The URL can be used to link to this page

10-20-92 Regular . . CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING - OCTOBER 20. 1992 - 6:00 P.M. COMMISSION CHAMBERS AGENDA 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 does not provide or prepare such record. Pursuant to Section 3.07 of the City Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, Mayor Thomas E. Lynch has instructed me to advise you of a Special Meeting of the Commission to be held in the Commission Chambers at 6 P.M. on Tuesday, October 20, 1992. This meeting has been called for the purpose of considering the following: ,0) 1. CONDITIONAL USE REOUEST: Consider a request for conditional use ~cJ'~/\ approval to establish a multi-purpose recreational and entertainment facility on S.E. 1st Avenue (former Delray Bowl building). Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval subject to conditions (5-2 vote). 2. REOUEST FOR JOINT PARTICIPATION/HERITAGE ASSOCIATION: Consider a ~ request from the Heritage Association for City participation in ~~financing the upgrade of a water main located on S.E. 1st Avenue. City Manager recommends denial. ~3. ORDINANCE NO. 46-92: (Continuation of Public Hearing from October ~ 13, 1992 regular meeting). An ordinance rezoning a portion of the ~~ (\~1Linton International Plaza property in conjunction with the ~~~ establishment of a Checkers Restaurant from PC (Planned Commercial) to GC (General Commercial). Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval (6-1 vote). W 4. ORDINANCE NO. 47-92: (Public Hearing opened and closed at October ~~~ 13, 1992 regular meeting). An ordinance amending the Land Development 3¿~ Regulations with regard to modification of the SAD extension provisions to accommodate the Marina Cay SAD. Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval (4-3 vote). 5. REOUEST FROM THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: Consider a ~\'(~~0)request from the Downtown Development Authority for authorization to ~use in-lieu of parking funds. (At the October 13, 1992 regular meeting 3/ a motion to approve the request failed to pass on a 2 to 2 vote). - City Commission Special/Workshop Meeting 10/20/92 6. REOUEST TO PALM BEACH COUNTY: Consider forwarding a request to Palm 5-0 Beach County regarding the method of handling the City's CBD/GAE application and the County's Plan Amendment process. APpf.o0W A's f!.~mm'i:A()E/) 7. ACOUISITION OF LANDS FOR TENNIS CENTER: Authorize the firm of b~O Vance and Doney to file agreed orders for Parcels M (Gamot), L (Harris) and D (Gent). \ 8. REOUEST TO APPROPRIATE FUNDING FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND: J./ ~ Authorize staff to appropriate $1,583 from the Law Enforcement Trust ~rP ~Fund (Account No. 112-2172-521-33.57) to be used to send two officers U ~t; to the "Basic Drug Law Enforcement School" located in Daytona Beach. -* S~S ADOt::nOccm . q. A~a~/!~ffaib( I () . [I . City Clerk WORKSHOP AGENDA 1. Parking Study Committee Report. 2 . Proposed amendment to the Auburn Trace Grant Agreement to change the amortization schedule for the repayment of the UDAG grant. 3. Distribution of applications received for City Commission vacancy and establishment of schedule for appointment. 4. Commission Comments. -2- . . ~ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OCTOBER 20. 1992 - 6:00 P.M. COMMISSION CHAMBERS AGENDA ADDENDUM THE SPECIAL MEETING IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE: o 9. SETTLEMENT OFFER: Consider a proposed settlement offer in b" the City vs. USF&G, et al. Ci ty Attorney and Director of Environmental Services recommend approval. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 118-92 : A resolution finding it to be in the best interest of the City to sell its not to exceed $5,350,000 6,,() in aggregate principal amount Utilities Tax Revenue Notes, 'series 1992, on a negotiated basis to Sun Bank/South Florida, N.A. ~ 11. CITY ATTORNEY' S EVALUTION: Consider City Attorney's 3...5 () evaluation and salary adjustment. 5/0 . '·'1' · MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER fy1 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM j ~p I - MEETING OF OCTOBER 20. 1992 CONDITIONAL USE REOUEST/HERITAGE ASSOCIATION DATE: October 16, 1992 This item is continued from the October 13, 1992 regular meeting and involves a request for conditional use approval to establish a multi-purpose recreational and entertainment facility on S.E. 1st Avenue (former Delray Bowl Building). The development proposal for this site is to convert the existing 12 lane bowling alley into a multi-purpose recreational and entertainment facility. Regular activities include drop-in center for teens I consisting of educational programs and counseling. A maximum of three pool tables and a maximum of 13 video game machines will be provided. Special events include a teen dance club with disc jockey or live entertainment on Friday and Saturday nights between the hours of 8 p.m. and 1 a.m. Secondary activities include rental hall and activities of a similar nature. I have serious reservations about the appropriateness of the conditional use because it is immediately adjacent to residential land uses. Residential uses are located to the west and north. Griffin Gate is only one-half block west of the southwest corner of this property. The applicant proposes to have an assembly occupancy on this property wi th acti vi ties until 1: 00 a. m. on Friday and Saturday nights. On site parking is grossly inadequate for the capacity of the building. I have seen many instances where the parking overflow from churches and other assembly occupancies create serious neighborhood conflicts. People will park for blocks in every direction. And this occupancy proposes to operate until 1:00 a.m. in the morning. The City is preparing to make a considerable investment in Swinton Avenue. I believe that approving this conditional use could make the adjoining block of Swinton Avenue a less desirable place to live, and would be counter to our efforts to revitalize South Swinton Avenue. The Planning and Zoning Board at their September 21st meeting recommended approval of the conditional use by a 5 to 2 vote (Beer and Naron dissenting), subject to conditions. Those conditions are listed on pages 4 through 6 in the staff report attached as backup material for this item. Two additional items of concern were rai sed which deal s with the Ci ty' s ability to terminate the use if the listed conditions are violated and the City's ability to prohibit commercial dances on the site. The City Attorney's office is reviewing these items and will provide a verbal response at Tuesday evenings meeting. Recommend consideration of the request for conditional use approval to establish a multi-purpose recreational and entertainment center at 325 S.E. 1st Avenue. . C I T Y COM MIS S ION DOC U MEN TAT ION TO: ~ID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER s:JJ J¿,0a~ THRU: " ID J. KOVACS, DIRE OR ~~~TM~PLANNING AND ZONING FROM: DIANE D GUE~ III SUBJECT: MEETING OF OCTOBER , 1992 CONDITIONAL USE EQUEST TO ALLOW A MULTI-PURPOSE ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION FACILITY (THE HERITAGE CENTER) AT 325 S.E. 1ST AVENUE ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is that of approval of a conditional use request to allow the establishment of a multi-purpose entertainment/recreational facility in a building zoned GC (General Commercial). The project is located at 325 S.E. 1st Avenue, immediately tte.s t of the F.E.C. railroad tracks, between S.E. 3rd and 4th Streets. BACKGROUND: This building is the former site of Delray Bowl, a twelve-lane bowling alley. The building was constructed in the late 1950's and operated as a bowling alley until 1988. It has been vacant since that time. In August of this year an application was submitted for conditional use approval to convert the building to a multi-purpose center. The applicants, Jonathan Green and Michael James, are members of the Board of Directors of a Florida corporation known as the Heritage Association. The Association will be leasing the building from the owner, and will make the necessary changes to convert its use. The site would function primarily as a teen center, with daily activities and weekend dances, but the building would also be made available on a rental basis for conferences, weddings, meetings, and activities of a similar nature. Specific details on the use, hours of operation, and related information are contained in the attached staff report. . . City Commission Documentation Conditional Use for Multi-Purpose (Heritage) Center Meeting of October 13, 1992 Page 2 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION: The Planning and Zoning Board held its first formal review of this item at its meeting of August 17, 1992. The Board heard testimony from several property owners in the area, who raised concerns regarding the actual intended uses, provision of adequate parking, and potential problems with crowd control and security in the neighborhood. The Board deferred taking action on the item until those concerns could be specifically addressed by the applicants. The item was continued to the meeting of September 21, 1992. At the September meeting, the Board reviewed the additional information provided by the applicants. A summary of that information is included in the staff report. In general, the applicants are proposing to provide additional parking off-site, and will be working with the City's Police Department in providing security and traffic control on and around the premises. The Board was satisfied with the plan for security, however, they did not feel that the proposed parking plan was adequate. The Board voted 5-2 (Beer and Naron dissenting) to recommend approval of the conditional use, subject to the conditions listed on pages 4 through 6 of the attached staff report, and limited to events and activities which would have a maximum attendance of 270 persons (on site parking is adequate for that number) . Before the Board will consider a recommendation of approval for larger events, the applicants must submit a plan for providing additional parking. That plan is to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission. Two additional items of concern which were raised by the Board during the meeting dealt with the City's ability to terminate the use if the listed conditions are violated, and the ability to prohibit "commercial" dances (other than teen dances) from being held at the site. These concerns were referred to the City Attorney's Office for clarification (see attached memos to Jeff Kurtz). RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion, approve the conditional use request for a multi-purpose entertainment/recreational facility, subject to conditions as listed in the Planning and Zoning Board staff report dated September 21, 1992 (as amended by the Board) , and limited to events and activities which are attended by a maximum of 270 persons. Attachments: * Memos to City Attorney * P&Z Staff Report, incl. attachments . r-- II I r I ú - 'ïrïC~ :: ~;.;:¡ ~~-J) ICA:! ~R]) S.W. 2ND ST. S.E. 2ND STREET : I /.; / / D ~ > > I~ I I-- ~ I J ~ ~ ~!la I: -M- j ~ r- --- · ~ ¡ ~IM- = - I w- w ::» . ¡&J..L. ~ ~ --n ~ iii '11..1 ~ ~ ~ LlJ S.W. 3RD ST. S.E. JRD - ~ r I ~ . :z:~ ~ 0 ¡;.. I ~ ~ 'ot_ Z _ o 0 ... ~ - Z -Ioi r-- .:: cñ - ~ ¡;Þ' cñ ~ -- - 5.£. 4TH STREET- ~ 7 I >- ·nTml - ,-U I :;¡ LLLLUJ;! := CF ITIIID : S.E. 5TH ST. C'-- ( ) 0 GC DIIITJ ~ DIIITJ i-- ~ i-- ,¡ I S.E. 6TH L- I I 7 I STREET_ I) I - - ~M .. 11M - S.W. 6TH STREET "' . ~~IA ~ ~ J I - HERITAGE CENTER '. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM \ TO: JEFF T CITY ATTORNEY FROM: DIANE DOMINGUEZ, PLANNER III \\.~ '~~ SUBJECT: ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO CONDI~I N USE APPROVAL FOR THE HERITAGE CENTER, 325 S.E. 1ST AVE. DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1992 At its meeting of September 21, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of a conditional use request to operate a multi-purpose entertainment center at the former Delray Bowl building. The proposed use will primarily be a teen center, with social and educational activities during the day, and teen dances on Friday and Saturday nights. A secondary use of the building is as a rental hall for weddings, conferences, and similar events. - The building is located adjacent to a residential neighborhood. During the review of the proposal, a number of issues were raised with respect to the petitioners' ability to control crowds, noise, and traffic on and around the premises. The applicants submitted a plan for providing security which involves the use of regular security staff and off-duty policemen, and have agreed to certain specific limitations on the hours of operation and the types of activities permitted. The Board recommended approval of the request subjec~ to those ~ limitations and conditions, {BOO attachaà list). (P(O"~<hd v- ~:1'Q0f' ~ð.+. During the P & Z meeting, the question arose as to the City's ability to enforce these various conditions. If not properly managed, the use has the potential to have a disruptive effect on the neighborhood. The conditions would be most effective if they were backed by the City's ability to expeditiously revoke the conditional use approval for a failure to comply. Please provide your opinion on this issue of enforcement, as the question will most likely have a significant bearing on the final outcome of this request. The petition is scheduled to be heard by the City Commission at the meeting of October 13, 1992. Your thoughts on this matter are very much appreciated. '. Iii' f . PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM ,......;.---.. TO: ~FF KURTZ, CITY ATTORNEY t0~J~~ FROM: NID J. KOVACS, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 SUBJECT: RESTRICTIONS ON USE, THE HERITAGE BLDG CONDo USE CITY COMMISSION ITEM ON OCTOBER 13, 1992 In addition to the question previously posed by Diane Dominguez regarding enforceability of Conditional Use requirements, the following item will also need to be addressed at the City Commission meeting of October 13th. * During the P&Z Board hearing it was specifically note~that the listing of allowable uses does not include "commércial disco, D.J., or band dances" other than the "teen dances" which are described. However, a bonified non-profit "benefit" or "special occasion" dance e.g. the "Jimmie Jones Assistance Benefit (liver transplant) sponsored by the Make A Wish Foundation; the Annual Gala of XYZ Fraternity; the Haitian Chamber of Commerce Annual Dance, etc would be allowable. While, the above situation is clear in my mind, I presume that it may be necessary to be more specific in the Conditional Use action Le. listing of a not allowed activity. But, then again, would one argue that an activity, which is not specifically listed as not being allowed, becomes allowable? Anyway, your direction is sought as to how to handle the "restriction". Options include: 1. Leave as is in that commercial dances are not identified as allowable activities and rely on the record in the event that a dispute arises in the future. 2. Identify commercial dances as an excluded activity. DJK/d1m c: Diane Dominguez, Planner III Project File DJK/CAHERT.DOC . ',I' · PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT MEETING OF: SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: V.A. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, MULTI-PURPOSE RECREATIONAL AND ENTERTAINMENT FACILITY, S.E. 2ND AVENUE; FORMER DELRAY BOWL BUILDING ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD: The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation on a Conditional Use request to establish a recreational/entertainment center in a building which is zoned GC (General Commercial). The property is located at 325 S.E. 1st Avenue, adjacent to F.E.C. railroad tracks, between S.E. 3rd and S.E. 4th Streets. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of August 17, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board heard public testimony and reviewed information provided in the staff report for the above referenced petition. The Board voted to continue the petition, subject to the submission of additional information by the applicants. The written report which was provided by the applicants in response to that request is attached. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary and analysis of that information. The requested categories of information and an analysis of each is described below. ANALYSIS: A. A plan for the provision of parking for events which will be attended by more than 270 people. The plan proposed by the applicants provides 104 parking spaces, which is adequate for events which will be attended by up to 270 persons. Staff had requested that a parking plan be provided for events which would attract more than 270 people. In response, the applicants have provided a statement which reads as follows: XI. WEEKEND/SPECIAL OCCASION PARKING ALTERNATIVE Depending upon the occasion, the on site parking spaces should be enough. But if not, shuttle services ~.~. '. 1111 P&Z Staff Report--Agenda Item V.A. Conditional Use Request for Multi-purpose Center Page 2 will be provided from 325 S.E. 1st Avenue to the 100th block of S.E. 1st Avenue. If additional parking spaces are necessary, the railroad right of way will be available. The applicants are referring to the municipal parking lot which is two blocks north of the building. That lot contains approximately 110 parking spaces. Written details concerning the operation of the shuttle have not been provided, but the applicants have indicated verbally that they will be using a 17-passenger van to transport patrons to and from the lot. There has been no information provided as to the number or configuration of spaces which could be made available in the F. E . C . right of way. The applicants have stated that any parking which would be provided in that area would not be paved. The code requires that all parking surfaces be paved, unless the parking is to be used on an occasional basis (once a week), in which case it can be provided in stabilized sod. B. A more detailed description of the potential uses of the facility (to include the number of amusement machines, number of pool tables, maximum number of booths for flea markets, etc.). The attached information indicates that the regular activities and features will consist of on-site counseling, reading and books, educational contests, three (3) pool tables, up to thirteen (13) video games, and a music box. Special activities will consist of teen dances, mini concerts, revivals, receptions, programs for schools, and youth organizations. As previously indicated, the building will be available on a rental basis for various activities and events. C. A more detailed plan for mitigating the impacts of the crowds and associated noise on the adjacent neighborhood. This plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. The major concerns regarding the impact of this use on the adjacent neighborhood dealt with the potential for loitering and parking along the streets and on private property. The applicants intend to address those issues by providing regular security staff and by hiring off-duty policemen to monitor activities in and around the building. The applicants state in the attached description that on a day to day basis there will be one police office and two to three security staff persons on the premises. During . . P&Z Staff Report--Agenda Item V.A. Conditional Use Request for Multi-purpose Center Page 3 weekends and special events, five or six officers and six to eight security staff persons will be on hand. The primary duties of the officers will be to patrol the building (inside and outside) and direct traffic. The applicants also state that officers will be stationed at the corner of Swinton Avenue and 4th Street, and at S.E. 1st Avenue and S.E. 3rd Street. Major Rick Lincoln of the Delray Beach Police Department met with the applicants to discuss their proposal. The Major has indicated that the proposed security measures as described herein are adequate to provide order and safety around the site, and in the immediate area. He stresses, however, that the Police Department needs to maintain the flexibility to adjust the required number of security personnel as it deems necessary. D. Receipt of written comment from the Parks and Recreation Director regarding the Comprehensive Plan policy in the Open Space and Recreation Element which identifies the need to provide additional activities for teens (Policy A-3.5). Parks and Recreation Director Joe Weldon commented that he encourages efforts made by the private sector to develop programs for teen activities, so long as they provide for the safety and security of the teens and the surrounding neighborhood. A copy of his memo regarding this proposal is attached. Another issue which was identified in the review of this petition was the need to upgrade the fire suppression system, through the provision of an automatic sprinkler system, two fire hydrants, and the upgrading of the water main along S.E. 1st Avenue from 2" to 8". The applicants have submitted a written request asking the City to participate in the cost of upgrading the water main. That request was based on the applicants' understanding that the City had planned to upgrade the water main next year. However, as the attached memo from Deputy Public Utilities Director George Abou-Jaoude indicates, the upgrading of the main is not on next year's improvement schedule. Therefore, the Board should not make any recommendation at this time regarding the City's financial participation in this project. . 1·'1' · P&Z Staff Report--Agenda Item V.A. Conditional Use Request for Multi-purpose Center Page 4 ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS The applicants have provided a security plan which is satisfactory to the Police Department, as long as it is strictly adhered to. The number of staff on the premises should be sufficient to control activities in and around the building during regular and special events. The use has been identified as being primarily a drop-in center for teens during the day and a teen dance club on weekend nights. The building will also be made available on a rental basis for conferences, meetings, weddings, and other social and educational activities. With respect to parking for events attended by more than 270 persons, the proposal remains deficient. Additional written details must be provided regarding the provision of a shuttle service. It would also be appropriate for the applicants to explore alternative parking arrangements with private establishments in the area, rather than relying primarily on a municipal parking lot. Final approval of a parking plan can be deferred to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION A. Continue with direction. B. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use request based upon positive findings with respect to Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5 (D)(5), Conditional Use Findings, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and the following determinations: 1. That the proposed on-site parking is acceptable for general use but that a specific special event parking program must be deemed acceptable by SPRAB. "Special events" are defined as any function or event which is attended by more than 270 persons. (NOTE: THIS DETERMINATION WAS MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AT ITS MEETING OF 9/21/92 TO READ THAT "...A SPECIAL EVENT PARKING PROGRAM MUST BE DEEMED ACCEPTABLE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION. ") 2. That given existing conditions, site constraints, and a desire to maximize on-site parking, the proposed landscape area set-asides are adequate for re-use of the facility. " '.<1, · P&Z Staff Report--Agenda Item V.A. Conditional Use Request for Multi-purpose Center Page 5 Said approval to be subject to the following conditions: 1- That the potential uses of the facility are limited to the following described uses, and that any uses which deviate from this description must receive prior administrative approval from the Planning Director, or approval by the City Commission as appropriate: a. Requ1ar Activities Drop-in center for teens, to consist of educational programs and counseling; with games available as described in the written information provided by applicants (a maximum of three pool tables, and a maximum of thirteen video game machines); to be supervised as described in. Condition #5 below; b. Special Event Activities Teen dance club (disc jockeys and/or live entertainment), with dances to be held on Friday and Saturday nights between the hours of 8 p.m. and 1 a.m.; to be attended by persons aged thirteen (13) to nineteen (19) only; and supervised as described in Condition #5 below; c. Secondary Activities Rental hall, made available for events such as weddings, conferences, T.V. shows, and activities of a similar nature and intensity. NOTE: Any secondary activity which would attract more than 270 persons is subject to adherence to the same parking plan as required for special events. 2. That a site plan be submitted which is consistent with the attached sketch plan, and that it accommodate the following items: a. Removal of Australian Pines at the west perimeter of the site; b. Installation of terminal landscape islands at the entrance to the north parking lot; c. Provision of facilities for on-site collection of recyclable solid waste materials. '. I q; P&Z Staff Report--Agenda Item V.A. Conditional Use Request for Multi-purpose Center Page 6 3. That a Special Events parking program (for functions which are to be attended by more than 270 patrons) be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. (NOTE: THIS CONDITION WAS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AT ITS MEETING OF 9/21/92 TO READ " . . . BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION.") 4. That fire protection be provided through the installation of a fully automated sprinkler system. Related system upgrades must be installed as deemed necessary by the Fire Department to ensure that adequate water pressure is available for fire suppression. 