05-10-94 Special/Workshop
DELRA\ BE-\C~
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION td!ad
AII·America City
SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING - MAY 10. 1994 - 6:00 P.M. '(111'
FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where
necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal oppor-
tunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program,
or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph, (407)
243-7127 at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the program or
activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request.
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 or hearing, such persons will need a record of these
proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that
a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The
City will neither provide nor prepare such record.
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
1. ACCEPTANCE OF DEEDS/GROVES OF DELRAY LTD. : Accept deeds for S.W.
10th Avenue right-of-way from the Groves of Delray Ltd, , and
approve the release for the agreement with Mr. Glenn Haggerty.
2. HANCOCK SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT ORDER: Consider approval of the
Hancock Final Order subject to the condition that an application
for a special coastal construction permit is made prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
3. HISTORIC HOME RELOCATION/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Author-
ize reimbursement of $11,700 received from the County to the
Community Redevelopment Agency for demolition sav~
/~'ilJ:AC, ¡¡ad¡:¡
Alison MacGregor Harty
City Clerk
WORKSHOP AGENDA
1. Pre-Hurricane Analysis Report - City Hall Facility - Gee and
Jenson (20-30 minutes)
2. Stormwater master plan - Mock, Roos & Assoc. (30-40 minutes)
3. North Federal Highway Redesign - George Bush Boulevard to Lantana
(20-30 minutes)
4. Delray Women's Club property - possible uses (20-30 minutes)
5. Rental of Large Stage outside the City limits (10-15 min.)
6. Proposed ordinance to ban pyramid markers in right-of-way (10-15
minutes)
7. Commission Comments.
----
(\
{~1
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 NW 1st AVENUE' DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
Wr~t_r·. D~r_ct L~n_
FACSIMILE 407/278-4755
(407) 243-7090
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 4, 1994
To: City Commission
From: David N. Tolces, Assistant City Attorn~
Subject: S.W. lOth Avenue - Riqht-of-Way
The City Commission previously accepted right-of-way deeds from
Glenn Haggerty for portions of the right-of-way for S.W. 10th
Avenue. The City was to pay Mr. Haggerty $18,000.00. Prior to
closing the transaction, however, the developers of the Groves
contacted Mr. Haggerty about conveying the right-of-way
portions to the Groves. It seems that the Groves' original
survey was in error. In order to meet the density
requirements, the Groves needed to obtain a small amount of
additional property. Therefore, the Groves agreed to purchase
the right-of-way from Mr. Haggerty and then dedicate the
right-of-way to the City.
The dedication will result in the Ci ty not having to pay the
$18,000.00 to Mr. Haggerty while still obtaining the required
right-of-way. Therefore, it is recommended that the City
Commission accept the attached deeds from the Groves of Delray,
Ltd. , and also approve the release for the agreement with Mr.
Haggerty.
Please call if you have any questions.
DNT : smk
Attachment
cc: David Harden, City Manager ~:;;
Sharon Morgan, City Clerk's Office
row. dnt
.5/10/'14
s? [\
.
705 P02 '··IA·.. 04' 94 ld: 1.5
.
~w~~ PART OF 12 43 46 20 01 030 0100
Oøelee #1 'UN:
[Spec:~ Above 'lbJs Une For Recordlnl Dala)
Warranty Deed
This Indenture, Made this 4th day of May. 19 94A,D., Between
GROVES OF DELRAY, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
of Iha Counly of PALM BEACH , Stalaof Florida t grantor, and
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
whose addren II: 100 N. W . 1ST AVE., DELRAY BEACH, Florida 33444
of Ibe Counly of PALM BEACH . Slale of Florida t grantee.
Witnesseth Iblllhe ORANTOR. for and In conslderallOll of Ih~ cum 01 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - TEN & NO/IOO($10.00) - - - ~ - - - - - - DOUAM,
and olher good and ...Iuabl~ COIIsldenUon 10 ORANTOR In bind paId by ORANTEE, Ih. recelpl whereof" hereby aclUlowled..." ,,-,
Ifanled. bartlained and lold 10 Ihe IIIIld ORAmEE and ORANnll'!'S heln and ...Ips forever, Ibe followlnl d...,rlbed land, 1111I81e,
Iylnl aod belolln Ib, CoMly of PALM BEACH S_ of Florida to wll:
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS EXHIBIT "An
and Ihe cranlof doec hereby rully ....rranl Ihe Iltle 10 laid land, and Mil defead Ih~ lame a,alnst lawful dalm, of aU petIOIII wbo__.
In Witness Whereof, Ihe Itanlor flu hereunlo eel hi. hand and .0.1 Ihe da1 and Je" (1111 ."Oft wrlnlll.
Slgaed, sealed and dellnred I. our presence:
GROVES OF DELRAY, LTD., BYt GROVES OF DELRAY JOINT VENTURB,
A FLORIDA LIMITED A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,
PARTNERSHIP ITS SOLE GENBRAL PARTNER
Byt FLORIDA AFFORDABLB HOUSING, INC. ,
ITS GEN. PARTNER , GENERAL PARTNER
Byt (Seal)
Printed N~met THOMAS G. HINNERS, PRESIDENT
Witness as to Both r.o. AddrelS 499 BOYNTON BAY ClRa..B, BaYNrON BBACH
PL 33435
Printed Namet
Witness as to Both
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUN'lY OF PALM BEACH
"lbe foreaolnl ¡...Irumenl .... '.,,"""'.dpd before me Ihll 4th day of May. 1994 by
moMAS O. HINNERS, PRBSIDSNT of FLORIDA AI'fORDABLB HOUSINO, INC., . FWIUDA torpatallotl and a plletlll partner of
OROVesOI'DBLRAY.'OINT VENTURE, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHJ:P. AS THE SOLE GENERAL
PARTNER OF GROVES 01 DELRAY, LTD,. A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ON BEHALF OF THE CORP-
wholc pel8Onallyknøwulomeorwho helproduced hII Florid~ driver's license u ldenllRC1Illon. ORA.TION & PAI!.TNERS11J
1111, Document Prepaml By:
OAHIBLHAOOI!lUY,I!SQ., P A
Printed Namet
101 N. PBDBRAL HWY. !ß1L A NOTARY PUBUC
lIOCAMTON ,J.1L 33433 My Commission IbpIRC .
n""1 U1\"'f"'!
. 70S P03 'IAY 04' 94 1?: lE
. l
. S.W. lOTS AVEnuE
ADDITIO,mL, ,~l~IIT OF WAY I
I
EXHIBIT A
TUAT PORT~on OF ~UB FOLLOWING ÐBSCRJÐED PROPSRT!. !
(PER OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 5314 AT PAGE 1028)
FROM '~'IIE POIN'I' Ol! IN'l'EnSECTION OF TUB EAS'!' LINE OF GBRHl\N'l'OWN ROAD
AIm '1'11.13 nORTH BOUIUJJUtY LINB OF LOT 30, sp.CTIon 20, 'l'OWnSIIIP 46
" SOU'fIl, MNG~ 43 EJ\S'J.', RUN 80UTII"BS'l'ERL Y J\LOIIG S1\l D EI\ST LINB 1\
DIS'l'ANCB OF 415.00 FEBT TO TnB pOlin' OF BEGlNNWG OF THIS
DESCRIP'rIONI 'I'IIENCE FOLLOHING ALONG '!'IIB 8M! COURSB IN A
SOU'l'lIHES'fBRLY IHItEC'rION A DISTANCE OF' 17. . 00 FEB'r, TIfRNCB AN
E1\S'l'lmLY IJ1RßC'!'lON 1\'!' AN ANGLB or 71 >FoG/USES, 58 MlltUTBS AND 51
SF-CONUS, .1nl\sunßIJ i'UOM NORTIIBAST TO BAS'!' 1\ IHS'r1\NCB OF 386.41 FBBTI
TIII3I~C£ IN 1\ NOR'l'IIERLX" DIRECTION MD A'1' I\U J\tIGLE OF BS VEGRBES, 45
M1NU'l'ES J\ND 33 SECONDS, MEASURBD FROM "ES'I' '1'0 "ORTII, A IH81'ANCB OF
107.15 FEE1'; 'l'lIENCE XN A WESTERLY DInEC'!'lOn AIm A'1' 1\N ANOLI OF 88
VEGI\EES 00 MINU'l'F,S l\NIJ 30 SBCONDS MK1\SUIU3l> F/tOM SOU'l'1I TO WBST A
VIS1'I\NCß OF 200.30 FEKT; TIIENCB IN A SOU1'/lWESTBRLY VtnBCTION AND I
I'1\RI\J,J.,8L '1'0 'J'IIE 1~I\S'l' LINE OF GlltMI\NTOHtl HOAD 1\'1' AN ANGL! OF 114
VEGREES ANI> 15 IUtlU'1'ßS 'MßASURRI> !'ROM EAS'!' '1'0 50U'1'IIW8S1' J\ l)ISTANC~ i
OF 60 fRB'!', 'I'IISNCß lit 1\ WESTBRLY l>J:nBC'J'IOn 1\NV 1\'1' 1\11 I\NGL! OF 24!1
VEGntmS 1\ND 45 folWU'l'.I3S MBI\SURBD FROM NOn'l'/lI3I\S'f TO SOUTII TO WBST A I
I
. DIST1\NCE OF 150 FEE'!' '1'0 '1'IIB J?OJ:NT OF nEGllUllNG. I
: , LBSS TUB FOLLOHING. I
FRO.' 'r1l8 POINT OF IN1'EnSECTION or TnB BAS'I' LItlE OF GSmU\NTOHN ROAD
AtH> TilE 1I0R'1'II DOUND1\RY LINE OF LOT 30, SF.:C'l'ION 20, 'J.'OHtlSIJ;t1' 46
SOU'1'II , JWlGR 43 E1\S'l', RUN SOUTß"BSTSnLY 1\LONG SAIl> BI\ST LINB 1\
DIs'rANCE OF 415.00 FEE'r TO TUE POXN'l' OF BBGXNNING OF TillS
DßSCRIP'J.'ION I 'l'IIENCE FOLLOWING ALONG 'l'UE SAME counSR IN ^
SOU'}'IIWES'tIRLt I>1REC'nON A DISTANCE Ol" 12.00 FEST; TIIBNCI AN
_.. S1\S1'ERLY OIREC'l'lOtI 1\'1' AN ANGtS OF 11 IJEGHEES, 50 MINUTRS AND 57
SßCOtfl>S, MßASUI\BIJ FI\Ot-t NonTIIßAS'r '1'0 EM'!' A IHST1\ffCB OF 264.0B FBBTI
'I'IIEnCE IN 1\ NOR'l'IIJ.l:nx,J( DIRECTION AND A'.1' 1\11 ANGLE or 85 DRGRBES, 45
MINU1'ES AND JJ SECONVS, M.EASURBD FROM ¡fES'!' '.1'0 NORTII, 1\ nXSTMCB OF I
94 ... 6 FEBT; '1'IlENCE III A WBSTERLY DIREC'J.'IOlI AND AT AN l\NGI;ß OF 88 ,
mmnBES 00 MINU'I'SS AND 30 SECONDS MEASURE ) FROM SOUTII TO WBST l\ ! ,
VrS'I'J\.NCE OF 86.22 FßE'r; 'l'BENCR IN A SOU:¡"lI\iESTERLX DIRECTION AlIO I
PAIU\LLßL '1'0 '!'II~ EAS'!' LINE OF GBRMANTOI'ltl !tOAD A'I' 1\N ANGLB OF 114
mmnl3ßS AND 15 .mNU'I'ES MßASUnED FROM EM'1' '1'0 SOUTUWBST 1\ I> 1 STANCE
OF 60 FEET, TIIEWC~ IN A WBSTKRLX DIRECTION ^~U AT 1\N 1\NGX,g or 2ts
DEGftEES AND 45 foIINU'l'ES MEJ\SURßD FROM NOH'I'IIE1\S'J.' 'fO 50U'J.'1/ '1'0 WBST A I
VIS~'^NCB OF 150 FEE'l' '1'0 'l'IIB POINT OF BEGUINIUG; BEING A PART OF LOT
30, A SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 20, TOHt1SIIIP 46 SOUTU, IU\NGB U BAST
1\8 RBCOnVBI> IN PM'!' BOOK 1 AT PAGB .., In MID FOR TJIB RSCORDS OF I !
PALM BBACJI COUN1'!, FLORIDA. ! ,r
.1:
HDlcn LIES HXTDIN 30.00 Fßß~·HB8T OF TUE FOLLOWING DRSCRIDBD LINB& .;
,
'j
BEGIN 1\T 'l'IIE NOR'!'f/WEST CORNER OF "LINTON FORgST PLAT 1", 1\CCORDING I
TO 'filS PLAT TIIBI\EOF IU5COI\I>BD IN PLAT noOK 44, AT PAGES 177 AND 118 i
OF 'l'lll? PUBLIC IŒCOIWS or PALM BE1\CH COUt"I'Y, FLOltIDA. S1\1D POINT OF
BEGWN1t1G BEWG ^ PEnM1\NßNT RBFBRBNCE ,.IONUMlm'!' 11601; 'I'IIENCB ON l\N
ASSUME!> DMRING OF NUo023' 12"E ALONG 'I'IIE Non'l'IIERLY ßX'l'BNSION OF TUB
"135T Lltlß OF S1\lU I'LI\'I' "LINTON FORBs'r PLl\'l' 1", BBING COINCIDENT
WITII '!'IIE EAs'r LUlU Ol~ 'l'IIE WBST ONB-JlAL1" OF Lo'r 30 AND TilE BAST LIN8
OF 'I'JlE WES'f ONE-II1\Ll" OF LOT 29 OF THB SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 20,
'1'OWNSIIIP 46 SOU1'1I, JU\NGE U BAST, ACCOIU>IIlG TO '1'H8 PLJ\T TIIBRBOF
- RBCORDED IN PU'!' BOOK 1 AT PAGB 4 OF TUB PUBLIC RBconDS OF PALM
-. BËÍ\CII COUNTY, r1.01I1/)A FOR A DISTANCB 01" 1331. 48 FEEr 'J.'o Tille rOIN'1'--
01" '1'I3RMlUl\'1'ION CW SI\ID UBSCRIBBD LIltIJ, SA1/) rOIN'l' ORIlla ON TUB !
NOn'!'1I 1.INB or SI\1O 1.0'1' 29, SAlD POlN'f 1\l,50 mUNG COINCIDBIIT WITII I,
TIIB CEN'1'BRLINB Of' S,". 101,'11 STRRRT AS Sf/OWN ON 1'IIB PUT OF "BSQUIRB
SUBVIVISIOt,", ACCOIWING TO TUB PUT T/JImr::or RßCORDBD IN PLAT BOOK I
23, A'1' PAGE 4 J OF '!'UB PUBLIC RBCOROS OF P1\LH URACil COUNTY, FLORIIJA; ,
SAlD POIN'r LIES 125.00 Fre8T BAST OF 1\8 ,.mAsunED ALonG TIIB SAID I
CEN'.I'ßRLINB OF S .Ii. 101'11 S'fREET TO TI/B W'I'ßRSßC'I'ION OF S.". 1 OTfI .'
AVP.:NUIJ 1\S sl/om' on 'l'IIB PMT OF "DBLAAY Dß1\CII IIEIGIITS" AcconDINd '1'0 j
'1'/18 PL1\'r 'l'IIEIUWF JU!:CORUI.m IN P1J\T BOOR ;'.5, 1\'r PI\GB 186 OF TIIB
.' ,PUBLIC RECORns 01" PALM 'uRACil COU«l'Y, FLOIUVJ\. !
SAW Ll\NDS srruJ\'J.'ß KITIIIN THB CITY OF DIJ:LRJ\Y nBACII, P.l\LM BJ!ACB I
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CONT1\INING 0.0131 1\CnB, OR 3183 SQUARB FnBT MORB OR LESS. I
70S P04 !'"IAY 04' 94 12: 17
I'aJœ1 m Number: PART OF 12 43 46 20 01 030 0030
OdllleoJ 1'1 'ON:
(Space Abovolbls Unð for Rerordln¡ Dala)
Warranty Deed
'l1tlslndenture, Made this 4th day of May,1994A.D., Between
GROVES OF DELRAY, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
of Ibo County of PALM BEACH . Slaleof florida , grantor, and
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
who4e "dren II: 100 N. W . 1ST AVE., DELRAY BEACH, Florida 33444
of the ('ounl)' of PALM BEACH , Slale of Florida , øfantee.
Witnesseth \1\1llhe OP.ANI'OR, rO{ and In COIIllderallon of Ibe cum of - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - TEN & NO/l00($10.00) - - - - - - - - - - DOLLA~
Ind ocher aooCI and valuable tonlldenllon 10 GRANTOR. In hind pIIld by ORANH!E, Ibe rcceipl "¡¡ertOf II hereby aetnowledpt,1w
pnled. bl,,"lned and IOld 10 tbe 18ld GRANTEE! and ORANœ8'S heln and ass18"' rorever. Ibo roUowIlI. demlbed land. 111l1li11.
IyInl and bellllln Ibe County of PALM BEACH Stllte or Florida 10 wll:
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS EXHIBIT "A"
Ind Ihe panlor does hereby fully II'llfIInllh. 1111. 10 WeIland, aod MIl defead the Ilrne 1¡llnsl Ia'l'ful delllll 01.0 poJlOM whomloewr.
In Witness WJlereor, Ibe .,Inlor hIS ¡INUIIIO .el his hand and seal Ihe day Ind ,.., 11..1 IIbovc wrltt-.
Signed. sealed. and deUvered In our preunre:
GROVES OF DELRAY, LTD., BY: GROVES OF DELRAY JOINT VENTURE,
A FLORIDA LIMITED A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,
PARTNERSHIP ITS SOLE GENERAL PARTNER
By: FLORIDA AFFORDABLB HOUSING, INC. ,
ITS GEN. PARTNER , GENERAL PARTNBR
BYI (Sell)
Printed NBmel THOMAS G. HINNERS, PRESIDENT
witness as to Both P.O. Addreu 499 BOYNTON BAY CIRCLI!, BOYNTON BPACH
I'L 3343S
Printed Name:
witne.. as to Both
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
lbe rote",'", Inluumeni _ ..knowledse" befo", me Ihll 4th d.yof May, 1994 by
mOMAS O. JIINNERS, PRESIDENT of FLO.RJDA AfJIORDABLB IIOUSlNG,INC., e FLORlOA rorporal/on IDd . pneral JIII",",r or
OIl.OVBSOPDB{.I~AY .TOIN! VENTURE, A FLORIDA GENERAL t'I\RTNERSHU. AS THE SOLE GENERM.
PARTNER OF GROVES OF DELRAY, LTD" A FLORIDA LIMITED rARTNERSHIP, ON BEHALF OF THE CORP-
wbo II peøonaIJy known lo",e orwho"..p"",uccd hll Florida driver's lioense uJdellIlIlcaIIoa. ORATION & PARTNERSHIP
'I1IIa DotOIJllent Prepat'ed By.
DANIBL IlAOOBR'IT,I!SO. P.A.
Printed Namel
101 N.I'I!DBML IIWY. smA NO'1'ARY rugue
BOCo'lMIDN ,FL 3343Z My Comtnlas\Qn BxpIres:
.
-.... ...---
705 F'05 "'A'y' 04' 94 12: 18
I
,
s.W. 107.'8 AVBtlUn ,
ADDITIONAL RIGßT OF NAY I
I
EXUIB1T A I
,
ì
TßJ\T PORTION 01" TUB FOLLOWING I>BBCRIDBD l'ltOPBltTXt i
I
(PER OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 5116 AT PAGE 0096) i
,
'TItB BOUTII 19.02 FER'r OF TUB NORTII 247.02 FEET OF '.1'IIB BAST HALF i
"{El/2) OF TilE NES'I' I11\LF {Will) OF LOT 30, ß1\S'r OF GBRHl\.NTOtr" ROAD,
1N SEC'I'IOU 20, '!'OWNSIUP 46 SOUTII, MNGS 43 E1\S'J' ACCORDING TO TUB
PU'l' 'J'lIEltHOF ON FUR IN TIIB OFFlCE OF 'l'IIB CLERIC OF TnE CIJtCUIT
COUR'l' IN AND FOR PALM BE1\CII COUNTY, FLORW1\, IN PMT BOOK 1, PAG8
4.
WHICD LIBS WITUIN 30.00 FRKT lEST OF TOR fOLLOWING DBSCRIDBD LIftSa
BEGIN 1\" 1'118 Non'I'lIIiEST CORNER OF "LINTON FonES" PLAT 1", 1\CCORDING
TO TUB PU'.r TIIEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT P1\GES 171 1\ND 178
OF 'l'UE PUBLIC RECOHD5 OFP.l\LH BE1\CH COUN'I'Y, FLORIIJA. SAIIJ POINT OF
BEGINNING BEING A PERMANENT RßFBRENCE MONUMENT '1601, '1'IlENCE ON l\N
1\SSUMED BEARING OF tlOOo23' 12"£ ALONG TilE NOU'rUERLY SX'l'ENSION OF TilE
NES'l' LINE OT!' SAW PL1\'l' "LINTON FORES'1' PL1\'l' 1", BIUNG COIttCIDENT
til'l'1I '1'118 B1\S'!' x.INU 0.... TIIB WBST ONE-H.l\LF 01." :LOOf 30 AND '1'118 BAs'r LINB
OF '1'118 NBST ONS-HALF OF LOT 29 OJ!' TilE SUBDIVISIon OF SECTION 20,
TONNSIIIP 46 SOUTII, MltGH 43 BAST, 1\CCOltDING '1'0 '1'118 PLA'r 'l'IIBRBOF
RECORDED IN PL1\'I' DOOK 1 1\1' PAGE 4 OF 'filE PUBLIC RBCORDS OF PALM
BBACI! COUNi'Y, FLORID1\ FOR 1\ DISTl\NCE OF 1331. 48 FEET '1'0 TIIB POINT
OF 'l'ERMINATION Olr SAW DBSCRIBBD LINE, S1\ID POIN'r BEING ON THB
NOR'fU LINB OJ!' S1\lU LQ'r 29, SAID POIN'r ALSO BEING COINCIDBNT WITlt
TilE CEN'l'EItLlNE OF S. W. 10'.1'11 STREBT 1\S SI/OWN ON '1'IIE PLA'.r OF "BSQUIR£
SUBDIVISION", 1\CCOImING TO '1'IIE PLAT 'tllBREOF RECORDED IN PLAT DOOIt
23, A'J.' PJ\GE 43 OF 'I'IIB PUSLIC MCORDS OF PALM bBACII COUN'l'Y, FLORIDAI
SAIIJ POIN'l' LIES 125.00 FEBT BAST OF 1\S .mr.SURBD ALONG TilE 81\ID
CENTERLINB OF S.W. 10'1'11 S'rItBR'!' TO TilE IN'rBRSEC'fION OF S. W. 10'1'11
1\VENUE 1\S SIIOWN ON '1'/18 PUT OF "DELAAY BE1\CII IIEIGIJ'l'S" ACCORDING TO
TUE PU', TIIBREOF JŒCOI\DBV IN PUT BOOK 25, AT PAGE 106 OF TIIB
PUBLIC RBCORDS OF PALM BEACII COUNTY, FLOlUVA.
,
SAID Ll\NJJS SXTUA'fS \UTIIIN THE CITY OF DBLRAY BEACII, PALM BBACH !
COUNTY, FLORIDA. j
,
CONTAINING 0.0550 ACRB, on 2,396 SQUARE FBET HORß OR LESS. ,
I j
..-...-....---... I I
-.....-...- ~ ....
, ...
,
70S P0e. "lAY 04' 94 :1.2::1.8
hrœI JD Number. PAR'!' OF 12 43 46 20 01 030 0020
(kqlee #111"':
ISpaeo AbtMt ThIs Une POll\ecoldlDI Dat~)
Warranty Deed
This Indenture, Made this 4th day of May, l' 94 A,D., Between
GROVES OF'DELRAY, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
of the County of PALM BEACH , Slmol Florida , arantor, anoI
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
whOle IIddrtlS is: 1 0 0 N. W . 1ST AVE., DELRAY BEACH, Florida 33444
of tho County or PALM BEACH , Stltlof Florida , ¡rantee.
Wltnesseth that tM GRANTOR, for and In colllidtnulOll of the._ of - - ~ ~ - - - " - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - TEN & NO/IOO($10.00) - - - - - - - - - - DO~
Ind other aooð and valuable cona\derltlon \0 GRANTOR. In hand púI by GRANl'BB, Ih. ncolpt whereof II hereby Itlmowledaed, baa
panted, blO'þlned .nd sold to the uid GAANt1!B and GRANl'BB'S hem and .,.1.... fOICver, Ibe followløl delCrlbcd bind, IItuate,
1y!lIJllld belnSlø the County of PALM BEACH Stahlof Florida to wit:
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS EXHIBIT "A"
lad the srantor does hereby fully "trlnt the tllle to IIkIland, Ind 1riII dtfud the ume .plnst lI"'ul claim. of aU pe_ w~.
In Witness Whereof, the pnlor has h.IClUlto let hll bud Ind ..al the day Ind ,-r pI above wrltt.:a.
Slped, lealed and dellyt!ted 10 our pre1ence:
GROVES OF DELRAY, LTD., BY' GROVES OF DBLRAY JOINT VENTURE,
A FLORIDA LIMITED A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,
PARTNERSHIP ITS SOLS GENERAL PARTNER
By. FLORIDA AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC.,
ITS GEN. PARTNER , GENERAL PARTNER
By. (Seal)
Printed Name. THOMAS G. HINNERS, PRESIDBNT
Witness as to Both 1'.0. Addreu 499 BOYNTON BAY CRCLB, BOYNTON Bl!ACH
PI. 33417
Printed Name.
Witness as to Both
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUN1Y OF PALM BEACH
The roteJOlnl Inllrumenl .... Itlutowled~ befOR me this 4th doy of May, 1!194 by
'IlIOMAS a. HINNERS, PR.SSJDBNT of n.ORJDA AFFORDABLE HOUSINO, mc" . PLORlDA oooporotton .ncl 1."ne,,1 p.utnet of
OROVBSOPDBLRAY,TOINT VENTURE, A FJ.ORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, AS THE SOt.E GENERAL
PARTNER or GROVES or DELRAY, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. ON BEHALF OF THE CORP-
wboispeØOllllJJyknOMltoDICotWboh..prochtetdhisFlorida driver's licensealdeøtU1eatloa. ORATION & PARTNERSHII
This Doeumoøl Prepared By:
DANII1LHAOOBIttY, I!SO. PA
Printed Name:
101 N. fl!DBRALHWY. smA NOTARY PUBLIC
BOCAM1UN .PI. 3343Z Ny Commission ßIpIICa:
,
,
- - ~- .- ------- "- - - -- -
-~~~<..~~""}
705 P07 MAY 04'94 12:19
, ¡;'An~.DJ.1 ð"
,
8.W. 10TS'AVBNUB
I
ADDITIO~MLRIGHl' OF WAY
, !
,
THAT PORTION OF Tun FOLLOWING DBSCRIBBD PROPBRTla
.' . I
(PER OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 5415 AT PAGE 04451 t
:
BEGINNING AT THE NonTIIEAST CORNER OF THE EM'!' 1/2 OF THE SOUTII HEST I
QUAn'l'!R or TilE UOR'!'1l BAST QUAJtTER OF 'l'IIE SOUTII WEST QUAI\'1'BR OF
SECTION 20, TOWNSlIlP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAS'!', RUNNING TUBNCE WRST
ALONG '1'118 NORTH BOUNIJ1\RY OF SAID TR1\CT '1'0 TUB IN'fEnSBCTION OF '1'118 !
GERH.I\NTOHN nOAD, RUNNINGTIfENCR SOUTHERLY ALONG TIIB GERMANTOWN ROAD
A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET, THBNCR BAST PARALLEL TO THB NORTH BOUNDARY ;
OF SAID 'l'MCT TO 'rilE BAST BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT, TUSNCB NORTH ;
ALONG TUE EAST BOUNDARY LINE TO 'rHB POIN'r OF BEGINNING.
I
kDICB LIBS WITDIN 30_00. FEET WEST OF TUB FOLLOWING DBSCRIBBD LIBBt ,
BEGIN 1\'1' TnE NORTHWEST CORN OR OF "LINTON FOltEST PLAT 1", ACCORDING
. , '1'0 TilE PLA'f TIIEREOF RECORDED IN PUT BOOK 44, AT PAGES 177 AND 178
OF TilE PUBLIC RECOJWS OF PALM BEACH COUN'fV, FLORIDA. SAID POINT OF
BEGINNING BEING A PEHMANEN'l' REFERBNCE MONUMßN'l' 11601; TIfENCB ON AN
ASSUMED BEARING OF NOO"23'12"B ALONG TUB nORTUERLY EXTENSION OF THE
WBST LINB OF 8AIU PLAT "LINTON FORBST PLAT 1", BBING COINCIDBNT
WITII '1'IJE EAST LINB OF TilE WEST ONB-HALF OF LO'l' 30 AND TIfB EAST LINE
OF TIIB HßST ONB-IIALF OF LOT 29 OF THE SUBUIVISION OF SECTION 20,
TOKNSJlrp 46 SOUTJI, RANGE 43 EAST, ACCORDING TO TUB PLAT TIIERBOF
RECORDBD IN PLAT BOOK 1 AT PAGE 4 OF TUB PUBLIC RBCORDS OF PALM
BRACII COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR A DISTANCE OF 1331.48 FßBT TO TUB POINT
OF 1'ERMINATION OF SAID DESCRIBED LINE, SAID POINT BEING ON THB
NORTII LINE OF SAID LOT 29, SAID POINT ALSO BEING COINCIDBNT WITH
TilE CENTBRLINB OF S.W. 10'1'11 STRBBT M SIIOHN ON THE PLAT OF "BSQUIRB
SUBDIVISION", ACCORDING TO TIIB ÞLAT TUBRKOi" RBCORDBD IN PLAT BOOK
23, AT PAGB "3 OF 'I'IIE PUBLIC RECORDS or PALM BBACII COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SAID POINT LIES 125.00 FEET BAST OF AS MEASURED ALONG THB SAID
CENTERLINE OF S.W. 10'1'11 STREBT TO TilE INTERSBCTION OF S.W. 10TH
AVEtWE AS snOWN ON 'rifE PLAT OF -DBLR1\Y BEAcn HEIGIITS- ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THERBOF RECORDED IN PLAT DOOR 2S, AT PAGB 18ti OF TilE
PU~LIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
I SAID LANDS SITUATE WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BBACJI, PALM BRACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CONTAINING 0.0624 ACRE, OR 2,719 SQUARE FßET MORB OR LESS.
,.- ~- .' ....-
....--.
,.'
.
/·t
, , I
. :1 ì !
( I
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 20[) NW Is! AVENUE' DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
FACSIMILE 407/278,4755 Writer's Direct Line
(407) 243-7091
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 5, 1994
TO: City Commission
FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Hancock Subdivision Order
Our office has prepared the attached Order for your
consideration regarding the Hancock subdivision plat. We have
pared down the original nine page order submitted by the
applicant to four pages. The only condition on the approval is
the need for obtaining a coastal protection permit and
completion of the permitted plan at the time a certificate of
occupancy (CO) is issued, or in the alternative the posting of
a bond or letter of credit to ensure completion of the work
within ninety (90) days of the date the CO is issued. This
alternative is provided to award some leeway if turtle nesting
prohibits completion of the plan by the time a certificate of
occupancy could be issued.
If the Commission desires, additional conditions may be added.
The applicant proposed two additional conditions, one relating
to the building size and the other to an offer to designate the
property on Lot 1 as a historic structure. The offer of
designation would not become effective until all appeals, if
any, are determined in the applicant's favor. I have not
included these conditions in the proposed order. However, if
you desire to include such conditions offered by the Applicant,
they are essentially as follows:
l. That any single family residence constructed on Lot 2
shall not exceed 5,000 square feet of air conditioned
space and in addition may contain a two car garage and
areas for porches and other amenities.
