daily News, July 1-7, 1994.
the utility companies, though some success has [201 Frontpage articles, Richmond Times Dispatch, Mar. 16, 1993.
been achieved through court action [ 16]. More- I21 ] Front page articles, Richmond Times Dispatch, June 5, 1993.
[22] Front page articles, Richmond Times Dispatch, Aug. 20, 1993.
over, the limited attempt to generate a successful [23] Front page articles, Richmond TimesDispatch, Feb. 13, 1994.
forcing action through the legislative process I241 Front page articles, Richmond Times Dispatch, Mar. 4, 1994.
was unsuccessful except that the effort provided [251 Message from SCF-,&G to FPSC staff during FPSC OH vs UG
Study 1989-1991 (Rep. on Cost Effectiveness of Underground Elec-
a large amount of data that had heretofore been Mc Distribution Facilities}.
unavailable for analysis. The problems remain, [26] Message from NC PSC staff to F'PSC staff during FPSC OH vs
however, and the public seems to be becoming Ua Study 1989-1901.
[27] Hurricane Andrew Data Request Response, FPL Rep., OCt. 20,
increasingly aware of them.
The undergrounding of urban power lines as 1281 Multiple stories, The Miami Herald, Aug. 22-Sept. 15, 1992.
[291 Multiple stories, NW Florida Daily News, Aug. 1995.
a national policy would generate very significant [30] Multiple stories, NV/Florida Da[6' News, Oct. 1995.
benefits to the public. These benefits are such [31] Letter to author from CHELCO (L.L Timbrook, V.P.},Nov. 20.
that[n-depth studies toquantify thecost-benefits 1905.
[3:2] Letter to author from Gulf Power Co. (W. Pope, Bulk Power
and for the development of logical methods for Planning), Nov. I, 1995.
cost sharing are needed. [33] u.s. Navy, "Comparison of computer failures for OHIUG sys-
tems,'' IEEE Trans. Ind. App., vol lA-15, July/Aug 1985.
The utility companies have no incentive to p41 J. and P. Weis, "Transfer of contaminants from CeA-treated
sponsor such studies as current laws donor require lumber to aquatic biota," J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., vol. 161, pp.
any consideration of societal costs. A reasonable 189-100, 1992.
[35] "iT)ER Staff message 1989 to FPSC staff during FPSC study
approach, therefore, would be through state leg[s- (Report on Cost-Effectiveness of UG Electric Distribution Facilities
lative action to open the electric power industry to 19001.
full retail competition and let the market forces [361 M. Feychting and A. Ahlbom, "Magnetic fields and cancer in
people residing near Swedish high voltage power lines," Instittutet
bring about this long overdue improvement. An fo~ Miljomedicin, Karolinskalnsl., Stockholm, Sweden. June 1992.
alternative approach could be for legislatures to [37]Rep. onCost-EffectivenessofUndergroundElectricDistribution
Facilities, FPSC, July 1990 and Dec. 1991.
require utilities to operate in such a manner as to [38] Letters to the author from the California Public Utilities Cam-
minimize the aggregate of societal costs associated mission staff, Oct. 27, 1987, Apr. 28, 1988, Aug. 31, 1994, and
with urban power delivery, attachments.
[39] "The impact of public fear on the market value of property is
admissible without independent proof of the reasonableness of the
fear." Affirmed by the U.S. 6th Circuit: Hicks v U.S. 1959, & TVA
References v E~.~m=, and R.O.W. issues.
[ ] ] J. Douglas, "Costs coming down for underground," J. Elec. Power [40] "Depending on the county and the size of the transmission line
Res. Inst.,June 1994. there is a decrease in property value from 27 to 45 per cent for property
[2] N. lnou et al.. "On-line fault system for 66-kV underground cables along the line." Florida Supreme Court, FP&L v Jennings and FP&L
with fast O/E and fast A/D technique," lEEE Trans. PowerSvst. Jan. v Roberts. Sept. 3, 1987.
19~4. [41] "Severance damages awarded to landowner whose property is
[3] Statistics Dept., "Estimating the costs of accidents." National condemned for use by the elecu'ic utility for overhead transmission
Safety Council Bull., 1990-1994. line could include damages associated with public fear of EM radia-
l4] A. Sanghvi. "Economic costs of electricity supply interruptions," tion from such lines." CA 4th Dis Court of Appeals, Nov. 17. 1988.
Energy Econ. vol, 4 July 1982. [42] "The only issue before us centers on the claim for consequential
[5] M. Sullivan, et al., "Description of Pacific Gas and Electricdamages, based on the claimants' assertion that 'cancerpbopia' and
company value of service study," unpublished workpaper, PG&E, thc public's perception of a health risk from exposure to MF from
power lines negatively impact on the market value of their property
Jan. 19, 1990. and 'will render the remainder useless,' They argue that they should
{6] S. Bums and G. Gross, "Value of service reliability," IEEE Eng. not have to prove the 'reasonableness' of this perception as a separate.
Standards Quart.. Wint. 1990. additional component of diminished market value. We agree and
[7} A. Sanghvi, "Cost benefit analysis of power system reliability: reverse the orderofthe Appellate Division." State of New York. Court
determination of interruption costs," EPR1 Rep. EL6791, May 1990.
[8]M. EvansandP. Hanser,"Prospectsforstandbypowerprograms," of Appeals, Criscuola v Power Authority of Stale of New York
EPRI J., Mar. 1992. (representing 47 litigants), OCt. 1993.
[9] G. Tollefson et al., "A Canadian customer survey to assess power [43] "Logic and fairness.., dictate that any loss of market value proven
system reliability worth "IEEE Trans. PowerSvst., vol. 9, Feb. 1994. with a reasonable degree of probability should be compenable, re-
[ 10] D. Carpenter, M.D., "Epidemiological evidence for an associa- gardless of its source. If no one will buy a residential lot because it
tion between exposure to 50 and 60 Hz magnetic fields and cancer"has a high voltage line across it, the lot is a total loss even though the
James Bay Publ. Set., no. 6, Nov. 1994. owner has the legal right to build a house on it. If buyers can be found,
but only at half the value it had before the line was installed, the owner
ill] D. Savitz and D. Loom[s, "Magnetic field exposure in relation has sufffered a 50c.~ loss.'Wills v Kansas City Power, State arKansas
to leukemia and brain cancer mortality among elecu'ic utility work- Court of Appeals, SI5 p2d 528-533, 1981. 'T&S
ers," Amer. J. Epidemiol.. Jan. 15, 1995.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~. ~.- REGULAR MEETING OF MAY. 21, 1996
AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES WITH LAND DESIGN
SOUTH FOR 1-95 SOUND BARRIER W~LT.
DATE: MAY 15, 1996
This is before the Commission to approve an Agreement for Landscape
Architectural Services between the City and Land Design South for
beautification of the 1-95 sound barrier wall. It covers the general
conditions and duties of the consultant during various phases of the work.
C~ce approved by Commission, a service authorization will be issued
delineating the scope of services during each phase as well as the
negotiated fee.
For this particular project, the initial service authorization has been
negotiated at 88,144.93 (a fee of $7,144.93 plus $1,000 in reimbursable
expenses). The work includes preparation of landscape plans as well as
preparation of the grant application to Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. which
will provide matching funds for the project. Funding is available from
1-95 Barrier Wall - Beautification (Account #334-4144-572-63.34). Since
the total amount is less than $10,000.00, I will sign off on the service
authorization once the agreement is approved.
The funding for the actual improvements to the sound wall has been included
in the FY 1996/97 budget in the amount of $50,000. If we are successful in
obtaining a full match, the construction cost will be about $90,000.
R~commend approval of the Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services
with Land Design South for the 1-95 sound wall beautification project.
ref: agmemo5
Date: May 15, 1996 Agenda Item No. ~ ·
AGENDA REQUEST
Agenda request to be placed on:
X Regular __ Special __ Workshop ~ Consent
When: May 21, 1996
Description of Agenda Item:
1-95 Sound Barrier Wall - Land Design South
Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services
Ordinance/Resolution Required: Yes / No Draft Attached: Yes / No
Recommendation: Approval
Department Head /? ~_.
Signature:
City Attomey Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds):
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THROUGH: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
DATE: MAY 15, 1996
ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The item before the Commission is the consideration of approval of the
Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services with Land Design South ,for
the landscape improvements to the 1-95 Sound Barrier Wall.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 1996, the City Commission approved the ranking of the landscape
architectural firms short-listed for the beautification of the 1-95 Sound
Barrier Wall and authorized staff to enter into negotiations with the firms
in order of ranking. The attached Agreement for Landscape Architectural
Services has been reviewed by staff and the City Attorney's office and found
to be acceptable. Upon the approval by the Commission, the agreement can be
executed.
The Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services covers the general
conditions and duties of the consultant during various phases of the work.
The agreement will be followed by a Service Authorization which will
identify the scope of work and will include the fee proposed by the
consultant to perform the tasks outlined in the various phases.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Commission give consideration to the approval
of the Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services with Land Design South
for the beautification of the 1-95 Sound Barrier Wall.
Date: May 15, 1996 Agenda Item No.
AGENDA REQUEST
Agenda request to be placed on:
_X_ Regular __ Special __ Workshop __ Consent
When: May 21, 1996
Description of Agenda Item:
1-95 Sound Barrier Wall - Land Design South
Service Authorization # 1
Ordinance/Resolution Required: Yes / No Draft Attached: Yes / No
Recommendation: Approval
Department H~,,~~~
Signature: _ , ,
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable) ~/~
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds):
;ti II, z
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THROUGH: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
FROM: NANCY DAVILA, HORTICULTURIST ~
RE: 1-95 SOUND BARRIER WALL - LAND DESIGN SOUTH
SERVICE AUTHORIZATION # 1
DATE: MAY 15, 1996
ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The item before the Commission is the consideration of approval of Service
Authorization # 1 with Land Design South for the 1-95 Sound Barrier Wall to
provide landscape architectural services for various phases of work as
described in the scope of services. Fees have been negotiated at $7,144.93
for all salary related costs plus an additional $1,000 for reimbursables.
The total dollar amount for fees and reimbursables is $8,144.93.
BACKGROUND
This service authorization is to cover the work to be performed by Land
Design South for the preparation of landscape plans for the 1-95 Sound
Barrier Wall. The preparation of the grant application to Beautiful Palm
Beaches, Inc., which will provide matching funding for the project, is
included in the scope of services.
The attached manhour spreadsheet has identified the different phases of work
as well as the tasks for each phase and the manhours projected to complete
the work.
The funding for the landscape improvements to this area have been included
for consideration in the 96/97 budget in the amount of $50,000. If we are
successful in obtaining a full match for our money, the construction costs
would be about $90,000.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Commission give consideration to the approval
of Service Authorization # 1 for Land Design South for Landscape
Architectural Services in connection with the beautification of the 1-95
Sound Barrier Wall. Fees proposed for Service Authorization # 1 are in the
amount of $7,144.93. An additional $1,000 will need to be allocated for
reimbursables. Funding is available from City Expense Code 334-4144-572-
63.34.
LAND DESIGN SOUTH
CONSULTING SERVICE AUTHORIZATION
DATE: , 1996
SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. 1 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
CITY PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER:
CITY EXPENSE CODE: 334-4144-572-63.34
CITY PROJECT NUMBER: ~ ~L~.~?
CONSULTANT'S PROJECT NUMBER
TITLE: 1-95 SOUND BARRIER WALLS BEAUTIFICATION
This Service Authorization, when executed, shall be incorporated in and
become an integral part of the Contract.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Work includes the development of base plans and landscape plans for the
beautification of the 1-95 Sound Barrier Walls, as they transect the
City of Delray beach. Services also include the preparation and
submittal of the grant application for the 1996/1997 State and County
Roadway Beautification Grant Program which must be submitted to
Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc., approximately the middle of July 1996,
the exact deadline is yet to be established at the time of this Service
Authorization.
Project plans must comply with all design standards and sight distance
requirements imposed by the Florida Department of Transportation
Roadway Traffic Design Standards, January 1994, or any other agencies
having jurisdiction.
Services include consultation with City Staff and other governmental
agencies and utilities as required, development of master
plans/schematic design, preparation of schedules and cost estimates,
design development, preparation of construction documents, preparation
of grant application, bidding assistance, site inspections, contract
administration, and the development of maintenance specifications which
the Contractor would adhere to during the one year warranty period.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. The services to be provided shall include the following phases as
listed in the Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services.
Phase I - Master Plan/Schematic Design Phase
The Consultant shall conduct a site analysis, soil analysis and
inventory of existing plant materials which directly affect the
project. Existing drainage patterns shall be identified.
The Consultant shall prepare base plans using roadway construction
plans available from F.D.O.T.
The Consultant shall coordinate and provide utility locations for
all services affecting the planting area.
The Consultant shall develop a palette of plant materials
acceptable to the City for the landscape plan, with the
understanding that no irrigation will be provided in these
locations, and all plant materials must be extremely drought
tolerant.
The Consultant shall consult with the City to ascertain the
requirements of the project and shall arrive at a mutual
understanding of the project with the City.
The Consultant shall consult with the Florida Department of
Transportation and the FederalHighway Administration as needed
regarding design standards and other constraints.
The Consultant shall coordinate with Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc.,
to determine the guidelines for submittal of the grant application
for the 1996/997 State and County Roadway Beautification Grant
Program.
The Consultant shall provide the City with a schematic design
based on a mutually agreed upon program. The approved schematic
plan will be the basis for the design development phase.
The schematic design documents shall consist of drawings and other
documents illustrating the scale and relationship of landscaping
components and cost estimates.
The Consultant shall proceed with the Design Development Phase
upon written authorization by the City stating acceptance of the
schematic design phase.
Phase II - Design Development Phase
The Consultant shall continue to develop the plans and
specifications based on the schematic plans accepted by the City
as the landscape design which will be the basis for the grant
application.
The design development documents shall consist of landscape
drawings and specifications which fix and describe the size and
character of the project. The Consultant shall consider the
availability of plant materials, economic analysis, user safety
and maintenance requirements and water conservation.
The Consultant shall provide ten (10) copies of the design
development documents and make a presentation to the City
Commission and receive their consensus of approval to move forward
into the construction document phase.
The Consultant shall prepare the grant application for the
1996/1997 State and County Roadway Beautification Grant Program.
As of this writing, the application deadline has not been
established, but it is anticipated to be the middle of July 1996.
Phase III - Construction Document Phase
The Consultant shall provide documents for bid purposes based on
funding available. The City anticipates that approximately
$90,000.00 will be available for construction.
The Consultant shall attend all governmental meetings and provide
services required to obtain approvals from governing bodies with
jurisdiction over this project, which may include, but is not
limited to:
City Staff
Site Plan Review and Appearance Board
Florida Department of Transportation
Delray Beach City Commission
Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc.
The Consultant shall furnish all applications, drawings,
specifications, renderings, perspectives and materials needed to
obtain approvals from the aforementioned governing bodies.
Final construction documents shall be compatible with Auto Cadd
version 12.
Phase IV - Bidding/Negotiation Phase
The Consultant shall assist the City in obtaining bids and
negotiated proposals, assist in awarding and preparing contracts
for construction, attend pre-bid conferences, prepare addenda,
and provide written recommendation of award.
Phase V - Contract Administration Phase
The Consultant shall provide administration of the contract for
construction as set forth in the Professional Services Agreement.
This is to include, but not limited to, advise and consult with
the City until final payment, site inspections to determine that
the progress of work, when completed, will be in accordance with
contract documents, review and certification of payment, requests,
review shop drawings and evaluate the the acceptability of
substitute materials, prepare change orders~ wi~.h supporting
documentation, interpret matters concerning performance of the
owner and contractor and shall upon completion of construction,
provide three sets of signed and sealed record drawings,
incorporating as built conditions an~ other data furnished by the
Contractors.
Additional design work requested by the City not included by this
service authorization, which is incidental to the scope of
services will be compensated by a separate service authorization.
III. BUDGET
Compensation for services shall be as follows:
A. Method I - Lump Sum (See VII A.! of Agreement)
Phase I $2~643.94
Phase II $1,254.37
Phase III $2,105.03
Phase IV $76.50
Phase V $1,074.09
Total Not to Exceed $7.144,93
B. Method II time/charges not to exceed budgeted amount (See VII A.2
of Agreement)
C. I. All expenses associated with the preparation and reproduction
of drawings and specifications for the development of plans
and contract documents shall be at the consultant's expense.
2. Bidding and printing costs associated with presentations,
plans review sets, permitting sets, bid sets and construction
document sets shall be paid as a reimbursable with costs not
to exceed $~,000.00.
3. Fees shall be waived for all City associated processes for
plan review and permitting.
IV. COMPLETION DATE
A. It is the purpose and intent of the City to have the work in Phase
I and Phase II completed in time for the submittal to Beautiful
Palm Beaches, Inc. for consideration of the State and County
Roadway Beautification Grant Program. The actual deadline for
submittals of applications has yet to be established, but is
anticipated to be the middle of July 1996.
B. It is the purpose and intent of the City to have the work in Phase
III completed by November 1, 1996.
C. It is the purpose and intent of the City to have the work in Phase
IV completed by January 1, 1997.
D. It is the purpose and intent of the City to have the work in Phase
V completed during May 1997 so the completion of the landscape
installation coincides with the start of the rainy season.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
This Service Authorization is approved contingent upon the City's acceptance
of and satisfaction with the completion of services rendered in the previous
phase or as encompassed by the previous Service Authorization. If the City
in its sole discretion is unsatisfied with the services provided in the
previous phase or Service Authorization, the City may terminate the contract
without incurring any further liability. The Consultant may not commence
work on any Service Authorization approved by the City to be included as
part of this contract without further Notice to Proceed.
APPROVED BY: CONSULTANT: LAND DESIGN SOUTH
Date Date:
This Service Authorization is approved contingent upon the City's acceptance
of and satisfaction with the completion of services rendered in the previous
phase or as encompassed by the previous Service Authorization. If the City
in its sole discretion is unsatisfied with the services provided in the
previous phase or Service Authorization, the City may terminate the contract
without incurring any further liability. The Consultant may not commence
work on any Service Authorization approved by the City to be included as
part of this contract without further Notice to Proceed.
APPROVED BY: CONSULTANT: LAND DESIGN SOUTH
Date Date:
By:
Jay Alperin, D.D.S. (Seal)
Mayor
Attest:
Witness
Witness
Approved as to legal sufficiency and form
City Attorney's Office
ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR CORPORATION
STATE OF COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1996 by
(Title and Company)
who is personally known to me or has produced
(type of identification)
as identification and who did (did not) take an oath.
Signature of person taking
Acknowledgment
Name of acknowledger, typed
printed, or stamped
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THROUGH: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT U~
FROM: NANCY DAVILA, HORTICULTURIST ~
RE: LAKE IDA ROAD BEAUTIFICATION - COTLEUR HEARING, INC.
AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
DATE: MAY 15, 1996
ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The item before the Commission is the consideration of approval of the
Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services with Cotleur Hearing, Inc.,
for Lake Ida Road beautification.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 1996, the City Commission approved the ranking of the landscape
architectural firms short-listed for the Lake Ida Road beautification
project and authorized staff to enter into negotiations with the firms in
order of ranking. These negotiations have resulted in the acceptance of the
Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services by Cotleur Hearing, Inc., as
well as staff and the City Attorney's office, and now needs the approval of
the City Commission for the execution of the agreement.
The Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services is tantamount to the
'front-end' documents of most contracts, wherein it covers the general
conditions and general duties of the consultant throughout various phases of
the work. The Agreement will be followed by a Service Authorization which
identifies the scope of work and further arrives at the manhours needed to
perform the tasks to complete the work and consultant's fees.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Commission give consideration to the approval
of the Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services with Cotleur Hearing,
Inc., for the beautification of Lake Ida Road.
Date: May 15, 1996 Agenda Item No.
AGENDA REQUEST
Agenda request to be placed on:
X Regular __ Special __ Workshop __ Consent
When: May 21, 1996
Description of Agenda Item:
Lake Ida Road Beautification - Cotleur Hearing, Inc
Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services
Ordinance/Resolution Required: Yes / No Draft Attached: Yes / No
Recommendation: Approval
Department Head
Signature:
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable) ~/~x~ A
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds):
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THROUGH: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT ~
FROM: NANCY DAVILA, HORTICULTURIST ~
RE: LAKE IDA ROAD BEAUTIFICATION - COTLEUR HEARING, INC.
SERVICE AUTHORIZATION # 1
DATE: MAY 15, 1996
ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The item before the Commission is the consideration of approval of Service
Authorization # 1 with Cotleur Hearing, Inc., for Lake Ida Road
beautification to provide landscape architectural services for various
phases of work as described in the scope of services. Fees have been
negotiated at $18,132.25 for all salary related costs plus an additional
$2,500 for reimbursables for a total lump sum fee of $20,632.25.
BACKGROUND
This service authorization is to cover, the work to be performed by the
consulting firm for the development of irrigation and landscape plans for
Lake Ida Road, between Congress Avenue and Swinton Avenue. This service
authorization is specific for the medians that will be constructed by the
County as well as the entrance road to Spady Elementary which is connected
to Lake Ida by N.W. 10th Avenue.
Included in the scope of services is the preparation of the grant
application to Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. for additional funding.
The attached manhour estimate clearly identifies the phases of work with a
task breakdown and the number of manhours anticipated for each of the tasks
by job function. The cost of construction is anticipated to be $215,000.00.
The fees proposed of $18,132.25 represents roughly an 8% fee if the costs
associated with the grant application are deducted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Commission give consideration to the approval
of the Service Authorization # 1 for Cotleur Hearing, Inc., for Landscape
Architectural Services in connection with the beautification of Lake Ida
Road. Fees proposed for Service Authorization # i are in the amount of
$18,132.25 and $2,500 allocated for reimbursables for a total lump sum
amount of $20,632.25. Funding is available from City Expense Code 334-4144-
572-63.31.
Date: May 15, 1996 Agenda Item No. /.~
AGENDA REQUEST
Agenda request to be placed on:
X Regular __ Special __ Workshop __ Consent
When: May 21, 1996
Description of Agenda Item:
Lake Ida Road Beautification - Cotleur Hearing, Inc
Service Authorization #1
Ordinance/Resolution Required: Yes / No Draft Attached: Yes / No
Recommendation: Approval
Department Head t~.~
Signature:
City Attomey Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds):
COTLEUR HEARING, INC.
CONSULTING SERVICE AUTHORIZATION
DATE: , 1996
SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. FOR CONSULTING .SERVICES
CITY PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER:
CITY EXPENSE CODE: 334-4144-572-63.31
CITY PROJECT NUMBER: 9~f~~!'
CONSULTANT'S PROJECT NUMBER
TITLE: LAKE IDA ROAD BEAUTIFICATION (BETWEEN SWINTON AVE. & CONGRESS AVE.)
This Service Authorization, when executed, shall be incorporated in and
become an integral part of the Contract.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Work includes the development of base plans and irrigation and
landscape plans for the beautification of Lake Ida Road, between
Swinton Avenue and Congress Avenue. Services also include the
preparation and submittal of the grant application for the 1996/1997
State and County Roadway Beautification Grant Program which must be
submitted to Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc., on or before 5:00 p.m. on
The primary focus will be the medians currently being constructed by
Palm Beach County as depicted on the plans by Heller, Weaver & Cato,
inc., Project No. 90502. Incidental to the median design will be the
preparation of the irrigation and landscape design for the entrance to
Spady Elementary School off N.W. 10th Avenue.
Project plans must comply with all design standards and sight distance
requirements imposed by Palm Beach County Streetscape Standards, March
1994 and the Florida Department of Transportation Roadway Traffic
Design Standards, January 1994, or any other agencies having
jurisdiction.
Services include consultation with City Staff and other governmental
agencies and utilities as required, development of master
plans/schematic design, preparation of schedules and cost estimates,
design development, preparation of construction documents, preparation
of grant application, bidding assistance, site inspections, contract
administration, and the development of maintenance specifications which
the Contractor would adhere to during the one year warranty period.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. The services to be provided shall include the following phases as
listed in the Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services.
Phase I - Master Plan/Schematic Design Phase
The Consultant shall conduct a site analysis and inventory of
existing plant materials which directly.affect the project.
The Consultant shall prepare base plans using roadway construction
plans designed by Heller, Weaver & Cato, inc.
The Consultant shall coordinate and provide utility locations for
all services affecting the planting area.
The Consultant shall develop a palette of~ plant materials
acceptable to the City for the landscape plan~
The Consultant shall consult with the City to ascertain the
requirements of the project and shall arrive at a mutual
understanding of the project with the City.
The Consultant shall consult with Palm Beach County Engineering
and the Florida Department of Transportation as needed regarding
design standards, including sight distance requirements and other
constraints.
The Consultant shall coordinate with Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc.,
to determine the guidelines for submittal of the grant application
for the 1996/997 State and County Roadway Beautification Grant
Program.
The Consultant shall provide the City with a schematic design
based on a mutually agreed upon program. The approved schematic
plan will be the basis for the design development phase.
The schematic design documents shall consist of drawings and other
documents illustrating the scale and relationship of landscaping
components and cost estimates. The schematic phase will also
identify the type of irrigation system, verify the suitability of
proposed sleeve locations (to be installed during the road
construction by the County) and identify anticipated water meter
and Florida Power & Light service locations.
The Consultant shall proceed with the Design Development Phase
upon written authorization by the City stating acceptance of the
schematic design phase.
Phase II - Design Development Phase
The Consultant shall continue to develop the plans and
specifications based on the schematic plans accepted by the City
as the landscape design which will be the basis for the grant
application.
The design development documents shall consist of irrigation and
landscape drawings and specifications which fix and describe the
size and character of the project. The Consultant shall consider
the availability of plant materials, economic analysis, user
safety and maintenance requirements and water conservation.
The Consultant shall provide ten (10) copies of the design
development documents and make a presentation to the City
Commission and receive their consensus of approval to move forward
into the construction document phase.
The Consultant shall prepare the grant application for the
1996/1997 State and County Roadway Beautifi-cation Grant Program.
As of this writing, the application deadline has not been
established, but it is anticipated to be the middle of July 1996.
Phase III - Construction Document Phase
The Consultant shall provide documents for bid purposes based on
funding available. The City anticipates that approximately
$200,000.00 will be available for construction.
The Consultant shall attend all governmental meetings and provide
services required to obtain approvals from governing bodies with
jurisdiction over this project, which may include, but is not
limited to:
City Staff
Site Plan Review and Appearance Board
Palm Beach County Engineering
Florida Department of Transportation
Delray Beach City Commission
Palm Beach County Board of Commissioners
Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc.
The Consultant shall furnish all applications, drawings,
specifications, renderings, perspectives and materials needed to
obtain approvals from the aforementioned governing bodies.
Final construction documents shall be compatible with Auto Cadd
version 12.
Phase IV - Bidding/Negotiation Phase
The Consultant shall assist the City in obtaining bids and
negotiated proposals, assist in awarding and preparing contracts
for construction, attend pre-bid conferences, prepare addenda,
and provide written recommendation of award.
Phase V - Contract Administration Phase
The Consultant shall provide administration of the contract for
construction as set forth in the Professional Services Agreement.
This is to include, but not limited to, advise and consult with
the City until final payment, site inspections to determine that
the progress of work, when completed, will be in accordance with
contract documents, review and certifigation of payment requests,
review shop drawings and evaluate the the acceptability of
substitute materials, prepare change orders with supporting
documentation, interpret matters concerning performance of the
owner and contractor and shall upon completion of construction,
provide three sets of signed and sealed record drawings,
incorporating as built conditions and other data furnished by the
Contractors.
Additional design work requested by the city~no~ i~Ciuded by this
service authorization, which is incidental to the scope of
services will be compensated by a separate~service authorization.
III. BUDGET
Compensation for services shall be as follows:
A. Method I - Lump Sum (See VII A. 1 of Agreement)
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Phase V
Total Not to Exceed
B. Method II time/charges not to exceed budgeted amount (See VII A.2
of Agreement)
C. 1. Ail expenses associated with the preparation and reproduction
of drawings and specifications for the development of plans
and contract documents shall be at the consultant's expense.
2. Bidding and printing costs associated with presentations,
plans review sets, permitting sets, bid sets and construction
document sets shall be paid as a reimbursable with costs not
to exceed $3,000.00.
3. Fees shall be waived for all City associated processes for
plan review and permitting.
IV. COMPLETION DATE
A. It is the purpose and intent of the City to have the work in Phase
I and Phase II completed in time for the submittal to Beautiful
Palm Beaches, Inc. for consideration of the State and County
Roadway Beautification Grant Program. The actual deadline for
submittals of applications has yet to be established, but is
anticipated to be the middle of July 1996.
B. It is the purpose and intent of t~e City to have the work in
Phase III and IV completed by October 1, 1996. Although the
County currently projects the completion of the roadway
construction by the end of September 1996, the City's funding
will not be available until the start of the new fiscal year.
The City would like to be in a position to begin construction
of the irrigation and landscaping as soon as the County is
through with the construction.
C. It is the purpose and intent of the City to have the work in
Phase V completed by March 1, 1997~ but as this work is
directly affected by the progress of the landscape and
irrigation contractors, this date may be adjusted to reflect
the construction schedule.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
This Service Authorization is approved contingent upon the City's acceptance
of and satisfaction with the completion of services rendered in the previous
phase or as encompassed by the previous Service Authorization. If the City
in its sole discretion is unsatisfied with the services provided in the
previous phase or Service Authorization, the City may terminate the contract
without incurring any further liability. The Consultant may not commence
work on any Service Authorization approved by the City to be included as
part of this contract without further Notice to Proceed.
APPROVED BY: CONSULTANT: COT~EUR HEARING, INC.
Date Date:
By:
Jay Alperin, D.D.S. (Seal)
Mayor
Attest:
Witness
Witness
Approved as to legal sufficiency and form
City Attorney's Office
ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR CORPORATION
STATE OF COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1996 by
(Title and Company)
who is personally known to me or has produced
(type of identification)
as identification and who did (did not) take an oath.
Signature of person taking
Acknowledgment
Name of acknowledger, typed
printed, or stamped
Lake Ida Road Beautification
City of Delray Beach
Lake Ida Road Beautification
Manhour Estimate
Manhours
Landscape CADD
Task Principal Architect Technician Clerical Totals
Phase I Base Plan-Schematic Design
Base Plans 2 30 32
Site Analysis 4 2 6
Plant Pallet 2 2
Code/Document Review 1 1
Schematic Design 16 4 20
Graphics for Presentation 2 8 0 4 14
Phase II Design Development
Design Development 2 2
Irrigation Plans 6 4 24 34
Landscape Plans 8 4 24 36
Grant Application 8 10 18
Coordination With City 8 8
QA/QC 8 6 4 8 26
Phase // Total 124
Phase III Construction Documents
Final Landscape Plans 4 12 16
Final Irrigation Plans 6 12 18
Specifications 16 4 4 24
Coordination w City 6 6
Permit Applications 2 4 6
QAJQC 10 6 4 2O
Phase IV Bidding
Meetings 6 6
Coordination 8 0 6 14
PhaSe iV T°tal i 0 0 20
Phase V Construction Administration
Meetings/Inspections 24 24
Coordination 16 16
Project Close Out 4 6 10
Phase v TotaJ 44 : : 0 0 6 50 :
Project Totals 169 28 130 32 359
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THROUGH: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
FROM: NANCY DAVILA, HORTICULTURIST c
RE: LAKE IDA ROAD BEAUTIFICATION - COTLEUR HEARING INC.
SERVICE AUTHORIZATION # 2
DATE: MAY 15, 1996
ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The item before the Commission is the consideration of approval of Service
Authorization # 2 with Cotleur Hearing, Inc., to provide landscape
architectural design services for the beautification of the 1-95 Overpass on
Lake Ida Road as described in the scope of services. Fees have been
negotiated at $5,194.36 for all salary related costs plus an additional $500
for reimbursables for a total lump sum fee of $5,694.36.
BACKGROUND
This service authorization is to cover the work to be performed in
connection with the development of irrigation and landscape plans for the 1-
95 Overpass on Lake Ida Road. This will address the areas on the four
corners of the overpass to tie into the irrigation system being designed for
Lake Ida Road and to integrate the key landscape features to provide
continuity between the median design and the overpass.
The funding for the landscape improvements to this area have been included
for your consideration in the 96/97 budget in the amount of $40,000. It is
my intention to approach the F.D.O.T. District IV for approval of
'discretionary funding' which would increase the funding available to
$70,000.
The Service Authorization is set up in such a way, that if the funding was
not available next year the consultant would stop after Phase III and would
not be authorized to move forward until such time as funding was available
to construct the project. I feel it is important to have the plans designed
now so we do have the continuation of the design theme from the medians on
lake Ida Road.
The attached Manhour estimate shows the breakdown of manhours by tasks and
position for the five phases of work.
1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Commission give consideration to the approval
of Service Authorization # 2 for Cotleur Hearing, Inc., for Landscape
Architectural Services in connection with the beautification of the 1-95
Overpass on Lake Ida Road. Fees proposed for Service Authorization # 2 are
in the amount of $5,194.36 and $500 allocated for reimbursables for a total
lump sum amount of $5,694.36. Funding is available from City Expense Code
334-4144-572-63.31.
Date: May 15, 1996 Agenda Item No. o(;?'~ ·
AGENDA REQUEST
Agenda request to be placed on:
X Regular __ Special __ Workshop __ Consem
When: May 21, 1996
Description of Agenda Item:
Lake Ida Road Beautification - Cotleur Heating, Inc
Service Authorization #2
Ordinance/Resolution Required: Yes / No Draft Attached: Yes / No
Recommendation: Approval
Department Head ~ ~
Signature: ~/
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable) ~/~"
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds):
COTLEUR HEARING, INC.
CONSULTING SERVICE AUTHORIZATION
DATE: , 1996
SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. 2 FOR CONSULTING ~ERVICES
CITY PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER:
CITY EXPENSE CODE: 334-4144-572-63.31
CITY PROJECT
CONSULTANT'S PROJECT NUMBER
TITLE: LAKE IDA/I-95 OVERPASS BEAUTIFICATION
This Service Authorization, when executed, shall be incorporated in and
become an integral part of the Contract.
Io PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Work includes the development of base plans and irrigation and
landscape plans for the beautification of the 1-95 Overpass on Lake Ida
Road.
Project plans must comply with all design standards and sight distance
requirements imposed by Palm Beach County Streetscape Standards, March
1994 and the Florida Department of Transportation Roadway Traffic
Design Standards, January 1994, or any other agencies having
jurisdiction.
Services include consultation with City Staff and other governmental
agencies and utilities as required, development of master
plans/schematic design, preparation of schedules and cost estimates,
design development, preparation of construction documents, preparation
of grant application, bidding assistance, site inspections, contract
administration, and the development of maintenance specifications which
the Contractor would adhere to during the one year warranty period.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. The services to be provided shall include the following phases as
listed in the Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services.
Phase I - Master Plan/Schematic Design Phase
The Consultant shall conduct a site analysis and inventory of
existing plant materials which directly affect the project.
The Consultant shall prepare base plans, it is not known at this
time if plans are available from F.D.O.T.
The Consultant shall coordinate and provide utility locations for
all services affecting the planting area.
The Consultant shall develop a palette of plant materials
acceptable to the City for the landscape plan.
The Consultant shall consult with the City to ascertain the
requirements of the project and shall arrive at a mutual
understanding of the project with the City.
The Consultant shall consult with Palm Beach County Engineering
and the Florida Department of Transportation as needed regarding
design standards, including sight distance requirements and other
constraints.
The Consultant, together, with the City shall contact F.D.O.T.
regarding the availability of discretionary funding through
District 4.
The Consultant shall provide the City with a schematic design
based on a mutually agreed upon program. The approved schematic
plan will be the basis for the design development phase.
The schematic design documents shall consist of drawings and other
documents illustrating the scale and relationship of landscaping
components and cost estimates. The schematic phase will also
identify the type of irrigation system, verify the suitability of
proposed sleeve locations (to be installed during the road
construction by the County) and identify anticipated water meter
and Florida Power & Light service locations.
The Consultant shall proceed with the Design Development Phase
upon written authorization by the City stating acceptance of the
schematic design phase.
Phase II - Design Development Phase
The Consultant shall continue to develop the plans and
specifications based on the schematic plans accepted by the City.
The design development documents shall consist of irrigation and
landscape drawings and specifications which fix and describe the
size and character of the project. The Consultant shall consider
the availability of plant materials, economic analysis, user
safety and maintenance requirements and water conservation.
The Consultant shall provide ten (10) copies of the design
development documents and make a presentation to the City
Commission and receive their consensus of approval to move forward
into the construction document phase.
Phase III - Construction Document Phase
The Consultant shall provide documents for bid purposes based on
funding available. The City anticipates that approximately
$40,000.00 will be available for construction.
The Consultant shall attend all governmental meetings and provide
services required to obtain approvals £rom governing bodies with
jurisdiction over this project, which may include, but is not
limited to:
City Staff
Site Plan Review and Appearance Board
Palm Beach County Engineering
Florida Department of Transportation
Delray Beach City Commission ....
The Consultant shall furnish all applications, drawings,
specifications, renderings, perspectives~and materials needed to
obtain approvals from the aforementioned governing bodies.
Final construction documents shall be compatible with Auto Cadd
version 12.
Phase IV - Bidding/Negotiation Phase
The Consultant shall assist the City in obtaining bids and
negotiated proposals, assist in awarding and preparing contracts
for construction, attend pre-bid conferences, prepare addenda,
and provide written recommendation of award.
Phase V - Contract Administration Phase
The Consultant shall provide administration of the contract for
construction as set forth in the Professional Services Agreement.
This is to include, but not limited to, advise and consult with
the City until final payment, site inspections to determine that
the progress of work, when completed, will be in accordance with
contract documents, review and certification of payment requests,
review shop drawings and evaluate the the acceptability of
substitute materials, prepare change orders with supporting
documentation, interpret matters concerning performance of the
owner and contractor and shall upon completion of construction,
provide three sets of signed and sealed record drawings,
incorporating as built conditions and other data furnished by the
Contractors.
Additional design work requested by the City not included by this
service authorization, which is incidental to the scope of
services will be compensated by a separate service authorization.
III. BUDGET
Compensation for services shall be as follows:
A. Method I - Lump Sum (See VII A. 1 of Agreement)
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Phase V
Total Not to Exceed
B. Method II time/charges not to exceed budgeted amount (See VII A.2
of Agreement)
C. 1. Ail expenses associated with the preparation and reproduction
of drawings and specifications for the'dev~lo~mant of plans
and contract documents shall be at the consultant's expense.
2. Bidding and printing costs associated with presentations,
plans review sets, permitting sets, bid sets and construction
document sets shall be paid as a reimbursable with costs not
to exceed $500.00.
3. Fees shall be waived for all City associated processes for
plan review and permitting.
4
IV. COMPLETION DATE
A. It is the purpose and intent of the City to have the work in Phase
I and Phase II completed by July 15, 1996.
B. Providing funding for construction is identified, it is the
intention of the City to have the work in Phase III and IV
completed by October 1, 1996. Although the County currently
projects the completion of the roadway construction by the end of
September 1996, the City's funding will not be available until the
start of the new fiscal year.
The City would like to be in a position to begin construction of
the irrigation and landscaping as soon as the County is through
with the construction.
C. It is the purpose and intent of the City to have the work in Phase
V completed by March 1, 1997, but as thi~ ~r~ is directly
affected by the progress of the landscape and irrigation
contractors, this date may be adjusted to reflect the construction
schedule.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
This Service Authorization is approved contingent upon the City's acceptance
of and satisfaction with the completion of services rendered in the previous
phase or as encompassed by the previous Service Authorization. If the City
in its sole discretion is unsatisfied with the services provided in the
previous phase or Service Authorization, the City may terminate the contract
without incurring any further liability. The Consultant may not commence
work on any Service Authorization approved by the City to be included as
part of this contract without further Notice to Proceed.
APPROVED BY: CONSULTANT: C~TLEUR HEARING, INC.
Date Date:
By:
Jay Alperin, D.D.S. (Seal)
Mayor
Attest:
Witness
Witness
Approved as to legal sufficiency and form
City Attorney's Office
ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR CORPORATION
STATE OF COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1996 by
(Title and Company)
who is personally known to me or has produced
(type of identification)
as identification and who did (did not) take an oath.
Signature of person taking
Acknowledgment
Name of acknowledger, typed
printed, or stamped
Lake Ida Road Beautification 1-95
City of Delray Beach
Lake Ida Road I 95 Overpass Beautification
Manhour Estimate
Manhours
Landscape CADD
Task Principal Architect Technician Clerical Totals
Phase I Base Plan-Schematic Design
Base Plans 1 6 7
Site Analysis 2 2
Plant Pallet 1 1
Code/Document Review 2 2
Schematic Design 6 6
Phase II Design Development
Design Development 0
Irrigation Plans 2 6 8
Landscape Plans 2 6 8
Coordination With City 2 4 6
QA/QC 2 2
Phase III Construction Documents
Final Landscape Plans 2 4 6
Final Irrigation Plans 2 4 6
Specifications 4 6 10
Coordination w City 4 4
Permit Applications 2 4 6
QA/QC 4
Phase IV Bidding
Meetings 4 4
Coordination 2
0 ~ 2
Phase V Construction Administration
Meetings 6 6
Coordination 4 4
Project Close Out 2
Project Totals 56 0 30 10 96
CITY OF DELRfl¥ BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE~.,,..~:.,~.~:~ ':~" ~ ~,~-,,,,~:.~"' ~ ~'~':' ~: ~:-~-~'"'¥~-,.~ ~'~" ~.~.o~ ~
Writer's Direct L~c: (~7) 243-7~
AlI.A~ica Ci~ ~MO~~
T093
TO: City Co~ission
FROM: David N. Tolces, Assistant Ci~ ARom~
SUBJECT: Agreemem and General Release Between the Ci~ and the Co~u~ty
Redevelopmem Agency for Fire Trai~ng
The City's Fire Department is planning on conducting fire rescue training exercises
within a 6 un±t residence located at 18 S.W. 1st Avenue. Following the training
exercises, the structure will either be burned down, or demolished. The property's
owner will be responsible for the removal and clean-up of the site once the training
exercises are completed.
Approval of the attached agreement is required prior to commencing the training
exercises. If you have any questions, please call.
DNT:smk
Attachment
cc: David T. Harden, City Manager
Sharon Morgan, City Clerk's Office
Frank Ryncarz, Division Chief, Delray Beach Fire Department
fire.dm
Printed o;? f~cyc/~d P/¥Ter
[ITY JIF I]ELIII:IY IIEA[H
~RF~EPARTMENT s~,~ ~^¥ ~^o~ · o~,R~^~ · .,o.~^~ B~o.
1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROBERT B. REHR, FIRE CHIEF
DATE: MAY 17, 1996
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE BETWEEN CITY AND
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PARTNERSHIP FOR
FIRE TRAINING
The City's Fire Department is planning on conducting fire rescue training
exercises within a six (6) building apartment complex located at 18 S.W. 1st Avenue.