5. That security staff be provided as follows: Sunday thru Thursday, regular activities: One ( 1) off-duty police officer and a minimum of two (2) security staff persons. Friday and Saturday nights and during special events: A minimum of five (5) off-duty police officers and a minimum of six (6) security staff persons. The number of security staff may be increased or decreased as deemed appropriate by the City of Delray Beach Police Department. Any changes to the above referenced security plan must be approved in writing by the Police Department. 6 . That the rules outlined in the attached statement prov ided by the applicants (Section III) be strictly enforced, and that an additional rule be added, one that prohibits loitering outside of the building and within the vicinity of the site; that patrons be required to leave the premises when they exit the building. (NOTE: THIS CONDITION WAS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AT ITS MEETING OF 9/21/92, AS INDICATED ON THE ATTACHED STATEMENT FROM THE APPLICANTS) . 7. That the hours of operation be as follows: Monday - Thursday 10 a.m. - 10 p.m. Friday/Saturday daytime 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Friday/Saturday nights 8 p.m. - 1 a.m. Sunday 1 p.m. - 8 p.m. . "I' P&Z Staff Report--Agenda Item V.A. Conditional Use Request for Multi-purpose Center Page 7 8. That the decibel level outside of the building may not exceed the decibel level stipulated in the City's ordinance. 9. That the building not be licensed for alcohol sales. 10. That the site plan submittal is all of the above referenced conditions, and that it must be approved within six (6 ) months of the Conditional Use approval in order to ensure that the traffic trips remain vested. 11. That failure to abide by any of the conditions listed herein will be cause for revocation of the Conditional Use approval, upon which all activities within the building must cease. C. Recommend denial of the Conditional Use request for a multi-purpose entertainment and recreational facility as submitted, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to the following: * Section 3.1.1 (Consistency) and Section 2.4.5(E)(5)(a) and ( b) , Conditional Use Findings, in that the use will have a significantly detrimental effect upon the stability of the neighborhood and will hinder development and redevelopment of nearby properties; and * Section 3.1.1 (Compliance with LDRS) in that the parking provided is not adequate for the use proposed; and * Section 3.1.1 (Compliance with LDRs) in that perimeter and interior landscaping standards will not be met. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion, recommend approval of the request for a Conditional Use for a multi-purpose entertainment/recreational facility at 325 S.E. 1st Avenue, subject to conditions as listed above (1-11). Attachments: * Project description provided by applicants * Memorandum from Parks and Recreation Director Joe Weldon * Memorandum from Major Rick Lincoln of the De1ray Beach Police Department * Memorandum from Public Utilities Deputy Director George Abou-Jaoude Report prepared by: Diane Dominguez, Planner III Reviewed by DJK on: 9ft,l&¡ L . ';1' The City of Delray Beach Planning Zone c/o Mr. David Kovacs 100 N.W. 1st. AVE Delray Beach, Fl. 33444 Items To Be Addressed A. Activities B. Building Consistency C. Rules and Regulations D. Building Rental Procedure E. Regular / Normal Agenda F. Regular / Normal Agenda Schedule G. Weekends Regular Agenda Schedule H. Irregular / Especial Occasions Probabilities I. Irregular / Especial Occasions Agenda J. Regular / Normal Sufficient Parking K. Weekend / Especial Occasions Parking Alternative L. Security / Uniformed Officers ,. 1·11 · I. ACTIVITIES We will offer different activities to the kids in the community as well as entertainment and fun. Some of the activities will consist of: On site counseling Reading and Books Available Educational Contests and more. II. BUILDING CONSISTENCY The building will consist or: Three (3) pool tables Ten (10) - thirteen (13) video games One (1) music box There will also be table and chairs set up in one of the dressing rooms for counseling, Cops and Kids program, or reading/home work. III. RULES AND REGULATIONS The Heritage Building is a place where people will come to have fun. But along with the fun, rules will be expressed. 1. NO DRUGS, AT ALL WILL BE TOLERATED, ON OR NEAR SITE. 2. NO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE BUILDING Ó BEFORE 3:00 p.m. WEEKDAYS.- S'tC~I f\Ç PAAT ~ O~~Nl2..~b f\C..1LVlJ:'l f&l\ P~z. 3. NO SWEARING OR ANY USE OF PROFANITY. ß)(W1 ()'\<; N£ 4. NO ALC030L ON OR NEAR SITE. fTI i 5. NO HORSING AROUND IN THE BUILDING. q\)..1140 6. NO FIGHTING ~t 7. NO GAMBLING WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE BUILDING. 8. CLOTHING APPAREL WILL BE PROPERLY ENFORCED. IV. BUILDING RENTAL PROCEDURE The person or persons renting the building will adhere to every rule and regulation that will be noted to them by The Heritage Assn., with the exception of alcohol. V. REGULAR / NORMAL AGENDA To operate a building that consist of video games and pool tables, where teens and young adults around the community can come to have a good time. At most, there will be no more than 100 persons at one time. VI. REGULAR / NORMAL AGENDA SCHEDULE Monday - Thursday 10 a.m. - 10 p.m. Friday 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. VII. WEEKEND REGULAR AGENDA SCHEDULE Friday night 8 p.m. - 1 a.m. Saturday 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Saturday night 8 p.m. - 1 a.m. Sunday 1 p.m. - 8 p.m. ,. .'1' . VIII. IRREGULAR / ESPECIAL OCCASIONS PROBABILITIES Teen Center Receptions Mini Concert Hall Programs for Schools Revivals Youth Organizations When the building is occupied by a special event, no one other than that relevant to that party will be in or around the building. IX. IRREGULAR / ESPECIAL OCCASIONS AGENDA Depending on the occasion, will determine the agenda. X. REGULAR / NORMAL SUFFICIENT PARKING We presently have 109 parking spaces on site which will most likely accommodate a normal scheduled agenda. XI. WEEKEND / ESPECIAL OCCASION PARKING ALTERNATIVE Depending upon the occasion, the on site parking spaces should be enough. But if not, Shuttle services will be provided from 325 S.E. 1 st. AVE to the 100th block of S.E. 1st. AVE. If additional parking spaces are necessary, the rail road right of way will be available. XII. SECURITY / UNIFORMED OFFICERS On day-to-day basis, one police officer will be used in the building. Two -three security staff will be on hand. Weekends / Special Events, we will have five or six officers on duty. six to eight security staff will be on hand. The police officer's main job will be to patrol the out side of the building, parking lots (each location), patrol inside of building, to maintain Law and O~der~ ìqd a~o to direct traffic and crowd control. Police officers will e s a 10ne at the corner of Swinton and 4th st., S.E. 1st AVE and S.E. 3rd st., Thank You, Jonathan Green ~e Heritage AS~ V~ _~ / . '·'1' JONATHAN GREEN Has been a Resident of Delray Beach For Over 30 years, Graduating from Atlantic High School in 1979. Upon graduating, Mr. Green spent six(6) years in the United states Army receiving a degree in BNOC, PLDC and PNOC. Mr. Green is married, has one daughter age 10 yrs, one son age 7 yrs, one step-daughter age 18 yrs old and two granddaughters ages 20 mos and 3 mos. Mr. Green has been involved with the youths of Delray Beach for over ten years. He serves as a coach for 13-17 years old boys in the Delray American Little League. He volunteers with T.S.T.L and their projects working with teens. He is one of the founders and owners of The Hertiage Building. . '·'1' . MICHAEL R. JAMES Has been a resident of Palm Beach CountYt since 1976. Taught school at Jupiter Middle School, from 1976 until 1984. Attended the following colleges: University of Michigan Michigan State University Lansing Community College Nova University Spring Arbor College UCLA 1976 graduated Deans List from Spring Arbor College, Spring Arbor, Michigan. Received a Bachelors in History and Psychology. 1979 joined the staff of WPOM Radio, doing Sunday Jazz 1980 Became a full time employee of WPOM Radio 1984 resigned teaching position to become Programmer and Music Director for WPOM Radio. also became the morning disc jockey 1984 formed Hi Mom Productions/providing music for weddings, parties, rallies. HMP has developed into a concert promotions business, artist management, concert sound systems, promotions specialists, ad agency, and general media for radio and tv. 1986 began cable radio station KBLK 1988 came to work at FOXY 1040 as Programmer, Music Director, Promotions Director, and Production Director. . '<I' . . , MAGGIE "MAY" THOMAS Has been a Resident of Delray Beach for over 33 years, Graduating from Atlantic High School in 1977. She attended 3 yrs of college at Lee College in Cleveland, TN. Her major was Special Education. Ms. Thomas worked for the Parks & Recreation Department of W.P.B. with deaf kids. She worked at Atlanta Area School for the deaf in Atlanta, GA. Ms. Thomas volunteers her services with the PB Communities. Ms. Thomas will presently be attending Miami Dade Community College in the future to receive her degree in Interpreting for the deaf. ~ . . CHARLENE E. POLLARD Has been a Resident of Delray Beach For Over 25 Years, Graduating from Atlantic High School in 1975.Mrs. Pollard is married; she has two daughters ages 12 yrs and 2 yrs. She attended 5 yrs of college at Florida A&M University receiving a BS in Socially. Mrs. Pollard is founder of Youth Of Distinction Talent Club founded in 1986; Pompey Park Youth Counsel and Ebony United Club. Mrs. Pollard recently was employed by Drug Abuse Foundation. She's presently working at State Of Florida Division Of Driver Licenses. She also worked for The City Of Delray Beach Parks and Recreation Department in a part-time capcity of over seven ( 7 ) yrs. . '" DOROTHY "ANN" S. GREEN Has Been a Resident of Delray Beach For Over 32 Years, Graduating from Boca High School in 1973. Mrs. Green is married; has one daughter 18 years old and two grand-daughters ages 20 mos and 3 mos. Mrs. Green is founder, orangizer and president of Today's Society of Tomorrow's Leaders ( TSTL) ; one of founders and member of Ebony United Association and active supporter of the community~ Mrs. Green has worked in The City of Delray Beach Parks and Recreation for over 13 years, Implementing and Supporting numerous youth and teen programs. In her job capcity Mrs. Green works with approximately 250 children; ages 5-21 years old on a weekly basis. She is a well known person to the homeless and those in need. She serves as a re- source/referral person in the community. Through her job she has a directory that is very helpful to ail in in the community. She is a role model to our youth. A speaker on their behalf and loves children. She is an active member of Mt. Calvary Missionary Baptist Church serving as church clerk. '. [ITY DF DELRAY BEA[H 100 N.W 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA 33444 4071243 ìC:C:C, MEMORANDUM TO: Diane Dominguez Planner III FROM: Joe Weldon Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Proposal for Multi-Purpose Center/Teen Club DATE: September 9, 1992 Per your request, I have reviewed the proposal for a multi-purpose center/teen club at the Heritage Building. You requested that I review this proposal to determine if it would help fulfill the intent of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to teenage programming. I would encourage any initiative on the part of the private sector to develop programs for teenage activities. Obviously, these programs would have to be developed in a manner that provides for the safety and security of the teenage participants and surrounding neighborhood. If it is their intent to have dances that attract 300 to 500 teenage participants on a weekly basis, I would highly recommend that they be required to have adequate security personnel on hand to provide security and control noise and traffic problems. The security problems with such a large crowd can be extensive, and the Police Department would be best able to advise you of the number of security personnel required for this function. If you have any further questions, please contact me at extension 7251. Jo Di Parks and Recreation Ref:teendanc I . . ~. .: ....-: THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS '. ''I' MEMORANDUM TO: Diane Dominguez Planner II FROM: George Abou-Jaoude Deputy Director/P.U. SUBJ: UPGRADING OF WATER MAIN ALONG S.E. 1ST AVENUE BETWEEN ..ø. E . 3RD STREET AND H.E. 4TH STREET DATE: September 15, 1992 The city is planning to upgrade the water main from 2 inches to 8 inches in association with road improvements. This road in question is not under any improvements at this time. Public utilities Division has no plans to upgrade this line next year. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. George Deputy GA:pw cc: Robert N. Phillips, utilities Inspector FILE; Memos to Planning/Zoning Department GAWTRMAIN ~... .......- -", ".--- ...~. -':7;) "',' ..' I "".- --,._;~/ ' ,j ;;)2 r~_>.;\ \:, .\::~~ ,:: Z',., 'd NG . " "I' 'h..I<' ~I' ~"- '.1,,,:;.;1,,; U-.VI "-"t-:" Iv!\... ÌJLLI\.Al DL{\llj -j) -tÚVV"-".;iJ¿ ~~"~ I' ~~!ìt.'\ . ~~\I Delray Beach Police Department .~;~~.~ 300 West Atlantlo Avenue · Delrðy Beach, Florida 33444·3695 RICHARD G. OVERMAN (407) 243·7888 Fax (407) 243·7816 Chlof of Pollet MEMORANDUM TO: Diane Dominguez, Planner III FROM: Richard M. Lincoln, Major/~ Field Operations Bureau DATE: September 16, 1992 SUBJECT: THE HERITAGE BUILDI~ Repre"entative13 from the Police Department recently met with the manaqement of the Heritage Building to discuss issues of concern from a police point of view. The information contained in this plan provided by Mr. Green is consistent with that discussed in our meeting. It was made very clear that the Police Department feele that in order to sufficiently addreee 13ecurity i13eues, it will be neceeeary to have on-going meetinqs to discuss upcoming events and th~n determine the appropriate number of police officers that will be required to staff the events. The primary focuB for police service will be in the parking lota outside of the - but ldinq 130 that problems such as n01 se. consuming- of alcohol. , etc., will not present a problem to thoEe residing in the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, a police officer will be posted at the front door during major events to assist etaff in their identification checks. If further information or clarification i~ needed, please call upon me. RMLjppt . >·1)' Verbatim Excerpt from City Commission Special Meeting of October 20, 1992; Item SP.1./Conditiona1 Use Request to establish a recreational/entertainment facility at former bowling alley site on S.E. 1st Avenue: After public comment and discussion, Mayor Lynch asked for a motion. Mr. Andrews: I'll make a motion, but afterwards I don't want you to just bury the thing because I would like to follow up with the Education Board, because I think there are some ideas that will help this process along. So, I'll move for denial on this conditional use. (Motion seconded by Mr. Mouw) On roll call, the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Mouw - Yes Dr. Alperin - Yes Mr. Andrews - Yes Mr. Randolph - No Mayor Lynch - Yes The motion passed on a 4 to 1 vote (Mr. Randolph dissenting). Mr. Andrews: Mayor, I would like to make a motion that we direct the Education Board to begin a task and study and report back to the Commission within sixty (60) days on alternative programming for teenagers that is above and beyond whatever the Boys and Girls Club scenario is, because I don't see that as being all encompassing or at the hours that I'm concerned about. I think the 9:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight scenario is something that needs to be addressed. Mr. Mouw: I'll second the motion. Mayor Lynch: Any other discussion? Dr. Alperin: Yes, I do want the Commission to be aware that this would be a new responsibility, not one this Board has been working on and to ask that it should be presented within a sixty (60) day time limit while they have what they consider a full plate right now might be too much. They are working on several projects, and to just dump this on them all of a sudden and give them two months to get it done might be a little bit sudden. Plus we're changing some of the responsibility of one of the boards; I don't know if that's something that can be done that easily. City Attorney: I don't believe that the particular motion would deviate from their scope. Dr. Alperin: I'm not saying it's not a good idea to have this board do it; I'm just saying that sixty days is going to hit them with a little more than they need. '. . - .. , Mr. Andrews: Well, they can come back and say it's going to take ninety (90) days, but I would really like to get this moving. And the reason I believe that it belongs with the Education Board is that I think that it is more than image that they should be looking at. I think they went around to the schools and investigated the programs, and the programs are what make students. I think a10t of this can dovetail in with the high schools and the junior highs as a part of their programming. In other words, where do they stop. If you know in advance what programs are coming from different directions, then you know where to fill in the gap, and I just think this is the appropriate board to do it. I'll amend my motion to ninety (90) days, but one other thing, I think the private sector does do some things better, and if they throw dances better or they have certain activities, I don't think this should be something that is totally a governmental function. And this may develop into something where the comfort level of putting this in the private sector gets raised and then it goes off on its own. (Mr. Mouw amended his second to reflect the 90 day time frame.) Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 4 to 1 (Mr. Randolph dissenting). Prepared by: AMH-1O/21/92 . . . . MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS tf]¡\/1 FROM: CITY MANAGER[I' SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM j .sP a - MEETING OF OCTOBER 20. 1992 REOUEST FOR JOINT PARTICIPATION/HERITAGE ASSOCIATION DATE: October 16, 1992 This item is continued from the October 13, 1992 regular meeting and involves a request from the Heritage Association asking that the City jointly participate in the cost associated with the upgrade of a water main along S.E. 1st Avenue. The Heritage Association has submitted an application for conditional use approval to convert the former Delray Bowl building into a multi-purpose entertainment center. Because of the intensity of the proposed use, an automatic sprinkler system is required in the building and two fire hydrants on S.E. 1st Avenue between S.E. 3rd and 4th Streets. In order to provided adequate water pressure for these improvements, the existing two inch main needs to be upgraded to eight inches. As these improvements will benefit the adjacent residents as well as the Heritage Building itself, the applicant is requesting that the City participate in the cost of providing the upgrade. The estimated cost for these improvements is $35,000. Staff has indicated that the City does plan to upgrade the water main in association with road improvements on S.E. 1st Avenue in the future; however, these improvements have not been scheduled or funded. While staff recommends denial, several options are provided should the Commission decide to approve the request. Those options are: -The City could pay the cost of the line from the Heritage Association's connection north and west to Swinton Avenue, and split the cost of hydrants - approximate cost $21,000. -The City could pay all costs from the north edge of the Heritage Association's property to Swinton Avenue - approximate cost $15,000. -The City could pay the cost of the main on 3rd Street from 1st Avenue to Swinton Avenue - approximate cost $9,500. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a recommendation on the cost sharing request during its review of the conditional use petition. A detailed staff report is attached as backup material for this item. Recommend denial of the request from the Heritage Association asking that the City jointly participate in the cost associated with the upgrade of a water main along S.E. 1st Avenue. . ,\ ,. f 1 (I" C I T Y COM MIS S ION DOC U MEN TAT ION TO: D T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER THRU: A ~¿J~0~~ . 0 CS, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FROM: DIANE DOMINGUEZ, PLANNER I II ~!At SUBJECT: MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1992 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY THE HERITAGE ASSOCIATION FOR THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE COST OF UPGRADING A WATER MAIN ASSOCIATED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER AT 325 S.E. 1ST AVENUE ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is that of authorizinq the City's participation in the costs associated with upgrading a water main along S.E. 1st Avenue from 2" to 8". The upgrade is part of improvements required in order to establish a multi-purpose entertainment center at the site of the former Delray Bowl building. BACKGROUND: This request is associated with the Conditional Use application to convert the former Delray Bowl building to a multi-purpose entertainment center. The change in use would create a significant increase in the maximum potential occupancy of the building, triggering a requirement for an automatic sprinkler system in the building and two fire hydrants along the block. In order to provide adequate water pressure for these improvements, the existing main which runs along S.E. 1st Avenue will have to be upgraded from 2" to 8" in diameter. The upgrade would most effectively be accomplished by connecting to the existing main at S.E. 4th Street, running the main north along S.E. 1st Avenue past the building itself, and looping it along S.E. 3rd Street to connect with the main at Swinton Avenue. One fire hydrant would be placed in the middle of the block between 3rd and 4th Streets, and one would be located at the corner of S.E. 3rd Street and S.E. 1st Avenue. The attached exhibit illustrates the locations of these improvements. . . City Commission Documentation Heritage Center Water Main Upgrade Page 2 Because this project involves improvements which will benefit adjacent residents as well as the Heritage Building itself, the applicants have requested that the City participate in the cost of providing the upgrade. The applicants maintain that since the City plans to eventually upgrade the mains in this area, this particular improvement would simply be an acceleration of those plans. The attached memo from George Abou-Jaoude, Deputy Director of Public Utilities, indicates that the City does plan to upgrade the main in association with road improvements; however, those improvements have not been scheduled or funded to date. ANALYSIS According to Utilities Department personnel, the estimated cost of upgrading the existing 2" main to an 8" ductile iron pipe would run approximately $30.00 per lineal foot. This price includes the cost of installing the pipe, as well as the costs of backfilling, fittings, traffic maintenance, and restoration. In addition, there is a cost of $2,000 for tapping into each connection (at Swinton and at S.E. 4th Street) , and a cost of approximately $1,600 for each fire hydrant. The total cost of the required improvements for this project is estimated to be approximately $35,000. The cost of the City's participation would depend upon the improvements which the City chooses to fund. Some possible cost sharing alternatives and the estimated expenses are described below. 1- The applicants could pay for the costs which are directly associated with their use, that is, the installation of the main from S.E. 4th St. to the actual point of connection to their property. The City would assume the responsibility for extending the line to S.E. 3rd St., and the costs of looping it over to Swinton. The cost of the hydrants would be split. The City's estimated investment under this arrangement would be approximately $21,000. 2. The applicants could pay for the cost of extending the line from S.E. 4th St. to the northern edge of their property, which is typically required in connection with development proposals. The City would then assume the costs for continuing the upgrade to its connection at Swinton Avenue. The City's estimated share would cost approximately $15,000. 3. Another possibility would be to have the applicants pay for the water main upgrade and the two hydrants, with the City picking up only the cost of looping the main to Swinton. The City's estimated share under this alternative would be approximately $9,500. . . City Commission Documentation Heritage Center Water Main Upgrade Page 3 Section 5.3.3 of the Land Development Regulations states that approval of an application for development or redevelopment can be conditioned upon the construction of measures to mitigate impacts, such as the provision of adequate water pressure for fire suppression. Such measures may include the upgrading in size of existing mains, or the looping of mains in order to increase the reliability of water flows and pressure. These costs are typically borne by the developer. While the City may intend to upgrade these mains at a future date, the immediate need for these improvements is directly attributable to the proposed change in use. Commi tting funds to this project at this time would require a reprioritization of improvements which have already been planned. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION: The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a recommendation on the cost sharing request during its review of the conditional use petition. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion, deny the request for financial participation in the upgrading of the water main and provision of fire hydrants for the proposed Heritage Center. Attachment: * Letter of request from applicant * Illustration of proposed improvements * Memo from Deputy Public Utilities Director George Abou-Jaoude . Mr. David Kovacs, Planning Director The City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1 st. AVE De1ray Beach, Fl. 33444 Dear Mr. Kovacs, From our understanding, The City of Delray Beach is planning to upgrade the water main next year. What we are asking is that since this process is taking place anyway, we would be more than happy to split the cost with you if we can proceed speedily without any delays. We are also ask1ng from the City, to get a bid on this project and let us know the answer as soon as possible. Please give this matter your up most attention. As always The Heritage Assn. thanks you for taking the time to assist our cause. Sincerely, Jonathan Green J~~AS~ '. . , - I - I - S.E. 3RD ST. "V h / - I I t-- / I ... -, I r-- PROPOSED . FIRE HYDRANTS HERITAGE 0::: ~ CENTER . Q:' - ~ 1 . ~ l u . . Ì'4 , L..J - w Q- - . > ~ LL.. « · w > - z « 0 l- I- Z - V') - ~ 't'- V') · w · V') I-- I r I-- 8" I - 10'V ~-o- ? - I t 16 "v 6 S.E. 4TH ST. HERITAGE CENTER PROPOSED WATER MAIN UPGRADE . . . . MEMORANDUM TO: Diane Dominguez Planner II FROM: George Abou-Jaoude Deputy Director/P.U. SUBJ: UPGRADING OF WATER MAIN ALONG S.E. 1ST AVENUE BETWEEN S. E . 3RD STREET AND ..E. 4TH STREET DATE: september 15, 1992 The city is planning to upgrade the water main from 2 inches to 8 inches in association with road improvements. This road in question is not under any improvements at this time. Public utilities Division has no plans to upgrade this line next year. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free t~ contact me. George Deputy GA:pw cc: Robert N. Phillips, utilities Inspector FILE; Memos to Planning/Zoning Department GAWTRMAIN "" . - -- 'c~, -~~JY ". "', ........ ~- .~ '. , , - \",-.' .. j ;;;2 r<..;~; ;". - ~. .,'... .: ~ ~~': It. , '.,. - ,'" ,. Ir~G -'. ,'- '. ~ '. . . <',1' . . MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER (1'-/ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM j SP ~ - MEETING OF OCTOBER 20. 1992 ORDINANCE NO. 46-92 DATE: October 16, 1992 This item is before you for continuation of the Public Hearing held at the October 13, 1992 regular meeting and involves an ordinance rezoning and placing land presently zoned PC (Planned Commercial) district in the GC (General Commercial) district; said land being located at the southeast corner of Linton Boulevard and S.W. 10th Avenue. The proposed rezoning is to accommodate a free-standing 766 square foot drive-thru and walk-up Checkers Restaurant. Restaurants are allowed as a permitted use within the PC zone district. However, within the PC zone district, the minimum square footage for a free-standing building is 6,000 square feet. As, there are no minimum square footage requirements for restaurants in the GC zone district, rezoning is requested. .At their September 21st meeting the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the rezoning by a 6-1 vote. A detailed staff report is attached as backup material for this item. Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 46-92 on second and final reading. /)+ b:J Ic/a? /9;;;l.. Previous Commission Action: Mr. Mouw moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 46-92 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - No; Mr. Andrews - No. Said motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote. . . , '\ 'y' ,1 " - ! C I T Y COM MIS S ION DOC U MEN TAT ION TO~~ID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER ~ ~~l~/W,UG0-CL FROM: DAVID J. KOVACS, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SUBJECT: MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1992 SECOND READING, ORDINANCE REZONING FROM PC TO GC_ (CHECKERS) ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is that of approval of this rezoning ordinance on second reading. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: At first reading, this ordinance was approved on a 3-2 vote after discussion ensued regarding policy implications pertaining to out-parcel development and strip commercial development. Both of these items were considered by the Planning and Zoning Board, whichJ on a 6-1 vote, made findings - based upon the specifics of this situation - that the requested rezoning was not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Factors which were considered in making that determination included: - that there was no change in ingress/egress to the shopping center; - that there will be architectural consistency between proposed development and the existing center; - that the new development will follow the same pattern of other structures in the shopping center i.e. will not be a typical outparcel. Given that the Planning and zoning Board carefully considered the above information and, by a 6-1, vote recommended approval, if the City Commission fails to approve the rezoning, specific policy direction should be provided. DJK/CCCHECK.DOC . . ORDINANCE NO. 46-92 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED PC (PLANNED COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT IN THE GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT; SAID LAND BEING A PORTION OF TRACT "A", LINTON INTERNATIONAL PLAZA PLAT 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 51, PAGE 3 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND AMENDING "ZONING DISTRICT MAP, DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1990"; PROVIDING A GENE RAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DEL RAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following described property in the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby rezoned and placed in the GC (General Commercial) District, as defined in Chapter Four of the Land Development Regulations of Delray Beach, Florida, to-wit: A portion of Tract "A", Laver's International Plaza Plat 2, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 51, Page 3 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, said portion of land being more particularly described as follows: Begin at the southwest corner of said Tract "A", thence N 020 21'45" W along the Easterly right-of-way line of S.W. 10th Avenue for a distance of 203.38 feet to a point; thence N 42037'22" E for a distance of 35.35 feet to a point; thence N 87036'28" E along the southerly right-of-way line of Linton Boulevard for a distance of 81.14 feet to a point; thence S 02021'45" E for a distance of 231.79 feet to a point on the south line of said Tract "Ani thence along the southerly line of Tract "A", S89° 27'25" W for a distance of 106.19 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above-described parcel contains 0.553 acres of land, more or less. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Linton Boulevard and S.W. 10th Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. i ¡ Section 2. That the Planning Director of said City shall, upon ¡ the effective date of this ordinance, change the Zoning District Map of I I the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to conform with the provisions of Section 1 hereof. i Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in ! conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. i Section 4. That should any section or provision of this I ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence or word be I I declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a I whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective I immediately upon passage on second and final reading. I I , I . · PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 1992. MAY 0 R ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading / i " ~ ! I , I I '. 1I.:J CLJ-CO LU LLJ LLJ---c:..J " .... ,.. 5... 10TH STrlr'M ~.W, IOi r~EET '/11 ill lIœ ¡I¡ mr I ; I - -II , ~........" I ~ ~~ ,~ r-- La ,"" - - - "KI I-t-- rl If! t::~ ~ = II 1ft - o. 00,/ ~ ~ II 1"11 /111 IIIU- (/1 / ~~ - - ~ II \ II - ~ -;; I - II III I1IUll ~" ~ I tmIIIIIIIJ 11 -) ~ I I J - "--~ :1c .- WAU.ACf. WALLACE I! I I 111111 F = I I I TTT F'ORD "!SUN I I __l· f- f- ® LINTON BOULEVARD 95 .J: I wn~... :::NATlONAL CircUIT ROSS 1 COSTCO C~ ~ ~ ".. ~ f:SJ "u.." [;).J TAItGET HOITH ) .' rI~ ~ ~ J I ~ ( ~) \\ J LINTON INTERNATIONAL PLAZA ~ ~ l\\ ~ CHECKERS RESTAURANT . PLANNING & ZONING BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH --- STAFF REPORT --- MEETING DATE: September 21 , 1992 AGENDA ITEM: IV. D. ITEM: Rezoning from PC to GC for the Western Portion of the Linton International Plaza, in coniunction with the Establishment of a Checkers Drive-Thru Restaurant ~ WAU.4CE Wþ.l.1.I.C£ F'ORD HISSAN ROSS COSTCO N - -- .-~- ------ . TARGET GENERAL DATA: ..------- OWner. . . . ....: . . . . . .. ........... .MDN Properties, Inc. Agent.........................Robert E. Basehart Urban Design Studio Location......................At the southeast corner of Linton Boulevard and SW 10th Avenue. Property Size.................0.SS3 acres - - - - .. - - -- -- - City Land Use Plan............General Commercial City Zoning...................PC (Planned Commercial) Proposed Zoning...............GC (General Commercial) Adjacent Zoning.........North: RM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium Density) East: PC South: SAD (Special Activities District) West: PC Existing Land Use.............Parking lot for existing retail center. Proposed Land Use.............766 square foot drive-in restaurant with attendant parking lot. Water Service.................Existing 10" water main along Linton Boulevard, and existing 10" main along SW lOth Avenue. Sewer Service.................Existing 8" sanitary sewer line serving Linton International IV.D. Plaza. . I-T E M B E FOR E THE BOA R D . . The action before the Board is that of making a recommendation on a rezoning request from PC (Planned Commercial) to GC (General Commercial). This rezoning is being sought in order to accommodate a land use with a building of less than 6,000 sq. ft. (Checkers Restaurant) . The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Linton Boulevard and S.E. 10th Avenue. B A C K G R 0 U N D : Linton International Plaza has an extensive land use history since 1984. The following background is being provided with respect to major land use requests for the property. At its meeting of September 25, 1984, the City Commission approved a request to annex an 18.82 acre parcel of land, between S.W. 10th Avenue and S.W. 4th Avenue for Linton International Plaza (fka Linton Square at Laver's & Laver's International Plaza). At the same meeting, the City Commission approved a request for SAD (Special Activities District) zoning ,. site plan and conditional use approval for Linton International Plaza via Ordinance No. 54-84. The uses allowed under this particular SAD zoning were restricted to "hotel -, and' limited _ -_ conunercial uses" . The development proposal included the existing plaza (west 9 acres) and a proposed hotel/conference center (east 9 acres, now Costco). The initial petition stated that the commercial uses were to be in conjuncti0I!.~ith Laver's Resort. In January 1985, Plat 1 and Plat 2 were approved by the City Commission. The plats involved the western 9 acres of the development: Plat 1 - existing shopping center i Plat 2 - existing bank building. The eastern 9 acres was not platted. At its meeting of July 17, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of a rezoning request from SAD to CC (Community Commercial) for the east 9 acres to accommodate Costco. On August 8, 1989, the City Commission approved the rezoning request to CC. The property was platted separately and is no longer part of Linton International Plaza. The Plaza remained zoned as SAD until the Citywide Rezoning of October 1990, at which time the property was rezoned to PC (Planned Commercial). The limited commercial uses that were allowed with the SAD are similar to the uses allowed in the PC and GC (General Commercial) zone districts. "- -- ~ . - - '. , - - -- There have been site plan modifications processed for Linton International Plaza which include landscape changes, parking space additions and minor additions i.e. awnings. On August 10, 1992, a request was made to rezone the westernmost 106.19' of Tract "A", Linton International Plaza Plat 2 (0.55 acres) from PC to GC and is now before the Board for action. . P & Z Board Staff Report Rezoning PC to GC for Checkers Restaurant Page 2 PRO J E C T DES C RIP T ION : The proposed rezoning is to accommodate a free standing 766 sq. ft. drive-thru and walk-up restaurant. Restaurants are allowed as a permitted use within the PC and GC zone districts. However, within the PC zone district, the minimum square footage of a free-standing building is 6,000 sq. ft., whereas, there is no minimum square footage requirement within the GC zone district. The associated development proposal consists of the following: * Installation of a 766 sq. ft. pre-manufactured modular, commercial building. * 650 sq. ft. of outside dining area; * Two (2 ) drive-thru lanes and windows (one on the east side and one on the west side of the building); * 18 parking spaces along with associated landscaping; * Elimination of 32 -. exist-ing parking spaces to accommodate the building and associated improvements. Z 0 N I N G A N A L Y S I S . . REQUIRED FINDINGS: (Chapter 3) Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to the following four areas. FUTURE LAND USE MAP: I The use or structures must be allowed in the zoning district and the zoning district must be consistent with the land use designation. The subject property has a General Commercial land use plan designation and is currently. ,zoned Pc. (Planned Commercial-).- The proposed zoning of GC (General Commercial) is compatible with the General Commercial land use plan designation. Thus, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to consistency with the land use plan designation. . . P & Z Board Staff Report Rezoning PC to GC for Checkers Restaurant Page 3 I CONCURRENCY: I Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan. Water and Sewer: Water and sewer plans are not required for a rezoning request, however the following information is provided: * Existing 10" water mains are located along the south side of Linton Boulevard and the west side of S.W. 10th Avenue. An existing 8" water main is located on the Linton International Plaza site, to the east of the Carney Bank building. * Additional fire hydrant locations may be required. * An existing 8" sanitary sewer main is located to the south of the proposed structure within an existing utility easement. - -- ~- '-- -- Drainaqe: With the development of the Linton International Plaza, drainage was accommodated via sheet flow to swale and landscape areas. The change in zoning does not affect Drainage concurrency. Drainage details will be addressed by SPRAB (Site Plan Review and Appearance Board), with the full site plan submittal. Streets and Traffic: A traffic impact study was not provided with the rezoning request. The uses permitted in the PC and GC zoning districts are of a similar intensity, and a traffic analysis is not required at this level. However, with a full site plan submittal, a traffic impact study must be provided and a positive finding of concurrency with respect to traffic must be made. Parks and Open Space: Park dedication requirements do not apply for nonresidential uses. The open space requirements may be met by applying Section 4.6.16(H)(3) (Perimeter and Interior Landscaping Requirements). These requirements must either be met or appropriate waivers or variances obtained with the full site plan submittal. A minimum 25% non-vehicular open space shall be provided. . P & Z Board Staff Report Rezoning PC to GC for Checkers Restaurant Page 4 Solid Waste:- There is no difference in allowable uses between PC and GC zoning; thus there is no impact with respect to concurrency. CONSISTENCY: I Compliance with the performance standards set forth in Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions) along with required findings in Section 2.4.5 (D) (5) (Rezoning Findings) shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in the making of a finding of overall consistency. Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions): The applicable performance standards of Section 3.3.2 and other policies which apply are as follows: C) Additional strip commercial zoning on vacant properties shall be avoided. This policy shall not preclude rezonings on land that at the time of rezoning has improvements on it. Where existing strip commercial areas or zoning exists along an arterial _street!.._ consideration should be given to increasing the depth of the--ëommerclar-zontnq -tn-- -- order to provide for better project design. {Land Use Element A-l. 3) If rezoning from PC to GC is approved, the minimum building size requirement of the PC zone district (6,000 sq. ft. ) will be removed. That requirement generally prohibits fast food restaurants which are typically located within a free standing structure of less than 6,000 sq. ft. Construction of a similar restaurant, attached to the existing structure, would not be prohibited since the requirement deals with floor area and not use. Based on the information provided, the proposed restaurant will not create the need for additional ingress/egress points, which is a concern with strip commercial development. The depth of the property (230 feet) is sufficient to accommodate the proposed development without compromising code requirements i.e. adequate interior traffic circulation, parking and landscaping. D) That the rezoning shall result in allowing land uses which are deemed compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses both existing and proposed; or that if an incompatibility may occur, that sufficient regulations exist to properly mt tigate adverse impacts from the new'"Use'. - . --··'·P ,- -".- The proposed use is compatible with the adjacent commercial and office uses provided the building's architectural style is similar to the existing commercial development. Pursuant to Section 4.6.18 (Architectural Elevations) outbuildings within a shopping center shall be compatible in terms of color, materials, and architecural style. With review of the building elevations, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board must make a finding of compatibility prior to approval of outbuilding elevations. . P & Z Board Staff Report Rezoning PC to GC for Checkers Restaurant Page 5 Compatibility with the existing residential developments to the north (southridge Village Condominium) and south (Laver's North) is not a major concern. However, the sketch plan shows two drive thru windows which have a north/south orientation with vehicles facing north. To the east, the existing Carney Bank has drive thru lanes oriented the same direction. The Bank drive thrus are typically closed after 6:00 P.M. The Checkers will be open until approximately 11: 00 P.M., thus headlights will be illuminating north towards the condominiums. As the condos are north of a perimeter wall and approximately 300' north of the drive thru windows the affects of illumination should be minimal. Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D)(1) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Section 3.1.1, the City Commission must make a finding that the rezoning fulfills one of the reasons for which the rezoning change is being sought. These reasons include the following: a. That the zoningjad.previously been changed, or was originally established, in error; b. That there has been a change in circumstances which make the current zoning inappropriate; c. That the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed under the Future Land Use Map and that it is more appropriate for the property based upon circumstances particular to the site and/or neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a justification statement which states the following: "The reason this rezoning request is being proposed is to accommodate the construction of a 766 sq. ft. Checkers drive-through restaurant at the west end of the Lavers Plaza #2 plat. Currently the property is zoned PC which requires that all buildings be a minimum of 6,000 square feet. The proposed facility will be both physically and functionally compatible with the existing office building on the site and will improve the economic viability of the project. The location and design of the Checkers facility will not adversely impact the office uses. on. Hthe- si te. -.. In ..-- fact, the tenants of thè office building have expressed their pleasure with the proposal. The property is designated as commercial in the City's Comprehensive Plan and General Commercial zoning is completely consistent with PC zoning uses which surround the site and are predominant in the area. The proposed use will provide a comfortable, clean, efficient and inexpensive place for workers in the surrounding area, as well as area residents, to obtain . P & Z Board Staff Report Rezoning PC to GC for Checkers Restaurant Page 6 and/or eat meals. The architecture of the proposed building will be compatible with the adjacent and surrounding buildings. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the high intensity commercial zoning that exists on the property now. The use will provide a needed and compatible service to the area and the appearance of the facility will be compatible with the existing character of the area." The justification statement appears to address the third finding, that is, that the requested zoning is of similar intensi ty as allowed on the Future Land Use Map and that it is more appropriate for the site. The uses allowed under GC zoning are similar in intensity to the PC zoning. However, whether or not the GC zoning is more appropriate based upon circumstances particular to this site is questionable. Given the fact that a similar commercial use could be added on to the existing structure under the current zoning, the GC zoning is at least as appropriate as the PC zoning. . A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives are noted. ---.__._~ . -- - - -,- ---- --.-- - --- - -. Land Use Element Objective A-l - Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate ans complies in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. (bl, b3) A. Physical Considerations - There are no special physical or environmental charactersitics of the land that would be negatively impacted by the requested zoning. B. Complimentary with Adjacent Land Uses - The proposal will be complimentary with the adjacent commercial uses and should not adversely impact the residential uses to the north and south. c. Fulfills Remaininq Land Use Needs - There are two existing fast food restaurants (McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken) and three more proposed (Wendy's, Taco Bell & Arby's) along the south side of Linton within this area. These restaurants are being built in response to recent market changes in the general area, such as the development of residential communities and nearby commercial developments. The placement of fast food and other restaurants adjacent to retail centers allows for the combining of trips and provides a convenience to residents in the area. . P & Z Board Staff Report Rezoning PC to GC for Checkers Restaurant Page 7 Land Use Element Objective A-I.3 - Additional strip commercial zoning on vacant properties shall be avoided. This policy shall not preclude rezonings on land that at the time of rezoning has improvements on it. Where existing strip commercial areas or zoning exists along an arterial street, consideration should be given to increasing the depth of the commercial zoning in order to provide for better project design. This objective was included under "Standards for Rezoning Actions" (Section 3.3.2) which was discussed on page 4 of this report. COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: If the Rezoning is approved, a full site plan submittal complying with the Land Development Regulations will be required. A sketch plan was submitted with the rezoning request which shows a take-out window along Linton Boulevard and a drive-thru window along S. W. 10th Avenue. It is noted that pursuant to Section 4.6.18{B)(9), "take-out" or "pick-up" windows or doors of retail or wholesale establishments shall not be located on a building facade that faces a public right-of-way, unless they are designed in a manner as to be an aesthetic asset to the building and neighborhood. This is an item that will be addressed with SPRAB review of the full site plan submittal. REV I E W B Y o THE R S . . The rezoning is not in a geographic area requiring review by the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) , the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) , or the HPB (Historic Preservation Board) . ",. 4 _ . .. . _ _ . devEÙopmen-t- - . If the rezoning is approved, a site plan for the will be submitted for review by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. Neighborhood Notice: Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500' radius of the subject property. Courtesy notices were provided to the tenants of Linton International Plaza. Letters of objection, if any, will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. . P & Z Board Staff Report Rezoning PC to GC for Checkers Restaurant Page 8 ASS E SSM E N T AND CON C L U S ION . . Rezoning from PC to GC will allow development of a free standing building having less than 6,000 sq. ft. With respect to Consistency findings, given the configuration of the property, it may be argued that any development of a strip commercial nature; and hence contrary to Land Use Element Policy A-I. 3 . However, normal features of strip development such as seperate ingress/egress will not occur. Further, the architectural style of this structure must be compatible with Linton International Plaza, which will provide uniformity and less contrast. Positive findings with respect to the Future Land Use Map can be made. If the rezoning is approved, a traffic impact study must be submitted which addresses Traffic Concurrency. Positive findings with other level of service standards and the Land Development Regulations are anticipated with the full site plan submittal. A L T ERN A T I V E ACT ION S . . A. Continue with direction. -. . - - . .. -- ------- - - ---- -- .- .