2. The City accepts the offer of Petitioner to designate the
structure on Lot 1 as a historic structure. The
effective date of the designation shall be when all
appeals, if any, are resolved in favor of the petitioner
allowing Lot 1 and 2 to be used as separate single-family
residences.
S?/~
,
City Commission
May 5, 1994
Page 2
By copy of this memorandum to David Harden, City Manager, our
office requests that this Order be placed on the May 10, 1994
agenda as a special meeting item or the next available agenda.
Please call if you have any questions.
SAR~
cc: David Harden, City Manager
Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk
Diane Dominguez, Director of Planning and Zoning
Roger Saberson, Esq.
Michael Weiner, Esq.
.,
CITY COMMISSION
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
IN RE: HANCOCK SUBDIVISION )
APPLICATION )
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
FINDINGS OF FACTS1
1. The property owners, Waddell Hancock and Clay Hancock
(formally Clay Hancock Schumacher)(the "Petitioners") filed an
application for approval of a minor subdivision (proposing 2
lots) in the City of Delray Beach for property located on the
west and east sides of A-l-A on September 2, 1993.
2. On April 5, 1994 and April 19, 1994 the City Commis-
sion held a quasi judicial hearing on the Application.
Petitioner's exhibits 1-62 inclusive and Cusson (referenced in
stipulation as aggrieved party) exhibits 1-8 inclusive were
received into evidence without objection.
3. The Petitioners were represented by Roger G. Saberson,
Esq. The owners of two nearby lots objected to that portion of
the Application that would permit a single family lot on the
east side of A-I-A. The lot owners were Paul Cusson and
Delores Cusson represented by Michael Weiner, Esq. and the
other lot owners were the Eichelbergers represented by Steven
Daniels, Esq. The location of the objectors' property is shown
on aerial photographs (P lOa, lOd).
4. Petitioner called the following expert witnesses
(excluding city employees) some of whom also testified as fact
witnesses, (i) Mr. Ken Weigand, surveyor, (kk) Mr. Robert
Barron, biologist and dune revegetation and restoration expert,
(iii) Mr. Stan Redick, planner, (iv) Dr. Peter Merritt, biolo-
gist (v) Mr. Robert Banting, SRA, MAI real estate appraiser,
(vi) Ms. Rhonda Harrell, Architect, and (vii) Mr. Charles Toth,
Architect.
1All references with "P" refer to Petitioner's Exhibits
and the number refers to the Exhibit number as received into
evidence; references to the Hancock property include the
property to the east and west of A-I-A; references with "TR"
"pg" "L" refer to the transcipt, page, and line of the Court
Reporter's transcript, respectively.
.
5. Cussons through their attorney, called the following
witnesses: ( i) Paul Cusson as a fact witness, (ii) Mr. Michael
Avirom, surveyor, expert witness and (iii) Dr. Manley Boss,
biologist, expert witness. The foregoing experts also offered
some factual testimony. Eichelbergers did not call any
witnesses or offer any exhibits.
6 . The following City employees testified; (i) Mr. Jerry
Sanzone, Chief Building Official, (ii) Ms. Diane Dominguez,
Director of Planning and Zoning, (iii) Mr. John Walker, Project
Coordinator, and (iv) Ms. Pat Cayce, Historical Planner. The
foregoing City employees testified as fact witnesses and expert
witnesses.
7 . The Hancock Property is located in the Residential
Land use - Low Density 0-5 DU/Acre classification under the
City's Comprehensive Plan (P 1, P 16) and in the R1AAA Zoning
Classification under the Land Development Regulations (P 4, P
5, P 16, and P 57).
8. The Application has been processed in accordance with
all procedural substantive requirements of City Ordinances
including the City Comprehensive Plan, and the Delray Beach
Land Development Regulations (P 22, TR 30 Ln 18). The Applica-
tion is consistent with the Delray Beach Comprehensive Plan and
Land Development Regulations (P 16, P 57 TR 32 Ln 13) . The
Director of Planning and Zoning stated that if the Commission
approved the Application pursuant to its authority under LDR ,
4.3.1 (D) by determining that it was "necessary and
appropriate" to do so, that such approval would be consistent
with the Delray Beach Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
Regulations (TR 13 Ln. 12) . The city staff also indicated that
approval of the Application would pose no concurrency (level of
service) problems (P 16 pg 2 ) and the Petitioners planning
expert agreed (TR 35 Ln 18, P 57 pg 4).
9 . As to Lot 1 of the Application (on the west side of
A-I-A) , none of the parties, including the City, raised any
objection in this proceeding concerning any deficiency of that
lot. The only objections raised by any party related to Lot 2
(on the east side of A-1-A the "Hancock Oceanfront Lot" ) .
The imposition of the Erosion Control Line and the existence of
A-1-A bisecting the original platted lot caused the owner's
remaining land area, east of A-I-A, (Lot 2) to be reduced below
the City's required minimum lot size. (P 7) . The Petitioner
provided testimony that no other variances would be necessary
(Tr 34, L 13; TR 35, L 13).
10. In the City north of Atlantic Avenue, east of A-I-A
along the oceanfront, all lots have single family homes con-
structed upon them (P lOb, P 109), except, for the Hancock
Oceanfront Lot which is included in the Application.
2
.
·
11. Petitioner's surveyor testified that there are only
two lots and/or properties in the City as to which the Erosion
Control Line reduces the lot area or dimensions below the
current required minimums (P 22, Par. 13) . These two lots
and/or properties are the portion of the original Hancock
Property east of A-1-A (P 14) and Lot 1 of Ocean Apple Estates
(P 13 P 22, Par. 13) . Ocean Apple Estates abuts the Hancock
Property along the south line of the Hancock Property (P 22
par. 14, P 13) . On Lot 1 of Ocean Apple Estates there is
presently a single family home under construction (P lOa, b,
10d, 10e) which has been permitted under City regulations (TR
17, In 23).
12. The Coastal Protection Ordinance strongly encourages
repair and revegetation of dunes and also encourages the
removal of exotic vegetation (P 19). Implementation of a Dune
Revegetation Plan, as proposed or similar to the plan presented
by the Petitioner's Expert Robert Barron, would accomplish both
of these objectives (P 17).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The granting, denying, or granting with conditions of
a minor subdivision application is a "Development Order" as
defined in Section 163.3164(7) F.S. 1993. All Development
Orders are required to be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, Section 163.3194(1)(a). The City Subdivision Regulations
also require that the subdivision of land be consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan (P 5 Section 5.1.2(A), Page
5101).
2. The Application is consistent with the Delray Beach
Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations and other
requirements of the City of Delray Beach, including the Coastal
Protection Ordinance which does not prohibit building of a
single family residence within the Coastal Protection Zone.
The Coastal Protection Ordinance requires a special permit
prior to construction activities taking place within the zone
[P 19, pg 4, Section 151.63(D)(1)].
3. We find that the Coastal Protection Plan Assessment
Plan submitted by the applicant meets the requirements of the ~
Comprehensive Plan. Goal area "A", page III-F- 8, policy A-I. 1. F- g
It is understood that the plan as presented for the assessment
may be modified, but shall meet all legal requirements of the
State and County and all municipal ordinances at the time of
permitting and upon completion of the plan.
4. Section 4.3.1(D) of the Land Development Regulations
permits a waiver of minimum lot size at the time of platting if
it is deemed "necessary and appropriate".
3
·
5. The Hancock Property included within the Application
is divided by a state road referred to as A-1-A or Ocean
Boulevard (P 14). The property east of A-1-A is further
restricted by the erosion control line.
6. The property would qualify for a variance under
applicable City regulations (P 57) . The waiver is necessary
and appropriate due to the unique characteristics of the
property which were not caused by the applicant. See Reynolds
v. Town of Manalapan, 167 So.2d 607 (Fla. 2nd DCA) 1964.
7 . We find that the Applicant has met its burden of proof
under Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida
v. Jack R. Snyder. The objectors evidence did not prove that
the denial of the Application would accomplish a legitimate
public purpose.
DECISION
For the reasons set forth above, the Application is hereby
approved subject to the following condition:
That the property owner submit to the building department,
at the time an application for a building permit is made, an
application for a special coastal construction permit. The
Coastal Protection special permit must be issued prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The Coastal Protection Plan
(the Plan) shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy (CO). In the alternative, Petitioner
may be granted ninety (90) days to complete the plan after
issuance of the CO if the Petitioner posts an irrevocable
letter of credit, bond or other surety in a form acceptable to
the City attorney in an amount that is equal to 110 percent of
the remaining cost of completion of the Plan. If the
Petitioner has not completed the Plan within ninety (90) days
of issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The City may
utilize the proceeds of the irrevocable letter of credit, bond,
or other surety to complete the permitted Plan.
DONE AND ORDERED, this _ day of May, 1994.
Delray Beach City Commission
Thomas Lynch, Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
4
·
MEMORANDUM
-
-
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER {íL/j
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # q L - MEETING OF APRIL 19. 1994
FINAL PLAT/HANCOCK SUBDIVISION
DATE: APRIL 15, 1994
This item is before the Commission to consider approval of the final
plat for the Hancock Subdivision, a proposed two lot subdivision
located at 622 North Ocean Boulevard. (This was continued from the
Special Meeting of April 5, 1994,)
The subject property currently exists as one parcel, running from
Andrews Avenue on its west boundary eastward to the Erosion Control
Line. It is intersected by State Road AlA and the applicant is
proposing to separate the east parcel into a separate buildable lot.
A request has been submitted by the applicant to designate the
exis~ing single family s~ruc~ure on ~he wes~ern parcel as an his~oric
landmark. However, if the eastern lot is not created the applicants
have stated they will withdraw their request for historic designation
on the western lot.
Thi. propo..d lubdivi.ion require. Commil.ion approval in that the
beachside lot does not meet the minimum zoning designation require-
ments for the R-1AAA zone¡ therefore, the Commission must declare
that it is necessary and appropriate to create such a non-conforming
lot if the subdivision is to be approved.
There are also certain considerations from an ecological and environ-
mento.l oto.ndpoint, eopecio.lly with reopect to the exiotence of 0.
dune.
Please refer to the attached staff report for an analysis of the
situation and alternative courses of action,
6!3/Q'l
pe¿ðfì
~ b ,.
10 Cf!~ f' ~ ~
40 b~ ~
oµ:;<¿t:~ rJ, .
Ad(Í\I'(l . .
~~
.fp 51
C I T Y COM MIS S ION DOC U MEN TAT ION
TO: ~ HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THRU: IANE~ DOM~~
DIRECTOR OF N G AND ZONING
FROM:
SUBJECT: MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1994
HANCOCK SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT **REGULAR AGENDA**
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION:
The action requested of the City Commission is that of
approval of the final plat for the Hancock Subdivision.
The subject property is located at 622 N. Ocean Boulevard
(State Road AlA).
This final plat is being processed pursuant to LDR Section
2.4.5(K), Minor Subdivisions.
B A C K G R 0 U N D:
In September, 1993, the City received a request to replat
property located at 622 N. Ocean Boulevard. The plat proposes
to create 2 separate parcels from 1 parcel which currently
contains 1 single family structure. Currently, the subject
property runs from Andrews Avenue on its western boundary east
to the Erosion Control Line.
As a separate request, the applicant has also asked that the
single family structure on the western portion of the property
be designated as historic. On November 3, 1993 the Historic
Preservation Board approved the nomination of the western
property as historic. The first reading of Ordinance 82-93 for
historic designation on the western property was approved by the
City Commission on December 7, 1993. If the subdivision plat is
approved, the second reading of the ordinance will be scheduled
for Commission consideration.
City Commission Documentation
Hancock Subdivision
Page 2
The subdivision requires formal City Commission review prior to
approval. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.1(D), lots shall meet the
minimum requirements established unless the City Commission
declares at the time of approval of an associated development
application that it is necessary and appropriate to create such
a nonconformity. As Lot 2 will be nonconforming in certain
respects, the above section applies. The City Commission may
also impose mitigating conditions at the time such a plat is
approved. Please see the following analysis.
P L A T A N A L Y S I S:
The western parcel has an existing use of a single family
structure. The eastern parcel is currently vacant. Both
parcels have an existing land use designation of Low Density
Residential (0-5 DU/Acre) and an existing zoning of R-1AAA. The
land use designation and the zoning are consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. Creation of an additional lot will not
have an impact on level of service standards (concurrency).
The following matrix indicates the requirements of the R-1AAA
zoning district and the dimensions that are being proposed with
the Hancock Subdivision.
Hancock Subdivision
R-1AAA Lot 1 Lot 2
Lot Size (sq. ft. ) 12,500 33,974 10,502
Lot Width (ft.) 100 100 100
Lot Depth (ft.) 110 339.74 105.02
Lot Frontage (ft.) 100 100 100
Pursuant to Florida Statutes 161.191, all lands eastward of the
Erosion Control Line (ECL) are vested in the State of Florida,
while all upland area is still considered private property.
In other words, the Erosion Control Line serves as the site's
eastern property line. Based upon the above, Lot 2 will contain
10,502 aq. ft. whereas 12,500 sq. ft. is required, and has an
average depth of 105.02 ft. whereas 110 ft. is required. With
regard to the dimensioned lot area and depth, the applicant
argues that prior to creation of the Erosion Control Line there
was sufficient land area to meet codes.
In a similar situation, the subdivision to the south (Lot 1 of
Ocean Apple Estates) was created in 1989 with certain
nonconformities. Variances were obtained from the Historic
Preservation Board wi th respect to minimum lot size and side
yard setbacks. Also, the size of the structure to be built on
that lot was limited to 2,400 sq. ft. (Note: since that time,
the LDRs were changed to provide that a non-conforming lot may
be created by action of the City Commission.)
City Commission Documentation
Hancock Subdivision
Page 3
While Lot 2 will not have any setback problems, the City
Commission may want to impose a condition concerning the
allowable floor area of any structure on Lot 2 0 f the Hancock
Subdivision prior to approval. Based on setback requirements,
a building envelope of 3,600 sq. ft. (ground area) can be
accommodated. It may be appropriate to limit the size of the
building envelope to provide for increased distance between this
home and the adjacent structures.
COMPLIANCE WITH COASTAL PROTECTION ORDINANCE
With respect to ecologic and environmental consideration,
pursuant to the Coastal Protection Ordinance when a dune exists,
a special permit must be received from the Chief Building
Official. To receive the special permit, the applicant must
demonstrate with adequate engineering data that the proposed
project will not adversely impact the stability of the dune.
A topographic survey of Lot 2 has been reviewed by the Chief
Building Official, City Horticulturist, and the Planning
Department's Project Coordinator. The applicant haa also
notified the City that environmental mitigation will be done at
the time of permitting to improve the stability of the existing
beach dune area. As this mitigation is yet to occur, it is
appropriate to condition the plat approval on the provision of a
mitigation plan of Lot 2, at the time of permitting.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION:
The Hancock Subdivision is considered a minor subdivision, thus
Planning and Zoning review is not required.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CONSIDERATION:
As previously stated, in conjunction with the subdivision
request, the applicant also requested that the single family
structure on Lot 1 be designated as historic. The Historic
Preservation Board formally held a public hearing on this item
on November 3, 1993 and by a vote of 6-0 recommended that the
City Commission approve the site as historic.
NOTIFICATIONS OF OBJECTION:
The Planning and Zoning Department has received a petition
containing approximately 50 signatures of objection to the
proposed Hancock Subdivision. The items cited in the petition
include: negative impacts upon light, ocean views, and property
values; opposition to granting a special privilege
(consideration); and ecologic and environmental consideration.
Also, a letter of objection was received from the attorney of
the property owner just north of the proposed plat. A copy of
the petition and letter i8 attached.
,
City commission Documentation
Hancock Subdivision
Page 4
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
A. Make a finding that it is necessary and appropriate to
create a non-conforming lot (Lot 2) based upon the original lot
area and previous approvals granted to similarly situated
property in the area; and
1- Approve the plat for the Hancock Subdivision as
submitted.
2. Approve the Hancock Subdivision, subject to the
following conditions:
a. That any structure built on Lot 2 not exceed
2,500 sq. ft. of gross floor area per floor, with
a maximum of two (2) stories.
b. Submission of a mitigation plan for Lot 2 at the
time of permitting, with a requirement that the
mitigation must be completed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
B. Deny the Hancock Subdivision based upon a determination
that a non-conforming lot would be created~and it has not
been demonstrated that it is necessary and appropriate to
accommodate the request.
R E COM MEN D E D ACT ION:
Commission's Discretion.
Attachment:
* Applicant's Request Letter, Reduced Plat, Floor Area
Exhibit, , Letters of Objection
T.HNCOC::~CC_DOC
'407-276-5~03 LAW OFFICES '352 P82 HPR 01' '?...¡ 12:00
LAW OFFICE OF
ROGIER G. SABIEIRS01\t Pu~.
70 S.E. 4th AVenl.a9 Telephon~: \407: 2ì2·8616
Delray Beach, Fl 33483 April I, 1994
Mayor Lynch and City Commissioners
City ofDelray Beacb
100 N,W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FI 33444
Re: Proposed Plat of Hancock Subdivision (two lots)
622 N. Ocean Boulevard - Request for approval
with nonconfonning lot east of A-I-A (as to lot depth and area)
Dear Mayor Lynch and Members of the City Commission:
This letter replaces my letter to you November 4, 1993. Please be advised that I represent
Nancy Clay Hancock and Waddell W. Hancock, the owners of the above referenced property.
Their property on its south line abuts the north line of the Wilson property which the City
Conunission has previously designated as containing a historic structure (a "Fontaine Fox" home).
Likewise, our property has located upon it a house designed by the same architect, John V olk,
Also, the house on our property wu utilized as a home by Fontaine Fox. The staft'has indicated
that they believe the home on our property qualifies for registration on the National Register.
Like the Wllson property, our lot area east of A-I-A does not meet the current mirúmum
lot depth and lot area requirements. In connection with the Wllson historic designation their
property east of A-I-A received variances and a home is being constructed on this property. The
lots east of A-I-A (includina our lot) as originaUy platted had more than eoough land area to meet
the R1AAA requirements. however, because of the subsequent adoption of the Erosion Control
Line the lot iizeI were reduced,
Therefore. we are requesting that the City Comnússion approve the Hancock Subdivision
plat with the lot.. of A-I-A in the configuration shown on the plat so that it may be used as a
separate single timiJy residentia1lot. In our opirúon, the lot east of A-I-A qualifies as an e"-Ísting
nonconfonning lot of reeord for which no approval is required in order to be used as a separate
single family residential lot. However. the Planning Staff feels that City Commission approval is
required and that the City Commission has the authority to grant such approval pursuant to the
provision in the Land Development Regulations which allows the Commission to approve a plat
with a nonconforming lot if the Commission determines that it is necessary and appropriate to do
so.
.
407-276-5803 LRW OFFICES '~52 P03 HPR 01' '3....¡ l~:OO.
Mayor Lynch and City Commissioners
City of Delray Beach
April 1) 1994
Page 2
East of A-I-A there are homes constructed on the lots abutting our property to the south
and to the north. The subject property is the only vacant lot remaining in this area.
On behalf of the property owners we would like to thank you for your consideration of
this matter and if I can provide you any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
f(1ßp6A~
Roger G, Saberson
RGSldl
cc: Mr. ram Friess
/' ~ _ ""')....., .:.,:. ,.J
_ _ r- <..~ ;; ,-. ). ~ .. ~
~ 4. ~ ........
- ... AI ¿' - ~~' r/" IC< ~ ~
. ~ -"\ -- - /tJ¿J. dt:7' .... ~
- ,,-> --' '- ~
;:0 ':10 _,) '"
- ..,: ( '-
~ ~:' ,,~ ~
: .. -.. ~ ~
: :: '" ~~ ,"""'"
...02 -~~ " ~
.;j .,... ....~ ~
· i'" ...
~ . ~ \\ . ,
...-....... , ,
~ ~ '(\ ,"
; ii'" ':
~ :~ ~;" ~'I
... .. ~ ..
~
t.
,''', ì..
, '\
, .....'
\ '\ ''''
: ~ ~ ~. ..'..'
.. i.. :. .. I ,....
; ~,; ; ..... \ ..)
~ ~i ... .I:~ 't..
? ., ~ i ..... \ ,,\J
: !: i ! ': I ",
_ ~; ... ,,:... ....... ...... 1
~ .... ' ~ ~ ' " "
" : ,.~). -, ,
~ .., , .... ~ ."'....
¡ : 'J' , ~ 'q III ~ :'.', ~
,; \^ ::. "'\ '1 ~ þ \
. '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \: '~~
~ \; ,. ...,
,~ .~ ~ ...
; ':' '" ~ ~ " . ~
( r.. .... ,.", "" , \ '
: '..\:\ ..1.. . ~:'
I' \'" t...,
:.. :..J,'
'.",
:-\~
! '" ~..
: '...'
i (\
I J . \,
~
¡ .....~ \.1
I \ ~;;:: ~.'
._ <:i ~
, , ~ ~ t,\
~~ ,
~ ~ /<"V/,/ur, .;,
';::, ~ - ¿;,fS'¡:-"v¿-A/r '"
.- ~, \,
n " '.-- =-----;-.,.S'/' U"-;- - _ ~' ð1ð'
ià - ---.--
j .. /¿Jt:J. ¿ð' '"
~: .
., - ,) ~
I _ ~~~~ _-ç 9r.A,rE £(J.-!P __A.~/-A ~
'! .~z; \10 ¿J('t!"A"v 9L 1/17.
# ~::- ~
-=:¡ '\ 'A'
-: ;~. /tJð. dv
:- --þ,
Î -; ;~¡: -.-- ,.....;- k"¿1·~"·iÞ~·"N _
I - ,-í~ ,,-----
: ASI- .. :""
;. I.. ....:~ .
~ ...a s ' .. .....: ..... ..
I : "'.41 ',\ ~~ ~
¡ _ :~n 'J ;~.
1. : ¡-,I , , ~ ......... ~ '0
jl,; " ~", ~ ~ ' ~ ~
' - · -- , '1:1"'." f\. ~
. :¡~. '. "~ \,,~ ''1
. :'·1 .. .. ,~ ("¿,,~,. -
~ ,. .,,- -----...-"..., '"", A... "-..,,, 1'\
. . ~-,. ~ " "IPI ·.....vrA",e"c:---
P:' /<:7/ /9- ~ /,4,6 h,- i
. 0 - $ )'. . ~ I
. :<:i ____ Sø·U"~ ~
~ i ~~ --- - /C7/.'¿JS' ----
: I ~
~¡ Ã _' $"·r?',.".. - /0 ,
" I , £(¿', -- --L2¡
~ " ..,
~ ,'" ,. "
," " ........:'
, . 0
r-. f', Z!
..'~ .' ....."
..... ,', ,...~'" ~ .. -
: .: ~ ..¡ -"... , " 'l-:
I ~,' ~. I ~,':~'~ I,' :~ ,\, ~:_\
...1'1 "" I , , , "..J . J.a \
I .... , ... I I' t· ..
'" I l,\'" ~ ''''" .
.... ..I~ I, I.. ,~
~', \: I ...., I ~,~ ~.
~~ ,\..1 I .....~.. I .f:' ....\,
. .... ,. I ", ' ~,
....... t .. , )... ,,\J ,\ I ~.
, ,.. I .....\1 ~~ ..... I " ...
'J .,., I ,... ~" I'" ! \j ........
. , " ,,\ .
,
·
MICHAEL S. WEINER & ASSOCIATES, P .A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The CIartc House
102 North Swinton AYen~_
De/ray Beach, Florida 33444
MICHAEL S. WEINER South Palm Beach County: ("O7) 265-2666
CAROLE ARONSON North Palm Bead'l County: ("O7) 7~5888
Steward County: (305) "62-4935
OF COUNSEL: ~ttfHfff~'
PETER J. MURRAY
DEe 1'1 199J
December 17, 1993 PLANNING & 20NI:::
- ...-
HAND DELIVERY
Mr. David Kovacs
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
RB: Nomination for Historical site Designation, Request for Plat,
Request for Variance, 622 N. Ocean Blvd., Delray Beacb, PL
Our pile No~: CUSP(186)OO2
Dear David:
Enclosed are the oriainal petitions signed by residents of Delray
Beach, Plorida with respect to the above captioned matters. Please
be advised as follows.
On or about August 26, 1993, Clay Hancock and Wadell W. Hancock
made application for a plat and request for variances before the
Planning and Zoning Department for the City of Delray Beach,
Plorida. In addition, on or about June 22, 1993, Roger Saberson,
Esquire, on behalf of the applicants requested a designation of
historic site before the Historic Preservation Board.
As has been pointed out by Commissioner Jay Alperin, these requests
and applications' have been linked. The enclosed petitions
demonstrate that, among other things, the difficulties caused by
these reque.t. outweigh any benefit. In any event, the Historic
Preservation Board bas its own power to nominate properties for
designation without the requirement of any -linking-. Please see
Section 2.2.6(D)(2) of the Land Development Regulations of the City
of Delray Beach, Plorida.
We request that the petitions and this letter be made a part of the
record with respect to all three requests and applications.
-
Mr. David Kovacs
December 17, 1993
Page 2
Enclosed is a copy of this letter. Would you please sign it as a
receipt of the original petitions. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation.
'ì
À/truly;,yourø.
, , \ ¡ i ' ,
Ui }J~) I ( 'L'v"rJo\
MiCüíael S. We er
MSW/dme
Enclosures
ee. Mr. eason .
Received. '_no..1ill ~ ,7..{¡Q(c¡3
~)<:J
? If Jf
PE'.rITIOlf
The residents of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, do hereby
petition the City commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida,
to deny the granting of any variance or similar action that would
allow the construction of additional residential structures east of
State Road AlA. Our Petition is well founded in that it is based
upon the following:
1- Light and ocean views are important to the value of all
property owners in the area and to the general public. The image
of Delray as the "Village by the Sea" demands the preservation of
light and ocean views.
2. Development is appropriate but over-development is a
disaster. The granting of special privileges so that individuals
may financially benefit results in a poorly planned City.
3. Ecological and environmental principles should be
respected by our elected officials. The importance of native
vegetation, dune lines and the protection of sea turtles should
out-weigh any private request for additional construction.
PROPBRTY OWHBR: ADDRESS:
J)t9-W r ~ I~/O ~~¿ f}A.
¿;.Jr~ 1Lð..d.. ~~'¡¥3
(
1~Îr...;~~I~ }?!81
, 2. ot C ~sh.uooJ 1J....
'rkJ r-n....~ ßt'1.. p L "3 ~ '"' k' 3
.
i~OI CFW~OJ ])t..
LL..'#j u,L 1=R ~'J4B1
/2.02- (!,~ 2).\.. ~~s -1<::. r 1,0
2Jdh ~ .&ø-d.. r¿ 33 ';"8' 3
) . I
'7c/ " is ~ ';7~YJ~9
J¡t'~ ~I ~.3
~_IO
.A...-
.J - tI[
MI"a: t+E.f."L~'f ~2"'¡' 4I.o\,..cl\J~c;. A. v€.,
~ "3 ~ '"'tiU 2'"7¿¡'- Y ~'?~
W/Vh ~~1t..Q_ 19 Dj ~~ (L..-e. \
v
PBTITION
The residents of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, do hereby
petition the City commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida,
to deny the granting of any variance or similar action that would
allow the construction of additional residential structures east of
state Road AlA. Our Petition is well founded in that it is based
upon the following:
1. Light and ocean views are important to the value of all
property owners in the area and to the general public. The image
of Delray as the "Village by the Sea" demands the preservation of
light and ocean views.
2. Development is appropriate but over-development is a
disaster. The granting of special privileges so that individuals
may financially benefit results in a poorly planned City.
3. Ecological and environmental principles should be
respected by our elected officials. The importance of native
vegetation, dune lines and the protection of sea turtles .hould
out-weigh any private request for additional construction.
PROPBRTY O1ßfBR I ADDRESS I
. ;7d.?- ¡¿/¿ p~t4L-<'
9.; ( ~ ~ f) i::.éh./5 I1J:i .p. .:k
~.:---y bJ1 3~<I;(_i
l \
~ 2-2- J/.é.- :;2~1r S" r-
¿)ý -£: /I /lIly (J uJ 19 .2
~I9J
-
l:lb C-.¡)-Þ-
.=>~
\..
.
PETITIO.
The residents of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, do hereby
petition the City commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida,
to deny the granting of any variance or similar action that would
allow the construction of additional residential structures east of
State Road AlA. Our Petition is well founded in that it is based
upon the following:
1. Light and ocean views are important to the value of all
property owners in the area and to the general public. The image
of Delray as the "Village by the Sea- demands the preservation of
light and ocean views.
2. Development is appropriate but over-development is a
disaster. The granting of special privileges so that individuals
may financially benefit results in a poorly planned City.
3. Ecological and environmental principles should be
respected by our elected officials. The importance of native
vegetation, dune lines and the protection of sea turtles should
out-weigh any private request for additional construction.
PROPERTY OH.NERa ADDRESS I
1!ti}¡. .~ J'»J1¡B ~
.-!dJ ú to \ ():::~
LJ / ::l. It). ø 1'i/-{>-r1-
5fCf J.J..Ó~'
r
'190 O~~~ QV€ .
,J-oo Sr Óu.~
It/05'J.~ ~7
.. ~~ .JJ7J' 1{.JI. :1~ tXa£.
}~ Û tJ--L /~t> Î1 L ¿J~ &~I
·
PBTITION
The residents of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, do hereby
petition the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida,
to deny the granting of any variance or similar action that would
allow the construction of additional residential structures east of
State Road AlA. Our Petition is well founded in that it is based
upon the following:
1- Light and ocean views are important to the value of all
property owners in the area and to the general public. The image
of Delray as the "Village by the Sea" demands the preservation of
light and ocean views.
2. Development is appropriate but over-development is a
disaster. The granting of special privileges so that individuals
may financially benefit results in a poorly planned City.
3. Bcological and environmental principles should be
respected by our elected officials. The importance of native
vegetation, dune lines and the protection of sea turtles should
out-weigh any private request for additional construction.
PROPERTY O1OIBR: ADDRB88 :
(kLf N .Q AJ~ C\ ''1 ~ r.t......;__
1\1- 4I ~~~_ J:1" ~~~_. ---
ø~' //
~
e
LQ ~1~
1ff~¿: 'fÚ}
~~~~~~.
-1 <\ ð ft-trd~ <-l twc:.. ~ ~
(
,
'.
.
PETITION
The residents of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, do hereby
petition the City commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida,
to deny the granting of any variance or similar action that would
allow the construction of additional residential structures east of
State Road AlA. Our Petition is well founded in that it is based
upon the following:
1. Light and ocean views are important to the value of all
property owners in the area and to the general public. The image
of Delray as the "Village by the Sea" demands the preservation of
light and ocean views.
2. Development is appropriate but over-development is a
disaster. The granting of special privileges so that individuals
may financially benefit results in a poorly planned City.
3. Ecological and environmental principles should be
respected by our elected officials. The importance of native
_ vegetation, dune lines and the protection of sea turtles should
- out-weigh any private request for additional construction.
PROPBRTY OWIfER: ADDRESS:
1t~~:t ~7.Ym
ráL ¡3~
~..J C~<"\~ - .l7,9W¡
¿ p~
_ EIyA/ ..57ðIÞ
L(jdi, ~ !fj~¡<!1Jf/{~ ~~
.? 12"¡ f t...../1 (o/Þ1 ~eI.
't'\"'.I(~ ....,r.ty« Að"'~.~
"e· ~)
/o/7-~-ttQ.A /2'" Y?'~~ ~
. ::J.71ø -4.'014 -! /.; --;
I/D9 -I~¿"'Ó'DÎ.
;::J 7.;1 - 05:..) I
. .
PETITIO.
The residents of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, do hereby
petition the City commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida,
to deny the granting of any variance or similar action that would
allow the construction of additional residential structures east of
State Road AlA. Our Petition is well founded in that it is based
upon the following:
1- Light and ocean views are important to the value of all
property owners in the area and to the general public. The image
of Delray as the "Village by the Sea" demands the preservation of
light and ocean views.