This complex is directly behind Steego Auto Parts. This training will allow the
participants to practice forcible entry, search and rescue, positive pressure venting, fire
fighting drills and the new accountability system. Following the training exercises, the
structure will either be burned down, or demolished. The property's owner will be
responsible for the removal and clean-up of the site once the training exercises are
completed.
Your support in this matter would be appreciated and if you have any questions
concerning this matter, please contact me.
Fire Chief
FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS- 501 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
407/243-7400 · SUNCOM 928-7400 · FAX 407/243-7461
Printed on Recyled Paper
AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE
THIS AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE, is made this __ day of
, 1996 by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
("CITY") and Community Redevelopment Agency ("OWNER~).
WITNESETH:
WHEREAS, OWNER warrants that it owns certain property located within the
CITY limits of the City of Delray Beach located at the following address:
18 SW 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach Fire Department, and the City of Delray
Beach Police Department, desire to use the building located on said property for the purposes
of training; and,
WHEREAS, OWNER permits the City of Delray Beach Fire and Police
Departments to use the building for appropriate training exercises which includes the use of
smoke and fire.
NOW, THEREFORE, for the mutual covenants and matters set forth herein,
as of the date set forth above, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. The recitations set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. OWNER agrees to allow the City of Delray Beach Fire Department to
enter onto the property referred herein for fire rescue training exercises after providing a
minimum of eight (8) hours notice to the OWNER.
3. As part of the training exercises, the participants will use equipment
which will cause damage to bearing walls, doors, ceilings, lighting fixtures, and other interior
features. The participants will use saws, cutters, pry bars, hammers, and a power spreader in
order to gain access through interior doors and walls. 'At the conclusion of the training
exercise, the CITY will burn the structure down as much as possible.
4. OWNER aclmowledges that the CITY shall assume no responsibility for
said land or structures. OWNER is responsible for costs associated with clean-up and
removal of all debris created by the training exercises.
5. Prior to conducting the training exercises, CITY, or its designated
representative, shall review with OWNER, the areas of the property which will be used in the
training exercises.
6. To the extent permitted by law, CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless OWNER, its agents, officers, officials and employees from any and all claims, suits,
causes of action or any claim whatsoever made arising from the CITY'S training activities on
the property referred to herein and relating to the condition of the property after the training
exercises; and any and all claims, suits, causes of action or any claim whatsoever made arising
from property damage and/or personal or bodily injury caused or allegedly caused by the
training exercise. This paragraph shall not, in any manner, be considered a waiver of the
City's sovereign immunity rights and privileges established pursuant to Section 768.28, Fla.
Stat..
7. No prior or present agreements or representations shall be binding upon
any of the parties hereto unless incorporated in this Agreement. No modification or change in
2
the Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the parties unless in writing, executed by the
parties to be bound, thereby.
IN W/TN'ESS WHEREOF, the CITY has caused these presents to be executed
in its name by its Mayor, and attested and its official seal to be hereunto affixed by its City
Clerk, and OWNER has hereunto set its hand and seal the day and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
By:
City Clerk Mayor
Approved as to Form and
Legal Sufficiency:
City Attorney
OWNER ~
Wimess: Diane Herve?~ Print N~ Weaver'
Print Name ~'
Witness: Lisa Lawlor
Print Name
3
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .~) day of
/t/,~/ , 1996, by -.-~/-/~ /~.)~;~,5~ , who is personally known to me or
who has produced as identification and
who did (did noO take an oath.
of
State of Florida
gem'eal.agt [ ~i~.R¥ PO,. OFFICIAL _1~_ TAR_Y__?.?-&L
I~ ~' ~ CC349257
[ ~,~.~ ~'r o~ MY COMMISSION EXP.
4
[lTV OF I:IELAFIY BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE~,.~~" ~w ~ 4o~;~?.?~~'v~. ~^~ ~.^~., ~o~i~^ ~.
Writer's Direct Line: (407) 243-7090
DELRAY BEACH
Ali.America City MEMORANDUM
1993
TO: City Commission
FROM: David N. Tolces, Assistant City Attorn~
SUBJECT: Agreement and General Release Between City and Delray New Wave
General Partnership for Fire Training
The City's Fire Department is planning on conducting fire rescue training exercises
within the two story residence located at 107 N.W. 1st Avenue. This is the home
directly across the street from City Hall. Following the training exercises, the structure
will either be burned down, or demolished. The property's owner will be responsible
for the removal and clean-up of the site once the training exercises are completed.
Approval of the attached agreement is required prior to commencing the training
exercises. If you have any questions, please call.
DNT:smk
Attachment
cc: David T. Harden, City Manager
Sharon Morgan, City Clerk's Office
Frank Ryncarz, Division Chief, Delray Beach Fire Department
fire.dm
~/~/~
Printed on Re. cFc/ed Paper
CITY JIF DELRrlY BEACH
FIRE DEPARTMENT sERv,NG DELRAY BEACH · GULF STREAM · HIGHLAND BEACH
DELRAY BEACH
F L o R I D ·
1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROBERT B. REHR, FIRE CHIEF
DATE: MAY 17, 1996
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE BETWEEN CITY AND
DELRAY NEW WAVE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP FOR FIRE
TRAINING
The City's Fire Department is planning on conducting fire rescue training
exercises within the two story residence located at 107 N.W. 1st Avenue. This is the
home directly across the street from City Hall. This training will allow the participants to
practice forcible entry, search and rescue, positive pressure venting, fire fighting drills
and the new accountability system. Following the training exercises, the structure will
either be burned down, or demolished. The property's owner will be responsible for the
removal and clean-up of the site once the training exercises are completed.
Your support in this matter would be appreciated and if you have any questions
concerning this matter, please contact me.
Fire Chief
FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS · 501 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
407/243-7400 · SUNCOM 928-7400 · FAX 407/243-7461
Printed on Recyled Paper
AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE
TI-IIS AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE, is made this day of
, 1996 by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
("CITY") and ~/_~.-~'7 ///~ (/.//q o/~t~- ("OWNER").
W I'T NE S ET H:.
WHEREAS, OWNER warrants that it owns certain property located within the
CITY limits of the City of Delray Beach located at the following address:
/07
WHEREAS, the City of Delray BeaCh Fire Department, and the City of Delray
Beach Police Department, desire to use the building located on said property for the purposes
of training; and,
WHEREAS, OWNER permits the City of Delray Beach Fire and Police
Departments to use the building for appropriate training exercises which includes the use of
smoke and f'tre.
NOW, TI-IEREFORE, for the mutual covenants and matters set forth herein,
as of the date set forth above, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. The recitations set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. OWNER agrees to allow the City of Defray Beach Fire Department to
enter onto the property referred herein for fn:e rescue training exercises after providing a
minimum of eight (8) hours notice to the OWNER.
3. As part of the training exercises, the participants will use equipment
which will cause damage to bearing walls, doors, ceilings, lighting fixtures, and other interior
features. The participants will use saws, cutters, pry bars, hammers, and a power spreader in
order to gain access through interior doors and walls. At the conclusion of the training
exercise, the CITY will burn the structure down as much as possible.
4. OWNER acknowledges that the CITY shall assume no responsibility for
said land or structures. OWNER is responsible for costs associated with clean-up and
removal of all debris created by the training exercises.
5. Prior to conducting the training exercises, CITY, or its designated
representative, shall review with OWNER, the areas of the property which will be used in the
training exercises.
6. To the extent permitted by law, OWNER and CITY shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless each other, its agents, officers, officials and employees from any
and all claims, suits, causes of action or any claim whatsoever made arising from the CITY'S
training activities on the property referred to herein and relating to the condition 9f the
property after the training exercises; and any and all claims, suits, causes of action or any
claim whatsoever made arising from property damage and/or persona/or bodily injury caused
or allegedly caused by the training exercise.
7. No prior or present agreements or representations shall be binding upon
any of the parties hereto unless incorporated in this Agreement. No modification or change in
the Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the parties unless in writing, executed by the
parties to be bound, thereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY has caused these presents to be executed
in its name by its Mayor, and attested and its official seal to be hereunto affixed by its City
Clerk, and OWNER has hereunto set its hand and seal the day and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
By:
City Clerk Mayor
Approved as to Form and
Legal Sufficiency:
City Attorney
OWNER
~.; Print Name
Wlith ss:/-we
Print Name
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1996, by , who is personally known to me or
who has produced as identification and
who did (did not) take an oath.
Signature of Notary Public-
State of Florida
gcnr~l.agt
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of May, 1996,
by Michael S. Weiner, General Partner of Delray New Wave, a general partnership, who is
personally known to me or wh6 In,,., ~,,oduced as identification and who
did/did not take an oath.
Notary Public
Printed Signature of Notary
My Commission Expires:
I:ITY OF DELRI:IY BEIII:H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Writer's Direct L~: (~) 243-7~
DELRAY BEACH
F t 0 R I D A
' ll J May 14, 1996
1993
TO: City Co~ssion
FROM: David N. Tolces, Assismm Ci~ A~om~
SUBJECT: Graining of an Easement to BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. North of
Fire Station No. 4 on East Side of Barwick Road
Attached is an Easemem Deed in which the City will grant to BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc. a twenty foot by fifteen foot easemem for the placement of
telecommunication equipment in the southwest corner of Barwick Park. A copy of the
Easement Deed and easemem sketch are attached. In return for granting the easement,
the City will receive $2,500.00.
If you have any questions, please call.
DNT:srnk
Attachments
cc: David T. Harden, City Manager
Sharon Morgan, City Clerk's Office
Dan Beatty, City Engineer
bellso.dnt
Pr/r~;ed on Recycled Paper
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
EASEMENT
For and in consideration of Twenty-five dollars ($ 2,500.00 ) and other good and valuable
hundred
consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned owner(s) of the premi~
described below, hereinafter referred to as Grantor, do(es) hereby grant to BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNIC
TIONS, INC., a Georgia corporation, its licensees, agents, successors, assigns, and sllied and associated compani
hereinafter referred to as Grantee, an easement to construct, operate, maintain, add, and/or remove such systems
communications, facilities, or related services as the Grantee may from time to time require upon, over, and under a
portion of the lands described in ORB 3569 page 13 , Pslm Beach
County, Florida, Records, and, to the fullest extent the grantor has the power to grant, upon, over, along, and under
the roads, streets, or highways adjoining or through said property. The said easement is more particularly describe~
as follows:
All that tract or parcel of land lying in Section 12 , Township 46S , Range 42E
Meridian, PALM BEACH County, State of Florida, consisting o~
(strip) (parcel) of land SEE EXHIBIT 'A'
The following rights are also granted: the exclusive right to allow any other person, f~rm, or corporation to atta.
wires or lay cable or conduit or other appurtenances upon, over, and under said easement for communications
electric power transmission or distribution; ingress to and egress from said easement at all times; the right, but n
the obligation, to clear the easement and keep it cleared of all trees, undergrowth, or other obstructions; the right, b
not the obligation, to trim and cut and keep trimmed and cut all dead, weak, leaning, or dangerous trees or
outside the easement which might interfere with or fall upon the lines or systems of communication or pow
transmission or distribution; and the right to relocate said facilities, systems of communications, or related services
said lands to conform to any future highway relocation, widening, or improvements.
To have and to hold the above granted easement unto BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., its licensees, agen'
successors, assigns, and allied and associated companies forever and in perpetuity.
Grantor warrants that grantor is the true owner of record of the above described land on which the aforesa
easement is granted.
SPECIAL STIPULATIONS OR COMMENTS:
The following special stipulations shall control in the event of conflict with any of the foregoing easement:
EASEMENT TO BE EXCLUSIVE BELLSOUTH EASEMENT
Preparer's name and address:
(Return document to the
BellSouth address on back)
L. F. MAYERNIK
BELLSOUTH
326 FERN ST., ROOM 501
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR UTILITY EASEMENT
A PA/{CEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE
SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,
RANGE 42 EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
C~NCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW
1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 12;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF (N 1/2) OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE
1/4) OF SAID SECTION 12, 249.44 FEET; THENCE~DEPA/{TING SAID WEST
LINE NORTH 89 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, 40.00 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EAST'RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BARWICK ROAD; THENCE NORTH
00 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID F_J~ST RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE, 11.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING
ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE NORTH 00 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 16
SECONDS WEST, 15.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE NORTH 89 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, 20.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST, 15.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 44 SECONDS WEST, 20.00 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING: 300 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND RIGHTS-OF-
WAY OF RECORD.
BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE RELATIVE TO AN ASSUMED BEARING OF NORTH 00 DEGREES 55
MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST A/~ONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF (N 1/2) OF THE
SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH REPRESENTED HEREON MEET
THE. MINIMUH~TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
IN ACCORD~E',WITH CHAPTER 61G17-6 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, SET FORTH BY THE
'~DSURVEYORS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES.
DATE: 4-12-96
DA_ILE~OTORNY, INC.
PROFSS~£OtlAL L~D SURVEYOR
FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO. 2297
NOTE: NO SEARCH OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS HAS BEEN MADE BY THIS OFFICE.
rey. Fotorny..Inc. ~~SC~LE: 1"=. 20'
~'~ "'~""' ~""""' ~"~" ID,. DEC
50GO TENTH AVE ~
~ NORTH, FLORIDA-3,%46~ I DATE: 4-12-96
[ITY I]F I]ELARY BEI:I[H
DELRA¥ BI:ACH
~ 100 N.W. 1st AVENUE . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 · 407/243-7000
MEMORANDUM CIT)~ /~,~ ~, . _
1993 """, n~,~,//;i
TO: David Harden
City Manager
FROM: Joe Weldon
Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Granting of Easement to BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
DATE: May 16, 1996
The attached correspondence to BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. is the
same item that I brought to the DSMG meeting some time ago for
consideration. I met with the representatives of BellSouth and I do not
have a problem with the location of the easement. However, they have
stipulated that the City will receive $2,500 in return for the granting
of this easement.
I would like to clarify that they should be responsible for the repair,
maintenance, etc. of any items that they place within the easement.
J eldon
Dif~ctor of Parks and Recreation
Attachment
Ref:blsoease
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
Pr/nt~d on Fiecyc/od Pa~er
Memorandum
To: David Harden, City Manager
Thru: Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director [~
From: Dorothy Ellington, Community Development Coordinator 0~
Bate: May 15, 1996
Subject: Renaissance Program Subsidy Recipients
1TEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
City Commission authorization and approval to issue subsidy to eligible applicants under the Delray Beach Renaissance
Program.
BACKGROUND:
The Delray Beach Renaissance Program Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the City Commission on
January 23, 1996. In partnership with the Delray Beach Community Development Corporation, The TED Center, the
Community Redevelopment Agency, the Community Financing Consortium, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta
and the Delray Beach Housing Authority, we are committed to providing homeownership opportunities to 80
homebuyers through new construction and acquisition/rehab beginning October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1997.
The Renaissance Program focuses on very low, low and moderate income persons in Dekay Beach.
Each potential homebuyer is required to attend a homebuyers seminar sponsored by the Community Financing
Consortium, Inc., the Renaissance Programs partner and first mortgage lender. The seminar includes training and
information on financial planning, credit and borrowing, budgeting, fair housing issues, mortgage and closing costs and a
comprehensive glossary of real estate terms.
The Renaissance Program maximum subsidy amount per applicant is $20,000. The Grant is secured by a Promissory
Note approved by the City Attorney and requires the applicant to maintain ownership/residence for a specified period
according to the amount of the Grant. Grant amounts less than $15,000 per unit, are forgiven at a rate of 20% per year
for a period of 5 years and Grant amounts equal to or greater than $15,000 but less $40,000 per unit, are forgiven at a
rate of 10% per year for 10 years.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending City Commission approval to fund subsidy for the eligible applicant of the following property:
*Lot 49 less South 10a. Sunset Park/S13,405.46
DELRAY BEACH CITY COMMISSION
DELRAY BEACH RENAISSANCE PROGRAM
AGENDA APPROVAL REQUEST FOR SUBSIDY
NEW CONSTRUCTION X CENSUS TRACT 68.01
ACQUISITION/REHABILITATION__
NAME Michel Arthaud
PROPERTY ADDRESS 1005 Mango Drive, Delray Beach
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 49 less South 10 ft, Sunset Park
Delray Beach, Florida
% AREA MEDIAN INCOME HOUSEHOLD 55 % # IN HOUSEHOLD 3
LOT COST $10,000.00 CONSTRUCTION COST $ 77,221.00
FIRST MORTGAGE $ 71,600.00 CFC Bank
Rate 7.375
LTV 85.49
SECOND MORTGAGE $10,054.46 HOME City of Delray *
$ 3,351.00 SHIP City of Delray
$ 1,478.00 Housing Authority
THIRD MORTGAGE $ 3,200.00 Federal Home Loan Bank
APPLICANT FUNDS
Prepaid $ 305.00
Escrowed funds $ 500.00
Paid at closing $1,029.00
TOTAL TRANSACTION $ 91~517.46
* $101.46 has been added to the subsidy total to pay for the filing fees of the City's
securing document.
Agenda Item No.:~ -~
AGENDA REQUEST
Request to be placed on: Date: 5-15-96
Regular Agenda
Special Agenda
Workshop Agenda
yy Consent Agenda When: 5-21-96
.Description of item (who, what, where, how much):
Request for approval of funding subsidy for oneeligible applicant under
the Delray Beach Renaissance Program totaling $13,405.46
(Example: Request from Atlantic High School for $2,000 to fund
project graduation).
ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO
Recommendation: Approval for issue of subsidy to applicant.
Fundin~ from HOME account #118-1923-554-83.01 in the amount of $10~054.46
and SHIP account #118-1924-554-83.01 in the amount of $3~351.00
(Example: Recommend approval with funding from Special Events
Account No. 001-3333-555-44.55).
City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable):
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving
expenditure of funds): ._
Funding available:~NO
Funding alternatives: (if applicable)
Account No. & Description: l]~-~3-~5z/. ~3-01 ~ O+k~ ~ ~
Account Balance: ~ ~;~Z ~ I1~- 1~2q- 5~-~. ~3-dl 5~ ,~ D~,- ~ ~
City Manager Review: ~qO~
Approved for agenda:~/NO ~/)
Hold Until: . .-
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Placed on Agenda:
Action: Approved/Disapproved
MEMORAND~
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGE
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~'Y' - MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
CHANGE ORDER ~2 AND FINAL PAYMENT/RPM GENERAL CONTRAC-
TORS, INC.
DATE: MAY 17, 1996
This is before the Commission to approve Change Order No. 2 in
the amount of $4,368.43 and request for final payment in the
amount of $14,836.94 for Fire Station #4, and $14,860.57 final
payment for Fire Station #3 to RPM General Contractors, Inc.
The Change Order covers items which were either added by the
City, or related to Building Permit items added after the project
was bid out. The project consisted of general construction,
addition, and remodeling of selected areas of Fire Station Nos. 3
and 4.
Funding for the Change Order and Final Payments is available from
Decade of Excellence - Fire Station 3 (Account No. 228-2311-
522-61.59) and Renovation Fire Station 4 (Account No. 228-2311-
522-61.60).
Recommend approval of Change Order No. 2 and Final Payments to
RPM General Contractors, Inc.
Agenda Item No.
AGENDA REQUEST
Date: May 13, 1996
Request to be placed on:
X Regular Agenda
Special Agenda
Workshop Agenda When: May 21, 1996
Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Staff request City
Commission approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $4,368.43 and
approve Final Payment in the amount of $14,860.57 for Fire Station #3,
and $14,836.94 for Fire Station #4 to RPM General Contractors, Inc.
Funding is available from Account #'s 228-2311-522-61.59 and 228-2311-
522-61.60.
ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: Not required.
Recommendation: Staff recommends City Commission approve Change Order
#2 in the amount of $4,368.43 and approve Final Payment in the amount of
$14,860.57 for Fire Station #3, and $14,836.94 for Fire Station #4 to
RPM General Contractors, Inc. Funding is av~f~Account #'s
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 z if applicable)
Account No. &Des. cription 12~-25{(~2g.~1-~ {
Account Balance ~., ~9.~, ~ ~ ~25H-522. ~]
City Manager Review: '~" ~ ~-~7~ ·
A~enda C¢ord~na~r
Received:
Placed on Agenda:
Action:
Approved/Disapproved
kesdk9361kagreq521
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: David T. Harden
City Manager
From: Jos6 Aguila ~
Construction Manager
Date: May 13, 1996
Subject: AGENDA REQUEST
Fire Station 3 & 4
Project No. 93-61 / 93-62
Attached is a request for City Commission approval of Change Order #2, for Fire Station
#4 in the amount of $4,368.43, and Final Payment for both Fire Stations 3 and 4. Change
Order #2 covers items which were either added by the City, or Building Permit related
items added after the project was bid out. All the numbers have been reviewed and are
fair and reasonable.
Change Order #2 for Fire Station 4 covers the following items:
Install door bell $ 672.22
Exit fixtures & three-way switch $ 705.63
Handicapped ramp & railing $3,089.83
Change to fire rated doors $ 456.59
Floor finish revision $ 51.18
Add receptacle and phone outlet for computer $ 297.25
Bond and insurance for above items $ 200.24
Miscellaneous credits to City ($1,104.50)
Total for Station 4 $4,368.43
In addition to the approval of Change Order #2, staff request approval for Final Payment
in the amount of $14,860.57 for Fire Station 3, and $14,836.94 for Fire Station 4.
Funding is available from Account #'s 228-2311-522-61.59 and 228-2311-522-61.60.
I have attached a Contractors Past Performance Evaluation form for you review.
cc: William Greenwood
Agenda 5/21/96 file
File 93-61/62 (A)
esd\9361Xagmem521
CI~"~OF DRLRAY BEAf~{
CHANGE ORDER TOORIGINALCONTRACT
CHANGE ORDER NO. Two (2) PROJECT NO. 93-62 DATE: May 13, 1996
PROJECT TITLE: Fire Station #4
TO CONTRACTOR: RPM General Contractors, Inc.
YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT AND TO PERFORM THE WORK ACCORDINGLY, SUBJECT TO
ALL CONTRACT STIPULATIONS AND COVENANTS.
JUSTIFICATION: Provide all materials, labor and equipment necessary for the
installation of those items listed in attached Exhibit "A" dated February 1,
1996.
SUMMARY OF CONTRACT AMOUNT
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $182,321.00
COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES PREVIOUSLY ORDERED $ 27,049.22
ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER $209,370.22
COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES THIS ORDER $ 4,368.43
ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER $213,738.65
PER CENT INCREASE THIS CHANGE ORDER 2.40%
TOTAL PER CENT INCREASE TO DATE 17.23%
EXTENSION OF CONTRACT TIME ALLOWED BY THIS CHANGE O CALENDAR DAYS TO February
26, 1996.
CERTIFIED STATEMENT: I hereby certify that the supporting cost data included
is, in my considered opinion, accurate; that the prices
quoted are fair and reasonable and in proper ratio to the
cost of the original work contracted for under benefit of
competitive bidding.
CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE (ARCHITECT)
(sign & seal)
TO BE FILLED OUT BY DEPARTMENT INITIATING CHANGE ORDER
Environmental Services 228-2311-522-61.60
DEPARTMENT FUNDS BUDGETED CODE CERTIFIED BY
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
By its City Commission
RECOMMEND: By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED: By:
CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK
esd\9362\co2
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
R P MGENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC, CGC037314
415 N.E. 28th COURT, SUITE 200 (305) 785-8900
POMPANO BEACH, FL 33064 FAX (305) 785-4~70
PROJECT DELRAY BEACH F.S. # 4 PROPOSAL REQUEST 002
LAKE IDA RD
DELRAY BEACH, FL
DATE 02/01/96
OWNER DELRAY BEACH
WORK SHEET
TOTAL
1 INSTALL NEW DOOR BELLS 640.21
Contractors Fee 32.01
2 INSTALL EXIT FIXTURES 103 & 104 & 3 WAY SWITCH 672.03
Contractors Fee 33.60
4 H/C RAMP
EXCAVATE 165.00
FORMS 556.50
CONCRETE 530.00
RAIL 1272.00
STUCCO 200.00 ....
PAINT 100.b'0
2823.50
Contractors Fee 266.33
5 INSTALL FIRE RATED DOORS PER FIRE MARSHALL · 397.03
Contractors Fee 59.56
6 REVISE FLOOR FINISH AT ROOMS tt0, 111 & 1t2 FROM CERAMIC TILE TO CARPET
Bid ceramic file -647.50
Carpet 692.00
44.50
Contractors Fee 6.68
7 ADD ELECTRIC & PHONE OUTLET 190.00
Drywall Repair 85.00
275.00 "
Contractors Fee 22.25
5272.69
INSURANCE 1.75% 92.27
BOND 2.01% 107.97
8 CREDIT
RELOCATE PUMP -300.00
RUST INHIBITOR -350.00
CURB 18.00 7.75 -139.50
LANDSCAPING -165.00
TESTING FEE -150.00
-1104.50
TOTAL CHANGE ORDER 4368.43
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER ~?/~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~,~ · - MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 3/FLORIDA ENERGY EFFICIENT WATER
PROJECT
DATE: MAY 17, 1996
This is before the Commission to approve Contract Amendment No. 3
to the City's contract with the Tri-County Community Council in
conjunction with the Florida Energy Efficient Water Project
(FEEWP).
The subject amendment extends the contract expiration date to
June 30, 1996. This extension will provide sufficient time for
installation of premium motors at the wastewater recovery basin.
Motor installation, which is part of the original contract, has
been delayed due to problems with the backwash recovery pumps on
which the motors are to be installed.
Recommend approval of the Contract Amendment No. 3 to the
contract with the Tri-County Community Council in conjunction
with the Florida Energy Efficient Water Project.
· Agenda Item No. f .
AGENDA REOUEST
Date: 05/13/96
Request to be placed on:
XX Regular Agenda
special Agenda
Workshop Agenda When** 05/21/96
Description of item (who, what, where, how much)** Staff requests Ca,mission
approval of a~e~:b~ent #3 to t~e co~act with T~i-~nty ~nitF ~ci] in
~~ e~e~ ~e ~o~ e~i~io~ ~e ~o J~e ~0, ~9~6, ~o ~J iow s~ffJcJe~
i~l J~io~ ~ been delayed due ~o ~obl~ wi~ tae hat.ash ~ecove~? p~s o~
ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REgUIRBD** ~/~0 DRAFT ATTACHED ~/NO
Recommendation.* Staff recarmends approval of amenc~nent #3 to the Tri-County
Community Council contract.
DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGITATURE: .
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 f~
Hold Until**~
Agenda Coordinator Review=
Reooived~
Placed on Agenda**
Action:
Approved/Disapproved
MEMORANDUM
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager //jf~/
FROM: Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Deputy Director of PU
SUBJECT: FLORIDA ENERGY EFFICIENT WATER PROGRAM
(FEEWP) CONTRACT AMENDMENT//3
DATE: May 15, 1996
Attached is a copy of Amendment #3 to the City's contract with the Tri-County
Community Council in conjunction with the Florida Energy Efficient Water Program.
The subject amendment extends the contract expiration date to June 30, 1996. The
extension is necessary to provide sufficient time for installation of premium motors at the
wastewater recovery basin, the work involved in the original contract. Prior to receipt of
the motors we experienced problems with the backwash recovery pumps and have been
awaiting delivery of new pumps prior to installation of the premium motors.
Please place this item on the May 21 agenda for consideration by City Commission.
RCH: jem
c: William H. Greenwood
f: FEEWP//3
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT #3
BETWEEN
TRI-COUNTY COMMUNITY COUNCIL, INC.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
This Amendment to the Contractual Agreement between Tri-County Community Council, Inc.
and the City of Delray Beach, Florida is to amend the FLORIDA ENERGY EFFICIENT
WATER PROJECT Contract as follows:
PAGE 6, ARTICLE IX (PERIOD OF CONTRACT):
This contract shall begin upon execution by both parties, and end no later than June 30, 1996.
This Amendment will be effective on the date signed by both parties.
Executed in the presence of:
TRI-COUNTY COMMUNITY COUNCIL, INC.
By: Date:
Charles C. Harris, Chairman
Board of Directors
("The Prime Contractor")
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
By: Date:
Jay Alperin
Mayor of Delray Beach
("The Subgrantee")
C:\WP60\FEEWP\CONTAMND.DB
Memorandum
To: David Harden, City Manager
Thru: Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director
From: Dorothy Ellington /.~ ~
Date: May 16, 1996
Subject: Amendment #002 Children's Substance Abuse Grant
ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION
This is to request authorization to execute Amendment #002 to the Substance Abuse Contract
(Health and Rehabilitative Services).
BACKGROUND
Since March, 1995 the City has been the Fiscal Agent on behalf of MAD DADs for a Substance
Abuse Prevention Grant funded by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
These funds are used to provide prevention services through the Excel Focus Five program to 24
fifth graders at Pine Grove Elementary.
We recently received notification that an additional $4288 has been made available to the program
to purchase additional units of service. These additional funds require that the contract which
expires June 30, 1996, be amended.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval to authorize the execution of Amendment #002 to the Substance
Abuse Contract funded through HRS on behalf of MAD DADS' Excel Focus Five Program.
Agenda Item No.:
AGENDA REQUEST
Request to be placed on: Date: May 16:19q6
Regular Agenda
Special Agenda
Workshop Agenda
xx Consent Agenda When: May 21, 1996
.Description of item (who, what, where, how much):
This is to request authorization to execute Amendment #002 to the Substance Abuse
Contract.
(Example: Request from Atlantic High School for $2,000 to fund
project graduation).
ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
(Example: Recommend approval with funding from Special Events
Account No. 001-3333-555-44.55).
Department Head Signature:
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
Amendment #002
THIS AMENDMENT, entered into between the State of Florida,
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, hereinafter
referred to as the "department" and The City of Delray Beach,
hereinafter referred to as the "provider" amends contract IH304.
1. Section II, paragraph A is hereby amended to read:
A. Contract Amount
To pay for contracted services according to the
conditions of Attachment I in an amount not to exceed
$32,374.00, subject to the availability of funds.
The State of Florida's performance and obligation to
pay under this contract is contingent upon an annual
appropriation by the Legislature. The costs of
services paid under any other contract or from any
other source are not eligible for reimbursement under
this contract.
2. Attachment I, Section C, paragraphs 1 and 3 are hereby
amended to read:
C. Method of Payment
1. This is a fixed price (unit cost) contract. The
department shall pay the provider for the delivery of service
units provided in accordance with the terms of this contract for
a total dollar amount not to exceed $32,374.00, subject to the
availability of funds.
3. The provider will provide additional services
eligible as local match up to the amount specified in Exhibit A,
the value of which is $10,791.33.
3. Attachment I, Exhibit A is hereby revised and attached
hereto.
This amendment shall begin on June 1, 1996, or the date on
which the amendment has been signed by both parties, whichever is
later.
City of Delray Beach Amendment #001
IH304 (Continuation)
Ail provisions in the contract and any attachments thereto
in conflict with this amendment shall be and are hereby changed
to conform with this amendment.
All provisions not in conflict with this amendment are still
in effect and are to be performed at the level specified in the
contract.
This amendment and all its attachments are hereby made a
part of the contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
3 page amendment to be executed by their officials thereunto
duly authorized.
PROVIDER: STATE OF FLORIDA
CITY OF DELP~AY BEACH DEPAi~TMENT OF HEALTH
AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
SIGNED SIGNED
BY: BY:
NAME: NAME: Suzanne Turner
TITLE: TITLE: District 9 Administrator
DATE: DATE:
FEDERAL ID NUMBER:
59-6000308
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
CIT
S~B~OT: ~,ND~ IT~ # ~' fl'- ~TI~ O~ ~ ~,
REVIEW OF APPEAL~LE L~D DEVELOPMENT BO~D ACTIONS
DATE: ~Y 17, 1996
Attached is the Report of Appealable Land Use Items for the
period May 6 through May 17, 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: DIANE DOMINGUEZ, DIRE~TOR~
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
/~,~
FROM: /JASMIN ALLEN, PLANNER
SUBJECT: MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996 * CONSENT AGENDA*
REPORT OF APPEALABLE LAND USE ITEMS MAY 6,
1996 THRU MAY 17. 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 May 6, 1996, through May 17, 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 May 21, 1996
Page 2
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
No Regular Meeting of the Board was held during this period.
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING OF MAY
8. '1996
A. Approved (6 to 0), the architectural plan for a proposed modular
building at Executive Motors, located on the west side of Federal
Highway, south of Avenue F. The site plan is being processed as a
non-impacting modification and will be approved administratively.
B. Granted (5 to 0), an eighteen (18) month extension of the site plan
approval for Waterway East Restaurant, located at the southeast
corner of East Atlantic Avenue and Venetian Drive adjacent to the
Intracoastal Waterway.
C. Approved with conditions (6 to 0), a major site plan modification,
landscape plan and architectural elevation plan associated with
proposed improvements at the Sherwood Pontiac Dealership,
located on the west side of South Federal Highway, approximately 300
feet north of Fladell's Way. The existing 18,486 sq. ft.
showroom/service building, a 3,619 sq. ft. modular used car building
and a 500 sq. ft. wood-frame storage building will be demolished.
Construction of a 38,403 sq. ft. showroom/service building and a
4,000 sq. ft. c.b.s used car sales building are proposed.
Concurrently, the Board approved the following waivers:
· Eliminated the requirement to install a sidewalk along South
Federal Highway.
· Granted a reduction to the 25% open space requirement to 18%.
D. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), the master sign program for Borton
Volvo, located on the east side of North Federal Highway
approximately 1,400 feet south of Gulfstream Boulevard.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF MAY 15. 1996
1. Approved with conditions (7 to 0), a request for Certificate of
Appropriateness, site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations
associated with the conversion of a residential building to a business
office, BSA Corporation, located on the north side of N.E. 2nd Street,
City Commission Documentation
Appealable Items Meeting of May 21, 1996
Page 3
between Swinton Avenue and N.E. 1st Avenue, immediately west of
the Banker's Row parking lot.
Concurrently, the Board granted the following waivers:
Eliminating the curbing adjacent to landscape areas.
· Reducing the perimeter landscape strip from 5' to 2' adjacent to the
handicap accessible parking space.
· Reducing the required right-of-way for N.E. 2nd Street from 60' to
50' thus waiving the requirement for this property to dedicate 5
additional feet.
· Reducing the required parking from 5 to 4 spaces.
· Allowing parking within the front yard in a paver block circular
driveway.
· Allowing the use of concrete paver blocks for the front yard parking
area.
Additionally, the Board approved the following non-appealable items:
· A request for a variance to allow the existing driveway width to
remain 10 feet wide and to allow a proposed circular driveway to be
11 feet wide where 24 feet is required for a two-way driveway.
· A request for a variance to allow back-out parking for the handicap
accessible parking space and for the vehicles in the circular
driveway.
The number of waivers and variances for this proposal are due to the
existing configuration of the three structures on the site, and the locations
of existing driveways and trees. The proposed use is a Iow intensity office,
to be occupied by a maximum of four employees, and a small residential
unit located in the rear structure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION.
By motion, receive and file this report.
Attachment: Location Map
LOCATION MAP FOR
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
OF MAY 21, 1996
L-.30 CANAL
LAKE IDA ROAD
r~ ~,jlr-I ATLANTIC AVENUE
LOWSON BOULEVARD
LINTON BOULEVARD
L-58 CANAL C-15 CANAL
c,Ty L,,~,TS --~ S.P.R.A.B.: H.P.B.:
A. - EXECUTIVE MOTORS 1. - BSA CORPORATION
B. - WATERWAY EAST RESTAURANT
MILE
I C. - SHERWOOD PONTIAC DEALERSHIP
I
I
D. - BORTON VOLVO
SCALE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORAND~
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: ~bert A. Barcinski, Asst. City Manager
SUBJECT: Aqenda Item ~ Commission Meetinq May 21, 1996
Bid Award Pine Grove Playqround and Park Project
DATE: May 17, 1996
Action
City Commission is requested to approve a bid award to Regal
Contractors for the base bid and Alternate #1 for the Pine Grove
Playground/Park project, in the total amount of $84,863; subject
to verification of references and other legal documents. Funding
is available in account 334-6111-519- 62.15.
Backqround
Bids were opened for this project this afternoon. The work
included in the base bid consists of preparation of the base area
under the playground equipment, installation of irrigation on
both the existing playground site and the proposed play field,
sodding the playground area, tree removal, grading and sprigging
the open play area, installation of six foot perimeter fencing
and pedestrian access points to the field, and a rolling gate to
provide joint parking while securing the school during non-school
hours. The alternate is for black vinyl coated fencing versus
galvanized fencing.
The budget for this project is $85,000; $45,000 from the
City and $40,000 from the County. Playground equipment was
previously purchased by the School Board for approximately
$44,800.
Recommendation
Recommend approval of the base bid'and alternate to Regal
Contractors in the amount of $84,863 subject to verification of
references and other legal documents. Due to the late receipt of
bids on Friday, we were not able to verify all information. If
we have any difficulties, we will pull this item from the agenda
on Tuesday.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
TABULATION OF BIDS
BID ii 96-45
PINE GROVE ELEMENTARY BASEBALL FIELD
May 17, 1996
ALT TOTAL BID
PRICE
REGAL CONTRACTORS, INC. $2, 940. O0 $81,923. O0
BRANG CO. INC. OF FLA. $2,000. O0 $93,300. O0
FL. DESIGN CONTRACTORS $2,100. O0 $95,560. O0
[IT¥ DF DELRR¥ BERgH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
FACSIMILE 407/27~-4755 Will's D~ L~e: (~7) 243-7091
DELRAY BEACH
Ali. America Ci~ ~MO~NDUM
'~':''''' D~T~: May16,1996
1993 TO: City Co~ssion
FROM: Bfi~ Shutt, Assist~t Ci~ Attorney
S~CT: ~endment to Agreement ~th Dub~ & ~sociates
The attached mendment to the agreement between the City ~d Dubin & Associates
prohdes that Dubin & Associates sh~l m~age the Terns Center for the fee of $1500.00
per month st~ing on May 22, 1996 ~d ending on September 30, 1997. The City
employees cu~emly wor~ng at the Te~s Cemer ~11 remain City employees umil June 30,
1996. Therea~er, they may apply for a position ~th Dubin & Associates in order to
continue wor~ng at the Terns Center or if there is ~other position in the City av~lable for
w~ch they qu~i~ they may rem~n City employees.
Dubin & ~socimes sh~l be responsible for preparing and implementing m~keting ~d
promotion~ cmp~s ~d coordinating conce~s, speci~ events ~d terns toumments
with promoters ~d special event coordinators, in accordance with the City's cu~ent
a~eements reg~ding the Te~s Cemer.
By copy of t~s memor~dum to Dahd H~den our office requests that tbs ~endment be
placed on the City Comssion May 21, 1996 Agenda for Comssion approval.
Attac~ent
cc: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
David T. Harden, City Manager
Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk
dubcom.ltr
Paper ~ A
[ITY I]F I]ELRI:IY BEI:I[H
100 N,W, 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 · 407/243-7000
1993
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: ~9'Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Dubin and Associates
DATE: May 16, 1996
I assisted in negotiating the terms of the above subject amendment and
recommend approval as presented.
RAB:kwg
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
Pf/r~ted on Recy,:'/ed
[ITY JIF DELAAY BER[H
DELRAY BEACH
~ 100 N.W. 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 · 407/243-7000
Ail-America City
1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Harden
City Manager
FROM: Joe Weldon
Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Dubin & Associates
DATE: May 16, 1996
Please be advised that I attended a meeting with Robert Barcinski, Susan
Ruby, Braham Dubin and Brian Shutt at which we brainstormed our
suggestions at that time.
Di Parks and Recreation
JW:cp
Ref:dubinamd
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
Printed on Recycled Pal2er
AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER Iv 1994
TItlS AMENDMENT to the Municipal Golf Course Management Agreement dated
November 1, 1994 is made this ~ day of , 1996 by and between
the CITY OF DELRAY BEAClt (the City) and BJCE, INC. (d/b/a Dubin and Associates)
(referred to herein as Dubin).
WlTNESSETH:
WItEREAS, the parties entered into a Management Agreement dated November 1, 1994,
to provide for management services at the Dekay Beach Munidpal Golf Course and have
amended that agreement to also provide for management services at the Lakeview Golf Course;
and,
WltEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide for the provision of
management services for the Dekay Beach Municipal Tennis Center in addition to the Lakeview
Golf Course and the Delray Beach Municipal Golf Course.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The recitations set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The Agreement dated November 1, 1994, is hereby amended to provide the
following additional terms for the management of the Tennis Center.
3. The City shall pay Dubin for the performance of work at a base monthly rate of
$1500.00 per month payable on the first of month. Payments will be prorated for services
provided for less than one month.
4. The City shall also accept and pay the actual cost of reimbursables as follows:
(a) Payroll costs for Dubin's employees who are working full-time or part-time at the
Delray Beach Municipal Tennis Center. The payment of such payroll costs is
subject to the City Manager or his designee's prior approval, and only such
approved costs shall be paid;
Co) Liability insurance as required by Paragraph 11 of this Amendment and Paragraph
13 of the original Agreement;
(c) Pre-approved travel expenses;
(d) Mileage at $.26 per mile;
(e) Telephone, mail, facsimile and miscellaneous om-of-pocket expenses.
All expenses will be itemized and submitted with receipts and shall be billed at cost on a monthly
basis.
5. Dubin shall manage the Tennis Center from May 22, 1996 through September 30,
1997.
6. Dubin and his employees, volunteers and agents shall be and remain independent
contractors and not agents or employees of the City with respect to all of the acts and services
performed by and under the terms of this Amendment. Provided that, the current City employees
working at the Tennis Center shall remain employees of the City until June 30, 1996. This
Amendment shall not in any way be construed to create a partnership, association or any other
kind of joint undertaking or venture between the parties hereto.
7. Notwithstanding the above, either party, with or without cause, may terminate this
agreement with ninety (90) days prior written notice delivered in person or transmitted certified
mail, return receipt requested.
8. The work shall generally consist of those services more particularly set forth in
Exhibit "A" to this amendment. Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and incorporated as if fully set
forth herein.
9. This amendment is subject to the terms and conditions of existing contracts
between the City and third parties that are currently in effect regarding the Tennis Center.
10. It is recognized by Dubin that the Tennis Center has been financed with proceeds
of tax exempt debt and may be re-financed fi.om time to time in the future and that the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, limits the private use of governmentally owned facilities
constructed with tax exempt debt, such as a tennis stadium, in order to maintain the tax exempt
status of the debt issued to finance the same. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Amendment to the contrary, this Amendment shah automatically terminate, without any required
notice by the City, if any payment required to be made under the provisions of this Amendment to
the City would, together with any other private use payments made or required to be made by any
other entity(ies) or person(s) for the use of the Tennis Center or related facilities, adversely affect
the exclusion fi.om gross income for federal income tax purposes on any interest obligation (herein
"negative tax consequences") of the City issued to finance or refinance the Tennis Center or any
part thereof. Such a termination shall not constitute a default on the part of either party to this
Amendment. Upon such termination, it is the intent of the parties hereto to enter into a new
agreement which would contain different or modified payment terms and/or amounts acceptable
to both of the parties hereto, and which, in the opinion of the City's bond counsel, would not have
negative tax consequences.