-- --- -- B. Recommend approval of the rezoning request based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and Section 2.4.5(E) (5) .__ C. Recommend denial of the rezoning request based upon a failure to make a positive finding with respect to Chapter 3.3.2 (Compatibility), and that pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) the rezoning fails to fulfill at least one of the reasons listed. S T A F F R E COM MEN D A T ION : Recommend approval of the rezoning request based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and Section 2.4.5(E)(5}. Attachments: * Location Map * Sketch Plan T:RECHECK.DOC . I \. -"." I I M/H--- I L NTO,J ÔOcJL€VJ4Lh I ~ , I 41 ' I Asphalt Pa....'emen t I 0 -Set l----~ Stm, M/H I ---- r Co"crt!te cu;:¡;&¡ Cµtt~ (TmJ 10· Water Untt Set ¡J PCP¡ Seli ~ pCPu _ PCP, 1- - I - 16-CMP ~ " , I i\< i\(t -I - I ~ I / i ('O.J.T»C'~ I I ~~i ' I! I I~!~ r l' " Asphalt Po", e ~ 1;~ I d I 'i :t~~ I I I . I ~- I en ;." *~\" ./ I . <0 1'1 :E '" .... I ~ 18.3' 14.7' . 30' . I ...¡,j ~ ê 8/c: , 0 i 0. on I .., I ... i cO '-' ::r i .., -.. ~ I ~ <... l) I 0. ~ ;:) . 01 ~ (1) ~ 18,4' Oi b .t} :.3 I ::s :b. o L/S~ ~ I c û ":) ~ J (1) '" O.S· Cone. -.. I ~ Curb I :b. '( 8/a,; I ã 12,9' on J i ~ ===== ì -: * I I I Undacape At.. I I --- I I - - ----- . - I "- I ....¡ I 't - Set ~ PCP ---- I SIP I I I I \o~ I I / I I ;-t:- t( vt r- I ~:'(' ~ CD I ,Y,o ,\O~ m ~ III CD r- S- . t':) . . z O~~ :c~ Q) 3 ~ ~.CD i ::J ;:+ CD -u8:T ¡õ õ' I ii)3CD ::J ~ N CD C -- I Q) ~ ~ 0 ! ..... ~ _ma. ~ï o ~ CD £a.Ü; :J 0 ..... en -. ª£ CDC<O o ::to a. "0 ~ ~ ~ m "0 CD ~<O .....0 a. ..... ;::¡-..... -U("') ::r.....CD -::r CD::r~ m CD ~ CD m ~~ CD m ::J O~ en a.- ....a.en CD -. 0 CD en ::J!:!':- @:::O a.gc CD moa en CD- en _ 0 CI> Q) "Om:J Q) ~ ~("')5' (") m ::r:J m::r(þ' .- .....CD.., "TI -. ....O:J _::J m "m o .- (") CI> .- ::!, ::r ::r -. Q,CI> (þ"o a.en::J m I~ en:::O~ "\\ -. (þ ....en-u - . CD....- "- :) -umm :, -CN ~ P CD m .., m ::Jm::r :;, en . ::J (/) -<I> ("'\ -ëÞ (0 o 0- '< 0 (") .- 0 g .., ..... .CD ..... CD CD I\) - - .. g~~ .. ï -U . .., ~- _.CD -U0- ::J~ -- _O::J'" ° -. 0)3 CD ::Jg ~CDC: 5'õ' _O)::J 0::Jc. CD'" £c.CD ..,r (jJ ::J ° CD ø -. ê:£ c.C:<C -e::J 0- 0) -e CD ::J -. O)::J _oc. _<C - ;::¡ - -u(') ::r_CD CD ::J'" ::J -::J'" 0) CD ~ CD I» N 0 CD I» ::J I»~ øc.- O~ _c.ø CO ;:::¡.: ° CDØ ::J -. - ::;-;0 C.0r ::J -. I» CO 1»0::J CJ~ ø_õ -e1»::J CD I» co(')- I» c: .., ::J o m I»::J"'- ::J"'::J _CD CO - -0'" ." -. I»~::J _::J °CDI» 0- ::J"'..,~ ~. ::J'" CO - ° c.CD c.ø::J I» ø ;0 I» ;:::¡.:co coØ-u -- -eQ)~ w~Q) ::JI»::J'" . ::J _CO -@ 00- '< 0 0 - ° 0- CD .., ...... 50 ...... <D <D I\) --0 ~ ~ -- -C ð) " . '" . . LW LU LU LJ...J LU L.L.J c...:.....J " L.. "'" - S,W. 10TH STRH1 S.W, 10r" ¡STREET r f II 111111111 III ¡¡i!, , / ¡ =~~ I I I ; I Ii ~ III¡¡ ~ ~: i I/~ - dÌ1l7. r/ - ~~ I .ll." 1111 ~ [' ITIJ! ~ II - -.-- - - *" ~ / If. _ _ / . ~IIIIII"II \1- - ~ I ~- /~ ~/'. Ii ~- III 111111111111 c: - ~ - ".- WALlACE. WALLACL ¡ I ¡ [r T flll I l=: I'll I I Î I r F'ORO "ISSAN 1 I U- ¡ I~ i @ LINTON BOULEVARD 95 If J U OH IHTUtHATlOHAl. PUZA C IT'C UIT ROSS ::::::::::::--- COST C 0 CITY ~ ~ ~ J 'j I'. UvtR'S ~ TARGET . HORTH " I)'" þ ~ ~~ ~ i i ~ # . ~) ~~ ( -"I I """,- / \: LINTON INTERNATIONAL PLAZA , ( ./ ^ I \ Cf-.ë:CK~RS RESTAURANT . . . MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER t"/,'v ) SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM j -5P '-I - MEETING OF OCTOBER 20. 1992 ORDINANCE NO. 47-92 DATE: October 16, 1992 At the October 13, 1992 regular meeting the Public Hearing was held and closed on this item. Final action was deferred to allow full Commission participation. This item involves an ordinance amending the Land Development Regulations to alter the criteria for establishment of a Large Scale Mixed Use Special Activities District; by amending Section 4.4.25(I)(5) to change the date of expiration for the Marina Cay SAD to August 22, 1995. This proposed ordinance modifies the SAD Zone District Regulations to allow the initial approval period for a large scale, mixed use SAD to be no less than six years. In addition, this ordinance also extends the approval date for the Marina Cay SAD to August 22, 1995. At their September 21st meeting the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the modification by a 4-3 vote. A detailed staff report is attached as backup material for this item. Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 47-92. fJ~ 0& d- (~r- ~ Previous Commission Action: ~) Mr. Mouw moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 47-92 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - No; Mr. Andrews - No; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote. . . . ORDI~~~CE ~O. 47-92 ~~ ORDI~ANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA. Ao'tEND I~G THE LA.~D DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CIn OF DELRAY BEACH. BY A11ENDING CHAPTER , "ZONI~G .., REGULATIONS" , SECTION 4.4.':5(C)(3), "ESTABLISHMENT", TO AL TER THE CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A LARGE SCALE MIXED USE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT; BY A.'ŒND ING SECTION 4.4.25(1)(5) TO CRANGE THE DATE OF EXPIRATION FOR THE MARINA CAY SAD TO AUGUST 22. 1995; PROVIDI~G A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE. A SAVING CLAUSE. A.~ ~'l EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS. the City Commission of the City of Del ray Beach desires to amend the Land Development Regulations of the City of Del ray Beach. Florida, to provide that the init ial approval (validity) period for a Large Scale Mixed Used Development approved under Special Activities District (SAD) zoning ,egulations, shall be specifically stated in the enacting ordinance, but shall in no event be lass than six (6) years; and. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, finds that it is appropriate to amend its existing code. to further provide for the change of the date of expiration for the Marina Cay SAD to August 22. 1995. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY C.OHKISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section t. That Chapter 4, "Zoning Regulations", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach. Florida, is hereby amended by amending Section 4.4.25, "Special Activities District (SAD)". Subsection (C)(3). "Establishment", to reed ae follows: (3) Establishment: Vesting of a SAD project shall occur in the same manner as set for the establishment of a site plan approval (reference Sections 2.4.4(D) and (E)]. except that when the SAD is for a Large Scale Mixed Use Development. the initial approval (validity) period shall be specifically stated in the enacting ordinance. but shall. in no event. be less than six (6) years. In the event that a SAD I project doe. not become established, all uses, I waivers, adjustments, and other action. taken :1 pursuant to the SAD shall be void. In order to proceed to establish the s..e, or another, use it II shall be necessary to proce.. a rezoning request. !! " Section 2. That Chapter 4, "Zoning Regulation.", of i the Land Development Regulation. of the City of Delray Beach. Florida. is hereby amended by amending Section 4.4.25, "Special :1 Activitie. District (SAD)". Subsection (1)(5), to read as follow.: tl [I (5) Marina Cay, Ordinance No. 51-89. not established. approval expire. on August 22. ! t99Z~; i Section 3. That all ordinance. or parta of ordinances I I which ar. in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. ! I . i II Ii , . -- - Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof. any paragraph. sentence or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid. such decision shall oot effect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section S. That this ordioance shall become effective immediately upon passage on second aod final readiog. PASSED AND ADOPTED on second and fioal readiog on this the day of . 1992. :i A '{ 0 R UTEST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading " ; ¡ I I I I I i I - 2 - Ord. No. 47-92 . . PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH SUBJECT: REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 CONSIDERATION OF LDR TEXT AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 4.4.25(C)(3) , (I)(5) - ESTABLISHMENT OF AN SAD , CHANGE OF DATE FOR THE MARINA CAY SAD ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD: The action requested of the Board is that of review and comment upon: a proposed modification to Section 4.4.25(C)(3) of the LDRs which alters the criteria for establishment of a large-scale, mixed use SAD; AND, a proposed modification to Section 4.4.25(I)(5) of the LDRs which changes the date of expiration for the Marina Cay SAD to August 22, 1995. Section 1.l.6(A) provides that pr~or to action on a proposed amendment to the LDRs, a recommendation be obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND: Attached is documentation provided to the City Commission when it considered a request for extension of the Marina Cay SAD. Such an extension cannot be accommodated under our existing rules and regulations; thus, the item was before the Commission for direction. After review of the situation, the Commission directed the Administration to proceed with appropriate amendments to accommodate the continuation of the Marina Cay SAD without the petitioner needing to file a rezoning petition. Since Marina Cay is the only SAD which also has the Future Land Use Map designation of "large scale, mixed use", the approach being taken is to provide a minimum, initial approval period for such a SAD. In order to accommodate the Marina Cay project, this period is suggested to be six (6) years. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS: SECTION 4.4.25(C)(3) Establishment a Vesting of a SAD project shall occur in the same manner aa set for the establishment of a site plan approval [reference Section 2.4.4(D) and (E)], except that when the SAD is for a Large Scale Mixed Use Development, the initial approval (validity) period shall be specifically stated in the ~.&.2. . . P&Z Memorandum Staff Report Marina Cay SAD Page 2 enacting ordinance, but shall, in no event, be less than six ( 6 ) years. In the event that a SAD project does not become established, all uses, waivers, adjustments, and other actions taken pursuant to the SAD shall be void. In order to proceed to establish the same, or another, use it shall be necessary to process a rezoning request. SECTION 4.4.25(I)(5) Marina Cay, Ordinance No. 51-88, not established, approval expires on August 22, 1992ã,; ANALYSIS: This action is being taken to accommodate a single project which has a unique status. There appears to be two items of significance associated with the proposed amendments. First, there is the change from a normal 18 month approval to a minimum initial approval of six years. While significant, justification may be made based upon the unique aspects of a large scale, mixed use project. The second aspect deals with the concepts of the continuing validity of the land use and 0 f concurrency as it pertains to Marina Cay. There has been no change in land use in the immediate area since initial approval of Marina Cay in 1989; thus, it appears that the change would not negatively affect the area. Recent public improvements to the water and sewer systems alleviate any concerns which may have existed with respect to those services and the ability to serve the area ( concurrency) . With respect to traffic concurrency, Marina Cay has a vested traffic count of 4,495 ADT. Any development project which is proposed along N. Federal Highway needs to accommodate that 4,495 ADT as "real" traffic in the evaluation of the new project's ability to meet traffic concurrency. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and comment, as deemed appropriate, and then provide a recommendation to the City Commission. Attachments: * CC Documentation of August 18, 1992 Prepared by. C\ ),tJ~~ø- Reviewed by DD on: ~ - DJK/PZMARCAY.DOC .. . ' . . "Ì ./ , ~~ '-" / SEACREST C()~J~I¡':IH.· 1:\ L PIWPF.H r r FS. 1.1'11. \925 Nort.h Federal lIil!:h·....n:.. De It'ay EJench, FJoridA :~ J : ~ 3 ( 407 ) 2 72 - 2 ·1 41 July ~ 1992 ~ r . O;'\vid T. lI;\rden City ~f"rll,gcr C i Ly 0 r Delrll:-' I3ench 100 N. W. First. Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Re: Ordinances 31-91, 32-91, and 51-89 ~ a ri n 1\ C A. Y S. A. D. ,\ppro\'ét 1 ·t -. IIl\rdin: . Deli r ~I r . On beh£ll f of the ownerS of Harina Ca:-- nnd their Lenders, we request an extension of the above referenced npproval which is scheduled to expire on August. 22, 1992. We are requesting the ext.ension for a period of 18 months. Due to the recession and t.he present bankin( situation in the United St.at.es it is difficult t.o obt.ain finnncing. We are prp.sent)y negotiatinll with Lenders who <1re interest.ed in finAncin~ Our project. This ,"ould allow us to get u ncJ 4! I' \<1" r shortly_ We appreciate your assistance and support for this project. If therc are any questions regardinc t.he above, please contact me. Sincerely, (/)_ l~~ Lois H. Kel ., GeneralPartner encl. cc: Thomas E. Lynch, Hayor cJ ~mcé~rrW1EJD) I Commissioners: \ Wil1il\m Andrew. DBvid E. Randolph, Sr. Armand ~fouw Jt'L 10 1;92 JI1Y Alperin DAvid J. Kovacs, Dircctor, Planning A Zonin~ FLAr~NING ~. ZONING City Atlorney Jeffrey Kurt.~ Jnmes W. Nowlin, General Part.ner . . . . [ITY DF DELRAY BEA[H ~co 'j." 'H ,al,,:'..: . ;El..""~v 3:""'" C:I..~~IO~ JJ44o& . J07 :J: . July 27, 1992 Lois M. Kelly, General Partner Seacrest Commercial Properties, Ltd. 1925 North Federal Highway Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Re: Request tor Extension, Marina Cay SAD Dear Lois: Your letter request' of July 9, 1992, has been referr.ed to this office for analysis and a reply. For various reasons, as identified below, your request cannot be accommodated. In order to seek a new approval for establishment of use, a new rezoninq petition with attendant submittal materials must be filed. Among the reasons that we cannot accommodate your request are: . the request was not received at least forty-five (45) days prior to the expiration date [2.4.4(')(1)(a)]; * as with your previous request for extension, the or1g1nal approval was pre-LOR; accordingly, the LDR provision which prohibits the extension of a development order previous to October 1, 1990, applies. The extension which you received in March, 1991, did not give you an approval but only modified the previous termination date; . with the code revisions of March, 1991, it is clear that the expiration date of a Large Scale Mixed Use SAD is to be per a date stated in the enacting ordinance. Ordinance No. 32-91 established that date as being August 22, 1992; . the "special relief" provisions under which your previous request was considered are no longer valid. They expired on May 1, 1992. T..? E==--:::IT Ä_.'.:" '(':I M ATT:=!S - _. ..- . . To: Lois M. Kell Re: Request for Extension, Marina Cay SAD Page 2 Besides going through the rezoning process, as directed pursuant to Section 2.2.25(C)(3), the only other avenue of relief is through a direct appeal to the City Commission or the Planning and Zoning Board who may initiate an amendment to our Land Use Development Regulations. C5.ial~YJ~v Davi~ovacs,~or Department of Planning and Zoning DJK/dlm c: Mayor Thomas Lynch David Harden, City Manager Jeff. Kurtz, City Attorney -Mertn...c.o.y..-lroject File DJK/MARINAC.DOC . . MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER OJ/) SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM j ¿'P- ~ MEETING OF OCTOBER 20. 1992 REOUEST FROM DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE: October 16, 1992 At the October 13, 1992 regular meeting a motion to approve this item failed to pass on a 2 to 2 vote (Dr. Alperin and Mayor Lynch dissenting). The item was then continued to allow full Commission participation. This item involves a request from the Downtown Development Authority for the release of $30,622 from in-lieu of parking fee funds held on behalf of the DDA in an escrow account. The money is to be used to pay for decorative lighting for Municipal Parking Lots in Block 92 (D & B and Hands Block) , 100 (Tap Room Block) and 109 (Ace Hardware Block). The current balance of in-lieu of parking fees held is $35,000. This represents the remainder of $60,000 originally paid by the Delray Beach Public Library. Recommend consideration of a request from the Downtown Development Authority for the release of in-lieu of parking fees in the amount of $30,662. r3-w;;;;;L ~ (~ Cf- /c¡~ ~) . . - . 7I)~~ - --r:kÞþh ~~ t::><-~~~ t,¿~~ .--- 1)( J\VN'( )\VN I )EVEI (JI'~tI;Nr ,\\' III('H' 1 \ '7/2.tf~.L (if, ('I ", I, " p,., I.. " ..,. ! DDA MEMO RECEIVED ,. SfP 2 4 1992 Æ~ 1" TO: Mayor Tom Lynch CITY MAN ~ t FROM: Frank R. Spence AGl=p'S OfFICE ¡ DATE: June 16, 1992 " SUBJECf: Use of In- Lieu-Of Parking Funds The City currently holds in escrow some $35,000 of in-lieu-of parking fees on behalf of the DDA. The DDA respectfully recommends and requests the City Commission to authorize the release óf ..,..of these funds to pay for decorative lighting fo~ unicipal Parking Lots in Bloch2, 100 and 109. A copy of the detailed breakàõWn of costs done by CRA Planner Ron Hoggard is attached. These funds represent the DDA's contribution to this project which the CRA and the City will also be participating in and contributing to. This joint effort will "7" upgrade and beautify these downtown parking lots and make them safer and more .. ~. ',;, pedestrian friendly. . '~I Your favorable consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated. cc: City Manager David Harden " Attachment ß L6IÎ~ (j~Ò ~ . ---.~ ~"?~ ----r-' __ / J ). CT-:ü 0 - I ! - .-~ ~ l~fJ ~ L'~~ i,¡ " '1Zv ~- L-t/' "1' _ /' ---L-- / / :----- ~ ,... . . . , CD Commun'_1 ~ {; /)DA- ~ Redevelopment fç(,~(f(l. ~ -a Agency ~~ Delray Beach MEMORANDUM TO: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTIlORITY FROM: RON HOGGARD, CRA PLANNER DATE: JUNE 9, 1992 RE: DECORATIVE LIGHTING IN MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS Pursuant to your request at the DDA meeting of June 1, 1992, I have complied the following cost estimate for possible contributions by the DDA toward the municipal parking lot/alleyway beautification effort. Please note that we were able to eliminate the pull hoxes for lights which were are going to install at this time, resulting in a cost savings of $220 per fixture. A. Block #92: D&B/Hands Block (15) single-light and 2 double-light decorative poles $19,754.00 B. Block #100: Tap Room Block (6) streetlight pull-boxes for future light installation $ 1,320.00 C. Block #109: Ace Hardware Block (4) double-light and (2) single-light decorative poles $ 9.548.00 TOTAL $30,622.00 207 E. Atlantic Avenue, De/ray Beach, FL 33444 (407) 276-8640 / Fax (407) 276-8558 MEMORANDUM TO: David T. Harden City Manager FROM: Joseph M. S Director of SUBJECT: Use of In-Lieu Parking Fees by Downtown Development Authority DATE: October 8, 1992 The City of De1ray Beach currently holds $35,000 of in-lieu parking fees in escrow on behalf of the Downtown Development Authority. This represents the remainder of the $60,000 originally paid by the De1ray Beach Public Library. In order to determine the authority to expend and proper use of these funds, it is necessary to review past action by the City Commission: 1984 The City of De1ray Beach Code Chapter 30-13(J) (1) stipulates that the Downtown Development Authority is to receive in-lieu parking fees for parking purposes. On June 18, 1984, the City of De1ray Beach Public Library paid $60,000 (24 spaces at $2,500 per space) to the City of De1ray Beach for the Downtown Development Authority's in-lieu parking fees for parking spaces lost. 1985 On March 26, 1985, the City of Delray Beach Ordinance Number 31-85 amended the City's Code Chapter 30-13 (J) (1) to allow for in-lieu parking fees to go to the City instead of the Downtown Development Authority and to further permit the City Commission to determine the appropriate use of these fees. On April 2, 1985, the City Attorney offered an opinion that funds collected prior to the effective date of Ordinance Number 31-85 (referenced above) are not subject to the terms of the Ordinance and thus the funds collected in 1984 could be spent by the Downtown Development Authority, but these funds must be spent on parking. 1986 On June 10, 1986, the City of Delray Beach Ordinance Number 33-86 amended and clarified Ordinance Number 31-85 to allow the City of De1ray Beach to receive in-lieu funds and permit the City to determine the appropriate use of those funds. 1989 On August 25, 1989, $25,000 out of the $60,000 of previously received (prior to 1985 and Ordinance Number 31-85) in-lieu parking fees was spent on a master parking plan. The consultant for this master parking plan was Wilbur Smith. This expenditure left a balance of $35,000 which is currently maintained in City account number 001-0000-248-01.00. JMS/sam . I ~ / L \ , (1\'1 C I T Y COM MIS S ION DOC U MEN TAT ION TO: //""'-'-- D T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER ~ '" ~jk~ FROM: --~,.DÀ ID J. KOVACS, DIRECToR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SUBJECT: MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1992 REQUEST TO BOCC REGARDING METHOD OF ACCOMMODATING THE CITY'S G.A.E. IN THE COUNTY'S PLAN AMENDMENT ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is that of requestinq the Board of County Commissioners to change their current Plan Amendment to accommodate an "Interim TCMA Designation" for the City of Delray Beach. (-r!J1()SPOtC!r1'/fè:Jí) (!on~EI7¡1Lj /lJIM/JC¡£lnb?r Ik'é/J-) BACKGROUND: -7 Please refer to the attached Planning and Zoning Board documentation regarding this rather complex matter. In lay terms, during the preparation and adoption of GAEs locally, the State Department of Transportation and the Department of Community Affairs adopted a new rule which deals with geographic areas of exception to transportation level of service standards. Both agencies have, therefore, objected to the County's Plan Amendment which allows Delray Beach to proceed with the GAE. They have also objected to our Plan Amendment 92-2 on the same basis. In order that we may proceed and not be constrained by problems which the County may encounter with other GAE situations, we are seeking a special way of being handled in regard to the County's Plan Amendment. This item is before the Commission at this special meeting since the Land Use Advisory Board will consider our position on Wednesday, October 21st; and the BOCC will be holding its adoption hearing on Monday, October 26th. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION: The Planning and Zoning Board will formally review this item at its meeting of Monday, October 19th. Its recommendation will be reported at your meeting. ~P/b . City Commission Documentation Meeting of October 20, 1991 Request to BOCC Regarding Method of Accommodating the City's G.A.E. in the County's Plan Amendment Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion, request the Board of County Commissioners to alter and then enact, by separate ordinance, those portions of the County Plan Amendment which pertain to Delray Beach; and that to provide for the following: 1. A policy which allows municipalities, which have a TCMA designation in their local Plan, to be eligible for an exception to the County's Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. 