2. Development is appropriate but over-development is a
disaster. The granting of special privileges so that individuals
may financially benefit results in a poorly planned City.
3. Bcological and environmental principles should be
respected by our elected officials. The importance of native
vegetation, dune lines and the protection of sea turtles should
out-weigh any private request for additional construction.
~{~
J
~~~~ ~~. ~L.
~GO l CÁ.< fdr;,~" ;51 V~(
f)~/vcr---ßc~ 33 vvs
713 a1dflu.)S Clutt.
Q'1r..1 TJ.,~".t. t=L
I
;1.,1::;"Þ~ ~~.~. t~
. ( -.. " . ,
.
,
~ . u\~......... U ~
.S\e."'tt.. "\ . .
1/18/94 c: City Manager ~ e. /
Susan Ruby ~~ ~ ~ (Of'tV
SACHS & SAX. P.A. 'j:)1 t -
"OBE"T B. BU"" David Kovacs ATTO_NIIY. AT LAW ~~TII .150 - NO"THE"N T"UST ~1....Lo.b -
STEVEN L. O...NIIILS ~ 301 ............TO "0"'0
WII.LI..... A. ""AGIITTA ~~ '>, BOCA "...TON. "1.0"10" 33.31
ALSO AOMrTTCO .N NCW ....e.....,. . ...~
,-,,""T Z. GI.IC.........N tr ~ . " -
"ON...I.O .I. KLEIN ~~ ~o¡ r,.""'I.INO "OO"C"
.LSO ...D..mED IN OHIO ~ O. .0. .'0037
PETE" S. S"CHS ~~ ,,'ð ~_TOYLO"'O'" 3~.1-003'7
ALSO .&o...,TT£O IN NCW yo... ..... ,,~ .. -
SPENCE" N. SAX ~~- ~"1'&l.E.,""ONE (407) 884--88
- ~~ 1'UitCO'"'E" (407) 884-4885
0" COUNSEL .::!..'\,,-
....CHELE K. CU.....I...G. ~,,~. RECE~VED
.0..0 CC"'lnCD . '>J I
......IT...I. "'ND ,......11.1' LA. ~V y I
...~~~:~.:;:INCALI,.O.N'" January 13, 199 ," . JAM 1 6 \994
RAB:mld
Mr. Thomas Lynch, Mayor CITY COMMISSION
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
ReI 622 North Ocean Blvd./Petition to
Add Property to Local Register of Historic Places
Our File Numberl 1070.05
Dear Mr. Lynch I
Our firm represents Mr. & Mrs. Jack Eichelberger, owners of
the property located directly north of the above-referenced
property. I have been asked to contact you in order to register my
clients' objection to the Petition, but only to the extent that the
Petition requires as a quid pro quo, that the property lying east
of AlA be given a variance of the lot size and lot depth
requirements to permit the property east of ALA to be a separate
buildable lot in its present configuration. presently, the lot is
classified as too small to be a buildable lot.
My clients have no objection to the Fontaine Fox house being
designated as an historic property. The house is probably well
deserving of such designation, and would, hopefully, be an
attribute to the neighborhood. My clients' objections, with regard
to the property east of AlA, are several fold.
Firat, ~ client feels very strongly that the petitioner is
abusinq the syst_ by requesting the variance on the east side
property .a an absolute condition to going forward with their
Petition on the west side of ALA. If you were to review the
Designation Report, you would find that unles8 the variance is
simultaneously approved by the City, the petitioner would withdraw
their Petition for the historic site designation of the Fontaine
Fox house. This i8 not the process by which property owners should
be seeking a variance on their oceanside property, nor is it the
method by which historically significant properties should be added
to the list of historic homes.
My clients second objection lies with the fact that the
configuration of the east side property has been desiqnated by the
.
.
MR. THOMAS LYNCH
January 13, 1994
Page 2
City as being too small for the construction of a residential
improvement. There are physical reasons for such designation and
to grant a variance to override those reasons, not only poses a
danger to the current and future property owners of the lot, but
would defeat the purposes and policies of the City Building and
Zoning Departments and other departments which have created these
lot requirements.
Finally, I would like to bring to your attention the situation
with regard to the property just south of the subject property
wherein a variance was given to build a residential property, and
then approximately one year later, a second váriance request was
submitted to increase the size of the construction on the property.
That petition was defeated, and I would like to think it was
defeated because of my client's objection and other objections by
neighbors, and that without those objections, a larger house which
would have been in direct conflict of the original intent of the
City, would have been constructed. This is not necessarily to say
that the owners of the subject property would undergo the same
tactic, however, the possibility exists, and the best way to
prevent that abuse from taking place in the future, is to deny the
variance requests at ita inception.
I hope you will take these objections into serious
consideration in making your decision regarding the request.
Very truly yours,
SACHS ,
L. D
SLDlch
CCI Mr. , Mrs. Jack Bichelberger
SACHS & SAX. P A.
SUITE. .1$0.301 YAMATO "OAO . ..0. eo. .100,37. eOCA "ATON. '"'- 334.I·OO~'7 . TEL.£PHOfrrltE '.07') .~..... . TEI..ECO~I£" (.07) 8SÞ......e~
,
.
( (-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLATE DMSION (CIVll..)
CASE NO. 94-4317 AY
PAUL CUSSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH, FLORIDA, WADDELL ~'- '..D
.-- .... c...1
-:: -:- i.....
HANCOCK and CLAY HANCOCK, .:- rn :;'~', 0
~~;:: (""')
.-; --
, '.
-~ (~ ~ - --
Respondents. .'-
;"1-::;__':' - ,
,
.... --' 0'
.'? ~~ : ~ -
1"..'
/ ;; Sl :~ -
. '-J_ \..0
i~. r- .-
- Opinion filed October 10, 1995 ; (")~ ~
1'\-\f""I co .
r-Vt_
. -
Appeal trom the City Commission of the
City ofDe1ray Beach
Peter M. Bernhardt, Clifford L. Hertz and
William L. Epstein, Broad and Cassel,
West Palm Beach, for Petitioner.
Susan A Ruby, City Attorney, for RECEIVED
Respondent - City of Dekay Beach. /It/~S- ~
Roger G. Saberson, Dekay Beach, for . CITY CLERK
Respondents - Waddell Hancock and Clay
Hancock.
PER CURIAM.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.
COLTON, BAKER and BRUNSON, II., concur. PALM eEAC~1 (;C''';: iT/ - ~',\Te CF Ft.ONO,.\
. ....."\
--:. .,~, j ~.;;:;tï ;;£.'(1;:....; ~:-:--t ..~
.:. ..' . 4 ~~ foru~c::-:J ¡..:; ~ inJa c~y
:~~"." .....~_1'.." Id..Yhf L'1: :~o.;crl1GtJ f!:¿ tJ5
?~'(..",) y:'~ 111!' C~I ~f 1'_,
I.~'" i :.;r) _ DOROTHY H. WILKEN
~ ~ \. l :....~':~ r'-.i ~ ~ ~~~~...
'J'~4- .... .... ........:'
4 .9 ......... "to.....-
t,\lACII t\'_:
\\~"",-
.
/' 11/02195 THU 10:49 FAX 407 278 4755 DEL BCH CTY ATTY IaI 002
. r r
.
N D A T E .
M A i NOV 1,1995 :¡;
I .1 ¡t!)
i-I ~ L. . - ,; ,
I . -'.. -__h....
from ~_..._. .. ....-
"--~'''-
Cncm:T COC'R'I' OF 'nIE FXJ"1'EP'nt JUDICIAL cncm:T I IN AND FOR
PALH BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLATE DInS ION
'this cause havinq been brouqht to this cauri: by appeal,
-
and attar due çQnsideraticn the court havinq issued its opinion;
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that :such further prQceeding's J:)e
had in said cause in accordance with the opinion a~ this Co~,
and with the rules ot procedure and laws of the State o~
.
- Florida.
WJ:THESS THE HONORABLE EDWARD H. nNE , Presiding Juclqa at
the Appellate Division (Civil) of the Fifteenth JUdicial
circuit and seal at the .aid court at W.st Pa~ Beach, Florida
on this day. ...., . :j
;" .1
.. n
,. . - ..;.
DATE O~rnb_T ~O_ 1qq~ ':'" . --t
. .- ... .) .j
.-
c - -
Cnct1I'1' APPEAL CASE NO. Ai 94-4317 AY . -" . ¡:-:
J
::0''':': -. _.
-. -
COUNTY CASE NO. Co. _.
.... '&. ,·T· : r- ~
"n:;-:.
PAUL CUSSON, V8 THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, r-;;,..., f:'
STYLE ' -.. .¡;:-
-
WADJ)E!.L HÂÑCOCK and CLAY HANCOCK
_.......,"'r.~~ '\_
. _-"',,,:-, ~ \.¡, &;Ì! ~\tt DOROTHY H. WXL'lŒN I CI.E1Ut
RECEIVED "'t\~ .".~~;';:~:'.. . f ~.
~",. Co of .1,_ -.. _.. . oÞ .
.. ~ _ :" ..,." '., Y,'~ 'J Cmcm::T COURT
~.... '1".' .... ,,_. .. 4
/1/ () f/95U'Þ if. tI': ..,.... .:.., :-~ Palm Beach ~For14a
jI,__: i.J :, ,! ;'1r..'
~... " .., ....., -:. .'- ,.,
'1..- .':""'.:.,.;.,...:... ..........
CITY CLERK I, "" "" .... . "...:'
, ,( '..-..' .) '- ~ ~,
'l.#Çi/'''~~- By Nivia De A¡ue
\\\.""",-- Deputy Clerk
original 'to: Circuit Court:
cc: Peter M.8ernhardt. Esquire Susan A. Rubyþ Esquire
-. -
." . .'- _.' _..__ Clifford L.Hert2:. Esquire Roger G_ Saberson. Esquire
·WilInm-I.-.!))~i~ Esquire
--- ---
·
,<.,'
,"~'ì
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 NW 1st AVENUE' DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
FACSIr.!ILE 407/278-4755
Writer's Direct Line
(407) 243-7091
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 5, 1994
TO: City Commission
FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Allocation of $11,700 - Historic Home Relocation
proqram
The City entered into a contract with the County for the
removal and relocation of the historic homes. The contract
provided that the County would remit to the City demolition
monies received from the federal government, because the City
would be removing the houses and demolishing any appurtenances
remaining.
The Agreement also acknowledged that the County accepted the
CRA as the City's agent for the purposes of facilitating the
duties to be performed under the Agreement.
The City also had an agreement with the CRA that they would act
as our agents for the project. The agreement between the City
and the CRA provided that the City would advance $70,000 to the
CRA and the CRA would reimburse the City $50,000 for the
removal and relocation of the historic homes. The contract
between the City and the CRA was silent as to whether the CRA
or the Ci ty was the proper entity to receive the monies from
the County for the saved costs of demolition.
The County paid to the City $11,700 for the saved demolition
costs. The CRA is requesting that the City remi t the $11,700
dollars to the CRA. The purposes of this memorandum is to
request authorization to pay over the $11,700 to the CRA.
By copy of this memorandum to David Harden, City Manager, our
requests that this matter be placed on the May 10, 1994
or City Commission consideration.
i Harden, City Manager
Chri Brown, CRA
Robert Federspiel, Esq. S'P!3
,
·~//o/9¿1
,f Û/(a
\)"./ f( rf. /;(...' . ::Pc.
J¿".;j '#.3~d ~1c¿31
TABLE II
HISTORIC HOUSES
BUDGET FOR MOVING
Movine: Expense Amount
A. LaPlant -Adair Contract $ 87,110
B. Insurance
1. Land 4,225
C. West Palm Beach
1. Comeast Cable $ 5,758
2. FP&L 3,720
3. Southern Bell 403
4. . City Traffic Lights 0
5. Police 2,214
6. Tree Removal 400
12,495
D. Delray Beach
1. Leadership Cable $ 1,180
2. FP&L 4,334
3. Southern Bell 3,439
4. City Traffic Lights 0
5. Police 283
6. Tree Trimming, Boat Ramp Repair, 1,186
7. Temporary Fence & Lighting 1.575
11.997
Total Moving Costs $115,827
E. Commitments to Date
1. Delray Beach CRA $ 50,000
2. City of Delray Beach 20,000 -~
3. Palm Beach County Department of Airports 11.700
$ 81,700
F. Variance $ 34,127
4/27/94
.
HISTORIC HOUSES
NOTES TO BUDGET FOR MOVING
C.1 Comcast Cable. A letter was sent to the Mayor of West Palm Beach on March 2, 1994
asking for assistance in reducing the cable charges. No response has been received to
date.
C.2 FP&L. The actual was reduced by $2,340 from the original estimate of $6,060.
C.4 City Traffic Lights. Palm Beach County waived the costs for moving these structures.
C.5 West Palm Beach Police. We were sent an additional invoice in the amount of $1,398
which raised the estimate of $816 to $2,214.
0.1 Leadership Cable. The original estimate of $1,770 did not change, however, the Harden
family will reimburse the CRA for 113 of the cost in the amount of $590.
0.2 FP&L. The Delray Beach portion was originally estimated at $6,500. An additional
invoice in the amount of $8,122 was sent, however, the CRA was advised by FP&L
(Terri Robinson) not to pay the bill until they had had a chance to research the charges.
The Harden family will reimburse the CRA approximately 1/3 of the original estimate.
0.4 City Traffic Lights. Palm Beach County waived the costs for moving these structures.
0.5 Delray Beach Police. The final bill amounted to $425. The Harden family will
reimburse the CRA 1/3 of the cost in the amount of $142.
D.6 Tree Trimming included City work as well as private contract work. The City waived
its fee of $567.96, however, a private contractor was contracted for $750 to trim the trees
on South Swinton Avenue. The Harden family will reimburse the CRA for 1/3 in the
amount of $250.
Boat Ramp Repair by a private contractor amounted to $1,404. The Harden family will
reimburse the CRA for 113 in the amount of $468.
0.7 Temporary Fence & Lighting for the site on SW 1st Avenue where the houses are
temporarily being stored amounts to $1,575.
E.3 Department of Airports pays the costs of demolition to the buyer of historic houses.
Note that Adair's moving contract included $9,408 in demolition costs.
4/27/94
.
BID FORM
BID NO. 93-5
BIDDER'S NAME: LaPlant - Adair Company PHONE #: 737-8188
Bid Item Unit Price Total
1031 BiUcrest Boulevard
1. Load aDd relo<:ate stnct1lre from West Palm 1 LS. $41,116
Deac:h to Temporary Site In Delray Deac:h
la. Move stnct1lre from Temporal')' Site to 1 LS. N/C
pennaneDt site OD N.W.lst AveDDe
2. Co.struc:tIo. of fOD.datioB oa BeW Jot In 1 LS. $12,000 $12,000
Delray aDd attac:hmeat of struc:ture
3. DemoHtIoa of garage aad In-aroud pool 1 LS. $1,500 $1,5QO
4. Removal of Debris 1 LS. $1,000 $1,000
5. Regrade lot (Include. ..y den ml material 1 LS. $1,800 $1,800 s,'IIf't
that may be required)
6. Resod lot (110' x 108') l1.sso Sq.Ft. $0.13 $1,544
SUB TOTAL $58,960
930 Belmont Place
1. Load aDd reloc:ate stnIc:t1Ire from West Palm 1 LS. , $36,586
Death to Temporary SIte Ja Delray Beath
la. Move struct1lre from Temporary Site to 1 LS. N/C
pennaneDt site OR N.W.lst Aveaue
2. Coutruc:tIoa of foaødatioa oa Dew lot In 1 LS. $10,000 $10,000
Delray aad attac:bmeat of struc:ture
3. DemoUtioa of garage 1 LS. $1,000 $1,000
4. Removal of Debris 1 LS. $500 $500
5. Regrade lot (Includes ..y de.. ml material 1 LS. $800 $800 3,r·f
that may be required)
6- Resod lot (90' x 108') 'J,71JJ Sq. Ft. $0.13 $1,264
SUB TOTAL $50,150
TOTAL BID AMOUNT $109,110
~. ~/'I( '
y5
E-6
,
.
SENT BY:PBIA ADMINISTRATION : 3-11-94 : 1: 16PM : AIRPORTS ADMIN'" 13521208:# 2
IN'l'la-O"PICB COJOmN%CATION'
'1'0: Bob Williams
Senior Aooountant
grom: Je~ry Allen, Direotor
Airport Planning ~ Development
Date: March 10, 1994
ReI Hillerelt Buyout Projeot - Programmatic Agre.ment for Historical Homes
..a~...__............................._..._....._._...._~_..._.____._...___...
-
~h. City of Delray Beach has fulfilled the obligations of their Contraot for
Conveyance or the hi.toriClal Hillere.t propereie. that were loa....t.c! at 930
Belmont, parcel No. 258, and 1031 Hillcrest, Parcel No, 99. The .truetures have
been removed from the lite and. the underlying prop.rty has been restored to me.t
the .pecificationl of the Contraot ana ie in oompliance with restoration
epacification. outlined by the 'AA. .
My .taff haa in.pected the lite and ha. con:Hxmed that it meet.. the
ap.edUcation. . Attaohed. 11 . cC,Py of oorr..pon~ence from Mr. Bob Cauidy
regarding the FAA'. po.ition on the tran.~er of demolition funds for hi.torioal
home. relocated under the Programmat.iC! Agr.ement. Aleo at tach.c! :La a copy of the
County/. bid doaument. pertaining to the demolition of the prop.rtieB irt the
amount. of ,.,000.00 and. '7,700.00 r.~ectively. PleaBe proc... th. rteoe..ary
inrorma.tion to illu. . check in the amount $ll, 700.00 to the City Of Delray Bea.ch
a. .oon a. possible.
If you need any aðditional information, pleas. oall,
, A.A.E., Director
ing &Cevelo.pment
ce: Lisa. Waters
H:\MEMdl:y$,crt
.
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM i 'lis / I - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING MAY 10.
1994 - PRE-HURRICANE ANALYSIS/CITY HALL FACILITY
DATE: MAY 6, 1994
This is before the Commission to permit Gee & Jenson to review their
findings with the City Commission following their evaluation of the
City Hall facility for its ability to withstand hurricane force winds.
Staff recommends the City proceed, funds permitting, with the work to
answer the questions stated under Service Authorization No. 11 in the
April 7, 1994, Gee and Jenson interoffice memo which is attached.
yvSJ ¡
.
. .
Agenda Item No. Vr:. [ (
AGENDA REQUEST
Date: May 6, 1994
Request to be placed on:
Regular Agenda
Special Agenda
__X__ Workshop Agenda When: May 10, 1994
Recommendation: Review. comment and Drovide direction for further
assianments reaarding other city Facilities.
Department head signature: G:-JfJe ~ ~ Wftt1
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)
AccountNo. & Description
Account Balance
city Manager Review: :: ... 1
Approved for agenda: bø/NO Z~/
Hold until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Placed on Agenda:
Action:
Approved/Disapproved
\esd\9439\agreq510
.
, .
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: David T. Harden
city Manager ~ ~ UJHf3
From: William H. Greenwood
Director of Environmental Services
Date: May 6, 1994
Subject: Workshop Agenda Request
Pre-Hurricane Analysis Report
City Hall Facility
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staff request the opportunity to allow Gee & Jenson to review their
findings with the City Commission, fOllowing their evaluation of
the City Hall Facility for its ability to withstand hurricane force
winds.
service authorization number seven to Gee & Jenson was a directive
for the consultant to evaluate the city Hall Facility for its
apparent ability to withstand hurricane forces, and provide a
report to the city with findings and recommendations. This
evaluation was to include limited structural overview with regard
to wind resistance, ingress and egress protection, special
operations and support considerations, integrity of the roof system
and windows, emergency power, fuel, water and sewer.
The report essentially concludes that the city Hall Facility, in
its present condition, offers a limited capacity for collateral
storage and protection from hurricane forces. The single most
economical feature to be provided, which will provide some benefit
to the facility, is the installation of appropriate window
shutters. Other improvements such as exterior door bracing, tree
tie-downs on large trees, protection of exterior fuel tank, and
others are listed in the report.
I have attached a copy of Gee & Jenson's final report for your
review and comment. Additional copies are available should you
desire.
attachment
cc: Ralph Hayden
José Aguila
Memo to C.M.
File:94-39 CD)
\ESD\9439\wkshp510
,
í (C)t/-t (r*~~1-'~~
v. ".
.
~/j3J£110
,'~ ¿:',r.\ ",
q h t.",l::../
GEE & JENSON API? 1 2
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM '; '. 1994
t., Ty .fV,~4!\Jli(1,-.
- )'/.)(, !)'!:¡:/c¡
TO: Chris Pruitt
FROM: W. Richard Staudin .
RE: City of Delray Beac
Pre-Hurricane Analysis Report of City Hall
Meeting with City Held April 6th
DATE: April 7, 1994
I
A meeting was held at 2:30 pm on Wednesday April 6, 1994 in the City Manager's
conference room in City Hall, Delray Beach. In attendance were: City Manager David
Harden, Assistant Manager Bob Barcinski, Jose' Aguila and Richard Corbin of Delray
Beach and W. Richard Staudinger of Gee & Jenson.
Discussion centered around obtaining further detail to protect certain parts of the two
story portion of the City Hall including the City Clerk's Vault on the second floor, the MIS
area (computers) on the first floor, the second story window portion exposed on the east
side of City Hall, the potential to isolate portions of the original two story structure to
minimize damage there, and potential roof tile problems in lesser wind storms.
Gee & Jenson was directed to prepare two draft service authorizations for City Staff
review as detailed below:
Service Authorization No. 10 - Scope of Services and fee to design two Ficus Tree tie
downs and window shutter systems for north wing (1989 addition) of City Hall, along with
bidding and construction phase services. Schedule is to have shutters installed by
August 1, 1994, receipt of bids around June 1 st. Final Service Authorization to be to
Jose' for final review on or before April 12, 1994 to allow it to be placed on the April 19th
City Commission Agenda.
Service Authorization No. 11 - Scope of Services and fee to answer the following
questions:
A. What can be done to protect the Clerk's Record's Vault area? Will the area
of the second story it is in blow away, flood or be severely damaged? Can
it be reinforced and protected or must Record's Vault be relocated?
B. The MIS area on the first floor of the original building is subject to wind and
water damage if the second floor fails. What can be done to protect this
,
. .
.
.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
RE: Pre-Hurricane Analysis Report of City Hall
April 7, 1994 - Page 2
area or to isolate it from the "colateral" damage from ~he second floor
failures? Or, must it be relocated, and where?
C. At what wind land value or range will the second story (1982 addition) most
likely fail? Will it be worthwhile to shutter this area up to say a category
three storm?
D. Is there an after market safety laminate that can be placed on windows in
I lieu of shuttering? Assistant Manager Barcinski has been approached by
a vendor with material that makes this claim.
E. Where can the two story portion of the original building be isolated and
protected to increase the probability of survival of this portion of the
building?
F. What, if anything, can be done to decrease the very real probability that the
roof tiles will blow off during a lesser wind storm and damage adjacent
structures?
The schedule for Service Authorization No.11 is to have a draft to Jose' by April 19th and
to discuss it and the pre-hurricane analysis report at a workshop session of the City
Commission on May 10, 1994 at 6:30 pm in the City Commission Chambers of Delray
Beach City Hall. The services in Service Authorization No. 11 were expected to be
completed to allow Part A to be completed for this season and items B through F by year
end (1994).
WRS:jer
93-040.1
cc: Attendees
Philip Crannell
Russell C. Devick
WRS-PRUm.IoIEIoI
,
· .
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
RE: Pre-Hurricane Analysis Report of City Hall
April 7, 1994 - Page 3
Outline of AlE Tasks: Acquisition of Hurricane Shutters for City of Delray Beach -
City Hall Facility .
1. Engineering review of all existing building design documents to verify quantity and
sizes of openings to be protected. This includes a study of the various wall types
and construction details which affect the connection of shutters to the building.
2. Generate hurricane force wind loads to be used in the rating and selection of
appropriate shutter types, and the design of all connections to the building.
,
3. Research available shutter manufacturers and model types for the most
appropriate design for this facility.
4. Generate technical specifications/project bid documents for the bidding or
procurement of suitable shutters.
5. Bidding.
6. Project observation during installation.
W~m.MEM
,
.
. .
- - Agenda Item No.:
AGENDA REOUEST
Date: Mav 3. 1994
Request to be placed on:
_____ Regular Agenda
_____ Special Agenda
~ Workshop Agenda When: Mav 10. 1994
Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Staff requests Mock. Roos &
Associates present the Stormwater Master Plan to the Citv Commission. This
presentation bv the consultant will discuss the drainaae levels of service
standards. drainaae concepts. desian criteria. proposed drainaae improvements,
cost. priorities, and recommendations. This presentation will provide an
overview of these elements.
ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO DRAFT ATTACHED YES/NO
Recommendation:Staff requests Commission consideration and further direction on
the completion and implementation of the Stormwater Master Plan.
Department Head Signature: ø,¡~~ 5),/1(1
Determination of consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
If',
~ 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: {ÝNO t?v'l
Hold Until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Placed on Agenda:
Action:
Approved/Disapproved
I
AGSTMS03.MRM
.
~4Aif d1
- , , .
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
TO: David T. Harden
city Manager ~
FROM: William H. Greenwood /ltJ/),
Dir. of Environmental Services
DATE: May 3, 1994
SUBJECT: AGENDA REQUEST FOR STORMWATER MASTER PLAN
We request that Mock, Roos & Associates make a presentation
regarding the stormwater Master Plan to the City Commission
at their regular Commission Workshop on May 10, 1994. This
presentation will discuss the following elements:
Levels of Service
Drainage Concepts
Design criteria
Proposed Drainage Improvements
Cost
Priorities
Recommendations
Staff is seeking direction from Commission regarding the
completion and implementation of the Stormwater Master Plan.
Attached is an agenda request and a draft copy of the
Stormwater Master Plan for your review.
WHG:RH:mm
cc: Ralph E. Hayden, P.E., City Engineer
Cheri Sova, Mock Roos & Associates
File: Memos to City Manager
WHGSTM53.MRM
~ (~
'f'l
,
·
Stormwater Master Plan
for the
[ITY DF DELRRY BER[H
March 1993
revised March 1994
by
Mock, Roos & Associates, Inc.
Engineers · Surveyors · Planners
,
.
Existing Conáitio7U
H Level of Service Standards
The Growth Management Act (1985) and supporting regulations (Ch.
9J-5 P.A.C.), require that local governments adopt Levels of Service for
drainage facilities in their comprehensive plans. In the March 1993
Stormwater Master Plan, Level of Service Standards were developed
based on permitting criteria. This was consistent with what many local
governments had adopted as their Level of Se~x:~~$:(.Standards for
drainage facilities. However, City Staff felt tha..~:(~~k::::~gR.roach did not
effectively provide the City with a tool for.,.,::,~·fe~·siri:g:::~~~:::::p'rioritizing
existing and future drainage needs. The~,~f.~f:~/::!g::::f~sponsè::y:?:"comments
from City Staff, the Level of Service S·èiQ.:~~t~1;;r~Hduded in the March
1993 Stormwater Master Plan ..:":;¥:f::::.:::~2dudéd.::::·Ztt:,:::~.his report as design
cri teria for future developmert£::.. ~g4:::::::th~::::.J()lI'ôwìng Level of Service
. 0·0... ....
... ... ...... .......
d'··,"'· ",.,'. ...,.,,,.,.... .....,.:',.,.
..... ..... ........ ...... ......
. ...... .. . .
. ..... ............ ........... ......
Standards were develope ..... .......... .....................
. ..... ........ ........ ...........
'.. .... . ..0. . ....
. ..... .
.... .. ..... ..
.. ....
... . .....
....... ......... ...... ......
.... ....
.. ..
.... ....
.. ..
.... ...
. . . . ,
.......... '"
...... ....... ........ ...... I
........ .' ,.,. ""'. ,.::.::<.. . , . mpacts
. ,.,. ... ......
..... ..... ........
... ..
.... ....
.. ..
....... ...... ...... ......-,
Design Standaiä:::::::,:: ::::::::::'::::::::::~::·:···'·':'::::\:.,:;;:r:?·
Level fq;f:'::{':::':<':::::'" "":~' ::::::,...··'·':\Genei31 Conditions Accessibility
R~:~~~ýS,:':t;.::::::::'\:.,.·"·"··· . ',"'.'
. . . ..
'... ..
A 1 o-yé~~t.:::.~·4:~r.our··'·::::;: '1::::: Possible minor ponding Roads are accessible
B 5-year, 24tQgpr.::(:::::::.:::::::r> Possible minor ponding I Roads are accessible
C 3-year, 24-hoí1r.(:·:· Possible minor ponding Roads are accessible
D Less than 3-year, 24- Portions of area have General inconvenience
hour ponding with moderate
duration < 12 hours
E Less than 3-year, 24- Ponding with relatively Sections of roadways are
hour long duration> 12 hours not accessible and general
inconvenience
F Less than 3-year, 24- Ponding with relatively Sections of roadways are
hour long duration > 12 hours not accessible and general
and structural damage inconvenience
* The design standard is based on roadways due to the limited topography available.
Mock, Roos &- Associates, Inc. PlZge 24 03/02/94
,
Existing Conditions
To apply these Level of Service Standards to areas within the City of
Oelray Beach the following assumptions and criteria were developed:
· All SFWMO permitted projects were assigned a Level of Service
A, B or C depending on the storm event used for design of the
roadways within each permitted project. If the permit did not
specify the roadway design standard, a Level o.:~~::~::rvice Standard
C was assumed. .,·:f:;::-:·:.:·;:::(:·:··
.... .....
.. ...
.... .....
o. . .,.
.... .. .....
.. .. ...
.... .... .....
.. ... ...
.." ...... .....
.. .... ...
· All FOOT or Palm Beach Count~.::::~f~:f,d:$~t1::::::·~~~~I::~ding 1-95
which was designed for greater ..~:9i.~::t:if':::::~:A::7ear,14:fhour storm
event) were assigned a Level of "S~.~~q:.;;~~éh1dard C (per FOOT
and Palm Beac.h Coun:'::::~tfff~~.~a. rdsf:::::~:~15t:~ drainage problems
h b ·d fi d ..... ...... .. . ...
ave een I entI Ie ';.:>. .:>:.:.... ....:.:>:>.... ":.:>,.
. ",' ........... .......... '.
.... ......... .......
. . . . . . . . . .
..... ............... ..........
..... ...... ......... ...........
.::.: :.::. "':'::':.' "'::'::':..
.. . ... ...
". ... ...... ...
.. .. ... .. .
',:':" ..:.:.....:.:.:.:.. ...:.:.:.:.... .,':.:':'
'.. ....... ..............
· All undevelope~.:ß~r.~~~:~:fere·::::~t·i¡~~:~l::~ Level of Service Standard
C based on ..,Ç){ð.:.;::::i~:iµnjjRJ¡On"·\::Hiát as these areas are developed
minim urn s~ih~~d~:;::fiJ1\~þ,;g:¡::fu~:~.
. . . . . .
.. ......... .
.... .....
............... ........ ......
.............. ..... ....
........................ ........ ......
... .....
· All A~;JôpÇ~:::::~:r~:i~:~:::~hhin the City with existing storm sewer
..:~::':" .~.:::.:'. .....;.:::.: ";.:::. ".;'.
sy~t~:~:~~::~:~re ':~~s~~ned a Level of Service Standard C. This assumes
that r1Ù~::::::P¡~;:~::j{~s previously reviewed plans for these roadway
systems art~f'" minimum standard criteria have been met. Note
that some of these areas may contain isolated problem areas
which, based on the available data, were thought to be attributed
to localized irregularities and/or maintenance problems.
· All developed areas within the City without drainage systems, or
with drainage systems that were determined to be inadequate but
where significant flood problems have not been identified, were
Mock, Roos 6- AssocúzUs, Inc. Page 25 03/02/94
,
Existing Conditions
assigned a Level of Service Standard D. Note that these areas may
contribute to flood problems elsewhere.