11. Dubin shall provide the City with insurance certificates showing the following
minimum insurance coverages relating to the Tennis Center, which coverage shall be maintained
throughout the term of this Amendment.
A. Worker's Compensation. Coverage to apply for all employees for
Statutory limits in compliance with the applicable State and Federal laws. In addition, the
policy must include the following:
1, Employers' Liability with a limit of $500,000 each accident.
2. Notice of cancellation and/or restriction. The policy must be endorsed to
3
provide the City with thirty (30) days written notice of cancellation and/or
restriction.
B. Comprehensive General Liability. Coverage must be afforded on a form no
more restrictive that the latest edition of the Comprehensive General Liability Policy filed
by the Insurance Service Office and must include:
1. Minimum Limits of total coverage shall be $5,000,000 per occurrence
combined single limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage
Liability, the basic policy to be in said form with any excess coverage
(and the carrier) to meet the $5,000,000 minimum to be acceptable to
the City.
2. Premises and/or Operations, including restaurant liability and liquor
liability.
3. Independent Contractors.
4. Products and/or Completed Operations. Dubin shall maintain in force until
at least three (3) years after completion of all services required under the
Amendment, coverage for products and completed operations, including
Broad Form Property Damage.
5. XCU Coverages.
6. Broad Form Property Damage including Completed Operations.
7. Broad Form Contractual Coverage applicable to this specific Amendment,
including any hold harmless and/or indemnification agreement.
8. Personal Injury coverage with employee and contractual exclusions
removed.
9. The City is to be specifically included as an additional insured (including
products).
10. Notice of Cancellation and/or Restriction. The policy must be endorsed to
provide the City with thirty (30) days written notice of cancellation and/or
restriction.
11. A Best Rating of no less than B+ 12 is required for any carders providing
coverage required under the terms of this Amendment.
4
12. Dubin agrees to hold the City harmless from loss, damage, injury or liability arising
from the acts or omissions of Dubin, his employees, agents, subcontractors and their employees
and agents.
13. This Amendment together with the original agreement and any written
amendments hereto, constitute the entire Agreement between the parties relating to the subject
matter hereof. It is the final expression of agreement between the parties, thus, neither party shall
be entitled to rely upon any conflicting oral representations, assurances, claims or disclaimers,
made either prior to or simultaneous with the execution of this Amendment.
14. Except as expressly modified in writing herein or as modified by subsequent
written amendments, all other terms and conditions of the original Agreement and any
amendments thereto survive this Amendment and are deemed to be incorporated herein and are
binding on the parties.
IN WITNESS TFIEREOF, the City and Dubin have set their hand and seals on the day
and year first above written to this Amendment to the Municipal Golf Course Management
Agreement and three counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.
WITNESSES: BJCE, INC.
Brahm Dubin, President
(Nan~e printed or typed)
(Name printed or typed)
5
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of Florida
co~
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this //3~/~'day of
~fi~ , 1996 by'y~(~tY"x ~'~L)~t~ ~ (name of officer or agent, title
o~ o~ or ~nt~ o~_ ~' ~ ~ ~. t=n~ o~ ~or~or~on ~ow~.~n~, ~
~'-"~/(~X' i¢~- (state or place of ~co~oration) co~oratio~ on beh~ of the co~oration.
~he is person~ly ~o~ to me or has produce~~ C~[[~ ~~~~e of
idem~cafion) ~ idem~cation ~d did (~d not) t~e ~ oath.
S(~tofNot~ ~b~c - State
P~dt~e or S~p N~e ~
Not~ ~b~c
ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
By:
City Clerk Jay Alperin, Mayor
Approved as to form:
~o~,. City Attorney
6
EXHIBIT "A"
The scope of the work will include but will not be limited to the following:
1. Supervise and direct the general operations of the tennis center owned by the City.
2. Oversee all administration of all tennis center operations, assuring that proper accounting
systems are in place.
3. Perform an on-going review of total operational costs for the tennis center.
4. Insure that adequate internal control systems are in place in all areas of the operation.
5. Perform monthly reviews of the financial statements and provide monthly financial
statements in the format prescribed to the City.
6. Prepare operating and capital improvement budgets.
7. Prepare, plan and implement all marketing and promotional programs, subject to current
agreements between the City and third parties.
8. Approve all expenditures before they are submitted for payment to the City and ensure
expenditures are made in compliance with the City purchasing policies.
9. Assure that the highest standards of general maintenance are maintained, except for the
landscape and landscape irrigation maintenance.
10. Provide monthly tennis center maintenance reports.
11. Coordinate concert, special events, tennis tournaments (professional and amateur) and all
other events with their promoters and special event coordinators, subject to current
agreements between the City and third parties.
12. Dubin shall hire and employ all personnel necessary to maintain and operate the tennis
center, subject to Paragraph 6 of the Amendment. Dubin will have full authority over the
hiring and firing of all Dubin personnel.
13. Dubin shall operate and maintain the tennis center operation in accordance with all federal,
state and local government laws and regulations, including health department regulations
and state liquor board regulations.
14. Work closely with all civic groups, tennis patrons and at~erschool programs.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER ~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~' - MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD ACTION
BY NANMYER PROPERTIES, INC. QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
DATE: MAY 17, 1996
This is before the Commission to consider an appeal of a decision
by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board on April 24, 1996
denying the Nanmyer Four-Plex Townhouse Development on the
northeast corner of N.E. 14th Street and 3rd Avenue as not being
harmonious with adjacent properties.
The Board felt the project was not harmonious with the adjacent
properties based on the proposed density of 9.3 units per acre.
In addition there were concerns that all the units contained
three bedrooms with the minimum square footage allowed by code
(1,150 square feet), and that a potential existed for 16 people
to occupy a parcel of land containing less than half an acre.
The Board voted 3-1 to deny the site plan, based on a failure to
make positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance
Standards), Section 2.4.5(F) (5) (Compatibility), and Section
4.3.3(0) (Townhouse Regulations) of the Land Development
Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning and Zoning staff had recommended approval in its
report dated April 24, 1996, stating that the development would
act as a good transition between high-intensity land uses and
those of single family residential uses; that it was compatible
and harmonious with adjacent properties; and that it would be an
enhancement to the area.
Recommend consideration of the appeal of the Site Plan Review and
Appearance Board's decision concerning the Nanmyer Properties,
Inc. Townhouse Development.
DELRAY BEACH
NI-America C~
May 10, 1996
Richard W. Sheremeta, P.E.
Sheremeta Associates, Inc.
101 S.E. 6th Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33483
Re: Appeal of Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Decision re
Nanmyer 4-Plex Townhouse Development
Dear Mr. Sheremeta:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of appeal with respect to the
Site Plan Review am~ Appearance Board's action of April 24, 1996,
concerning the referenced project. Pursuant to Section 2.4.7 of the Land
Development Regulations, the appeal was received in a timely manner by the
City Clerk's office on May 8, 1996.
Please be advised that the matter will be scheduled for consideration by
the City Commission at the regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 21,
1996. The meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. and will be held in the
Commission Chambers at City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach,
Florida.
You may wish to check with my office prior to the May 21st meeting to
determine the item's standing on the agenda. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 407/243-7050.
Sincerely,
Alison MacGregor Harty
City Clerk
AMH/m
cc: Diane Dominguez, Planning Director
Sharon Morgan, Executive Assistant
I~ECE!VED
SHEREMETA ASSOCI S, INC.
.... CITY CLERK
May 7, 1996
Ms. Allison Harty, City Clerk
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
RE: NANMYER 4-PLEX
SAI No. 95153.903
Dear Ms. Harry:
In accordance with LDR Section 2.4.7(E), the purpose of this letter is to appeal the decision of
the City's Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's denial of the Site Plan for the above
referenced project. This action by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board occurred at its
regular meeting of April 24, 1996.
The subject property is located within an RM Zoning District which provides for a minimum density
of six units per acre for multi-family housing projects. In accordance with LDR Section 4.4.6(H)(1)
the base density of six units per acre may be increased up to a density of twelve units per acre
if it is determined that the development is harmonious with adjacent properties and does not
adversely affect areas of environmental significance or sensitivity.
The Board's decision to deny the project was that a four (4) unit, multi-family dwelling was not
harmonious with adjoining properties. The basis of the appeal is that the RM Zoning District in
itself is intended to act as a buffer to allow a harmonious transition between commercial; industrial
(railroad); and other high-intensity land uses with those of single family residential uses. In
accordance with accepted land use practices, the subject project, which consists of four units
having a density of 9.3 units per acre, satisfies this criteria.
The City's professional planning staff, in its Staff Report dated April 24, 1996, has not only
recommended approval but has more specifically stated as follows:
Page 2, second paragraph from bottom - "The proposed townhouse development has a higher
density than the single family properties to the north and west however, it will act as a
good transition between these uses and the potential commercial use to the east."
Page 9, second paragraph - ". ..... the development of the property as townhouses with fee simple
ownership should be compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and
the City as a whole ...... "
land planning . engineering · surveying
101 S.E. 6th Avenue * Delray Beach, Florida 33483 · (407) 276-7300 · FAX (407) 276-7344
Ms. Allison Harry
May 7, 1996
Page Two
Page 9, under Assessment and Conclusion, last sentence - "The development proposal is
compatible with the adjacent residential properties and will be an enhancement to the
area."
The Board's decision in this matter was not only contrary to staff's recommendation, but was
made to acquiesce to the wishes of a handful of neighborhood residents who opposed the project
and stated that nothing short of a single family residence or park would be an acceptable use for
the subject site. As a result of this subjective decision, by the Board, the owner has been denied
his right to the use of his land as allowed under the City's Zoning Regulations.
The relief being sought by this appeal is to reverse the decision of the Site Plan Review and
Appearance Board denying the project as not being harmonious with adjacent properties; thus
approving the proposed Site Plan as presented and in accordance with the recommendations of
the City's professional staff.
This appeal is being made on behalf of the developer and property owner:
Nanmyer Properties, Inc.
18083 Clear Brook Circle
Boca Raton, FL 33498
Your assistance in placing this matter before the City Commission on its next available agenda
would be most greatly appreciated.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter or require additional information please do
not hesitate to call upon this office.
Yours truly,
President
RWS/dews
cc: Myer Berkowitz
CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THRU: DI~E DOMINGUEZ, DIRE[.CTO..O~
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
FROM: JANET MEEKS, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
APPEAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD'S
ACTION DENYING THE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR
NANMEYER A FOUR UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION:
The action before the City Commission is that of consideration of an appeal of
the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) action denying the
request for site plan approval for Nanmeyer, a four unit townhouse. The subject
property is located at the northeast corner of N.E. 14th Street and N.E. 3rd
Avenue, and contains approximately 0.43 acres.
SPRAB action was taken on April 24, 1996. The action was appealed by
Sheremeta and Associates, Inc. (Agent) for the developer and property owner
known as Nanmeyer Properties, Inc.
The appeal is being processed pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(E) Appeals.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of April 10, 1996, the SPRAB reviewed a development proposal to
construct a multiple family townhouse structure with four units on the subject property.
At that meeting, the Seacrest Homeowners Association voiced concerns that the
proposed development was too intense for the site and was not compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods. They also noted that a Neighborhood Plan was to be
prepared (by the City) for the Seacrest neighborhood area that may contain language to
decrease densities in the area. Based on the above the public requested that the
Board table the item.
The Board seemed to be in support of the project, however felt that it may be beneficial
if the applicant discussed the development proposal with the neighborhood to make the
project more compatible i.e. provision of additional landscaping and possible changes
to the architectural elevations. The applicant was willing to discuss the development
City Commission Documentation
Appeal of SPRAB's Action on a Site Plan for Nanmeyer a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 2
proposal with the Seacrest Neighborhood. Thus, the Board with the concurrence from
the applicant tabled the item. The applicant met with the Seacrest neighborhood
representatives, and could not come to any compromises. The development proposal
as previously submitted was rescheduled for action at the Board's April 24th meeting. A
complete analysis of the proposal is found in the attached Site Plan Review and
Appearance Board Staff Report.
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CONSIDERATION:
At its meeting of April 24, 1996 the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board again
reviewed the site plan request for Nanmeyer. City staff and the applicant offered
testimony which supported the development proposal.
The testimony stated the following: that the proposal complies with the City's Land
Development Regulations; that while the four unit townhouse development would have
a higher density than the single family properties to the north and west, it will act as a
good transition between these uses and the potential commercial use to the east; that
the development of this property with fee simple ownership fulfills remaining land use
needs by furthering Objective B-2 and related policies of the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, which call for development of vacant land to provide a variety of
housing types and housing for Iow and middle income families as well as first-time
home buyers; that the site has been designed to create the least amount of impact on
the adjacent residential dwellings by placing the parking lot area adjacent to the
railroad tracks; and that compatibility is increased by the provision of extensive
perimeter landscaping (proposed and existing City installed landscaping within the
adjacent rights-of-way).
There was public testimony in opposition to the request. The objections mainly related
to the development being too intense for the site, and that a multiple family
development did not fulfill the neighborhood's goal to decrease density in the area in
order to start changing the character of the neighborhood. The public felt that a single
family home or neighborhood park would be the only acceptable development proposal
on the site.
After a lengthy discussion, most of the Board members felt that the project was not
harmonious with the adjacent properties based on the proposed density of 9.3 units per
acre. In addition, there were concerns that all the units contained 3 bedrooms with the
minimum square footage allowed by code (1,150 square feet), and a potential for 16
people living on a parcel of land containing less than a half of acre. One of the Board
members felt that the development of the property as a townhouse development was
the most appropriate use based on its location adjacent to the railroad tracks, and the
density was appropriate given the surrounding land uses. The Board voted 3-1 (Sittler
dissenting) to deny the site plan request for Nanmeyer based on a failure to make
positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section
2.4.5(F)(5) (Compatibility), and Section 4.3.3(0) (Townhouse'Regulations) of the Land
Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
City Commission Documentation
Appeal of SPRAB's Action on a Site Plan for Nanmeyer a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 3
APPEAL:
On May 7, 1996, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board action was appealed by
Sheremeta and Associates, Inc. (Agent) for the property owner. The appeal letter (copy
attached) provides the following justification for the appeal:
The RM zoning distdct in #serf is intended to act as a buffer to allow a
harmonious transition between commercial; industrial (railroad); and other high
intensity land uses with those of single family residential uses. In accordance
with accepted land use practices. The subject project, which consists of four
units having a density of 9.3 units per acre satisfies this criteria.
Since the appeal, staff conducted a density study of the properties surrounding the site,
which is depicted on the attached map. The map depicts whether or not the properties
are single family (SF) or multi-family (MF), and if multi-family, the number of units on
the lot (for example, MF-2 depicts a lot with a duplex).
The Nanmeyer property is unique as it is bordered on all sides by different zoning
districts: on the north by RM zoning, to the south by RL (Multiple Family-Low Density
Residential) and CF zoning, to the east GC (General Commercial) zoning, and to the
west R-1AA (Single Family Residential) zoning. The existing land uses are a single
family dwelling to the north and west, a vacant commercial parcel to the east, and to
the south is a City owned dry retention area and a two story multiple family
development containing 12 units. To the north, within the RM zoning located along the
tracts, there are several 2-story multi-family buildings with 12 units, on lots that are
slightly larger than a quarter-acre. This equates a density of approximately 40 units per
acre. The predominant pattern in the multi-family zoned areas is duplex development
on narrow lots (particularly in the RL portion). Thus, the study seems to illustrate that
the Nanmeyer project contains a density which is less than or equal to most of the other
multiple family developments located in the RM zoning district to the north, and some of
the properties zoned RL (Multiple Family Residential - Low Density) to the south. The
density is obviously greater than that of the single family areas to the east.
It is noted that sufficient area exists for the applicant to subdivide the property into two
lots, and meet the minimum code requirements for a duplex on each lot. In that case,
the plans would be submitted directly to the Building Department, with no review by
Planning and Zoning staff or SPRAB. The applicant has indicted that he may exercise
this option if the appeal is denied. The Commission should consider whether or not a
duplex development would be preferable to the current proposal.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
A. Continue with direction and concurrence.
City Commission Documentation
Appeal of SPRAB's Action on a Site Plan for Nanmeyer a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 4
B. Uphold the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's decision and deny the site
plan for Nanmeyer based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to
Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility),
and Section 4.3.3(0) (Townhouse Regulations) of the Land Development
Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Reverse the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's decision and approve the site
plan for Nanmeyer based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3
(Performance Standards), Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility), and Section
4.3.3(0) (Townhouse Regulations) of the Land Development Regulations and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions:
That the subject property be platted prior to issuance of building permits and
that the plat address the following items:
* dedication of right-of-way for that portion of the NE 14th Street
which encroaches onto the property; and
* that additional dedication of right-of-way be provided for the
proposed sidewalk which encroaches onto the subject property or
that a pedestrian easement dedicated to the public be provided.
That final action on the landscape plan and architectural elevations be
obtained by SPRAB prior to submittal of building permits.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Commission discretion.
Attachments:
· Zoning Map and Land Use Map
· Letter of Appeal
· SPRAB Staff Report and Documentation of April 24, 1996
PLUMOSA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
N.E. 17TH ST.
~I ~ SF~
/ SF TRACT
PALM BLVD.
S~ SF SF SF SF,, VL
~ ~. 16TH ST.
SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SE MOTEL
i S SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SFl
' N.E. 15TH ST. ~ GC
VL
AVENUE N.
LAKE AVENUE
N.E. 14TH ST.
LAKE AVENUE S.
GO
15TH ST. Vt_
N.E. 12TH ST.
BOND WAY
N.E. 11TH ST.
N.E. lOTH ST.
9TH
8TH ST. GEORGE BUSH
CHURCH
I LEGEND:
N VL-VACANT LOT
NANMEYER QUAD-PLEX
SF-SINGLE FAMILY
,,,_^~,-,,,,,o~=,:,^,~T',¢=,,,'~ EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN 1000' RADIUS VCB-VACANTCOMMERCIAL
BUILDING
CITY OF BELRAY BEACH. FL GO-GENERAL COMMERCIAL
-- DIGITAL t~4SE MAP SYSTEA4 -- MAP REF: LM027
CITY OF DEERAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT---
MEETING DATE: April 24, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: V.A.
ITEM: Site plan, Landscaping, and elevations for a proposed four unit~
townhouse structure.
GENERAL DATA:
Owner/Applicant ...................... Nanmeyer 4-plex
Agent ....................................... Richard W. Sheremeta
Sheremeta Associates, Inc.
Location ................................... Northeast corner of N.E. 3rd
Avenue & N.E. 14th Street (Lake
Avenue).
Property Size ........................... 0.43 acres
Future Land Use Map .............. Medium Density Residential
Current Zoning ......................... RM (Multiple Famil. y Residential)
Adjacent Zoning ............... North: RM
East: GC (General Commercial)
(Community Fa~:ility)
South:
CF
West: R-l-AA (Single Family
Residential)
Existing Land Use .................... Vacant Lot
Proposed Land Use .................. Construction of a 4 unit structure
with associated parking and
landscaping.
Water Service ........................... Available via extension of an 8"
water main in N.E. 3rd Avenue.
Sewer Service .......................... Available via extension of an 8"
sewer main in N.E. 3rd Avenue.
V.A
The action before the Board is approval of a site plan request pursuant to LDR Section
2.4.5(F). The request involves the following elements as they pertain to Nanmeyer, a
four unit townhouse development:
site plan;
architectural.elevations; and
landscape plan.
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of NE 14th Street and NE 3rd
Avenue, and contains approximately 0.43 acres.
The subject property is currently vacant and is made up of portions of Lot 115 and 116
of Plumosa Park, Section A. The site is zoned RM (Multiple Family Residential). In
March of 1995, the City reconstructed the intersection of NE 3rd Avenue and NE 14th
Street located to the west and south of the .subject property. The reconstruction project
involved the elimination of a circular island, resurfacing NE 14th Street, and the creation
of a dry retention area on the south side .,of NE 14th Street. There was extensive
unpaved right-of-way left over with the elimination of the circular island, and the
Seacrest Homeowners Association requested that the City install landscaping to help
beautify the entry into their subdivision. The landscaping has been installed and some
plant material encroaches onto the subject property.
At its meeting of April 10, 1996, the Board reviewed a development proposal to
construct a multiple family townhouse structure with four units on the subject property.
At that meeting, the Seacrest Homeowners Association voiced concerns that the
proposed development was too intense for the site and was not compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods. They also noted that a Neighborhood Plan was to be
prepared (by the City) for the Seacrest neighborhood area that may contain language to
decrease densities in the area. Based on the above the public requested that the
Board table the item.
The Board was in support of the project, however felt that it may be beneficial if the
applicant discussed the development proposal with the neighborhood to make the
project more compatible i.e. provision of additional landscaping and possible changes
to the architectural elevations. The applicant was willing to discuss the development
proposal with the Seacrest Neighborhood. Thus, the Board with the concurrence from
the applicant tabled the item.
Since the last meeting, the applicant met with the Seacrest neighborhood
representatives, and could not come to any compromises, thus the development
proposal as previously submitted is the request now before the Board.
" SPRAB Staff Report ~II C
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The development proposal involves the construction of a multiple family townhouse
structure with four units which are to be sold fee simple, ten parking spaces, and
associated landscaping. The development proposal also includes a landscape waiver
to reduce the perimeter landscape strip from 5' to 4' along the eastern property line.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix:
The proposal meets all setback, height, lot coverage, open space, and building
requirements, as listed in the Development Standards Matrix.
Minimum Floor Areas:
The RM district requires a minimum floor area of 1,150 square feet for three bedroom
units. All of the proposed units contain 3 bedrooms with 1,150 square feet under air.
Section 4.4.6 Medium Density Residential;
Density:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.6(H)(1), the RM zone district provides for a base density of
6 units per acre. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.6(H)(1), higher densities can be
permitted up to a maximum of 12 units per acre based on a determination by the Board
that "the resulting development is harmonious with adjacent properties and does not
adversely affect areas of environmental significance or sensitivity". The .subject
property contains 0.43 acres, and 4 units are proposed, for a density equivalent to 9.3
units per acre.
The proposed density is harmonious with a vacant parcel zoned GC (General
Commercial) located to the east of the railroad tracks, and a multiple family structure
containing 12 units located southwest of subject parcel. The proposed townhouse
development has a higher density than the single family properties to the north and
west however, it will act as a good transition between these uses and the potential
commercial use to the east.
In order to be more harmonious with the single family subdivision to the west, the
required parking has been located along the eastern side of the property adjacent to the
railroad tracks. Additional buffering of the site is provided by .the City installed
SPRAB Staff Report ~;
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 3
landscaping within NE 3rd Avenue and NE 14th Street rights-of-way. A single family
dwelling is situated to the north of the subject parcel, however the single family home is
located in a RM zoning district which will allow a higher density development. To
provide additional compatibility for this existing single family use, the townhouse
structure has been designed so that the rear yard of the units abut the single family
dwelling with a building setback of 23' to 30'. In addition, a landscape buffer consisting
of a continuous hedge and trees every 30' is to be installed.
LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary_ District Regulations:
Parking:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(c), two spaces are required for a two or more
bedroom unit and .5 space per unit is required for guest parking. Based on the above,
the four unit development with 3 bedroom units requires 10 parking spaces, and 10
parking spaces are provided.
LDR Chapter 4,3,3(O) Special Requirements for Specific Uses - Townhouses and
Townhouse Type of Developments:
Plat Required:
Each townhouse, or townhouse type, development shall be platted with the interior
street system and parking area designated as tracts, and each unit shown on the plat.
The plat is to be recorded prior to issuance of building permits, and is attached as a
condition of approval.
Setbacks:
For townhouse developments, setbacks are measured from the perimeter of the
development. The RM zoning district requires a 25' front, side street, rear setback, and
a 15' interior side setback. The development proposal meets or exceeds these' setback
requirements.
Design Standards:
(a) No more than two townhouses may be constructed without providing a front
setback of no less than 4' offset front to rear.
The project provides for a 6' offset front to rear, thus meeting this code
requirement.
(b) No Townhouse row shall consist of more than 8 units or a length of 200'.
The townhouse row consist of 4 units and is 96' long, thus meeting this code
requirement.
SPRAB Staff Report .~..- ~-'
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 4
(c) Service features, garages, parking areas, and entrances to dwelling units shall,
whenever possible, be located on a side of the individual lot having access to the
interior street. Walkways should be designed to connect dwelling units with each other
and connect each dwelling unit with common open space.
The parking area has been provided along the side of the overall lot, and the
walkway has been designed to connect the dwelling units with each other and
the parking lot area.
(d) Not less than 25% of the total area, less water bodies, shall be usable open space,
either for recreational or some other suitable purpose, public or private.
This standard is intended to apply to large townhouse developments, and is not
relevant in this situation as there are only 4 townhouse units.
OTHER ISSUES:
Right-of-way Dedication:
Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1 right-of-way dedications to meet minimum standards
must be made with all developments. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(2), the required
right-of-way width for NE 3rd Avenue is 60' 'and only 50' currently exists. A reduction in
the required right-of-way width may be granted by the body having approval authority of
the associated development application, provided the reduction is supported by the City
Engineer [REF: Section 5.3.1(D)(4)]. The City Engineer reviewed the request for a
reduction in right-of-way width and has determined that the existing right-of-way width
of 50' is sufficient for NE 3rd Avenue.
NE 14th Street has recently been reconstructed by the City, and contains a right-of-way
width equal to or greater than 60' in some areas. However, the street pavement is not
centered in the right-of-way, and a small portion of the pavement encroaches onto the
southeast corner of the property. A dedication requirement to cover the pavement
encroachment is attached as a condition of approval.
Infrastructure Improvements:
Pursuant to LDR Section 6.3.1(B)(1), a 5' wide sidewalk is required along NE 3rd
Avenue and NE 14th Street. The development proposal includes the installation of 5'
sidewalks along both NE 3rd Avenue and NE 14th Street. The proposed sidewalk will
encroach onto the southeast corner of the site, due to the off-setting of the street
pavement. Additional right-of-way or pedestrian access easement will need to be
dedicated to accommodate the sidewalk. This item has been attached as a condition of
approval that is to be addressed with the plat.
SPRAB Staff Report ~! C'
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 5
Comprehensive Plan Policies:
A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was
conducted and the following applicable objectives and policies are noted.
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 subject property will be developed in a manner consistent with the adjacent
residential developments to the north, west, south, and the commercially zoned
property to the east, which is further discussed on Page 2 (Density) and Page 8
(Compatibility) sections of this report.
Land Use Element Ob_iective 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 subject property is mowed periodically, and contains some existing exotic plant
material £e. Brazilian Pepper which is required to be removed with the development of
the site. There are no special physical~ characteristics that would be negatively
impacted by the proposed townhouse development. Development of this property for
fee simple townhouses will be complimentary with the adjacent residential uses. The
proposal fulfills remaining land use needs by furthering Objective B-2 and related
Policies in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which call for development
of vacant land to provide a variety of housing types and housing for Iow and middle
income families as well as first-time home buyers.
The landscape plans provide for foundation plantings of Ixora Nora Grant, Simspon
Stopper and Liriope. Accent plants consist of Hibiscus standards, White Bird-of-
Paradise, and Crinum Lilies. Along the south and west property lines, six separate
landscape beds consisting of a Live Oak tree under planted with Silver Buttonwoods or
Cocoplum shrubs are proposed. These small planting beds appear to be somewhat
out of character with the large massing of plant materials provided within the adjacent
rights-of-way. Further, provision of small individual landscape beds are not consistent
with Xeriscape principles. These landscape beds should be combined into two larger
beds and be placed in the northwest and southwest corners of the sites. Along the
north property line a continuous hedge of Simpson Stopper is to be provided with Oak
trees placed 30' on center.
The sidewalk has not been indicated on the landscape pian. Once the sidewalk is
shown, it will create some conflicts with the City installed landscaping which will need to
SPRAB Staff Report ~'- ~i"
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 6
be removed and relocated. This item has been noted as a technical item to be
addressed prior to building permit submittal.
Along the east property line, Oak trees are proposed 30' on center with a continuous
hedge of Simpson Stopper. In addition, Faxahatchee Grass is proposed in front of the
Simpson Stopper hedge, and groupings of 3 Sabal Palms and a Wax Myrtle tree are
proposed between the Live Oaks. It is recommended that a more durable and faster
growing hedge rather than Simpson Stopper be provided i.e. Green Buttonwood
adjacent to railroad tracks. It is also recommended that a Sabal Palm and Wax Myrtle
grouping be provided at the north end of the parking lot to provide additional buffering
of the parking lot area from developments to the north.
Along the eastern property line a 5' landscape strip is required and only 4' is being
provided [REF: Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d)]. The applicant has requested a waiver to
reduce the landscape strip from 5' to 4'. The applicant has submitted a justification
statement that indicates that while a 5' landscape strip could be accommodated along
the perimeter of the project, it would leave a 2' landscape strip between the foundation
of the building and the parking lot area. If a one foot reduction is granted it would allow
a 3' landscape strip allowing for a more effective planting area.
As of January 9, 1996, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board has the authority
to approve landscape waivers. Prior to g~ranting a waiver, the Board shall make a
finding that the granting of the waiver:
a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area;
b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities;
c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or,
d) Does not result in the granting of a special privilege in that the same waiver
would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another
applicant or owner.
The waiver will not affect the neighboring area, as the same amount of landscape
material will be within the 4' landscape strip, and the strip abuts the railroad tracks. The
request involves a landscape requirement, and does not affect the provision of public
facilities or create an unsafe situation. The granting of the waiver will not result in the
grant of a special privilege as reductions for perimeter landscape strips have been
granted in the past under similar circumstances.
Landscape Technical Items: The following Landscape Plan items remain
outstanding, and will need to be addressed prior to building permit submission.
1. Indicate on the landscape plan where the sidewalk is to be located, and indicate
where palm trees are to be relocated if the sidewalk interferes with their existing
locations. · -
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 7
2. Regroup the beds containing an Oak tree under planted with Cocoplums or Silver
Buttonwood shrubs into two groups, and locate them to the northwest and
southwest corners of the site.
3. Add a note that the trees are to be 12' in height with a minimum 4' single straight
trunk, 6' of clear trunk, and 6' canopy spread.
4. Add note that all prohibited plant species shall be eradicated from the development
site and re-establishment of prohibited species shall not be permitted.
5. Add note that the unpaved portion of the right-of-way adjacent to the property line
shall be landscaped with sod and provided with irrigation and maintenance.
6. Add a grouping of Sabal Palms and a Wax Myrtle tree to the north side of the
parking lot area.
7. Along the eastern property line change the Simpson Stopper hedge to a more
durable and faster growing species to provide a better buffer adjacent to the railroad
tracks.
8. The Simpson Stopper hedge elsewhere on the site must be 24" in height at the time
of planting and not 18" as indicated on th'e plans.
At its meeting of October 18, 1995, the Board reviewed the preliminary elevations for
the project, and felt that the elevations were somewhat plain. The Board recommended
that mullions, shutters, and stucco banding be provided to give the building more depth
and architectural detailing. The proposed elevations have provided the architectural
elements that the Board requested, and are discussed below.
The building material for the structure is concrete block with a stucco finish. The
pitched roof will contain dimensional fiberglass shingles. The front facade will contain
two double hung windows with mullions (located side by side) and doors for each unit.
On either sides of the windows, 14" wide decorative shutters will be provided. The rear
elevations contain a 6' sliding glass door for each unit and a double hung window. The
sides of the units contain a double hung window and a picture window with mullions,
and decorative shutters on either side. In addition, the front and side elevations will
contain a 6" raised stucco banding to be located approximately 36" above the base of
the building.
The structure will be painted beige with a taupe fascia. The doors and shutters will be
painted peach. The dimensional shingle is to be tri-color containing a dark brown, light
brown, and gray color. The tri-color roofing material will be complementary to the
proposed colors of the structure.
SPRAB Staff Report .,.
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 8
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, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or
minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve
or deny the development application. These findings relate to the following
areas:
Section 3.1.t (A) - Future Land Use Map:
The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of Medium Density, and
is currently zoned RM. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.6(B)(1), within the RM zoning
district multiple family structures are allowed as a permitted use. Based upon the
above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to consistency with the
land use plan designation.
Section 3.1.1 (B) - Concurrency:
As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates
to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and
solid waste.
Section 3.1.1 (C) - Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions):
As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates
to Standards for Site Plan Actions.
Section 3.1.1 (D) - Compliance With the Land Development Regulations:
As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of
compliance with the LDRs can be made, when all outstanding items attached as
conditions of approval are addressed.
Section 2.4.5 (F)(5) - Compatibility_ (Site Plan Findings): The approving body must
make a finding that development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be
compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and the City as
a whole, so as not cause substantial depreciation of property values.
The subject property is bordered on north by RM zoning, to the south by RL (Multiple
Family -Low Density Residential) and CF zoning, to the east GC (General Commercial)
zoning, and to the west R-1AA (Single Family Residential! zoning. The existing land
uses are a single family dwelling to the north and west, a vacant commercial parcel to
SPRAB Staff Report ~-" C
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 9
the east, and to the south is a City owned dry retention area and a two story multiple
family development containing 12 units.
There are no compatibility concerns with the vacant parcel to the east or the multiple
family development and dry retention area to the south. To increase compatibility with ·
the single family homes to the west, the parking lot area has been located adjacent to
the railroad tracks. Additional buffering of the site is provided from the City installed
landscaping within the adjacent right-of-ways and the proposed landscaping on site. A
continuous hedge and trees are to be provided along the northern side of the property
with trees placed 30' on center. As mentioned previously, a grouping of the Sabal
Palms and Wax Myrtle tree should be provided at the end of the parking row to buffer
the development from the north. Based on the above, the development of the property
as townhouses with fee simple ownership should be compatible and harmonious with
adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, and should not cause
substantial depreciation of property values.
The development proposal is located in an area which requires review by the CRA.
The CRA board considered this project at its meeting of March 28, 1996. The board
unanimously recommended approval. ~
Special Courtesy Notices:
A special courtesy notice was provided to the following homeowner association:
* Seacrest Property Homeowners Association
The development proposal consists of the construction of a four unit multiple family
structure of owner occupied units. The proposed development is consistent with
Chapter 3 and Section 2.4.5(F) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. A waiver has been requested for a reduction in a perimeter
landscape strip from 5' to 4' and staff supports the waiver based on the information
provided herein. While the landscape plan meets the intent of the Landscape code,
some recommendations have been made to provide a more cohesive plan. The
proposed architectural elevations address the Board's previous comments relating to
the aesthetics of the structure. The development proposal is compatible with the
adjacent residential properties and will be an enhancement to the area.
A. Continue with direction and concurrence.
SPRAB Staff Report ,.~.
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 10
B. Approve the site' plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations for Nanmeyer
based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards),
Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility), and Section 4.3.3(0) (Townhouse
Regulations) of the Land Development Regulations, and the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions. ·
C. Deny the site plan, landscape plan, and architectural elevations with basis
stated.
By Separate Motions:
Landscape Waiver:
Approve the waiver request from LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d) to reduce the required
landscape strip from 5' to 4' along the eastern property line of the subject property
based upon positive findings pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B).
Site Plan: ~
Approve the site plan for Nanmeyer townhouse development based on positive findings
with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of
Compatibility) and Section 4.3.3(0) (Townhouse Regulations) of the Land Development
Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions:
I~1 That the subject property be platted prior to issuance of building permits and
that the plat address the following items:
* dedication of right-of-way for that portion of the NE 14th Street
which encroaches onto the property; and
* that additional dedication of right-of-way be provided for the
proposed sidewalk which encroaches onto the subject property or
that a pedestrian easement dedicated to the public be provided.
Landscape Plan:
Approve the landscape plan for Nanmeyer townhouse development based on positive
findings with respect to Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to
the following conditions:
I~1 Address all Landscape Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the
revised plans.
SPRAB Staff Report ~i ~"'
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 11
Elevations:
Approve the proposed elevations for Nanmeyer townhouse development based on ~
positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.18.
.Attachments: Appendix A, Appendix B, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations
SPRAB Staff Report"~
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 12
Pursuant to Section 3.1.1(B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of ~
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a
determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use
and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and
provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the
following areas:
Water and Sewer: With respect to water and sewer service, the following is noted:
Water service is provided to the site via a 12" water main which is located on the
east side of NE 3rd Avenue.
Sewer service is provided to the site via an 8" sewer main which is located
within the NE 3rd Avenue right-of-way.
Adequate fire suppression is provided to the site via a fire hydrant which is
located approximately 150' to the north, and a hydrant which is located
approximately 75' to the south.
The Comprehensive Plan states that adequate water and sewer treatment capacity
exists to meet the adopted LOS at the City's build-out population based on the current
FLUM. At the time of approval of the Comprehensive Plan, a medium density
development was contemplated for this property. The addition of 4 townhouse units will
have a minimal impact on water and sewer demands as it relates to this level of service
standard.
Streets and Traffic: Staff provided the traffic information for the subject property and the
following is noted:
The proposed 4 townhouse units will generate 28 Average Daily Trips (4 units x 7 ADT
per unit = 28).
Pursuant to Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance, residential
projects located east of 1-95 are exempt from the Ordinance. In addition no LOS
concerns are noted for either NE 3rd Avenue or NE 14th Street, thus the development
meets traffic concurrency.
Parks and Recreation Facilities: Park demands generated by the construction of new
housing units were factored into the 1989 Comprehensive Plan Parks and Recreation
Element. Thus, the proposed development will not have a negative impact with respect
to this level of service standard. The applicant will be required to pay the City's Parks
and Recreation Impact Fee of $500.00 per unit at the time o.fbuilding permit issuance.
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 13
Solid Waste: The proposed development will generate 7.96 tons of solid waste per
year. As a multiple family development and its associated solid waste generation was
anticipated by the City and County Comprehensive Plans, LOS for solid waste disposal
will not be affected by the proposed development.
Drainage: Drainage will be accommodated on site via swales located within the
landscaped areas. There should be no impact on drainage as it relates to this level of
service standard.
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 14
A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they
do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it
pertains to traffic circulation.
Not applicable
Meets intent of standard X
Does not meet intent
B. Appropriate separation of travelways is made for vehicles, bicycles, and
pedestrians in a manner consistent with objective D-1 of the Traffic
Element.
Not applicable
Meets intent of standard X
Does not meet intent
C. Open Space enhancements described in Open Space and Recreation
Objective B-l, are appropriately addressed.
Not applicable
Meets intent of standard X
Does not meet intent
D. That any street widening associated with the development shall not be
detrimental upon desired character and cohesiveness of affected
residential areas.
Not applicable X__
Meets intent of standard
Does not meet intent
E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall
be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development
regardless of zoning designations.
Not applicable
Meets intent of standard X
Does not meet intent
Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Nanmeyer, a Four Unit Townhouse Development
Page 15
F. Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and
intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable
physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills
remaining land use needs.
Not applicable
Meets intent of standard X
Does not meet intent
G. In order to provide for more balance demographic mix, the development of
"large scale adult oriented communities" on the remaining vacant land is
discouraged.
Not applicable
Meets intent of standard ~X,
Does not meet intent
Z
I
~ "
I I I
! !
'"'"""'"'~'JlJ ~ '" J
I I I
I I I J
Ill
I J LI
' t
The item before the Board is approval of a change in architectural elevations
for Bob's Quick Print.
Ms. Meeks presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff
report. The development proposal includes the removal of a window located
along the west facade of the building. The area where the wihdow is to be
removed, will be stuccoed and painted peach to match the existing facade of
the building. A white stucco banding will be provided around the previous
window opening to give the illusion that a window exists.
It was moved by Mr. Carter, seconded by Ms. Andrews and passed 6-0 to
approve the change in elevations to Bob's Quick Print upon positive finding
with respect to Section 4.6.18, as submitted.
G. Casa La Brisa; 51-59 Seabreeze Avenue: Internal Adjustment to Reduce thc
Swimming Pool Setback Requirement: Cary Glickstein. Authorized Agent.
The item before the Board is that of granting an internal adjustment for Casa
La Brisa.
Ms. Meeks presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff
report. At its meeting of February 7, 1996, the Board granted an internal
adjustment to the swimming pool setback requirement from 10' to 5' in order
to allow a larger curvilinear pool rather than a smaller rectangular pool. At the
time of preparation of final drawings it was discovered that a 2.5' pool setback
would be necessary in order to provide the desired pool design. The internal
adjustment will be to the south sides of Lots 1-4. Two and one-half foot decks
are proposed between the property lines and the edge of the pools. The
internal adjustment would allow construction of larger pools (12' X 20') and
provide more flexibility with respect to the pool design and how it integrates
with the rear yard landscaping.
It was moved by Ms. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Sittler and passed 6-0 to
grant an internal adjustment to LDR Section 4.6.15(G)(1) to reduce the pool
setback requirement from 10' to 2.5', based upon positive finding with respect
to LDR section 2.4.7(c)(5), that the adjustment does not diminish the practical
application of LDR Section 4.6.15(G)(1) and will result in a superior product.
V. PROJECT PLANS:
Mr. Sheremeta stepped down from the Board for the following item.
- 6 - 4110/96
A. Narlmeyer 4-Plex: Northeast Corner of N.E. 14th Street and N.E. 3rd Avenue:
Site Plan. Elevations. and Landscaping for a Townhouse Development:
Sheremeta Associates. Inc.. Authorized Agent.
The item before the Board is approval of site plan, architectural elevations,
and landscape plan for Nanmeyer 4-Plex.
Ms. Meeks presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff
report. The site is currently vacant and is made up of portions of Lot 115 and
116 of Plumosa Park, Section A. The development proposal consists of the
construction of a four unit multiple family townhouse structure which are to be
sold fee simple, ten parking spaces, and associated landscaping. The
development proposal also includes a landscape waiver to reduce the
perimeter landscape strip from 5' to 4' along the eastern property line. The
landscape plan meets the intent of the Landscape Code, however some
recommendations have been made to provide a more cohesive plan. The
proposed architectural elevations addresses the Board's previous comments
relating to the aesthetics of the structure. The development proposal is
compatible with the adjacent residential properties and will be an
enhancement to the area.
Mr. Myer Berkowitz, Chief Executive of Nanmeyer Properties, Inc. agreed
with all the conditions of approval.
The following people spoke in opposition:
Ms. Deborah Dowd, representing the Seacrest Homeowner's Association.
The Seacrest Neighborhood Association is from 3rd Avenue west, east to
Swinton Avenue, south 8th Street, and all the way north to 22nd. The first
task of the Association was to redevelop 14th Street circle and install
landscaping to help beautify the neighborhood. A four unit townhouse would
not be harmonious with the adjacent properties.