2. A policy which, for purposes of the County Traffic Element, establishes the boundary for the Delray Beach TCMA. 3. The establishment on, A-1-A, of a level of service of 112% of LOS D service volume; with the proviso that this LOS shall not be effective until such time as the City of Delray Beach has a TCMA designation in its local Plan. Attachment: * P&Z Staff Report & Documentation of October 19, 1992 DJK/T:CCGAE.DOC . · PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT MEETING OF: DECEMBER 19, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: V.C. Recommendation Pertaining to that Portion of County Plan Amendment 92-1 Which ~ Addresses the City's CBD-GAE Designation. I T E M B E FOR E THE BOA R D: The item before the Board is consideration of a request for the City Commission to make to the Board of County Commissioners. The subject matter is that of the City's CBD-GAE exception from the County's Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. The Board of County Commissioners is holding an adoption hearing on its Amendment 92-1 on Monday, October 26th. BACKGROUND Level of Service (LOS) standards are established in Comprehensive Plans. Palm Beach County has a special, county-wide Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance (TPSO) which applies to all roadways which are not under the exclusive jurisdiction of a municipality. Thus, development in the City of Delray Beach must conform to the TPSO. This appeared to be potential hardship for our City, and others who contemplate downtown redevelopment. Thus, the County established an exception process for, among other instances, Central Business Districts (the CBD-GAE). Delray Beach processed an application for such an exception with respect to LOS on Atlantic Avenue, Swinton, Seacrest/2nd Avenue, NE 8th Street, NE 22nd Street, Lake Ida Road and A-1-A. (Note: This material - in the CBD-GAE application - would also be used to form the basis for a reduction in LOS on local streets.) The exceptions were processed locally and approved; however, before they could become effective, it was necessary that both the County Plan and our Plan be amended to allow a lower LOS than which presently exists. V.t. .. · P&Z Staff Report Recommendation Pertaining to that Portion of County Plan Amendment 92-1 Which Addresses the City's CBD-GAE Designation Page 2 ~ The County proceeded with its Plan Amendment (92-1) as did the city (92-2). In the interim, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the State's Department of Community Affairs (DCA) created a new Administrative Rule, 9J-5.0057, Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA) which advanced the approach those agencies feel is appropriate when considering a reduction in level of service on roadways. Also in the interim, the County has transferred jurisdiction to the City for, among others, Swinton, Seacrest/2nd Avenue, NE 8th Street, and NE 22nd Street. Thus, the only roads which downtown redevelopment will affect, under the TPSO, is Atlantic, Lake Ida Road, and A-I-A. Of these, only A-l-A raises a concurrency problem. DCA has informed both the County and the City that it OBJECTS to the use of the GAE methodology and, thus, would find our respecti~le Plan Amendments "not in compliance" with Chapter 163, The Growth Manaqement Act. THE WAY OUT Section (7) of 9J-5.0055 allows for designation of an interim TMCA to allow immediate relief while preparing a transportation mobility element. Palm Beach County is contemplating pursuit of interim TCMA designations for those who submitted GAE applications. However, it may take from 6 months to a year for this process to be accomplished given the complexity associated with overlapping impacts of the potential TCMAs in the central and north County areas. To avoid that delay, it seems appropriate for the City to proceed on its own. To do, we would ask the County to modify its Plan Amendment so that an exception to the TPSO can be made for a municipality which has a TCMA designation within its Comprehensive Plan; and, also, that a LOS allowed by a TCMA is deemed consistent with the LOS table adopted by the County. Immediately thereafter, the City will finalize its Amendment 92-2 and change from the GAE concept to the TCMA concept and earn an interim designation. '. P&Z Staff Report Recommendation Pertaining to that Portion of County Plan Amendment 92-1 Which Addresses the City's CBD-GAE Designation Page 3 Even though jurisdiction of some impacted roadways has been transferred to the City (from the County), there is still a State facility which is adversely impacted. This facility, A-I-A, will not be widened to four lanes within the City; however, it is not officially designated as a State Constrained Facility, therefore it is necessary to seek LOS reduction. This is accomplished through the TCMA process. Also, in order for the City to obtain a lower LOS for its local streets within the Downtown Area, it is necessary that data and analysis which follows the TCMA format be processed. PRO C E S SIN G The County's Land Use Advisory Board (LUAB) will consider the County Plan Amendment (92-1) on October 21st. The BOCC will consider the item on October 26th. The City Planning Staff has already discussed the above "way-out" with County Traffic, County Planning, FDOT, and DCA and there appears to be support and concurrence with the method. The City's Planning and Zoning Board, as the Local Planning Agency, is being asked to make a recommendation on this matter to the City Commission. The Commission will then consider the item at its special meeting of October 20th. The Commission's action will be made of record before the BOCC on October 26th. RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION By motion, recommend to the City Commission that they request the Board of County Commissioners to alter and then enact, by separate ordinance, those portions of the County Plan Amendment (92-1) which pertain to Delray Beach; to provide for the following: 1. A policy which allows municipalities, which have a TCMA designation in their local Plan, to be eligible for an exception to the County's Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. 2. A policy which, for purposes of the County Traffic Element, establishes the boundary for the Delray Beach TCMA. .. · P&Z Staff Report Recommendation Pertaining to that Portion of County Plan Amendment 92-1 Which Addresses the City's CBD-GAE Designation Page 4 ~ 3. The establishment on, A-1-A, of a level of service of 112% of LOS D service volume, with the proviso that this LOS shall not be effective until such time as the City of De1ray Beach has a TCMA designation in its local Plan. And, further, that the Administration be directed to incorporate an interim TCMA designation in City Amendment 92-2. * Report prepared bY~ \ ~ Reviewed by DJK on: '",l~- DJK/T:PZTCMA.DOC .. · " ~ 5-0 [ITY DF DELIAY BEA[H CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 2i)(J:'\W hot /\~L::tJ~..,'_!)ELR:\Y BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 FA, SI1\IILE 411u~7K .,,)) Writer's Direct Line (407) 243-7092 MEMORANDUM Date: October 15, 1992 To: City Commission From: Jeffrey S. Kurtz, City Attorney Subject: City of Delray Beach v. Barnes, et al. Acquisition of Lands for Tennis Center; Our File #07-92.002 The City Attorney's Office along with the firm of Vance & Doney has reached agreement with the remainder of the property owners in this case with the exception of the guardian ad litem. At your October 13, 1992 meeting you approved certain acquisitions and of fers. At that time there were three parcels that had agreed to stipulated orders of taking but had not yet accepted our offers. We have been able to reach agreements with those owners now to close out their claims, including attorney's fees as outlined below: Appraised Offer Recommended Attny's Expert Parcel Owner Value Oct. 13 Offer Oct 15 Fees Fees M Gamot $4,000 $ 8,500 $ 8,500 -0- -0- L Harris $9,000 $15,000 $15,000 $500 -0- D Gent $ 700 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $250 -0- The remaining parcels which are C, J, and K have yet undeter- mined ownership status, therefore it is impossible to get an agreed order on them. We are on 24 hour call for the Order of Taking hearing but anticipate that it will occur next week. We also anticipate that the properties will be awarded to the City at that time and will actually vest on to the City upon our payment of the appraised values into the Court Registry. If these offers are acceptable to the Commission, we shall enter into agreed orders on Wednesday, October 21, 1992 and make total payment to the Clerk of the Circuit Court in the Amount of $25,250.00 and following the order of taking, we will deposi t $4,150 into the Registry of the Court. The action requested by the Commission is to authorize the firm of Vance & Doney to file agreed orders to the above effect immediately. :~p II .. . - . ~ Memo to City Commission October 15, 1992 Page 2 In addition, the Commission should direct the issuance of checks to be made payable to the Clerk of the Circuit Court in the amounts of $25,250.00 and $4,150.00. The remaining issues involved in the case will be the award of attorney's fees to Michael Brown and the guardian ad litem and the final valuation on parcels C, J, and K. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. JSK: jw cc: David Harden, City Manager Joe Safford, Director of Finance Bill Doney, Esq. Digby Bridges barnes6.jsk ,. "I' · Delray Beach Police Department 300 West Atlantic Avenue · Delray Beach, Florida 33444-3695 (407) 243-7888 Fax (407) 243-7816 Chief of Police MEMORANDUM nr:CEìVED Ocr 1 5 1992 CiTY 1;11J ,,'.' '''r- : r J. ,"." r fJ1 TO: David T. Harden, City Manager ". '"' . s: O!:i:¡"r ~ .-; I '....r..... FROM: Richard M. Lincoln, MajorR~ Field Operations Bureau ~ THRU: Richard G. Overman, Chief of Police DATE: October 14, 1992 SUBJECT: REQUEST_XORu_~ING _ FROM TIIE LAW__F;!iFÇ>RCEMENT TRUST FUND The Drug Enforcement Administration is offering the ·two week "Basic Drug Law Enforcement School" in Daytona Beach beginning November 2, 1992. This is an excellent school that we attempt to send all of our narcotics agents to as they receive valuable training and certification that is extremely important in testifying in subsequent criminal proceedings. I would request that $1,583.00 be appropriated from our forfeiture account, enabling Agents T. Myers and G. Fahey to attend this class. The expenses for this two week school are 1 imi ted to lodging and food as there is no registration fee for this class. RMLjppt ~ '-I/o/ (j?/fnax/'# d.'sSE/Jrl'7[?) COMMITTED TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE 5P/~ - AJ u.s. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration ~/ Miami Field Division 8400 N. W. 53rcl Street Miami. Florida 33/66 Agent Brady Myers Delray Beach Police Department 300 West Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Agent Myers: We are pleased to inform you of your acceptance to the Drug Enforcement Administration's Two Week Basic Drug Law Enforcement School which will be held at Daytona Beach, Florida, November 2 through November 13, 1992. The school will be held at the Daytona Beach Community College, 12000 Vol usia Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida, 904-254-4408. Classes will begin promptly at 8:00 a.m. daily. All Attendees must be present at 8:00 a.m.; if tardy, the individual will not be allowed to participate in this school. In order to successfully complete this course, all participants will be required to attend all of the classes, complete a comprehensive notebook and pass a final examination and several quizzes. In addition, it will be mandatory for all male students to wear suit/sports coats and ties and for all females to wear appropriate courtroom attire to all classes. Your department has allocated the time and per diem/travel funds for you to attend this school. Upon receipt of this letter you must telephone the DEA Training Center at Miami, Florida, to confirm your attendance in this school. If you foresee court or any other engagement between November 2 and 13, 1992, you will not be able to attend this class. A confirmation/cancellation call is required to the training center at telephone number 305- 590-48Q4 before October 16, 1992, in order to confirm or delete your name from the final class roster. Failure to contact the training center by the aforementioned date will result in exclusion from this school. No substitutions are allowed; should you not be able to attend, no other nominee can replace you. As urged via telephone in late September, hotel accommodations for students should have been made at the Daytona Beach Hilton Hotel, 2637 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida, 904-767-7350. We have reserved a block of both single and double occupancy rooms at the hotel. The special Drug Enforcement Administration rate is $59, tax inclusive per your state tax exempt form, per room per night, single or double, $15 per extra person. 1 . page 2 You must telephone the hotel for reservations and state that you are with the Drug Enforcement Administration Basic Drug Law Enforcement School to reserve a room at the special rate. The reservation will be held with a major credit card. It is your responsibility to deal directly with the hotel. The deadline for reservations is October 15, 1992. If the deadline is not meet, it is probable that individuals without reservations must utilize another hotel. You will receive state mandatory retraining or career incentive for this course and all instruction will be provided by DEA personnel or authorized instructors who are all state certified. The school is co-sponsored with the Daytona Beach Community College. You are required to bring a coPY of your CJST15A (salary incentive form) to class on November 2, 1992, to receive incentive credit for the training. All classroom handouts and materials will be provided by~our office. There will be no charge for this school. However, a luncheon will be held on the afternoon of November 13, 1992, as part of the graduation ceremonies, for which $25 cash or a check will be collected from each student on November 6, 1992. The class president will collect all monies and will be responsible for payment to the hotel. On behalf of the training staff we congratulate you on your acceptance to the Drug Enforcement Administration Basic Drug Law Enforcement School and look forward to meeting you November 2, promptly at 8:00 a.m. Please bear in mind that Tuesday, November 3, 1992, is election day and that an absentee ballot may be applicable. For further information, please contact us at telephone number (305) 590-4804. Sincerely, ----v1{,Q.~ ~/~~~ Michael H. tokes Special Agent Special Agent Training Coordinator Training Coordinator Enclosures I 1 '. . ..., ~ Checklist for Applicants [] Received acceptance letter. [] Reconfirmed with department that I have been scheduled for this two week period to attend the school and there are no conflicting engagements. [] Contacted DEA Training at 305-590-4804 to confirm/cancel position in class. DEADLINE October 23. 1992, regardless of any prior communication with the DEA training office. . [ ] Have reservations confirmed by credit card at the Daytona Beach Hilton Hotel. DEADLIN&October 15. 1992. [] Bring CJST15A (Salary Incentive Form) to the Daytona Beach Hilton Hotel on November 2. 1992. [ ] Dress code and mandatory attendance. [] Have $25 luncheon fee in the form of cash, check. NQ PURCHASE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED. [] Will report promptly at 8:00 a.m. on November 2, 1992, to the Daytona Beach Hilton Hotel. [ ] Bring state tax exempt form to be used upon arrival. ì . . . Ci.p¡x~ 5-0 [IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 2DU :'\W 1st AVE0'UE . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 L\CSIt\!ILE ·j()7i2ì8·4755 Writer's Direct Line (407) 243-7092 MEMORANDUM Date: October 20, 1992 To: City Commission From: Jeffrey S. Kurtz, City Attorney ~~~ Subject: City of Delray Beach v. Solo Co struction Corporation Proposed Settlement; Our File #07-91.003 Bill Greenwood, Stuart Silverman (the City's outside counsel) and I attended mediation on behalf of the City in the above- referenced lawsuit on Friday, October 16, 1992. Also present were representatives of the Defendants USF&G (the bonding agent) , Solo Construction Company (the general contractor), and third party defendants Juno Industries, Inc. (a subcontractor on the job), and Russell & Axon (the design engineers). The City's claim in this matter arose out of defects in the Golf Course transmission line which was installed by Solo Construction Company in the 1988-89 time period. Three butter- fly valves which are designed to isolate certain segments of the line are not operational. The City contended that the payment and performance bond and/or the maintenance bond covered these defects. Solo Construction Company contended that either their subcontractor provided them with poor materials or the engineer misdesigned the project. The parties agreed at mediation that in all likelihood the problem could be cured through a realignment of the pipe or beveling of the pipe. It was also suggested that an absolute cure would be to bevel the pipe and insert spacers between the pipe segments. This would have the effect of giving the butterfly valve more room to maneuver. It was estimated by Bill Greenwood and his staff that the repair costs would be in the range of $40,000-50,000. The reason for this cost is that there will be mobilization and remobilization on the site as due to the nature of the pipe material and the amount of water we are able to store as we are unable to shut the pipeline down for a continuous 24 hour period. In addition to the repair work, the City had a claim - " Memo to City Commission October 20, 1992 Page 2 on the performance bond for attorney's fees and costs which total $17,714.13. The settlement offer which Mr. Greenwood and I are recommending that the Commission ratify would have Solo Construction Company and Juno Industries correct the problem by digging up the pipe and doing the repair work. Due to Solo's present construction schedule and the City's desire to have this work done out of season, the work will take place some time after April 15, 1993. Russell & Axon has agreed to contribute $4,000.00 toward the repairs as has June Industries. Solo and Juno will provide the manpower, equipment and supplies necessary to do the work. City personnel will be on site to monitor the repair work and in the event it is determined by the City that spacers are necessary, they shall be provided by Juno Industries. In addition, the City will receive $7,000.00 in attorney's fees coming from Juno and Solo. Should you have any questions concerning this settlement, please do not hesitate to contact Bill Greenwood or me. JSK: jw cc: David Harden, City Manager Bill Greenwood, Director of Environmental Services sol02. j sk .. 1··'1' ·, . . 6~ MUDGE ROSE GUTHRIE ALEXANDER & FERDON fcØ- 180 "'AlDEN LANE SU ITE 900, NORTH 8RI DGE CENTRE 2121 K STREET, N.W. NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10038 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037 212-510-7000 5 I 5 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE 202-429-9355 630 nFTH AVENUE WEST PALM 8EACH. FLORI DA 3340 I SUITE 2020 SUITE 1650 3.33 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE NEW YORK, N. Y. 10111 - LOS ANGELES. CALIF, 90071 212-332-1600 407-650-8100 213-613-1112 MORRIS CORPORATE CENTER TWO - 12. RWE DE LA PAIX ONE UPPER POND ROAQ BLDG. 0 FACSIMilE: 407-833-1722 75002. PARIS. FRANCE PARSIPPANY, NEW ..JERSEY 07054 TELEX: WU 514847 (I) 4ë!. 61. 57. 71 201-335-0004 - TORANOMON 37 MORI BUILDING 5-1 TORANOMON 3-CHOME. MINATO~KU TOKvO 10S. JAPAN October 19, 1992 '0313437-2861 Ms. Alison MacGregor Harty City Clerk City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 $5,350,000 City of Delray Beach, Florida utilities Tax Revenue Notes Subordinate Series 1992 Dear Alison: Enclosed herewith is a proposed copy of Resolution No. 118-92, setting forth the findings necessary for the negotiated sale of the above-referenced Notes to SunBank. Although the City solicited bids on a competitive basis from local banks to provide the line of credit, I do not believe the City published the notice of sale as required by Section 218.385(1), Florida statutes. Notwithstanding the lack of publication, the City is permitted under that same section to sell the Notes on a negotiated basis as long as the Commission by resolution determines that such a negotiated sale is in the best interests of the city. The enclosed resolution makes such determination. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, --2êt "- Stephen D. Sanford SDSjemi ce. David T. Harden Joseph Safford Jeffrey Kurtz, Esq. . . ~ Resolution No. 118-92 A Resolution of the city Commission of the city of Delray Beach, Florida, finding it to be in the best interests of the City to sell its not to exceed $5,350,000 utilities Tax Revenue Notes, Subordinate Series 1992, on a negotiated basis to SunBank/South Florida, N.A., and providing for an Effective Date. WHEREAS, the City commission of the city of Delray Beach, Florida (the "City commission"), did on October 13, 1992, adopt Resolution No. 116-92 (the "Note Resolution") authorizing the issuance of its not to exceed $5,350,000 utilities Tax Revenue Notes, Subordinate Series 1992 (the "Notes"), for the purpose of providing short-term financing for the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Projects (as such term is defined in the Note Resolution); and WHEREAS, any term not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Note Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, Florida (the "city"), has previously solicited bids for the sale of the Notes; and WHEREAS, the city has previously determined to finance the Projects by entering into the Line of Credit Agreement with SunBankjSouth Florida, N .A. ; and WHEREAS, Drawings under the Line of Credit Agreement will be evidenced by the issuance of a Note issued pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Note Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City commission finds that in light of present market conditions and the complex nature of the financing contemplated under the Note Resolution, it would be in the best interest of the City to sell the Note to SunBank/South Florida, N.A., on a negotiated basis; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, as follows: SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are adopted by the city Commission. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be effective immediate- ly upon its adoption. Resolution No. 118-92 C:\DA T A IDELRA Y\MA 'IT -32\RESO. 92 '. . . . . Passed and adopted in regular session on this 20th day of October, 1992. Attest: Mayor city Clerk The foregoing resolution is hereby approved by me as to form, language and execution this 20th day of October, 1992. city Attorney Resolution No. 118-92 C:\DA TA\DELRA Y\MA IT-32\RESO.92 2 '. · M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER <~;t.! " SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # iAJ:>I- MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1992 MASTER PARKING PLAN DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1992 Enclosed with your agenda booklets is a copy of the Master Parking Plan as prepared by the Parking Study Committee. At the August 25, 1992 , regular meeting, the Commission received and filed the Planning and Zoning Board's review and recommendations pertaining to this plan, with the understanding that the Planning Board's review would also be considered at the time the Commission itself reviewed the Master Parking Plan. A copy of the review and recommendations is provided in the backup material. ~Id~~ ~ ~ ¡?~ 'I7l~ ;¡ .JL1m1 /ðø lð/~7 /9c:?- '. . '~ ' . L . :-;<- ') C I T Y COM MIS S ION DOC U MEN TAT ION TO: Q T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER ! ~~k~ FROM: . DA D J. KOVACS, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SUBJECT: MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 1992 RECEIPT OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CBD MASTER PARKING PLAN ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION: The action requested of the City Commission is that of receipt and acknowledqement of the Planning and Zoning Board's review, comment, and recommendations pertaining to the CBD Master Parking Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board review should .also be considered when the City Commission, itself, reviews and acts on the CBD Master Parking Plan. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 1991, the City Commission held a special worksession which dealt with the subject of "Downtown Parking". Subsequently a "Parking Study Committee" was appointed and, under the direction of CRA Director Chris Brown, prepared its report. Mark Krall, Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Board, was a participant on the special committee. Planning Director David Kovacs and City Traffic Engineer, Greg Luttrell also participated. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION: The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the resulting report (document) at two worksessions and at two public meetings. Attached, as Exhibit "A", is the Board's review, comment, and recommendations report which was forwarded on a 4-1 vote (Purdo opposed, Currie and Naron absent) at its meeting of August 17, 1992. '. City Commission Documentation Receipt of Planning and Zoning Board Review and Recommendations Pertaining to the CBD Master Parking Plan Page 2 Items of substance which are raised in the report include: * administrative support for the proposed Parking Management Team; * the "contract back" concept; and, * a recommendation to proceed as soon as practical with consideration of LDR amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion, receive the report and acknowledge the Board's comments and recommendations. (Note: Action/implementation of the Report will occur at a subsequent Commission meeting following your workshop review of it.) If necessary, provide further direction to the Board or Administration regarding contents of the report with respect to preparation of the workshop review. Attachment: * Planning and Zoning Board Report DJKICCCBDPKG.DOC '. EXHIBIT "A" PLANNING AND ZONING, AGENDA ITEM V.C. REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 1992 REVISED FOR MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1992 DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE CBD PARKING COMMITTEE REPORT This report presents the review of the Planning and Zoning Board on the document, Master Parking Plan, as prepared by the City of Delray Beach Parking Committee, June, 1992. The Board reviewed the document in worksession on July 6th, and endorsed this report on July 21st. The report addresses the subject through the following topics (sections): A. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; B. Comments on major recommendations; C. Technical comments and corrections. A. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN There are no policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan which directly address the subject matter of the Master parking Plan. However, there are a few policies which do have some relationship to it. These include: * Land Use Element, A-5. 4, which calls for the continuing up-grading and streamlining of regulations; * Land Use Element, C-4. 