· All developed areas within the City without drainage systems, or
with drainage systems that were determined to be inadequate
where significant flood problems have been identified, were
assigned a Level of Service Standard E.
..;:.;' :.;:.:'
· All developed areas where structural dam:9~::·:.~~~>..to flooding has
been identified were assigned a Leve~;~)~i:ê'S,~~ F.
The Level of Service Standards defined.::~}~;B:gf~::::~~~f appliéd?'to the City
and are indicated in Exhibit 1. Note that:'~:~·f.:¡:t~!~f of service evaluations
as seen in Exhibit I were based:;:?tì'::4i.m:L:~d èl'åt.~;;:.:~~:;.e., topography for all
areas of the City, finished floo:f~::::¡:~t~~~~r~~s:::::gCiïl buildings, historical
documentation regard~.?-~.:::::.!g~atiÓ~:.:,.:'¡::(ffÕ'6d.ing, flood damages and
extent of flooding ~.5~~!~jh§.,J:t8~ ~~f::%ific rainfall events and detailed
.... .. r ,. ..
soils data including:i:¡:p~[~~J~Í:JÓIi:i::f~:~P ~ere not available, and are subject
to change P..sfl~:~:rtg:::Æ~lÛ:!:f,::·:~:qf.:~a 'êollection. Flood durations, although
recogniz~:~;:':::i~~::.:::trii:p~:ft~?t;·::~:ä;~· difficult to delineate and were based
primarily ðh.::::è·b~G.~:~rï.:3hs made by City Staff. In general, areas lacking
positive outfan:i:~~U:;::~*þerience longer flood durations.
Mock, Roos do Associates. Inc. Pag~ 26 03/02/94
,
Stormwatu Master Plan
Table 2
Drainage System Conceptual Design
Drainage Area Proposed Improvements
Area 13 Storm sewer system with main trunk line along Northwest 12 th
Street and outfall to Lake Ida. Since the proposed outfall is to
Lake Ida which is within LWDO, this area would come under the
jurisdiction of L WDO and land acquisitio~:will be required to
meet water quantity and quality criteria. ºá~:)o the limited land
available for acquisition within Area 1..3é'R~.p~.;:,~.izing was based on
the traditional approach, assumi2:g:j:;p.ø·'::·stA.:~å.~f:.. facilities. It is
proposed that the City negotiat.:~/~~th L WDÔ::%?::':~pmpensate for
increased flows from this ar.$:~(:§it·i~g~þ:¡ng flo~g:::,·to the L WDO
system west of 1-95. Thi·~·:::::~p':ri1:~:::::ß'é: achieved through land
acquisition and constql.~tion ot':~~p'"fã:~~ facilities west of 1-95 or
through limiting di$.~h~f.î.:&:,.:&?.m ri~:;;::developments. This could
be beneficial to thé:¡::l;!':ÆRJ~~;::::.::é·sp~ially if the proposed flow
reductions "y':Y:Œ,:.,i,~ are~j,fHB.rj;ä··hj?be inadequate under existing or
design c9:p.:a.l~~é·£;:::j:... \:':::¡, .:::'};:
..... .... .... ...... ......
Area 14 Sto~~ ···~:ð~it::f:;'t:~:f~·J;:\;Ìih main trunk line along Northwest 9th
/~~g~Ü¢::::,ptd':j:~p.t~N to Lake Ida. Since the proposed outfall is to
t!Bilke·::t4~'\y'þicH\ìr·within L WDD, this area would come under the
.)àf.l~dic.~~o~ of L WDO and land acquisition will be required to
·:·'~,~a::':~~fè} quantity and quality criteria. Due to the limited land
a~iil~þí~ for acquisition within Area 14, pipe sizing was based on
the traditional approach, assuming no storage facilities. It is
proposed that the City negotiate with L WDO to compensate for
increased flows from this area by reducing flows to the L WDO
system west of 1-95. This could be achieved through land
acquisition and construction of storage facilities west of 1-95 or
through limiting discharges from new developments. This could
be beneficial to the L WOO especially if the proposed flow
reductions were in areas found to be inadequate under existing or
design conditions.
Mock, Roos & AJsociates, Inc. Page 41 03/02/94
,
Stormwater M ast~T Plan
Drainage Area Proposed Improvements
Area 16 Storm sewer system consisting of exfiltration trenches and
controlled discharges to existing main trunk line along Northwest
2 nd Street.
Area 18 Storm sewer system with main trunk line along Southwest 10th
Street and outfall to LWOD £-4 Canal or to the SFWMD C-15
Canal via the City Canal easement east of I~2..5. An outfall to the
L WOD £-4 Canal would require land a9Iiif$:1tion to meet water
quantity and quality criteria in additi9!{:·t,~::::~:;.Joss of revenues for
.. .. ...
.... .... '.",
the City since the area will cop.~:::::¥.äaéf::::;::~~f.::)urisdiction of
L WOD. Therefore. the propos~=,f;..9.ü.tfall fot":::t.hii::j:9-rea is to the
.. .. .. ..
.... .... .... ....
SFWMD C 15 C al ..':.:' ..:'.:' /;'. ":.:;.:;.:'.
- an. ...;::).:". ...;::).:. ...;):::='\::::;" .';.:'
.... .... .........
.. ... ......
.... .. ... .. ..' .....
. . . .. ... '"
.... ..... ..... .....
. . . . . . .. ...
,..... ............... ........
,... ........ .....
. . . . .. ...
For the recommended drai~:âg~;·::::~·y¡~;E~m along Southwest 10th
Street to outfall to Wè::·;Sg)f.!vfD t}~:!.:5.:::::çanal via the canal right-
of-way adjacent to I~Q:?·t:¡Bh~::.:t6UQ;lYi.~g·::~ould be necessary:
. . .... . , . . .
... ... ..... .......
';.;';. .;':-: ";,;.;,;.,, ,';.'. ',,;';.;"
1. Acq.y.M:~:.:æ. eas;ip.~:H:§:::th:i2"Úgh the Park Ten development or
',Y:!~~:~p::::::f11~9T i~~.~~<of-way to construct approximately
d' ~:~~:~:':; ri~~~~f~':;. 10,h Street to the
::~2~:~:~:~::::~:::~::·::::::~::Wh:~}~:::ÆK~::.:canal exists within the canal right-of-way it will
:~:¡:~:::.:.;......".:+~:¡~~y~ to'::1jteleaned of vegetation and possibly siltation.
.;':~~~\::.:.. .:;~r.~s-sections of the canal should be surveyed from the
·:·::~:~::::::~.::·:·:::>:~:{:::Bphhern end of the canal right-of-way south to Audubon
':':::::\:r(?:Boulevard (where a fairly large canal exists and continues
south to the SFWMD C-15 Canal. I t only needs to be
checked for obstructions).
4. Surveyed cross-sections would be used to recommend
improvements to the existing canal, if necessary, and
design Cfoss-sections where the canal does not exist.
Area 22 Stofm sewer system with main trunk line along Dotterel Road
and outfall to the Hungerford Canal.
Mock, RoDs & Associata, Inc. Page 42 03/02/94
,
StormwlÚ" Mast" PIAn
Drainage Area Proposed Improvements
Area 23 Storm sewer system with main trunk line along Dotterd Road and
outfall to the Hungerford Canal.
Area 24 Storm sewer system with main trunk line along Audubon
Boulevard, Lindell Boulevard and Curlew Road and outfall to the
Hungerford Canal.
Area 27 Extend existing storm sewer system nO~:::!p~:#g' Albatross Road.
.. . ..
..... ...... ........
Area 28 Storm sewer system with main tr.,µ.rik:,:H~ê::::~J6:hg Northeast 3rd
." .' .
....... .... .....
Avenue and Northeast 8th Streee:-¡hd outfal('to-':::the Intracoastal
..:':.:'. ..:,:.;",
Waterway. ,.:';.:', ,.:':.:" --
Area 33 Implementation of t_~~:-::9.:f:~nage --:l~p'i~y.~ments recommended by
Barker, Osha & Ari:%~t:~är:?·::!:?:f;:____.in·:thèir 1987 report. Proposed
pipes parallel existing':::~~þ~_~:~j:~:~fR::::~n trunk line along Northeast
2nd Street 'W.d-::Q~Jfall t~:::_:~h~fHítri~oastal Waterway.
. .... ... ........ ....
o . .. .. . . . . .
Area 35 Implefiif:~~t:~p:~:;:§f:;;:f.~:::::4.iiinage improvements recommended by
~_¥~f~' O~h~·:::~. AiidÚson, Inc. in their 1987 report. Proposed
tB!.P~::_:R~I¿r::~~~:~ng pipes with main trunk line along Northeast
:f(~!:~t Sttð~:f:-~d òÙtfall to the Intracoastal Waterway.
.. .. .. ..
...... ....... ," ......
Area 36 -Í~p.:rbT¢ht:ation of the drainage improvements recommended by
Baiktl; Osha & Anderson, Inc. in their 1987 report. Proposed
pipes parallel existing pipes with main trunk line along Southeast
1st Street and outfall to the Intracoastal Waterway. Drainage Area
Area 37 Construct second main trunk line and outfall to the Intracoastal
Waterway along Southwest and Southeast 2nd Street with
connections to existing main trunk line along Southwest and
Southeast 3rd Street.
Mode, Roos & Associates, Inc. Page 43 03/02/94
,
Stormwatn Mast" Pian
Drainage Area Proposed Improvements
Area 38 Implementation of the drainage improvements recommended by
Barker, Osha & Anderson, Inc. in their 1987 repon. Proposed
pipes parallel existing pipes with main trunk line along Southeast
6th Avenue and Southeast 5th Street and outfall to the Intracoastal
Waterway.
Area 40 Storm sewer system with main trunk line a:J,?ng Southwest 10th
Street and outfall to the Intracoastal Wat~:f.:##ïj::-·
. ..
.. ... ..
. .. .
Area 43 Coordination with FDOT for stor.m:~$ibrit:::~r.i~:.:.,?1ain trunk line
along U.S. 1 and outfall to th~::::lptracoasta:r::::~:2:¢rway via the
Eleuthera Canal. ..::::~:::((::~:::::::::::"'::::"
Area 45 Use of stormwater p.vmr... stati~:hi::::i~::::::¡¿tificially lower the water
elevation at the ou4:~~::;:;~:[:::'~:~I~~g':':~tøim sewer systems. Eleven
(11) electric submed~pt~::::::~~JàR::::::~t3.tions are proposed in areas
where drai..H~g~:::::frobl~pl;:::Jávè·':':'been identified. A conceptual
drawin&.:::::þ:!,::::~h~::..~f8.Posè#:....:î?ump station is shown in Figure 1.
Bypas<!:n~:p';:;~~tš~;~:~t~:::l,={ppbsed to reduce adverse impacts in the
e':~n~..~ii::t:j5~æp s~iÖ'n fails. Descriptions of the proposed pump
:!:~~~g~'~~::,:;::~rë:::~œ~:? in Table 3 - Proposed Stormwater Pump
:::~tatiÖ~~:.·'~:!~es 'àf~ based on a removal rate of 1 inch of runoff per
:ßóBE -w..Ríc:~ was determined to be the removal rate of the existing
:·:P~.pi:Þ.t~i:;iHons. Portions of the existing storm sewer systems will
n~~:atft(be replaced to match the capacities in Table 3 - Proposed
Stormwater Pump Stations. Sizes are based on a removal rate of 1
inch of runoff per hour which was determined to be the removal
rate of the existing pump stations. Portions of the existing storm
sewer systems will need to be replaced to match the capacities of
the proposed pumps. Note that the recommended improvements
for this Area were based on limited topography (primarily USGS
quadrangle maps and field observations) and will need to be re-
evaluated as more detailed topography becomes available.
Mock, Roos & Assocúztts. Inc. Page 44 03/02/94
,
StoT71'lUlater Master Plan
Table 3
Proposed Stormwater Pump Stations
Location Description Estimated Cost *
Harbor Drive 16-inch 20 horsepower 5,000 gpm $ 33,700
Island Drive 12-inch 10 horsepower 2,500 gpm 28,200
...
Beach Drive 16-inch 18 horsepower 4 500 nf:" .:? f\:::·. 33,700
, gR·.·..
.. I·:\::::::::;·;·:··~::·::}:::··
Sea Spray Avenue 16-inch 18 horsepower 4.>.:?:~2:;:gþ.m 33,700
.... ..... ..... .....
Water Way Lane 16-inch 16 horsepower "\:4~2:od~~~þfu 33,700
.. ... .... ....
...... ....
.... ....... .... ....
. . . . . . . .
.... ....... .... ....
Atlantic Avenue 20-inch 50 hors:~oWfF::::':'>:':+?t~oä::gpin 47,900
"'::'. ';.::.::.' ,,;;.::.';.;:.::.;;.;'
Miramar Drive 18-inch.:.:::::::30::.i~grsepd~~f.;;:::::::/::·8 ,ÓÒO gpm 39,200
Bay Street 18-ìri~::j::::;;:;::1:Ø:::§~;'~:~Þ~fi~l:" 10,000 gpm 40,100
Bauhinia Roa~.:)t:::::::: ;;::Z~1,:~~:.: ":':::5Q::g9rsepower 13,000 gpm 47,900
..... ....
Brooks Lane ·:·:t*.:;.ï..nÞ~j): 10 horsepower 2,500 gpm 28,200
...
White Drive l1i1"nch 10 horsepower 2,500 gpm 28,200
* Estimated cost does not include installation of new manhole for pump or
replacement of existing pipes. These costs are indicated in Table 5 for Area 45.
Mock, Roos & Associates, Inc. Page 46 03/02/94
,
Stormwllt~r M ast~r PÚln
Table 5
Summary of Storm Drainage Cost Estimates
Drainage Area Cost Estimate
Area 13 Major Storm Drainage $ 725,800
Manholes, Inlets, etc. :::::}:.:.. 508,100
Road and Utility Replacem~pt.: :f(::' 838.300
Estimated Construct.ï.~%:::þø~~:: ~~2.~:::~~~
Engineerin~ Ugal and;~~~:;;~
$ .':.:' 2.590,300
.... ..... ..... .....
...,.... ........... ..........' ...........
.... .......... .....
.. .......
...... ......... ........
.... .... "...
.. .....
.... .. .....
Area 14 ^.1.:~jor Sto·;:k:::p:f~.~age $ 776,200
:;::¡:~:::·:~~hq!~.~.' I~lèt~;)~tc. 543,300
.... ......... .......
....... ................... ..............
..... ............... ...........
Road aIÌ~k.Ot{UtY::::R~pHïcemen t 1 ,042,100
. . ,', . . ::~.~:: .:.~::.:.. ,.;,;:;,;::.:., . '.: :.:.: . .
..;.:::t::::::;::::·::;:~~t~rated:!1tqß·struction Cost 2,362,000
Ertgi:Aêedt1gt:~gal 'iPH Contingencies 190.100
.... ... .... . .
........ ...... ...... .. ..
...::::::<::¡~:::~:::::::::::~:::;::::::::::.:.:::.:::::::t::::::;;:j::::::" TOTAL $ 2,952,500
. . . . . .
..... .... .
· ..... ....
.. .....
· . . . . . ..
...... .........
.. .....
....... ........ ......
.... ..... ....
........... ........... ........
Area 16 ..::::,?'..:::?'.:.:.".. .... ..... .... Paving and Drainage $ 2,966,500
':.:'" ".:>:.. ".:}:}...<:.;'.
.... .... .......
· . . . . . . .
..... ... .....
. . . . . . .
..... .... ...
·{¡:f: ":'f:~';" ·:::::t :::::.:. '.
(Cost Estifii4.tt::\:::::... .':.:'. :.:':. Sewer Reconsuuction 113,500
..... .....
..:':.:'. .:.:':.
provitkd by êi~:\:~:: ...... ......
........ ....,'.. Watermain Upgrades 880,000
StafJ) .': Fire Hydrants 172,500
Sidewalks and Driveways 675.300
Estimated Construction Cost 4,807,800
Engineering, Legal and Contingencies 160.000
TOTAL 4,967,800
Moc/r, RODS 6- Associates, Inc. Page 52 03/02/94
,
,
Stormwater Master Plan
Drainage Area Cost Estimate
Area 18 Major Storm Drainage $ 1,302,300
Manholes, Inlets, etc. 911,600
Road and Utility Replacement 1.149.600
Estimated Construction Cost 3,363,500
Engineering, Legal and Contingencies 840.900
TOT AIr .:.$:':.. 4,204,400
Area 22 M~:::;~~~~:~@"~~:~;> :::~~~
Road and Utilit¥::;.::~~:~~~:ènt 107.900
Estimar.~~.:.ConsÚ;ìçft~6.\Eost 166,000
Engineerin~ ~~:;~~~ $ 2;~:;:
Area 23 «!:(i2~,:~t:~I~:,n:e $ :::~~~
..... ..... .... ..... ....
........ ..... ...... ....... ......
:~.:::::::.:.. "'::::::::::::::::;::~~;r::~ ~ri~f"utility Replacement 1 59.400
::::\:::;;:~::::\::::.: ··:·:~~ihnated Construction Cost 266,700
~ªgfp'eering, Legal and Contingencies 66.700
:::?:'. ..:-:::::.:. TOTAL $ 333,400
Area 24 Major Storm Drainage $ 124,600
Manholes, Inlets, etc. 87,200
Road and Utility Replacement 185.100
Estimated Construction Cost 396,900
Engineering, Legal and Contingencies 99.200
TOTAL $ 496,100
Mock, Roos & ksociates. Inc. Page 53 03/02/94
,
StormwtZUr Mast" Plan
Drainage Area Cost Estimate
Area 27 Major Storm Drainage $ 52,400
Manholes, Inlets, etc. 36,700
Road and Utility Replacement 1 02.900
Estimated Construction Cost 192,000
Engineering, Legal and Contingencies 48.000
.....
T0-r.~É:: .:$:::' 240,000
Area 28 Major Storm:.B:~p.:ig8::: ,~~:~~I. ~:~:~~~
Manho~:::~;,:=·!:;r.:I~~:~):..etc.
Road and UtilitÝ:;;:::~~~:~~:ènt 918.800
Estimated ConstIiiÇf..id~:::..Cost 2,840,800
":~':"" ":.: :', . :'::'.
Engineerin~ 1\;;~~~~~:~ 710.200
$ 3,551,000
".;":" ";.;,:.;,;.,, ..:':·;':o":·;'z:·;';·:"
.. ... ... .,.
....... ..... ,'........
,.:':.:':>::<:':::';':'" ";,;:;. .;,:::,:::..,
Area 33 ...::::(~:(~~::;;;:r~.:·:·::~+::·:::~!::::::.:.:....Må:j~:.~~~:to rm Drainage $ 321,400
.:::::::¡:;;.:..·::f::i:;::.:.:"):~:~:~:~:::::~:;:::;.:;;:;::.::·~:::::~:::::~.0:[fih 0 I e I nl ets, etc. 224,900
::;~;;~~~:~U~~:::~:::e~::: 428.300
974,600
Eþgf.?eering, Legal and Contingencies 243.700
TOTAL $ 1,218,300
......
.. ...
Area 35 '. Major Storm Drainage $ 122,200
Manhole Inlets, etc. 85,500
Road and Utility Replacement 20'5.800
Estimated Construction Cost 413,500
Engineering, Legal and Contingencies 103.400
TOTAL $ 516,900
Moc/e, Roos &- Associates, Inc. Page 54 03/02/94
,
.
Stonnwater Master Plan
Drainage Area Cost Estimate
Area 36 Major Storm Drainage $ 167,200
Manhole Inlets, etc. 117,000
Road and Utility Replacement 298.400
Estimated Construction Cost 582,600
Engineering, Legal and Contingencies 14'5.700
TOT~:::: -::$:':' 728,300
Area 37 Major Storm.<2:.~p.:ig8:::::;~\:::::::::::... 1,029,000
Manholes··:tt'nJHs etc. .: ::::..:.::}:::-. 720300
..:.::;:~.:.!- ..:,:{.:':' ..:.::/.:.. . :·?~t·:·: )
Road and UtilitY:::;::~~~j\:~#-1:ènt 493.900
Estima~.:~.. Consd1ìçf:~~6.:::Eost 2,243,200
.......... ^., ....
Engineering, ~~.~lj;~~~:..:~.~::::~:~gf#ties '560.800
'.:'::' ..<:....<:<:... .<::;:'.., ...}fOT AL $ 2,804,000
... .. ..... ~. ... ... ......
. . .... . . . . . .
... ..... ..... ........
.. ... ,_. ...
. . . .. . .
...... '.. . .....
.... .. ,_.
........... .... .....
................... .... ........
Area 38 ..:":::::::::{:::;;;:;::':::::;::;;':::~:!:¡:::... M¡J.?:?~:torm Drainage $ 164,300
. . . ... . . . . . .
... .... ,'. ....... .......
... . .. .,.
'::{J;¡:;:;:::::::::::¡:;:;::::::::::::::::::;::::::;::::.::::::::::::~\::~.:iliholes, Inlets, etc. 115,000
::':::::::.:.. ··:·{t:::::::.:~q:~~ art1r:Ütility Replacement 302.500
:::::::::;::::\::\:.: ":<:~Ø:Ïnated Construction Cost 581,800
~~gJ¥eering, Legal and Contingencies 145.'500
. . TOTAL $ 727,300
..::.:'
Area 40 Major Storm Drainage $ 1,306,800
Manholes, Inlets, etc. 914,700
Road and Utility Replacement 1.1 08.1 00
Estimated Construction Cost 3,329,600
Engineering, Legal and Contingencies 832.400
TOTAL $ 4,162,000
Mock, Roos 6- AssocÍ4w, Inc. Page 55 03/02/94
,
StOTmWiZÙT MaS"ttr Plan
Drainage Area Cost Estimate
Area 43 Major Storm Drainage $ 972,100
Manholes. Inlets, etc. 680.500
Road and Utility Replacement 799.900
Estimated Construction Cost 2,452,500
Engineering. Legal and Contingencies :::'. 613.100
T0-r.¿~:::. .:$':.' 3,065,600
...... ...
Area 45 Pump Stations, inclp~::~;r~~~"~~:'\} ~:~:~~~
Manh6les:::ÜnJáti?hc. 319 900
. >:'\;.:., 1:·:·::j:j)::·:·:.:·;t:~:~·· ,
Road an~:.:.:~tility Rè~:~.~~:hent 991.900
Enginee;~:,\~~;:::::: 2~:~:~~~
............... ...... ........ TOTAL $ 2 950 800
.......................... ..... ...........
..:~.:.:.. "':.:';.:', ":':';" :':.;'; J ,
..:.::;.;" "::':"':'" "':::':. <:';.: "':::':.,
,.<:.;" ,.<:.;" .. . . . . ..:.:.....:>:..
".:.:.;' ",:.:.;' .:.:.:. :.:.:.....::.:.:... :.:.:.:.:'
...... ...... ...... ...... ....
.... .... .... .... ..
... .. .. ..
..... .... .... ". ....
........ ...... ...... ......... ........
"{::H:;':.. ',<::;.::;:;.:", ":'::~::':"''':'::¡::':.:. "::H:f:"
... . ..
..... . ....
... ..
..... ....
.. ..... ....
..::.;'::;';::<:';:;';.:':'" "<:':::':" "':::';.:.
. . . . . . . . . ..
..... ...,.. ..... ....
.. .. .....
.... ..... ..... ....
...... ...... ........ ......
........ ......... ........... ........... ...,....
...... .............. ...... ........ .","
.... . ... ... ..... .... ..... ....
........ ......... ............. ........ ..................
.'::':' .'::':' "::'::'. '.::.: '.::.::,:'
. . .. . . . . . . .
.... .... ..... .... ...
.. . . . ... .
.... .... ....... .
.... "
.... .... .... ....
. . . . . . . .
......... .......
. . . . '" .
..... .... ......
. . . . . . .
..... .... ... ...
....... ...... .... .....
.. .. '"
..... .... ... ...
.... ...
....... ...... ..... ....
';'::':. ':'::'. .:':: :.::.
.':.::~:j:~:]::.:.. ··:·::~:;:~::::.::::(?::..;:~)f
..... .... ....
.. . ..
..... .. ....
.. ..
..... ....
..... ....
Mock, Roos 6- AJsociatl!s, I"c. Page 56 03/02/94
,
Stonnwat" Master Plan
F. Priorities
The recommended priorities for the proposed storm drainage im-
provements within the City of Delray Beach are as follows:
1. Areas where structural damage due to flooding has been identi-
fied (refer to Exhibit I for areas assigned a Level of Service
Standard F). ..:.,:?," ..:::?:"
2. Coastal areas subject to inundation fro~.,~Sf.fÍ:Q.::.:í~:~~::s in addition
to taÎnfall induced flooding: #~;:~>'''''~~'
Ar 45 .... "n ....... .....
a. ea ...... ...... ...... ........
........ ..................... ...........
.... ........ .....
.. .......
...... ......... ........
';':.:'" ,,:,:.- ...;.:.:.:.,
.... .....
...... ......
3. Low, flat areas wi.th no ~:1.§~.~~;~::::\~.~::.::igt:.;::~r¢fer to Exhibit H for
flood Prone areas) ....... ......... ............ ..............
. ':':';" :':.:', -':':';';';". "':,:';.;':-:'
. ...... '~:j~~:¡:: ···::~:j:(~:::::;;~:j:¡:ø:::¡:::¡·:{i:¡::·:··
Ar 3 ..':«:':":':::':::':., . .':<: ...:>,y f Ar 23
a. ea 1 ...:.:.,. "':.:':.:' ":.:':. :.:.:.: ea
.. " .... .... ..'
.. .. ...
...::::¡.;.;. ,..:::.;'::::;.:>. \~::: .:.~:~::. "::~:b .
h Ar l·I"· ..:.,:;<'" :.} "'':':''''''-::'' "'},.:':?:- Ar 24
ea.}!. <\G.. ...,:,:/,.:...:::::..:......,,::\:...... ",:,':"' g. ea
..... .... .... ........ ......
"':';':';" "'.;':.:':-:', ..;.:.;......;.;.:.:. ";.:';.;'.
Ar 16' ........ ...... ........ ......... ........ h Ar 28
C ea .,.,.,.,.... ..':.":' ':"'''-''''.:':' ea
..... .... .....
d. ..:.:{~:~:::~:~ç~~:::l..~:~:::,::.::::::::::::::::~;~.::;;:~:.:;::::::::~.: ".,'. i.· Area 40
e. ·-':f¡:i:¡:~::.:.:~::14¿ea 2~: 'ti:;:" j. Area 43
....... ...... ..... .....
.. .. ....
':'::':. ':.::.. .'::': ,;.:'
.. .. .. "
..." .." .". ....
., .,.. ..
..... ........ ....
.':.:';.;. ":<:,:':.:" ..;':.:'
4. Areas w=tt~.j~:ØŠhive drainage, i.e., canals or storm sewer systems,
which funct:ion to remove runoff from inland regions but were
determined to be inadequate:
a. Area 27 d Area 36
h Area 33 e. Area 37
c. Area 35 f. Area 38
Mock, Roos & Assocwes, ITlc. Page 57 03/02/94
,
Stormwat" Mast" Pl4n
5. Isolated drainage problem areas (indicated on Exhibit H):
a. Area 2 g. Area 25
h Area 3 h. Area 26
c. Area 6 1. Area 29
d Area 7 J. Area 31
e. Area 11 k. Area 3.3:.
f. Area 12 I. Area.:::39.¡:'::;-
Xi:" 44
m. ...:)::.:~.:.:::\::::5~:::::::;"::::::::::::::::::::::>.
.... .... .... .. ...
6. Areas where no drainage problem;~~~ ide';¡Î~$â:
~ ~: :,(~~:+,1>~:$: :~
c. Area 5 ..::::::¡::....::::¡:¡:;:.::::::¡:¡::::....!:;.:::.:::.::::::;:¡:¡::.:. Area 20
.. ..... k' ..
... ....... .. ..........
.. ... .......
d Area 8 :':." .:.,.,.:.' "':."'. ".".:.:.:. Area 21
.... .. ..... ..
. . . .. . .
...... ... . .....
.... .....
,'::-::'::'::'::':. ':.:: ,,::-::.'
... .... ....
..... ...... .... ....
.. ... ...,
.... .... -,. ....
...... ...... ...... ....
Ar 9 ........ . ...... ...... ........ I A
e. ea ...:.:::)·:·::..:)::·:·:·;=::k. )-:::.:.:.... ·"::t....::::¡t. rea 30
........ ... .......... ......
.. .. .. -.... ..
...... ...... ..... .... ....... .......
.... .." .... .... ...
f Ar ·1"'0" ........ ........ ........ .'. Ar 34
.. .... ....... ....
.. ...... ...... ......... .'......
. ........ ...
~. þ~t~1~~:.··',,~K. :. Ar: 41
...... ........ ........ ........ ......
..,:::.,':' ...:::.:':.":.:':':::':.:'" ":':::':., Ar 42
.,,:.:-:' ...;.:.;. '.;.:-:.;'" '.:.;.;.
........ ......... O. ea
^^ ^^ .^^ ^" ~
..;:;.;:;. ..:.;:;.:.. "::;';.: ";::';.
......... ........ ...... ......
..... .... ... ...
....... ...... ..... ....
......... ........ ...... ......
....... ...... .... .....
..... .... .... ...
.':-:';':. '";.;';'. ..;';.;' :;.:'.
.. .. .. ..
The recom~:ê~ff¿:(r~·::pf.r~rities were set based on discussions with City
";.:';.;. ,.;':.;'
Staff and review òitExhibits H and I (Problem Areas and Level of Service
Standards). The highest priority is given to the areas with the lowest
level of flood protection.
Mock, Roos & AssoCÚlteS, Inc. Page 58 03/02/94
,
·
Stormwllt~r M ast~r Pian
IV. Recommendations
In consideration of the information contained herein, the following
recommendations are made for the City of Delray Beach:
1. Implementation of the Stormwater Master Plan to ensure
adequate drainage systems in all areas of development. Drainage
facilities are proposed for the existing built~,:~:P':.:.:,eas of the City
either lacking positive drainage or wi~g:':·::~F?:;f.~::::,~ewer systems
:~~~ i:~::e~e~:~:::d a::~~ ::;~~~~;~t~~~c~~:: ::
have adequate flood protection. Hq~~VÂf~:::'í11Uch of the City east
of 1-95 was found to p~g¥i4.~.:.::,~:~adeq:4t::~~::::::r.ood protection due
primarily to a lack or:f~ë~tti~.~:::\:d:r:î.I~d'ge and a "piecemeal"
approach to storr.B,ZBter rri~P:~~fiåéñt:· The proposed improve-
... . ,. ....
..... ...... .... ....
.. ... ....
ments have ~:Jø~:::;:,:ø~f:T~~.;.d f~:,:;:~~liminate the ponding resulting
under existirtgt:f.q~P~:fjØ%~,.::::~:Wîhg a 3-year, 24-hour storm event
wit~þ~~~~~ s;¡1:h as those indicated in Exhibit H.
2. Pr4.~~~!g:~ ò"F::~iNfer q'Uality through review of new developments
and l~:Q,~:':::4$ý'~.!?pment regulations requiring onsite retention or
detentiorKit:pbYious areas and native vegetation. It is recom-
mended that new developments continue to meet or exceed
current water quality regulations.
3. Address water quantity and quality management through use of
roadside swales and investigation of land acquisition for deten-
tion areas. The use of swales appears to be limited due to restrict-
ed roadway right-oF-way and multiple driveways within existing
built-up areas of the City. Detention ponds can provide a
practical and effective means of stormwater management
Mock, Roos & Associates, Inc. Page 59 03/02/94
,
·
Stormwat~r Mad~r Plan
provided that land is available for acquisition. Undeveloped areas
within the City which may be available for land acquisition by
the City for use as detention ponds are indicated in Exhibit J.