Mr. Richard McGibon, member of the Seacrest Homeowner's Association,
stated that this was contrary to the redevelopment plan and not harmonious
with the surrounding neighborhoods based on the proposed density.
Mr. Steve Butera, President of Seacrest Homeowner's Association, stated
that they were not supportive of project. Does not feel harmonious with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Mr. John Farean, member of Seacrest Homeowner's Association, stated that
he had the following concerns: (1.) size of the apartments; (2.) no recreation
area for children to play; (3) four plex would not add any value to
neighborhood.
- 7 - 4110196
After a lengthy discussion, and the many concerns of the homeowners, of
which the applicant was not aware of, the Board asked the applicant if he
would agree to table the project to the meeting of April 24, 1996, to allow the
applicant some time to meet with the homeowners to come up with a plan that
would make the 4-plex more compatible, i.e. landscaping and architectural
elevations with the neighborhood. With concurrence form the =applicant the
Board tabled the item.
It was moved by Mr. Carter, seconded by Ms. Andrews and passed 4-1 (Mr.
Sittler dissenting) to table Nanmeyer 4-Plex.
Mr. Sheremeta stepped back to the Board.
B. Detray Lincoln Mercury_: 2101 South Federal Highway; Major Site Plan
Modification. Landscaping, and Elevations for an Expansion to an Existing Car
Dealership; Debra Turner. Authorized Agent.
The item before the Board is approval of a major site plan modification,
architectural elevations, and landscape plan for Delray Lincoln Mercury.
Ms. Meeks presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff
report. The development proposal includes the following elements:
The addition of a 7,800 square foot two-story service building at the
southwest corner of the existing central bullpen area. The building will
contain 26 service bays on the ground floor and parts and storage on the
second floor.
· The addition of a 4,800 square foot one-story auto detail building. The
building will contain 16 bays for auto detailing and one bay for an
automatic car wash.
· The development of bullpen and employee parking areas on "Tract C".
· The realignment of the southern most entry drive from Federal Highway to
provide better on-site circulation.
Ms. Debra Turner presented the plans to the Board and explained the
proposal for the expansion of Delray Lincoln Mercury.
It was moved by Mr. Carter, seconded by Ms. Andrews and passed 6-0 to
approve the waiver request to not install the sidewalk along Tract "C" that
fronts on Dixie Highway.
- 8 - 4110/96
wide by 24" long) along the northern elevation, and a 35' long x 12' wide patio
awning along the eastern elevation. The color of the awnings are navy blue
matching the trim on the building.
It was moved by Ms. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Sittler and passed 5-0 to
approve the addition of six awnings to the Marina Delray Building based upon
positive finding with respect to Section 4.6.18. ~
D. Van's Comfortemp: 125-145 South Congress Avenue: Waiver Reo. uest to
Eliminate a Required Landscape Island. and Change in Building Elevation to
Add a Covered Patio; David Henniger, Authorized Agent.
The item before the Board is approval of a waiver request to eliminate a
required landscape island, and change in elevations for an existing industrial
development.
Ms. Meeks presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff
report. The asphalt area located to the rear of the structure which is
unstriped, is currently being utilized for parking. The Planning Department is
processing a non-impacting site plan modification to allow 19 parking spaces
(forty-five degree) to be striped in this area. Pursuant to LDR Section
4.6.16(H)(3)(i), a landscape island shall be placed at intervals of no less than
one landscape island for every ten parking spaces. A waiver to eliminate the
required landscape island in the parking row has been requested. The wood
shake roof will be changed to standing seam metal and painted green. A
covered patio is to be constructed at the front entrance to the center bay. The
patio addition will resemble the architectural style of a gazebo with decorative
wood columns, roof supports, and a railing. The size of the patio is
approximately 6'-8" wide by 30' long and will be painted beige to match that of
the walls.
It was moved by Mr. Carter, seconded by Mr. Sittler and passed 5-0 to
approve the waiver request to eliminate the required landscape island in the
parking row located to the rear of the structure based upon positive findings
with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5).
It was moved by Ms. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Carter and passed 5-0 to
approve the change in elevations for Van's Comfortemp to allow the addition
of a covered patio, change in roofing material, and change in roof color based
upon positive findings pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.18.
V. PROJECT PLANS:
Mr. Sheremeta stepped down from the Board for the following item.
- 4 - 4124196
A. Nanmeyer 4-Plex: Northeast Corner of N.E. 14th Street arid N,E, 3rd Avenue;
Site Plan. Elevations. and Landsca.oing for a Townhouse Development:
Sheremeta Associates. Inc.. Authorized Aaent.
The item before the Board is approval of site plan, architectural elevations,
and landscape plan for Nanmeyer 4-Plex. ~
Ms. Meeks presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff
report. At its meeting of April 10, 1996, the Board reviewed a development
proposal to construct a multiple family townhouse structure with four units on
the subject property. At that meeting, the Seacrest Homeowners Association
voiced concerns that the proposed development was too intense for the site
and was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. They also noted
that a Neighborhood Plan was to be prepared (by the City) for the Seacrest
neighborhood area that may contain language to decrease densities in the
area. Based on the above the public requested that the Board table the item.
The Board was in support of the project, however felt that it may be beneficial
if the applicant discussed the development proposal with the neighborhood to
make the project more compatible i.e. provision of additional landscaping and
possible changes to the architectural elevations. The applicant was willing to
discuss the development proposal with the Seacrest Neighborhood. Thus, the
Board with the concurrence from the applicant tabled the item.
Since the last meeting, the applicant met with the Seacrest Neighborhood
representatives, and could not come to any compromises, thus the
development proposal as previously submitted is the request now before the
Board.
Mr. Myer Berkowitz, President of Nanmeyer Properties, Inc. stated that the
landscape technical items would be addressed. He had a meeting with the
Seacrest Homeowners Association, however no consensus could be made.
The following people spoke in opposition:
Ms. Deborah Dowd, representing the Seacrest Homeowner's Association
stated the following:
· Meeting with City Manager is moving forward to reduce density;
· Meeting with CRA to come up with plan;
· Mayor and City Manager want to down zone, change duplex and triplex to
single family;
· Want to change character of neighborhood.
- 5 - 4124196
Mr, Richard McGibon, member of the Seacrest Homeowner's Association
stated that staff and design team have done a good job on project. However,
the neighborhood is left with the project. This project does not meet the spirit
of zoning. Concerned that 16 people could live in a small lot that is not
acceptable or compatible.
Ms. Ma~_ Crocker, resident stated that this project was not compatible with
the neighborhood.
After a lengthy discussion, some of the Board members felt that the project
was not harmonious with the adjacent properties based on the proposed
density. One of the Board members felt that the development of the property
as a 4-plex was the appropriate use and density based on its location
adjacent to a railroad track and surrounding land uses.
It was moved by Ms. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Sittler to approve the waiver
request from LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d) to reduce the required landscape
strip from 5' to 4' along the eastern property line of the subject property based
upon positive findings pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) for Nanmeyer 4-Plex.
2nd Vice Chairman Carter asked for roll call. Upon roll call the SPRAB Board
voted as follows: Ms. Andrews - Yes; Mr. Sittler - Yes; Mr. Pakradooni - Yes;
Mr. Carter - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4-0 vote.
It was moved by Mr. Sittler, seconded by Ms. Andrews to approve the site
plan for Nanmeyer townhouse development based on positive findings with
respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of
Compatibility) and Section 4.3.3(0) (Townhouse Regulations) of the Land
Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to
the following conditions:
That the subject property be platted prior to issuance of building permits
and that the plat address the following items:
· dedication of right-of-way for that portion of the N.E. 14th Street which
encroaches onto the property; and
· that additional dedication of right-of-way be provided for the proposed
sidewalk which encroaches onto the subject property or that a
pedestrian easement dedicated to the public be provided.
2nd Vice Chairman Carter asked for roll call. Upon roll call the SPRAB Board
voted as follows: Ms. Andrews - No; Mr. Sittler - Yes; Mr. Pakradooni - No;
Mr. Carter - No. Said motion failed with a 3-1 vote.
- 6 - 4124196
MAY-21-1996 16:36 PROM TJ~NER ~ ASSOC TO 24372R1 P.O1
JERRY TURNER AND ASSOCIATES
tAN~ ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNIH(;i EHVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
May 21, 1996 __.. ,,.~
City Clerk
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. First Avenue
Delray Beach, FL
RE: DELRAY UNCOLN MERCURY
Dear City Clerk,
I am writing to formally w~thdraw our appeal ofthe SPRAB decision of April 24, 1996.
respe(Dtfully request that this item, scheduled for consideration at tonight's Commission
meeting, be withdrawn from the age~da.
Thank you ~or your time.
Sincerely,
President
cc: Tim Young, Delray Lincoln Mercury
277 S.E. 5th AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33483 (40T) 276-0453 FAX (407) 272-7593
TOT~'. P.01
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
CIT
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM ~ ~ ' - MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD ACTION
BY DELRAY LINCOLN MERCURY
DATE: MAY 17, 1996
This is before the Commission to consider an appeal of a decision
by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board on April 24, 1996,
relative to the Delray Lincoln Mercury Master Sign Program
proposal.
As part of the overall sign package, two (2) additional flat wall
signs were proposed to be placed on the north and south
elevations of the main dealership building. There currently
exists a 159 sq.ft, flat wall sign on the east elevation.
Section 4.6.7(E) (7) of the LDRs provides for one flat wall sign
per building, although under the Master Sign Program a waiver
could have been granted by SPRAB. The majority of the Board,
however, felt that to keep all existing signs plus the addition
of two new flat wall signs would result in excessive signage.
The motion to approve the master sign plan was denied by a 3-2
vote.
Recommend consideration of the appeal by Delray Lincoln Mercury.
Date: May 15, 1996 Agenda Item No. ~C
AGENDA REQUEST
Agenda request to be placed on:
X Regular __ Special __ Workshop __ Consent
When: May 21, 1996
Description of Agenda Item:
Appeal of Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Decision for Delray Lincoln Mercury
Master Sign Program
Ordinance/Resolution Required: Yes / No Draft Attached: Yes / No
Recommendation: Commission Action
Department Head /) /'~
Signature:
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds):
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 15, 1996
TO: David Harden, City Manager /'[7_
FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement
RE: Appeal of Site Plan Review and Appearance Board
Decision for Delray Lincoln Mercury Master Sign
Program
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD:
Appeal of SPRAB's action of April 24, 1996 regarding the Delray Lincoln Mercury Master
Sign Program proposal, pursuant to Section 2.4.7(E) of the Land Development
Regulations.
BACKGROUND:
Section 2.4.7 (E) of the LDR's provides for an appeal to an approving Board's action be
made to the City Commission providing that certain requirements specified under this
section are met. The agent for the above referenced project has complied, thus the
appeal to SPRAB's decision is before the Commission for their consideration.
MASTER SIGN PROPOSAL:
The agent for Lincoln Mercury presented a master sign proposal to the Site Plan Review
and Appearance Board initially on April 10. The board tabled the item and requested
that it be brought back to them with a complete list of all existing signage on the site.
The item was subsequently brought back to the board on April 24.
The Master Sign package proposed to add two (2) flat wall signs (13' x 5.6' or 72 sq ft.
each) to be placed on the north and south elevations of the main dealership building;
one (1) free standing directory sign (4' x 5' or 20 sq. ft. at 7' high), to be located at the
north entrance of the property; one (1) free standing directory sign (4' x 4' or 20 sq. ft.)
to be installed at the west end of the island at the north entrance; and one free standing
directional sign (48" x 18" or 6 sq. ft) to be located at the south entrance along Federal
Highway. These proposed signs are in addition to existing signs on the property.
The board, under the Master Sign Program, could grant a waiver to the sign code under
certain conditions. The flat wall signs are considered excessive under Section
4.6.7(E)(7). This section provides for one fiat wall sign per building, there is an existing
159 sq. ft. fiat wall sign on the east elevation of the main building. Some of the board
members felt that to keep all existing signs plus the addition of the 2 new flat wall signs
to the main building would result in excessive signage.
Master Sign Program - Delray Lincoln Mercury
There was a motion to approve the master plan, permitting the proposed flat wall signs
for the north and south elevations of the main building, allow future changes to the
existing pylon sign, add a new monument sign at the north entrance and allow the
directional sign on Dixie Highway to be changed, with prior approval from the board.
The motion was denied by a vote of 2-yes's, 3-no's. The agent is, therefore, appealing
this action.
I have attached a copy of the staff report along with the minutes of the board action. We
will have the site plan and photographs of existing signs and proposed new signs
available at the meeting for reference.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Commission direction.
LB:DQ
Attachments
SignDLM.CC
SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE BOARD
AGENT: By Design Signs
Ferrin Signs
PROJECT NAME: DELRAY LINCOLN MERCURY
PROJECT LOCATION: 2102 S. Fed. Hwy.
I. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD:
The item before the board is consideration of a Master Sign Program
for the Delray Lincoln Mercury dealership.
Section 4.6.7(D)(2) of the LDR's provides for the automatic
granting of waivers through a 9/aster Sign Program by the SPRAB.
The process is to be used when the development of a project is of
such scale or character that the 'normal application of the sign
code will not result in a effective sign program, provided that the
intent of the sign code is maintained and the character of the
community is not diminished.
I I. BACKGROUND:
The board reviewed the Master Sign Program on April 10, 1996. The
Board tabled the application ask:ing to be shown the existing signs
on the site.
EXISTING SIGNAGE. The applicant has submitted the following
existing signs which are located on the attached site plan. The
signs will all have red copy:
10 Flat Wall Signs:
A. "Delray Lincoln Mercury" - 3' x 45'
B. "Used Cars" - 1' x 9'
C. "Service" - 1' letters - 2 locations
D. "Parts" - 2' x 3'
E. "Parts" Projecting 2' x 4'
F. "Delray Lincoln Mercury. Body Shop" - 2' x 72'
G. "New Car Showroom" - 2" x 3'
- H. "Body Shop" - 3' x 8'
I. "Body Shop Office 2' x 3'
6 Free Standing S/gns:
J. "Delray Lincoln Mercury" - 12' x 4'
K. "Delray Lincoln Mercury" - 19' x 8'
L. "Used Cars Entrance" - 1' x 3' =
M. "Body Shop Office" - 2' x 3'
N. & O. "Body Shop Entrance" - 2' x 3' - 2 locations
Meeting Date: April 24, 1996
Agenda Item: III.A.
PROPOSED SIGNAGE. As part of the Master Sign Program, the
applicant is additionally applying for the following 2 flat wall,
1 free standing, 1 free standing directory, and 1 free standing
directional sign. The signs will all have red copy. The requested
signs conform with the sign code with the exception of the 2 flat
wall signs.
A. Flat Wall Signs: The applicant is requesting two 72 sq.
ft. (13' x 5.6') flat wall signs to be placed on the north and
south elevation of the main dealership building. These two signs
are in excess of the sign code per Sec. 4.6.7(E)(7), which states
that 1 maximum flat wall sign may be permitted. There currently is
a 159 sq. ft. (53' x 3') flat wall sign which faces S. Federal
Highway on.the east elevation.
B. Free Standing Signs:
1. One 20 sq. ft. (4' x 5') 7 ft. high, free standing
sign is proposed facing S. Federal Hwy. and located at the north
entrance of the property. This sign will replace the existing 152
sq. ft. (19' x 8') free standing sign which is currently located in
front of the dealership showroom.
2. One 16 sq. ft. (4' x 4') free standing directory sign
is proposed to be installed at the west end of the island where the
20 sq. ft. sign stated above is located.
3 One 6 sq. ft (48' x 18") free standing directional
sign to be located at the south entrance of S. Federal Hwy.
Staff has reservations regarding the number of flat wall signs
proposed. The applicant is requesting flat wall signs on the
north, south and east elevations (east elevation is existing).
Additional concerns include setting precedence.
III. RECOMMENDATION:
The Board has the following options:
1. Approve the proposed master sign package as submitted,
pursuant to positive findings under Section 4.6.7(D)(2) of the
LDR's.
2. Deny the master sign package-as submitted and require the
applicant~ to resubmit total package pursuant to the Board's
direction.
D:C
MINUTES OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA
REGULAR MEETING
MEETING DATE: April 24, 1996
LOCATION: CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:30 P.M. Upon roll call it was
determined that a quorum was present.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sheremeta, Daniel Carter, Patty Andrews, Conrad
Sittler, Michael Pakradooni (arrived 6:45)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Little, Charles Toth
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Meeks, George Diaz, Loretta Heussi
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ms. Meeks stated that there are no minutes for the Meeting of April 10, 1996, but will
be available at the next meeting.
III. SIGNS:
A. Delray Lincoln Mercury.: 2102 South Federal Highway: Master Sign Program:
Ralph Lashells, Authorized Agent.
The item before the Board is approval of 2 fiat wall, I free standing, I free
standing directory, and 1 free standing directional sign as part of the master
sign program for Delray Lincoln Mercury.
Mr. Diaz presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff report.
At its meeting of April 10, 1996 the Board tabled this item and requested that
all the signs on the site be provided. The existing signs include 10 fiat wall
signs and 6 free standing signs which are red copy. As part of the Master
Sign Program, the applicant is additionally requesting the following: 2 fiat wall
signs, 1 free standing sign, 1 free standing directory sign, and 1 free standing
directional sign. The signs will all have red copy. The free standing signs
meet sign code however, the 2 flat wall signs are in excess. Each of the fiat
wall signs are 72 sq. ft. (13' x 5.6') which are to be placed on the north and
south elevations of the main dealership building. There is an existing 159 sq.
ft. (53' x 3') flat wall sign on the east elevation. One 20 sq. ft. (4' x 5') 7 ft.
high, free standing sign will replace the existing free standing sign at the north
entrance of the property. One 16 sq. t. (4' x 4') free standing directory sign
will be placed at the west end of the island. One 6 sq. ft. (48' x 18") free
standing directional sign is to be placed at the south entrance of South
Federal Highway. Staff was concerned about setting precedence if 3 fiat wall
signs are allowed on the main showroom building.
Ms. Debra Turner, Landscape Architect, presented photographs and site plan
which depicted the location of all the signs. Ms. Turner stated that they are
replacing the Corporate identity sign. Also, new buildings are being built and
individual signs will be needed on the buildings.
After a lengthy discussion it was moved by Mr. Sittler, seconded by Ms.
Andrews to approve the proposed master sign package as submitted,
pursuant to positive findings under Section 4.6.7(D)(2) of the LDR's. With the
additional stipulation that as the signs are changed, improved, or replaced that
the corporate logo as proposed for the new signs be used.
Mr. Carter amended this motion to add that the sign "O" depicted on the sign
board be changed to a monument sign to match the Corporate Logo.
After further discussion Mr. Sittler withdrew his motion.
Mr. Roy Young stated that he would eliminate the 2 fiat wall signs, but needed
the existing pole sign and the monument sign at the main entrance if the 2 flat
wall signs are to be eliminated. Some of the Board members felt the pole sign
was excessive and not needed with the monument sign.
It was moved by Mr. Sittler, seconded by Ms. Andrews to approve the master
sign program, as amended: to allow the addition of the north and south wall
signs; future changes of the north and south faces of the pylon sign; the
addition of a monument sign at the new entrance, as submitted; and the
directional sign on Dixie Highway will also be changed when it becomes
available as submitted, pursuant to positive findings under Section 4.6.7(D)(2)
of the LDR's for Delray Lincoln Mercury.
- :2 - 4/:24196
Chairman Sheremeta asked for roll call. Upon roll call the SPRAB Board
voted as follows: Mrs. Andrews No; Mr. Sittler - Yes; Mr. Pakradooni - Yes;
Mr. Carter - No; Mr. Sheremeta - No. Said motion failed with a 3 - 2 vote.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Pines of Delray North; 1431 N.W. 18th Avenue: Color Change for a Multiple
Femily Development: Joyce Sorensen. Authorized Agent.
The item before the Board is approval to change the color of Pines of Delray
North.
Ms. Joyce Sorensen presented the item to the Board. The buildings are to be
painted white, beige and peach.
It was moved by Mr. Carter, seconded by Ms. Andrews and passed 5-0 to
approve the color change as submitted for Pines of Delray North..
B. Church of God of ProphecY: 640 S.E. 6th Avenue: Color Change for an
Existing Awninq; Robert Simpson. Authorized Agent.
The item before the Board is approval to re-canvass an existing awning
structure for the Church of God of Prophecy.
Ms. Meeks presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff
report. The development proposal consists of re-canvassing an existing
awning structure which is located along the north, south, and east elevations
of the building. This existing awning structure previously supported the Tire
Kingdom logo. The color of the awning is to be royal blue.
It was moved by Mr. Carter, seconded by Ms. Andrews and passed 5-0 to
approve the re-canvassing of an existing awning structure for the property at
640 S.E. 6th Avenue Prophecy based upon positive finding with respect to
Section 4.6.18.
C. Marina Delray; 777 Palm Trail: Addition of Awnings to an Existing Commercial
Structure: Robert Simpson. Authorized Agent.
The item before the Board is approval to allow the addition of six awnings to
the Marina Delray Building.
Ms. Meeks presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff
report. The development proposal consists of the addition of six awnings to
the second floor of the Marina Delray Building. Five window awnings (36"
- 3 - 4124196
the top "Used Truck" panel will be blue background with black copy and white
outline. The existing free standing sign will be removed. For aesthetic
purposes Staff felt that the directional information should be placed to the
bottom of the sign rather than at the top. Also, the business name and other
information should be enlarged which would reduce the size of lettering used
as directional information.
After a lengthy discussion, the Board felt that the design of the sign needed to
be reworked to eliminate some of the sign clutter and to make it more
aesthetically pleasing.
It was moved by Mr. Little, seconded by Ms. Andrews and passed 6-0 to table
the tenant free standing sign for Fleet Lease Disposal, Inc.
B. Insure-Wise Progressive: 14580 South Military_ Trail: One Flat Wall Sign: Tom
Jones. Authorized Agent.
The item before the Board is approval of one flat .wall sign for Insure-Wise
Progressive.
Mr. Diaz presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff report.
The illuminated flat wall sign will be 33 sq. ft. (11.10" x 33") and the copy will
be red for "lnsure-VVise" and blue for "Progressive". Staff recommended
denial because the sign does not conform to the established RED sign color
blanket standard.
Mr. Jeff Burkins, Admiral Signs stated that the blue color is the national
registered color for Insure-Wise Progressive and presented the color of blue.
He also stated that the landlord of the shopping center had signed off for the
color blue and felt it should be permissible.
The Board felt that a waiver to this blanket criteria would set a precedent.
It was moved by Mr. Carter, to approve the sign as submitted, seconded by
Ms. Andrews and passed 2-4 to deny the flat wall sign for Insure-Wise
Progressive.
C. Delray Lincoln Mercury_: 2102 South Federal Highway; Master Sign Program;
Ral.~h Lashells, Authorized Agent.
The item before the Board is approval of 2 flat wall, 1 free standing, 1 free
standing directory, and 1 free standing directional sign as part of the master
sign program for Delray Lincoln Mercury.
- 2 - 41'10/96
Mr. Diaz presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff report.
The free standing signs meet sign code however, the 2 flat wall signs are in
excess. Each of the fiat wall signs are 72 sq. ft. (13' x 5.6') which are to be
placed on the north and south elevations of the main dealership building.
There is an existing 159 sq. ft. (53' x 3') flat wall sign on the east elevation.
One 20 sq. ft. (4' x 5') 7 ft. high, free standing sign will replace the existing
free standing sign at the north entrance of the property. One 16'sq. t. (4' x 4')
free standing directory sign will be placed at the west end of the island. One 6
sq. ft. (48' x 18") free standing directional sign is to be placed at the south
entrance of South Federal Highway. Staff was concerned about setting
precedence by allowing 2 flat wall signs on a building that already contained a
flat wall sign.
Ms. Debra Turner, Architect, presented photographs which depicted the
location of the proposed signs.
The Board was supportive of the proposed signs, but felt that pictures should
be provided for all the existing signs if they were to approve a Master Sign
Program.
It was moved by Mr. Sittler, seconded by Ms. Andrews and passed 6-0 to
table the master sign program for Delray Lincoln Mercury.
II1. MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Delray West Plaza: 14830 South Military Trail; Color Change for an Existing
Commercial Shopping Center: Jack Schmidt, AuthOrized Agent.
The item before the Board is approval to change the color of Delray West
Plaza.
Mr. Jack Schmidt presented the configuration of the shopping center and the
colors that exist. The sign band are to be painted pale beige, the columns
and roofs are a chocolate brown, and the walls a pale yellow.
It was moved by Mr. Little, seconded by Ms. Andrews and passed 6-0 to
approve the color change as submitted for the Delray West Plaza.
B. Citation Club: South of Linton Boulevard on the East Side of Military. Trail:
Waiver Re~.uest to Allow a Decorative Wall Within the Reauired LandscapP-
Setback: The Beztak Companies. Authorized Agent.
The item before the Board is approval of a waiver request for the Citation
Club.
- 3 4110~96
DEL£^Y BEA£H
May 10, 1996
Ms. Debora Turner Oster
Jerry Turner & Associates of Florida, Inc.
277 S.E. 5th Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33483
Re: Appeal of Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Decision re Delray
Lincoln Mercury Master Si~n Procjram
Dear Ms. Oster:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of appeal with respect to the
Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's action of April 24, 1996,
concerning the referenced project. Pursuant to Section 2.4.7 of the Land
Develot~ment Regulations, the appeal was received in a timely manner by the
City Clerk's office on May 2, 1996.
Please be advised that the matter will be scheduled for consideration by
the City Commission at the regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 21,
1996. The meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. and will be held in the
Commission Chambers at City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach,
Florida.
You may wish to check with my office prior to the May 21st meeting to
determine the item's standing on the agenda. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 407/243-7050.
Sincerely,
Alison MacGregor Harty
City Clerk
cc: Diane Dominguez, Planning Director
Sharon Morgan, Executive Assistant
JERRY TURNER & ASSOCIATES OF FLORIDA, INC.
Landstnpe Architects Land Planners
Ma}, 1, 1990
City oI'D~'~ Boaoh
Ddray ~ Fl 33444
IriS; APPI. AL TO CITY COMMI~ION
Dg, LRAY t.lNCOl~ MERCURY - MA~TgR SIGN PROGRAM
I am writin~ as ~ aamt on behalf nf Ddray Limoln M~r~ury to r~lUOSt an al~aran~ ~
~ 24, 1~96.
~ smmi~ ~or ~ by tha own~ was n~ fairly ~, W~ ~ f~l that ~h~
Wc ~l~0'ully re, quit to he sahMuk~l 1o ~ b~ Ihe City ~ion al its ~ of ~
21st 1996.
I~~ boiow.
JERRY TURN'I~ & ASSOCIATES OF FLOP.IDA. INC.
~ T~r OsCar, A~LA
~: Roy Youql, D~'ay ~ M~r~'y'
277 SE. f~th Avenu~ Deh~y Bench, Florida (407) 276-04~3 Fax 272-7~93
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 15, 1996
TO: David Harden, City Manager
FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement
RE: Appeal of Site Plan Review and Appearance Board
Decision regarding Insure-Wise Progressive Flat
Wall Sign
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD:
Appeal of SPRAB's action of April 10, 1996 regarding the denial of a flat wall sign as
proposed by the agent, pursuant to Section 2.4.7(E) of the Land Development
Regulations.
BACKGROUND:
Section 2.4.7(E) of the LDR's provides for an appeal to an approving Board's action be
made to the City Commission providing that certain requirements specified under this
section are met. The agent for the above reference project has complied, thus the
appeal to SPRAB's decision is before the Commission for consideration.
Insure Wise Progressive submitted an application in March, 1996 for the installation for
a 33 sq. ft. (11' x 33") illuminated fiat wall sign with the copy "insure-wise" to be red and
"progressive" in blue copy. Staff informed the applicant that the board had adopted a
blanket color of red for the shopping center. All new signs comforting to the blanket
color could be approved administratively. Exceptions were to be considered by the
board. The item was considered by SPRAB at their regular meeting of April 10. The
board felt that a waiver to the standardized color would set a precedent. The motion to
approve the sign as proposed was denied by a vote of 2 yes and 4 no's.
The applicant's position is that the color "blue" is the national registered color for this
business. He also stated that the shopping center's landlord had approved the
exception to the blanket color.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Commission discretion. Staff would recommend compliance to the blanket color
established for the shopping center.
Date: May 15, 1996 Agenda Item No. c~/5 ·
AGENDA REQUEST
Agenda request to be placed on:
X Regular __ Special __ Workshop __ Consent
When: May 21, 1996
Description of Agenda Item:
Appeal of Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's Decision Regarding
Insure-Wise Progressive Flat Wall
Ordinance/Resolution Required: Yes / No Draft Attached: Yes / No
Recommendation: City Commission discretion.
_D. epartment Head ~ ~t~t~ j ....
Signature: ~-- ~-'~
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
Budget Dire, ~6ffl ems involving expenditure of funds):
From: Admiral Signs
900 No. Lake Blvd.
Lake Park, FL.
To : The City of Delray Bch.
City COmmission
The reason we are appearing before the city commission, is to
appeal the ruling on a sign application, that the zoning board
denied. The sign is located at 14530 So. Military Trail, Delray
Square II Shopping Center. We understand that the sign critria
is, Signs to be red in color. We have applied for a sign that
reads: "PROGRESSIVE", which is to be done in their registered
logo letter style and color, which is a Reflex Blue color. The
second line of copy is to read: "INSURE-WISE" and the color is
to be done in red. When we first called the city and asked what
the critria is for this plaza, we were told the approved colors
are red, orange, and white. We asked the property owner what the
colors are, we were told that blue was also an approved color.
But after the zoning meeting I found out that apparantly that
the color blue, white, and orange is not part of the critria. We
believe that any tenant that has a registered logo, should be
allowed to have their logo on their store front. We understand
that the city is concerned with the problem of too many colors
in a shopping center. Since most tenants do not have a registered
logo, we believe that this is a sufficient way of not allowing
tenants without registered trademarks of getting different
colors and to maintain the sign crtria. We would like to take
this opportunity to thank each commissioner for their time and
consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
/j e f/f/e r y~/~u ~ i~ s
Sales Rep. for Admiral Signs
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER ~l
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # c~ ~ _ REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
$~ATER SERVICE AGREEMENT IN LIEU OF ANNEXATION
DATE: MAY 16, 1996
This is before the Commission to consider a request to execute a water
service agreement in lieu of annexation for Lot 3 of the Foxe Chase
subdivision located on the south side of Germantown Road in unincorporated
Palm Beach County. The owner is in the process of constructing a single
family residence and has requested water service from the City. The
property is contiguous to the City via the Oakmont subdivision which abuts
the lot immediately to the east.
Current policy is that if land is contiguous, it should be annexed to the
City in order to receive water service. If land is not contiguous it
cannot, by statute, be annexed. In those instances, a water service
agreement is executed which provides tb~t the serviced property will
voluntary annex into the City when it becomes contiguous to municipal
boundaries. A few exceptions have been made to this policy, usually
involving properties which the City is not prepared to annex (i.e. west of
Military Trail) or to individual lots within subdivisions where the goal is
to eventually take in the entire subdivision.
That is the case in this particular situation. Rather than proceeding with
the annexation of Foxe Chase on a piecemeal basis, staff feels it would be
preferable at this time to process a standard water service agreement for
the lot requesting service. Therefore, the recommendation is to approve
the request to execute a water service agreement in lieu of annexation for
Lot 3 of the Foxe Chase subdivision.
ref: agmemo8
CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION
TO:THRU: ~T. HARDEN,,GITY MANAGERc ~UE~i,~ ~O '~ TOR
DEPARTMENT OF PLTANNING AND ZONING
FROM: PAUL DORLING, PI~J, NClPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996: CONSIDERATION OF A
REQUEST TO EXECUTE A WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT IN
LIEU OF ANNEXATION FOR UNINCORPORATED PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GERMANTOWN ROAD IN
THE FOXE CHASE SUBDIVISION.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION:
The action requested of the City Commission is approval of a request for the
execution of a water service agreement for a proposed single family residence
located on the south side of Germantown Road known as Lot 3 of the Foxe
Chase subdivision in unincorporated Palm Beach County.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant has requested municipal water for a new home which is under
construction within the Foxe Chase subdivision. The lot backs up to
Germantown Road and is contiguous to the City via the Oakmont subdivision
which abuts the property immediately to the east. A 12" water main currently
exists in Germantown Road right-of-way and service would be provided by
extending a service lateral through the rear yard.
The City of Delray Beach provides water and sewer service to unincorporated
properties via two mechanisms: a water service agreement with the City, and by
annexation. Properties that are contiguous with City boundaries must annex into
the City to receive water. Properties which are not contiguous cannot by statute
be annexed in, therefore, they can only receive water by entering into a water
service agreement with the City.
The City's standard water service agreement contains a voluntary annexation
clause, which runs with the land. This clause authorizes the city to annex the
property subject to the agreement, when the property becomes contiguous to
municipal boundaries. As the subject property is currently contiguous, current
policy dictates that annexation of the property is the appropriate means to
provide utility service.
There have been a few exceptions made to this policy, involving properties in
areas in which the City is not at the time prepared to annex (i.e. properties west
of Military Trail ), and individual lots within subdivisions in which it is desired to
annex the entire subdivision (i.e. County Club Acres east side of Military Trail).
As the applicant's request differs from the current policy the request has been
scheduled for City Commission consideration. The applicant has requested the
water service agreement in lieu of annexation. As piecemeal annexation of the
Foxe Chase subdivision is not desired it appears appropriate to process this
proposal via the current policy applied to the Country Club Acres subdivision
(execution of individual water service agreements).
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION:
The Planning and Zoning Board has not considered this item as it is a policy
decision of the City Commission.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Continue with direction
2. Approve the request to execute a water service agreement in lieu of
annexation and direct staff to process a standard water service
agreement for the property.
3. Deny the request to execute a water service agreement in lieu of
annexation, and direct staff to provide water to the property upon
annexation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion, approve the request to execute a water service agreement in lieu of
annexation and direct staff to process a standard water service agreement for
the property.
Attachments:
Applicant request.
Location Map
Carlos J. Jimenez
2926 Genoa Way
Delray Beach, Florida 33445
April 24, 1996
Paul Dorling
Principal Planner, City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1 AVE
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
I am currently in the process of constructing my new home on lot #3 in Fox Chase.
The general contractor is Fine Construction (Cliff Fine 637-9296). As per our
telephone conversation on April 23, 1996, I would like to apply for water service to
this new home as an outside user of City water.
I can be reached at the above address and at the following telephone numbers.
496-2646 (home)
391-1728 (work)
419-4979 (digital pager)
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Carlos J. ~J~h~c~ez ~) ~?i:,~ ;-;' ~''~ ~'''
~ ~,~' ~.~'
LAKEVlEW
~l II '1-7 1--'r' ill 11,
LIN TON BOU EVARD
CANAL L-56
SPANISH
WELLS
PARK SAN JUAN DR,
ELEMEN TAR Y
SCHOOL
BLOODS
s.w. 25RD LN.
GROVE ¢
B.W. 24TH LN.
CANAL L-37
D E L~- AI R E
OAK ~L VD.
IJ B
O
N
~ FOXE CHASE
PL^NN,NC OEPA*TMENT WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL CITY LIMITS ...., , i , i i i i.
-- D/G/lrAL 8ABE M,4P sY'rsT£/vf -- MAP REF: LM064
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 17, 1996
TO: David Harden, City Manager
FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement
RE: Request To Release Liens - TED Center, Inc.
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD:
A request to release liens from properties located on SW 13th Avenue to support the
construction of a 13-unit Affordable Townhouse Development. The City has a total of
$14,847.16 in liens assessed for demolition and other nuisance abatement activity on
this property.
BACKGROUND:
The City, through its code enforcement efforts, abated several nuisances associated
with trash and debris and ultimately demolished the structures addressed as 103-128
SW 13th Avenue. The combined total of all liens and accrued interest to date is
$14,847.16 ($12,279.27 cost incurred by the City, $2,054.44 accrued interest). The
property was acquired by the Young Men's Progressive Club in November, 1995 at a
cost of $35,500 plus the obligation to satisfy the City liens.
The Young Men's Progressive Club has contracted with the TED Center to develop an
affordable townhouse development, which will be financed and subsidized under the
Delray Renaissance Affordable Housing Program. According to information submitted
and attached for your reference, the total project is estimated at $1,098,410, projecting
a sales price of $84,493 per unit. The units are proposed to be two story, 3 bedroom,
2.5 bathrooms under 1,350 square feet. The development assumes that eligible
homebuyers will qualify for first mortgages at $55,000-$60,000 with an average subsidy
award of $17,000.
The City is being asked to waive the requirement to pay the outstanding liens to assist in
the affordability of these new units. The waiver of the total lien amount will assist in
reducing the cost of each unit by $1,142.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending City Commission consideration to approve the waiver of the liens
assessed as requested by the TED Center in the amount of $14,847.16, subject to site
plan approval and the issuance of required building permits.
Date: May 15, 1996 Agenda Item No.
AGENDA REOUEST
Agenda request to be placed on:
X Regular __ Special ~ Workshop __ Consent
When: May 21, 1996
Description of Agenda Item:
Request to Release Liens - TED Center, Inc.
Ordinance/Resolution Required: Yes / No Draft Attached: Yes / No
Recommendation: City Commission discretion.
Department H~ .............
Signature: .....
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
ffBudget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds):
Delray Beach Center for Technology,
CENTER Enterprise & Development, Inc.
400-B West Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444
Phone: 407-265-3790 FAX: 407-265-0806
Facsimile Transmission Form
DATE: c~ 5 !(~l e~ .~ TIME:
TO:
FROM: Snmuel D. Mc. Ghee, Executive Director
NUMBER OF PAGES: .~ .( INCLUDDIG TI~S PAGE)
Ilr ALL'-PAGES ARE NOT REc~iVED, IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY " /
SENDER AT 407-265-3790. ~ I
1
THE INFORMATION BEING TRANSMITTED IS CONFIDENTIAL. IF I
SOMEONE OTHER THAT THE ADDRESSEE RECEIVES THIS I
TRANSMISSION, PLEASE DESTROY IT AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY l
THE SENDER.
May 13, 1996
Ms. Lain Butler, Directo)
Community Improvement Department
City of Delray Beach
100 NW 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Re: City Agenda Item May 2I, 1996
Request for Waiver of City Liens
PC # 12 43 46 17 20 0130
D~ar Lula:
We are requesting that you place on the 21st agenda with the City of Defray
Commissioners a request for them to consider waiving the hens on ~he above referenced
property in order to provide a more affordable housing development.
The TED Center is joint venturing with the Young Mens Progressive Club in the
development of a 13 unit townhome project. We advertised in an RFP for design concepts
based on a "Key West" theme. The land was appraised at $53,900. We have acquired the
property for $35,500 subject to the City Liens of $13,498.02. The would average a savings
of $1,038 savings per household.
We anticipate providing 13 "Key West" te~nhome units consisting of 3 bedrooms, 2
1/2 bath, and ! cai' garage.
Land 53,900
Pcrmits 84,500
Architects/Engineering 21,000
Legal 1,500
Insurance/Taxes 1,950
Title Recording & Financing Fees 36,600
Construction Interest 45,600
Appraisal/Inspection Fees 1,000
Marketing 1,500
Consrruc~on 885,860
Overhead & Profit 65,000
Total $ 1,098,4~0 / 13 units $84,493 (Sales Price)
With the following eoneessiolls:
Permitting & [reliCt Fee Waivers 6,500
Land reductions cost including City waiver request 1,415
Renaissance Subsidy for families under 80% 17,500 / average
Affordable 1st Mortgage requirement for purchase $59,078 (lstMongage)
We are in the process of ~electing a builder. The Construction Committee met today
and is making a recommendation to the Board and the Young Men's Progressive Club that
they consider R.C. Boos/Felner Co~t~ctioll, lnc~ a~v the l:mflder. We hope to Imve that
selection process completed by the end of this week and will then be working w~th the
builder to complete the site plan ai:~oval process.
We sincerely thank you for the consideration you have shown us. If you require any
additional information, please feel ~ree to contact me at (407) 279-9953.
Si ely,
Executive Director
SDM:sj
cc: Young Men's Progressive Club
Sherry Johnson, Director Affordable Housing Program
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER~/
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~' - MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
CONTRACT ADDITION/RIO LINDA CHEMICAL CO.
DATE: MAY 17, 1996
This is before the Commission to consider a contract addition to
the annual contract with Rio Linda Chemical Company (f.k.a.
Vulcan Peroxidation Systems), to install a hydrogen peroxide
dosing point at Lift Station #34 located at Lindell Boulevard and
Dotterel Road.
Recent emergency repairs revealed significant corrosion has
occurred in the gravity sewer main due to exposure to heavy
concentrations of hydrogen sulfide in the wastewater system. It
is important to reduce hydrogen sulfide levels to reduce the rate
at which corrosion is occurring. This will necessitate
installing a hydrogen peroxide dosing point at Lift Station #34.
The total annual contract increase is $11,680 for an adjusted
annual contract price of $136,800. Funding is available from
Lift Station Maintenance (Account No. 441-5144-536-52.21).
Recommend approval of contract addition to the annual contract
with Rio Linda Chemical Company.
Date** 05/15/96
Rec~2est to bo placed on:
XX Regular Agenda
special Agenda
Workshop Agenda When: 0 5 / 21 / 9 6
Description cE item (who, what, whore; how much): Staff requests Conmission
approval of a contract addition to the City's annual contract with Rio hinda Chemical
Co. (f.k.a. Vulcan Peroxidation Systems) in the amount of $11,680.00 for a revised
contract amount of $136,800.00. The addition is necessary to establish another
Hydrogen Peroxide dosing point for reduction, of Hydrogen Sulfide levels in the
southeast interceptor sewer main which runs through the Delray Mall site and
northerly along Miami Blvd. Funding is from Lift Station Maintenance Account
$441-5144-536-52.21, Chemicals.
ORDiNANCE/RESOLUTiON RBQU~RBD: ~P/~0 DRAFT ATTACHED
Recommendation** Staff recoma~ends approval of the contract addition for
Rio L inda Chemical Co. ~_~/~ ~ -~/''/'
DEPARTMENT H~ ~IGN~T~E~ , ~
Dete~ination of Consistenc~ with c6mprehens~ve Plan~
city Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of
funds)=
Funding availabl~}NO
Punding alternatives (if appl$oable)
Account No. &Des, criPtion
Account Balance
City Manager Review:
Received:
Placed on Agenda:
Action:
Approved/Disapproved
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager /,~ f,~0x~
FROM: Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Deputy Director of PU
SUBJECT: ODOR CONTROL CONTRACT ADDITION
DATE: May 15, 1996
Recent emergency repairs made to the 24" gravity sewer main running through the Delray
Mall site and northward along Miami Blvd. have prompted utility staffto inspect the pipe
and structures in upstream reaches of the system. Findings indicate that significant
corrosion has occurred in the system due to exposure to heavy concentrations of hydrogen
sulfide in the wastewater stream.