1, which calls for the CBD development regulations to accommodate "parking needs through innovative actions"; * Land Use Element, C-4 .3, which calls for CRA and City cooperation in preparing a "special CBD development plan" which addresses, among other items, parking; * Land Use Element, C-4.4, which calls for the City to be the lead agency in pursuit of tiered parking facilities. There is nothing in the report which is in conflict with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The minor inconsistency between Policy C-4.4 and the creation of a Parking Management Team to be lead agency is not of significance. The Planning and Zoning Board finds the Master Parking Plan not to be inconsistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. '. Exibit "A" Planning and Zoning, Agenda Item V.C. Regular Meeting of July 20, 1992 Page 2 B. COMMENTS ON MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS 1- There are three points in the Plan which deserve added emphasis. They are well stated in the Plan. They are: * A parking problem is the public's perception that there is not enough convenient parking in an area. It may be the result of an inadequate parking supply, poor management of existing facilities, or sometimes misplaced anger about traffic congestion. (Page 3) * The parking problem in the Downtown Area is not a parking supply problem, because the existing parking supply is adequate. Parking management improvements which enhance the visibility and use of the existing parking supply as well as traffic engineering improvements which increase the accessibility to the municipal lots are warranted. (Page 6) * The entire complexion of parking would change if the Ci ty constructs a parking structure. The Ci ty would probably need to charge user fees (to the parkers or area merchants) for parking in the structure, install meters on all the streets, and assess the district to meet the debt service and operating expenses of a parking structure. (Ex. Summary - Page v.) 2. Parkinq Manaqement Team (a) Page 31 and page 19 suggests that the CRA be the lead agency in administering activities of the Parking Management Team (also, Ex. Summary - page vi). This is based on its removal from "politics" and that it has "taken a lead role in redevelopment projects". While the removal from politics as it relates to the allocation of funds from a parking trust program is sound reasoning, the program is not yet to that stage i.e. as a parking authority. On the other hand, the close relationship which the CRA has to potential development activities may not create the best situation in dealing with the prioritizing and background work on parking related matters. The Planning and Zoning Board recommends that the Parking Management Team be under the administrative support of the City Administration. As a minor item, the terms of the PMT should correspond to the normal terms used for other advisory and regulatory boards. '. Exibit "A" Planning and Zoning, Agenda Item V.C. Regular Meeting of July 20, 1992 Page 3 (b) Page 33 . . . a "contract back" concept is raised (also raised on Page 21) . It appears that the CRA would gather currently allocated funds directed to parking activities and reallocate them to those who are already doing the work i.e. contracting back. This results in creating a track-record of fund expenditure but does not increase efficiency nor create greater centralization or accountability. If centralization (or focussing) is to occur, it should be more than a paper exercise and should provide for greater efficiency and management of parking operations along with accountability. 3. LDR Chanqes: (a) Page 30, LD lb & Page 31, LD2b. Identifies an option that the CBD parking requirements should apply in OS SHAD and that the in-lieu fee option be applicable in OSSHAD. While the reduced parking requirement (1/300 regardless of use) applied to new construction or n~w floor area is appropriate, there is a problem in that the CBD regulations do not apply to a change in use - only to additional floor area. Thus, in OSSHAD where most of the activity will be changes in use, remodeling, and no additional floor area, there would - in essence - be no additional parking provided ( required) . Consideration should be given to requiring parking or in-lieu fee contribution when change of use occurs, but at the CBD rate. (b) Page 31, LD lc. Identifies the option of removing the Expanded CBD Area from the special CBD regulations. While this item has generated discussion by the Board, if it is pursued, the ability to have the in-lieu fee option should be retained. Not only does the fee option provide a viable option for new development and expansion, this may be the only geographic area in which in-lieu fees would be generated. (c) Page 31, LD 2f. The P & Z Board supports the waiver of fee option which exempts payment for the first two (2) parking spaces required for site development or use expansion. (d) Page 35, the PSC defers recommendations re LDR modifications to the PMT. The P , Z Board recommends that the process of pursuing change. to the LDRs, as they pertain to the CBD and OS SHAD parking requirements and to the in-lieu fee, be initiated as soon as possible. · Exibit "A" Planning and Zoning, Agenda Item V.C. Regular Meeting of July 20, 1992 Page 4 C. TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS 1. In commenting on the WSA study, there is not a mention regarding "beach goer" use of on-street parking spaces. Future work should provide statistical information regarding the number of on-street and public space parking which is consumed by beach goers. (Pages 8 & 9) 2. The statement (page 9) pertaining to the CRA advocacy role in providing off-street parking should be tempered to reflect the tentative status of the project. Also, the paragraph refers to parking "requirements" whereas, it may be more appropriate to use parking "demands". 3. In a few places, mention is made that there may be a restriction on peak hour use of Atlantic Avenue as traffic volumes rise. At the present time, there is a possibility that the entire parking lane along Atlantic Avenue (Swinton to 12th) may need to be converted to a traffic lane. Restrictions during peak hour is one of a few alternatives which· may be pursued. The potential for deletion of on-street parking is not eminent, but is problematic. (Pages 10, 15) 4. A "potential parking problem" is suggested on Page 10, in the expanded CBD section. Besides increased development, such a problem may occur upon enforcement / implementation of a program for landscaping of street frontages and off-site parking areas (landscape compliance/up-grade program) . In providing such up-grading, some parking spaces may be diminished. Further, vacant lots which are currently used for parking may have this use restricted. 5. 11.B. parking Financing: In-lieu fee revenue goes to a restricted fund and not the general fund. Technical correction, Page 12. 6a. The annual costs which the city presently devotes to parking operations, maintenance and financing should be identified (page 12) . Directly accountable manpower costs are projected in the amount of $49,530. 6b. An estimate of "lost" revenue (by maintaining free parking in the downtown) and, hence, the DDA contribution should be calculated. Page 34. '. · Exibit "A" Planning and Zoning, Agenda Item V.C. Regular Meeting of July 20, 1992 Page 5 7. Best write-up yet, re LDRs (page 12 & 13) . One correction, the second sentence, second paragraph should read: "Parking requirements do not apply for conversions and changes of use; are applied only to new floor area; and .....". 8. The OSSHAD Plans Section, page 16, could contain the proposal for improvement and expansion of existing parking at Cason Cottage and the provision of stabilized sod for OSS overflow parking (north of the Cason Cottage lot). 9. The Previous Plans For A Parking Structure Section, page 17, should have addressed the parking garage proposal on the west side of 7th Avenue. 10. Comments (two paragraphs) on page 23 pertaining to a parking structure appear to be out-of-place. 11. The first sentence under item LD l.a., Page 30, is not clear. It addresses parking requirements for residential land use and change of use provisions ( ? ) . 12. Ex. Summary, Page vii -- mentions that "an agreement should be made to return some beach revenue for beach restoration purposes". This situation is not necessary to accommodate. Beach restoration has a restricted funding source. ///I/DJK:7/l8/92 DJK/T:CBDPKG '. · MASTER PARKING PLAN PARKING June 1992 Prepared by The City of Defray Beach Parking Study Committee '. · EXECUTI VE SUMMARy................................................................ i INTRODUCTION .................... ............. .......................................... 1 TH E STUDY AREA....................................................................... 2 PART ONE: EXISTING SITUATIONS ........................ ................... 3 I. PARKI NG ............ ........ ............ ............................ .................................... ......... 3 LA. DoNrbNn Area..... ....... ................. ................ ,....... .......... ..,..... ........... 3 I. B. Beach Area ........ ............ ........ ..........................................,....... ..... ...... 7 I. C. West Þ.1Iantic Area.................. ....., ...... ................,.,......................,...... 9 I. D. Expanded CBD Area................................. ..................................... 10 II. POLICY.. ...... .......... ........ .............. ................ .................. ......................... ....... 11 II. A. Operating Agency ...... .................. .................. ............................ ...... 11 II. B. Pari<ing FU1aI1Cing.................................................... ............ ............ 12 III. REG ULA TIONS ........ ..................,........................... ...................................... 12 III. A Land Development Regulations .................... ............................... 12 III. B. Handicap Parking ............................................................................ 14 IV. PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 15 IV. A. Plans...... ....................................... ..................................................... 1 5 IV. B. OSS HAD............ ............ ...... ........ ................................... .......... ........ 16 IV. C. Previous Plans for a Parking Strudu'e........................................ 17 PART TWO: OPTIONS ANALySiS............................................. 18 I. POLiCy............ ...... ...... ....... .............................. .............................................. 18 LA. ()pera1ing Ar;Jerr::f (OA).. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. ... 1 8 I. B. Parking Financing (PF) .............. .......... .............. ,......... ............ ....... 20 II. PARKI NG .. ............................................ .......... ...................................,.... .......23 II. A. Traffic Engineeri1g (TE).... .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. 24 II. B. Parking Management (PM)........ ...... ...................... .......... ....... .......26 II. C. Parking Supply (PS).......... ........ .......... ................ ..................... ...... 28 III. RE G ULA TIONS ............................................................................................ 30 III. A LOR Mocifica1ions (LD)................................................................... 30 III. B. Hancicap Parki1g (H P).. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .... . ............. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... 31 IV. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND DECISIONS (FD)............................... 32 PART THREE: MASTER PARKING PROGRAM ........................... 33 I. PARKING MANAGEMENT TEAM .............................................................33 II. PARKI NG TRUST FUND ........ ...... .......................... .................... ................ 34 III. PARKING IMP~VEMENìS....... ....... ..... ............ ..... ............ .......... ..... .......34 IV. REG ULA TION MODI FICA TIONS ............................ ........ ....... ................... 35 V. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND DECISIONS ........................................ 36 '. , , · EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July, 1991, the City Commission appointed a Parking Study Committee (PSC), illustrated in Exhibit 1, to address parking issues in Delray Beach and provide the framework for a Master Parking Program to meet existing and future parking needs. After a description of the Study Area, this report is divided into three parts: Existing Situations, Options Analysis and a Master Parking Program, which contains the PSC recommendations for the formation of a Parking Management Team for parking leadership and a Parking Trust Fund for parking financing. THE STUDY AREA The Study Area, illustrated in Exhibit 2, includes the Central Business District (CBD) as well as the entire Atlantic Avenue corridor between 1-95 and the Atlantic Ocean. The Study Area is quite diverse, but four areas, each with its own parking characteristics, can be identified: (1) The Downtown Area - from Swinton Avenue to the Intracoastal Waterway bounded by S.E. 1st Street and N.E. 1st Street. (2) The Beach Area - from the Intracoastal Waterway to the Atlantic Ocean approximately bounded by Miramar Drive and Lowry Street. (3) The West Atlantic Area - from 1-95 to Swinton Avenue bounded by S.E. 1st Street and N.E. 1st Street; (4) The Expanded CBD Area - the remaining CBD, from N.E. 1st Street northward to N.E. 4th Street and from S.E. 1st Street southward to the CBD boundary around S.E. 2nd Street. Executive SUmmary - Page I '. · EXISTING SITUATIONS The PSC has identified a parking problem in the Downtown and Beach Areas. A parking problem is the public's perception that there is not enough convenient parking in an area. It may be the result of an inadequate parking supply, poor management of existing facilities, or misplaced anger about traffic congestion rEveryone on Atlantic Avenue is looking for parking. M) In 1989, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) closely examined parking in the Downtown and Beach Areas for their Delray Beach Master Parking Plan. In the Downtown Area, WSA concluded that the existing parking supply exceeded the parking demand. The parking surplus was estimated at 176 spaces, but it might be closer to 121 spaces due to inconsistencies in their methodology. In the Beach Area, WSA concluded that the existing parking supply did not meet the parking demand. The parking deficit was estimated at 57 spaces, but might be closer to 152 spaces due to inconsistencies in their methodology. Based on the WSA results, there is not a parking supply problem in the Downtown Area; but there is a parking supply problem in the Beach Area. In the Downtown Area, the use of the existing public lots and access to the lots can be made better with parking management and traffic engineering improvements. In the Beach Area, similar improvements can be implemented, but actions which create new parking supply or better public use of existing private space are also warranted. The WSA study was prepared before the Schoolhouse renovation in the OSSHAD. An estimate of the parking demand generated by the Cultural Arts Center is 165 spaces, without the proposed loggia. This demand does not meet the existing parking supply. An estimate of the parking demand that will be generated during special events by the proposed loggia is 480 spaces. executive Summary - Page II '. Parking in the West Atlantic and Expanded CBD Areas generally meets the existing parking demand, except that new development projects can create some parking problems. The City of Delray Beach wants to encourage redevelopment in special neighborhoods, and has helped provide parking for projects like Peach Umbrella Plaza and Banker's Row. The existing situation of parking operation in the City is that no single agency provides parking leadership. Individual City Departments handle parking issues as they arise. Without overall leadership, parking efforts can be incomplete, short-range or duplicated by different departments. The existing situation of parking financing in the City is that parking revenues are deposited in the City's general fund and can be used without restrictions. Without the ability to track parking revenue and expenses, parking funds can be misdirected or inefficiently used. An accurate revenue history for parking will also aid in the future sale of bonds for new parking areas, The existing Land Development Regulation (LOR) parking requirements are special in the CBD. Elsewhere, parking requirements are based on land use and must be met for conversions or changes in use. (For example, 4.5 parking spaces are required for every 1,000 s.f. of commercial land use; 12 parking spaces for restaurants up to 6,000 s.f.; and 1.5 spaces for 1-bedroom apartments.) The special CBD parking requirements are less stringent. They are not based on land use, but are uniformly applied at 3.3 spaces per 1,000 s.f. and are uniform for conversions or changes of use. A developer also has the option to pay an up-front, lump-sum in-lieu· fee of $2,500 for each required on- site parking space that is not provided. The existing public handicap parking in the Beach Area does not yet meet State requirements or the American Disabilities Act. Sufficient access to curb ramps without travelling behind parked vehicles is not provided. A determination by the State on whether the number of handicap spaces can be calculated for an entire block (instead of individual parking lots) has not been made. Executive Summary - Page ill '. . OPTIONS ANALYSIS The PSC identified five options for the lead operating agency of parking in Delray Beach: The City, The DDA, The CRA, a Parking Authority, and a Parking Management Team. In October 1991, Rich and Associates reviewed parking operations and concluded in their Memorandum that the best existing agency to operate parking is the CRA. The CRA is somewhat removed from City politics, has a steady revenue stream and already provides the lead role in parking on many redevelopment projects. The CRA, however, is not in the parking business. A Parking Authority is an independent, self-sustaining, public benefit corporation used in many larger cities to plan, program, construct and operate . parking facilities. Currently, Miami has the only Parking Authority in Florida. The Rich Memorandum noted that current revenue sources do not generate enough income to allow independent operation of a Parking Authority and concluded that the formation of a Parking Authority, at this stage of parking in Delray Beach, would mean adding another layer and expense to the parking program. A Parking Management Team (PMT), on the other hand, would also comprised of local businessman and City representatives, but would not be an independent self-sustaining identity. It operates like a more formal version of the existing PSC. A PMT could become a future Parking Authority when and if one is needed. The Rich Memorandum also examined parking financing and concluded that the City should set up a separate parking fund for parking expenses and establish a revenue generating history for the future sale of bonds for land acquisition and the construction of new parking areas. A special Parking Trust Fund, independent from the City's general fund was recommended. Sources of revenue for a Parking Trust Fund should include in-lieu fees, beach meter revenue, enforcement revenue and direct contributions by the DDA, CRA and the City. Executive Summary - Page iv '. '" · Many cities finance new parking facilities with bonds backed by the city's -full faith and credit. - Tax-exempt bonds are preferred, but a project must meet the -principal user- requirement - which restricts the amount of parking that can be dedicated to anyone user - and a limitation on the amount of private space that can be included in a project. The entire complexion of parking would change if the City constructs a parking structure. The City would probably need to charge user fees (to the parkers or area merchants) for parking in the structure, install parking meters on all the streets and assess the district to meet the debt service and operating expenses of a parking structure. The PSC identified numerous general and specific traffic engineering, parking management and parking supply improvement program options in the Study Area: Traffic Engineering (TE) TE.1 Directional Signing Program TE.2. Swinton Avenue I ntersection Reconstruction TE.3. Alley Improvement Program TE.4. Atlantic Avenue Left Turn Program TE.5. Pedestrian Access across Atlantic Avenue at Veteran's Park Parking Management (PM) PM. 1. Parking Signing Program PM. 2. Pavement Marking (Striping) Program PM. 3. Municipal Lot Improvement Program PM. 4. Parking Meter Program at Public Spaces Parking Supply (PS) PS.1. Parking Supply Management Program PS.2. Public Leasing of Private Lots Program PS.3. Parking Lot Acquisition Program (Refer to Part Two, Section II. Parking for the specific components of these programs.) Executive Summary - Page v '. · The PSC identified many LDR modification options regarding the special CBD parking requirements and the in-lieu fee. The special CBD parking requirements seem to unfairly penalize residential use in the CBD and to be too generous with respect to other uses in the Expanded CBD Area. The in-lieu fee does not reflect the actual cost of parking; might restrict development with an up-front, lump-sum payment; might be too excessive for small renovations: and might be an appropriate option in the OSSHAD. The PSC has identified the need for a program to resolve handicap compliance issues. MASTER PARKING PROGRAM The Master Parking Program, based on PSC consensus and conclusions from other reports, provides the framework to best serve existing and future parking needs. The PSC recommends that the City Commission create a Parking Management Team (PMT) to provide leadership on parking decisions. The PMT should be charged with the planning, development, construction and operation of parking. The PMT could become an independent Parking Authority in the future. The CRA should be under contract as the lead agency in providing staff support and agenda setting to the PMT. It is the best choice of existing agencies because it is somewhat removed from city politics; it covers the entire Study Area; and it already takes a lead role in redevelopment projects, which generate most new parking demand. The CRA staff would also coordinate with City staff on parking issues. See Exhibit 9. The PSC recommends the City Commission create a Parking Trust Fund, separate from the City's general fund, exclusively for parking purposes. The City Commission should have authority over the Fund and release monies for purposes requested by the PMT. Executive Summary - Page vi '. · Existin_g in-lieu fees, accumulated interest and existing meter revenue should be deposited in the Fund. An agreement should be made to return some beach meter revenue for beach restoration. The City, CRA and DDA should contribute to this Fund. The DDA contribution should be equated with the parking meter revenue that is "lost" by maintaining free parking in the Downtown Area, The PMT should review, prioritize and act on the traffic engineering, parking management and parking supply improvement programs previously identified. The PSC recognizes that it might take several months for the City Commission to implement a Parking Management Team and create a Parking Trust Fund and that several low-cost improvements might be unnecessarily delayed. These improvements include the following: TE.1 Directional Signing Program Improve directional signing at all intersections and in advance of major intersections on the bypass route. Provide complete and consistent directional, truck restriction, -Bypass Route- and -Historic Downtown- signing. PM. 1. Parking Signing Program Improve parking signing on Atlantic Avenue, the bypass route and all side streets to municipal lots. Provide complete, consistent and attractive signing. PM. 2. Pavement Marking (Striping) Program Provide pavement marking to curb spaces on Atlantic Avenue as illustrated in Exhibit 8. There is no loss in parking with this striping method. The PSC reached consensus on the general issues regarding LDR modifications and the in-lieu fee but defers any specific recommendations to the PMT. Executive Summary - Page vii '. · The PSC recommends that the first phase of the Handicap Parking Program should begin before the PMT is formed. The City should seek Statel Federal interpretation about the calculation of handicap requirements and the location of handicap spaces. The PSC defers any specific recommendations about future development and policy decisions to the PMT. Areas with parking needs have been identified. These are the Beach Area, the Downtown Area near OSSHAD and Special Redevelopment Projects that require ·vest-packer parking lots. The PSC recommends that the PMT proceed very carefully with the construction of any parking structure. A plan and mechanism for a city-owned structure in conjunction with a major downtown project should be prepared, but the full consequences of this action including paid user parking, meters and special assessment districts must be thoroughly examined. The PSC recommends that the construction of convenient municipal parking lots should be a short-term goal of the PMT. New parking lots, if located on small parcels, should connect to existing lots or solve special site-specific needs (like Banker's Row.) Ideally, however, new lots should be acquired on larger parcels with a long-term perspective that a future parking structure could be constructed on these lots - but only when dictated by parking demand. Executive Summary - Page viii '. . INTRODUCTION Parking is an item of major concern in Delray Beach, The availability of convenient parking, parking meters, and parking requirements are issues of continuing controversy among community leaders. In July, 1991, the City Commission appointed a Parking Study Committee (PSC), headed by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), to address parking issues in Delray Beach and provide the framework for a Master Parking Program to meet existing and future parking needs. The PSC, whose members are listed in Exhibit 1, is comprised of . representatives from the City Commission, the CRA, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), the Chamber of Commerce, the Atlantic Avenue Association (AM), the Planning and Zoning Board and Staff Support. The PSC mission is to make recommendations, based on existing data, regarding Land Development Regulation modifications; needs for concentrated parking areas; mechanisms for land acquisition, capital improvements and financing; mechanisms for parking operation and maintenance; and other items as appropriate. After a description of the Study Area, this report is divided into three parts: Part One is a review of existing situations - parking, operation, financing, regulations and existing plans; Part Two is an analysis of parking options; Part Three is a Master Parking Program which includes the PSC recommendations for the formation of a Parking Management Team and a Parking Trust Fund. Page 1 '. . THE STUDY AREA The Study Area, illustrated in Exhibit 2, includes the Central Business District (CBD) as well as the entire Atlantic Avenue corridor between 1-95 and the Atlantic Ocean. The Study Area is quite diverse, but four areas, each with its own parking characteristics, can be identified: (1) The Downtown Area - from Swinton Avenue to the Intracoastal Waterway bounded by S.E. 1st Street and N.E. 1st Street. (2) The