These areas were reviewed by City Staff in October 1993 and were
found to have some potential for acquisition. Table 4 indicates
the estimated amount of land required to provide detention for
the first inch of runoff for those areas for w:;~t~:)m provements
are proposed. As indicated in Exhibit J '.::ßþ';~·<~ß~eveloped land
available for acquisition east of 1-95 is }Jn~:H~d:":~~;~$t:r, as land is
acquired for detention areas (or ..8pgyfìì..pnents ";'to::àgt for land
,.::.:' ,.::.:.. .'::';:'::', ':.:'
acquisition), depending on the ov~~:t.íì¡i;:8~~:liH·, location and size of
the detention area, there ~:;~&...be opþ:q!::~:~:B.:i,;~ies to reduce some of
the pipe sizes proposed::::r~::;:::~~h;i:Þ.:it J ~:':'::~!iKough a conservative
.. .... ....
..... ............... ..........
approach is reco:;~~ed\~;1P',j~J'wet sire conditions.
4. Coordinatio~::::~Jþ(:Þ;¥·~:~::?f~ìd~::j.::¡:to design detention areas so that
they may be;::~~:!:~:::~~{::§ffé:f::::i~reâtional opportunities. The City has
indic;:;.~~::::::::.:::~::~~fétt:~.~~::fo/·dry detention areas without perma-
n~.9¡i:::·i:?:phlS'::::q:f:~~ta::::(rherefore, there is an opportunity for the
....... ...... ..... ...
det¿h!.~:?h::::f:.~}..p provide for recreational uses, i.e., athletic fields
.. .... .
or picril¢:::.:å¥:ç,~: for local residents between storms. Since the
periods bdween storms are normally much greater than the
periods of rainfall the detention areas would be available for
recreational uses most of the time. Multi-purpose stormwater
storage facilities are recommended to promote good operation
and maintenance practices. Poor operation and maintenance (the
factor most often mentioned against the use of storage facilities)
reduces the usefulness of storage facilities and can cause the
facility to become an eyesore, nuisance or health hazard.
Mock, Roos & Associates, Inc. Page 60 03/02/94
,
.
Stormwatn- Ma.¡ter PiIln
5. Promotion of best management practices such as street sweeping.
sedimentation traps and erosion control. These best management
practices are recommended for all areas of the City. However.
within existing built-up areas of the City where water quality
retrofitting is not feasible (such as Area 45 where neither
exfiltration trench or land acquisition are practical) they will be
especially important.
6. Cooperation with the FDOT and Palm Beach County to
provide for local street stormwater drainage in the vicinity of
State or County outfalls. The proposed improvements for Areas
33, 35. 36 & 37 will improve the drainage conditions for sections
of U.S. No.1 and the proposed improvements for Area 43 will
provide positive drainage for a section of U.S. No. 1 and Dixie
Highway. Therefore, there may be an opportunity to negotiate
with the FDOT and/or Palm Beach County to share in the costs
of these improvements. Additional coordination with the FDOT
is recommended for use of vacant lands adjacent to 1-95 for
detention areas.
Mock, Roos & Associaus, Inc. Page 60 03/02/94
.
,
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN - CITY MANAGER ~
FROM: LULA BUTLER - DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN
SUBJECT: D.O.T. PLAN FOR N. FEDERAL HWY RECONSTRUCTION
DATE: MAY 6, 1994
ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
Presentation of DOT's plans for reconstruction of N. Federal
Highway In Delray Beach between NE 8th Street and Gulfstream
Blvd. City Commission direction requested in order to respond to
DOT's proposed improvements.
BACKGROUND:
The DOT has recently presented plans which show major changes In
the cross section of the right-of-way on N. Federal Highway.
Changes involve the removal of the existing on-street parking and
the additional of four foot bike lanes on each side of the
roadway. Proposal also involves the closure of certain
turnaround areas and an lncrease In stacking lanes for turning
movements.
The proposed plans have been distributed to staff for comments.
The Fire Department lS concerned about any proposed closures
Slnce it would effect the City's Fire Protection Plan. The
Police Department has concerns about the loss of on-street
parking due to the use In the area In connection with the Swap
Shop. The Engineering Department lS concerned about the bike
paths being placed on one-way roads due to the fact that
bicyclists may be traveling in either direction on the roads and
people tend to look only one way.
Although the ultimate plans will result in extensive green area,
it seriously impacts the existing landscaping and will result In
a total redesign of the irrigation and landscaping. In
conversations with the Design Engineer from DOT, Mr. Mortaza, he
indicated that the project started out as a milling and
resurfacing project and that any time something like this lS
done, they review the entire cross section for safety concerns
and implement their Access Management Guidelines, which result In
some median closures.
Mr. Mortaza further indicated that safety concerns were an issue
due to accidents that have occurred along that stretch of highway
between the pedestrians and parked cars, although we have
documented none occurring in Delray Beach.
WS/3
,
City Commission Workshop
May 10, 1994
Page 2
This project not only impacts Delray Beach but continues all the
way into Lantana. At a recent MPO (Metropolitan Planning
Organization) meeting, there was much discussion from all cities
impacted by this proposed reconstruction and it seemed fairly
unilateral that everyone was In agreement that further
consideration of the implementation of the project was needed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Commission approval lS requested to send DOT a letter expresslng
our concerns and desires not to have this project extend into
Delray Beach.
LB:DQ
Attachments
NFedHwy.CC
.
.
,
. Agenda I tem No.:
. AGENDA REQUeST
Date: 5/6/94
Request to be placed on:'
Regular Agenda Special Agenda X Workshop Agenda
When: 5/10/94-
Uescription of agenda item (who, what, where, how much):
D.G.T. Plan for N. Federal Highway
ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO
Recommendation: Commission Action
~ ......._, :
Department Head Signature: I· _...,:_.,../~-'
I
Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable):
Budget Director Review (required on all ite.s involving expenditure
of funds) :
Funding available: YES/ NO
Funding alternatives: (if applicable)
Account No. & Description:
Account Balance:
City Manager Review: t~ì
Approved for agenda: ~ß/í NO
Hold Until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received: .
Action: Approved/Disapproved
.
~. (L ~/v:/~, i -;70111 ÓLt..f M./
\" . if
¡ .I ~ I ' \ (! e...- ¿~
:., I; , t
J <>r~J/
// ....: ~. <'-
WE OBJECT Ú I'
" .11-/1 ._
'¿ í90,¡
... " ,¡I ~,'
MAYOR ED HARMENING "
MR. MORTEZA ALIAN
3400 W. COMMERCIAL BLVD. P.O. BOX 310
FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33309 BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33425
MAYOR THOMAS LYNCH MS. SHARON MERCHANT
100 NW 1ST AVE STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 721 US 1
SUITE 110
, N PALM BEACH, FL 33408
MS. CAROL HANSEN (BOYNTON)
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
777 E. ATLANTIC AVE
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483
(DELRAY)
. WE THE BUSINESS MEN AND WOMEN AND AREA CITIZENS
STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED UNNECESSARY
RENOVATION OF
U.S. 1
MY COMMENTS: This is to notify you that we strongly object to
the renovation of U.S. 1, namely bicycle paths and also,
removing crossover at NE 1 Ave. & Fed. Hwy. which enables our
customers to enter our parking lot at rear of building from
Fecier81 Hwy. Tf thi~ r.ro~~over i~ elimin~tprl it wn111tÌ np
necessary for them to proceed north to Boynton Beach Blvd. (a
very busy intersection) to m;:¡ke ;:¡ II turn whir.n T feel ; ~ r'I
hazard. Further, this is an expense for taxpayers which is
nnr. W?rrAnr.prl ~r. tni~ timp.
NAME: Coast LIne Realty
ADDRESS: 209 N. Federal Highway
Boynton Beach, FL JJ4J5
'/" // /~ (1 ~~/
(,- ".,", ~-". /,
¿J ¡¿ ¿.1-j ~ ¿/ ¡ 'VAL-L-,u--1- ;/:,L~ ~ .j
,
- 7; IJl~K ,(:,
-. .
O~~ ~ Ii /-11 ( , .' ~' '.',.:.
WE OBJECT /h{ff P " '(:,
) '-'I'
.,
MR. MORTEZA ALIAN MAYOR ED HARMENING
3400 W. COMMERCIAL BLVD. P.O. BOX 310
FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33309 BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33425
MAYOR THOMAS LYNCH MS. SHARON MERCHANT
100 NW 1ST AVE STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 721 US 1
SUITE 110
N PALM BEACH, FL 33408
MS. CAROL HANSEN (BOYNTON)
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
777 E. ATLANTIC AVE
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483
(DELRAY)
. WE THE BUSINESS MEN AND WOMEN AND AREA CITIZENS
STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED UNNECESSARY
RENOVATION OF
U.S.l
M(í5~MMENTS : .
~-~7rJ
NAME,ß ø,gL-~7--/,q-
ADDRESS: j/J- S ~iIw;/ S7-Fb
~~ .~
to /I{ ðUfJlt 0'~ ..
~ " ~ ;'.,...
(! ê ~ ~ {:-,' ~.:.
WE OBJECT /)t! ¡.¡. /H.'r! 2 ') 1994
I - '/ ,r;" 1 jII il
..... ......1' r .., ¡
MR. MORTEZA ALIAN MAYOR ED HARMENING
3400 W. COMMERCIAL BLVD. P.O. BOX 310
FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33309 BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33425
MAYOR THOMAS LYNCH MS. SHARON MERCHANT
100 NW 1ST AVE STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 721 US 1
SUITE 110
N PALM BEACH, FL 33408
MS. CAROL HANSEN (BOWTON)
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
777 E. ATLANTIC AVE
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 1
(DELRAY)
. WE THE BUSINESS MEN AND WOMEN AND AREA CITIZENS
STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED UNNECESSARY
RENOVATION OF
U.S. 1
cD .
MY COMMENTS: ~Jí SMALL ~\J~ A0-T ðF Bùs
(j) fLooDII-4~ t-l~S NEV.e¿ t<,tEAJ A ?2ßRE..~
® þttGR- IJ(}-1Ñ ~"E- tsftF ~ T~f2- ruE CLr-I
~ SI/lALL g,~ Pß'i í~ FtJ¡e.. Blti;e.s IvHO Ðt¡¡,1rP,¡V S71?B2:( ~
\~ B~r=:::cs tØlLL RE~ ~ 8~ !jO SMAU- BtJS.;
(Q {l c,~ 4 '71+£ 13£' -
$L~ ~~ ~ ~ SVtl4-U- íò ~~n:t- c¡µ;
NAME: Je+4-l E\ ße£IT~ ~,S i DLYrCk-1 ~FA-L-e;TI4TE-
ADDRESS: ~ 0-0 30 R=D~.-A{..., tAw ...¡
'ßc>'i.t:L1ér-t O~ Ft., .33'-13Š
,
,
'... ~~~:=",:::...s,«Þ"rrt" I! z
~ ~ 'V _ 0 I:
¡t1
~ N ><:
0
0
"t1 .'
" Iii
0
¡¡~~~Z~ ;¡.
~ð;ig~ 0
r"": ~""o" ~
~.(~~~; ;¡.
~.:.~~~ -: I"
"~O"'t'II:t
¡;::~ !~ I~ "C
~ ~ r' ¿:
~::::~:tEII .- '::z: -< ,.., ;¡.
ÞO 0 -,:I ...
§ñ~¡~::: ~ ~ - Z ¡
,..., en VI ~
~~~?~~ ::D . ... :%: (J"J
~ : .- ~
~g; ~: '" ~ ..
o .., ~
- ~ " ~
~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
" z _
. .0 '" '" 0 0
~ . " '" z z
. ¡¡ .. ~
~ 0 o ~
'" ~
'" '"
'"
~
"
~
~
~ ~ r:..n
""'3
> > CJ¡
...;¡ "'...;¡ "0 '-:
~ >C%j ~ t"" >:
t"" > -
" ~ ;g M z ".
0 rJ¡
> I::' 8 0 ~
1::1 C%j
> ~ :c ":1
~ (j ~ "
- '" -
.... :I: ø " ~
":1 Z 'wi
ê (j 0 0 ;::::
C%j 0 . :tð '-'
" C ~ ~~ ;;.-
> ~ ~ i
t"" ~? >0 I
:I: ~ ~
~
~ ~
~
'-'
~l
i
~VI '" I
;,~ ~
I . "'D
-~:J:J
"''''0 ¡ I
o~~
",...n J
-- ....
;.., ~ . ( ,
'" , : I
~"rL¡
. H õi~~2 ª~¡~ .----- I ~
~~g~i ~~;~ œ !2i~ - ¡ ¡ __~_8! :
; ~ ;! a~E~~ ã~¡~ ~ I - '. .:.---_/ /.7""'i;'" ?
~~~~$ I~;; .; "-.- c, _J .
~~~:g ~~=~ -'-~:~'-d-..-,,_., ;;
~~~:~ i5;~ ~ ð ~ r~ ~ 4J V-~,~",
Z¡;~ð ~~~o o C' :z ( !~'----==-~~J' --,-' ,
- ~;i~ ~iæõ ~ ~ = i~:
, ~~;: ~~~~ ; ~ ~ !~ ~ ~ a, ~ ..____~'! 's~ ¡ !
n O..¡ .11\ 1'1", ~ ~ :3 I~ 0 . . ~ 's- ~j; ¡
~~~: s:~: /. !
. x _ Iª \ , r~
'CI"...... 0'" '" ~ ;; :;: ,~ ;
~¡~~ : ;~ ~ - .~ I 10. .:.
\/I z Þ:II. ..oj
~;~~ ~ ; : ¡ ,I
- "
!!~
0
~
,
~~ ~
,~
-
~ ~ r-:Ð
: ~ ~ ~ '\ ~;¡¡
O·
~ ~~~;; ~
.. - 010 IÞ :Þ
! '" 0 ~ '" ~ ." _ ""1_ "" - . - - . . - .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :Ši I~"" I.... I , I
.. . """ C"'> <'~ i j~ ~
~ : :.. ~ ~ 0 i-';:... I' ... <D
C ':þ ,_,~u:u:
- - . ~ . .. """" ___ "0::
~ ~ :i: LoI N N 1> ::j:~ ~ ""=
--- '" ?J ~:: ~ ;: ~.. -1 ~ 1
~ ~ ~ g g g ~(" c 1," c~'.
... ~, 0]; ..;t: .
, I $:1 z....
,: 0 ~ I
, ,
~ : '
,¡ :: "
;iª ~ \1 ;1 .~
~u ' : , I
-~ . ~ E~~ I ,
» i ; ~ ~ z~~ : ~
. --
- -~ g ~ J VI ~
,- ': ~ Ell ~ r- . ,Ñ
~ i II ~ g : ~).
~ ~ ¡ II" . !
~ ~ ~ ,. ~ .,. .. I
! ;:~ ª ~ ;; :¿ I
" ~ I"" - 21 ;, ~"" '"tI ---
¡ ."n_ ~ ~ õ% - I
z ::: ~ ~ C ; :Ð ~ ~? ~ ~ ~ b
i I': !i! 1- 0 '" "IE" 8.. r -I /-
:a - ,.. VI r-.... _ ~."'.....:):
~N"~ '"$ ~...o~" ;¡gç._¡¡C___j__,
1-- z~:- .),"'I1~z 0", (J1 I",'~ 0
~ ~;a~~1;i:01C')Ii!:: "T1 ;.
-- ~~~ ~~:~: ~ ~ r!Ð
~ ? : ~ ; i ~: 5 ,.-- V\
- ::;~. ~ ! ~ z t, ~
-; -;.., -, <
~5 ~ uo UI ¡~ 11 ~
, .N_ S! (0 OJ" ~ '"
.~ ... i 21 .. I i:> .'2;1::::0
III 0 VI < I I '" . "
i ~ g PI a I ." Ñ~. U1
uo ~ . 0
. . ;:: ~ n ~ ';'; e
:,. : "" ; i& ~-~ V\
.;. Z ~ i~ ; t 0 ~ ::::
- ~ - ~:.. ~o
'.. .... "" :¡;::t: f , ,0:; N
· ;. ¡¡ ~' ~ð i5:
,~ ~ ~ :; ," ~ ~':
_,_ III: : :
N , , ~. _._\_L
:oi ãl ~! ~
~ ~. L'" ~ ,
~ '~ ,__~ '~ .0 I I I
~~ ;;:
~~~ ,,-~- ~ ~
i i~: :~ ~ .
- ! -=-',,-" 'l'
. -<;,-..-- ,"-
, ,
d :
~ ~ t ï:g
n ~~
..¡ ;; /'
~..¡ ~
g . ,
z ~. ~!
i i:
-
:-" !" ~ '!'" ~ ~ ~
'On ~%l1 O:O~" ....J: '-11:
~ i ë' r- ~ ~ i) ~ ~ ~:=
¿s:;.......0 "'.- -n ,...,,..., ...~
.......J z::O ~ < 0 ::0 ~ ð i .... 10 ....C'>
, ~ ~ l!, a..., .... ¡;¡ z. ..... i. -4
I ..ðI Õ iIi_~ ;¡. ¡¡ ~¡¡¡ %z -<
~ ... %I ,.VI~ '$n::o. 10 ."
I - .¡¡~ !:õ~ ~;¡ ~~ ~,.;¡¡¡ n
, ~ .;: ~ ~ ~,.., ¡ ~.... :.
I ~ :~ ~~~ . ~ ~õ ~~ ~~ roo
n ....~ "'~~ ~ 0 ~'= ni ã~ ~
"'- ,.m ~:;~ ~ 0 ~'" ¡¡~ ~ n
~ .". ~!:~ 10 %I ,..,... ~"'.s¡ -4
r- ~S~....::o ::o~~~,..,~~~ ¡
::0 i ¡;.~ ~ ¡ ?:~ ~~ z::
r.J:; : ~ i: ~ ~ ~: ~; ~~ 9
~ ~~ ~~ ; i G~ õ: ~s ~
~ ~~ ~~ ... ~ ;",,..., !i~ ....,., --
\ J _ 3 ........ !i." .... ,%'0 _ :¡
~ i i.?i.... ¡ ž~ ~ ..
~ . ~ ~ :: : :j
~ .... 10 ï' :¡
Y ~ %I t~ ê
Z ~ ~ ~~
I· ,I
"'" ~::¡
,
.
< t.._
r ,-~,- !
,
..,.~..., ~ .
, ~.,' ~
.~~-
i~. ~ ,
. ....,~,- ~r . ;".':.., \
~ ... '
'4 1
,"'I
~"';'.\~': ..... " . 'L~ '
-: ~ . ' ,
,~ '1 '.r. -, \
." , ': I )i
~..¢
'" - ,
~~h . :~ \
,,."1;;;
'.""ti "
. ~,
~
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
;
I
,
I
I
,
I I
~
t
I
;
. .
1 '.
ì .:.
i ~ ,:
i 1~it~
=
\ ~. ~ ~. ~
I '\";i .
, }j
t ..\~~
, i ~
i :-\~., ,
"'~.. . . ......\
g¡c::~ . '·,t·
...:Õ:e - .;' I
§ Õ"'-S .
",,,,,,, ~
"':: h::t
I ~, . :b!s; ¡
i~ :: ì
0 .~- ..~
. ' ...~ :e ~
~:.. ..~~.~ it: ~ . "
I~ . ¡ ......; .
~ i~ ¡ ..t..I)
'..'\"
:', ~ ',~ "...
<:> .
~ '" .' \
. ,..
'" ~"i.!'~ ',;, t
l,. ~~ \~~,'
~ i ~- ;, ';'.
!
~
~
,~ .~
t
.
- " ~'.
~
O. .iI
II:
111-
I¡:
.). I'¡!.
f .~~ ; '.
-I . \~,_.
'" IQ ~, .
, ~....
, I)'
'j I~~" .
:&;:~ )
. \.j.
)¿/~t "'" _ ,~ ~~
-
'.
.."'--
I
. I. .,,-
- ~
! '...ª -
,.¡
.
"
:-.
:~! ~
" 1
,
I'.
T"
5:
i
j
~
~
I..
}.
~ i
~ ~
j
> '~ ~~'oc.~' .. I
.' -+ ~:. '¡, .
.~~:,-~(;~ ¡
j I
t
J' .
:'
J
- ì
,
I
~
,
~ I
-
-<
.. <:ß ~.
Ì¡ ~ ;;!
..
-, G.t ~
VI ~
C Z
<''''1 ø:
,; ..
-'
#
¡
>,
.t· .~
A
!
,AI I
~,; r. _,-1
Ii 1 "': ->-'- H_.
I~';" fL,,:..- J
' / t· '", ". ~ .
/'; ~ f',~",. .. ;' .. '; I
:" r.; -, r . . '1 r
8;:-"·"';;; - " ~ ~ ~~i
¡ ' ~ ~'. 0 ~ ..,~ .... ~ : .'"
':'I~h"'" M"
~ ....; ,,¡t:-<,,
1 . .t:~ i,.:~.t- ;-
"I ~.
..- ~ ' "
--- . II .-' ~ I
"" \
::~~, ...::-.~. -..
I !' __
1·...-· '!.
. 1> ~ _,.$....
'1i;/: ,Ii:~
·--..í·C- - -. -. r~--- "-~ .
¡_'J' '"
, .. ~ --- .
F ."
I .
~ i '. I ~"'" .
t·,,:¡,,-·;'
I .f
i . " !! !
I!I
".
I '"
"- I '"
J Ii!
Ii:
V' i
... I ,,:-. \
; I't~ :: I,
::r "p t ,,, ,
'f "
¡:. ::1- ,
l:r t ~7$ I/¡ ¡
. -IJ~
~
-
.
A
~ I
, t,
~
: n
-
i
r'
\
. -
:'
~ ~§'I
,
~~~
...-
~
=
I
t'
....,
~ -
"¡';;
'--
"
..~
il . 'to'"
I _',,' ,_,,0_.-
f-". -
"
:.
"
o
~
~
[,
l .
~ ! €j. .l;... So" ...-:.:. ..
¡ i _ .' .~~:: .:.;.... .}.<_
ª ~ ~ ~~,-: .;"1',
;! ti, op.::::'"j\:
~ ~ If '
. ~
' .
.. .. <I,.
.. ., ." '" --...... ~. .. ,J>
~~~ - '. ;..~ ',.:-.
' . , . 0 ">' ." ,_~ ", " .
'; , ~i~ !~. ·.'t?~'~N
. ~ .,,, :2;.
"1 ~." ___
., . e _ .", _
::. t __.._
{.I. _ ~'.. ~"'..J...'" .
~ ~-.- ~ ~-1.' 'jII~_.
. .i--~. .... ..... t\:".
~ ¡Ç ~ --r
r,
"'
~
, -- .,
--- Q~
~
-
r
.
, " ~
i
,
.
II"
,
._J
fl' .~,
t' .\
I .,~ .',- .' r
~ttr :.~ ...... I
II '~::::~f-.f;~·,. . 1 õ~ ì b
~.~ J ..:~-;~,' ..:.~~~
. ........._",.. .,0
, : ..\ -; .~: - ",¡;;. ,
~~r¿~~~J~~. .
J01oiO ,..' .- ~-
, ... ;,~.'-'
,._ ?'^< ..._ - riT~ L
~ ~ " ¡(;si .
~. .
.
.:
\
, i
~ _ I::: ~ :
t
~ ; ¡ I
, . I I
i 'õ
t. . . ,'__ I
t- ~ ¡
. I
_. I
- I -
. f' I
ì ' I-
, -
, -'
, :;¡~, .
. I. '
, ~\
,.
: L
~ -
~ i
~
,
;
~
.
~~ ~
_ ~ CITY OF
, ~ ; oil!. DELRA Y
. IC BEACH
.' :'"
t 4,~ 2 §
~~
J"
?,I
F
-{ .,,---~~
~ "'1)1 -,~,,~.......
.- '¡¡' "",:' - -
, !!!II 1,.. . Ilt
, '''l r~¡- '-
". '. --- ·If\' ' Æ'" ,/
1--:- '~l'(":'r ..........,~ - .~~;
_ .r,. -.:
,
-
;
!
,
L /
~ f
r
,
~.
---
~ ~J
~ .~
j ..
~ 1~
I
:>.
z.
z.
; '"
X
iT. \
, ~
-<
"
?
~
-,
0
"- --
- ~
, .- ., '
,
"1 ~ ,~
"'~
<
J C; 1 ~ ¡
::: ;;j
-, --~ ~- ~
/ l' _ \
- '~ z
(", p
...-----:¡---Y- .
,.
I
,
I
I
,. "',.,,., ~ ~
· CJO(/\CJO ""'::0
- ......... I ~~
0 · I ~
0 ·
,., '-» N -- ~ I ~
CII .. 0"'''' ::c I
0"'''' > I
a 0 "'0''' "T - ur· -r· ' ~
Z · "T
UI ~~~ - ;i¡ ~,., ... ~ -- - i
CII 0' · . .
-0 · cOO (") I:~ "'¡ ..
,., II» · · · E;~ X:-- ~
PI .. ......... 0
0 · · · I, ~ ---!- .;¡~
'-» > . '---i, , · '"'!I"':
. .. · · · ~
. » _____ 0..
.. :t "'NN _ -f"I. Iro ,.. :.a.
UI :u",II»CII õ;i ,,,.. .. .
· . . . ;t~. ~
l6 ..,..- I~ -, , I
0: ~..
... 000 i - ~: I
:t · 000
N ¡¡ j' ~.I
..
», !' J .. · .~
. , : $ - ~....
I I' r
I I
/ , ,
: I
I I I
, I ..
I , "
..~ , I g¡ ''''
..i~ ....
;¡i I
,
... ! ~ ... I . . I
~ I..:
i'" ... .. Ii::: I
s_ ... I ..,.
· ... i ,~
8 <C ~ ... ! I
II' r- I
:;~ ... r- I
-.... 21 ... ,
fi .. ~
i...¡ .. I ~)
...
· ... C ... ,
r-2Ia 21 ... ;;; I l'
it c: 21 ~ ~ I - t I
...!:@ ...
.. I
~ i .. n ~ I
@ .. I ¡
,.. .- lit Iii~ -< .
......- 21 ..
~ Z _c:' "'U ,
... n_ ~
... @ ~ O. (')
"'21... - ~r~~
_~-c: ;¡; :u :Þ ....
i - i õ 0 ,., n- '" ~ r i
r- CII ~ ... - -GO
.~..'" . C 0'" C ~~ WO· "" ""
.- . Z ~ :u ~% 0... - - 8, ¡; - . ~- i - . '\
zO..- ....
o . ~ <C ~ ;;: Iii...: V'\ -~.
..."'~ - n fT1
· ·0 ... ~
... ~~ I -. (') ,.
Z .. .-
g ... ~ a . . ... ~ .
- ... ... :¡ 0- r'G)
· ~ ..~
. - 21 ~ -. 0 .. --.
1S ~ ' n z ~ Z , i , ~
... ... - c:
· ... ,
21 i - :.. , :t)
... - - .. <
o n Úo ...
... ... n - I ,..,
,
;i @ · .. ~
21 .. ~l '" ~
~ n ~ ~ ...
!-'.2Ø :t)
~I ... ." ...'
~ .
n :¡: 8·< U'I
~= ,
.. .. ê
.... ... ..Ii "" .'.
...:æ
; n ;; s .~ ""':,., V\
- . .. :" ;¡¡i I ... ,'"
~ 1- 0'''' =
... - . E!: , 'C!
;¡;.- , '"
£¡::: ~i ... -
· .. I .'0
! . ~: "'co>
.. - i!'"
· . :;v . (1'
... co~
~.
... ...
:" :~ ..
-- _ _L
.... .
...
;;:i -.. -0:;
~% .." ...
2:';. ~; -~
...... l- I
~...:: , ,
,-~ :_-~~ I
.. - I
~
~ ~
\ ~ -- -
- . 1:--
õ~i ,- ~- ,-'"~-
~ "...
ë;.!: lIP ~ ~
i·~ I~"
- ................11
. -.., 'l .
- .-..-- "i"-
: ,
\
I
I
\ "':1;1
I :!'
,.,.
/'
~
,
,
. -
MEMORANDUM
TO: David T, Harden, City Manager
FROM: Joe Weldon, Director
Parks and Recreation Dept.
DATE: May 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Women's Club
Attached please find projected expenditures and revenues for operating the Women's Club
building as a City recreation/community center. With the lack of a gymnasium and
outdoor facilities the building is obviously limited in the number and type of activities that
can be conducted there. However, it does lend itself to indoor activities and programs
similar to those conducted at the Veterans' Park center. The projected expenditures and
revenues for the Women's Club center, therefore, are based on a schedule and operation
similar to that of the adult center.
Also, after further discussion with Center supervisors at the Community Center, Pompey
Park, and the Adult Center it has been determined that many activities/rentals were either
not scheduled or requests denied because of unavailable space. This is particularly true at
Pompey Park on Saturday nights due to the teen social. More than 20 such requests were
denied there since October 1. Lesser number of denials have occurred at the other two
sites. The after-school program at Pompey Park and Community Center further precludes
other activities between 2PM and 6PM at those two sites.
Some activities identified by staff that could be scheduled besides additional room rentals
include, cooking classes, yoga classes, women's self-defense classes, art classes,
additional bridge and chess classes, etc. The building could also provide additional time
and space for meetings by such groups as the little league, soccer league, AARP,
homeowners' associations, etc.
eldon, Director
and Recreation dept.
yI~ Ii
.
. ~
.
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED WOMEN"S a.UB BUDGET
FULL-TIME OPERATION: 8AM -lOPMMONDAYTHRUFRIDAY 8AM - 4PMSATURDAY
PART - TIME OPERATION: 5PM -lOPM MONDAYTHRUFRIDAY
EXPENDITURES: FUlL- TIME PART-TIME
ACe. NUMB. DESCRIPTION OPERATION OPERATION
12.10 REG. SALARIES (1) FULL-TIME RECREATION SUPERV $21,410 $0
13.10 PART-TIME (1) BLDG MAINT. (2) REC SUP II $19,500 $0
PIT OPER: (1) REC SUP II $0 $12,490
14,20 REIMB.OT REIMBURSABLE OVERTIME $490 $0
21.10 FICA $3,167 $955
22.10 RETIREMENT $1,460 $0
23.10 LIFE INSURANCE $80 $0
23.20 DISABILI1Y INS $230 $0
23.30 HEALTH INS. $2,400 $0
24.10 WORKERS COMP $2,140 $653
25.10 UNEMPL. COMPo $60 $0
TOTAL PERSONNEL $50,937 $14,099
OPERATING COSTS
31.20 MEDICAL PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS @ $110 $330 $110
34.20 PEST CONTROL MONTHLY SERVICE @ $12 PER MONTH $720 $0
41.10 TELEPHONE EXP. $190 $0
43.10 ELECTRICfIY ELECTRIC SERVICE COSTS $2,500 $0
44.30 EQUIPMENT RENTAL COPY MACHINE @ $60. PER M $720 $0
45.10 GEN. LIABIL. INS. BASED ON COSTS AT ADULT CENTER $2,050 $0
45.90 OTHER INS COSTS $0 $0
46.10 BUILDING MAINT. MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING REPAIRS $1,500 $0
49.90 OTHER CHARGES $0 $0
51.10 STATIONARY/FORMS PENS, PENCILS, PAPER, ETC. $200 $0
51.20 OFFICE EQUIP<$500 $0 $0
51.90 OTHER OFF. SUPP. $0 $0
52.20 GEN OPERAT. SUPP TABLE, œAIRS, EASELS, ETe. $1,500 $0
52.22 UNIFORM/UN SERVo STAFF SHIRTS AND MAINT. UNIFORM $500 $90
52.25 JANITORIAL SUPPL. a.EANING AND TOILET SUPPLIES $600 $300
52.27 EQUIP. < $500 RADIO, TAPE PLAYER, TV, PA SYSTE $1,000 $0
54.20 MEMBERSHIPS $0 $0
54.30 TRAINÆDUC COSTS $0 $0
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS $11,810 $500
TOTAL PROPOSED COSTS FOR WOMEN'S a.UB $62,747 $14,599
PROJECfED REVENUES:
PROGRAM FEES $20,000 $4.000
ROOM RENTALS $3,000 $1.000
$23,000 $5,000
REV. 04-May-94 PAGE 1
,
,
TO,I ~//Y ¡:tE£K .:</0 {.I~~'tc1(.(~
[I" DF DELIA' BEA[H
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 . 407/243-7000
.........
ffiir
1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Harden, City Manager
FROM: Joe Weldon, Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Women's Club
DATE: April 26, 1994
Per your request, I have evaluated the Women's Club for possible uses
and value to the City. The Women's Club contains two large rooms,
separated by post partitions. The larger room is approximately 36' X
60' and the smaller room is approximately 21' X 60'. It also has a
kitchen approximately 15' X 20' with a refrigerator, range, etc. and
men's and ladies' rest rooms (non-handicapped accessible). It also
contains several small rooms for storage. It appears it has
approximately 27 parking places, although I am not clear whether some
of those spaces belong to an adjoining business. The facility would
lend itself for use by civic groups for meetings, wedding receptions,
parties, etc. if it were a City operated facility. This would require
either a supervisor on site, or the facility itself be opened and
closed by our Park Rangers in the afternoon or evening hours.