We are currently reviewing alternatives for overall rehabilitation of the system. In the
interim, however, it is important to reduce hydrogen sulfide levels in the system to reduce
the rate at which corrosion is occurring. This will be accomplished by installing a
hydrogen peroxide dosing point at Lift Station #34 located at Lindel Blvd. and Dotterel
Rd. This facility discharges the heaviest flow into the upstream end of the subject gravity
system.
We are proposing to add this dosing point to our current annual contract with Rio Linda
Chemical Co. (f.k.a. Vulcan Peroxidation Systems) at the current contract price of
$4.00/gal of 50% solution hydrogen peroxide.
Total annual contract increase will be $11,680.00 for an adjusted annual contract price of
$136,800.00.
Funding is from Lift Station Maintenance account #441-5144-536-52.21, Chemicals.
Please place this item on the May 21 agenda for consideration by City Commission.
RCH: jem
c: William H. Greenwood
Jackie Rooney
Robert Bullard
f: perox
05/09/96 07:43 "~407 578 5159 PEROX-SERV ORL ~002
Rio Linda Chemical Co,, Inc.
May 8, '1996
Mr, Milton Willingham
City of Delray Beach
434 South Swinton Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Re: .Hydrogen Sulfide Control Program - U.S. '1 gravity collector
Dear Mr. Willingham:
Rio Linda Chemical Company (RLCC), per your request has projected a cost analysis
providing a hydrogen peroxide storage and metering system and associated services to
control sulfide-induced corrosion in the gravity collector along Highway US 1.
In January 1996, RLCC conducted an odor and corrosion survey of the gravity collector on
US 1. Our recommendations were as follows:
Replace or rehabilitate the OFMH at Sherwood Pontiac.
+ Based on data obtained in January, a dose rate of 5 - 8 gpd of 50 percent
hydrogen peroxide at LS#34 would effectively reduce total sulfide levels in the
gravity collection system downstream of the Sherwood OFMH to <0.5 mg/L
and provide protection against sulfide-induced corrosion.
Combine force mains prior to entering the manhole and direct flows down to
the discharge invert.
PROPOSAL
Under the existing contract with the City of Delray Beach your cost would be between $20-
$32 per day for chemical addition.
.SITE PREPARATION
The City would need to provide the following site preparation at LS#34:
provide a 12' x 12' gravel Soak pit 12" deep below grade to locate equipment;
110 volt electricity;
potable water supply with a reduced pressure backflow device for RLCC's safety
shower/eyewash station and wash down purposes.
RLCC is prepared to install equipment and begin dosing within 10 days of written
notification from the city.
Sincerely,
Bill Stratton
Regional Sales Manager
4514 PARKBREEZE COURT · ORLANDO, FL 32808 · (800) 749-7376 · FAX (407) 578-5159
1902 CHANNEL DRIVE · WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691-3477 '. (916) 375-0167 · FAX (916) 372-0836'
A VULCAN CHEMICAI.S COMPANY
£1T't DF DELRfl¥ 8Efl
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ,
Writer's Di~ct Line: (~) 243-7~1
D[tRAY B~ACH
lll.lmrica City MEMO~D~
DATE: May 15, 1996
~993
TO: City Co~ssion
FROM: Susan A. Ruby, Ci~ A~orney
SUBJECT: Palm Acts Contract
As directed by the City Commission, our office has reviewed the Palm Acts Agreement
and have analyzed the contract requirements to determine if certain contract requirements
have been met. In doing so, our office has focused on and analyzed whether the contract
requirements have been met in relation to the number of events required, and whether
there has been an assignment and/or sublicense without City Commission approval.
Events:
The Agreement with Palm Acts, attached as Exhibit A, provides they will hold no less
than four events during each year of the Agreement and no more than eight events,
unless prior approval of the City is obtained. The Agreement provides that, prior to
scheduling events, Palm Acts is to obtain approval from the City Commission for the
proposed event. It further provides that cancellations by the performer or the City, or as
a result of unforeseen circumstances, may be rescheduled and, at Palm Acts' option,
both the canceled event and/or the rescheduled Event may be counted towards the annual
minimum required events. Failure to hold at least four events per year shall be grounds
for the City to terminate the Agreement, subject to the City giving Palm Acts thirty (30)
days written notice.
Based on the foregoing, to be considered a scheduled event, the event, must be an event
that received City Commission approval. In addition, to be considered an event, it is
our office's opinion there must be evidence that Palm Acts or their agent entered into an
agreement with the performer, prior to the cancellation of the event, to be counted
towards the minimum events to be performed under the contract.
The following events either occurred, or were not held and received City Commission
approval.
City Commission
May 15, 1996
Page 2
Event Date
1. Donna Summer Event held May 14, 1995.
2. Brandy, Coolio and Skeelo Event to occur October 28, 1995.
Approved by City Commission on
September 5, 1995. The event was
canceled as performers accepted
another engagement.
3. Promise Keepers Event held November 11, 1995
4. Temptations Event to occur November 18, 1995.
Approved by City Commission on
September 5, 1995. The event was
canceled due to poor performance
box office summaries and unable to
bill as "Temptations".
The booking agent has provided a letter indicating that agreements were in place for
Event nos. 2 and 4. (See Exhibit B.) See also letter from Attorney Levitt attached as
Exhibit C. If the Commission accepts that the verbal agreements are sufficient, then the
number of events and canceled events as listed above meet the technical requirements of
the contract.
In addition, Palm Acts has submitted a list of canceled events, attached as Exhibit D.
None of the events listed in Exhibit D, except as listed above, were approved by the City
Commission. Thus, in my opinion, they do not qualify as events pursuant to the
agreement.
Assignment/Sublicense to Charisma
The City's contract with Palm Acts provides in Paragraph 22, that they are not permitted
to assign, sublicense, or transfer in any manner, any of the rights or privileges contained
within the Agreement without the written consent of the City. Paragraph 28 of the
Agreement requires the City to give notice to Palm Acts of any default in the
performance of any material terms or provisions of the contract and gives Palm Acts
fifteen (15) days after receipt of such notice to cure any defects.
It is our office's opinion that because Palm Acts failed to get written consent of the City
to the transfer, there is a breach of the agreement between the City and Palm Acts. The
City Commission
May 15, 1996
Page 3
Agreement dated April 13, 1996 between Charisma and Palm Acts is an improper
assignment/sublicense and transfer of the rights under the contract. The Agreement
between' Palm Acts and Charisma, which is attached as Exhibit E, gives Charisma the
exclusive right to promote entertainment activities at the Tennis Center. Charisma's
exclusive right to promote constitutes a transfer of rights under our contract with Palm
Acts, and thus, violates Paragraph 22 of the Agreement. However, Palm Acts, after
notice from the City of a default, may, pursuant to contract, try to cure the default by
obtaining written consent to the assignment/sublicense and transfer of promotional
responsibilities to Charisma. The City Commission may, therefore, direct that a notice
of default be sent to Palm Acts.
At a meeting held on May 15, 1996, the lawyer for Palm Acts indicated that Palm Acts
would cure any defaults. I have also been requested by letter dated May 15, 1996 that
the agreement between Palm Acts and Charisma be discussed so that they can make any
necessary changes. (See Exhibit F.)
Waiver
The City Commission may waive any term in the contract. Paragraph 38 of the contract
requires that a waiver must be effected by "written agreement pursuant to all the
necessary formalities of the parties". Thus, if the Commission accepts the sublicense,
there should be a properly executed writing between Palm Acts and the City.
By copy of this memo to David Harden, City Manager, our office requests that the
following issues be p!aced before the City Commission for their consideration at their
meeting of May 21, 1996:
1. Whether Palm Acts has met the minimum event requirements of the Agreement.
2. Whether Palm Acts breached the contract in transferring rights to Charisma.
3. Discussion of Charisma contract as requested by Palm Acts.
Ple~you have any questions.
SAR~i
Attachments
cc: David Harden, City Manager
Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk
palmacts.sar
AGREEMENT
and between the CITY OF DEL~AY BEACH, FLORIDA, a municipal
corporation of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as
'"CITY") and PALM ACTS, INC., a FlOrida corporation,
(hereinafter referred to as "PALM").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, CITY owns and controls certain park land upon
which is located the Delra¥ Beach Municipal Tennis Center,
hereinafter called "Tennis Center"; and
WHEREAS, CITY has determined that it is in the bes~
interest to present broad-range programming responsive to the
wishes of the City of Delray Beach community in the Tennis
Center that will serve the best overall interest and needs of
all citizens of the City of Delray Beach; and
WHEREAS, PALM has presented to CITY that it would like to
use the Tennis Stadium, consisting of the Tennis Stadium Court
and Clubhouse, (collectively, hereinafter referred to as the
"Stad£um") located at the Tennis Center to provide CITY'S
residents with a broad and varied cross-Sect~o~--of entertain-
merit programmingi and
WHEREAS, CITY has determined that it is in the public
interest t° enter into an agreement with PALM to promote and
produce events at the Tennis Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows~
1. Incor~oration of Whereas Clauses. That the
provisions set forth and the clauses set forth above and
commonly referred to as "WHEREAS" clauses are hereby
incorporated into the body of this agreement and shall have
full force and effect herein. For-the purpose of this
Agreement, the te~n."Event" shall mean each and ever~ perfor-
mance, or group of performances at the Stadiumwhich requires a
separate admission fee or, for non-charged admissions, or each
separate attraction for which persons are invited to the
Stadium.
2. Purpose. The parties agree that PALM shall promote
and produce the entertainment in a manner which complies with
contemporary community standards and appeals to the interest of
the general public for the Stadium and to use its best efforts
to promote the Events at the Tennis Center. PALM, at its sole
cost and expense, shall provide management and personnel
exper£enced in the promotion and production for the purpose of
supervising and directing PALM'S obligations under this
Agreement. PALM agrees to use its best efforts to work with
local charities to hold fund-raising events in association With
PALM'S events.
3. Ex¢lusiv~ty. PALM shall have exclusive ~uthorit¥,
subject only to the provisions and limitatioms set forth in
this Agreement, to negotiate all contracts or agreements,
including~ but not limited to, the contracts and '~greements
with suppliers, exhibitors, performers, concessionaires,
advertisers, television and radio media and other media,
sponsors and other parties relating to the Event. PALM retains~
the right to sell and locate advertising within the Tennis ,
Stadium for each Event, subject to approval by CITY, which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. All contracts and
agreements of any kind or nature whatsoever shall be negotiated
and executed by PALM in its name and shall not be contracts and
obligations of CITY. All contracts or agreements of any kind
or nature entered into by PALM shall specifically contain
language which provides that CITY is not a party to such
agreement and is not obligated in any manner by any of the
terms therein.
4. Independent Contractor. It is understood between the
parties that the relationship of CITY and PALM is that of a~
independent contractor. PALM shall have no'authority to employ
any person as an employee or agent on behalf of the CITY for
any purpose. Neither PALM nor any person engaging in any work
relating to PALM'S rights and obligations set forth herein at
the request of or with the consent (whether actual or implied)
of PALM shall be deemed an employee or agent of CITY, nor shall
any such person represent himself to others as an employee or
agent of CITY. Should any person indicate to PALM or any
employee or agent of PALM, by written or oral communication to
PALM, that the person believes PALM or an employee or agent of
PALM to be an employee or agent of CITY, PALM shall use its
best efforts .to correct or cause its employee or agent to
correct that belief.
-3-
5. ComDliance with Licensing Requirements. PALM, Drior
to commencement of any activities pursuant to the provisions of
this agreement, shall comply with all applicable federal,
state, county, or city licensing requirements and receive all
necessary permissions, permits, approvals and licenses which
are required to perform the activities of producer and promoter
as set forth herein.
6. Term and Renewal. This Agreement shall be for a
period of five (5) years and shall become effective upon the
proper approval of both parties. So long as PALM has performed
satisfactorily under this Agreement, at the conclusion of the
five year term, CITY shall have the option to amend and renew
this Agreement for another five year period. At the conclusio~
of the initial five year term, in the event the CITY receives
another offer with respect to the obligations performed by
PALM, CITY shall grant PALM the ability to submit a proposal to
match the offer. CITY shall accept PALM'S offer if it is equal
to or better than the other party's offer.
7. Events. (a) PALM agrees to hold no less than four
(4) and no more than eight (8) Events at the Tennis Center
during each year of this Agreement unless prior approval from
the CITY' is obtained. Only two events may last more than two
consecutive days. Prior to scheduling Events at the Stadium,
PALM shall obtain approval from 'the City Commission for the
proposed Event. Cancellations by the performer, or CITY, or a
cancellation resulting from any unforeseen circumstance may be
rescheduled, and, at PALM'S option, both the cancelled Event
-4-
and/or the rescheduled Event may be counted towards the annual
minimum required Events. Failure to hold at least four Events
per year shall be grounds for the CITY to terminate the
Agreement subject to the CITY giving PALM 30 days written
notice. (b) So long as PALM performs satisfactorily under
this Agreement, PALM shall have the option to increase the
number of Events permitted by the Agreement if, after meeting
with the CITY, the CITY agrees that such an increase would not,
utilizing its reasonable discretion, be detrimental to the
CITY'S interests.
8. Other Aqreements. The parties hereto, their
successor and assigns agree to negotiate in good faith in order
to have a cooperative effort in scheduling events to meet th6
needs of the parties. PALM acknowledges that CITY has
obligations with Liddun International and Kingdom, Inc.
(collectively referred to as "Liddun") and with Palm Beach
County and the Palm Beach County Sports Commission
(collectively referred to as "County") for use of the Stadium.
The City's obligations to provide use of the Stadium to PALM is
subordinate to the CITY'S obligations under the agreements with
Liddun and County. CITY agrees not to enter into any other
agreements with any promoter for non-sporting'events.
9. Event Schedulinq. The parties agree to meet twice
each year to discuss the schedule of PALM'S events at the
Stadium. At the first meeting held during the first week of
January, 1995,' the parties shall schedule PALM'S Events for the
entirety of 1995. At the second meeting during the first week
-5-
of June, 1995, the parties shall schedule PALM'S events for the
six month period commencing January 1, 1996 through June 30,
1996. At the January 1996 meeting, the parties shall schedule
PALM'S Events for the six month period commencing July 1, 1996
through December 31, 1996. Thereafter, until the end of this
Agreement, the parties shall continue such scheduling in order
that the Events will be scheduled six (6) months in advance.
The scheduling of PALM'S events shall be subject to the
availability of the Tennis Stadium, subject to the restrictions
contained in the Liddun and County agreements, and subject to
Paragraph 8 herein. At each meeting, PALM shall present
possible alternate dates which may be used in the event the
Stadium is unavailable. No later than three weeks after eac~
meeting, the City Commission shall consider PALM'S requested
event dates and inform PALM of their approval or denial of an
event. The parties agree to meet as soon as possible following
the Commission's action in 'order to reschedule new events to
replace events which were cancelled.
10. Compliance with .Laws. PALM agrees to comply with all
applicable federal, state, county, and local laws and
regulations ~egarding non-discrimination and specifically
agrees not to discriminate against any person on the basis of
color, race, religion, age, creed, sex, national origin or
disability.
11. Concessions. PALM may sell food, beverages,
confections, refreshments and novelties or may, subject to
approval by CITY, contract with another to provide such
-6-
service. With.prior approval from the City, PALM may provide~
temporary structures at its own expense, for the sale of
concession items.
In providing the concession service, PALM or any person,
firm, or corporation with whom it contracts for such purpose
(hereinafter referred to as "concessionaire") shall comply with
the following provisions provided, however, that PALM shall
remain ultimately responsible t° CITY for all obligations
required of the concessionaire:
a. Concessionaire shall, prior to commencing any
activities, obtain any. and all permits and licenses that
may be required in connection with the operation of this
concession.
b. All food, drinks, beverages, confections,
refreshments, etc. sold or kept for sale shall be first
class and quality, in accordance with the Department of
Health requirements, shall conform to all federal, state,
county, and 'municipal laws, ordinances and regulations in
all respects.
c. Concessionaire shall not sell or give away or
otherwise dispose of any commodity which in the opinion of
the'CITY shall cause undue litter.
d. Concessionaire shall have the option to sell
beer and wine at the Tennis Center. Sale of beer and wine
must comply with all federal, state, county, and municipal
laws, ordinances and .regulations and must be properly
licensed by the State of Florida.
-7-
.Additionally, PALM shall submit its calendar of
events to the City Commission who shall have the authority
to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages at an event.
e. Concessionaire may, at its expense, furnish
additional equipment and fixtures to be utilized in the
concession. Concessionaire shall submit plans and speci-
fications concerning fixtures and equipment to CITY for
approval prior to installation of any items. For the
purpose of this Agreement, "fixture" shall be defined as
anything annexed or affixed to a building or structure or
which appears to be so affixed or annexed, regardless of
whether it is capable of being removed.
f. The Concessionaire shall provide all mainJ
tenance, repair and service required on all equipment used
on the concession.
g. Concessionaire shall keep all fixtures, equip-
ment and personal property, whether owned by Concession-
aire or CITY, in a clean and sanitary condition and shall
cleanse, fumigate, disinfect and deodorize as required and
whenever directed to do so by CITY. Ail state health laws
and state health department regulations must be strictly
complied with. Ail janitorial services necessary in
concession area shall be provided by Concessionaire at
Concessionaire's expense.
h. Concessionaire agrees to dispose of all refuse
and garbage, in compliance with all applicable laws,
-8-
ordinances and health codes, at Concessionaire's expense,
and to keep outside container areas cleaned at all times.
i. If the concession is operated by a person, firm
or corporation other than PALM, such person, firm, or
corporation shall at all times maintain workers' compensa-
tion insurance coverage for all employees which it
employes within the areas and facilities covered by this
Agreement, together with the policy or policies of public
liability and products liability insurance and provides
limits of at least One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for
combined single limit coverage; provide liquor liability
insurance with limits of at least One Million
($1,000,000.00) Dollars and provide fire legal liabilit~
in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand ($500,000.00)
Dollars. Such policies shall provide that they will not
be cancelled or amended without at least ten (10) days
written notice to the Risk Manager of CITY and shall name
CITY, its officers, agents and employees as additional
insured.
12. Utilities and Cie&n-Up. CITY shall provide utilities
for properly scheduled Events at the Tennis Center. CITY shall-
also provide for maintenance and cleanup prior to and upon
completion of properly scheduled events. The cleaning shall
not interfere with the load in, load out, or run of any Event.
For multi-night Events, cleaning shall occur daily at a
mutually convenient time between CITY and PALM so as to not to
interfere with the Event.
-9-
13. Event Personnel and E~uiDment. PALM shall provide
all personnel needed for the Event, including, but not limited
to, ticket sellers, ticket takers, ushers, sound technicians
and stage hands. PALM shall be responsible for the instal-
lation 'or removal of any additional staging. Ail sound or
lighting which is to be utilized for the Event or any other
equipment of any ty~e or nature which is needed for the Event
is PALM'S sole responsibility.
14. Police and Emergency Personnel. PALM agrees to make
arrangements with the City Police Department to provide for
CITY police personnel which the CITY determines, in its sole
discretion, is necessary for the Event. The officers shall be
paid at the prevailing off-duty detail hourly rate in effect aC
the time of the event. PALM shall, at least thirty (30) days
prior to an Event, consult with the Chief of Police or his
designee to determine the proper scheduling of security for
each Event. Also, PALM shall contact the City Fire Department
to make arrangements for Emergency Medical Technician personnel
to be present at the Events at PALM'S expense.
15. C£ty's Right to Control Premises. CITY at all times
reserves the right to eject or caused to be ejected from the
premises any person or persons v£olating or to keep persons
from violating any of the rules or regulations of the Tennis
Center or any city, county, state or federal laws, and neither
CITY nor of any its officers, agents or employees shall be
liable in any manner to .PALM or its officers, agents or
-10-
employees for .any damages which may be sustained by PALM
through the exercise of this right by CITY.
16. Insurance. PALM shall obtain insurance of the type,
nature, and amount and pursuant to the terms .which are set
forth on Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by-reference. The CITY shall be named as an additional
insured on all insUrance certificates for PALM'S events.
17. Use of the Facilities. In the exercise of the rights
and privileges herein granted, PALM shall be entitled to the
use of the Tennis Stadium during the term of this Agreement for
the following purposes:
a. to utilize the existing facilities located on
said premises, including restrooms, seating, lighting and
other facilities and equipment provided by CITY;
b. to install and utilize such sound and lighting
systems as it shall deem necessary for its show and
performances;
c. to film, video tape, record or authorize others
to film, video tape, or record any show or performance
presented by it or with its permission and to install
equipment necessary fo~ such purposes. Should revenues of
any-kind be derived by PALM from permitting such services,
PALM shall include such revenues in gross revenues of
Tennis Stadium operations in computing the monies to be
paid CITY pursuant to the term of this Agreement;
-ll-
d. .to vend or authorize the vending of programs,
posters, souvenirs, during and after its events or
performances;
e. PALM shall include revenues it receives from any
sources whatsoever while operating pursuant to this
Agreement in gross revenues in computing the monies to be
paid CITY pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
18. Conclusion of Performance. All performances shall
end no later than 11:30 P.M. unless otherwise approved by the
City Commission.
19. City's Rights and Responsibilities. CITY shall have
absolute and full control of the building and all its
appurtenances during the term of this Agreement and may mak6
such changes and alterations therein, and in the grounds
surrounding same, as may be determined by CITY. CITY shall
provide PALM ,with reasonable notice prior to CITY making any
change or alteration in the Tennis Center, its building and
appurtenances, and CITY shall consult with PALM in connection
with the timing of such change and alterations provided,
however, that the final decision as to timing shall be in the
sole discretion of CITY. CITY shall have the right during the
term of .... this Agreement' after notice and consultation is
provided above to make changes, alterations and improvements in
the premises, and to the buildings and facilities located
thereon, as it may determine.
20. P&rkin~. The City shall make available parking
spaces on City owned or controlled property for each such event
-12-
based on PALM'S estimated requirements and the available number
of City owned or controlled parking spaces. Estimated parking
requirements shall be discussed during the scheduling meetings
in January and June of each year for the events scheduled by
PALM in order that the City, to the extent possible, can avoid
conflicts and provide as much parking on City-owned or
controlled property as available. PALM shall be responsible
for obtaining all additional parking that may be necessary to
provide sufficient parking for an event. The City shall
provide signage to direct the general public to the Event. The
City may require PALM to make arrangements for such additional
parking as may be necessary in the opinion of the city, in
order to ensure adequate parking is provided for an event.
Revenues and fees from parking on private property will be
governed by the terms of agreements with private property
owners.
21. Right to Enter. CITY and a~thorized agents and
employees shall have the right to enter upon the subject
premises at any and all reasonable times for the purpose of
inspection and observation of PALM'S operation.to assure that
requirements of this Agreement are upheld and that no
violations of the rules, statutes, ordinances or regulations
have occurred or are occurring. During these inspections, CITY
shall, without disrupting the Event, have the right to utilize
photographic devices and aoy other instruments for recording
conditions and Events taking place upon the subject premises.
Said inspections may be made by persons identified to PALM as
-13-
CITY employees authorized for such inspection or may be made by
independent contractors engaged by CITY.
22. Sublicense and Assignment. PALM shall not sublicense
the subject premises or any part thereof or allow the same to
be used or occupied by any' person or for any other use than
that herein specified, nor assign said Agreement nor transfer,
assign or in any manner convey any of the rights or privileges
herein granted without the written consent of CITY. Neither
this Agreement nor the rights herein granted shall be
assignable or transferable by any process or proceeding in any
court, or by attachment, execution, proceedings, insolvency, or
bankruptcy either voluntary or involuntary or receivership
proceedings.
23. Alterations. PALM shall not make any permanent
alterations, additions or improvements to the Tennis Center or
any part thereof without the prior approval of CITY.
24. Requested Facilities. PALM shall provide the CITY
with a list of CITY facilities needed for each event at the
time the event schedule is determined.
25. Bond Limitations. It is recognized by PALM that the
Tennis Stadium has been financed with proceeds of tax exempt
debt and-may be refinanced from time to time. in the future and
that the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, limits the
private use of governmentally owned facilities, such as the
Tennis Stadium, in order to maintain the tax exempt status of
debt issued to finance the same. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement to the contrary, this Agreement
-14-
shall automatically terminate, without any required notice by
the City, if any payment required to be made under this
Agreement to the City would, together with any other payments
made or required to be made by any entity or person for the use
of the Tennis Center or related facilities, adversely affect
the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes
of interest on any obligation (herein "Negative Tax
Consequences") of the City issued to finance or refinance the
Tennis Center or any part thereof. Such a termination shall
not constitute a default on the part of either party to this
Agreement. Upon such termination, it is the intention of the
parties hereto to enter .into a new agreement which would
contain different or modified payment terms acceptable to bot~
of the parties hereto and which in the opinion of the City's
Bond Counsel would not have Negative Tax Consequences.
26. Stage. CITY shall provide a stage, as illustrated in
Exhibit "B", with a suitable covering to protect the
performers. Also, a covering shall be provided for the tennis
court to insure against damage to the surface. PALM shall not
be liable for damage to the court if such court covering is in
place.. PALM will have access to the existing public address
system for use during the Event. CITY shall be responsible for
the set up and tear down of the stage, stage covering, and
court covering, and shall coordinate its activities with PALM
for each Event.
/
2?. Seating Available. The total seating capacity of the
Stadium will be at least eight thousand (8,000) seats prior to
installation of the stage.
28. Notice of Defects. PALM shall report safety
deficiencies or any defects it notices on the premises
immediately to City's Risk Manager and City's Parks and
Recreation Director and shall cooperate fully with CITY in the
investigation of accidents incurring on the subject premises.
29. Failure to Remedy. If PALM shall fail, neglect or
refuse within fifteen (15) days after receiving notice thereof
from CITY to conform to the following: any direction or
instruction that may be properly given by CITY or to any
applicable law, ordinance or regulation of the city, county,]
state, or federal government, or shall fail, neglect or refuse
to pay any amount due hereunder within forty-five (45) days
after the same shall become due or shall default in the
performance of any of the material terms or provisions herein
required, it shall then be lawful for CITY, at its option, to
declare this Agreement terminated and null and void and CITY
may thereupon obtain a Judicial determination to this effect.
29. Indemnification. PALM does hereby release and agree
to indemnify, defend and save harmless CITY from and against
all claims, actions, causes of action, demand, judgments,
costs, expenses, and all 'damages of every kind in nature
incurred by or on behalf of any corporation or person
whatsoever predicated upon injury or death of any person or
loss over damaged property of whatever ownership arising out of
-16-
or connected with PALM'S operation pursuant to the terms of
this agreement, whether or not the incident giving rise to the
injury, death, loss or damage occurs within or without the
premises.
31. Taxes. PALM shall pay any and all taxes assessed on
the property by reason of PALM'S use thereof pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement and on any personal property and
improvements belonging to PALM located on the premises and all
applicable sales and other taxes which may be levied against
its operation.
32. Release. PALM acknowledges and agrees that CITY
assumes no responsibility whatsoever for any property placed in
the premises provided for herein and CITY is expressly released
and discharged from any and all liability for any loss, injury,
damage, theft, vandalism or other wrongful acts or acts of any
kind or nature resulting in damage or loss to persons or
property which may sustained by PALM'S use of the premises.
PALM further expressly waives any and all claims for compen-
sation for any and all loss or damages Sustained by reason of
any defects, deficiencies, or impairment of the electrical or
sound equipment, water supply equipment or wires furnished for
the premises or' by reason of any loss or impairment of light,
current or water supply which may occur from time to time for
any cause, or by reason of any loss or damage sustained by PALM
resulting from fire, water, hurricane, tornado, civil
commotion, riot, theft or other acts of God, and PALM hereby
expressly waives all right, claims and demands and forever
-17-
releases and discharges CITY, its officers and agents from any
and all demands, claims, actions and causes of actions arising
from any of the causes aforesaid. Additionally, if Concession-
aire shall be different from PALM, PALM shall require this
waiver in any contract it enters into with such concession.
33. Fees. PALM shall pay to CITY for the rights and
privileges granted herein One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($1,500.00) for the rental Of the Tennis Center for each
performance day during an Event, Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00)
for clean-up and lighting costs for each performance day during
an Event, for a total of $2,000.00 for each performance day
during an Event or 10% of net event revenue whichever is
greater. Payment is due no later than thirty (30) calendar
days after an event concludes. For purposes of this Agreement,
net event revenue shall be defined as gross ticket sales plus
any other non-concession revenue to which PALM is entitled to
from the event less expenses listed below. Expenses shall
include, but not be limited to the following: costs of
entertainment, including but not limited to guarantees,
'royalties, percentages, complimentary tickets, transportation,
housing, equipment, 'freight, custodial, engineering, laundry,
telephone, musicians and catering; all administrative and box
office personnel, front of house, including but not limited to
ushers, managers, ticket takers, security and medical costs,
all stagehands and labor associated with the load in, load out
and run of an Event, Event insurance and licensing; marketing,
promotion, box office, Ticket Master or other ticketing agency,
-18-
credit card expenses, and taxes. As an additional expense,
PALM shall contract with a City approved production manager to
coordinate the Event.
34. Concession Revenue. PALM shall pay to CITY ten
(10.0%) percent of net profit received by PALM from concessions
sold during an Event. Net profit is defined as gross sales
less cost of goods sold, labor costs, material costs, and
set-up costs.
35. Advert~sing Revenue. In addition to other revenue,
the parties agree to equally divide any event advertising
revenue in such a manner so that each party receives a 50%
share of all net Event advertising revenue after deducting
direct costs attributed to obtaining such advertising revenue.'
Said costs shall not include those expenses already deducted in
Paragraph 33.
36. Failure to Pay. If PALM neglects to make any payment
to CITY within ten (10) days after the day on which the payment
is due and owing, PALM shall pay to CITY for such privilege an
additional charge of Twenty-Five ($25.00) Dollars per day for
each day's delay in payment, retroactive to and beginning with
the first day of the delinquency. CITY'S right to assess the
penalties for payment made later than the day upon which such
payment is due, shall be in. addition to its right to terminate
the license in the event payment is due and owing for more than
forty-five (45) days. CITY'S right to assess the penalties for
~ payment made later than the day upon which payment is due,
-19-
shall be in addition to its right to terminate the license in
accordance With Paragraph 29.
37. Accounting and Right to Audit. PALM shall provide a
complete accounting of all revenues and expenses in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principals, in conjunction
with the event when payment is tendered to the CITY. CITY
shall' have the right to audit and review PALM'S financial
records.
38. Waiver of Breach. Neither the waiver by CITY of any
breach of the agreement, condition or provision of this
Agreement or the failure of CITY to seek redress for violation
of or to insist upon strict performance of, any agreement,
condition or provision, shall be considered to a waiver of th~
agreement, condition or provision, or of any subsequent breach
of any agreement, condition or provision. No provision of this
Agreement may be waived except by written agreement pursuant to
all the necessary formalities of the parties.
39. Deposit. Upon agreement by the parties, PALM shall
deposit with the CITY some form of security acceptable to the
CITY to cover the cost of refunding tickets for Events. The
security shall be in cash, or a certified or cashier's check
payable to CITY, a bond executed by a surety or sureties
approved by CITY, naming CITY as principal and CITY as obligee,
or other security acceptable to the CITY. The security shall
be conditioned upon the faithful performance by PALM of all of
the terms of this Agreement and may also be used to refund
ticket sales for events which do not occur, and such portion as
-20-
may be due shall be returned to PALM at the termination of this
Agreement so long as PALM was not responsible for damages to
the Stadium, ordinary wear and tear excepted.
40. Controlling Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to
be made and shall be in accordance with the laws of the State
of Florida which will be controlling in any dispute that arises
pursuant to this Agreement.
41. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the
entire agreement between CITY and PALM and may not' be altered,
amended, or modified except by an instrument in writing signed
by the parties to the Agreement with all the same formalities
as this Agreement.
42. Strikes and Unav6idable Causes. CITY shall not b~
responsible for its failure to make the premises available or
to provide the facilities and services described herein where
such performance is rendered impossible and impractical due to
strikes, walk-outs, acts of God, inability to obtain labor,
materials or services, government restriction (other than
CITY), enemy action, civil commotion, 'fire, unavoidable
casualty or similar causes or any other causes beyond the
control of CITY. The cancellation provisions of Paragraph 7
herein shall also apply in this paragraph.
43. Notice. Any notice or communication under this
Agreement shall be in writing and may be given by registered or
certified mail. If given by registered or certified mail, the
notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and
received when deposited in the United States Mail, properly
-21-
addressed, with postage prepaid. If given otherwise, then by
registered or certified mail, it should be deemed to have been
given when delivered to and received by the party to whom it is
addressed. The notices and communication shall be given to the
particular parties at the following addresses=
CITY: 'David Harden, City Manager
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W.' 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
PALM: Harold L. Van Arnem
Chairman of the Board
Palm Acts, Inc.
1301W. Newport Center Drive
Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442
Copy to: Drew M. Levitt, Esq. Palm Acts, Inc.
1301W. Newport Center Drive
Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442
Either party may at any time by giving ten (10) days written
notice designate any other address or person(s) and sub-
stitution of the foregoing address or person(s) to which the
notice or communication shall be given.
44. Subtitles and Captions. Paragraph headings are for
reference purposes only and in the event that such paragraph
headings conflict with any of the substantive paragraphs of
this Agreement, the paragraph headings shall be disregarded.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed by their proper officials on the day
and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF DEL~AY BEACH, FLORIDA
City Clerk T~r6ma~ L~nch, Mayor
-22-
Approved as to Form
PALM ACTS, INC.
HAROLD L. VAN ARNEM
Chief Executive Officer
ATTEST:
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BROWARD
The fe~egoing instrument was acknowledged before me this'
/
,/~ d~ o~~~_~ ,. ~ b~ ~o~ ~. V~ ~.
Chief Executive Officer of PALM ACTS, INC. He is personally known
to me.
/ NOTARY PUBLIC ~ /'/
/ STATE OF FLORIDA~
My Commission Expires:
[ ~T'CII~(7/ % B~BARA & SWEGINfllS
: ~.',~ ; Nma~ Pu~ic State of
:~,~_""~ My Cram. Exp~u March ]9.
-23-
INSTRANCE RE~UIREI~NTS OF ~ CITY OF DELRA~ BEACH
"GEHINI" SHALL NOT COHHENCE OPERATIONS UNDER THE TERI~S OF THIS AGREEHENT
UNTIL CERTIFICATION OR PROOF OF INSURARCE, DETAILING TERI~S AND PROVISIONS
OF COVERAGE, HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF R~SK HANAGER.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CALL (407) 243-7150.
THE FOLLOWING INBURANC~ COVEP. AGE SHALL BE REQUIRED.
A. WORKER' S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERING ALL EHPLOYEES & PROVIDING
BENEFITS AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 440. REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE OF
YOUR FIRM. THE LESSEE FURTHER AGREES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EHPLOYHENT,
CONTROL ARD CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND FOR ANY INJUP~Y SUSTAINED BY' SUCH
EMPLOYEES IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EI~PLOYH~NT.
B. PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE
NAMING THE CITY OF DELi~AY BEACH AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ACTIVITIES BEING DONE UNDER THIS AGREEI~ENT.
C. THE FOLLOWING CHECKED TYPES OF INSURANCE AND MINII~TJ'H POLICY LII~ITS .APE
REQUIRED.
LIHITS OF LIABILITY
EACH
TYPES OF INSURANCE OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
PUBLIC LIABILITY
XXXXX COMPREHENSIVE
XXXXX PREMISES - OPERATIONS BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
..... EXPLOSION & COT.L~PSE HAZARD PROPERTY DAHAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
..... UNDERGROUND HAZARD OR
XXXXX PRODUCTS (IF ITEHS ARE BODILY INJURY AND
SOLD)
XXXXX LIQUOR LEGAL (IF ITF/4S COMBINED $1,000,O00 $1,000,O00
(AZ= soLD) -'
.... INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
----'"'PERSOI~t,L~ ZNJUBX .~' PERSONAL INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
THE C~t~ZFICATION OR PROOF OF INSURANCE HUST. CONTAIN A PROVISION FOR
NOTIFICATION TO T~E CITY THIRTY (30) DAYS IN ADVANCE OF ANY HATERIAL CHARGE
IN COVERAGE OR CANCELLATION.
LESSEE SHALL FURNISH TO THE CITY THE CERTIFICATION OR PROOF OF INSURANCE
REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH ABOVE, FIVE ( 5 ) DAYS PRIOR TO
OCCUPANCY OF THE OFFICE AREA.
HAIL TO: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ATTN.: RISK M~NAGER, 100 N.W. 1ST AVENUE,
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
MAY 15 '96 16:06 FAST PACE PROMOTIONS 1504~662264 TO: 40? 2?8 4?55 PO1
Date: May 15, 1996
Mr. Drew Levitt
Palm Acta Charities Corporation
1301 West Newport Center Drive
Deerfield Beach FL
Dear Mr. Levitt:
This ia in response to your inquiry regarding which events at the Delray Beach
Stadium were confirmed scheduled events.
The Skee-lo/Coolio/Brandy show was set for a firm date of October 28, 1995 at an
agreed upon price of $42,500. This was a confirmed show. The show was canceled
since it was determined that without Brandy in the show, it would not have been a
profitable show to promote. Brandy had a last minute opportunity that she chose to
pursue and therefore, this event was canceled. Agreements were in place.
The Temptations show was set for November 18, 1995 at an agreed price of
$35,000. inclusive of production. This was a confirmed date. This concert was
canceled due to the fact that a string of 8 to 10 dates in Europe were offered to the
Temptations in this time frame, thus creating a more lucrative opportunity for
them. Agreements were in place.
As a talent and booking agent, I assure you that events are confirmed when the
date, price and place are agreed to, as above. The artist can always cancel up to 30
days prior to the show for any reason. The industry standard contract allows this
and makes it very clear. A formal written contract does nothing to prevent such
cancellations and is merely a formality. Verbal agreements and commitments are
standard in this industry and universally understood to be binding.
There were many other negotiations and quite a few other artists with whom Palm
Acts had arrangements and discussions. However, we would not consider all of these
situations to be binding agreements. If it is necessary ! can research my files and
determine whether any of these other shows were confirmed.
05/15/96 WED i6:1~ [TX/IiX NO 6826]
MAY 15 '96 16:07 FAST PACE PROMOTIONS 15043662264 TO: 40? 2?8 4?55 P02
If we could be of any further service to you please don't hesitate to call. Palm Acts is
a very worthy client that Fast Pace Promotions is proud to represent.
David W. Pace
President
cc:
Susan Ruby, Esq.
05/15/96 WED 16:15 [TX/RX NO 6826]
o5/1.5/96 17:20 FAX 305 360 7112' E~CUTIVE ~_].ooz
LAw O~l;IC;_S
Dtu w M.
1301 W~' N~w~T Cz~.a
Dzza~u B~CH.
D~ M. L~
DE~ R. T~ (~s4) 419. i~o
T~.~
~ Au~, ,~ I~ N~ Yo~K
Nay 15, 1996
Susan Ruby, City Attorney
city o£ Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Dear Ms. Ruby:
We had several shows scheduled, and cancelled by the artists,
consistent with Paragraph 7 of the Contract between Palm Acts and
the city. These eventm were approved by the City. Additionally,
firm agreement~ were entered into with these artists for these
dates. There Would be no additional protections afforded to Palm
Acts by more formal signed contracts, since, even with the
contracts, the artist can cancel the event up to a point in time
very close to the date of the event.
There is no recg/irement that for an event to be deemed to be
a scheduled event, a written contract be signed since a verbal
contract and a commitment by Palm Acts and the artist is, in fact,
binding on both sides. As to a further explanation as to how this
industry operates, and the details of some of the events, please
see today's letter from the talent booking agency that Palm Acts
dealt with in obtaining the artists.
Another issue exists that, hopefully, we do not have to deal
with. This issue is the fact that the contract required the City
to provide the Stadium and stage be complete with a seating
capacity for 8,000 people, excluding the stage. This agreement was
not timely adhered to by the city and the proper seatinq caDacity
and stage were not completed until April of last year. This
certainly prohibited Palm Acts from obtaining additional scheduled
events as it had anticipated.
Despite this problem with the Stadium itself, and the delay by
the city, I think it im clear that the Contract has been complied
with. If the above is not sufficient, or if you need more
information please let me know.
Co~.~.t, ~'oa GF.~iN~ Ot~our. INc. A~O AI,TiI.IATF.'t
05/15/96 WED 16:18 [TX/RX NO 6827]
o5/15/96 17:2o FAX 305 360 ?1'12 E~,~ECI.?rIVE
Susan Ruby, City Attorney
City of Delray Beach
May 1~, 1996
Page 2
For background to further clarify the point, there was never
a formal contract entered into with Donna Summer, although, as we
all know, this concert occurred. All we had in writing with regard
to Donna Summer is what we had with regard to the artists described
above.
Please give me a call as soon as possible if there is still a
problem with the minimum required events issue.
Very trul. y yours,
Drew M. Levitt
/bas
coPY VIA FAX
05/15/96 WED 16:18 [TX/RX NO 6827]
MAY 14 '~ 1G:31 FAST PACE PROMOTIONS !5043G~Gd TO: 385 ~G8 ~11~ PO1
FAX COVER
Da;e: 5/14/96
laahn &ets Charities Corporation
]30! West Ncwport Center DHve
Dce~cid Bench FL 33~2
~-419-1~3 Fax:
Attention: Chip Mills
From~ David Pace
Re: Show Cancellation ~ort ~ag~ ~cluding Cover [ 2 ~
Dear C~ip,
[ hope ~hi~ f~ finds you well. ~ie~e find enclosed ~ liar of canceled show~, ~he propm~ da~, and the
~ason for cnncell~rion. ~ am ~bo h~ving the li~L~ of av~able ~is~s updated fur thc ~dium.
~r~ld~nt
Cmnceil~tlon l~e.~ort
Brandy, Coolio, ~ Skeelo Oct 2S BrAndy Ac~ept~ f~hi~. ~hnw
Nn nther cnr~pnnding dnt~.
Russell ~immnns Del Jsm Oct ~0 ~lnd~to~ Ocke[ price of Sl~
Too Low to b~ak eYen or pru~,
Temptations Nuv 18 P~r bo~ o~cc summm4~, and
unable to bill a~ "TempMtlons"
CancHed per m~ advisement.
Vcnessa WiLliams Nov 18 Acccptcd Icad rolc in movie
I(enny G Dec 30 Full band requirement~ exceeded
Delray budget. [2~Ok totnlJ
Phone 504.366-2264 1 Fax 504-367-7223
Phone 50d-366.2264 2 l;ux $04-3~7-7223
M~¥ 14 '96 16:32 ~'~ST P~C5 PROMOT[C]NS 1504366226~ TO: 3Z5 ~Z ?112 PS~
~a~ J' Blige& Jodecl Jan ~ Broken Packng~. Canceled per my
advisement.
Shania ~ain Ma~h Postponed tour until ~7.
Wheel Of ~o~une Tour Ma~h 30 Pat SaJack & Vanna White not
included. Canc~ed per my
advisement.
Crown Royal Package ~eatu~ng ~ay 10 Was no longer sponsored by
Joe Di~e, Tye Herndon, Crown Royal.
~e~ Atkins& BIH ~ngv~
Jon Secada ~ay 2~ Played Sun F~L
S~z And ~n~as June 1st Co~ Sky beat our offer
Patti LaBelle June 14 Playing South Beach, Canceled
per my advisement,
Phone 504-366-2264 2 Fax 504-367-7223
AGgF.~~ made the /g day of~ffi, 1996, by and
Ch~ma Ente~em ~oup, ~c. Oere~ffier r~e~ed to ~ "Chum"), 11111
Bi~ca~ Boul~d, No~ ~a~ Flodda 33181 ~d P~M ACTS, ~C., (her~in~er
r~d to as "P~") of 1~01 W~t N~o~ Cent~ Ddv~, Deeffield Beach, Flodda
33442.
WITNE S S E
1. P~ a~cs t~t it sh~ r~ thc ~clu~ve s~ces of Ch~sma for ~e
promotion of ente~ent ack. ties ~ s~ fo~ below, at the Delray B~h Stadium at
De~ay Beac~ Florida. ~e a~eemen~be co-te~us ~th P~'S con~ ~th the Ci~.
. I ~ e~tent~atCh~a~a et eexcu~vefig stopromoe
ente~ent acti~ties, subject to a ce~a~ a~eement dated ~e 14~ day of
3. Ch~a ~ po~ Two H~dred Thous~d and 0~($200,000)Dog~ in
__
Thous~d ~d 00/100 ($200,000) for ~ent use o~y,~d ~ th~ ~~y ofth~ ~nd~
~e d~leted, C~ma w~ restore the amount to t~ e~ow account or the ~e of credit.
Said ~um~ ~1 b, placed ~ an account ma~ta~ed by and
~ ~et fo~ hereinabove, i~ to be utilized for the desi~ated p~o~es prodded ~
p~a~aph.
4. Palm shall have access to all books and records regarding the aforesaid
account.
5. Palm will work with Charisma and usc its best efforts to obtain the City's
consent to increase the number of allowable yearly events to twenty-four (24) or more
from the amount now permitted under the contract of eight (8).
05/03/96 FRI 14:49 [TX/RX NO 6776]
6. As long as the terms and conditions of this Agreement arc met, the Agreement
with Charisma will be co-terminus with Palm Acts' contract with the City.
7. Before proposing an event to the City for approval, Charisma and Palm shall
agree that the event is suitable for the venue.
8. In addition to the aforesaid events, as set forth in paragraph 3 hereinabove,
Charisma and Palm shah work together and with the City, to utilize the Delray Beach
Stadium for events that provide a benefit for charitable causes.
9. Charisma shall comply with all of the requirements contained in the contract
between Pahn Acts, Inc. and the City regarding the planning of the actual event itself,
clean-up and coordination with the city on various aspects regarding the event. The
contract with the City contains various requirements, all of which must be complied with
by Charisma.
10. The contract between Palm Acts and the City shall remain in full force and
affect and the rights and privileges granted to Palm Acts by virtue of that contract shall
remain with Palm Acts.
11. Charisma shall, in addition to the duties provided for under this contract, assist
Palm in fulfilling its role under the contract with the City by virtue of Charisma working
with Palm as a liaison with the City. Charisma will pay for each and every cost and
expense related to putting on events and Palm will not be responsible for any costs or
expenses of any type. It is acknowledged by and between the panics that the exclusive
purchaser of talent shall be Charisma.
12. Palm will receive five (5%) percent of the gross ticket sales and parking
revenue, less any cash paid out for artist expenses paid for by Charisma, including
transportation, lodging and hospitality Charges (delivered to stage). For each event, the
05/03/96 FRI 14:49 [TX/RX NO 6776]
City shall be paid at least Two Thousand.and 00/100 ($2,000) Dollars of net revenue or
ten (10%) percent, whichever is greater.
13. The City wit receive for each event One Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100
($1,500.00) Dollars plus Five Hundred and 00/100 ($500.00) Dollars for clean-up, or ten
(10%) percent of net revenue, whichever is greater.
14. Palm will receive ten (10%) percent from any sponsorship money received by
Charisma and up to fifty (50%) percent of sponsorship revenue generated by Palm.
15. Palm will receive twenty-five (25%) percent of the net revenue received by
Charisma for the concessions. Net revenue to be defined as gross revenue, less cost of'
goods sold and labor.
16. Palm will be responsible for paying the City out ofit~ twenty-five (25%) of net
revenue for the concessions. All contracts with third parties shall be at arms length and
standard with the types of contracts entered into for such purposes. Palm will be provided
with copies of agreements before such contract~ are executed.
17. Palm will receive twenty (20%) percent of all net merchandising revenue
received by Charisma from each event.
18. Palm agrees to split 50/50 with Charisma net revenue generated from
advertising sales, defineff~ as permanent signage, after the City receives its fifty (50%)
percent. This can be negotiated and Palm agrees to use its best efforts to negotiate with
the City a more favorable arrangement.
19. Any other revenue of any kind obtained directly by Charisma through its
a/51iation with the Delray Beach Stadium shall be shared with Palm with Charisma
receiving eighty (80%) percent of such revenue and Palm receiving twenty 20%) percent.
05/03/96 FRI 14:49 [TX/RX NO 6776]
20. Charisma shall provide complete accounting of all revenues and expenses in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in conjunction with each and
every aspect of Charisma's role of fulf-gling this Agreement. Palm shah have the right to
audit and review Charisma's financial records with regard to its involvement in the Delray
Beach Stadium.
21. All monies due to Palm shall be paid to Palm by Charisma within forty-eight
(48) hours after TicketMaster reconciliation and no later than twenty-one (21) days after
the conclusion of the event.
22. If any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including fulfilling the
obhgations owed to the City, are not met, or the time deadlines are not met, then this
contract shall be subject to termination upon sixty 60) days written notice by Palm to
Charisma, and Charisma shall have forty-fivg (45) days to cure any and all defaults. In the
event said defaults cannot be cured with forty-five (45 days, this contract shall be subject
to immediate termination. If this occurs after an event has been concluded, the parties will
be entitled to their respective shares of the revenues consistent with the terminated
Agreement.
23. As ~the upcoming James Brown event, Charisma will complete each and
every aspect of planning, scheduling and performance of the show, as well as paying for all
of the costs and expenses associated with this event consistent with the Agreement. Since
Palm has already paid to James Brown Thirty Thousand and 00/100 ($30,000.00) Dollars,
these monies will be paid back to Palm out of the first dollars generated by the event
before any other monies are paid to anyone else. This $30,000.00 shall be paid to Palm in
addition to other monies Palm is entitled to herein.
24. Charisma will be an independent contractor and will have no authority to
employ any person as an employee or agent of Palm Acts or the City, nor shall it be
entitled to enter into contracts on behalf of Palm Acts or the City.
05/03/96 FRI 14:49 [TX/RX NO 6778]
25. All talent to perform at the Delray Beach Stadium shall enter into a contract
with Charisma, pursuant to the contract between Palm Acts and the City.
26. Charisma will acknowledge that, pursuant to Palm Acts' contract with the
City, Palm has only put on one event thus far.
27. Charisma will diligently pursue and obtain sponsors, advertisers, and talent, as
well as all other interested parties, regarding events at the Delray Beach Stadium and will
provide ongoing formal and informal communications to Palm as to its achievements.
Formal status repons to Palm Acts should be received by Palm from Charisma at least on
a monthly basis with regard to efforts being undertaken by Charisma with regard to the
Delray Beach Stadium.
28. All advertising or public relations materials regarding the Delray Beach
Stadium shall be subject to approval by Palm in addition to the requirements under the
contract with the City, and all public announcements and promotions shall include Palm in
the communication.
29. Charisma acknowledges that it has been provided with a copy of an
agreement dated November 14, 1995 between the City of Delray Beach and Liddun
International, Inc.
Chairman Chief Executive Officer
Charisma Productions, Inc. Palm Acts, Inc.
11111 Biscayne Boulevard 1301 W. Newport Center Dr.
Northl~Iiami, FL 33181 DeerfieldBeach, FL 33442
05/03/96 FRI 14:49 [TX/RX NO 6776]
LAw OF~aC~ OF
M. LEvrrr
1301 WF..%-r NEWPOI~T CENTER DRI~
D~A R. T~ T~x
May ~5, 1996
Susan Ruby, City Attorney
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Dear Ms. Ruby:
I request that the issues pending with regard to the agreement
dated April 13, 1996 between Charisma Entertair~nent Group, Inc. and
Palm Acts, Inc. be calendared for discussion at the May 21, 1996
city commission Meeting. At your convenience, please confirm that
this item will be placed on the agenda.
As always, thank you for your assistance.
Very truly, your~
Drew M. Levitt
COPY VIA FAX
05/15/96 WED 15:43 [TX/RX NO 68241
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER ~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~.~-. - REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
APPOINTMENT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
DATE: MAY 15, 1996
With the appointment of J. Michael Pakradooni to the Site Plan R~view and
Appearance Board, a vacancy has been created on the Civil Service Board.
The position is for a regular member to fill the unexpired term ending July
1, 1996.
According to the Civil Service Act, there are to be five regular members on
the Civil Service Board. Three of the regular members are appointed by the
City Commission. They are to be of different vocations or vocational
backgrounds and cannot be employed by the City in any capacity. Two
regular members are elected by City employees. There are also two
alternate members. The appointee need not be a resident, property owner or
business owner in the City.
Applications have been received from the following:
Donald Allgrove
Sally Antonelli
Martin Frost
Melvin Hirth
Murray Kalish
Arthur King (currently on Board of Construction Appeals)
Leo Koppman
Bill O' Neill
Morris Weintraub
H. Ric Zazzi
A check for outstanding code violations and/or municipal liens has been
conducted. None were found.
Based on the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner
Kiselewski (Seat #1 ).
Recommend appointment of a regular member to the Civil Service Board to
fill an unexpired term ending July 1, 1996.
ref: agmemo4
William O'Neill
989 Allamanda Drive Telephone: 407-243-3~a
Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Off, e: 407-789-2030
Far. simile 40%272-490'2
SUMMARY
A highly motivated Senior Human Resources Manager with a re~ord of demonstrated results managing the
regional human resources function for a multi-national, multi-cultural, matrix company. Successfully
worked with senior executives as an integral member of the team to large business partnership, to
improve bottom-line corpo'rate performance through ~mpetenciee In human resourcss systems and
practices that created and maintained a high performance culture.
WORK EXPERIENCE
MOTOROLA INCORPO,~IATED 1984 TO PreJent
DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES, PAGING PRODUCT~ GROUP
Develops domestic and international Human Resources policies and programs for the Paging Products
Group including areas involving organizational planning, organizational development, employment,
training, employee relations, compensation, benefits, safety and health. Originates Human Resources
practices and objectives that provide a balanced program throughout the businesses. Coordinates
implementation through Human Resources staff. Assists and advises senior management on Human
Resources issues. Identifies legal requirements and government reporting regulations affecting Human
Re. souroe.~ function and monitors exposure of the company.
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES, ASIA PACIFIC
Responsible for the work force readiness for organizations of Motorola that total 34,000 employees
located in 28 countries that have sales exceeding $3 billion and value-added manufacturing volume of
nearly $4 billion which represents the fastest growing sector of the world.
Developed an advanced personnel fun~on that supports multiple business and a~oclated joint
ventures. Broad involvement in all aspects of Human Resources planning, structure, and cultural
diversity and integration. Major areas include organizational planning and development, employee
relations, compensation, training and staffing. Consistently su~eeds in selling the need and content of
Human Resources programs at all levels of the company by continually drawing on the ideas of the staff
and operating management and to convert them into meaningful Human Resources strategies and plane.
RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING BUSINESS ENTITIE8;
Wireless Data Group Mobite Data Land Mobile
Cellular Subscriber Memory/Microprocessor Microcomputer
Cellular Infrastructure Wafer Fabrication Iridium
Semiconductor Research & Development Codex
Paging Products Information Systems Automotive
Software Development Corporate Joint Ventures
MOTOROLA EMPLOYMENT HISTORY;
Director, Human Resources, Paging Pro¢lucts Group e/~4. PreSent
Regional Director, Human Resources, Asia Pacific lO/~2 - 8~4
Corporate Regional Director, Human Resource, Japan Region l l/sa · ~o~2
Manager Staffing, E.E.O. and Affirmative Action 5/84 - 10/88
Manager Professional Staffing and University Relations 4/a3 - S,~¢
Locations: Austin Texas, Tokyo Japan, Hong Kong, Asia Pacific. Florida
~O~O±OH H~0~:~0 96,
UNITEQ. TE(~HNOLOGIE,~ (MQ~<,~'EK GEMICONDUCTO.R~,~
8181-4188
PERIONNIL ADMINISTRATOR
MANAGER OF STAFFING AND APFIRMATIVE ACTION ,
Responsible for personnel administration for an organization of 1,~00 employees. Duties in=luded
preventNe I~or relations a~tivitles, execution ~f corporate oompensetien programs, attitude surveys,
leadership development, benefit administration, poll~y interpretation, and employee ~mmunioations.
Supervised a staff of nine recruiters, total responsibility for staffing profeuionale in the memory,
microcomputer, telecommunloations, fabHoation, administration, and executive positions. Budget
responsibility of $1,~ million annually, Developed and managed the college relations program resulting in
art 85 peroant acceptanoe rate yield of extended offers. Developed and Implemented ali oorporate
relocation policies and negotiated all third party home purohases, (~emputerizsd all applic~t tracking
data, Responsible for human resoumes planning nesde for Mostek worldwide.
ELECTRONIC* DATA SYS?EM_E.D.S.
4180-8181
HUMAN REBOURCE$ PROJECT LEADER, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS~ BTAFFING
Responsible for staffing entry-level to experienced professionals for faoilifies throughout the United
States while traveling 90 to 100 per~ent of the lime on nation-wide a~-'ounts. Additional duties inoluded
administrating attitude surveys, employee relations and general union prevention.
ARMY AND AIR I=OI~ICE EXCHANGE
lZl77-418(]
OPERATIONS MANAGER
Managed all aspects for business operations of $12 million annuaJly, whioh inoluded marketing, Inventory
oontrola, salary administration for eighty employees, staffing. EEO, OSHA, employee relations.
Instrumentality of the department of Defense. (San Antonio, El Paso, Denver).
Tarrant County College, Business Administration, Law
Oomell University, Human Resource Executive Development Program,
Oenter for Advanced Human Res~un.-'e Btudles
PROI=E~!~IONAL ASmOCIA'I'IONa
Society for Human Resource Management
Amerioan Ohamber ~ Commeroe
Employment Manager Association
Motorola Executive Council
Date of Birth 5/24/66, married, exoellent heslth, U.8. citizen
Guest Speaker:
Beijin~ University
KPMG International Conferarme, San Fransisco
International Relocation Conferen=e, Chic;~go
Texas Relo=ation Association, Austin
University of Texas, Austin
Soutl~west Texas State University
Nippon Hose Kyokai (NHK)
University of Maryland Executive Training
AT Kearney Employment Practices Seminar
Southwest Relocation association, Phoenix
University of Tokyo, ,Japan
American Chamber of Commerce, Tokyo
American University
Nippon Kagaku Kogyo
Professional Associations:
Texas Alliance for Minority Engineers
Chamber o1 Commeme, Austin
Adopt a Soho01
Texas Association of Business
MITI, Employment Practice Committee, Tokyo
Home Country Employment Practices Committee
Employment Manager association
American Chamber of Commerce, Tokyo
Big Brother Program, Austin
Advisory Boar(J, LI;,J soienoe A~ademy
Society for Human Resource Management
Delray Chamber of Commer~
Florida Manufac'turar Aseoolation
~]O~O±OW W~P:~O 96, PI
[IT¥ DF DELRR¥
Writer's Direct Line: (407) 243-7091
DELRAY BEACH
Ail. America City ~~
ay,6,
TO: City Commission ~ ~
FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney ~t/O~~~~,)
SUBJECT: Consolidated Cases - James and Verna Cook, Ritfeld, Williams, Lucas,
Mitchell v. City - Appeal
The City has until May 31, 1996 to decide whether to file an appeal in the above-stated
cases. I, along with outside counsel, have been evaluating the case and intend to provide
you with our recormnendation at your meeting of May 21, 1996.
We are unable to provide you with our recommendation at this time because our outside
counsel is continuing to have discussions with Plaintiffs lawyers. Once we have more
definitive information, we will be able to make a recommendation, however, due to the
time constraints on filing an appeal, I wanted to ensure that this item was put on the May
21, 1996 agenda.
By copy of this memorandum to David Harden, City Manager, our office requests that a
closed attorney-client session be scheduled on the agenda pursuant to Fla. Stat.
286.011(8) for May 21, 1996. Pursuant to statute, the names of persons attending will
be the Mayor and City Commissioners, David Harden, City Manager, Susan Ruby, City
Attorney, Leonard Carson and Lucille Turner, attorneys for the City. The purpose of
the meeting will be to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation
expenditures as they pertain to this case. Our office will arrange for the presence of a
court reporter, as required by statute. The requested closed attorney-client session, as
well as the issue of whether or not to appeal, should be placed separately on the agenda.
Strict compliance with Fla. Stat. Sec. 286.011(8) is required. Therefore, I would
recommend that at the commencement of the session at the meeting, the Mayor should
state the following prior to holding the closed session:
The City has scheduled a closed attorney-client session pursuant to
Florida Statutes Section 286.011(8) in the case of Verna and James
Cook, Roel Ritfeld, Ivery Williams, Julius Mitchell, and Michael Lucas,
Memo to City Commission
May 16, 1996
Page 2
versus the City. The estimated length of the closed session shall be 30
minutes. The following persons will be attending: myself, Mayor Jay
Alperin; Commissioners Ken Ellingsworth, David Randolph, Karen
Kiselewski, and Kevin Egan; City Manager David Harden; City
Attorney Susan Ruby; and lawyers for the City, Leonard Carson and
Lucille Turner; and a certified court reporter.
After the closed session is over, the Mayor should announce that the regular
meeting is reopened and the Mayor should announce the termination of the
closed session.
Attached is a copy of Florida Statutes Section 286.01.
Please call if you have any questions.
Attachment
cc: David Harden, City Manager
Alison MacGregor Harry, City Clerk
Frank Babin, Risk Manager
appeal3.sar
F.S. 1995 F.S. 1995 PUBUC BUSINESS; MISCEU.ANEOUS PROVISIONS Ch. 28;=
based. The requirements of this section do not apply to appeals any court order which has found said board,
· i the notice provided in s. 200.065(3). commission, agency, or authority to have violated this
! H~-~..--s.~,ch. 8~.~4, c~.88-;~.ag.c~-~4& section, and such order is affirmed, the court shall
assess a reasonable attorney's fee for the appeal
shall be no more 286.{311 Public meetings and records; public against such board, commission, agency, or authority.
il report shall be ~ inspection; criminal and civil penalties.-
Any fees so assessed may be assessed against the indi-
icer, and copies ~ (1) All meetings of any board or commission of any
sted parties and state agency or authority or of any agency or authority vidual member or members of such board or commis-
sion; provided, that in any case where the board or corn-
hated recipients ~ of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivi- mission seeks the advice of its attorney and such advice
·. sion, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, is followed, no such fees shall be assessed against the
~rily required of ~ at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be individual member or members of the board or commis-
e, legislative, or ~: public meetings open to the public at all times, and no sion.
the State Board ?-'~ resolution, rule, or formal action shall be considered (6) All persons subject to subsection (1) are prohib-
"~ binding except as taken or made at such meeting. The ited from holding meetings at any facility or location
y'RegentS'of the division,°r the .~. board or commission must provide reasonable notice of which discriminates on the basis of sex, age, race,
· to: .?~.' all such meetings.
.= bibliographic (2) The minutes of a meeting of any such board or creed, color, origin, or economic status or which oper-
· :ion as provided ~, commission of any such state agency or authority shall ates in such a manner as to unreasonably restrict public
access to such a facility.
~rrnation may be ~ be promptly recorded, and such records shall be open
by the division :;. to public inspection. The circuit courts of this state shall (7) Whenever any member of any board or commis-
.~ have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the put- sion of any state agency or authority or any agency or
ibution of biblio- poses of this section upon application by any citizen of authority of any county, municipal corporation, or politi-
cal subdivision is charged with a violation of this section
this state, and is subsequently acquitted, the board or commission
~.xecutive. legis- (3)(a) Any public officer who violates any provision
overnment, the of this section is guilty of a noncriminal infraction, pun- is authorized to reimburse said member for any portion
of his or her reasonable attorney's fees.
the Board of ishable by fine not exceeding $500.
~ission, free of (b) Any person who is a member of a board or corn- (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1),
mission or of any state agency or authority of any any board or commission of any state agency or author-
?quest properly county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision ity or any agency or authority of any county, municipal
corporation, or political subdivision, and the chief admin-
who knowingly violates the provisions of this section by istrative or executive officer of the governmental entity,
cost of duplica- attending a meeting not held in accordance with the pro-
~nistrative head visions hereof is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second may meet in private with the entity's attorney to discuss
pending litigation to which the entity is presently a party
iai agency and degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. before a court or administrative agency, provided that
~unity Colleges, 775.083.
,~rvice Commis- (c) Conduct which occurs outside the state which the following conditions are met:
(a) The entity's attorney shall advise the entity at a
eriodically shall - would constitute a knowing violation of this section is a public meeting that he or she desires advice concerning
~red, managed, " misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as pro- the litigation.
through elec- "-.i vided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (b) The subject matter of the meeting shall be con-
~..'. (4) Whenever an action has been filed against any
· construed to board or commission of any state agency or authority or fined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions
, related to litigation expenditures.
7.05(2) pertain- . =.'~ any agency or authority of any county, municipal corpo- (c) The entire session shall be recorded by a certi-
ration, or political subdivision to enforce the provisions fled court reporter. The reporter shall record the times
,cuments to the ~.-.:': of this section or to invalidate the actions of any such
~o~, c~. ~2-~ ~ 2~. "~:~ board, commission, agency, or authority, which action of commencement and termination of the session, all
.,. was taken in violation of this section, and the court discussion and proceedings, the names of all persons
, t~ .~ ~ be con- ~ determines that the defendant or defendants to such present at any time, and the names of all persons speak-
=,m ..~ m.~..=~ ~; ~ lng. No portion of the session shall be off the record. The
meaU~d ~y u~ .~. ' action acted in violation of this section, the court shall
,~=~c~cam~m aM ~i~ assess a reasonable attorney's fee against such court reporter's notes shall be fully transcribed and filed
~ agency, and may assess a reasonable attorney's fee with the entity's clerk within a reasonable time after the
hearings must i'~ against the individual filing such an action if the court meeting.
~ppeal.~Each finds it was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. Any fees (d) The entity shall give reasonable public notice of
~ the time and date of the attorney--client session and the
~tate or of any so assessed may be assessed against the individual
names of persons who will be attending the session. The
in the notice of i' member or members of such board or commission; pro-
~eeting or hear- vided, that in any case where the board or commission session shall commence at an open meeting at which
..
'on, or agency, seeks the advice of its attorney and such advice is roi- the persons chairing the meeting shall announce the
~ that, if a per- ":",~ lowed, no such fees shall be assessed against the indi- commencement and estimated length of the attorney-
.~ by the board, viduai member or members of the board or commission, client session and the names of the persons attending.
ny matter con- : However, this subsection shall not apply to a state attor- At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the
r she will need - ney or his or her duly authorized assistants or any officer meeting shall be reopened, and the person chairing the
such purpose, .:; charged with enforcing the provisions of this section, meeting shall announce the termination of the session.
)atim record of '~.'-i (5) Whenever any board or commission of any state (e) The transcript shall be made part of the public
cludes the tes- ~ agency or authority or any agency or authority of any record upon conclusion of the litigation.
HIsto~/.~s. 1. ch. 87..356:/. 159, ch. 71-136: s. 1. ch. 78-365; s. 6, ~1. 85-301;
~peai is to be county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision ~. 33. c~. 9~-~24: =. ~, ch. 93-~3:z; s. 2m. c~. 9s-~8; ~ ~, ~. 9s-353.
5O3
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH~ FLORIDA - CITY ~SSION
REGULAR MEETING - MAY 21~ 1996 - 6:00 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
AGENDA ADDENDUM
THE AGENDA IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
ADD ITEM 9. M. TO THE REGULAR AGENDA~ AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION NO. 42-96 URGING GOVERNOR CHILES TO VETO HB 557: Consider
a request from the Florida League of Cities to adopt a resolution
urging Governor Chiles to veto HB 557 known as the "Property
Appraiser's Presumption of Correctness" bill.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER ~/I~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~ ~ - REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 42-96 URGING GOVERNOR CHILES TO VETO HB 557
DATE: MAY 20, 1996
We have received a request from the Florida League of Cities to adopt a
resolution urging Governor Chiles to veto HB 557 which is known as the
"Property Appraiser's Presumption of Correctness" bill. The request, along
with a copy of the bill, is attached.
If the Commission wishes to support this request, a letter from Mayor
Alperin to Governor Chiles as well as the resolution encouraging his veto
have been prepared and are included for your consideration.
I recommend approval of Resolution No. 42-96.
ref: agmemo4
[IT¥ DF DELRI:IV BEI:I[H
DELRAY BEACH
100 N.W ls',AVENUE · DELRAY BEA, CH, FLORIDA 33444 · 407;243-7000
Ali,America City
199~
The Honorable Lawton Chiles, Governor
State of Florida
The Capitol
Plaza Level-PL05
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Re: Veto Request for HB 557
Dear Governor Chiles:
Throughout the 1996 legislative session, the Florida League of Cities
has rigorously opposed HB 557, known as the "Property Appraiser' s
Presumption of Correctness" bill. We respectfully request that you
VETO this legislation.
HB 557 was promoted by many legislators as a fairness bill for all
taxpayers, and if there was any loss in revenues to local government,
it was tax monies wh/ch should not have been paid and therefore monies
returned to all taxpayers. We all know that this rhetoric was not
true, nor will it be true in the future. Others proclaimed that this
legislation is necessary to level the playing field.
This legislation is a mandate under Article VIII, Section 18 of the
Florida Constitution due to the potential significant loss in ad
valorem revenues from municipalities, counties, school districts and
special districts. HB 557 requires that the Property Appraiser's long
standing presumption of correctness be eliminated during the tax years
of 1997, 1998 and 1999, with a comprehensive study to be conducted
after the fact. To the contrary, a comprehensive study should be
completed before any decision to change the standard is made.
It is for these reasons that we urge you to veto HB 557. I have
enclosed a copy of Resolution No. 42-96 which was adopted by the
Delray Beach City Commission on May 21, 1996.
JA/amh
Enclosure
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
RESOLUTION NO. 42-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, URGING AND ENCOURAGING GOVERNOR LAW/ON CHILES TO VETO HB
557, KNOWN AS THE "P~DPERTY APPRAISER' S PRESUMPTION OF
CORRECTNESS" BILL.
WHEREAS, the current administrative aD~ judicial appeals process pertaining
to property valuation is fair to all taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, the average residential and small business property owner have
proven accessibility to the Property Appraiser's informal and formal review process;
and
WHEREAS, property owners who now dispute their assessments have recourse in
a three (3) step appeals process:
1. An informal meeting between the property owner and the Property
Appraiser' s office;
2. An appeal to the Value Adjustment Board;
3. Either the property owner or the Property Appraiser may file a lawsuit;
and
WHEREAS, a majority of valuation disputes are resolved without resorting to
a lawsuit; and
WHEREAS, an increase in the cost of litigating appeals would have severe
impacts on current and future city budgets and could jeopardize the overall rate
structure of individual taxpayers;
WHEREAS, any increase in expenses or decrease in property tax revenues
caused by this legislation is deemed by the City of Delray Beach to be an UNFUNDED
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach hereby
urges and encourages the VETO of HB 557 due to the risk of an UNFUNDED MANDATE that
this legislation places on local governments.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 21st day of May, 1996.
~2ity Cle~
NAY 17, '96 10:34 (ET) David T. Harden PAGE 1 off 4
IMMEDIATE A cr o2v RF, O. UESTED !
TO: Selected Municipal Officials C/??~.,.
FROM: Michael Sittig, Exec~Jfive Direotor
DATE: May 16, 1996
SUBJECT: PROPERTY APPRA!gER'S PRESTON OF CORRECTNESS
VETO REQUEST TO GOVERNOR CHH. ,ES
Thc Florida Legislature passed ~ 557 by Rep. Starks and Sen. Home, which
substantially changes the presumption of correctness by Property Appraisers. This
legislation has been determined to meet thc constitutional criteria of a "mandate" under
Article VIII, Section 18, Florida Constitution. According to the Legislative Fiscal Impact
Conference results, dated March 29, 1996, the first year .loss of ad valorem tax revenue
would be between $69.5 to $160.3 million, with an annualized loss between $208.5 to
$481.0 million.. It is for this reason that thc governor should not pc,mit this drastic
change to occur without first carefully studying all potential impacts and implications
before considering implementation.
The Florida League of Cities urgently needs your assistance to request the governor to
veto this legislation. Please immediately mail or fax a letter, togcthcr with a resolution to
Governor Chiles urging him to VETO HB 557. A sample veto letter is attached.
Send letters and resolutions to:
Thc Honorable Lawton Chiles, Governor
State of Florida
The Capitol
Plaza Level - PL05
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
or
Fax: (904) 921-9077
Florida League or Cities, Inc. · P.O. Box 1757 · Thilahassee, FL 32.N0~1757 · (904) Z22-9684 · Suncom 2"/IkS.Bl · FAX (904) 222-3806
MAY 17, '96 15:55 (ET) Dovid T. Horden ~_..,/~.j~ (%~_. ' -PAGE A off
, ,_ -., ~ ~
MAY ~7 '96 15:38 FLA LEAGUE OF CITIES 9~4 ~38~6' ' ' P. 1/1
ACTION REQUESTED !
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
TO: Selected Municipal Officials
FROM: Kelvin J. Robinson, Legislative Director
DATE: May 17, 1996
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON VETO REQUEST TO GOVERNOR CHILES FOR
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S PRESUMPTION OF
CORRECTNESS
This is to let you know that (}ovemor Chiles has today officially received HB S57
and has until May 31 to either: sign the bill into law; veto the bill; or let the bill
become law without his signature.
Therefore, it is imperative that you immediately contact the governor's office with
your veto requests and resolutions prior to the May 31 deadline.
Send letters and resolutions to:
The Honorable Lawton Chiles, Governor
State of Florida
The Capitol
Plaza Level - PL05
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Phone: (904) 488-2272
or
Fax: (904) 921-9077
Florida League of Cities, Inc. · P.O. Box 1757 · Taltahassee, FL 32302-17S7 · (904) 222~9684 · Suneom 278-$331 · FAX (904) 222-3806
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER~¢I
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # /O ~' - MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
ORDINANCE NO. 18-96 (LOCATION OF AUTOMOBILE REPAIR AND
DETAILING USES)
DATE: MAY 17, 1996
This is second reading and public hearing for Ordinance No. 18-96
amending LDR Section 4.4.28 "Central Business District - Railroad
Corridor" Subsection 4.4.28(D), "Conditional Uses and Structures
Allowed", to further restrict the location of automobile repair
and detailing uses south of S.E. 6th Street, extended.
At its meeting of January 22, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board
recommended approval of a zoning request from RM (Medium Density
Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District-Railroad
Corridor for the Lee Property located at the southeast corner of
S.E. 1st Avenue and S.E. 6th Street, extended. However, the
Commission denied the request at its meeting on February 20, 1996
based on the potential impact of auto repair and detailing uses
on the adjacent residential properties.
The Commission initiated a text amendment to the LDRs incorpora-
ting additional location restrictions prohibiting the establish-
ment of auto repair and detailing uses on the subject property.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the rezoning request
would be heard again once the text amendment is processed incor-
porating the additional locational restrictions.
At its meeting of April 15, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Board
reviewed this item and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the
amendment to LDR Section 4.4.28(D) (2) to include restricting auto
repair and detailing uses south of S.E. 6th Street, extended. At
first reading on May 7th, Commission passed the ordinance by
unanimous vote.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 18-96 on second and final
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 18-96
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4.4.28, "CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT-RAILROAD ~ORRIDOR (CBD-RC)", SUBSECTION
4.4.28(D), "CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES ~", OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH, TO FURTHER RESTRICT THE LOCATION OF AUTOMOBILE
REPAIR AND AUTOMOBILE DETAILING USES WITHIN THE DISTRICT;
PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1. ! .6, the Planning and Zoning
Board reviewed the subject matter at its meeting of April 15, 1996, and voted
5 to 0 to forward the change with a recommendation of approval; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning
and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that
the change is consistent with and furthers the objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter Four, "Zoning Regulations", Article 4.4,
"Base Zoning District", Section 4.4.28, "Central Business District-Railroad
Corridor (CBD-RC)", Subsection 4.4.28(D), "Conditional Uses and Structures
Allowed", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
(D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed: The following uses
are allowed as conditional uses within the CBD-RC district:
(1) All uses allowed as such within the CBD [Section
4.4.13(D) ].
(2) Automobile repair and automobile detailing. However,
such facilities may not be located north of S.E. /st Street or south of S.E.
6th Street, extended. Conditional use approval may not be granted for a new
automobile repair facility nor for the expansion of an existing facility
unless it is specifically demonstrated that off-street parking is available
in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.6.9.
(3) Food preparation and/or processing, including but not
limited to bakeries and catering operations.
(4) Dry cleaning processing plants.
Section 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance
or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than
the part declared to be invalid.
Section 4. That 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 21st day of May , 1996.
ASTEST:
- -- City c~er~ ...... !
First Reading May 7, 19 9 6
Second Reading May 21, 19 9 6
ref :0RD18-96
- 2 - Ord. No. 18-96
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THRU: ~NG~~,, DIRECTOR
NING AND ZONING
FROM: J/EF~Y A. COSTELLO
~ENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: MEETING OF MAY 7, 1996
.CONSIDERATION OF AN LDR TEXT AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 4.4.28{D){2) OF THE CBD-RC {CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT-RAILROAD CORRIDOR) TO RESTRICT AUTO
REPAIR AND DETAILING USES FROM LOCATING SOUTH OF
~..E. 6TH STREET. EXTENDED.
The action requested of the City Commission is that of approval on
first reading of an ordinance amending LDR Section 4.4.28(D)(2) of
the CBD-RC (Central Business District-Railroad Corridor) to restrict
auto repair and detailing uses from locating south of S.E. 6th
Street, extended.
BAGKGRQUND
At its meeting of January 22, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board
recommended approval of a rezoning request from RM (Medium Density
Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District-Railroad Corridor) for the Lee
property located at the southeast corner of S.E. 1st Avenue and S.E. 6th Street,
extended. However, on February 20, 1996, the City Commission denied the
request on second reading. The basis for the denial related to concerns
regarding the CBD-RC zone district allowing auto repair and detailing uses on
the property and their potential impacts on the adjacent residential properties. In
City Commission Documentation
Meeting of May 7, 1996
LDR Text Amendment to Section 4.4.28(D)(2) of the CBD-RC zoning district.
Page 2
response to the concern, the City Commission initiated a text amendment to the
LDRs to incorporate additional Iocational restrictions for the auto repair uses,
which would prohibit the establishment of auto repair and detailing uses on the
subject property. It was the consensus of the City Commission that the rezoning
request would be heard again once the text amendment is processed.
The proposed amendment will further restrict the location of auto repair and
detailing uses in the CBD-RC zoning district. Currently, auto repair and detailing
uses are allowed south of S.E. 1st Street. While the uses are only allowed as
conditional uses, which require that specific findings be made in order to obtain
approval, under the current regulations there is a possibility that such a use
could be located on vacant land which has the potential to be rezoned CBD-RC.
This land is located south of the intersection of S.E. 1st Avenue and S.E. 6th
Street, extended, and is adjacent to several single family homes. Additional
background and analysis of the amendment is described in the attached
Planning and Zoning Board staff report.
At its meeting of April 15, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board formally
reviewed this item. There was no public testimony regarding the proposed
amendment. After reviewing the staff report and discussing the proposal, the
Board voted 5-0 (Young and Schmidt absent) to recommend approval of the
amendment to LDR Section 4.4.28(D)(2), to include restricting auto repair and
detailing uses south of S.E. 6th Street, extended.
By motion, approve on first reading the ordinance amending LDR Section
4.4.28(D)(2) to include restrict auto repair and detailing uses from locating south
of S.E. 6th Street, extended, and setting a public hearing date of May 21, 1996.
Attachments:
E! P & Z Board Staff Report and Documentation of April 15, 1996
I;3 Ordinance by Others
MEETING DATE: APRIL 15, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: IV.A - AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTION 4.4.28(D)(2)
[CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT-RAILROAD
CORRIDOR], TO FURTHER RESTRICT THE
LOCATION OF AUTO REPAIR AND DETAILING
USES.
The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to
the City Commission regarding an LDR text amendment to Section
4.4.28(D)(2), Central Business District-Railroad Corridor (CBD-
RC), Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed, which would further
restrict the location of auto repair and detailing uses.
Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land
Development Regulations may not be made until a
recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board.
The CBD-RC (Central Business'District-Railroad Corridor) was created in order
to recognize the long-standing light industrial character of the F,E.C, railroad
corridor; to provide for the upgrading and expansion of existing uses when
appropriate; and to enhance the economic growth of the central business district
by providing employment opportunities in the downtown area.
While the CBD-RC was intended to be applied to existing conditions, a request
was recently processed to rezone a parcel of land at the southeast corner of
S.E. 1st Avenue and S.E. 6th Street (if extended), from RM (Medium Density
Residential) to CBD-RC. As the property abuts light industrial uses and the
railroad it seemed appropriate to rezone the property.
However, on February 20, 1996, the City Commission denied the request on
second reading. The basis for the denial related to concerns regarding the
CBD-RC zone district allowing auto repair and detailing uses on the property
and their potential impacts on the adjacent residential properties. In response
P & Z Board Memorandum Staff Report
LDR Text Amendment - Restrictions on Location of Auto Uses the CBD-RC Zone Distdct
Page 2
to the concern, the City Commission initiated a text amendment to the LDRs to
incorporate additional Iocational restrictions for the auto repair uses, which
would prohibit the establishment of auto repair and detailing uses on the subject
property. It was the consensus of the City Commission that the rezoning request
would be heard again once the text amendment is processed. '
The proposed amendment will further restrict the location of auto repair and
detailing uses in the CBD-RC zoning district. Currently, auto repair and detailing
uses are allowed south of S.E. 1st Street. While the uses are only allowed as
conditional uses, which require that specific findings be made in order to obtain
a approval, under the current regulations there is a possiblity that such a use
could be located on vacant land which has the potential to be rezoned CBD-RC.
This land is located south of the intersection of S.E. 1st Avenue and S.E. 6th
Street, extended, and is adjacent to several single family homes.
The auto repair and detailing uses were included in the CBD-RC zoning district
in order to accommodate the existing auto repair uses which are primarily
located south of S.E. 1st Street and north of S.E. 6th Street, within the CBD-RC
zoning district. At the time that the zoning was created, it was not anticipated
that it would be extended beyond the existing uses. It is appropriate to amend
the Iocational restrictions for auto uses to ensure that they do not have the
potential to expand beyond the limited area where they are currently permitted.
By motion, recommend to the City Commission that LDR Section 4.4.28(D)(2) be
amended to include restricting auto repair and detailing uses south of S.E. 6th
Street, extended.
Attachment:
Q Proposed Ordinance
Section 4.4.28 CBD-RC (Central Business District - Railroad Corridor):
(D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed: The following uses are
allowed as conditional uses within the CBD-RC zoning district:
(1) All uses allowed as such within the CBD [Section 4.4.13(D)].
(2) Automobile repair and automobile detailing. However, such
facilities may not be located north of S.E. 1st Street or south of S.E. 6th
S...treet, extended. Conditional use approval may not be granted for a new
automobile repair facility, nor for the expansion of an existing facility,
unless it is specifically demonstrated that off-street parking is available in
accordance with the requirements of Section 4.6.9.
(3) Food preparation and/or processing, including but not limited to
bakeries and catering operations.
(4) Dry cleaning processing plants.
MEMORAND~
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER~'?~'I
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # /0 ~ - MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
PROPERTY SOUTH OF S.E.6TM STREET WEST OF THE FEC)
DATE: MAY 17, 1996
This is second reading and public hearing for Ordinance No. 19-96
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 FEC Railway.
The subject property known as the Lee Property is an unplatted,
vacant parcel of land. If the rezoning is approved, it is
anticipated that a development proposal will be submitted to
construct a light industrial type development. The Commission
denied the request for rezoning at its meeting on February 20,
1996 based on the potential impact of auto repair and detailing
uses on the adjacent residential properties.
The Commission initiated a text amendment to the LDRs incorpor-
ating additional location restrictions prohibiting the
establishment of auto repair and detailing uses on the subject
property. It was the consensus of the Commission that the
rezoning request would be heard again once the text amendment was
processed incorporating the additional locational restrictions.
That text amendment is being considered by the Commission at this
meeting of May 7, 1996.
At its meeting of April 15, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Board
reviewed this item and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the
rezoning request based on positive findings with respect to
Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regula-
tions, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and LDR Sections
2.4.5 (D) (5).
At first reading on May 7th, Commission passed the ordinance by
unanimous vote.
ORDINANCE NO. 19-96
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 PARTIC~Y
DESCRIBED HEREIN, GENERALLY LOCATED 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
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;
WHEREAS, at its meeting of April 15, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Board for the City of Delray Beach, as Local Planning Agency, considered this
item at public hearing and voted 5 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:
Section 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 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 21st day of May , 1996.
eity Clo~
First Reading May 7, 1996
Second Reading May 21, 1996
- 2 - Ord. No. 19-96
S.W. 3RD ST.
MERRI TT
PARK
0
$
R
S.W. 4TH ST.
S.E. 5TH ST. ~ ,
CITY OF DELRA Y BEACH J-J"-[--J-'r-[-J
IIIIIII
PUBLIC WORKS
COMPLEX
S.E. 611-1 ST.
S.W. 6TH STR.
WA ?'ERI
TREA TMEN T
7TH ST.
CURRIE
COMMONS
$.~.
IIIIIIIIIl'/ SR
9TH
CT.