The size of the lot is a little over 2 acres including the building and
a lift station. The property is assessed at $475,000 including the
building, and I have attached some other documentation from the
Planning Department for your review. The site could be developed and
utilized as a small passive park with additional parking, picnic
tables, and shelter or gazebo. It provides a green area ina congested
area between 2 major highways. If you need any additional information,
please ontact me.
~
Joe and Recreation
cc: Asst. Director of Parks and Recreation
Ref:dhwomenc W S [ ~
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
,
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 26, 1994
To: Joe Weldon, Director
Parks and Recreation Department
/~
From: Je f erkins, Assistant Planner
Planning and Zoning Department
Re: Delray Women's Club Property
Per your request, the following contains information regarding
the assessed value of the Women's Club property and commercial
parcels located nearby.
Women's Club Property:
PCN - 12-43-46-21-01-001-0130
Owner - Delray Beach
c/o Delray Women's Club
Property Address - 505 SE 5th Ave.
Existing Land Use - Women's Club
Zoning - GC (General Commercial)
Property Size - 2.12 acres
Assessed Value - $475,363
Land Value - $401,016
$/sq. ft. - 4.34
Nearby Commercial Properties with Federal Hwy. Frontage:
PCN - 12-43-46-21-01-001-0050
Owner - Charles Realty, Inc.
Property Address - 530 SE 5th Ave.
Existing Land Use - Restaurant
Zoning - GC (General Commercial)
Property Size - 0.98 acres
Assessed Value - $365,838
Land Value - $265,500
$/sq. ft. - 6.25
PCN - 12-43-46-21-01-011-0100
Owner - Helen P. Mirandi Tr.
Property Address - 619 SE 5th Ave.
Existing Land Use - Auto Sales
Zoning - GC (General Commercial)
Property Size - 1.34 acres
Assessed Value - $427,829
Land Value - $365,475
$/sq. ft. - 6.25
,
.
.
PCN - 12-43-46-21-01-001-0190
Owner - O. C. Taylor Motors, Inc.
Property Address - 600 SE 5th Ave.
Existing Land Use - Auto Sales
Zoning - GC (General Commercial)
Property Size - 1.36 acres
Assessed Value - $542,245
Land Value - $369,200
$/sq. ft. - 6.25
PCN - 12-43-46-21-01-013-0100
Owner - Victory Glass, Inc.
c/o Barnett Bank/Facilities Planning Division
Property Address - 551 SE 8th St.
Existing Land Use - Bank Building
Zoning - GC (General Commercial)
Property Size - 3.16 acres
Assessed Value - $4,051,314
Land Value - $861,613
$/sq. ft. - 6.25
PCN - 12-43-46-21-02-000-0010
Owner - Victory Glass, Inc.
c/o Barnett Bank/Facilities Planning Division
Property Address - 551 SE 8th St.
Existing Land Use - Drive-thru bank facility
Zoning - GC (General Commercial)
Property Size - 1.14 acres
Assessed Value - $383,429
Land Value - $311,100
$/sq. ft. - 6.25
PCN - 12-43-46-21-02-000-0041
Owner - John Therien and Thomas R. Blum
Property Address - 821 SE 5th Ave.
Existing Land Use - Restaurant
Zoning - GC (General Commercial)
Property Size - 0.80 acres
Assessed Value - $342,748
Land Value - $217,175
$/sq. ft. - 6.25
PCN - 12-43-46-21-03-006-0010
Owner - Marcel Martineau and Joseph and Sylvia Preteroti
Property Address - 555 SE 9th St.
Existing Land Use - Drive-in Restaurant
Zoning - GC (General Commercial)
Property Size - 0.94 acres
Assessed Value - $501,574
Land Value - $255,000
$/sq. ft. - 6.25
'.
·
PCN - 12-43-46-21-63-000-0012
OWner - TPI Restaurants, Inc.
Property Address - 969 SE 5th Ave.
Existing Land Use - Restaurant
Zoning - GC (General Commercial)
Property Size - 1. 00 acres
Assessed Value - $495,013
Land Value - $272,250
$/sq. ft. - 6.25
PCN - 12-43-46-21-09-001-0290
Owner - Diomin Corp. NV
Property Address - S. Federal Hwy.
Existing Land Use - Vacant
Zoning - GC (General Commercial)
Property Size - 1.62 acres
Assessed Value - $441,044
Land Value - $441,044
$/sq. ft. - 6.25
PCN - 12-43-46-21-09-001-0311
Owner - Diomin Corp. NV
Property Address - S. Federal Hwy.
Existing Land Use - Vacant
Zoning - GC (General Commercial)
Property Size - 1.42 acres
Assessed Value - $386,594
Land Value - $386,594
$/sq. ft. - 6.25
If you need more information, let me know.
,
. - - · ÜI
-,¡III ~"I ····I1! I ~'~~~i~4J.1ff·t~{ .~,' E i ~ :~- :
. ...,. "'r ... · · !: ... .:' ">'. -\ == 0
H rt i II !I.. ......:.' 111.'lm I if ~ ~ 'In.,."~ I...'·:.~.' :';;'.'~.'..;~,.'.".\."J ! ~ !
.. [i .1 '?:" I :11 J J:; II J -.. :,t,j!~:" 0 ." þ' ." :¡
· 't.", c-=.,- .. ,J. ..'i:¡' '. =:SSll Þ ~ -
.~',~ . ,'., .""~""""~;:;~'..' ' t1 ct' ¡
. I ' , ill 4" '¡ ¡h III 9'; j~ I:f: ÞiS Ii' ·
II ~-: IH, ",. !." "., .! ".'<': .¡:.~~, .>..ø
~i~1 II II,I'¿&' "'. i! I! ¡ I .' ~ ;1""~a'R- G
J I ~,. :os I.. .. f " ~, ~
, ... , ",' .t· ",W! ~~I' ',~ t ,J, ~t , .ct ,
~ ~ï :! ')I,::t, ,,'-w. i( '. '., . l;. ~!ID'
':I ' It j, il; ., ',,\' '" " .'. . '" (þ t;....
e . "\" - ~~ tj
o I· ~ I r ~ I ! I I K ¡ j i ~ f; I-'
ª t nffll' ~ ~ "II f I [r: ........ : : ¡'t ¡! ~ ~ J ~ i
~ I ... i = I i I ~ ~ ~ ....,. ~ fD cT ;
E 6 !" = ¡ E ¡ f'''r~~''.. _CD
, CI .1 _ i_I C CÞO
< ., fa ,. - _ 00'1-4.1
..~ ~,. I'~'II' "1"1' I ' , t: tj~
, : ,1 : " : '. :r " , ' " r- ~
~' ~ ... j ¡ ! ¡ ¡ " , ' \ ' t : ¡ i ! ; _
l :' I.... f~:.......;..~;! ,.~;.... ;.:.;:! ....l~..... ...;.;.:.,' ~ ~ ~..J ~
d ;!ïi!1 i U if Ii: I~~=I. i UgH £~ 0' 'T:1 ~ 5.:
I d J :-. II I ¡ ....tor ¡ IJ .. t ¡' ~ c.q .... .
¡.. .. I it.. I: CÞI'II
.:.. .. ¡: Öl-'P'
I .. If ·....~O, Q
, r -,,': ,,"," ... - ~ =.:
é II, ~ ¡¡I h : ¡ ¡ ¡ i ¡ ¡ i! ~ ! ~... =:s ~
I ¡. r' ... c - ......~i' ;.~ = ~",.:"",~~~r ~ .. c1"O
! I = 'I ;. ¡ï ¡ï I:!: ;; i !!.1 ; ~ ::- 5" ~ ~ 0 .fl'~ 0
I ¡;:: 1'''.- -.. I.~ i',.~f""'!" ~ '"
I: 'I:" (IS ··..;¡cr..:lE · ... "'II
I . R ~ ¡ ~ ~ ! - ~ i 1 :;; :0 ." < t-·" ¡
po po.. - po po ..! :I .e CD t-' I 0 ¡
t ... · ..¡ II ! m >
. cT" ~
- 0
r Þ-o ,~'.
0' ~ 'ìoo(
tz:G
...~z~ .... _
:I ~ Ii! D" .-
.... -~ .rn
: = .~
.. .. ... n ,,'
:: =:s::;j
..M . fit _
. ¡ .
."
...
o
. ... .. .. % ,.. '" ,,~
: I: ~ X =! . - "~
~.!';-:ë.. :;: C '
& 'of ~ »
. ...
N~ ~... ·cT
". .... - ::r
~_r~ ~O,~ ~
=!;. :-:i:.. ..c »-
~ ~ ~ ..: <:
= - ~ œ
=: = .
.
..
I/O
I ~
"
, j i I I ¡ " c
I I: I
:: I;;: ==, f ì · ; . --+---..---~- tJJ
..... ..... -...' I '. I! I , . I CD
.~ o~ !~ _ \! I,! ~ I Sl'
:;,.. .... I -~.." ',' .. I, ,I I ()
þ I . ! . _ - '.: .
:;:. .. ..". " ,.~,_..I-_--~-~ i! , I-::r
. ø I , " ""
"
.. .. -
:,if ~.." ......
.. )0' _ _
~~ .~Jt IØ
~-, C
¡; :I P g ~ -
C: III =: :: JIC ~ ... _
~ n<· n . 2 00
..~)o 0 'Z ;::¡
-E z Q
C-4)o é ... 2 := 0
-f' · ... - -
,r"'_:w .. ..I : J:
',,~o:' 0 ... III
":<If Z Z
"\" . '. ,tit.
"," 0<4' ~~ "i.Õ
, = ~ " .
10>. ._' ., "".'
OJ, . , '.:.. "\ J
.' ,,<, \iw.1!-o ~
~-_\~jt;~~~,-~: ...'.,- ~~' .. -+-),' ,;-';'~-.: ':,,:~>~ ,.....:~
.
easement deed to Palm Beach County School Board for School Site
S.
~ AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Chemicals for Water Treatment Plant; annual
contract for Liquid Chlorine, Calcium and Sodium
-Hypochlorite, to Jones Chemicals, at estimated annual
cost of $110,025.
2. Contract Award to Intercontinental Construction
Corporation for housing rehabilitation of 918 S.W. 3rd
Court in the amount of $19,955 from Community Develop-
ment Housing Rehabilitation (Account No.
118-1963-554-49.19).
3. Contract Award to Intercontinental Construction
Corporation for rental rehabilitation of 238 S.E. 4th
Avenue in the amount of $22,125. Investor's share of
$14,625 from Community Development Rental Rehabilita-
tion (Account No. 118-1975-554-34.65) - Rental Reha-
bilitation share of $7,500 from (Account No.
118-1975-554-49.19).
Dr. Alperin moved approval of the Consent Agenda, as
amended, seconded by Mrs. Smith. Upon roll call the Commission
voted as follows: Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes;
Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mrs. Smith - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
.2...... Regular Agenda:
9.A.A. (8.E.) AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT & REVISED OUITCLAIM
DEED/WOMEN'S CLUB: Approve a request from the Women's Club to
amend their lease agreement with the City and to file a revised
Quitclaim Deed to allow the Club to sub-lease the property for
commercial purposes.
The City Manager stated if the City is going to allow
the Women's Club to sub-lease their property, steps need to be
taken to change the restrictions that are currently in the deed.
His feeling is that it would be good for the City to try and work
something out for some reasonable use of the building as it
exists today.
Mayor Lynch suggested that staff review the entire
facility and recommend uses for which it could be rented by the
public, with the City maintaining control, but allowing the
Women's Club to continue to use it.
Upon question by Dr. Alperin, the City Manager advised
the City cannot legally rent the facility unless the deed is
changed.
-5- 4/12/94
.
·
The Commission concurred in directing the City Attorney
to research the facility, in addition to submitting a letter
advising the Women's Club that sub-leasing the facility is not
allowable within the deed restrictions for the property.
~ REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS OF
VARIOUS BOARDS: Consider accepting the actions and decisions
made by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board during the
period March 21 through April 8, 1994.
Dr. Alperin moved to receive and file the report,
seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as
follows: Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mrs. Smith -
Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes. Said motion
passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
~ TRANSFER OF INTEREST EARNINGS: Consider transfer of
interest earnings in the amount of $35,000 from 1991 Water and
Sewer Revenue Bond Interest Earnings (Account No.
447-0000-361-10.00) to Enclave Water and Sewer Phase II (Account
No. 447-5175-536-60.31) for water and sewer improvements at
Gulfstream Estates and Lake Heights enclave project.
Dr. Alperin moved approval, seconded by Mrs. Smith.
Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Lynch -
Yes; Mrs. Smith - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes;
Mr. Randolph - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
~ ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION/BLOCK 58: Consider petition by
residents on Block 58 to delete this alley from the Alley Recon-
struction Project.
Dr. Alperin expressed the feeling that all interested
residents should be contacted prior to abandonment of the alley.
Michael Weiner, affected property owner, stated he
feels it is quite important for the area to continue the alley
system, due to the improvement of the Swinton area and infill
housing.
Chris Brown, Director of the CRA, commented that they
are in the process of purchasing the Weiner property in an at-
tempt to construct middle income housing as a part of their
Affordable Housing program. If the alley is abandoned, it will
be impossible to proceed with construction. He feels that
alleyways also assist property owners in satisfying parking re-
quirements.
Mr. Ellingsworth moved for denial of the petition to
delete the alley, seconded by Mrs. Smith. Upon roll call the
Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Smith - Yes; Dr. Alperin -
Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch -
Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
-6- 4/12/94
,
,
, tJl\
trÞJ
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
DELRA Y BEACH
f LOR D A 100 N.W.1st AVENUE . DElRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 . 407/243-7000
-..e:d rlh¡ ~ 1:0 ~
All,America City
, III I! 9--~.~¥~
MEMORANDUM cf-k0 ~
1993 (/.l-tL- 6/IO/9i.f
11J~v-p)
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~t: COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 12, 1994
WOMEN'S CLUB (' ¡..¡ fA£¡) A.5 9. ¡:lfl ')
,
DATE: April 5, 1994
ACTION
City Commission is requested to consider a request from the
Women's Club to amend their lease agreement with the City and to
file a revised Quit Claim Deed to allow the Club to sub-lease
the property for a commercial purpose.
BACKGROUND
On Monday, March 21, 1994, the Women's Club entered into a lease
with Bill Hood and Sons Auctioneers and Appraisers for the
property leased from the City at 505 S.E. 5th Avenue. The lease
between the City and the Women's Club does not allow the
sub-lease for a commercial purpose. In addition, the Quit Claim
Deed the City received September 27, 1948 for this property
expressly prohibits the use of this property, or any part
thereof, for business or commercial purposes.
We have received a request from Ms. Zula Cook, President of the
Women's Club, to amend our lease and revise the Deed to allow
the commercial use. The reason for the request is to allow the
Club to raise funds to continue their charities and community
service, and to provide building maintenance. The Assistant
City Attorney advised that if Commission wishes to honor this
request, the Deed revision could take considerable time. We
will have to try to locate the successors or assigners to the
Currie Investment Corporation and obtain their agreement to this
change.
RECOMMENDATION
Consider the request from the Women's Club to amend their lease
with the City and revise the Deed provisions.
RAB:kwg
® Printed on Recycled Paper THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
.
/JPI<IL J..J /99'f
T ,:) : MR. Ro R f RT PAR r"' I '" ~ K I
AS~T . C 1 T V M"f\.'^ r-; F R
I O'ì ~J. W. 1sT AVE.
DELRl\V BEf·CH, F, . 7; 7j), h)t
F R() H : \NOMAf\"S CL II A OF DfLRAV Bf"¡;H ;A~ APR 04 1994
C)rìr:¡ S. E . AVE. ~-. "",-..,¡'
r:;TH
P.O.B0X ?77
o fL R A V Qf^CH, FL. 7j 7; 1,11. '7
THIS I S ^ R"'"OllfST FROM THE" \No M '''\1 ' S CL UR A~K1Nr-; FO R
CH^"Jr-;fS 1'\1 OUR r-;ROUNI) LE"SF ^f\lD IN THf CURRY OfF..
As va' I K"I (") W, OIlR CL liB "NO "LL CHHFRe:; H"VE' "fl\.A'NISHEI)
I f\I SIZE'. AL SO ¥'f ARE' MilCH OLDE'R, ANI) H f, fiE H"Ð " STRUG~LE'
r...~" f \1 T " I \1 , 1\1 r-; OUR BUILDI'\IG Af\11') HAVI'JG ~~ON EV TO C01\fT '!\IV F WI TH
;J II R CHAR'TIES " f\1 ,., C 0 ~,.~ ~ ~ \ I '" I T V S f R V I"' E' S .
If;,! H ff\J Wf RF \IT THf BUILDING F~) R PART'fS , T f S L fFT 'N
CHAOS OUTS',)f "NO INSI"F. THEREFORF, Wf WOMEN HAVE TO GO
,,() Wf\1 THERE TO P'~K UP T RA SH 'JIITSlmE IN THE It" R K I f\! G "RE"~
AN') CL fAf\.! 1NSI!')E'. Now, WE HAVE' A R Ff\,IT FR , WHJ KE"'"PS IT
-
CL f"f\1 WITH ALt~OST "'0 TROUBLf T:1 u~. Wf HAO 1\1 () MORE' C I)~} P L A I '\1 T~
FR0~} THF ß"RT:1".! "R()tlT "'0 I S E' AS WE' OIl') H',Vf WH fl\I RENTING TO
P"RTlfS. HE HAS TaLD US HI: H"S PL "N S TO S P E "" D TIME, ENERGV,
"r-..I n LOT OF HOI\! FV i) 1\1 pL ""'T S , SHRflP,FRV, ETC. AlO1'-! G THE FRONT
¡."
OF OUR 8UILÐINr-; IN ORDER TO MAKE IT ~}O R E "TTR^CTIVE. 'f
"RE ALLowED TO IISF THE" RI'ILDI:\IG FOR OUR ~,~fET 'I\IGS ^!',ID OTHER
"CTlvtTIE'S ^LMOST AS I C' I T WERF "JOT R F 1\1 T f Ð .
T HfRFF()RE, wf ARE ASK , '\ G V'~U TCI "r.~ E'\I D OUR LE^SE
"GRE'n~ENT TCI ALLOW 1.'S TCI R E 1\1 T TO W1LL1^M Hoa D "1\1 f') SaNS.
ALs("), AT THE Sf, t~ E' TtMI'" TO MAKF ^ CH^'\'Gf , " THE' DfFD RfSTRICT'Of\JS.
RfSPfCTFULLV,
~4 -G~.r£-.
ZilLA S. CaaK, PRF~. IN!),~" "I S CLUB 'J F' DfLR"V
.
.
.
-
.
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 NW 1st AVENUE· DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
FACSIMILE 407/278-4755 Wr~t_r'. D~r_ct L~n_
(407) 243-7090
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 1, 1994
To: Robert Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
From: David N. Tolces, Assistant City Attorne~
Subject: Commercial Use of Woman's Club Property
I reviewed the quit-claim deed from Currie Investment Company
to the City of Delray Beach which forms the basis for the
City's use of the property on which the Delray Beach Woman's
Club sits. The Currie Investment Co. ("Currie" ) originally
conveyed the property to the City in 1926 for use as a baseball
field and municipal park. In 1948 Currie executed a new
quit-claim deed for the property in order to permit the Woman's
Club of Delray Beach to lease the property from the City for
erecting their club building and maintaining a park. In
addition to conveying the property for the use of the Woman's
Club, the deed also contains a provision which prohibits any
part of the land from being used for "business or commercial
purposes. "
The City entered into a lease with the Woman's Club on August
24, 1948. The lease is for a 99-year time period, during which
the Woman's Club will pay the City $1. 00 per year. The City
maintains the property, and a portion of the property is a
public park known as "Currie Memorial Park." The lease
contains the following provision regarding commercial uses on
the property:
The lessee [Woman's Club] further covenants
that it will not use said premises or any
part thereof for business or commercial
purposes.
Thus, it would appear that the Woman's Club would have to amend
the lease agreement with the City if it desired to use the
property for commercial purposes.
On March 21, 1994, the Woman's Club of Delray Beach entered
into a commercial lease agreement with Bill Hood & Sons
,
. :
.
April 1, 1994
Page 2
Auctioneers and Appraisers ( "Hood & Sons" ) . Hood & Sons will
use the Woman's Club property to conduct auctions and "other
related matters." It would appear that Hood & Sons' proposed
use is a commercial use. Therefore, absent a revision to the
lease agreement, the use of the Woman's Club building as an
auction house would appear to violate the terms of the existing
lease between the City and the Woman's Club.
The City Commission may, if it so chooses, revise the lease
agreement to remove the provision which prohibits commercial
uses on the property. One major problem, however, is the
condition in the 1948 quit-claim deed which conveyed the
property to the City as long as the property was not used for
"commercial or business purposes. " Florida common law would
allow for Currie's successors to file a quiet title action to
reclaim the property due to the City's failure to comply with a
condition of the quit-claim deed. Whether this would happen is
uncertain at this time.
Based on my review of the facts and the law, I would suggest
that the City write a letter to the Woman's Club informing them
that their lease with Hood & Sons violates the terms of the
City's lease with the Woman's Club, and that the use must
cease. The City need not risk the chance of losing the
property because of the Woman's Club's mistake.
Please call if you have any questions.
DNT : s h
women-l.dnt
cc: David Harden, City Manager
Susan Ruby, City Attorney
Joseph Weldon, Director of Parks and Recreation
Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement
,
- -
QUI!-CLAIK DEIJI) \ r
, r
r
,.
d <"/.,J:::;-: . I
THI3 nmEllTUHE, .Jla e this i> ða7 of JanU&17. .i.D. 1926/,
- It
I
BETWEEIIJ Currie Investment &: T1 t1. Guaranty Compaq. a corporation I
\
existing un4er the law. of the Stat. of ~lor1da. part7 of the first
:¡ part, and the 01t7 of D.lra7, a mule1pa]. corporation of the ,
I .,
¡¡ County of Palm Beaoh, state of JIlor14a. part7 of the ..00n4 p.rt. i
. , u \ '
, ' ~-l
: ¡ il 'lIŒJWS. - the party of th~ f~~~~ ~u:t ~~ de~e.IOPe4 an4 I '.
: I _ 'I 1mproved what 18 known a. o.ceo~a Puk~.a S~'ti41'Yl.~ODOf the 01 t7 \
; I ,I of »elrq. and . . . - .--' '. - I .
t! I' WHEREAS. there 18 lócated'~~'~a14'~éeOla ~k. a-traci
t I II or lIaroel of real estat. uowu alld ~~.1~~'4 Ozt.~h' p~~ of sa14 ,
, :1 Park a. -Ba.eball ~1.14-. tä. .... It1ztg betWe.zt BOyntOD str..t ¡
~ ' 'I I
I,. '
, : :1 and Dad. Str.et. ad. Ii
I II
1 ,j' ~.A.~; the partT of tha first part has agraed to trans- .
, i I f.r all of it. r1gh~. t1tla an~ iAtara.t,ln ana to ..14 ~.aball I
f ¡ II liel'- ..to_ tha p.r", ot the ...~!~ l!ri-- to \. ,~.4 ezol~'Yit17 I ~
~_.. il a~ ,a__ba..ball fIi14 ut IØztlalpe¡. JU'k. ad- ~'.. , !_
"f :1' ~.&8. tha putT ~.~. ~~..:....01l4 p~~ ua aaraacl. to ao· ,
¡ ~ ~ c-t .....fA..:....... .-·.'·."........'.......r.. &II.' ' 1Jo 1P.;;äïïcl:~~1JdäDf'at air-t.¡..: ..14 ¡ 1
Ii II -, . '." " r.
.. ! b...b..·~:· '.' . i.'::" . ~.:~û110 p1qpout aa4 park. ana I:, ~
I I ~ - .~ ~.-_ - _'1
, . : ri.,~~¡3~.,':"'~ par't7 Q~ the ..OOM part ha. hr'ther .gre.a f'
. . J .
i to aaae ..14 ftall ·Cvri. ....r1a1 ~k" &114 'to .1"'78 ua the
, '-
,
':~ \ .~~ tor ¡~~ .~~IS.n~ of the pù~1. ~zt. 'tha a'butUa.g prop.r'tJ' i
. " I ,
,'1 I .~~~ra.,., ,..-¡;'..i;~. . '. ~'. ~'\
91 (~~MK;.,If~'t· ~~~ _ ..~& )~.., ~~ the f1~.t. p.n. fo~{
._.. _,_ 4_... _.; _=..;. ......:..;.........;J.;¡ ~'"1'1't..1!-~ tf"r,_ . -.... 1'..... -,._,
t': . .d1D ôo"i#."'~.1ei· of~ the_ ._~ï!~. :~~)C.J»Uar *õ"1 t 1A of..' '.:. I;
~i . 1·~,¡a'j.~f'õTb~ porlÎ' of .h.--l~::~~_í.,,,~....~ 1. .
~~~..~.-.f .. . :~~~ ~~,;üi:fl~·~:~.~:.~·;~¡:~tt.~.:~~~c1j1~a. aña t
t'~¡" -.... _ ~ .~.. =-. :". .. .... ......c.ø ....:.. ".J,..~: ~~~·J_iJl~:Hf-re.i.· n:r-:.a~"'~" ~.~ ~i? .... ~ ~
:.....' , ~~:".."..' ..;...;,:..., -: ;;,.~: ..1...... -.....rtfit, a&.. ··'rellt..., rit&:1 ID"'" _4:t.:~~~_..tJié;,.. , ~
~.f! 7:: .~, ~.... ~,.-·~.,....t 'I.....:.~ .r-" -......... I'"
~¡'~,.....:,-", . .' ';' ."'. '>.~...._':,.;..:.i~.¡.. .;~.~..:~.v...._..:n_~atl...t~. _,.t..-";::.....":: ~~,u'~l:,-' ,.' I·'
: I: r. -: . -:i»~~o:t_.e:~:-~~ ,_~.... '1_ :uM~øn~.. .~1", ~~" ., ·
:fi~ '. . ~·~~h~-. ~;:~~i~j~:~¡~}i-~~~=~·i;~·ë~~ 01~ f~'t7 Of, '
.~. :~tha' ,'firliipn.- ~·ab4"'....'W'ìf~1..~~11t~1JØ~ »i,.oà:.:< ,1
~t ¡ or ·;~oe~'~;·~t(.i4f~·~~~ ;';;"1A "'h. Co1Ult7 of ' '~-1
. f ~~ -. .~... .·.~-.J;i:;Y::f!i:~:'i?:;;~:~ ~:.~-~~"~T;.::,i~
.' -' .. ~~. -~ -~~'~f('.' ~ . ,"----,.....". " "
'. . '. . . .....' .-. '. r~T'~' ~fi:...,. ~-.:;"'':I''Wr.wa-·'" ~-...... -- .. ",
- , .; ~. _ .' -........Z~·... -- . -' .:-~~~
,.
" "
. i ~.~.....:"_...~~ ,:\~:......
Palm Beach, State ot 7lorida, to-wlt:
That oertain tract ot land ehoWD on the plat of 08oeola
Park, record.d ln Plat Book p.ge . Palm Beaoh
County publl0 reoord., a. "B&.eQ.ll 'liIJW, the tame being
bounded on the Eaat by Dade Street. ontha We.t b7 Born-
ton Street, on the lorth b7 . 20 ft. alle7 an' on the
South b7 a 20 ft. alle7, an4 .. afore..l., .ald traot of
land 1. ðe.l¡nate. OD the plat of o.oeola Part a. "Ba.e-
ball,leU-.
'0 B£VI AID !O HaLD .a14 t~aot of ~e.l e.tate a. . pub11ò ---f
... \
I
I }lark and to be ued aolul~e17 .. all.oli, toadlier w1 'Ii all and
~ 'I
I
" i .1~ar, the ap}larteaanoe. t~t%eUDto belong1D8, or In aarw1.e
t ,
j I appertaining. an' all the e.tat., rlalit, tltle an' lntere.t what·
I .0eTer of the pØt7 of t~lr.t pø". .
I
I
: II II!"". .~'t_"PV"T of the tlr.t pv' ba. :
I I
i cauea thi. lD.tr~n~ ta be aeoll.tea b7 1t. ~e.14eD" an' It.
i -
, ottlo1.1 .e.l affu...·
i
;1
I .
, ;1 cuam 1.ø1_.~ III !InB ItrAUftY
I ðaRd!' \
~~_. \1 ~ . -C
r
ÄftBH: '. - _~E. -~- ~ Lt - ~ t
'. ~ tfÆ~· .
I vf~. .....;. .. .ae. I
i I I
, ì \
,
I
i
!
"'.dB cø a-œ11''' )
I I .
COt7JIU f1I P.u.II ....CB
I AMADt ~ØI. !hat .. 'lai. g 4.7 of ¡._ry. Å.D~
1'16, beffte. _ 'tI'jOM1~ &'pJ8u....... ~....... - ~ : I
í, ... 4[l1,~'" - .- ...1...." aM S1ÞiA.{- I
r.ap..tiT. of the CUTie Iø........ III 't."1. hUaAt7 aOIlJ~~ '
. . . oup.raUn ~el' the 1a.. .~ the .. 0'- Jlo~U... t. .. mown I
~.
. !<'-->~.. '0 'e ~ ~u... .. .1.... the f.~.lOt.·I..IIi- .... .11811 :
. Of:n.... Mftftl1z aoDa.lea... tile IIPO&UI1~~ to b. ¡ -.
- 'lieiS"' W .ot ut 4.... .. '110~ ,U1..I'''- 'no ~ ... .... JØ}la... 1,
., thuel. Mnlo..'; ... tha" tUr'~'" tIa...... ....eftlo181 ...~
I· t ,
,", of ..U 003on'l1.., ... t~.. .... ..11 1M\.: -A,,~ fa ,.. a.' an4
~ cIt.t 0:1..1 aorp.I'at.1..~:, ."'- ' .'. ; i
W~"I ., ~1~~_" .at o:f:fi.la1 ..al a~~ 1
I in 'h. COUD'7 0 t MIa ....11 .... It.". .f n.r14.. t. q .ad 7eO%'l
I' : l..t .tor.'.14.· :
, ~Æ,,~p~~.-- ¡
"C': ,
(S..l) i
. _ -.'V7 "b110
L_____~~~A l 'I-I" 2..f I
I
;. !
.
. ~.. . . - .
;¡~E'J 856 PA1l163
QUI'Il-CLA IM DEED
,¡
;r
WHEREAS, on January 8, 1926, the Currie Investment Company, a
corporation existing under the laws of the state of Florida,
conveyed certain property to the City of Delray, a municipal
corporation located in Palm Beach County, Florida, ror the
purpose of maintaining thereon a baseball field, public play-
grounds and park to be known as Currie Memorial Park, and
. , r ~v.ffEREAS. the City of Delray Beach, a successor municipality
. / ,
'. to the City of Delray, has requested the Currie Investment &
.