S.W. 10TH STREET S.E. 10TH
N
~ REZONING FROM "RM" TO ,'~'CI3D-RC"
P*m. ANNINC 0£PAR TMON I' ,
clrY O~ D£LRAY 8~ACH, FL
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THRU: IR
~.~~ING_. AI~ ZONING
FROM: J/E~F)~Y A. COSTELLO
GENI~)R PLANNER
SUBJECT: MEETING OF MAY 7, 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,
The action requested of the City Commission is that of approval on
first reading of an ordinance rezoning a 0.91 acre parcel 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. Railroad.
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.
City Commission Documentation
Meeting of May 7, 1996
Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC for the Charles Lee Property
Page 2
On February 20, 1996, the City Commission denied the same rezoning request
for the subject property on second reading. The basis for the denial related to
concerns regarding the CBD-RC zone district allowing auto repair uses on the
property. In response to the concern, the City Commission initiated a text
amendment to the LDRs to incorporate Iocational restrictions for the auto repair
uses, which would prohibit the establishment of an auto repair use on the subject
property. This text amendment is also being considered by the Commission at
its May 7th meeting.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(6)(a), once a rezoning has been denied, the
same petition cannot be considered for a period of 12 months. However, this
limitation does not apply to rezonings that are denied in a manner deemed as
"without prejudice". At its February 20th meeting, it was the consensus of the
City Commission that the rezoning request be brought back as quickly as
possible, once the text amendment was processed. Therefore, the 12 month
limit does not apply to this petition.
Additional background and an analysis of the request is found in the attached
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report.
At its meeting of April 15, 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 and discussing the
proposal, the Board voted 5-0 (Young and 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).
By motion, approve on first reading the ordinance for the rezoning from RM
(Medium Density Residential) to CBD-RC (Central Business District - Railroad
Corridor) based upon the findings and recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Board, and setting a public hearing date of May 21, 1996.
Attachments:
P & Z Staff Report and Documentation of April 15, 1996
Ordinance by Others
[
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT---
MEETING DATE: April 15, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: IV.B.
ITEM: Rezoning from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD-RC (Central
Business District-Railroad Corridor) for a Parcel of Land Located on the
Southeast Comer of S.E. 1st Avenue and Unimproved S.E. 6th Street,
West of the F.E.C. Railway.
/l/:" ' " ' " " " ' " " '
~N~L DATA:
Owner/Applicant ................................... Charles E. Lee
Location ............ : .................................. Southeast Comer 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 ~
Current Zoning .................................... RM (Medium Density Residential)
i Proposed Zoning .................................. CBD-RC (Central Business Distdct - Railroad Corridor)
Adjacent Zoning ......................... North: CBD-RC and RM
East: R-1-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 Distdct - 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.
;'~- . .- --
3'he action before the Board is that of making a recommendation to
the City Commission on a rezoning from RM (Medium Density
Residential) to CBD-RC (Oentral 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.
:~ ~.~:~"?.~:. ~-:..:.~ '-.:'.-~'.-:.~::~:~ :~ ~:~::.:~:~: :~ ::.::. :i ::.::.:~: ~: ~::.~:: ::.'*:.~:: :i:~::.:~:'.' :~ :~:.~ ::. :~.~:. ~-:'~.::. :~ :~: ~::. ::.::.: ~-':.; :':';'::i::.:~: :'::~'~:~ ;':' ;~?:':':'::j ~:':':': ~.~i':':';'i:-;:~ ::':':': ::4 ::': :~ ':': ~.::.'::~:i ': ~i :':':'::~ ::*.::'::' ::-. :.::.:~:~: i: ~:i :-; :-~:~:~: :i::::. ::.: :i::.:~ ~i~::. ::.:.:~: :.:i::;-;::; i:i::.~,::.~ :{ ::;~::.:::~ :i: ::; ::.:~:~::;'~ :~:~...*;~:~:i :.<
~.~:~ .!.::.:: :~i'-'..!~!: .".-:.:~! ::'.-: :: .::'::i:'..'-'.-:~ ~-'.'-:'::~ ~! .::.:::.:~:~ '-': ~ :?,.'-:.:-%::'.-: ~ .<.~ :;-:'..:~:~.'-~:~i.".-'-'~!: ?-'.-~:~:.: :'.. :~:.".. ::! :: .:~::i-'.'. :.:: ~ ,:~:: :: :.~!~:. :..... ::: ~:'..:::::.: :::: :.*.:<. :.. :.:.*'*-': ~ ~ :.'-:: :: :: ~:'.. ~:~ .'..:: :: ::?~:~.~:.: :~ :~ i~: ~ !:': .';~.".~ :~:~]: ~ :~: :~, ~;;~.~ ~. ~::] .x4:!:~."::~(~ i.?..';( .!:'..:~!:. ::.-'~ .*.:s~-~: .::~ .*~ i'.-.::;~.~:~ (~'~:~ i:".-."..:~::': ~ .::.'!.
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-g5). During the public hearings, the owner of the subject property, 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 require .rpents must
be increased to 50 and 60 feet depending on certain circumstances. Due-to the ";'. '/'-
narrowness af the property and its location, the property would be undevelopable
P & Z Board Staff Report
Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC
Page 2
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.
At its meeting of January 22, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board
recommended approval of the rezoning request. However, on February 20,
1996, the City Commission denied the request on second reading. The basis for
the denial related to concerns regarding the CBD-RC zone district allowing auto
repair uses on the property. In response to the concern, the City Commission
initiated a text amendment to the LDRs to incorporate Iocational restrictions for
the auto repair uses, which would prohibit the establishment of an auto repair
use on the subject property. This text amendment is being considered by the
Board, at its April 15th meeting.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(6)(a), once a rezoning has been denied, the
same petition cannot be considered for a period of 12 months. However, this
limitation does not apply to rezonings that are denied in a manner deemed as
"without prejudice". At its February 20th meeting, it was the consensus of the
City Commission that the rezoning request be brought back as quickly as
possible, once the text amendment was processed. Therefore, the 12 month
limit does not apply to this petition.
Tl~e 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.
P & Z Board Staff Report
Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC
Page 3
Future Land Use Ma.o: 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
of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to leVels of
service established within the Comprehensive Plan.
Water ,& Sewer:
E! 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.
El 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.
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.
P & Z Board Staff Report
Chades Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC
Page 4
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 923 average daily trips. This would
result in a net increase of 853 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
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.
P & Z Board Staff Report
Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC
Page 5
Redevelopment Areas -The Redevelopment Area designation is applied to
those areas which have been identified in the Land Use Element 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:
El the application shall be placed on hold for not more than six (6) months
while the redevelopment plan is prepared;
El the application shall be processed on a case by case basis with the
existing zoning map, the Land Use Element, and the Housing element
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:
Land 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. 5th 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 use~.
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, th~ Osceola Park
Redevelopment Plan is scheduled to be completed in the late 1996. As an
alternative, 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.
P & Z Board Staff Report
Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC
Page 6
Corl~ervation 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
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.
Larld Use Element Objective A-l - 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. There are 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'stax base.
Section 3,3,2 (Standards for Rezonino_ 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
P & Z Board Staff Report
Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC
Page 7
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 of the potential auto repair uses allowed under the CBD-RC
zoning with the residences to the west and east, across the F.E.C.
Railroad, is a concern. A text amendment to the LDRs is being processed
to incorporate Iocational restrictions for the auto repair uses, which would
prohibit the establishment of an auto repair use on the subject property. If
the text amendment prohibiting auto repair uses on the property is denied,
it may be appropriate to again deny the rezoning request.
The property can be developed 'in a manner that will be compatible with
the adjacent residences. 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.
Further, where commercial zoning abuts residential property, 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
potential 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 woald 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: ;.~ .:.- ~'
P & Z Board Staff Report
Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC
Page 8
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
which abuts the F.E.C. Railroad to the east and industrial 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 appropriate 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
sdrrounding area. Developmer)t 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_ Redevelooment 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 folloTM"
which requires action by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board.
P & Z Board Staff Report
Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC
Page 9
Public arid 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:
I~ Osceola Park Homeowners Association
r3 Old School Square Homeowners Association
Letters of objection and support, if any, will be presented at the Planning and
Zoning Board meeting.
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 {he 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. However, if the text
amendment the CBD-RC zone prohibiting auto repair uses on the property is not
approved, it may be appropriate to deny the rezoning request.
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 LDR Section
3.3.2(D) (Compatibility) that the zoning is incompatible with the adjacent
residential uses, and that pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5) the
rezoning fails to fulfill at least one of the reasons listed.
P & Z Board Staff Report
Charles Lee Property - Rezoning from RM to CBD-RC
Page 10
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:
Location/Zoning Map
Survey
This Staff Report prepared by: Jeff Costello. Senior Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER~ ~i~ I
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~0 ~' - MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
ORDINANCE NO. 20 - 96/SMALL SCALE FLUM AMENDMENT AND
REZONING FOR FORMER HRS BUILDING SITE ON WALLACE DRIVE
DATE: MAY 17, 1996
This is second reading and public hearing for Ordinance No. 20-96
changing the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation from General
Commercial to Commerce (small scale amendment) and rezoning from
POC (Planned Office Center) District to LI (Light Industrial)
District for a 1.86 acre parcel of land. It is the former HRS
building site located on the east side of Wallace Drive
approximately 1,300 feet north of Linton Boulevard.
The FLUM amendment and rezoning are being processed to accommo-
date Tower Optical Corporation, an optical equipment manufacturer
which plans to occupy the 18,400 square foot building. The
facility will also house the marketing, accounting, research and
development and advertising components, and will employ 10-25
skilled workers.
At public hearing on April 15, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval 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). At first reading on May 7th,
Commission passed the ordinance by unanimous vote.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 20-96 on second and final
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 20-96
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH, FLORIDA, CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP
DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCE, AND
REZONING FROM POC (PLANNED OFFICE CENTER) DISTRICT TO LI
(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, FOR A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF HAT.TACE DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1,300
FEET NORTH OF LINTON BOULEVARD, AS THE SAME IS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; F.L~CTING TO PROCEED UNDER
THE SINGLE HEARING ADOPTION PROCESS FOR SMALL SCALE LAND
USE PLAN AM~%~4TS; AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY
BEACH, FLORIDA, 1994"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEA~.w.R
CLAUSE, A SAVING 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 General Commercial; and
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 POT (Planned Office Center) District; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of April 15, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Board for the City of Delray Beach, as Local Planning Agency, reviewed this
item at public hearing and voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of the small
scale FLUM amendment and rezoning, based upon positive findings; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the Future Land Use Map in the
Comprehensive Plan be amended to reflect the revised land use designation,
and 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:
Section 1. That the legal description of the subject property is
as follows:
Beginning at a marker at the Southeast corner of Block D,
Plat of SUNNY ACRES, as recorded in Plat Book 21, Page
63, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and run
West 156.7 feet to Germantown Road; thence Northeasterly,
along Germantown Road 175 feet; thence East to the East
line of the East Half of the West Half of Lot 30, Plat of
Map Showing Subdivisions of portions of Townships 45 and
46 South, Range 43 East, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page
4, Public Records of Palm Beach county; thence South
along the said East line to the Southeast corner of the
East Half of the West Half of Lot 30; thence West to the
Southwest corner of the East Half of the West Half of Lot
30; thence North 25 feet to the Point of Beginning;
located in the Southwest ~rter of Section 20, Township
46 South, Range 43 East. LESS AND EXCEPT the East 25 feet
thereof.
TOGETHER WITH
That part of the right-of-way for Georgia Street as shown
on the Plat of SUNNY ACRES, Palm Beach County, Florida,
according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 21 at
Page 63 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County,
Florida, described as follows:
Begin at the Southeast corner of Lot 8, Block "D" as
shown on said plat of SUNNY ACRES; thence South 88
degrees 09' 14" West, along the South line of said Lot 8,
156.70 feet to the East right-of-way line of Germantown
Road; thence South 22 degrees 37' 01" West, along said
East right-of-way line, 27.47 feet to a line 25.00 feet
South of and parallel with the said South line of Lot 8;
thence North 88 degrees 09' 14" East, along said parallel
line, 167.31 feet to the intersection with the Southerly
prolongation of the East line of said Lot 8; thence North
0 degrees 05' 43" West, along said Southerly
prolongation, 25 feet to said point of beginning.
The subject property is located on the east side of
Wallace Drive, approximately 1,300 feet north of Linton
Boulevard; containing 1.86 acres, more or less.
Section 2. That the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby changed to reflect a land use
designation of Commerce for the subject property.
Section 3. That the City of Delray Beach elects to make this small
scale amendment by having only an adoption hearing, pursuant to Florida
Statutes Section 163. 3187(1) (c)4.
Section 4. That the Zoning District Map of the City of Delray
Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, is hereby amended to reflect a zoning
classification of LI (Light Industrial) District for the subject property.
Section 5. 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 4 hereof.
- 2 - Ord. No. 20-96
Section 6. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
Section 7. That should any section or provision of this ordinance
or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or ~ord be declared by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaiD~er hereof as a whole or part thereof other than
the part declared to be invalid.
Section 8. That this ordinance shall become effective thirty-one
(3I) days after adoption, unless the amendment is challenged pursuant to
Section 163.3187(3), F.S. If challenged, the effective date of this
amendment shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of
Community Affairs, or the Administration Commission, finding the amendment in
compliance with Section 163.3184, F.S. No development orders, development
permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence
before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued
by the Administration Committee, this amendment may nevertheless be made
effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy
of which resolution shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs,
Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida
32399-2100.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading
on this the 21st day of May , 1996.
ATTEST:
C~ty Clerk ? !
First Reading May 7, 19 9 6
Second Reading May 21, 1996
- 3 - Ord. No. 20-96
~ ~' ~' ~ ~ ~ < CEMETERY $.w. 9TH CT,
- 1'1'
_~.,-,. ~ ~1 __&l_~_o ~.~,
TEN ROYAL PALM OR, ~ ~ S.W'.' 'l 11TH ' ST.
I
~ FORD WALLACE : fl II CONDO ~ I ~
~~ LIN TON BOULEVARD
N FLUM AMENDMENT
FROM: GENE~ COMMERCI~ LE~NO: MDR - MEDIUM OENSI~ RESIOENT~ OS- O~N SPACE
PLANING OEPAR~ENT TO : COMMERCE I - INDUSTR~ LDR - LOW DENSIW RESIDENT~ TRN - )RANSITION~
OTY ~ DELRAY BEA~, FL · -- PROTECTION ZONE C - COMMERCE CC - GEN[~ COMMERCE P - PUBLIC BUILDING
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THRU: DIXNE DOMII~0EZ, DIRI::JC~R
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
FROM: J~
SENI(DR PLANNER
SUBJECT: MEETING OF MAY 7, 1996
SMALL-SCALE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM
GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCE. AND REZONING
FROM POC {PLANNED OFFICE CENTER) TO LI {LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN
WALLACE DRIVE AND S.W. 10TH AVENUE. APPROXIMATELY
1.300 FEET NORTH OF LINTON BOULEVARD.
The action requested of the City Commission is that of approval on
first reading of an ordinance changing the Future Land Use Map
designation from General Commercial to Commerce, and rezoning
from POC (Planned Office Center) to LI (Light Industrial) for the
former HRS building.
The subject property is located between Wallace Drive and S.W.
10th Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet north of Linton Boulevard.
The proposal incorporates an unplatted parcel of land consisting of 1.86 acres.
The site contains an existing office building formerly occupied by the Florida
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) which vacated the
premises in 1993. The building has remained vacant since.
The proposal is to change the Future Land Use Map designation from General
Commercial to Commerce and rezone the property from POC (Planned Office
City Commission Documentation
Meeting of May 7, 1996
Small-Scale FLUM Amendment to Commerce and Rezoning to LI for the Former HRS Building
Page 2
Center) to LI (Light Industrial). The FLUM amendment and rezoning are being
processed to accommodate Tower Optical Corporation, an optical equipment
manufacturer, which wishes to occupy the existing 18,400 sq.ft, office building.
In addition to the manufacturing aspect, the facility would also house the
company's marketing, accounting, research and development, and advertising
components. This facility will employ 10 - 25 persons who are primarily skilled
workers. Shipping and receiving are handled through parcel post
vehicles/carriers (UPS, FEDX).
Additional background and an analysis of the request is found in the attached
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report.
~NNING ~ND Z~N~NG B~RD
At its meeting of April 15, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public
hearing in conjunction with review of the requests. There was no public
testimony regarding the requests. After reviewing the staff report and discussing
the proposal, the Board voted 5-0 (Young and Schmidt absent) to recommend
that the requests 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).
By motion, approve on first reading the ordinance for the FLUM amendment from
General Commercial to Commerce and rezoning from POC (Planned Office
Center) to LI (Light Industrial) based upon the findings and recommendation by
the Planning and Zoning Board, and setting a public hearing date of May 21,
1996.
Attachments:
P & Z Staff Report and Documentation of April 15, 1996
Ordinance by Others
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT---
MEETING DATE: April 15, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: IV.C.
ITEM: Future Land Use Map Amendment from General Commercial to
Commerce and Rezoning from POC (Planned Office Center) to LI
(Light Industrial) for the former HRS Building located between
Wallace Drive and S.W. 10th Avenue approximately 1,300 feet north
of Linton Boulevard. L~~~~ ~
GENERAL DATA:
Owner ............................................ MSdeQ Properties
Applicant/Agent ............................. Lac Hong & Lien Thi Nguyen s.w. ~o~, st. __
Location ......................................... East side of Wallace Drive,
approximately 1,300 feet north of
Linton Boulevard.
Property Size ................................. 1.86 Acres
Existing Future Land Use Map ...... General Commercial
Proposed Future Land Use Map .... Commerce
Current Zoning ............................... POC (Planned Office Center)
Proposed Zoning ........................... LI (Light Industrial)
Adjacent Zoning ................... North: R-1-A (Single Family Residential)
East: RM (Multiple Family Residential)
South: AC (Automotive Commercial)
West: MIC (Mixed Industrial &
Commercial)
Existing Land Use .......................... Vacant office building (formerly
an HRS buildir{g).
Proposed Land Use ....................... Establishment of an Optical
Equipment Manufacturing
-. Facility.
Water Service ................................ Existing on site.
Sewer Service ................................ Existing on site.
WAU. AC£ CONDO
_ NISSAN
LIN T ON BOULEVARDIJ
ET
The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation on
a privately initiated Small-Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment
from General Commemial to Commerce and a rezoning from POC
(Planned Office Center) to LI (Light Industrial) for the Former HRS
Building.
The subject property is located between Wallace Drive and S.W.
10th Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet north of Linton Boulevard.
The proposal incorporates an unplatted parcel of land consisting of 1.86 acres.
The property was developed in 1983 while under Palm Beach County
jurisdiction. In 1988, the subject property was annexed into the City pursuant to
the Enclave Act (via Ordinance No. 51-88) with the CF (Community Facilities)
zoning designation.
With the Citywide rezoning and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in October
of 1990, the subject property was rezoned to POC (Planned Office Center). The
site was formerly occupied by the Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services (HRS) which vacated the premises in 1993. The building
has remained vacant since.
On March 1, 1996, a request for a Future Land Use Map amendment to
Commerce and rezoning of the property to LI (Light Industrial) was submitted
and is now before the Board for action.
The proposal is to change the Future Land Use Map designation from General
Commercial to Commerce and rezone the property from POC (Planned Office
Center) to LI (Light Industrial). The FLUM amendment and rezoning are being
processed to accommodate Tower Optical Corporation, an optical equipment
manufacturer, which wishes to occupy the existing 18,400 sq.ft, office building.
In addition to the manufacturing aspect, the facility would also house the
company's marketing, accounting, research and development, and advertising
components. This facility will employ 10 - 25 persons who are primarily skilled
workers. Shipping and receiving are handled through parcel post
vehicles/carriers (UPS, FEDX).
This Future Land Use Map Amendment is being processed as a Small Scale
Development pursuant to Florida Statutes 163.3187. This statute states that any
local government comprehensive land use plan amendments directly related to
P & Z Board Staff Report
Small Scale FLUM Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce and Rezoning from CF to
POC for the former HRS Building
Page 2
proposed small scale development activities may be approved without regard to
statutory limits on the frequency of consideration of amendment (twice a year),
subject to the following conditions:
The amendment does not exceed either 10 acres of nonresidential land or
10 acres of residential land with a density of 10 units per acre or less;
El The cumulative effect of the amendments processed under this section
shall not exceed 60 acres annually; and,
The proposed amendment does not involve the same owner's property
within 200 feet of property granted a change within a pedod of 12 months.
The land use map amendment involves a 1.86 acre area, thus the total area is
less than the 10 acre maximum for nonresidential land uses. The amendment to
Commerce is being processed concurrently with a rezoning request to LI (Light
Industrial) to facilitate the establishment of an optical equipment manufacturer.
This amendment along with other small scale amendments processed this year
will not exceed 60 acres. This property has not previously been considered for a
land use amendment nor have any of the same property owner's properties been
granted a land use change within 200 feet or within the last year.
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.
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 land
use are discouraged.
As described above, the Commerce land use has been designated as the
City's most needed land use category, primarily due to the job
opportunities it represents. Approval of the FLUM amendment will result
in the establishment of a desirable industrial use which will increase the
City's tax base and provide for additional employment opportunities of a
technical nature. Thus, the FLUM amendment from General Commercial
to Commerce supports this Policy.
Conservation Policy A-l.l' The practice of monitoring groundwater
conditions through installation of monitoring wells shall be con~t_inued. 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.
P & Z Board Staff Report
Small Scale FLUM Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce and Rezoning from CF to
POC for the former HRS Building
Page 3
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 the zone fl~,. The County Wellfield Protection Ordinance,
administered by Palm Beach County Department of Environmental
Resources Management (DERM), determines whether or not monitoring
wells are required for any property. An 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. The applicant
has indicated that the manufacturing process does not use or produce
any toxic materials. However, with the submittal of a site plan application,
an Affidavit of Notification must be provided to DERM. The proposed LI
zone district limits the amount of substances that can be stored on the
property. This policy also addresses LDR Sections 3.3.4(A), which
requires assurance that provisions of the County Wellfield Protection
Ordinance shall be followed.
Land Use Analysis:
Pursuant to Land Development Regulations Section 3.1.1(A) (Future Land
Use Map), all land uses and resulting structures must be allowed in the
zoning district within which the land is situated and, said zoning must be
consistent with the land use designation as shown on the Future Land Use
Map.
The proposed Commerce land use designation will allow the following zoning
classifications: LI (Light Industrial), MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial), PCC
(Planned Commerce Center), RT (Resort Tourism), OSR (Open Space and
Recreation), OS (Open Space), and CF (Community Facilities).
In conjunction with the Future Land Use Map amendment to Commerce, a
rezoning to LI (Light Industrial) is being sought. The FLUM amendment and
rezoning to LI are being processed concurrently to facilitate the establishment of
an optical equipment manufacturing facility. Within the LI zone district, the
proposed.facility is allowed as a permitted use [ref. LDR Section 4.4.26(B)(3)].
Ad_iacent Land Use MaD Desi~_nations. Zonin_o Desi_~nations & Land Uses:
North: North of the property has a Future Land Use Map designation of
Redevelopment Area #2 and is zoned R-1-A (Single Family Residential). The
existing land use is a single family dwelling and vacant parcel containing potted
landscape materials.
P & Z Board Staff Report
Small Scale FLUM Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce and Rezoning from CF to
POC for the former HRS Buitding
Page 4
South: South of the property has a General Commercial land use designation
and is zoned AC (Automotive Commercial). The existing use of the property is
the Wallace Nissan/Dodge automobile dealership.
East: East of the property, across S.W. 10th Avenue, has a Future Land Use
Map designation of Medium Density Residential (5-12 u/ac) and is zoned RM
(Medium Density Residential). The existing land use is The Groves of Delray
multiple family complex.
West: West of the property, across Wallace Ddve, has a Future Land Use Map
designation of Redevelopment Area #2 and is zoned MIC (Mixed Industrial and
Commercial). The existing land uses are two single family dwellings.
Allowable Land Uses:
Under the current General Commercial FLUM designation, commercial and office
developments (GC, PC, AC, NC, POC, POD and RT zoning designations) are
allowed. The property is currently zoned POC which allows business and
professional office uses.
Under the proposed Commerce FLUM designation, industrial developments
(PCC, I, MIC and LI zoning designations) are allowed. The applicant has
requested a zoning designation of LI (Light Industrial), which allows the
proposed optical equipment manufacturing facility as a permitted use [ref. LDR
Section 4.4.26(B)(3)]. The LI zone district allows primarily non-intensive industrial
uses as well as office uses. Based upon the above, a positive finding can be
made with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map designation.
Land Use Compatibility_:
As described in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
General Commercial land use designation is to be applied to land which is, or
should be, developed for general commercial purposes e.g. retail, office,
services.
The proposed Commerce land use designation is applied to property which is
developed, or is to be developed, in such a manner as to accommodate a mix of
industrial, service, and commercial uses. This may be accomplished through
either a development of existing parcels or a planned concept.
Compatibility with the adjacent residences is not a major concern. The
residences to the east and west will be separated from the proposed industrial
property by public streets with 50' (S.W. 10th Avenue) and 60' (Wall:ace Drive)
right-of-way widths. The existing structure is set back 150' from: the west
P & Z Board Staff Report
Small Scale FLUM Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce and Rezoning from CF to
POC for the former HRS Building
Page 5
property line and 50 feet from the east property line. The multiple family
development to the east also contains an existing 6' c.b.s, wall and landscaping.
With respect to the abutting single family residence to the north, the existing
office building is set back 72 feet from the north property line with a parking area
between the building and the north property line. 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. Further,
sufficient regulations currently exist (i.e. restricted uses and buffering) to mitigate
adverse impacts of the light industrial uses [ref. LDR Sections 4.6.4(B) and
4.4.26(F),(G), & (H)]. The hours of operation is not a major concern as the
proposed business as well as most businesses normally operate between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The proposed optical equipment manufacturing business is
not expected to generate any adverse noise, odors, or visual impacts.
The existing single family residences are located within the Redevelopment Area
#2 [Wallace Drive (fka Germantown Road) Industrial Area]. Pursuant to Future
Land Use Element Policy C-2.5, the Wallace Drive Industrial Area shall be
primarily industrial with an emphasis on commerce uses (LI, PCC, MIC zone
districts). Unimproved and underimproved rights-of-way shall be abandoned
when it facilitates the aggregation of parcels and larger scale development
provided that the right-of-way is not essential for traffic flow purposes. Support
uses for the existing automobile dealerships are encouraged. All commercial
uses shall be allowed with the exception of "strip-type" development along
Wallace Drive which is not desired because of traffic conflicts along the collector
street.
The existing single family residences west of Wallace Drive are nonconforming
uses, as they are not permitted in the MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial)
zone district, while the single family residence to the north is permitted in the R-
I-A zone district. Given the existing development pattern along Wallace Drive,
the proximity of the area to the Linton Boulevard and 1-95 interchange, and the
existing industrial and commercial uses to the west and south, the properties
within this area provide excellent opportunities for commerce type uses.
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 & Sewer:
Water service currently exists via a service lateral connection to an 10"
water main along Wallace Drive. '-- .....
P & Z Board Staff Report
Small Scale FLUM Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce and Rezoning from CF to
POC for the former HRS Building
Page 6
Adequate fire suppression is provided via an existing fire hydrant at the
southwest corner of the site, adjacent to Wallace Drive.
Sewer service currently exists via a service lateral connection to an
existing 8" main within Wallace Drive.
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:
Wr[h FLUM and rezoning requests drainage plans are not required. The site is
currently developed with an 18,400 sq.ft, building and asphalt parking areas.
The drainage is currently retained on-site site via sheet flow to a
landscape/swale area on the south side of the building. The FLUM amendment
and rezoning will not negatively impact this existing situation.
Traffic:
Under the current General Commercial FLUM designation, the maximum
development potential would be 18,400 sq.ft, of retail generating 1,357 average
daily trips [GC (General Commercial) zoning]. The current POC office
designation generates 390 average daily trips. Under the proposed Commerce
land use and LI zoning designations, the maximum development potential would
be the office use (390 trips). However, the proposal is to accommodate a light
industrial use which will generate 128 trips. Thus, the FLUM amendment and
rezoning would result in a decrease of vehicle trips generated, and will not have
an impact with respect to traffic concurrency.
Parks and Recreation:
Park and dedication requirements do not apply to 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
less than trash generated from the uses allowed by the applicable zoning
districts of the General Commercial land use designation (POC, POD, NC, GC,
AC, PC, RT, NC). The development of these properties under the Commerce
land use designation should not create an adverse impact on this level of service
standard. "~-
P & Z Board Staff Report
Small Scale FLUM Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce and Rezoning from CF to
POC for the former HRS Building
Page 7
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 Future Land Use Map,
Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency and Compliance with the
Land Development Regulations.
Future Land Use Map, Concurrency and Comprehensive Plan Consistency
were previously discussed under the Future Land Use Map Analysis section of
this report. Compliance with respect to Compliance with the Land
Development Regulations (Standards for Rezoning Actions, Rezoning
Findings) are discussed below.
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.
Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions): Standards A-C are not
applicable. The applicable p~erformance standard of Section 3.3.2 is as
follows:
{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 property to the north is zoned R-1-A (Single Family Residential); to
the south is zoned AC (Automotive Commercial); to the east, across S.W.
10th Avenue, is zoned RM (Multiple Family Residential); and, to the west
across Wallace Drive is zoned MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial).
The land uses adjacent to the property include the following: north of the
property is a single family residence and vacant land; south is an
automobile dealership (Wallace Nissan/Dodge); to the east is an adult
oriented multiple family development (The Groves of Delray); 'and, to the
west are two single family homes.
P & Z Board Staff Report
Small Scale FLUM Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce and Rezoning from CF to
POC for the former HRS Building
Page 8
Compatibility with the adjacent residential properties is not a major
concern. The LI (Light Industrial) zoning designation allows business
office uses, which are permitted under the current POC zoning
designation, and light industrial uses such as manufacturing, assembly,
and wholesale. The LI district requires that all uses be conducted within
an enclosed building. Intense uses such as auto repair are not allowed.
The hours of operation are not a major concern as this business as well
as most businesses normally operate between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Truck traffic will not be impacting as shipments are handled through
parcel post vehicles/carriers. The existing office building has co-existed
with the surrounding uses for many years. Thus, the proposal will not be
introducing a nonresidential use to the property or the area. The
conversion of the property to the light industrial use will allow upgrades to
a currently blighted property which has been vacant for three years and
has not been well maintained.
The existing building is separated from the residential properties by
parking areas. 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. Further, sufficient
regulations currently exist i.e. restricted uses and buffering to mitigate
adverse impacts of the industrial uses [ref. LDR Sections 4.6.4(B) and
4.4.26(F),(G), & (H)].
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:
P & Z Board Staff Report
Small Scale FLUM Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce and Rezoning from CF to
POC for the former HRS Building
Page 9
"This request for rezoning to LI will be consistent with the proposed
Commerce land use designation. Given the adjacent and industrial uses
in the area, and the Iow visibility from a major roadway, the property is
more marketable for industrial use, rather than office use. The property
has been vacant for 3 years and is blighted. The rezoning will allow the
re-occupation of an existing structure and upgrading of the property. The
requested LI zoning is of similar intensity as other existing industrial and
commercial uses which exist to the west and south and is more
appropriate based upon the above stated circumstances."
Comment: The justification statement addresses Item "c" as the basis for which
the rezoning should be granted. The requested LI (Light Industrial) zoning is
consistent with the proposed Commerce land use designation and is the least
intensive of the industrial zoning designations. Given the surrounding area and
its development pattern, the LI zoning is appropriate. Rezoning of the property
to LI will enable upgrades to a blighted property in a manner that will be
compatible with the adjacent residences as well as an asset to the surrounding
area. Redevelopment 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 LI.
COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
As currently zoned, the subject property does not meet the minimum
development size of the POC zoning district, which is 4 acres with individual lot
sizes of 1 acre. Further, it does it does not comply with the Special District
Boundary Treatment [ref. LDR Section 4.6.4(C)] which requires a 25 foot
landscape setback area where P, OC zoning abuts residential zoning.
The subject property will comply with LI zone district development standards.
There is adequate on-site parking to accommodate the proposed industrial use.
In addition, the property complies with the Special District Boundary Treatment
requirements which apply where industrially zoned property is adjacent to
residentially zoned property [ref. LDR Section 4.6.4(B)]. If the land use plan
amendment and rezoning are approved, submittal of a site plan modification
application will follow. The site plan modification will involve upgrades to the
entire site including architectural improvements. There are no problems
anticipated complying with the Land Development Regulations.
The subject property is not within a geographical area requiring review by the
Community Redevelopment Agency, Downtown Development Autho..~rity or the
Historic Preservation Board. "~'- :'
P & Z Board Staff Report
Small Scale FLUM Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce and Rezoning from CF to
POC for the former HRS Building
Page 10
Courtesy Notices:
Courtesy notices have been provided to the following civic and homeowners
associations:
[3 Delray Property Owners
[3 Progressive Residents of Delray (PROD)
[3 The Groves of Delray
[3 Woods of Southridge
Public Notice:
Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500' radius
of the subject property. Letters of objection and support, if any, will be presented
at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
The Future Land Use Map Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce
is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 3 of the
Land Development Regulations. The amendment will provide additional
Commerce designated land which will help to provide additional employment
opportunities. The rezoning from POC to LI is consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations. The
proposed manufacturing use as well as the proposed LI zoning designation are
consistent with the Commerce land use designation. Also, positive findings can
be made with respect to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings), that the LI is
more appropriate given the circumstances particular to the site and the
surrounding area. Re-occupatioh of the structure under the POC zoning may be
unrealistic. The LI zoning appears to be more appropriate given the narrowness
of the property and its proximity to the industrial developments to the west and
the commercial development to the south. There are existing requirements to
mitigate any potential impacts, however, none are foreseen. The property can
be developed 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 Small-Scale Future Land Use Map
Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce, and the rezoning
request from POC to LI 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)(c).
P & Z Board Staff Report
Small Scale FLUM Amendment from General Commercial to Commerce and Rezoning from CF to
POC for the former HRS Building
Page 11
C. Recommend denial of the Small-Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment
from General Commercial to Commerce and the rezoning request from
POC to LI with the based upon a failure to make [positive findings with
respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5), that the rezoning fails to fulfill one of
the basis.
Recommend to the City Commission approval of the Small-Scale Future Land
Use Map amendment for General Commercial to Commerce and the rezoning
from POC to LI 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)(c).
Attachment:
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Survey
This Staff Report prepared by: Jeff Costello. Senior Planner
DELRA Y BEACH
CEMETERY s.w. 9TH C~.
OSR
S.W. 10TH
S.W. ! TH ST,
·
PARK TEN J
2ND ADD.
~ THE AVE.
LINTON o GROVES
CENTRE ~o
GEORGIA STREET
BESSIE ST.
MILFRED STREET
SOU THRIDGE
AC CF WALLACE SOUTHRIDGE CONDO
WALLACE DODGE VILLAGE ~"~
FORD WALLACE CONDO
~r
NISSAN
LIN TON BOULEVARD
PC PC
N
~ REZONINC FROM "POC" .TO "LI" ..
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY O¢ O[LRAY B[ACt'~o FL
-- D/Gl/;4/. ~,4~£ MAP .5'YS'/'£M -- MAP REP: LM02$
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY CO~SSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER ~ '
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM % l0 P'- REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
SECOND READING & PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE NO. 22-96 (TEXT
AMENDMENTS TO LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS)
DATE: MAY 16, 1996
This is second reading and public hearing for Ordinance No. 22-96 which
amends LDR Sections 4.6.16 (B), "Applicability", (C), "Compliance and
Relief", and (H)(4), "Existing Multiple Family, Commercial and Industrial
Develolanent", regarding compliance with the minimum landscape requirements
for existing properties. For background and analysis regarding this item,
please see the attached Planning and Zoning Board staff report.
At its meeting of April 15, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board formally
reviewed this item. There was no public testimony regarding the proposed
amendment. After reviewing the staff report and discussing the proposal,
the Board voted 5 to 0 (Young and Schmidt absent) to recommend approval.
At first reading on May 7th, Commission passed the ordinance by unanimous
vote.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 22-96 on second and final reading.
ref: agmemo6
ORDINANCE NO. 2 2- 9 6
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 4.6, "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS",
SECTION 4.6.16, "LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS" OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 4.6.16(B), "APPLICABILITY", TO PROVIDE FOR
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS; BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION 4.6.16(C), "COMPLIANCE AND RELIEF", TO PROVIDE FOR THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND TO CREATE THE LANDSCAPE
COMPLIANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE; BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 4.6.16(H)(4),
'EXISTING MULTIPLE FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT",
TO PROVIDE THAT ALL EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL USES SHALL COMPLY WITH MINIMUM LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND
BY SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING DUPLEXES IN THIS SECTION; PROVIDING A SAVING
CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach desires to improve the
landscaping and maintenance of the City by providing minimum standards for the installation and
maintenance of landscaping in order to preserve the appearance, character and value of the
surrounding neighborhoods, thereby promoting aesthetics of neighborhoods within the City and
promoting the general welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach believes that the
appearance of it's neighborhoods is important in fostering pride in the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 4, "Supplemental District Regulations", Section 4.6.16,
"Landscape Regulations" of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Delray Beach is hereby amended, by amending subsection 4.6.16(B) "Applicability", to
read as follows:
(B) Applicability: The provisions of this Section shall apply as follows:
(1) To the construction of single family homes~ for which a building permit is
applied for on or after October 1, 1990. Such properties shall comply with minimum standards
set forth in Section 4.6.16(H)(1) and other applicable sections of 4.6.16.
(2) To existing development of all types, including, but not limited to,
commercial, industrial and multifamily development including duplexes, but excluding single
family detached dwellings on a single lot. Such development shall comply with the minimum
standards set forth within sections 4.6.16(C)(1) and 4.6.16(H)(4) and other applicable sections of
4.6.16, in addition to all requirements set forth in the approved landscape plan of record.
~ To any new development or any modification ~ o__f existing development_.
~ T_~hat portion of the site which is being newly developed or modified must comply with
the requirements contained herein.
~ To any modification to existing development ~ which results
in an increase of 25% ~f in the gross floor area of the structure, or structures, situated on the site._
Iin wF2ch such cases the entire site shall be upgraded to present landscape standards~._
Section 2. That Chapter 4, "Supplemental District Regulations," Section 4.6.16,
"Landscape Regulations" of the Land Development regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Delray Beach is hereby amended, by amending subsection 4.6.16(C) "Compliance and
Relief', and by enacting a new subsection 4.6.16(C), to read as follows:
{C) Compliance. Review: Appeal, and Relief:
(1) Compliance:
(a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a structure or ae, y a
paving permit ,^' "'~^' + ........ ,4 ...... Al.. ~C 1 ~.,.1 ....
~v;~+:~ ~:+~ ~v~,,a: .... :~+;"~ ~;"~ family
~ compliance with the requirements of t,uJs Section
4.6.16 shall be assured through the review and approval of a
landscape plan submitted pursuant to Section 2.4.3(C).
(b) Prior to upgrading landscaping on an existing site a landscape plan
shall be submitted which shall:
1._:. Be drawn to scale consistent with the site plan with
crowded areas provided in a larger scale presentation.
2_. Clearly delineate the existing and proposed parking spaces
or other vehicular use areas, access aisles, sidewalks,
building locations and similar features.
3_. Contain a Statement of intent as to the method and
coverage of irrigation (irrigation systems require a separate
permit).
2 ORD. NO. 22-96
4_:. Designate by name and location the plant material to be
installed or preserved.
5__:. Show location of overhead lines and utility easements.
Show proposed or existing locations of refuse areas and
methods of screening.
Show proposed or existing locations of free standing signs.
(2) Review: The Landscape Compliance Review Committee is hereby created.
Landscape plans for the upgrading of existing properties shall be reviewed by the Landscape
Compliance Review Committee. The Committee will be comprised of two people from the
Planning and Zoning Department, two people from the Community Improvement Department and
the City Engineer. The City Manager will appoint the staff members to the Committee. The
purpose of the Committee will be to review landscape plans for existing duplex, industrial,
commercial and multi-family properties to determine if the plans meet the minimum required
standards.
(~ Appeals: Appeal from the Landscape Compliance Review Committee shall
be to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board or the Historic Preservation Board as
applicable. Appeal from the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board or the Historic Preservation
Board shall be to the City Commission.
(-29(4) Relief.' Relief from the provisions of this Section shall only be granted
through the waiver process [Section 2 4 7(B)] ..... · ~{ *~ ~]1, ~ ..... ~ ~ ..... ~ ~
waiver 5c, m +u~,,~ ...... F,~, ,,o,,,,,o1~; .... ,.,,~e +1~1~,~o ~,,~,~a,,~-+;"" o~,~,~"h~11 l~,u,~ ~ the City Commission~ Site Plan Review and
Appearance Board or Historic Preservation Board as applicable.
Section 3. That Chapter 4, "Supplemental District Regulations", Section 4.6.16,
"Landscape Regulations" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, is hereby
amended by amending Section 4.6.16(H), "Minimum Landscape Requirements", by amending
subsection 4.6.16(H)(4), "Existing Multiple Family, Commercial, and Industrial Development", to
read as follows:
(4) Existing Multiple Family, Duplex, Commercial, and Industrial
Development: All existing multi-family unit% duplexes, and commercial and industrial uses tkat
· ..+:1 F'~+~'I,.~. I, l l"~t~'l +~ ply pi
................. , ,,, corn with the minimum standards for landsca ng as follows:
(a) Provide for perimeter landscaping adjacent to public rights-of-way
to screen vehicular parking, open-lot sales, service and storage
areas to the extent physically possible and deemed feasible by the
.................. , ........ er ....... n sca e om ance
Review Committee. Elimination of parking spaces required by
3 ORD. NO. 22-96
code will not be permitted to upgrade landscaping, however, the
deletion of parking spaces in excess of code requirements will be
required if they are in areas that will facilitate the required
implementation of the minimum landscape requirements for existing
development contained herein.
'~ right-
(b) Provide sod and irrigation within the ........ ,--v,--
of-way between the property line and the edge of pavement of the
adjacent ' ~'' ~c
ng .....way travel lane. The removal of existing asphalt
may be required within the area between the property line and the
edge of pavement of the adjacent travel lane.
(c) Provide screening for all dumpsters and refuse areas and all ground
level air-conditioning units and mechanical equipment. Adequacy
of screening shall be determined by the $:.te P!~ P, eviev; and
Landscape Compliance Review Committee.
(d) Foundation landscaping shall be provided for building elevations
that are visible from adjacent rights-of-way.
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
that the part declared to be invalid.