Title Guaranty Company, formerly the Currie Investment Company,
.' to release that portion of the restrictions imposed on said
property requiring the maintenance of the baseball field thereon
and to alTow in lieu thereof the City of Delray Beach to lease
all or a portion of said property to the Woman's Club of Delray
. Beach for the purpose of maintaining thereon a club building
and park,
WITNESSETH that, the Currie Investment & Title Guaranty Company,
for and tI.oonalderation of the mutual covenants herein expressed,
does hereit;re.ise, release and quit-claim unto the City of
Delray Beach and its successors forever all the right, title,
interest, claim and demand which the said Currie Investment &
Title Guaranty Company has in and to the following described
property in the city of Delray Beach, Florida, to-wit:
That certain tract of land shown on the
plat of Osceola Park as recorded in the
public records of Palm Beach County,
Florida, and marked "Base Ball Field";
the same be ing bounded on the Eas t by
Dade Street (Federal Hi~Way~ on the
West by Boynton Street Dixie Highway),
on the North by a 20 foot alle1' and on
the South by a 20 ~oot alley.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said tract of real estate as a Public Park
with the privilege of leasing any or all of said property to
the Woman's Club of Delray Beach, Florida, so that a Woman's
Club Building may be erected thereon, with the express provision
,
. ..
. . .. ...
OW) 856 PAGf164
that all of said tract of land shall continue to be known as
Currie Memorial Park and,no part thereof used for business or
--
~mmercia1 purposes.,
__ .i
.--
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the party of the first part has caused this
instrument to be signed by its President and its Corporate Seal
to be.;~ffixed hereto on this the 26th day of July, 1948.
:~, t.. 1 ¡ it E ,
t ~" .... ,
. 'r-""" , \ '\. · If : .4; (/,/ CURRIE INVES'l!ttENT & TITLE GUARANTY CœPANY
~:;::'f ';~·'};~ff.·~',:Ú~'t~,"\ By: ~~~~ -'1
~.1i E t r P,. 'C:i::i1!<~\'1 :-;
~~Lt::)'~~~~,;~,ß President.
S'l'ATB'. ~DA. )
)
COUNTY OF PAat BEACH )
I, an officer authorized to take acknowledgements of deeds ac-
cording to the laws of the State of Florida, duly qualified
and acting, HEREBY CEBTIli'Y, that F. A. Currie, as President
of the CUBlJ;I' DlVES'l'IIERT c!c TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, to me
~
persona ' .".",."ft. this da,. acknowledged before me that he
.""cu..d :. . 't......in. qul....laho d..d .. .uch offlc.r of .old
corporation, and that he affixed thereto the official seal of
said corporation as an act and deed of said corporation for
the purposes therein expressed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal
at West Palm Beach, said County and State, this 26th day of
July, A. D. 1948.
\.~ '~ A"-"'.A.JJnÛ
Notary Public, State of Florida
'a t large. )(y commis s ion exp,:Lre....;'
~t>\,JGì/" ",
....,.ry "u~ i~. Sta.. of Florid. at LA,... I~ ......... . ,..:I" .,'__
Thi. in.trument wu filed for Record at ~1I.comm,ss,o" . .J'oi,.., M..,. 25. 1951. .;.' .... -·0 ':,..
~. thiL2.,Z day of JØ/~. d bv ^m.n'.n Su'.'" c.. ef N. Y. ,..'...." Î 0 11 ;'" ~
~....;t;)' ....;-(¡.:~'
194 8'. and Recorded i" ¿J) ø.JI ./..1- --'. _t", .~.'x:.
~. \"lJtfl0'.....::.
Book ~'____m' at page. / {, -S _ Recor~ . r:~~/(~·i~~..;:.:3~··
verifie4. J. ALEX ARNETTE, Clerk Circuit
Court, Palm Beach cl:nty, Florida.
BY~~ 'L, ,¿>eputy Clerk
-2-
,
r ;...... ~.
" /,4 :. '1" . . .
r .r. . ~. COpy ,
.... - -
. .
. .
.
~
nus !EASE Made this tbs 24th da7 ot August, 1948, b7 aDd betwen the C1t7
ot Delray Beach, a Wunicipal Co%1)oration in paa Beach Count7, Florida, herein
called tbs Lessor, and the Woman' 21 Club ot Delray Beach, Flor1da, a non-prot1t
Corporation under the Lan ot tbs State ot nor1da, herein called 1:he Lessee,
Witnesseth that tor and in con.ideratioa ot the sua or . 1.00 this da7
paid by the lessee to the lessor, and in tarther COOIIideration or the cOTenant.
herein contained ~n the part or the leasee to be kept and perto~d, the said
lessor does hereb7 lease to the said leesee the ta110111ng described pr"opert7 in
tbs CU70t Delray Beacb, Palll& Be~ch Coant7, nor1da, to wits
'ft1at certa1l1 tract or 1&o.eI shown on the
plat ot Osceola Park a. recorded in tb8
Public Record. ot Pa1a Beach Count7,
Plorida, and II8rIœd "Ba.. Ball Field-;
the au. bei.Dg boantled on the But b7 Dael.
street (Pederal 1ß&bwa7), oa the W..t b7
Bo)'ntoa Street (D1x1. 1fi&hwa7), and on the
North b7 a 20 toot al1ø7 and oa the South -
b7 a 20 toot alle7.
to han and to bole1 s.. tor the tem of niD8tJ'-ftine (99) 18a" from thie date. ,
'lhis lea.. 111 _de b7 the leesor tor the parpo. of enabling the leee.,. to
construct and _intain tœreon a building tflr the parpoee ot tamiehing a ..tin!
place tor the 1falan's Club or Delra7 Beach &Del tor _1nta1n1ag the re_1nder or
said propert7 as and tor a public park to be mo'ID .. -CœRI! IØKŒIAL PARI-,
prortded, howTer, that nothi.ag herein conta1Ded shall be cœetruceel as requiring
the lessee to turnish pbJ'Isical -.1nteœnce on the abow deecr1beel ¡:ropert7, bat
that it is the intenticl1a ot the partie. hereto that tha ~boft described prOpert7,
with tbs exception ot that space occap1ed b7 the ba11"~'\g a!oreMntioned and the
iDmediate~ surrounding propert7 shall al_11I be open to the public .. and tor a
ptblic park, to be known as ,,~ J.O!MORIAL PARXW. In the eftnt that this Propert7
should eftr be used tor 8DT otblr purpoee thaQ tor the constractlon and øa1nteaance
ot a Woman' 21 Club bu1ld1n¡ and other ..e. wb1cb are cutomar1l7 1nc1dent thereto,
.n4 tor thl ìurpo.. of a1DtA1n1a¡ I pW)UG pirie, tblQ t.h1. Lei" M'1 be declared
te1'll1.aate<1 b1 t~e lellor b111rln¡ tha le.... niD8tT da11l DOUce ot each intention.
In the eTent this lease 121 teradnated the lenee shall haft tbe r18bt to re~,",
therefrom &n1 1øpI'OTeMnte p~ced tbereœ b7 the le..... ~
J
.
., . ...
.
,
. . ~. ~ .' . , . ,
., " 'j 1-:_ - .
,4 _. . .
. .
. .
The lessee covenants that it "il.l aake no unlawful, improper or otteC1lJhe uae
ot the premises, that it "ill not assign this lease or sub-let AnT part of said
preødses, that it rll1 use said premises cal7 tor the construction and mainteD&Qce
ot a Woman's Cl)lb Building and other uses customar~ incident thereto and tor the ~
~~tenance thereon ot a public park to be known as "CUHRIB IŒKœIAL PARlt". '!he
lessee turther covenants that it w1l.l not 11M sa.1d premses or AnT part thereot
tor business or COlllØlerc1al purposes.
IN WI'mESS WHEREOF, the lessor has caused this Lease to be U8cuted br its
)(ayor and attested by its City Clerk and f:be Citr Seal to be atf1:ød thereto and
the lessee has caused this lease to be executed bT its President and attested;br
its Secretal'7 on the date tint aboft written.
CITY rI DIIBAY BEACH,
811 (Sigoed) L. R. ~Oft
KaTOr
AnBSTI
(Súned) Charles E. Black
(S1.cn~ Ruth R. Smith
(Súned) Kaurieta Nichola C1t¡rC rk
L1!3Sœ
(SEAL)
WCIR'S CLDB rI DIIAAY WCB
(Signed) John H. Adama B1s (Signed) Wilena I. Hurst
(Súœd) Eleanor N. Grinde A T'1'1!S T. .
(Súned) Florence K: Brown
Be cretar,.
L!SSD
STA'IE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY œ PAUl BEACH )
Betore me, tbe WDlers1gDad aQtbor1.~7, perllCD&1J.:r .p~.recl
I.. K. zsraallon, JIIà;ror, aM l\Uf.h 1\. eaU,h" 01."1' C1.e11t, ~ _ _u ~ too to. t.h.
individuals who executed the abO"f'ð and toreao1D& lease Oft ÞeÞa1.t' ~ tho C.1t'7 ot
O.lJ'I,. g.aøh. and the,. ulcnotrl.J,ecf betoN .. thAt UtI,. ..litH toM ..... tnel1 and
voluntariq as and tor the act and deed of said CitT_
Wi tneaa flIT hand and official ~ at Delr'aT Beacb, Florida, on t.b1.s t.be nn
da,. ot September, 1'48. '~4Þd~ &!Hoe ~"Ir
I,.,~ ".,., rr 11 c, a 0 Florida at
f~~~.. , . . .... '""1""1 ., ~..'"'
.
,
, Co- ,
..Þ . ". þ .
. ., ",. ' .. ...
... . ,~.... - . '. ..
. . , .
. .
STATE:'OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PAUl BEACH )
,
I
Bef'ore me, the undersigned authorit:r, persoDlÜ.l7 appeared Wi1ena E. Hurst,
Preddent, and Florence K.. Brown, Secretar:r. to ~ wen known to be the 1ndiTiduals
who executed the above and f'orego1.ag lease on behalt ot the W~' s Cl.ub ot De1ra,.
Beach, and the,. acknowledged bef'ore !lilt t.hat. the:r executed t.he same f'reel1' and
voluntarily as and tor the act and deed.ot said Cl.ub.
Witness m:r hand and of'Ucial. seal. at De1ra:r Beach, norida, CD th111 the
21st. da:r of' August, 1948.
(Slltned) Helen L. Dellarill
Rotar;r Public, State .01 Florida
at Large. II:r eo.1.lon expirell
(SEAL) Juåar;r 10, 19S1.
-------- _._- ------ ------------.------
ÞATl8-18-59 P1UO 8-19-59 .0. It. ate. 391 tAGI.6
REV.
MTGE ~K..726 .1tG, 179 DATm.10-11-56DOC. l t t
FIRST NATI~NAL BANk OF )ELAAY BEACH
~OMAN'S CLUB OF DELAAY BEACH
CLUB" LOCATED ON FOLTA ~F LD: TA 0' LD SHOWN
IIU<. liD
PL 0' O~CEOLA PARK ~ MARKEO ~8ASE BALL FI(LD"; SAVE BEINJ BOUNDED ON E
JADE ST (FED. Hwy). ON ~ BY 80YNrO~ Jr (DIXIE Hwy), ON N BY 20 FT ALL~
3 8Y 20 FT ALLEY ON W~ICH ~OMAN'~ CLU3 OF OELRAY BEACH HAS A 99 YA LEA
EO 8-24-48 & IN DE EO BK. 3~6-418.
.
G/~~ T&I'~
312Z~ ~
- do//e.~~ 3/:;.r
COMMERCIAL LEASE
This Lease is made between the Woman's Club of Delray Beach, herein called
Lessor, and 8i11 Hood & Sons Auctioneers & Appraisers, herein called Lessee.
Lessee hereby offers to lease from Lessor the premises at 505 S. E. 5th Avenue,
situated in the City of Delray Beach, County of Palm Beach, State of Florida, upon the
following TERMS and CONDmONS:
1. Term and Rent. Lessor demises the above premises for a term of one (1) year,
commencing March 21, 1994 and terminating on March 20, 1995 or sooner as provided
herein at the annual rental of $30,000.00 plus 6% sales tax. Payment to be made in equal
monthly installments of $2,500.00 plus $150.00 sales tax in advance on the twenty-first day
of each month for that month's rental, during the term of this lease. All rental payments
shall be made to Lessor, at P. O. Box 277, Delray Beach, Florida 33447.
If the monthly installment is not received within 10 days from the date it is due, a
"late charge" of $25.00 shall be due.
2. Use. Lessee shall use and occupy the premises for the purposes of conducting
auctions and other related matters. Lessee agrees that the Lessor shall hold monthly
meetings in the East Room regularly scheduled for the 2nd Wednesday of each month at
the premises and that the Lessor may hold special events with two weeks notice to the
Lessee.
3. Care and Maintenance of Premises. Lessee aclmo\\ ledges that the premises are
in good order and repair, unless otherwise indicated hereiIJ. Lessee shall, at his own
expense and at all times, maintain the premises in good, safe and clean condition, including
the outside grounds and inside building. Lessee shall furnish his own supplies such as toilet
tissues, paper towels, garbage bags, etc. Lessor shall be responsible for reasonable and
necessary repairs to the premises including any malfuncti)n of the air conditioner,
bathrooms, locks, electric, windows and any other necessary parts of the building so long
as the malfunctions are not caused by the negligence of the Lessee.
4. AJterations. Lessee shall not, without first obtaining the written consent of
Lessor, make any alternations, additions, or improvements, in, to or about the premises.
Premises must be returned to their original condition upon termination of the lease.
5. Ordinances and Statutes. Lessee shall comply with all statutes, ordinances and
requirements of all municipal, state and federal authorities now in force, or which may
hereafter be in force, pertaining to the premises, occasioned by or affecting the use thereof
by Lessee. Any signs or advertising posted must be approved by the City of Delray Beach
and at Lessee's expense.
1
'.
.. . .
6. Assignment and Subletting. Lessee shall not assign this lease or sublet any
portion of the premises without prior written consent of the lessor, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Any such assignment or subletting without consent shall be void
and, at the option of the lessor, may terminate this lease.
7. Utilities. Lessee shall be solely liable for the electricity bill. Water and sewer
charges shall be the responsibility of the Lessor unless the Lessee causes an unreasonable
increase in the average monthly bill. Lessee shall be liable for any telephone services
installed and used by the Lessee.
8. Entry and Inspection. Lessee shall permit Lessor or Lessor's agents to enter
upon the premises at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice, for the purpose of
inspecting the same.
9. Indemnification of Lessor. Lessor shall not be liable for any damage or injury to
Lessee, or any other person, or to any property, occurring on the demised premises or any
part thereof, and Lessee agrees to hold Lessor harmless from any claims for damages, no
matter how caused.
10. Insurance. Lessee, at his expense, shall maintain public liability insurance
including bodily injury and property damage insuring Lessee and Lessor with minimum
coverage as follows:
Lessee shall provide Lessor with a Certificate of Insurance showing Lessor as
additional insured. The Certificate shall provide for a ten-day written notice to Lessor in
the event of cancellation or material change of coverage. To the maximum extent permitted
by insurance polices which IT ay be owned by Lessor or Lessee, Lessee and Lessor, for the
benefit of each other, waive .my and all rights of subrogation which might otherwise exist.
II. Lessor's Remedies on Default. If Lessee defaults in the payment of rent, or
defaults in the performance of any of the other covenants or conditions hereof, Lessor may
give Lessee notice of such dE fault and if Lessee does not cure any such default within 10
days, after the giving of such notice, then Lessor may terminate this lease on not less than
20 days' notice to Lessee. On the date specified in such notice the term of this lease shall
terminate, and Lessee shall then quit and surrender the premises to Lessor, but Lessee shall
-- remain liable as hereinafter provided. If this lease shall have been so terminated by Lessor,
Lessor may at any time thereafter resume possession of the premises by any lawful means
and remove Lessee or other occupants and their effects. No failure to enforce any them
shall be deemed a waiver.
12. Security Deposit. Lessee shall deposit with Lessor on the signing of this lease
the sum of $1,000.00 as security for the performance of Lessee's obligations under this lease.
2
,
13. Termination. Either party may terminate the lease by giving six (6) months
notice to the other party. In the event the Lessee is prevented from conducting his business
on the premises by any governmental agency, Lessee may terminate the lease.
14. Attorney's Fees. In case suit should be brought for recovery of the premises, or
for any sum due hereunder, or because of any act which may arise out of the possession of
the premises, by either party, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs incurred in
connection with such action, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
15. Parking Lot Lease. A valid lease exist between Lessor and Fronrath Chevrolet
regarding the parking lot on the premises and the terms of this lease shall continue until
the Lessor terminates the lease. Notwithstanding the existing lease described above, Lessor
will not lease the premises to any other entity, person, or organization other than the Lessee
during the term of this lease without Lessee's consent.
Signed this 2L day of yn(4<-L~ ,1994.
BILL HOOD & S~CI10NEERS & APPRAISERS
By ¡¿¿f) 'í
Lessee (
WOMAN'S CLUB OF DELRA Y BEACH
By -Jj, L¿ i_ !Ì) ..
///1/ J /1."/ :.~fl'/.¿2-<-d/,4.
ssor
By f12U..RA~ &ß!{(/
Lessor
3
.
,
.' ,")' :; ~. ,- .
. ,
.. . < . . . - .
"'-#'''II . , COpy "\. .~
.!, .... .
..... . ~ - -
.
, . ..
.. .
.
LEASK
THIS !EASE Vade this the 24th daY' ot August, 1948, by aDd between the CitY' t
ot Delray Beach, a Kun.1cipal Corporation in Paa Beach CountY', Florida, herein
called the Lessor, and the Woman' 8 Club ot De1ray Beach, Florida, a non-~rotlt
Corporation under the Laws ot the state ot norida, herein called 1:he Lessee,
Witnesseth that tor and in consideration ot the SUID. ot . 1.00 this daY'
paid bY' the lessee to the lessor, and in turther consideration or the coftnants
herein contained pn the part ot the lessee to be kept and pertormed, the said
lessor does hereb,. lease to the said lessee the to1J.owing described propert,. in
the CitY' ot Delray Beach, Palm Be~ch Count,., norida, to wit:
That certain tract or land shown on the
plat ot Osceola Park a. recorded in the
Public Recorda ot Pala Beach Count)",
Florida, and urlœd "Base BaU Field";
the s... being boantled on the Ba.t b)" Dade
street (Federal H1ghwa,), OD the West bY'
Boynton Street (D1.x1.e Highwa)"), and on the
North bY' a 2:) toot alley and on the South -
by a 2) toot alley_
to have and to hold s.. tor the tem or n1net;r-n1ne (99) ¡ears trom this date. 1
'1h1s lease is made bY' the lessor tor the purpoee of enab11.ng the lessee to
construct and .intain thereon a building tør the purpoee ot turnishing a meeting
place tor the Woman's Club or De1ra,. Beach 8lld tor ainta1n.1.ng the remainder ot
said propert,. as and tor a public park to be kno~ as "CORRIE 1ŒIIORIAL PARlt",
provided, however, that nothing herein conta1ned shall be cOl1struced as requiring
the lessee to turnish pby1siul .tntenance on the aban described propert)", but .
that it is the intentions ot the parties hereto that tœ ~boTe described propert,.,
with the exception ot that space occupied b)" the bnilding atore.ntioned and the
1nmed1ately surrounding propert,. shall. al_,. be open to the public as and tor a
ptblic park, to be known as "CURRIE IlI!'.XORIAL PARK-. In the event that this Propert7
Bhould ever be used tor 8.l17 other purpose than tor the construction and maintenance
ot a Woman'., Club bu1ld1ng and other UB'. which are customar1l.y' incident thereto,
and tor tlw ìurpoll of ø1nt&1.n.1ng . publ1c park, tben th11 Lo... œq be declared
term1nated bl tÞåe !o.ear bl ¡1T1n& the lessee n1netT daTI' noUce ot such intent1on.
In the oTent this leaso is terminated the lessee shan haTe the right to re!D')Tð
theretrom any improvements puced tbereca b;r t.he l.esaoo. .~
;
" .
'I
. I
~ .. ... J
-_.~--_..
..
,
.~ , . " ,
_ 4.,"~. ~ , . . .
4"' , ". ~.,-..' . , - . .. . , . . .
- , ~ ..' .
. I'" -- 1/ . . -
. .
.
..
A
The lessee covenant8 that it w111 .aake no unlawful, improper or offensiTe use
of the premises, that it will not assign this lease or sub-let any part ot said
premises, that it will uee said premises oalT for the construction and maintenance
of a Woman' s Cl~ Building and other uses customarily' incident thereto and for tœ
~~tenance thereon of' a public park to be known as "CtJRRI:R MEKŒIAL PARK". The
lessee further covenants that it wi.l1 not use Aid prellises or &n7 part thereof
for business or commercial purpoees.
IN WITfŒSS WHEREOF, the lessor has caused this Lease to be eDcuted b)" its
Kayor and attested by its City Clerk and t:be Cit)" Sea]. to be attiDd thereto and
the le8see has caused this lease to be executed by its President and attested bY'
its Secretary on the date first abo", written.
CITY CI DBtRAY BEACH·
B;r:_(S~ned) L. H. Brannon
Mayor
ATT!ST:
(Signed) Charles E. Black
(SllQ'ledJ, Ruth R. Smith
(Sip;ned) Maurieta Nichols Ciq- C rk
LESSœ
(SEAL)
WCJŒR'S CLUB Œ DEIRAY BEACH
(Slp;ned) John H. Adamø By-: (SUtted) W1leaa B. Hurst
(Slp;ned) Eleanor N. Gringle A~TI .
(S~ned) Florence Jr.' Brown
Be cretar'T
LESSEE
STA'IE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY CF P AUf: BEACH )
Before me, tbe u.rDIIers1gDec1 autbor11ö7, poreooa~ appòa%"e4
L. H. ar-annon, _,-or, anc1 ftut-h 1\. :SaLt-h, ou.,. C1.eñ, W &De _1.1 known ~o b. th.
lrx11vldua1s Who executed the &bow and torego1ng lease on bebaU' or t.ho C1.1:07 at
fJflJta:r ae.éh l And they .elmo.Iedeed be/oN" that toM1 ffBðüUd tit. ... trHl1 and
voluntarily as and tor the act and deed at said Cit,..
Witness rq hand and otficial seal at Delra,. Beach, Florida, on tb1. tna '1th
day or September, 1'48. ~~ed~œ ~rJr
(SEAL) r¡ u c, S 0 Florida at
Lara-. M7 Coaa1aaion expires April ~, 1."1.
"
~
., ~ .'-:':-' ." '. ~ '. -
._ "". I . . .. ....
.. ". .... ... .. " ...
1 . . .. .
.
.. .
STATE:;OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF P AUf BEACH )
Before me, the undersigned authorit7, personall.7 appeared Wilena E. Hurst,
president, and Florence M. Brown, Seeretary. to ~ wen known to be the indiTiduals
who executed the above and toregoing lease on behaU ot the Woman's Club ot Delray
Beach, and they acknowledged betore me that they executed the same treely and
voluntarily as and tor the act and deed. of said Club.
Witness my hand and otticia1 sea1 at De1ra7 Beach, Florida, on this the
21st day of August, 1948.
(Signed) Helen L. DeMaris
Nota17 Public, State ,ot Florida
at Large. 117 Cœm1sslon expires
(SEAL) JanÙ&17 10, 1951.
---~.._-,-- ---.,. _... ._--- - -- -- -- ------_._-----,_.._--~ ----..-----
FILE NO. 2699 DAn 8-18-59 P'1Lm 8-19-59 .0,... 8K. 391 "AGE. 6
REV.
MTGE ~K.. 726 .PO. 179 DATED. 10-11-56 poco .....
FIRST NATI ~NAL BANk OF JELRAY BEACH
WOMAN'S CLUB OF DELRAY BEACH
.;~
~ LDING KNOWN AS "WOMAN'S CLue" LOCATED ON FOL,TR ::IF' LD: TR
K ~ ~
1I PL' OF" OSCEOLA PARK x MARKED "BASE BALL FIeLD"; SAVE BEIN3 BOUNDED ON E
rF.; JAG E .:) T (F ED. H w Y), 0 N 'H 8 Y Boy N T 0 ~ ;,) T ( 0 X I E H \If Y) 0 N N B Y 20 F TAL L 1\
_ ~ BY 20 F"T ALLEY ON WrllCH ~OMAN!S CLU3 OF DEL RAY BEACH HAS A 99 YR LEA
~.. ED 8-24-48 & IN DEED 8K. 8~6-418. ~
~~'. "
,."" ..
.~..
'~"', - ~ .
,
f
"
0/11/ ; r- -~. ~ "'~í! - t ,
(¿_~ {u:..~", - f v ~'7 k.'''-Vv. Je~
S;'¡Ó
[IT' DF DELIA' BEtAI:H
100 t~W. 'st A\iE.~~UE . DELRA'y e.E¡\(H F LO!"\ IDA 33444 . 407/243-7000
........
roir
1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Harden
City Manager
FROM: Joe Weldon
Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Rental of Large Stage
DATE: April 12, 1994
I have been getting more and more requests for the use of our large
stage outside the City limits, probably because we are one of the few
municipalities with such a large and attractive stage. I would like to
recommend a policy that we do not allow groups outside our City limits
to rent or use our large stage. The reason is that the stage is large
(24' X 30 ') and does not travel that well over the road. Also, the
stage itself only requires 4 men to set up, but probably an additional
8 men to install the canopy, which probably costs more than the $350
per day rental that we have been charging. If you still prefer to make
it available to groups outside the City, I recommend substantially
increasing the fee to about $1,500 per day to cover our manpower costs
and to amortize the costs of the stage.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
,LJ
and Recreation
JW: cp yeS I b
Ref:dhlrgstg
® F1ei~~'rieri Pa;.:PF THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
,
.
,
(' ( (' ~"'..... .;'( dt·, 1."""\
. I
-
[ITY DF DELIA' BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 NW 1st AVENUE' DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33'~44
FACSI1\IILE 407/278-4755
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 12, 1994
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Markers in the Riqht of Way
Attached is a copy of a proposed ordinance amending Sec. 100.01
by adding paragraph (E) which allows dome markers and prohibits
the placement of pyramid-shaped markers in the public
right-of-way.
Landowners are liable for allowing obstructions in the public
right of way. Morales v. Costa, 427 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA
1983) . This same duty does not apply to a landowner for
liability and damages caused by subterranean roots growing into
the right of way which could not readily be rectified by the
landowner. Sullivan v. Silver Palm Properties, 558 So.2d 409
(Fla. 1990) .
The most conservative legal opinion to ensure protection
against liability for the City would be to not allow any
markers of any kind in the right of way. However, dome markers
are sometimes helpful to maintain the appearance of right of
ways. Therefore, if the policy of preserving the aesthetics of
rights of way is pressing, the attached ordinance seeks to
minimize unsafe conditions (by allowing dome markers only) and
enhance aesthetics.
The proposed ordinance clearly places the decision to place any
such marker on the landowner who pursuant to our ordinances has
the duty to maintain the contiguous swale areas. The ordinance
makes clear that the landowner assumes liability for the
placement of the markers in the rights of way. I believe this
will ensure some measure of protection for the City.
Attached are the cited cases and the proposed ordinance.
se call if you have any questions.
Y'fS\ lo
cc: Lee Graham, Risk Manager
.,
·
ORDINANCE NO. - 94
-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING, CHAPTER 100,
"NUISANCES", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION
100.01, "EXISTENCE OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND VEGETATION
UPON LANDS PROHIBITED", TO PROVIDE FOR THE
PROHIBITION OF THE PLACEMENT OF PYRAMID-SHAPED
MARKERS OR OTHER SIMILAR TYPE MARKER WITHIN A
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER
CLAUSE; A SAVING CLAUSE; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida desires to protect the safety of its residents and
citizens by prohibiting the placement of pyramid-shaped markers
in the public right-of-way.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 100, "Nuisances", Section 100.01,
"Existence of Weeds, Trash, and Vegetation upon Lands
Prohibited" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray
Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended by adding
subsection 100.01(E) to read as follows:
(E) Dome-shaped decorative markers, also known as button
markers, may be placed in the public riqht-of-way, provided
that such markers are no larger than six (6) inches in heiqht,
have rounded surfaces and no straiqht edqes, and are separated
by a minimum of two (2) feet. The property owner shall assume
all risk of liability for such markers. The placement of
pyramid-shaped markers or any other similar type marker within
a public riqht-of-way is prohibited.
Section 2. 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 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective ten
(10) days from its passage on second and final reading.
.
.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final
reading on this the day of , 1994.
MAY 0 R
ATTEST:
City Clerk
First Reading
Second Reading
" ......
,~ .
MORALES v. COSTA Fla. 297
Cite as, 427 So.2d 297 (Fla.App.3 Dist. 1983)
¡stance trav- the County correctly points out, there is
" nothing inherently offensive about giving Antonio B. MORALES and Maria
.., .
Clunty Public its police officers the choice of retaining the Morales, Appellants,
, Part I, sub- statutory witness fee or accepting greater v.
I. 4-15, Stan- overtime compensation for off-duty court Carlos COST A and Mary Costa, Security
lereafter, the appearances. Mutual Casualty Company, City of Mi-
The officers argue, however, that an ,,'
ami, and County of Dade, Appellees. ~ Íì
opinion of the Attorney General, Op.Atty. No. 81-2542. ;!
to the daily Gen. 077-108, October 18, 1977, which states P
d
that a city "may not require that officers District Court of Appeal of Florida, ¡,
fulfi1led on ..
"
'fitness fee is remit their witness fees to the city in return Third District. U
msatory time for overtime pay received," supports their Feb. 22, 1983.
position. Even were we to accord the opin-
;atory time is ion great weight in construing the law of
II deliver the this State, State Dept. of Citrus v. Office of Action was instituted by persons in-
Metropolitan the Comptroller, 416 So.2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA jured in an intersectional automobile aeci-
1ess Manage- 1982); Richey v, Town of Indian River dent against persons who owned land adja-
receipt. " Shores, 337 So.2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); cent to the intersection. The Circuit Court,
~ the Rule did Beverly v. Division of Beverage of Dept. of Dade County, Edward S. Klein, J., entered
ell ants of any Business Regulation, 282 So,2d 657 (Fla. 1st summary final judgment in favor of land-
Ins 92.141 and DCA 1973), we think that the further lan- owners, and the plaintiffs appealed. The
rom this ad- guage in the opinion that "there is no prohi- District Court of Appeal, Nesbitt, J., held
.ppea!. bition against [the City] paying an amount that landowner may be heM liable in negli-
~he Rule pro- over and above the witness pay calculated gence action for obstructions to the public
. " as the difference between the witness right-of-way.
f Department fee and the amount that would be received
leóffiœrs of at time-and-a-half the normal salary paid" Reversed and remanded.
U~d 92.142,
ÍngJ that the undercuts the officers' position. As the
County notes, the option it has provided by Automobiles -289 ]
\tute answers ~Ie does not require the return of witness Landowner may be held liable in negli-
>ffiœrs,posed
y relief.! As fees and, if the officers choose the overtime gence action for obstructions to the public
pay, the option is the functional equivalent right-of-way.
); State ex rel. of paying them the difference between the . .
15, 160 So. 522 witness fee and the amount that would be
~overy of mon- received at the overtime rate. Joe N. Unger, Ronald C. Kopplow, Miami,
:y during past for appellants.
et up a binding Affirmed.
We therefore Blackwe11, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick &
Igment. Insofar Hoehl and Diane H. Tutt, Miami, for appel-
otherwise sup- lees,
trial court nor Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGU-
with the que5- SON, JJ.
l derogation of
:heir conective NESBITT, Judge.
ounty; wheth-
the agreement The plaintiffs were injured in a~intersec-
by the very tional automobile.~dênt.;'['hey instituted
tber, In such
iement (which this action' against. tbeCostes; 'Who -owned
g of new con- land adjacent to themtêrseêtion. The com-
by the County these matters in the briefs on appeal, but nei- decide them.