Section 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances which conflict herewith be and the
same is hereby repealed.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective after its passage on second and final
reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the
215t day of May ,199&
ATTEST:
City Clerk ' - -// '
First Reading May 7, 19 9 6
Second Reading. May 21, 1 9 9 6
4 ORD. NO. 22-96
MEETING OF: APRIL 15, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: IV. E.AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTIONS 4.6.16(B), (C),
AND (H)(4) WHICH RELATES TO COMPLIANCE
WITH MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
FOR EXISTING PROPERTIES
The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the City Commission
regarding amendments to LDR Sections 4.6.16(B) Ap.olicability, (C) Com.oliance and
Relief, and (H)(4) Existing Multi.Die Family Commercial. and Industrial Development of
the Landscape Regulations within the Land Development Regulations (LDR's)
regarding compliance with minimum landscape requirements for existing properties.
With the adoption of the LDR's in October, 1990, a landscape ordinance was approved
which set forth minimum landscape requirements for all existing properties with the
exception of single family residences. These landscape requirements became effective
on October 1, 1993, and in general require the following upgrades to properties:
· provision of perimeter landscaping around parking lots adjacent to public
rights-of-way;
· screening dumpsters;
· provision of foundation landscaping for those sides of the buildings visible
from adjacent rights-of-way; and
· provision of sod and irrigation in the swale areas contiguous to the subject
property.
In 1992, the City issued courtesy violation notices, and in 1994, began the task of
issuing the actual Notice of Violation. To date approximately 50% of the cited properties
have come into compliance with the minimum landscape requirements. The ordinance
has now been enforced for approximately two years. Several problems with the original
language have been discovered, and need to be changed to better enforce the original
intent of the code, clarify wording, and provide a description of the review process.
P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report
LDR Text Amendment
Page 2
LDR Section 4.6.16(B) Applicability_
The proposed changes to this section in general clarify that the landscape regulations
apply only to those single family residences built after October 1, 1990; and provides
specific language that all existing developments (i.e. commercial, industrial, and
multiple family developments including duplexes, but excluding single family dwellings)
are required to comply with the minimum landscape requirements regardless of when
they were built.
As currently written, duplexes are not specifically listed as a structure which needs to
comply with the minimum landscape requirements. In addition, the current code only
requires that properties built prior to 1971 comply. This was the year that the
Landscape Regulations were adopted, and it was presumed that the landscape plan of
record for properties built after 1971 could be referred to for compliance, and properties
could be cited under the maintenance provisions of the code. However, the landscape
plan of record for the property could not always be found or provided. Also, some of
the provisions in the minimum landscape requirements such as the screening of
dumpsters, providing sod and irrigation in the right-of-way, and the provision of
foundation plantings were not requirements in 1971. The revised ordinance will apply
to all existing developments regardless of when they were built.
LDR Section 4.6.16(C) Compliance and Relief
Under the Compliance section, distinctions will be made between the requirements in
the preparation of the plans submitted for new structures and requirements in the
preparation of plans submitted for upgrading existing properties due to the minimum
landscape requirements. Provisions for Review and Appeals will be added to this
section. The Landscape Compliance Review Committee will be officially created to
review the landscape plans for existing developments to determine if the plans meet
minimum required standards. Appeals from the Landscape Compliance Review
Committee will be to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board or the Historic
Preservation Board, with a provision for appeals from these Boards to the City
Commission. The Relief section for waivers remains the same.
LDR Section 4.6.t6(H)(4) Existing Multiple Family. Commercial, and Industrial
This section of the code explains what type of upgrades are required of existing
properties to comply with the minimum landscape requirements (i.e. provision of
perimeter landscaping adjacent to rights-of-way, screening of dumpsters, etc.).
Proposed changes to this section include clarification that duplexes are considered a
multiple family structure which must comply with minimum landscape requirements, and
P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report
LDR Text Amendment
Page 3
the 1971 date has been removed for reasons as described above.
The Landscape Compliance and Review Committee is given the authority to approve
the plans for compliance with minimum landscape requirements for existing properties
instead of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board or the Historic Preservation
Board, which will expedite the process. Lastly, the code states that sod and irrigation is
to be provided within the unpaved portion of the right-of-way between the property line
and the edge of pavement of the adjacent travel lane. This item has been changed to
include language which may require the asphalt to be removed within this area. The
removal of asphalt will help to eliminate extensive areas of paving within the rights-of-
way that impede drainage.
1. Continue with direction.
2. Recommend approval of the LDR amendments to Section 4.6.16(B), (C), (H)(4).
3. Recommend denial of the LDR amendments with reason stated.
By motion, recommend approval of the amendments to LDR Sections 4.6.16(B)
Applicability_, (C) Compliance and Relief, and (H)(4) Existing Multiple Family
Commercial. and Industrial Development. of the Land Development Regulations to the
City Commission.
Attachments:
· Ordinance By Others
COMMENTS FROM CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996
11. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the
Public - Immediately following Public Hearings.
11. City Manager's response to prior public comments and
inquiries.
11.A. In response to Mr. Charles Owen's inquiry about the
placement of his recreational vehicle, the City Manager reported
that staff met with him on May 16th. Mr. Owen advised that he
will be out of town for about 2-1/2 months. During this time
staff will look into the various procedures and possible
alternative solutions to assist Mr. Owen with his problem.
In response to Jean Beer's inquiry regarding banners at
automobile dealerships, the City Manager stated that there had
been a question about the Chief Building Official's
interpretation of a flag and a banner. This has since been
clarified internally and the City has determined that the items
displayed at the Acura dealership are banners. Contact has been
made with the manager at Acura and he has resisted coming into
voluntary compliance with the code. Therefore, the City has
cited the dealership. The manager of the Acura dealership has
advised that he may litigate the matter.
The City Manager continued that the delineators in the
ground at the Mitsubishi and Suzuki dealerships were installed to
protect the landscaping along Federal Highway. The Isuzu
dealership installed the same type delineators along Avenue "L"
for the same reason. These delineators were removed by the
dealerships after we checked with FDOT and were informed that
FDOT would not allow the delineators along state road
right-of-way.
Regarding Charlotte Wright's complaint about having her
water turned off, the City Manager reported that Ms. Wright lives
at the service location with another individual, Mr. Spells, who
has previously informed the City that if there are any problems,
we are to contact him. Ail bills, reminder notices and door
hangers have gone to the correct address as established by the
Utility Billing master file. Since 1990, this account has
received 17 delinquent notices, has had 20 late payments, and has
been processed for cut-off 15 separate times. The latest status
of this account is that Mr. Spells has paid the entire amount and
it is paid in full and current. Again, Mr. Spells has asked that
the City work with him rather than Ms. Wright.
In regard to a comment at an earlier meeting that,
among other things, Delray Beach is the only water system in Palm
Beach County which fluoridates its water, the City Manager
reported that the cities of West Palm Beach and Belle Glade also
fluoridate and, in Broward County, about 90% of the cities there
fluoridate their water.
ll.B. From the Public.
11.B.1. GeorHe English, owner of the Paradise Club, stated that
for the last four years the City has been trying to close the
Paradise Club with a County nuisance ordinance designed to close
residential property. He stated no one has been arrested in his
facility for selling drugs, nor are there any Police reports to
indicate that anyone has ever been arrested. Further, he has
been unable to get from the Police department the names of those
people who are allegedly selling drugs in front of his business.
Mr. English feels the Paradise Club is being blamed for every
problem which occurs on West Atlantic Avenue.
11.B.2. Bill Andrews, 801 Palm Trail, State Representative,
stated that the Governor will probably sign into law the Charter
School bill. Mr. Andrews suggested that the City's Education
Board may want to look into the concept of charter schools as
well as schools in the municipal area which may lend themselves
to such a concept.
Mr. Andrews commented on the previous mention of the
banners at the Acura dealership on South Federal Highway. He was
somewhat concerned to see the banners being displayed since he
feels they are clearly signs and should be treated as such. He
further cautioned against any lessening of standards which would
detract from the efforts which had been made to improve the
appearance of the dealerships on South Federal Highway.
Thirdly, Mr. Andrews commented on an article in the May
20th issue of The Monday Paper, page 4, regarding the Golf Course
Clubhouse expansion as a money maker. He expressed concern over
the statement made by the City's Finance Director, "This will
have no impact on the General Fund." Mr. Andrews was of the
opinion that excess revenues from anything the City is doing
would go into the General Fund. If the Golf Course had no debt
service on it or if it was making more money than it needed,
where would the money go? If it does go into the General Fund,
then it is mixed with ad valorem taxes. So when the City comes
up with a final budget and needs "X" number of dollars, whatever
is coming out of the golf course does affect the General Fund.
Mr. Andrews clarified that he is concerned with this statement as
a policy issue and a thought process.
11.B.3. Joe Kamarata, 764 Avocet Road, distributed pictures of
various newsracks which he felt might be helpful to the
Commission in the deliberations on this matter.
Secondly, Mr. Kamarata commented on the street flooding
on Lindell Boulevard between Federal Highway and Dixie Highway.
-2-
With the rainy season approaching, he asked that this problem be
addressed as soon as possible.
11.B.4. Cheryl Barnard, owner of Barnard's Carpet Barn,
expressed her concern about the Economic Incentive Grant
Agreement which the City recently entered into with ABC Carpet,
and the impact she feels it will have on existing retail
businesses in the area. She stated there has been a lack of
communication with the retailers and there are many people who
did not know anything about the deal. She feels the City is
bringing in a decorating service center that will be in direct
competition with local and downtown merchants as well as the
carpet retailers and asked that the Commission reconsider the
agreement.
11.B.5. Ernie Surles, owner of Delray Rug Company, stated that
he feels bringing ABC Carpet into the city will hurt the smaller
retailers and downtown merchants and asked that the Commission
reconsider the agreement.
11.B.6. Richard DeSantis, H & H Carpets and Delray Furniture,
stated he feels the City should look at the product that ABC
Carpet is bringing to town and try to figure out where the
$10-$12 million dollars in business that they are going to do at
this store is going to come from. He is concerned with the
impact this will have on the local retailers and asked the
Commission to reconsider their decision.
11.B.7. Ed McCall, 3909 Maurice Drive, asked the City to
reconsider and get out of the agreement with ABC Carpet if it is
at all possible. He questioned why ABC Carpet is being given
favored status as opposed to existing, vital businesses already
in the community, and why occupational license fees are going to
be used to directly subsidize competition. Mr. McCall stated he
felt the intent of the City's economic incentive program should
be to attract headquarter-type companies, high tech or
manufacturing firms; not competitive businesses which may well
destroy existing businesses.
Mr. Randolph questioned why the retailers speaking
above had not expressed their feelings and opinions regarding ABC
Carpet to the Commission at an earlier date? Cheryl Barnard,
speaking on behalf of the retailers, stated they did not know
about the negotiations between ABC Carpet and the City because,
understandably, there were private discussions being held and not
much publicity about it. However, once it became public that it
had been done, Ms. Barnard felt the retailers have been quick to
make their concerns known.
13. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items.
-3-
13.A. City Manager
With respect to the ABC Carpet contract, the City
Manager reported that the first newspaper article which appeared
on this matter was on March 20, 1996, in The Palm Beach Post,
headline "ABC Carpet and Home Furnishings to open store in
Delray". In the middle of the article it states: "Delray Beach
Mayor Tom Lynch is negotiating incentives to help ABC make the
move but will not comment on details. Assistance will be modeled
on state enterprise zone incentives." There was also an article
in the March 21, 1996 issue of The Delray Times headlined "Carpet
Company moving into old Kraft building", but it did not mention
any kind of incentive package. The last article was published on
April 3, 1996 in The Palm Beach Post and was headlined "Delray
weighs $200,000 plan to lure Retailer". It reported, "Officials
are working on a plan that would pay ABC Carpet and Home
Furnishings for the jobs it would add". This article was
published one week before the contract was approved by the
Commission, and goes into considerable detail about the terms of
the contract and how the incentives were structured. The City
Manager stated it is unfortunate that some individuals failed to
pick up on this; however, he feels the issue regarding ABC Carpet
was adequately publicized. He further stated that the matter
will be discussed at the Chamber Board meeting on Wednesday, May
22nd, and he will have copies of these news articles available.
Although they were not aware of the details of the
agreement, Mr. Egan reported that the Chamber of Commerce and the
Council of 100 were both fully aware that the City was working
with ABC Carpet for over a year to bring them to Delray Beach.
In regard to the upcoming 4th of July holiday, the City
Manager stated that last year since the 4th of July fell on a
Tuesday, the City did not open City Hall to the public on Monday,
July 3rd. Employees were encouraged to take vacation and those
who did not have vacation time or did not want to take it were
allowed to come in to work. Since the 4th of July falls on a
Thursday this year, the City Manager asked the Commission to
consider doing the same this year by closing City Hall to the
public on July 5th (Friday) and giving employees the option of
either working or taking vacation time. The Commission
concurred.
13.B. City Attorney
The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries.
13.C. City Couunission
13.C.1. Mr. Ellingsworth
In reference to the letter that was written some time
ago regarding the City's commitment to a funding contribution in
support of the convention center if it were to be located in Boca
-4-
Raton, Mr. Ellingsworth inquired if it would be wise for the City
to write another letter, indicating the City is withdrawing
support since the County is no longer interested in going ahead
with the convention center at that site.
The City Manager stated he would review the letter for
a determination.
13.C.2. Mr. Eqan
Mr. Egan had no comments or inquiries.
13.C.3. Mr. Randolph
Mr. Randolph expressed his dismay about a letter dated
May 1, 1996 from the Delray Beach Historical Society to the EPOCH
Committee, in care of Mrs. Vera Farrington. At Commission's
direction, the EPOCH Committee was to contact the Delray Beach
Historical Society for the purpose of discussing the inclusion of
the Spady House, among other sites, as a vital historic area.
Mr. Randolph stated he is incensed with the response received
from Mr. Cullen. He does not agree with what he perceives as
written innuendo contained in the letter and asked the City
Manager to speak with Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Randolph inquired as to the current status of the
fees for the Pompey Park pool. Me stated that before Mayor Lynch
left the Commission, he asked about the possibility of
eliminating the fees. Mr. Randolph feels something needs to be
done soon since the summer months are approaching.
In response, the City Manager noted that a response had
been made to former Mayor Lynch's inquiry and the Commission had
agreed to let the fees remain, although the opportunity would be
provided for young people to earn credits through work programs
toward use of the pool. Mr. Randolph responded that these
provisions apparently are not working, so perhaps Commission
needs to take another look at this issue, possibly at workshop.
Lastly, Mr. Randolph stated he feels the press did an
adequate job of publicizing the situation with ABC Carpet.
However, in the future, perhaps the City should think on a
broader scale in terms of who is going to be affected and
obtaining their input.
13.C.4. Ms. Kiselewski
Regarding the invitation to the June 5th Economic
Development Meeting with the Municipal League, Ms. Kiselewski
stated that she will try to attend this meeting.
13.C.5. Mayor Alperin
Mayor Alperin had no comments or inquiries.
-5-
(treetings Vera,
I have complot~xi review of the documents outlining your efforts to establish
the EPOCH Commiitee and facilitate the purchase of the Spady property for
a mu~um. My purpose was to ~termine what has been done So far, and
what neoda to bo done. :
After two moetings of the DBH$ Board, at which the c~eation of the EPOCH
Committee was discussed, objectivos still seem to be unclear. The DBHS is
looking for clr, ar, specific objectives from the EPOCH Committe~. The
following idcas have been voiced. Does EPOCH deem any or all of these as
objectives?
1. To restore the Spady Home
2.~To establish a DelraY BeaChhiStoiic district for'Afro~AmericaPsCl '
3~ To proserve tho cultural heritase of the West Atlantic area
How you intend to reach any of these objectives is still unclear.
The DBHS assumes the flint step is to formulate a "Charier" for the EP(~H
group and incorporate into a Not-For-Profit 501 (c) 3 organization. 'While
that is beitag effected, you must sot-up a meaningful Master Plan to chart the
course you want to follow. To do this you need to write the specifics you are
trying to re~h. (try an example, please s¢¢ the at/ached)
I would suggest you start by filing for a 501 (c) 3 Truzt..In going through
thia proc~ you will develop a number of parts to includo in your Master
P~an. In tho mcan time, work steadily on the over. ali Plan.
NOW--where does the Delray Beach Historic Society fit in?
After many yeats of operation, thc DBHS ia far from reaching the objectives
established in their Charter. Operationally, they must COntinue to support the
Archive Room--The Cason Cottage-- and now the Delray Beach FEC Depot.
' 'II,~Y- ?-g8 I~,ED 11:18 t.,. uo
Memorandum
April 30, 1996
Page Two
This does not proclud~ providing assistanc,~ to other Community Historic
pro'octs.~ The type of assistan~ providod by the DBHS should be written, and
bo m realistic terrm. This includes TIME--TALENTS--SCHEDU~. The
DBHS has always viewed their Charter to include the "whole" of Delmy
Beach and not to be limitod to any specific aroa or geography.
~-[n our me~ing wc discussed some objectives from both EPOCH and the
DBHS. During the discussion a phrase evolved stating the ElK)CH
Committee would operate 'under the umbrella of the DBitS," I have not
boon ablc to un<bt'stand what that means. My understanding was that the
EPOCH Committee intended to operate separately and maintain their own
identity. I also hcm-d that the Historic district envisioned was a distinct
section of Delray Bc~h in the West Atlantic area.
Regardless, wc do need to do some "homework" to d~termine how to
grapple with these ideas.
Vera, will you please discuss these ideas with your Commitl~ and then give
me a call. If we need a meeting to further clarify this issue, let's do jozt that,
Robert E. Cullen
Board-DBHS
copy to- Roy Simoa, Board
Sally Gold, Board
Mary Swtnford, Director
Fritz Devitt, President
iattaehn~)
EPOCH COMMATTEE MASTER PLAN
Specifically you need to develop a plan l~ke what follows ....
~CTION # 1
Scope and purpose of your organization
A summary of results you expect
SECTION #2
Business/Activity
Area of your opcratlons-(wwn/section/trade area)
Your Products (Le., education-information-etc.)
~ON#3
EnvlronmentJCornpetition
Bconomlc area
ResldenttaVcommerclal
Governmenv'Cor~nunity support
Availability of labor/materials
~ON #4
Capabilities/Opportunities
Key results feasible
Major strengt~./Weaknes$
Problems/Opposition
SECTION #S
Objectives/Goals
Income Needed
Type ami number of Produc~z
Customers/$ uppor~ers
Plan-! year/2 year$/$ years/10 years
SF, CrlON # 6
Policies/Procedures
Planntng; process
Budget Process
Programs/Activities
Areaz of action
SECTION #7
Priorities/Schedules
Progrm~ Calendar
Activities List by dates
Organ~Oon Growth Schedule
SECTION # 8
Organization/Delegation
CHART-Who reports to w~hom ?
Staff-Who does What and when ?
Define what is to be done by each Job
O. uallflca~tons of Individuals ?
SECHON # 9
Budget/Resources
Income F~cpected
Expenses Anticipated
Revenue Sources ?
Contributions ?
If this appears to be a bit overwhelming don't be alarmed. Anything
worth doing is going to be trying and will test your commitment,
There is a tendency to NOT do the Basic work first and the Plan
crumbles because of no foundation.
1
.... I ...... i
EECE VED
CITY CLERK * * * * *
CLOSED ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION PURSUANT TO F.S. 286.011(8)
IN RE:
VERNA COOK, JAMES COOK, ROEL RITFELD,
JULIUS MITCHELL, IVERY WILLIAMS AND MICHAEL LUCAS
VS.
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
ORIGINAL
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1996
9:15 - 9:40 P.M.
100 NORTHWEST FIRST AVENUE
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
* * * ~ *
REPORTER: CHARLA (NIKI) WILLIAMS, CVR, NOTARY PUBLIC
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
2
APPEARANCES
MAYOR JAY ALPERIN
COMMISSIONER KAREN KISELEWSKI
COMMISSIONER KEVIN EGAN
COMMISSIONER KEN ELLINGSWORTH
COMMISSIONER DAVID RANDOLPH
DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
SUSAN A. RUBY, ESQUIRE, CITY ATTORNEY
LEONARD CARSON, ESQUIRE, COUNSEL FOR CITY OF DELRAY
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 THE COURT REPORTER: My name is Charla Williams,
3 Certified Verbatim Reporter, with Sun Coast Reporters. The
4 date is May 21, 1996, and the time is 9:15 p.m. This is a
5 closed attorney/client session pursuant to Florida Statute
6 286.011(8) with regard to the litigation of Verna Cook, James
7 Cook, Roel Ritfeld, Julius Mitchell, Ivery Williams and
8 Michael Lucas versus the City of Delray Beach.
9 Present at this session are Mayor Jay Alperin;
10 Commissioners David Randolph; Ken Ellingsworth; Karen
11 Kiselewski; and Kevin Egan; City Manager, David Harden; City
12 Attorney, Susan Ruby; and counsel for the City, Leonard
13 Carson.
14 MS. RUBY: The reason we decided to try this closed
15 session is just because it's obviously an important case and
16 to try to give you -- we haven't been able to get numbers back
17 from them really that are solid numbers and so it's sort of
18 difficult to advise you in a public setting at this point,
19 especially when we have the appellate issue before us, whether
20 we need to appeal or not. This session though has to be
21 limited to those settlement discussions and limited also to
22 money issues regarding the litigation, so that's why we have
23 the appellate decision issue to make later, but some of those
24 issues may play on whether we want to settle or not, so it's
25 sort of an odd thing. I'm going to turn it over to Leonard
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
4
1 Carson who's going to try to outline for you what has happened
2 in our settlement discussions as far as money goes. You've
3 already been briefed on some of the issues. If you feel that
4 we need to go over again those six or so appellate issues, we
5 can, but it might be better for us to not do that at this
6 point unless you have questions and then, of course, you can
7 ask us, but strictly tell you where we are on the money.
8 MAYOR ALPERIN: Before you start, just to make sure
9 everybody understands, this is being recorded and this will be
10 public record so anything you say, although it's not being
11 heard publicly now, it can be picked up by the press at a
12 later time, so keep that in mind with our comments.
13 MR. CARSON: We have a deadline coming up for filing the
14 notice of appeal and this is one of the reasons why we need to
15 make a decision as to what we're doing with respect to the
16 settlement.
17 Let me talk just for a moment about the potential for
18 settlement, why we would want to settle. Obviously, one of
19 the important reasons would be to put the matter behind us and
20 move on. We would also like to avoid, in the event of an
21 unsuccessful appeal, the accrual of additional attorney's
22 fees, both ourself as well as for the lawyers representing the
23 plaintiffs. These costs can be significant. There's also a
24 potential for -- the plaintiffs are entitled to some type of
25 injunctive relief. The injunctive relief could be costly and
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
5
1 disruptive in itself to our operations and so we would like to
2 avoid that, if at all possible. So we've got some valid
3 reasons for attempting to settle without going to an appeal.
4 Now, what we've done so far, there's been an exchange of
5 offers and demands with the understanding that we did not have
6 any specific authority to do this and it would be subject, of
7 course, to your approval, but we had to explore the issue with
8 the lawyers representing the plaintiffs and so we have done
9 that. There's been an exchange of communications,
10 conversations, telephone calls, et cetera. Right now the last
11 word we received from the lawyers -- now, they've been working
12 together as a group and they have essentially one spokesman
13 who gets together with all the other lawyers and tries to
14 transmit the point of view. As of today, we received a
15 communication that they would be willing to forego interest
16 which has accrued on the judgments. The plaintiffs, though,
17 are unwilling right now to reduce their judgment, their
18 verdict amounts, so the lawyers are willing to reduce the
19 amount of their fees by seven percent. And one of the law
20 firms, we took issue with a rate that the lawyer was asking
21 for and so they've agreed to reduce the rate on that
22 particular lawyer.
23 We haven't gotten to the point -- there's been some
24 movement on our part and very little movement on their part.
25 The most critical thing right now is that they are asking for
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
6
1 injunctive relief which would essentially involve the
2 appointment of a monitor or special master to follow our
3 program along. I suspect that that is likely to fade in
4 significance if we resolve the money issue. And what we're
5 essentially looking for from you would be, I would say that it
6 would be in our interest to settle the case if we could
7 because of the costs implicit in the appeal and what I'm
8 looking for is some broad authority from you because my
9 feeling would be that if we could settle the case by resolving
10 the injunctive relief, to get rid of that, it would be
11 important to the City and invaluable to us; and if we could
12 reduce the dollars by any amount, that would be important to
13 us as well. We would like to do it even if we had to do it on
14 an individual basis. They have raised this question. Some of
15 them are more interested than others in settling, and I would
16 suggest that we ought to consider seriously breaking them
17 apart and settling with individual plaintiffs, if at all
18 possible.
19 With respect to the appellate issues, I don't want to get
20 into the merits and the arguments of the respective appeals.
21 I think it's suffice to say that if we were able to get what
22 we consider to be an appropriate settlement and did not find
23 it necessary to appeal, that would be the best for the City.
24 However, I would want you to put us in a situation where if we
25 were unable to get what we consider to be an effective,
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
7
1 appropriate solution for settlement in our interest, then we
2 would file an appeal because without that avenue being open to
3 us, we obviously are not in a good bargaining position. I
4 think that there obviously -- we've discussed with Susan and
5 there are issues that can be raised on appeal. We have valid
6 grounds for doing so, but our recommendation would be that if
7 we can get an appropriate settlement short of filing an
8 appeal, that would be better, and that's where we would like
9 to be.
10 I'll take any questions you have. I'm purposely trying
11 to avoid getting into a lot of detail here because I don't
12 think it's necessary if I can avoid it, but I'll answer your
13 questions.
14 MR. ELLINGSWORTH: Two questions. If we do appeal, do we
15 still have to pay their attorney's fees if we don't prevail?
16 MR. CARSON: If you do not prevail, yes, and I would
17 estimate -- we also have costs. We had a two-week trial. You
18 would have the costs of the record preparation. There would
19 have to be a transcript typed up of the two-week trial and
20 we're talking about several thousands of dollars for that. We
21 would have -- I guess our estimate would probably be it could
22 be a hundred and fifty thousand dollars or more in additional
23 charges if it were lost because we would have unrecoverable
24 costs, lawyers' fees for ourselves, and then we would have
25 accrual of additional lawyers' fees on the other side if you
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
8
1 lost.
2 MR. ELLINGSWORTH: You're asking to leave the appeal
3 issue open as a bargaining -- I don't want to use the word
4 bargaining, but --
5 MR. CARSON: I would like to say this. My position would
6 be that if we got a settlement which we felt was in the best
7 interest of Delray Beach, we would not file the appeal because
8 I think such a settlement would be satisfactory to us and the
9 better of the options, but if we don't get a satisfactory
10 settlement, then I would want to be in a position where we
11 could file the appeal and we would move forward in that vein.
12 MR. EGAN: The settlement as it stands now is seven
13 eighty-six roughly?
14 MR. CARSON: Let me get to it. The total amount?
15 MR. EGAN: Excluding the attorneys' fees.
16 MS. RUBY: It's sort of been lumped together. Their
17 latest demands haven't been separated out like that.
18 MR. EGAN: All right. Well, what I'm getting at, so the
19 total figure --
20 MS. RUBY: Let's see.
21 MR. CARSON: Total figure verdict and fees right now is
22 one million two forty-two seven thirty-five.
23 MR. EGAN: All right. You keep saying if we can get --
24 if you can get an appropriate settlement. In dollar figures,
25 what do you consider appropriate?
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
9
1 MS. RUBY: Well, we have obviously the verdicts, you
2 know, as they are, seven hundred and sixty or so, and then we
3 have attorneys' fees of five thirty-three perhaps, something
4 like that, and that's without the interest. Okay? And then
5 we have some potentially onerous problems with injunctive
6 relief to the operation of our police department. That's a
7 real concern.
8 MR. CARSON: Clearly any --
9 MS. RUBY: I think that's the authority we need.
10 MR. CARSON: Clearly any settlement that I would find
11 satisfactory enough to settle would have to give us a
12 resolution on favorable terms to us of the injunctive relief.
13 That is critical to us. It would either have to be modified
14 such that it was not onerous to the City or done away with
15 completely. That would be item number one.
16 Obviously the reduction of dollars is item number two,
17 and I'm reluctant to give you a specific number on that
18 because I think the two of them are related as far as the
19 plaintiffs are concerned and I think that if we -- to the
20 extent we resolve injunctive relief favorable to our terms the
21 money demand from the plaintiffs is likely to be higher, but
22 on balance, I place the greater emphasis on the injunctive
23 relief because that is going to be something carrying on for
24 a period of time with attendant costs and burdens to it and
25 that's about as much as I would prefer to say, if I could.
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
10
1 MR. ELLINGSWORTH: You can --
2 MR. CARSON: Yes.
3 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry?
4 MS. RUBY: Can you say that again?
5 MR. ELLINGSWORTH: You can deal with the attorneys
6 individually?
7 MR. CARSON: Yes, sir. They have been operating through
8 a spokesman. We have had individual discussions with some of
9 them from time to time, but they keep getting back to the
10 individual spokesman. One of the problems and the reason I
11 think we need to be open to settling with individuals is some
12 of them have reasons for not wanting to settle and others do
13 not, and my view is that we ought not to look at them as a
14 monolithic group; we ought to break them apart if it serves
15 our interest.
16 MR. ELLINGSWORTH: Makes sense.
17 MAYOR ALPERIN: On a best case scenario, what do you
18 think we could save?
19 MS. RUBY: Five.
20 MR. CARSON: Five percent of the amount.
21 MAYOR ALPERIN: So you're talking about --
22 MR. CARSON: Well, right now --
23 MAYOR ALPERIN: -- sixty thousand dollars?
24 MR. CARSON: Let me see. I have a number here. Just a
25 second.
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
11
1 MAYOR ALPERIN: One percent would be twelve thousand.
2 MR. HARDEN: Close to thirteen.
3 MR. CARSON: Thirteen thousand, yes.
4 MAYOR ALPERIN: So five percent is about eighty thousand
5 -- sixty-five thousand.
6 MR. CARSON: Sixty-five thousand, somewhere in that
7 neighborhood, yes. I wouldn't want to be pinned down on that
8 because --
9 MAYOR ALPERIN: How long do you think that would take to
10 accomplish that and what would our attorneys' fees cost?
11 MR. CARSON: Well, I would like to resolve it before the
12 thirty-first when we've got a deadline, and we've been working
13 on this regularly because the whole idea is once you come to
14 that appellate point in time, then the other costs are going
15 to be increasing and part of their offer, as I understood it,
16 was that they would -- their fees -- it wasn't stated very
17 well, but I think the notion they were trying to give us is
18 they would cut off the fees as of right now and I want to stop
19 that as soon as possible. I don't want their fees to continue
20 to climb.
21 MAYOR ALPERIN: Now, you're saying that their fees are
22 about five hundred thousand and they're willing to reduce it
23 seven percent?
24 MR. CARSON: At this point, they have offered to reduce
25 it by seven percent.
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
12
1 MAYOR ALPERIN: Which would be like thirty-five thousand?
2 MR. CARSON: Seven times thirteen. Wait a minute.
3 MR. HARDEN: Seven times --
4 MAYOR ALPERIN: No, their attorney fees.
5 MR. CARSON: Yeah.
6 MAYOR ALPERIN: So it's about five thousand times
7 thirteen times seven is thirty-five thousand?
8 MR. CARSON: Right.
9 MAYOR ALPERIN: So we're talking about saving thirty-five
10 thousand right now as opposed to fighting and getting sixty-
11 five thousand at best case is what you're saying?
12 MR. CARSON: No, no, no.
13 MAYOR ALPERIN: That's what I'm trying to find out.
14 MR. CARSON: The reason for the confusion, Mr. Alperin,
15 is that we've got one item that doesn't have a dollar figure
16 attached to it from their standpoint. That's injunctive
17 relief. And then we've got the other item which is fees.
18 What they have said is we will reduce our fees by seven
19 percent, but we want this particular injunctive relief. The
20 injunctive relief is absolutely --
21 MS. RUBY: Onerous.
22 MR. CARSON: -- unpalatable to us. We cannot do it.
23 MAYOR ALPERIN: What is the injunctive relief?
24 MS. RUBY: Appointment of a special master.
25 MR. CARSON: Let me read it to you as they proposed it.
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
13
1 They would want a consent decree, not a release, a consent
2 decree providing for the appointment of a monitor or special
3 master to identify all available overtime for off-duty details
4 and to review the current distribution system of these details
5 to determine its fairness; appointment of a monitor or special
6 master to oversee or supervise the City's investigations into
7 future complaints of discrimination to ensure their design to
8 identify and eradicate discrimination; and appointment of a
9 monitor or special master to examine any adverse employment
10 actions taken against any of the remaining plaintiffs to
11 ensure they are not being taken for retaliatory reasons. The
12 City would be responsible for the costs of the monitor or
13 special master as well as for the fees of the plaintiffs and
14 attorneys in the event their required to get involved in
15 future matters. The extent of the foregoing equitable relief
16 is subject to negotiation is the City is willing to resolve
17 this matter at this stage. That's why I want to act on it
18 now.
19 MR. RANDOLPH: I could understand why the City basically
20 would not want the full package on injunctive relief; however,
21 many of the things that has gone on that put us in this
22 position will continue provided we don't do something about
23 those things, so I'm not so totally against injunctive relief.
24 MR. CARSON: Mr. Randolph, if we could put it in a
25 different term, I agree with your position that there are
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
14
1 steps that could be taken to avoid problems in the future. I
2 think those are steps that have already been discussed by the
3 City administration. They can be done appropriately by the
4 City and should and will be done, but it would be better not
5 to have that done with the involvement of the plaintiffs'
6 attorneys who have the opportunity to inject themselves into
7 the process and cost us money in doing so.
8 MR. RANDOLPH: What guarantees do we have that this will
9 be done by current administration? Not that I want to harp on
10 anyone, but it has not happened over the years, and that's my
11 concern, and that's a personal concern of mine.
12 MR. CARSON: Actually the -- let me bring you back a
13 moment to address that. One positive result of the case was
14 the conclusion by the jury obviously that with the bringing in
15 of the new administration the past had changed considerably in
16 Delray Beach. Now, whether we want to quibble about the
17 verdict or not, I think that it was clear, and if you look at
18 the press reports that followed the case, the plaintiffs'
19 lawyers themselves said, without any urging by anyone else,
20 that things were quite different now. Now, that doesn't mean
21 that we ought not to learn from the case and take appropriate
22 steps. I think we should. But I think that by the
23 plaintiffs' lawyers own admission, things have already changed
24 through the new administration. That would be the best answer
25 I could give you as to why do we have comfort that it can be
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
15
1 done; because it's been proven so in the steps --
2 MR. RANDOLPH: On the other hand, if I were any of those
3 people who had to return to the department after getting a
4 judgment by a legally constituted court, I would not feel
5 comfortable because, let's face it, they're going to endure
6 some things that they shouldn't have to endure. And the
7 reason I say this, and I'm going to say this from the heart,
8 is because we have a polished apple effect over there, and the
9 reason I'm saying this is because the apple is polished, it
10 looks great on the outside, but there is a certain core over
11 there that's going to be vindictive.
12 MR. CARSON: The response I would give you is that,
13 hopefully, we learned from things in the past and I think that
14 we all, if for no other reason, forget about those individual
15 employees, if for no other reason but our own self-interest,
16 we would have to be attendant to it because we see what
17 happens when you're not or when it's contended that you're not
18 or when it's believed that you're not or argued that you're
19 not, and so I'm comfortable with it, Mr. Randolph. I know
20 exactly what you're talking about and you and I have dealt
21 with issues here at the City for several years now and I'm
22 comfortable that our own interest will require us to follow
23 that. I think though that it would be better to have it done
24 with your administration, your City administration, your
25 police department administration, and the City Commission than
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
16
1 it would be with someone else looking over our shoulder.
2 They've always got that remedy if we don't do our job right;
3 they can always go to court, go to EEO and resolve their
4 issues, but I think that you are the folks that have been
5 elected to look after the City. You've appointed a manager
6 and the manager has appointed a police chief. Those matters
7 will be resolved. I'm not concerned about that. I'd like to
8 just --
9 MR. HARDEN: One thing they were asking for earlier was
10 to have someone they could go to outside the chain of command
11 and not to be forced to go through the chain of command with
12 complaints of discrimination or disparate treatment and we're
13 working on a variety of ways that that could be accomplished,
14 and I think that's appropriate.
15 MR. RANDOLPH: And one of those should be our internal
16 investigative procedures. It's like asking me to investigate
17 my wife and tell you that she's not a good housekeeper, and
18 I've had a problem with that, not just recently, but I've been
19 here since 1969, and I've had it since the early '70s because
20 it has not worked and that's what has gotten us in trouble
21 down the line and it has to go back to the apple core effect,
22 and I'm going to be hard-placed to be convinced otherwise.
23 And I'm not saying that because I want to be rude or that I
24 don't want to see the best for the City of Delray Beach
25 because I do, but certain things we're going to have to
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
17
1 consider changing or altering to get desired effects.
2 MAYOR ALPERIN: I agree that there's probably still some
3 problems out there, but I think this judgment, if nothing
4 else, has given the administration the power to get rid of
5 those problems now because now they've got a valid reason for
6 firing somebody who's using those techniques. It was harder
7 to prove in the past, but now we've got it. Now, somewhere
8 along the line --
9 MR. RANDOLPH: You think we've got it. I don't want to
10 get in a match here and I refuse to do it, but certain things
11 I'm going to say because I mean them, and I don't mean to say
12 them just because I'm a commissioner of the City of Delray
13 Beach. I also say them because I'm a citizen of the City of
14 Delray Beach, and I want to see what's best for all citizens
15 of the City of Delray Beach. Okay? And that's why I'm saying
16 them.
17 MR. CARSON: I think, Mr. Randolph, you clearly have an
18 expressed commitment from the people who are in a position in
19 Delray Beach to take action, appropriate action; the
20 Commissioners, the Manager, the Police Chief, the City
21 Attorney's Office, I mean we understand what needs to be done.
22 The question is should the duly elected officials and their
23 appointees take charge of it or should we have someone else
24 doing it who has -- you know, we've got the same objective,
25 and if we can achieve the objective in an appropriate way
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
18
1 where the responsibility rests with you and your colleagues,
2 that is better than what they have proposed and that's why I'm
3 urging this. I'm not at all in disagreement with your
4 objective and I would just like to get there in a different
5 way than doing it in this manner that they're proposing to us.
6 MAYOR ALPERIN: I think the system has proven that it can
7 work. There were violations and we're paying for it; and if
8 there are further violations, we're going to get more lawsuits
9 and we're going to pay for it again if we allow that to
10 happen, so I think the system proved itself. Adding a new
11 system on top of the old system I think is adding nothing but
12 more harassment of our legal department that's unnecessary.
13 If it's valid, then it will go through the regular system and
14 we'll go through this whole thing again, but I think that adds
15 too many opportunities for abuse rather than actual correction
16 of the problem.
17 MR. CARSON: Mayor, what I'd like to do is -- we've got
18 a limited time here to get back in there -- I would like to
19 propose that you authorize us to do the following. If, by
20 chance, the -- first of all, instruct us to attempt to make
21 all efforts to settle the case in a manner which is in the
22 best interest of the City of Delray Beach, to do so by dealing
23 with the issue of the injunctive relief, to attempt to reduce
24 the fees and costs to whatever amount we can do so
25 commensurate with an appropriate resolution of injunctive
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
19
1 relief because the dollar figures are going to slide,
2 depending on what we end up with on that and, failing that,
3 authorize us to file an appeal by the deadline. That's what
4 I would be asking for, and you're going to have to leave a lot
5 of that in our judgment. That's what we need to have.
6 MR. ELLINGSWORTH: I'd support that.
7 MAYOR ALPERIN: I guess my biggest concern is, I agree,
8 the injunctive relief is a major concern and I think we need
9 to fight that as far as we can go. The question of -- you
10 know, if it's a question of the settlement of money, I'm leery
11 about us going -- you know, spending a lot to save a little.
12 MR. CARSON: I understand that. That's why I didn't want
13 to come up with a specific dollar because I could spend more
14 than that trying to narrow it by a few dollars, but I don't
15 think that's in our interest to do that. I want to terminate
16 those fees.
17 MAYOR ALPERIN: Just to save fifty thousand and to go
18 through a big hassle on top of it, to me, it's not worth it.
19 MR. CARSON: I understand.
20 MAYOR ALPERIN: If we're going to save a hundred and
21 fifty, two hundred thousand, then it's worth pursuing, but if
22 it's going to end up by the time all the attorney fees and all
23 the other court costs add up and we're only coming out forty,
24 fifty thousand ahead, we've not generated a success; we've
25 irritated and alienated more people.
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
20
1 MR. CARSON: Let me say this. I also understand your
2 guidance here with respect to the injunctive relief refers to
3 the injunctive relief as proposed, a court-issued consent
4 decree, and does not relate to the issues that Mr. Randolph
5 has expressed concern about. What we do afterwards, we're
6 still on line to do that. I don't see that as being
7 inconsistent with each other. We try to avoid this, but we
8 still move forward with the target as he's expressed.
9 MR. EGAN: We can always go back -- I mean let us be the
10 ones to direct the City and say we need to bring in somebody
11 from the outside or whatever, you know, rather than them
12 telling us what to do. I mean if it ever comes to that, we
13 should be the ones to bring in somebody from the outside to
14 monitor, if that's necessary.
15 MR. RANDOLPH: In essence of time, I will forego this
16 any further; however, I do say that when this time comes, I
17 hope you listen and hear because so far over the years this
18 commission, and I mean commissions in previous years, have not
19 listened. Okay? To include our illustrious police chief.
20 MR. ELLINGSWORTH: Will you draft a motion for us?
21 MR. EGAN: Or just direction.
22 MS. RUBY: Well, I think we just need direction at this
23 point.
24 MR. CARSON: We've done it.
25 MR. EGAN: Will you come back to us either way --
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
21
1 MR. CARSON: Yes, sir, I will.
2 MR. EGAN: -- with the settlement?
3 MR. RANDOLPH: I must be on record as opposing the
4 appeal.
5 MR. CARSON: Opposing to the appeal?
6 MR. RANDOLPH: Yes, sir.
7 MS. RUBY: Okay.
8 MS. KISELEWSKI: I have a small question. I'm sorry for
9 this, but the injunctive relief, is that part of the lawsuit?
10 MR. CARSON: Yes, they're entitled to ask for injunctive
11 relief, go before the judge, and that's one part of it, if we
12 are unable to agree, they're going to go to him and ask him to
13 fashion it, and I want to avoid the costs and fees attendant
14 to that as well.
15 MS. RUBY: We're concluding this.
16 (Whereupon, at 9:40 p.m., the proceedings were
17 concluded.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620
22
1
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH. )
I, Charla N. Williams, Certified Verbatim Court Reporter, do
hereby certify that I was authorized to and did report the
foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true and correct
record of said proceedings.
Dated this ~
CHARLA N. WILLIAMS, CVR
SUN COAST REPORTERS
328-E Banyan Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 833-7620