:ideration sub-
n' acceded to therthe trial court nor we were called upon to
'references' to
427 So.2d-9
,
298 Fla. 427 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
plaint alleged that the Costas obstructed & Bridges § 118 (1981); see Gulf Refining
the plaintiff's view of a stop sign by: (a) Co. v. Gilmore, 112 Fla. 366, 152 So. 621
planting a black olive tree in the swale (1934) (plaintiff recovered a judgment
area; and (b) voluntarily assuming the duty against defendant for injuries received
of the maintenance of that area and negli- when she tripped over a dark cord placed
gently failing to fulfill that obligation. The across a grass plot between the curb and
trial court entered summary final judgment the paved sidewalk); see also Price I'.
in favor of the landowners, ostensibly be- Parks, 127 Fla. 744, 173 So. 903 (1937).
cause it found that the landowner owed no Because we find, contrary to the trial
duty to a passing motorist for the obstruc- court, that a landowner may be liable for
tion of a public right-of-way. We reverse. obstructions to the public right-of-way, we
The defendant attempts to support the reverse the summary judgment and remand
appealed judgment by relying upon Evans for further proceedings.
v. Southern Holding Corp., 391 80.2d 231 Reversed and remanded.
(Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied,
399 80.2d 1142 (Fla.1981). There, we held
that in the absence of legislation imposing a w
duty, a landowner had no duty to maintain o Š KEY NUMBER SYSTEM
T
his property in a condition so as to protect a
motorist using the adjacent highway from
other approaching motorists. In Pedigo ¡'.
Smith, 395 8o.2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981),
the court, following Evans, supra, found Maria RUIZ, Appellant,
that a landowner had no duty to a motorist
where a tree planted on private property v.
obscured a motorist's view of a stop sign.) Jose Manuel RUIZ and Lumbermens
These decisions, then, recognize that a land- Mutual Casualty Co., Appellees.
owner has a right· to use and enjoy his No. 82-428.
property in any manner he sees fit. District Court of Appeal of Florida,
On the other hand, an obstruction of a
public right-of-way by an adjacent land- Third District.
owner, even by something which grows and Feb. 22, 1983.
exists upon a private property, but which .
protrudes into and obstructs the public Mother, who was injured while a pas-
right-of-way, is an entirely different mat-
ter. The court, in Evans, specifically ex- senger in automobile assertedly negligently
eluded the situation where an obstruction driven by minor daughter, sued mother's
protruded onto public property. The users former husband for her injuries. The Cir-
of a public right-of-way have a right to cuit Court, Dade County, Francis X. Knuck,
expect that it will not be unreasonably ob- J., granted husband's motion for summary
structed. In contrast, they have no such judgment, and appeal was taken. The Dis-
expectations with respect to lands that are trict Court of Appeal, Jorgenson, J., held
entirely within the purview of private own- that mother was not statutorily permitted
ership. Consequently, a private person may to recover from former husband where
incur liability for damages caused by an daughter's application for driver's license
obstruction upon a public way., 39 Am, was signed by mother and not by the for-
Jur.2d. Highways, Streets & Bridges §§ 359, mer spouse.
361 (1968); 29 Fla.Jur.2d Highways, Streets Affirmed.
1. Although the court, in Pedigo v. Smith, supra, tree was located entirely on private property.
did not state it explicitly, we assume that the
,
-
-
v
..,
SULLI¥~~v.·'SIL:YEIt.,PALM t¡P;ROPERTIES, INC. Fla. 409
. . .
Cite as 558So.2d 409 (1'Ia. 1990)
a distinction '?::;Iri~the~:mstant~casethedistrictcourt llf~
at bar. See f~èd'thè.jriä~ icourt,~.:~itÍin~ ðf.1 Fïn~
I at 384. In . . . "", :-..., . ,'..,' '... ..... .) .:.:t....,
neY'$ ìnotio~. fÓr.{postconviction relièt':;:md
'.1 spite of a v. its vacating of one of Finney's. conVictions
the subcon- Roy Kenneth FINNEY, Respondent. based on the retroactive application of Ca-
, prevent the No. 74607. rawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987),
against the and Hall v. State, 517 S02d 678 (Fla.1988).
1d. In fact, Supreme Court of Florida. Recently, however, we held that a defen-
he statutory March 8, 1990. dant whose convictions are fully adjudi-
mit the sub- cated and final may not obtain postconvic-
irectly. The tion relief based on a claim of improper
-I.nnot be uni- Defendant convicted of possession of conviction of multiple crimes arising from a
by inserting firearm and robbery with firearm moved single transaction. State v. Glenn, 558
)etween the for postconviction relief. The Circuit So.2d 4 (Fla.1990). In reaching this conclu-
! contractor. Court, Dade County, Alfonso C. Sepe, J., sion we also held that Carawan should not
Ie owner to granted relief. The District Court of Ap- be applied retroactively. Hall, which is
the subcon- peal, 550 So.2d 1141, affirmed. The Su- based on Carawan, is, like Carawan, an
¡ould thwart preme Court, McDonald, J., held that case evolutionary refinement in the law. Witt
2 of the me- proscribing conviction of multiple crimes v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.), cert. denied,
; allowing a arising from single transaction was not 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612
ns. Even if retroactively applicable through motion for (1980). As such, Hall should not be ap-
jecision that postconviction relief. plied retroactively through a motion for
y shifted the Quashed. postconviction relief. Glenn; Love v.
1t to OBS, it State, 559 So.2d 198 (Fla.1990). There-
t OBS could Overton, .1., concurred in result only. fore, we quash Finney and direct the dis-
,yment. Be- trict court to reverse the trial court's order.
Id has been Courts <;;::;>100(1) It is so ordered,
hing a lien
OBS clearly Case proscribing conviction of multiple EHRLICH, C.J., and SHAW,
the bond.6 crimes arising from single transaction was BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ.,
;Jinion under not retroactively applicable through motion concur.
-- for postconviction relief.
mand to the OVERTON, J., concurs in result only.
s to affirm ------ , .. I ~
\ì¡
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Janet ;~ ::
Reno, State Atty., and Penny H. Brill, Asst. ~; ,t
f,I,
State Atty., Miami, for petitioner. . ~~.
. ,I
rON, :~) i~
a.nd Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, ..,
;.~~- and Marti Rothenberg, Asst. Public De-
~~'i ¡:¡}:
fender, Miami, for respondent. Mary Sharon SULLIVAN, Petitioner,
~~; v. 4
t~, McDONALD, Justice.
SILVER PALM PROPERTIES,
We review State v. Finney, 550, So.2d INC., Respondent.
1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), because of certi- No. 74190.
fied conflict with Harris v. State, 520 So,2d
639 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 536 Supreme Court of Florida.
~ to, and did So.2d 244 (Fla.1988), and Love v. State, 532 March 8, 1990,
d. See Amer- So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), approved,
¡on Drill Co., 559 So.2d 198 (Fla.1990). We have jurisdic-',
tion pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Passenger brought suit against land-
Florida Constitution, and quash Finney. owner alleging that tree roots caused
.
416 FJà: 558 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES
bumps in road which resulted· in loss 'of bumps in the road were caused by roots
control of automobile. The Circuit Court, from Australian pine trees that extended
Dade County, Maria M. Korvick, J., found from the adjacent property owned by Silver
for passenger, and landowner appealed, Palm Properties, Inc. The trees had been
The District Court of Appeal, 541 So.2d planted fifty to seventy years earlier and
624, reversed and certified question of before Silver Palm acquired the property.
great public importance. The Supreme Dade County stipulated that it owned the
Court, Barkett, J., held that landowner did road, that it had responsibility to maintain
not have duty to retard subterranean root and repair the road, and that it had actual
growth of trees located adjacent to public knowledge of the root conditions before the
right-of-way. accident. Sullivan sued Silver Palm, the
Certified question answered; decision driver of the automobile, and Dade County,
approved. for negligence. The jury found that all
three defendants were negligent and fixed
Automobiles ~289 a percentage of liability against each.
Landowner did not have duty to retard The issue here is limited to the judgment
subterranean root growth of trees located that held SiIver Palm liable. The district
adjacent to public right-of-way. court reversed that judgment, holding that
Silver Palm was not Iiable because the
Joe N. Unger of the Law Offices of Joe landowner owed no duty to retard the sub-
terranean root growth of its trees. Silver
N. Unger, P.A., Miami, and Robert E. Palm ProJlcrties, Inc., 541 So.2d at 627.
Schack, P.A., Coral Gables, for petitioner. Sullivan argues that the law in Florida is
Michael J. Murphy of Gaebe, Murphy, otherwise, citing Price 1'. Parks, 127 Fla.
Mullen & Antonelli, Coral Gables, for re- 744, 173 So. 90:3 (19:37); Gulf Re.tïnin,q Co.
spondent. v. Gilmore, 112 Fla. 866, 152 So. 621 (1933);
Armas v. Metropolitan Dade County, 429
BARKETT, Judge. So.2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); and Morales
We have for review Silver Palm Proper- v. Costa, 427 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA),
ties, Inc. v. Sullivan, 541 So.2d 624 (Fla. review denied, 434 So.2d 886 (Fla.1983).
---- 3d DCA 1988), in which the district court We find Sullivan's reliance on these
certified the following question of great cases misplaced. Both Gulf and Price in-
public importance: valved artificial conditions created by oth-
Does a landowner have a duty to retard ers directly on the public rights-of-way and
the subterranean root growth of its trees not natura)ly growing vegetation on abut-
which are located adjacent to a public ting land. In Gulf, a gas station owner
right of way? had cordoned off the swale area between ¡
Id. at 628.1 We answer the question in the the curb and the sidewalk to discourage ¡
negative under the circumstances present- pedestrian traffic across the newly planted ¡
ed and approve the decision of the district grass. The cord was on stakes, dark in
court. color, and not readily observable at night.
Sullivan was injured when she was a One night, the plaintiff tripped over the
passenger in a car that ràn ùff a rural, cord as she stepped across the grass, and
paved, two-lane public road and struck a the Court ruled that this artificial condition
tree. The collision occurred after the driv- created by the station gave rise to liability.
er lost control due to a series of bumps in In Price, the Court held that an injured
the road surface. The road had been built plaintiff had a cause of action against a
and maintained 2 by Dade County..and the tortfeasor who caused a dangerous condi-
1. We have jurisdiction. Art. V. § 3(b)(4). Fla. 2. For example, the county had root-pruned the
Canst. trees in 1974 when the road was resurfaced and
widened.
FLORIDA J>ATIENT'S COMPo FUND v. SCHERER Fla. 411
Cite as 558 So.2d 411 (FIa. 1990)
caused by roots tion by allowing materials from his vehicle walks. Those decisions refused to hold
's that extended to fa}] onto the roadway. In that case, a landowners liable for injuries caused by
owned by Silver contractor spilled slippery materials and roots growing under the surface of a public
~ trees had been substances from his truck onto a public right-of-way. City of Birmingham v.
ears earlier and bridge, causing the ensuing accident. Wood, 240 Ala. 138, 197 So. 885 (1940);
ed the property. Morales and Armas, on the other hand, Wall v. Village of Tallulah, 385 So.2d 905
:hat it owned the do involve natural conditions rather than (La.Ct.App.), writ refused, 393 So.2d 737
lility to maintain artificially created ones. In both cases, the (La.1980); Rose v. Slough, 92 N.J.L. 233,
~at it had actual landowner was held responsible for the 104 A. 194 (1918); Bennett 1'. Gordon, 101
litions before the maintenance of trees or vegetation that N.J.Super. 252, 244 A.2d 135 (App.Div.),
mver Palm, the obstructed the motorist's view of a stop cert. denied, 52 N.J. 499, 246 A.2d 456
nd Dade County, sign. Like the district court, we see consid- (1968). We find the rationale in those
, found that all erable difference between the duty imposed cases directly applicable:
;ligent and fixed in Morales and Armas and the duty sought It was the responsibility of the municipal-
.gainst each. to be imposed here. As the majority below ity, and not that of (the abutting proper-
to the judgment noted: ty owner], to maintain the sidewalk and
,Ie. The district [C]ommon sense required that a duty be correct the defect. Because of the re-
ent, holding that imposed upon the landowner to remove moteness of the relationship between the
)Ie because the landscaping which obstructed critical tree owner, the growth of the tree roots
) retard the sub- traffic signage. Vegetation that over- and the resulting defect in the sidewalk,
,ts trees. Silver hangs and blocks out a traffic control it cannot be logically held that [the abut-
11 So.2d at 627. device constitutes an obvious condition ting property owner] actually "created or
aw in Florida is and presents an imminent danger of un- caused the defect involved."
Parks, 127 Fla. controlled traffic. The offending branch, Wall, 385 So.2d at 909 (citation omitted)
uif Refining Co. moreover, need only be clipped away, a We answer the certified question in this
')2 So. 621 (1933); straightforward remedy.... context in the negative and approve the
zde County, 429 ; . .. [1]n the case now before us the decision of the district court.
:3); and Morales , offending vegetation was anything but It is so ordered.
(Fla. 3d DCA), j obvious. The root growth was slow and
886 (Fla.1983). subterranean; the defect in the right-of- EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON,
[iance these way became noticeable only after a con- McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and
on siderable passage of time. . . . All par-
¿if and Price in- KOGAN, JJ:, concur.
¡ ties stipulated that Dade County, not Sil-
created by oth- , .----..... ver Palm, owned and maintained the
ights-of-way and roadway shoulder and surface in the area
'etation on abut- of the accident. Silver Palm had no right
s station owner at any time to repair or alter the surface
Ie area between .
of the roadway. To hold a landowner
k to discourage liable for failing to clip back vegetation FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSA-
te newly planted that has overgrown a traffic control de- TION FUND, et aI.,
stakes, dark in vice is reasonable. To impose upon a Petitioners/ Cross-Respondents,
~rvable at night. landowner a duty to undertake root
ripped over the v. f
trenching or tree topping purely in antici-
; the grass, and pation that subterranean growth may al- Clara M. SCHERER,
tificial condition ter the surface of a public right-of-way Respondent/ Cross-Petitioner.
rise to liability. at some indeterminate time in the future No. 72878.
that an injured is both burdensome and unreasonable. Supreme Court of Florida.
.ction against a Silver Palm Properties, 541 So.2d at 626-
angerous condi- 27. March 8, 1990.
td root-pruned the Although this precise question is new,to
{as resurfaced and Florida, other jurisdictions have considered Patient brought medical malpractice
this issue in the context of public side- action against physicians, hospital, and Pa,
Fla.Cases 557-558 So.2d-16
.
;'PRlCEl:i:'~Mªr,~ ,. Fla. 903 Ii
s.uitby bi1l of Beinice Š;'Shárináhan'keptthe policy in; ~,~~g~ln,s~¡ æ~~f~1o~,shown to h~ve
atmants praying force for several years after it was given" ~on.,etld.!l~~P:lt.~. condltiollby' allowmg "
~rplead and that to her with her own earnings, openly re- ~ateriaJs;fron1 hisf'\;~h,ièIeS. to fall and .neg, j
s of the policy sisted an effort on the part of Shannahan ligently to accumulate on hIghway or brldge. !
!plainant be dis- :c to recover it, always contended that the even though contractor has assumed no duty ¡
Íty in respect to ~ policy was hers and consistently support- to maintain or keep highway or bridge in J
¡ ed her right to retain possession of it. repair.
their right to " !he r,ecord re~e,als nothing to sho:v an ·
a decree Of l'n InconsIstent posltlon on her part, whl1e as E t C· ·t C t M Co n
- . . rror 0 lrcm our , onroe u-
lich was done to Shannahan, It lS shown that he repeat- t . J ff B B J dO"
. ' dl k d'ff d .. . y, e erson . rowne, u "e.
aIm to the pro- e y too 1 erent an mconSlstent POS1- . .
.J each clai tions for the purpose of recovering the ActIon by George G. Parks agal1lst J. E.
verse clot'mm, a policy. Price, individually, and as owner of the Okee-
,I ant, : .
·n final 11"ar' [1] Th th' . 11 . chobee Construct1On Company. To revIew
~ mg e au ontles genera y sustam . . . .
"nIice S Sll th d t· th I'f' 1· a Judgment for plamtIff, defendant brIngs
, . an- e oc nne at ale Insurance po ICY
)TOceeds of the may be the subject of a parol gift. Gar- error.
191y, This ap. ner v. Bemis, 81 Fla. 60, 87 So. 426; Mc- Affirmed.
Dona]d v. McDonald, 215 Ala. 179, 110 W. Curry Harris and WiI1iam V. Albury,
:id Shannahan, So. 291; 12 R.c.L. 943; 37 c.J. 429. both of Key West, and Wa1Jer & 11egin-
, the ch~!1cellor [2] By the issues and the facts proven, niss, of Tanahassee, for plaintiff in error.
e the fIght to the chancenor could have In right and Arthur Gomez, Aquilino Lopez, Jr., and
'eserved In the justice reached no other conclusion than Thomas S. Caro, aJ1 of Key West, for de-
de. repeated at- to award the proceeds of the policy to fendant in error.
~clary but was the appellee; so his judgment must be,
r appel1ee Her- and is hereby, affirmed. PER CURIAM.
,s In possessIon Affirmed. '. This was an action brought in the circuit
to surrender it court of Monroe county by George G, Parks,
ELLIS, C. J., and BUFORD, J., concur. whereby plaintiff sought to recover from
, appellee con- J. E. Price, individual1y, and as owner ot
1annahan made WHITFIELD, P. J., andBROWN'and the Okeechobee Construction Company, for
" to her before DAVIS, ]]., concur in the opiniori'and certain injuries and damages a11eged to have
he policy was judgment. been sustained by the said Parks as the re-
leld by her at , suIt of an automobile accident on a detour
e insured, who <@ , '~ bridge extending between Stock Island and
. °WIŒYIlUMBERS'fSItM .
m her posses---.. the Island of Key West, m Monroe county,
o own earnings ---... as a result, so ít wasal1eged in the decIara-
I in effect for tion, of the neg1igence of the defendants,
livered to her. who were using said detour bridge in con-
tion of owne _ PRICE Y. 'PARKS. nect10n with their work for the State Road
in issue an~ Department, in: aJ10wing certain slippery
. ' Supreme Court of Florida, Division B, materials and substances being hauled b'
tenal respects. :) .
lbstantial evi- ,Apr~l 21, 1937. them over said detour bridge to so accumu- i
of the chan- I. Automobiles ¢::>284,,290 late thereon as to make said brid~e danger-
contradl'ctl'on P h d f t b t ti ous to persons whom the defendants knew,
erson w 0 causes e ec or 0 s ruc on .
1an took out i . 1 bI' i 1 d· d tor ought to have known, were likely to be
n trave ed pu IC way, nc u mg e our . ., . ,
P'rotection of b ·d k t f bl' . Ii bl . Injured by saId dangerolls condItIOn. The
rt ge ep open' orpu IC use, IS a e, .
nd two snlall . f i·· d th b declaratlOn was upheld as agamst demur-
to motortst or nJurles cause ere y, .
Ie Premiums h f t . d b h rer, and upon tnal a recovery for $2,000
, w ere de ec was occaSlOne y suc per- "
he was con ffi t· t ·t· I' t d damages and costs was sustamed by the tnal
- son's a rma lye ac or pOSI lye neg ee ,an , .
Myers and . d t I h' . ht t judge, whose Judgment to that effect comes
Sh. motOrist oes ~o ose 18 rIg 0 reeov- here on writ of error. ,
annahan , er because of hlS own fault, even though no '
l to abandon general duty of maintenance has been as- [1] A person causing a defect or ob- i
¡dore doing sumed by such person or exists on his part. struction in a traveled public way, induding
told her that a detour bridge kept open for public use, is
t.; that she 2. Brldges¢::>35 liable in damages to an injured automobilist i
'Ith it; and Highways ¢::>200 for injuries caused by such defects or ob- I
;ame of her RIght ofáètion of person harmed by struction, where the defect or obstruction J1
lrried Cath- dangerous ,condition of highway or pu~lic was occasioned by the affirmative act or
ed in 1935. Þriògp kl'pT ope ) fOI' pubHctravel may be positive neglect of the defendant, and p]ain- J
I
904 Fla. 173 SOUTHERN. REPORTER
tiff has not lost his right to recover because the years designated (Acts 1935, c. 17406,
of his own fault in the premises, even though § 9).
no general duty of maintenance has been 3. Statutes €=>121(6V2) ~
assumed by defendant, or exists on his part. Provision of statute prohibiting sale by ~
[2] If harm is caused by the dangerous State of tax sale certificates covering cer-
condition of a highway or public bridge tain years, \lntil a day certain, except on
held opcn for public travel, the right of written application of owner, held to come
action of thc pcrson harmed may be en- within pm'view of title of act which pro-
forccd against a contractor shown to havc \·i<Il'd for "the compromise and adjustment
occasioned a dangcrous condition of said of tax sale certincates held by state upon
highway or bridgc by alIowing materials ct'rtain conùitions" (Acts 1935, c. 17406, § 9).
from his vehicles to fall and negligently to
accumn1atc on same, even though such COH- 4. Constitutional law <2=42
tractor has assumcd no duty to maintain or p;¡¡'ty seeking adjudication of courts on
keep the highway or bridge in rcpair. the constitutionality of a statute must show
An app1icatjoJl of the foregoing 1'u1e of that his constitutional rights have heen ahro-
law to the pleadings and cvidencc rcqnircs gated or are threatened by the act.
an affirmancc of the judgmcnt, and it is so 5. Constitutional law G:::>42
ordered. I'arty challellging constitutionality of
Af!ìnncd. statute Vrohibiting sale of tax sale certifi-
(":1 tes by State, until a day eel·tain, held with-
WHITFIELD, P. J" and BROWN and oul. ~tan(1illg to maintain snit, where he was
Di\ VIS, JJ., concur. only a prospective purchaser of a certificate
ELLIS, C. J., and TERRELL and BU- wit II no present interest in the eertificate
FORD, ]J., concur in the opinion and judg- no!' in the land upon which it was a lien
and was not discriminated against, and stat-
ment. ute applied similarly to all like situated
(Acts 1U35, c. 17406, § 9).
6. Appeal and error €=>1138
In mandamus pl'oceedings to compel sale
of tax sale certificate by State contrary to
statute prohibiting such sale until a day cer-
tain except on written application of owner,
.-----. constitutionality of which was challenged
STATE ex reI. PRINGLE Y. DYI<ES, Clerk by petitioner, passing of day designated In
of Court. statute while case was pending so statute no
longer applied to tax sale certificates held
Supreme Court of Florida, Division A- to make issue raised by proceedings moot
April 12, 1937. (Aets 1935, ë. 17406, § 9: Comp.Gen.Laws
Supp. § 992).
I. Taxation €=>679(5) DA VIS, J., dissenting in part.
Delinquent tax certiflcates in the hands
of the State are subject to legislative ùis- .
position, provided such disposition does not Appeal from Circuit Court, Lake Coun-
violate due proccss, equal protectiou, or uui-
form taxation clauses of Constitution. ty; ]. c. n. Koonce, Judge.
2. Constitutional law €=>229(3), 285 Application for alternative writ of man-
damus by the State, on relation of H. L.
Taxation €=>615 Pringle, against Geo. J. Dykes, as Clerk
Provision of statute prohibiting sale of of the Circuit Court for Lake County.
tax sale certificates covering designated Judgment quashing and dismissing the
years held by State, until a day certain, ex- writ, and plaintiff brings error.
cept on written application of owner, held Aflìrmed.
not violative of the due process, equal pro,
tection, or U11iform taxation clauses of Con- H. L. Pringle, of Leesburg, for plaintiff
stitution, since purpose imd effect was not in error.
to relieve owner of any part of tax, in- J. Ì¡V. Hunter, Duncan, Hamlin & Dun-
terest, or penalty, but merely to extend pe- can, and John S. Lavin, all of Tavares, for
riod of redemption from lien for taxes for defendant in error.
,
.
GULF REFINING 00. v. GILMORE PIa. . 621
161 So.
o Giles J. Patterson, of Jacksonville, for
. of Bankers' BISCAYNE TRUST COMPANY, a Corpora- plaintifr in error.
10rlda. Appel_ tlon, M. A. smith, as Liquidator of said Bls- stockton, Ulmer & Murchison,' of Jàckson-
" Appellee. cayne Trust Company, Bank of Bay Biscayne, v1lle, for defendant in error.
ida. a Corporation, and M. A. Smith, as Liquida-
PER CURIAM.
tor of said Bank of Bay Biscayne, Appellants,
, 11 This cause having heretofore been submit-
v. George T. 0 FARRELL, Appe ee. ted to the c-ourt upon the transcript of the
Johns Coun- Supreme Court of Florida. record of the judgment DeTein and briefs and
_ argument of counsel for the respeçtive par-
stine, for Il Jan, 2/, 1D34. ties, and the record having been seen aud in- 'f
P- En Bane. spè('tccl, and the court being now advised of :f
. . its judgment to be given in the premises, it i ~ f
. for appellee Apneal from CIrcUIt Court, Dade County ; see' t th t th t th· ., ~'I'" .¡
.' I1lS 0 e cour a ere LS no error In .,. '. .'
Worth tV. Trammell, Judge. tile said judgment. It is therefore <,onsider-;~ 'r
Mitchell D, Price and Charles W. Zaring, ed, ordered, and adjudged by tile c"Ourt that ~ . ~
f counsel tor both of Miami, for appellants. the said judgment of the circuit court be. aud .... t.." i...·.
Vincent C. Giblin and Geo. T. O'Farrell, the same is hereby, affirmed. ; i ·f'
both of Miami, for appellee. . i"- !
VA n:s, C. J" and WHITFIELD, ELLIS, '~I' i
PEn CUHIAM. BIWWN, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.;', ' : ~.
In this case a mnjorlty of the court are r.. ~
of the opinion that the order fippealed from TEnHELL, J., not participating. J.. i
falls within the punic\\' of Therrell v. How- f.£;' !.
: aI., Plaintiffs land (1"la.) 146 So. 203 (sixth headnote), and On Hehearing.,;Î t
I that therefore it should be reversed and re- . . '~' f
ex re. A. N. manded on authority of thc opinion in that PER CURIAM. ,·;,t. '
Error. case. On O.(·tober 17, ] D33, the jud¡::m.c~t herein :,~
:ill. He versed and remanded. was atllrmed by a per <:unam cleelSJOl} wIth,
out opinion. Tbe case is now before us for
DA VIS, C. .T., and WHI'l'FIELD, TER- reconsideration upon rehe-aring granted :wd
BELL, and BUFOHD, JJ., concur. reargument had thereon.
ounty. Plaintiff below sued f-or an injury suswin-
plalntitrs In BROWN, J., disqualified. ed by her when she tripped over a cord in the
nighttime as she stepped up onto the C'\Jrb
.nter Ha and started to walk acrO--"S a grass plot I<>cat-
ven, ed between the curb and paved sidewalk at
that point. The proof showed that defendant,
e. corner filling station operator, had several
j _. days prior to plaintiff's injury dug up the
on of coun· -- space between the curb and sidewaik for a
GULF REFINING CO. Y. GILMORE. grass plot, had planted it with seed, and had
thereafter, in order to discourage walking by
Snpreme Court of Florida, Division B. pedestrians across the planted SpaL'e, streœh.
Oct. 17, 1933. ed a dark brown wrapping oord, not readily
discernibie at night, on 'stakes, around this
On Rehearing Feb. 7, 1934. grass plot. The ¡Jroof is adequate that the
... lei I t· ~808(2) cord, suspended as it was about six or eight
mun pa corpora Ions ~. ..
E ·d h d th t filIi t wehes trom the ground. around the grass
'VI ence s owe a corner ng s a- . .
as G. & L. ti 1· t· i . b plot, and bemg dark colored agamst a dark
on operator was neg Igen m eavmg rown
Robert E. .cord on stakes around grass plot located be- baC~(gI'o~nd, was har~ to se~, and tbat no
. , . notlCé, I1ght, or warmng of lt was erC\::tcd
twee~ curb and ~lde~alk~ causlllg pedestnan or placed at the spot to advise pedestrians of
a. to tnp over cord In mghttIme. the cord's existence at that point.
We think the verdict was amply justified by
E '. the evidence, and is sustainable as a matter
~ Conn rror to ClrC'\Jlt Court, Duval County; W. of law on the following authorities: Long v.
!:y. ;1. Barker, Judge. American ny. Express Co., 150 La. 184, 90
the motion. Action by Nannie P. Gilmore, unmarried, 80. 563, 22 á. L. H. 1493; Opdy~ke v. Public
against the Gulf Refining Company. To re- :Service R. Co., 78 N. J. Law, 576, 76 A. 1032,
view a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defend- 29 L. R A. (N. S.) 71; Dickey v. Mai.ne Tele-
counsel tor Ant brings error. graph Co., 46 Me. 483.
Attirmed. In the present case the gist of the cause of
'xu c¡þoFor other""""" see same topic and KEY NUMBER in aU Key Number Digests ,wd lnd=e~
,
622 Fla. 152 SOUTHERN REPORTER
action sued for wastheplacl.ngby a private PER CURIAM.
corporation of an obstruction on a part· of .APPeal dismissed on motion Ie!
the street that, 1ntheabsenceof some warn- the respective parties.
iug as to its presenee, was presumed to be
fme of dangerous pitfalls such as cords and
the like, stretched in such manner as to trip
pedestrians attempting to cross from the C'Urb
to the sidewalk proper. In such eases the lia-
bility of the private person plaeing the ob- James M. MADDEN, Junior, Appellant, Y. DU. i
struction and failing to give warning of its VAL FINANCE CO. et aI., Appellees. ~
presence is ditIerent from the liability of the "
city for the same defcet. Supreme Court of Florida.
Therefore the cases relied on by plaintiff in JÙne term, 1933.
error for revers¡ù are not in point, sinee they
refer to the liability of a mw1Ïdpal corpora- Appeal from CircuIt Court, Duval County.
tion for inj,pries rceeived by a pedestrian D. C. Campbell, of Jacksonville, for appel-
when occasIoned by the mere presenee in a
street of an obstruction that conceivaùly can lant. a
be placed there under proper conditions. Baker & Baker, of Jacksonville, for appe1_
Heattirmed on rehearing. lees,
WHITFIELD, P. J.. and BROWN and BU- PER CURIAM.
FOhD, JJ., concur. Appeal dismissed, on motion or counsel for
appellees.
DAVIS, C. J., and ELLIS and TERRELL,
JJ.. eoncur in the opinion and jud¡;ment.
MIAMI COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., a Cor-
poration, Plaintiff In Error, v. George A.
STRATTON, Defendant In Error. \
Supreme Court of Florida.
George H. SIMONS et al., Appellants, v. J. L June term, 1933.
GANT, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida. Error to Circuit Court, Dade County. t
June term, 1933. Kurtz & Reed. of Miami, for plaintiff in er-
ror.
----- Appeal from Circuit Court, Sarasota Coun- James M. Carson and Ross Wllliaros, both
ty. of Miami, for defendant In error.
Frank Redd, of Sarasota, for appellants. PER CURIAM.
R. H. House, of Sarasota, for appellee. Writ of error dismissed, on motion of COWl-
PER CURIAM. sel for the resp~ctive parties.
Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for
itppellee.
I
Gus CHESHIRE, Plaintiff In Error, v. STATE ]
of Floñd'a, Defendant In Error. (
Suprcme Court of Fiorida. :
Fred P. MADISON et a!., Appellants, v. C. E.
MEES, Appellee. June term, 1933. <
Supreme Court of Florida. Error to Circuit Court, Escambia County.
June term, 1933. D. W. Berry, of Pensacola, for plaintiff in
error.
Appeal from CircuIt Court, Sarasota Coun- Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
ty.
Williams & Dart, of Sarasota, for appel- PER CURIAM,
la n 15. Writ of error dismissed on motion
C. 1... McKaig, of Sarasota, for appellee. Attorney General
,