Beach Area - from the Intracoastal Waterway to the Atlantic Ocean approximately bounded by Miramar Drive and Lowry Street. (3) The West Atlantic Area - from 1-95 to Swinton Avenue bounded by S.E. 1st Street and N.E. 1st Street; (4) The Expanded CBO Area - the remaining CBO area, from N.E. 1st Street northward to N.E. 4th Street and from S.E. 1st Street southward to the CBD boundary around S.E. 2nd Street. Portions of a few distinct planning and development areas are located within the Study Area. These include the following: . The Old School Square Historical Arts District (OSSHAO). A separate zoning district, illustrated in Exhibit 3, that includes the former Delray High School which has been renovated into a Cultural Arts Center. Portions of the OSSHAD are contained in the Downtown, West Atlantic and Expanded CBD Areas. . The Pineapple Grove Neighborhood. A diverse and dynamic mix of commercial and residential use in a 24-block area north of Atlantic Avenue. Portions of the Pineapple Grove are contained in the Downtown and Expanded CBD Areas. Page 2 . · PART ONE: EXISTING SITUATIONS I. PARKING Parking is the first and last event that most drivers and their passengers experience when they travel. Ideally. it is a non-event, a pleasant experience which encourages return visits. The PSC has identified a parking problem in the Downtown and Beach Areas. Parking and traffic conditions in these areas are often a nuisance. an unpleasant experience to be avoided whenever possible. A parking problem is the public's perception that there is not enough convenient parking in an area. It may be the result of an inadequate parking supply, poor management of existing facilities, or sometimes misplaced anger about traffic congestion rEveryone on Atlantic Avenue is looking for parking.") I. A. DOWNTOWN AREA The Downtown Area parking was examined in 1989 by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) for their Delray Beach Master Parking Plan. The Downtown Area contains 2,452 public and private parking spaces, as summarized below and illustrated in Exhibit 4. Downtown Area Parking Supply Parklna TVDe SDaces ( life ) Public Parking Curb 311 12% Of'fooStreet 559 22% PrIvate Parklna ~ 66% TOTAL 2,542 100% Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Page 3 ,. · Public parking, which constitutes 33% of the Downtown Area parking supply, is comprised of curb spaces and off-street spaces in municipal lots. There is no charge for public parking. Curb spaces are almost entirely limited to 2-hour parking, and off-street spaces are generally limited to 4-hour parking. The curb parking spaces on Atlantic Avenue are not striped and directional signing to municipal lots is inadequate or inconsistent. Private parking constitutes 66% of the Downtown Area parking supply. Private parking is comprised of off-street parking, which is restricted to employees or patrons using tenant establishments. These lots are underutilized, even during peak business hours. WSA found a high turnover rate of almost 4 vehicles per space per day for curb spaces and determined that time restrictions for 2-hour and 4-hour parking zones were reasonable and being properly utilized. (A postcard survey was performed to determine trip purpose, destination and place of residence of parkers. ) The average walking distance for all trip purposes was less than 1.0 block. Workers walked an average of 0.59 blocks, and shoppers walked 0.87 blocks. Typically, in other cities, workers walk farther than shoppers, but in the Downtown Area, many employers provide private parking for their employees but do not have private parking for their customers. Parkers using curb spaces walked the greatest distance to their destination. In other cities, these parkers typically walk the least distance to their destination, but in the Downtown Area, it seems that parkers bypass municipal lots in order to find the curb spaces on Atlantic Avenue. Page 4 '. · The s~rvey indicated that 56% of the parkers were in the Downtown Area for work and 19% for shopping or dining. (The remainder were in the area for personal business or other purposes.) The survey also indicated that 64% of the parkers were from Delray Beach, 14% from Boynton Beach and 6% from Boca Raton. WSA identified an existing Downtown Area parking supply of 2,542 spaces and calculated the effective -theoreticar parking capacity at 1,648 spaces, 65% of the parking supply. (The effective capacity accounts for the time lost by vehicles getting into or out from parking spaces and provides some reserve for day-of-week and seasonal variations in parking demand. Curb spaces were calculated at 90% of the existing parking supply and off-street public spaces were calculated at 85% of the existing supply. Private spaces were calculated at the peak hour accumulation (occupancy), or at 85% of the existing supply, whichever was lesser, to account for the fact that only patrons using tenant establishments are allowed to park in private lots.) The low effective capacity reflects the poor utilization of private parking spaces. WSA determined that the maximum parking accumulation (occupancy) in the Downtown Area was 1,312 vehicles parked at 1 p.m. (The accumulation was determined from hourly counts of vehides parked on a typical weekday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.) Parking between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. was within 4% of the peak hour accumulation, which indicated a high parking demand in the Study Area throughout much of the day. This accumulation was typical for a combination of retail and office development. The peak parking accumulation was less than the effective capacity, a satisfactory result. On a block-by-block basis, however, 5 blocks had parking accumulations that exceeded 70% of the existing parking supply. Page 5 '. , WSA çreated a parking demand (needs) model of the Downtown Area on a block-by-block basis and determined that 8 of 17 blocks had a parking deficit. (The parking demand model was based on the amount of retail, office, hotel and residential land use in each block. An aerial photo and reconnaissance of the study area was used to determine land use. Initial parking demand rates were assigned to each land use and a calculation was made of the parking demand based on these rates. The results were compared to the observed accumulations. Successive iterations of the model were made on the land use rates until the calculated parking demand matched the observed accumulation.) After balancing the parking surplus and deficit of individual blocks, WSA concluded that there was a surplus of 176 parking spaces in the entire Downtown Area. (The parking deficit of individual blocks was balanced with the parking surplus of any adjacent block.) WSA inappropriately balanced both public and private surplus parking with the deficit of any adjacent block, even though parkers aren't allowed to park in private spaces and use other businesses. With respect to this inconsistency, the surplus parking in the Downtown Area may not be 176 spaces, but might be closer to 121 spaces. In summary, the parking problem in the Downtown Area is not a parking supply problem, because the existing parking supply is adequate. Parking management improvements which enhance the visibility and use of the existing parking supply as well as traffic engineering improvements which increase the accessibility to the municipal lots are warranted. Improvement options are discussed in Part Two, Section I. Page 6 '. · I. B. BEACH AREA The Beach Area parking was also examined in the 1989 WSA report. The Beach Area contains 1,846 public and private parking spaces, as summarized below and illustrated in Exhibit 5. Beach Area Parking Supply Parklna TVDe SDaces ( «yg ) Public Parking Curb 94 5% Off-street 42 2% Private Parkina 1.710 93% TOTAL 1,846 100% Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: Beach meters on Route A1A are not included Public parking, which constitutes only 7% of the Beach Area parking supply, is comprised of curb spaces and off-street spaces in municipal lots. There is no charge for public parking on Atlantic Avenue or the side streets, but parking on Route A 1A and in some municipal lots off Route A 1A is metered at $0.75 per hour. Many people, who are going to the beach, park in the free spaces or park illegally in private spaces. Curb spaces are limited to 2-hour parking, and metered beach spaces are limited to 3-hour parking. The curb spaces are not striped and directional signing to municipal lots is inadequate or inconsistent. Private parking constitutes 93% of the Beach Area parking supply. Private parking is comprised of off-street parking, which is located on many smaller lots which are not connected by alleys so that patrons must use Atlantic Avenue to move their vehicfes from one establishment to another. These lots are often underutilized, even during peak business hours. Some private lots, like the Holiday Inn, offer paid parking at about $3.00 per day. WSA found similar parking turnover rates and walking distances in the Downtown and Beach Areas. Page 7 '. · The stJrvey indicated that 36% of the parkers were in the Beach Area for work and 31% for shopping or dining. As in the Downtown Area, 74% of the parkers were from Delray Beach, 12% from Boynton Beach and 1 % from Boca Raton. WSA identified an existing Beach Area parking supply of 1,846 spaces and calculated the effective parking capacity at 1 ,205 spaces, 65% of the parking supply. The maximum parking accumulation in the Beach area was 1,184 vehicles at 1 p.m. which is typical for retail and office development. The maximum parking accumulation was only slightly less than the effective capacity. On a block-by-block basis, the blocks adjacent to the beach had accumulations of 90% (including the Holiday Inn parking structure.) WSA created a parking demand (needs) model of the Beach Area on a block-by-block basis and determined that 4 of 8 blocks had parking deficits. After balancing the parking surplus and deficit of individual blocks, WSA concluded that there was a deficit of 57 spaces in the entire Beach Area. WSA inappropriately balanced both public and private surplus parking with the deficit of any adjacent block. Theoretically, none of the parking surplus in the Holiday Inn block should have been used to balance the parking deficit in adjacent blocks. However, the entire surplus of 46 spaces was redistributed to the ocean and adjacent commercial blocks. With respect to this error, the parking deficit in the Beach Area may not be 57 spaces, but might be closer to 152 spaces. Page 8 '. · In summary, the parking problem in the Beach Area is compounded by a parking supply problem, because the existing parking supply is inadequate. Parking supply improvements which create new parking spaces or make better use of existing private parking spaces are warranted. Parking management improvements which enhance the visibility and use of the existing parking supply as well as traffic engineering improvements which increase the accessibility to the these spaces are also important. Improvement options are discussed in Part Two, Section I. I. c. WEST ATLANTIC AREA The West Atlantic Area, illustrated in Exhibit 6 and 6A, does not currently have an overall parking problem. It is generally assumed that the existing parking supply meets the existing demand. When an individual establishment has a parking problem, people simply park on nearby substandard or vacant lots. Parking needs are best evaluated with respect to individual development projects, like the Peach Umbrella Plaza, which the City and the CRA want to encourage in the West Atlantic Area. The Peach Umbrella Plaza is located on a smaller parcel of land with insufficient area to satisfy new parking requirements. In an advocacy role, the CRA will develop public parking on dedicated private property behind the project to help meet the parking requirements. The West Atlantic Area also contains a number of large development projects. The South County Courthouse Phase I was open in August 1990. Phase II is planned. The Police Station Headquarters, proposed Fire Station #1 Headquarters and City's Tennis Center, which is the subject of a feasibility study, are all large projects which will generate additional parking demand. Page 9 '. The Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church is also in the midst of major redevelopment. The Church, which already owns a significant portion of the N.W. 400 block of Atlantic Avenue, intends to complete an expansion of its existing building (with increased parking) and create a church supported community center and elderly housing project. There is the potential to share parking from the church lot, which is most needed during Sunday Services, for these other uses. Even though the West Atfantic Area does not currently have an overall parking problem, each new project increases the use of the existing street parking supply. Over time, these substandard parking lots may be developed with other uses. Some landscape pods may decrease the supply of curb parking, and there is the possibility that curb parking along Atlantic Avenue may be restricted during peak hours under the Geographic Area of Exception discussed in Section IV. The redevelopment activity clearly indicates that a comprehensive parking program is warranted in the West Atlantic Area. Many parking improvement programs initiated in the Downtown or Beach Areas would apply in the West Atlantic Area. I. D. EXPANDED CBD AREA The Expanded CBD Area, illustrated in Exhibit 2, has no overall parking problem. It is assumed that the existing parking supply meets the existing demand. There is a potential parking problem as more redevelopment occurs. Parking in substandard lots, swale areas or vacant sites may not be possible with increased development. Redevelopment is encouraged in the Expanded CBO Area. Banker's Row, the 200 block of N.E. 1st Avenue, is an example where the CRA has helped meet a project's parking requirements. (Banker's Row is part of the Pineapple Grove neighborhood and is actually located in the OSSHAD.) In this case, the CRA has purchased and will develop a ·vest-pocker parking lot for the neighborhood. Page 10 '. The Expanded CBD Area contains the U.S. Highway 1 (5th and 6th Avenues) corridor north and south of Atlantic Avenue. Except for the blocks closest to Atlantic Avenue, this area exhibits parking supply and demand which is auto-oriented, with commercial destinations that contain off-street parking. The parking characteristics are more suburban on U.S. Highway 1. West of the railroad and north of Atlantic Avenue - in the Pineapple Grove neighborhood that contains Banker's Row - there is a diverse mix of commercial and residential use. Here, parking characteristics are somewhat different than on the U.S. Highway 1 corridor. Less off-street parking is provided, so the availability of convenient curb parking is an important issue. Landscape pods, especially at mid-block locations, can decrease the supply of curb parking, but do provide mid-block pedestrian walkways. Many parking improvement programs initiated in the Downtown or Beach Areas would also apply in the Expanded CBD Area. II. POLICY II. A. OPERATING AGENCY No single agency currently provides parking leadership in Delray Beach. Individual departments handle parking issues when they arise: the Planning & Zoning Department for planning and traffic engineering; the Environmental Services Department for street signs, parking meters and maintenance; the Finance Department for accounting; the Police Department for enforcement; and so on. The City Commission generally refers parking problems to the City Departments or forms ad hoc committees to study specific issues. The DDA has addressed parking in its district and financed the WSA parking study. The CRA has underwritten a study by Rich and Associates of parking operations and financing. The CRA has also taken a lead role in helping to solve parking problems in conjunction with redevelopment projects and has participated in the design of several parking lots and alley improvements. The Planning & Zoning Department has designed and provided technical review of parking lots for the City redevelopment projects. Page 11 '. . II. B. PARKING FINANCING Parking revenues are currently deposited in the City's general fund and used without restrictions. Existing parking revenues include the following: · Meter revenue · In-lieu fee revenue · Enforcement revenue Meter revenue, from the beach meters was approximately $240,000 last year. Some of that revenue was intended for beach restoration. I n-lieu fee revenue, which is discussed in the next section, comes from a one-time, lump- sum fee that is paid when new parking requirements cannot be met in the CBD. Approximately $35,000 of in-lieu fee proceeds and accumulated interest remain. Enforcement revenue comes from parking tickets which are issued by police officers or Community Service Specialists. Parking expenses include the costs of operating, maintaining and financing the public parking facilities. Examples are City staff time on parking issues, a full-time employee for the beach parking meters, maintenance equipment and labor, enforcement labor (the Community Service Specialists), independent parking studies and debt service on bonds to pay for new parking lots or other capital improvements. III. REGULATIONS III. A. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Land Development Regulations (LOR) prescribe the development codes for the City of Delray Beach. Examples are building, zoning, subdivision and landscape codes. Page 12 '. · LDR parking requirements are special in the CBD. Elsewhere in the City, they are based on land use. and are required for conversions or changes of use. For example, 4.5 parking spaces are required for every 1,000 s.f. of commercial land use; 12 parking spaces for restaurants up to 6,000 s.f.; and 1.5 spaces for 1-bedroom apartments. The special CBD parking requirements are less stringent to encourage downtown development and revitalization. Parking requirements are applied uniformly at 3.3 spaces per 1,000 s.f. regardless of land use. Parking requirements are uniform for conversions or changes of use; and a developer has the option to pay an in-lieu fee of $2,500, up-front, for each required on-site parking space that is not provided. The CBD boundary was originally designated as the DDA District (essentially the Downtown Area), but was expanded in October 1990 to include the Downtown, Beach and Expanded CBD Areas except for the OSSHAD. Hence, the special CBD parking requirements apply to the entire CBD, even though the parking needs and characteristics of these areas is different. An in-lieu fee is a land-use strategy for a planned business district. I n-lieu of dedicating large areas for parking on many small parcels, a community can provide more parking in larger central parking lots with efficient parking on both sides of a driving aisle and enliven its downtown streets by not using street-front property for parking. The in-lieu fee proceeds are mandated for parking purposes. The 1984 library renovation was assessed $60,000 of in-lieu fees, from which $35,000 remains. ($25,000 was used for the WSA study.) Initially, in-lieu funds were allocated to the DDA, which used the interest for its operating expenses. Since 1985 however, the funds have been placed in a special account in the City's general fund without any provision for interest earnings. Page 13 '. · The in-lieu fee has been set at $2,500 per space since 1980. The fee does not reflect the actual cost of parking, Estimates of the cost of new surface parking spaces range from $4,100 to $4,700; and for a parking structure, from $7,400 to $8,300. III. B. HANDICAP PARKING The 1988 Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards and Florida requirements for handicap parking have been applied to new construction projects, but older facilities have not been completely updated. In the Beach Area, there are seven handicap spaces on Route A 1A at the beach. While these spaces are closest to the municipal changing facility, they are also located across the street from businesses that would be better served by public parking spaces in this area. Many handicap parking spaces are not in compliance with the new American Disabilities Act (ADA). The handicap parking spaces on Route A1A at the beach, for example, do not allow access to curb ramps without travelling behind parked cars. Nine handicap parking spaces would be required if all the beach spaces on Route A 1A and in the municipal beach lots are calculated as a single source, or thirteen spaces would be required if each lot is considered separately. New curb ramps, that permit access without travelling behind parked vehides can be constructed by the City at approximately $1,000 each; and changes in parking meters, signs and striping will also be necessary. A FOOT permit is required for all changes on Route A 1 A. In the Downtown Area, handicap curb parking spaces will be required and curb cuts needed if metered parking is ever provided. Unless special approval of the calculation of handicap parking for an entire block is granted, each private lot is required to provide at least one handicap parking space. Page 14 ,. ,.., IV. PLAN.S AND DEVELOPMENT IV. A. PLANS Several traffic, land use and redevelopment plans have been prepared which affect parking and parking policy in the Study Area. The 1991 Downtown Core Geographic Area of Exception (GAE) plan identifies an area of redevelopment (essentially equivalent to the Downtown and Expanded CBD Areas) that will be permitted a lower level of service from countywide traffic performance standards. If the traffic projections for West Atlantic Avenue contained in the GAE document do in fact exceed the 4-lane traffic threshold, curb parking will probably be prohibited during peak periods on portions of West Atlantic Avenue. The Florida Department of Transportation has no plans to widen West Atlantic Avenue from Swinton Avenue to 1-95 in its five year work program. The November 1989 (and amended in October 1991) Comprehensive Plan for the City of Delray Beach contains the land Use Element (lUE) Policy C-4.3 to accommodate the maximum development in the CBD while still retaining the -village-like- character of the CBD; LUE Policy C-4.4 to pursue the construction and operation of tiered parking structures in the CBD; and LUE Policy C-4.9 to identify as short-term capital improvements parking west of Swinton Avenue for the OSSHAD and an alleyway enhancement program which has already begun. The 1992 Community Redevelopment Plan (CRP) describes a number of redevelopment projects that will generate new parking needs. These include a downtown anchor department store and parking structure within 2 blocks of Atlantic Avenue and a downtown cinema and mixed redevelopment project in the CBD. Both of these projects are in the initial phase of preliminary planning and marketing. Page 1S '. The CRP also describes a -Master Parking Program- based on PSC consensus and existing reports. This Master Parking Plan is the fulfillment of the CRP -Master Parking Program-. IV. B. OSSHAD The OSSHAD is a separate zoning district that includes the former Delray High School which has been renovated into a Cultural Arts Center. Portions of the OSSHAD are contained in the Downtown, West Atlantic and Expanded CBD Areas. The Arts Center includes the Cornell Art Museum, the Delray Historical Society and a large meeting room (the old gymnasium). The 1925 Theater Building is currently under renovation, and Phase III, an outdoor loggia. will be completed in the future. . The parking needs generated by the Cultural Arts Center were not included in WSA study. because the school renovation was not complete when their parking plan was written. The WSA block-by-block analysis indicated a deficit of 23 parking spaces in the Downtown area block north of Atfantic Avenue between N.E. 1st and N.E. 2nd Avenue that was offset by a 23 space surplus in the school block. It is estimated that 165 parking spaces are needed to satisfy the demand generated by the Arts Center: Auditorium: 75 spaces (250 seats x 0.3 spaces per seat) Theater: 100 spaces (300 x 0.3 spaces per seat) Museum: 45 spaces (9,000 s.f. x 5 spaces per 1,000 s.f ) Total: 165 spaces (220 spaces x 0.75 shared-parking factor) Page 16 '. ,. The WSA study included a surface parking lot of 30 spaces which no longer exists and did not include new angle parking on N.E. 1st Avenue which added 21 spaces to the parking supply. Therefore, it is estimated that there is a 174 parking space deficit on special events when the Arts Center is fully occupied. Some of this special event deficit, however, can be absorbed in surface parking north of N.E. 1st Street in the Expanded CBD Area. When the proposed outdoor loggia is finished, the estimated parking demand for special events may be approximately 480 spaces (24,000 s.f, x 1 space per 50 s.f. assuming that the auditorium, theater and museum patrons also attend the loggia function.) IV. C. PREVIOUS PLANS FOR A PARKING STRUCTURE The City of Delray Beach and the CRA are playing an active role in community redevelopment. A continuing goal is the revitalization of the ·Historic Downtown·, and efforts have been made to get an anchor department store in the Downtown Area. In 1988, the City made plans for a parking structure adjacent to a proposed Jacobson's store in the Downtown Area. A design development report was prepared by Roy M. Simon, AlA and Walker Associates for a three- level, 345-space structure which would be built on the north side of N.E. 1 st Street and span, on the third level, over the street to connect with Jacobson's. The pre-cast concrete structure was estimated to cost $2,182,000. The City would have paid for the parking structure, even though most of the parking would have been dedicated to Jacobson's. The project did not proceed (Jacobson's decided to locate in Boca Raton), but other projects, like a movie theater complex with surface parking (also mentioned in the CRA Community Redevelopment Plan) are being studied. Page 17 '. , , · PART TWO: OPTIONS ANALYSIS Part Two is an analysis of operating agency, parking financing and regulation options as well as common parking problems, issues and specific improvement items in the Study Area. I. POLICY I. A. OPERATING AGENCY (OA) There are five basic options for the overall development and management of parking in Delray Beach: OA. 1. Operating Agency Options OA. 1. a. The City. OA. 1. b. The Downtown Development Agency (DDA). OA. 1. c. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). OA. 1. d. A New Parking Authority. OA. 1. e. A Parking Management Team An October 1991 Memorandum by Rich and Associates noted that City leadership of parking would introduce the highest level of politics into the decision process. There would be a tendency to put parking revenues into the general fund and place parking projects in direct competition with the City's infrastructure and other programs. Even though political realities can never be removed from the decision process, the Rich Memorandum recommended that a quasi-publici private agency - not the City - oversee parking development. Existing agencies which could oversee parking are the DDA and the CRA. Page 18 '. · The DDA operates in a very limited area (the Downtown Area) and receives a small budget of about $28,000 per year. Because the parking agency in Delray Beach must have the ability to provide some financial support in terms of a balance sheet and revenues to back potential financing, the DDA is not a good candidate. The CRA, on the other hand, has a revenue stream from its tax increment of about $630,000 per year. It covers the entire study area and has the lead role and expertise in redevelopment, which generates most of the new parking demand. The CRA also has the ability to work with the community, elected officials and City staff in integrating solutions. It has has already completed designs of new parking lots and has worked other City agencies on some alley and municipal lot renovations. A Parking Authority is a special purpose, non-profit, publ.ic benefit corporation created in many larger cities to plan, program, construct and operate parking facilities. It is an autonomous, separate legal entity, created by governmental action. Currently, Miami has the only Parking Authority in Florida. The Parking Authority activities are financially self-sustaining. Initial capital is usually borrowed against anticipated revenue through the issuance and sale of revenue bonds. The Authority is usually governed by a board, appointed by the mayor, comprised of local businessmen to base important decisions on economic and not political reasons. The Rich Memorandum noted that the creation of a Parking Authority, at this stage of parking development in Delray Beach, would mean adding another layer and expense to an overall parking program. Existing revenue sources do not generate sufficient funds to allow an independent Parking Authority. The PSC and the CRA Community Redevelopment Plan concur with this recommendation. Page 19 '. · A Park_ing Management Team as a quasi-public/private group that would be charged with overall development and management of parking. It would not be an independent. self-sustaining organization like a Parking Authority, but would provide essential parking leadership in the community. A Parking Management Team could become a Parking Authority in the future. In Delray Beach, a Parking Management Team would act like a more formal version of the existing Parking Study Committee (PSC) and be comprised of businessmen, community representatives and City staff. See Exhibit 9. I. B. PARKING FINANCING (PF) The Rich Memorandum identified two basic options for financing parking in Delray Beach: PF.1. Parking Financing Options PF. 1. a. The City's General Fund. PF.1. b. A Parking Trust Fund. The Rich Memorandum suggested that the City set up a parking fund and establish a revenue generating history for the parking system to aid in the Mure sale of bonds for land acquisition or in the construction of other parking areas. The cost of providing surface or structured parking is very expensive. The Rich Memorandum estimates that a parking structure Q! a parking lot must generate about $92.00 per space per month to cover principal, interest and operating cost. The costs are the same due to the land cost, which is amortized over less spaces for surface lots. Page 20 '. ' , · Many cities pay for parking out of their general fund and use parking revenues to offset the deficit of other infrastructure items. They may strive for self-sustaining parking facilities by charging user fees, but these fees rarely generate enough income to finance a new parking facility. Hence, parking revenue from off-street and on-street locations are typically pooled into an enterprise fund - like a Parking Trust Fund - to defray the debt on a new project. A Parking Trust Fund may be set up to remove parking revenue and expenses from a city's general fund. All net parking receipts, in-lieu fees and possibly net enforcement revenues go into the Parking Trust Fund and are used for day-to-day administration and maintenance, capital improvements on parking areas, the acquisition of parking areas, or to pay for the soft costs to develop a project. There are several revenue sources in Delray Beach to finance parking projects: PF.2. Parking Trust Fund Revenue Sources PF.2. a. In-Lieu fee proceeds and interest. There are $35,000 of in- lieu fees which are currently available for parking purposes. PF.2.b. Beach meter revenue. About $240,000 per year is collected, some of which has been identified for beach restoration. PF.2.c. Enforcement revenue. PF.2. d. Direct contribution by the DDA. The DDA could contribute an amount equal to the costs of providing free parking in the Downtown Area (the revenue lost by not using parking meters.) PF.2. e. Direct contribution by the CRA. The CRA could contribute some of its revenue in direct response the parking component of its redevelopment and beautification projects. PF.2.f. Direct contribution by the City. The City could contribute revenue equal to the amount spent for parking enforcement (through the Police Department), parking maintenance (through the Public Works Department), parking operations (through its parking agency) and accounting (through the Finance Department.) Page 21 '. · New parking facilities are financed by many cities with bonds backed by the city's -full faith and credit-. Tax-exempt bonds, at an interest rate almost 3% below taxable financing, is usually the best alternative. There are limitations, however, to tax-exempt bonds for financing parking facilities. First is the -principal user clause- that restricts from 10% to 20% the amount of a project that can be dedicated to anyone user. It means that no long-term agreement for parking spaces can be made directly with a new department store. The department store's employees could purchase monthly parking, and the store could offer free customer parking provided the same validation program was offered to all area merchants. Second is a limitation on the amount of retail space that can be developed in a parking structure financed be tax-exempt bonds. Typically, no more that 5% of the cost of a project can be used as retail space or for another private purpose. The parking agency can still finance a parking structure with a greater retail use, or with a significant principal user, but the bonds would be taxable. Although the City could finance a new parking structure in conjunction with a major development project, the user fees and revenues from parking meters in the Downtown Area would not meet the debt service and operating expenses. Therefore, special assessments or revenue from the CRA or City's general fund would be required to service the debt. The DDA district, which is the Downtown Area, is the only existing assessment district in the Study Area. The DDA district could not finance a new parking facility in the West Atlantic Area, unless its boundary is extended. (The DDA has received approval to hold a referendum to extend its boundaries into the Beach and Expanded CSD Area.) As part of a comprehensive parking program, the City could establish a new parking assessment district, but a majority of voters within the district borders would need to approve this new district. Page 22 '. · The PSC has identified the following revenue sources to finance new parking facilities: PF.3. Financing New Parking Facilities PF. 3. a. Non-taxable or taxable bonds backed by the City. PF. 3. b. Direct user fees. PF.3.c. Parking revenue, such as meter revenue and in-lieu fees, from other facilities in the area. PF.3.d. Special assessments. PF.3. e. Direct contributions by the DCA. PF. 3. f. Direct contributions by the CRA. The CRA provides a lead role in many redevelopment projects which contain a parking component. PF.3. g. Direct contributions from the City. In summary. the entire complexion of parking would change if the City constructs a parking structure. The City would probably need to charge for parking within the structure, install metered parking in the entire area. and assess the district to meet the debt service and operating expenses of a parking structure. The construction of a parking structure would also create long-term commitments to security and maintenance which are not needed with a system of convenient. well-illuminated municipal parking lots. II. PARKING Traffic engineering. parking management and parking supply options are available to help improve the parking situations identified in the Study Area. Page 23 '. · II. A. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING (TE) The PSC has identified traffic engineering options to enhance traffic flow and improve access to municipal lots: TE.1 Directional Signing Program TE.1. a. Improve directional signing at all intersections and in advance of major intersections on the bypass route. Upgrade directional, truck restriction, "Bypass Route" and "Historic Downtown" signing. TE.1. b. Upgrade signing from northbound U.S. Highway 1 to the westbound bypass route. Overhead signing is provided at the other intersections and anticipated at this intersection. TE. 1. c. Provide improved "one-way" and "do not enter" signs at applicable streets, alleys and municipal lots. TE.2. Swinton Avenue Intersection Reconstruction Improve the Swinton Avenue intersection, as illustrated in Exh!bit 7. The City Commission has already rejected some of these options, but the PSC believes that the parking agency should study the costs and benefits of this project. TE.2. a. Add a left-turn lane from westbound Atlantic Avenue to southbound Swinton Avenue. TE.2.b. Provide curb parking and/or a drop-off on the Atlantic Avenue in front of Old School Square when constructing new left-turn lane. TE.2.c. Redesign the intersection as the gateway to "Historic Downtown" . TE.2.d. Provide landscape islands to enhance the bypass route alternate in advance of the intersection. Additional right-of way will be required. Page 24 '. . TE.3. Alley Improvement Program The City has already begun an alley improvement program. TE.3. a. Improve rear (alley) entrances to businesses for better access to municipal lots. The CRA has already begun this effort. TE.3. b. Provide adequate and unobtrusive trash dumpsters for businesses. TE.4. Atlantic Avenue Left Turn Program TE.4. a. Address the left-turn problem from Atlantic Avenue to 1st, 2nd and 4th Avenues (also to southbound Swinton Avenue). Traffic must stop when vehides wait to make a left turns from Atlantic Avenue to these roadways because left-turn lanes are not provided. Restrictions have been tried several times in the past, but the PSC believes another review is warranted. · Prohibit left turns. · Prohibit left turns from December through May. · Restrict left turns from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. · Restrict left turns from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. from December through May. TE.4.b. Provide a left-turn arrow at the traffic signal for westbound Atlantic Avenue to S.E. 2nd Avenue. The traffic signal is phased to clear the railroad, so extra green time is already allotted to westbound traffic for the left-turn arrow. TE.4. c. Prohibit or restrict the left turn from eastbound Atlantic Avenue to N.E. 2nd Avenue. A driver never gets the opportunity to make this left turn at the yellow light because the light in the opposite direction remains green. Page 25 '. ' , TE.5. Pedestrian Access across Atlantic Avenue at Veteran's Park Provide pedestrian access from Veteran's Park across Atlantic Avenue. The WSA study identified parkers who walk this route. The nearest crosswalk is located at 7th Avenue, almost 2 blocks to the west. . A walkway under the Intracoastal Waterway bridge. . A pedestrian crosswalk, with signs, pavement markings, but no traffic signal across Atlantic Avenue. II. B. PARKING MANAGEMENT (PM) The PSC has identified parking management options to improve the use of the existing supply of public parking spaces: PM. 1. Parking Signing Program PM. 1. a. Improve parking signing on Atlantic Avenue, the bypass route and all side streets to municipal lots. Provide complete, consistent and attractive signing. PM. 1. b. Provide "Alternate Beach Parking" signs from Gleason Street to nearby parking at Sandoway and Anchor Parks. PM. 2. Pavement Marking (Striping) Program PM.2.a. Provide pavement marking for curb spaces on Atlantic Avenue as illustrated in Exhibit 8. City code calls for a 22' long curb parking space, which includes extra maneuvering distance that is 4' long. The maneuvering distance of successive parking spaces is combined to create an 8' long "no parking- zone for efficient curb parking. There is no loss in parking with this striping method. PM.2.b. Provide pavement marking to all curb spaces, including side streets. Consistent pavement marking will enhance public acceptance, use and efficiency of curb parking. Page 26 '. . PM. 3. Municipal Lot Improvement Program PM. 3. a. Provide consistent and attractive lighting at municipal lots. PM. 3. b. Provide consistent and attractive landscaping at municipal lots. Proper landscaping will enhance lot recognition and use. PM.3.c. Create an attractive entrance from S.E. 4th Avenue to the Municipal Library parking lot. Existing signing is inconsistent and the alley entrance is misleading. PM.3.d. Explore parking lot redesign which increases the efficiency of the existing lots. (Perpendicular parking is more efficient than angle parking. ) PM. 4. Parking Meter Program at Public Spaces PM.4.a. Install parking meters at the municipal lot at the comer of Andrews Avenue and Atlantic Avenue (near the Holiday Inn). PM.4.b. Install parking meters in the Beach Area. Meters are already in place on Route A1A and at nearby beach parks. Many beach patrons use existing 2-hour curb spaces on Atlantic Avenue. . Meters on Atlantic Avenue in the Beach Area. . Meters on Atlantic Avenue and the side streets (but not Lowry Street or Miramar Drive) in the Beach Area. A consistent policy of parking in the Beach Area is encouraged. PM.4.c. Implement a token program for merchants in conjunction with the installation of new meters. A free token for the meters can be given to customers which will encourage return visits. PM.4.d. In the future, install parking meters on Atlantic Avenue in the Downtown Area. Curbs spaces are already over utilized in the Downtown Area. Meters will immediately encourage the use of free parking at side street curb spaces and in municipal lots. This option should not be implemented until an adequate supply of convenient. easily identifiable parking is available in the Downtown Area. PM.4.e. Develop a plan for the future installation of meters at ill public spaces in the Downtown Area. This option should not be implemented unless and until a parking structure is needed. Page 27 '. · II. C. PARKING SUPPLY (PS) The PSC has identified parking supply options to improve the public use of the existing private parking spaces and to add new public parking spaces: PS.1. Parking Supply Management Program PS. 1. a. Identify and clearly delineate public curb spaces on the side streets in the Beach Area. It is not clear which spaces are public and where parking is permitted on the side streets in the Beach Area. This option will involve upgrading some curb parking spaces. PS.1. b. Develop, market and implement an employee parking permit program on municipal lots (not curb spaces). These permits could given to employers in exchange for ·customer-only· spaces on their private lots. PS. 1. c. Develop, market and implement a paid parking program on private lots. The Holiday Inn offers paid parking to the general public. Other establishments could offer paid self-parking, valet or metered parking on their private lots under this program. The City would participate in the program costs as an alternative to the expensive acquisition and development of new municìpallots in the beach area. PS. 1. d. Relocate the municipal lot north of Holiday Inn instead of waiting until the Holiday Inn expansion proceeds. This option would temporarily add approximately 24 parking spaces to the Beach area supply. (If the parking agency acquires some additional property to provide parking on both sides of the driving aisle, 24 new parking spaces could be constructed.) PS.2. Public Leasing of Private Lots Program PS.2. a. Develop, market and implement a program of public leasing of private lots. The parking agency could - as program incentives - improve the lots, install meters, provide employee parking, market the program, and share in the meter revenue with the owner. Potential sites follow: Page 28 '. . · The Barnett Bank employee lot on the east side of Sea Breeze Avenue. This lot is not connected to the bank building and is underutilized. · The Fran Brewster employee lot on the west side of Gleason Street. This lot is not connected to Fran Brewster's store and is underutilized. · The Presbyterian church parking lot. A portion of this lot near Gleason Street is already shared with Atlantic Centre during business hours. This arrangement might be expanded for public parking, especially if a meter token system is implemented. · The seasonal Hertz car rental lot. Hertz has already contacted the Chamber of Commerce about leasing this lot during the off-season. · The Colony Hotel parking lot off N.E. 6th Avenue. · The MacMillan parking lot off N.E. 4th Avenue. PS.2. b. Investigate the use of the vacant Holiday Inn property before the Holiday Inn expansion proceeds. · Improve the existing municipal lot north of the Holiday Inn to provide new parking on the other side of the driving aisle. Existing. parking is single-loaded (parking on one side of the driving aisle); double-loaded parking is more efficient. This option will temporarily add approximately 24 spaces to the Beach Area parking supply. · Extend the lot to provide new, double-loaded parking to Andrews Avenue. The parking agency could raze the old fire station and develop this parking. Traffic circulation would improve and -Alternate Beach Parking- signs to Andrews Avenue could be installed. This option would temporarily add approximately 20 spaces. · Expand the municipal lot to fill the Holiday Inn expansion site. This option would temporarily add approximately 80 spaces, but the benefit-cost ratio may not be satisfactory. (The Holiday Inn might want to implement this option without the parking agency's participation.) PS.2.c. Allow parking behind Boston's with backout directly into the alley. This option will add approximately 10 spaces. PS.2.d. Allow more beach parking after 11 p.m. This option would benefit nearby establishments with nighttime activities. Page 29 '. . PS.3. Parking Lot Acquisition Program PS. 3. a. Develop a program for the acquisition of land for new parking lots. Identify potential sites and funding sources. Priority areas with immediate parking needs follow: · The Seach Area. The lots mentioned in the lease program are potential acquisition sites. · The Downtown Area near OSSHAD. The WSA report identified a parking deficit in the blocks north of Atlantic Avenue between Swinton Avenue and N.E. 2nd Street even before the OSSHAD renovation had begun. · Redevelopment Sites in the entire Study Area. The ·vest-pocket· parking lot for Sanker's Rowand the Peach Umbrella parking lot are examples of this policy. These small parcels can be improved for employee and special event parking and act as a land bank for Mure redevelopment projects. III. REGULATIONS The PSC has identified several options which address the LD Rand handicap parking regulation issues. II t. A. LDR MODIFICATIONS (LD) LD.1. Parking Requirement Modification Program LD. 1. a. Apply different parking requirements in the CSD for residential land use which must be accompanied by a change of use provision. The uniform CSD parking requirement unfairly penalizes mixed-use projects, since residential property generates about 1 1/2 spaces per one-bedroom apartment not 3.3 spaces per 1,000 s.f. LD.1. b. Apply CSD parking requirements in the OSSHAD. The parking characteristics of the OSSHAD and its overall proximity to the Downtown Area seem to warrant the less stringent CSD parking requirements. Page 30 " . LD.1._c. Remove the Expanded CaD Area from the special CaD parking requirements. The parking characteristics of the Expanded CaD Area are not like the Downtown Area, so that the more stringent citywide parking requirements based on land use seem more appropriate. LD.2. In-Lieu Fee Program Modification LD. 2. a. Deposit the in-lieu fee proceeds and interest into a Parking Trust Fund. LD. 2. b. Apply the in-lieu fee option in the OSSHAD. LD. 2. c. In the Mure, increase the in-lieu fee to $4,000 (or more) to reflect the actual cost of parking. The cost of new surface parking spaces ranges from $4,100 to $4,700. LD.2.d. Provide an in-lieu fee Mextended payment planM of $400 per space per year for 10 years. (based on $2,500 with 9.6% interest) The up-front, lump-sum fee may discourage redevelopment. LD. 2. f. Waive the in-lieu fee for small projects. The in-lieu fee can discourage small renovation projects which help revitalize the CaD. . Waive the fee for expansions less than 600 s.f. This option waives 2.0 spaces for small expansions. . Waive 2.0 parking spaces required by the in-lieu fee. This option waives 2.0 spaces for everyone regardless of expansion size. III. B. HANDICAP PARKING (HP) HP.1. Handicap Parking Program HP.1. a. Seek State/Federal interpretation of handicap requirements for parking spaces calculated on a block-by-block basis. If this calculation is permitted, public parking along Route A 1A and in municipal beach parking lots can be grouped as a single unit. HP.1. b. Seek State/Federal interpretation of handicap requirements for public and private parking spaces in the CaD calculated on a block- by-block basis. If this calculation is permitted, public and parking in the CaD could be combined with handicap spaces located on municipal lots rather than independently on many smaller private lots. Page 31 '. . HP.1.d. Develop and implement a program for handicap parking compliance for new projects and conversions relative to H P. 1. b. above. HP. 1. e. Develop and implement a program for handicap parking compliance for existing parking spaces. HP. 1. f. Redistribute the Route A 1A handicap parking spaces throughout the area rather than in one location. HP. 1. g. Seek revision of State handicap parking space size consistent with ADA. A 12' wide stall is much wider than the ADA requirement. IV. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND DECISIONS (FD) FD.1. Future Development Policy and Procedure Program Develop and implement a policy and procedure to guide in the acquisition of new parking lots (see PS. 3.) and new parking facilities in the priority order listed below: · Parking lots which address immediate parking needs. · Parking lots which address Mure parking needs. · Parking lots which can be connected to other parking lots. · Parking lots which can become the sites for future parking structures, · Future parking structures. FD.1. Decision Policy and Procedure Program Develop and implement a policy and procedure to resolve other parking issues that arise. Page 32 '. · PART THREE: MASTER PARKING PROGRAM This Master Parking Program refers to the previous options analysis and offers improvements and policy recommendations based on PSC consensus and conclusions from other reports to meet existing and future parking needs. I. PARKING MANAGEMENT TEAM There are numerous parking options and regulation modifications. as well as a lack of singular focus in parking in Delray Beach. Therefore. the PSC recommends that the City Commission create a Parking Management Team (PMT) to provide leadership on parking decisions in the City. The PMT should be charged with the planning. development. construction and operation of parking in the Study Area. The PMT is in many respects a formal version of the existing PSC. It should be comprised of 9 members: a representative from the CRA. the DDA. the City Commission, the Chamber of Commerce (Atlantic Avenue Association), the Planning & Zoning Board; and a member-at-Iarge representing from the Downtown, Beach, West Atlantic and Expanded CBD Areas. The members should be appointed by the City Commission and serve a term limit of approximately 2 years. This quasi - public/private advisory board could become an independent Parking Authority in the future. The CRA could be under contract as the lead agency in providing staff support and agenda setting to the PMT. It is the best choice of existing agencies because it is somewhat removed from city politics; it covers the entire Study Area; and it already takes a lead role in redevelopment projects, which warrant most new parking facilities. The CRA staff would also coordinate with City staff on parking issues. See Exhibit 9. Page 33 '. · II. PARKING TRUST FUND There are numerous parking financing options involving the construction of new parking facilities. Therefore, the PSC recommends that the City Commission create a Parking Trust Fund, separate from the City's general fund, exclusively for parking purposes. The City Commission should have authority over the Fund and release monies for purposes requested by the PMT. The existing $35,000 of in-lieu fees and accumulated interest should be deposited in the Fund. All parking meter revenues should be deposited in the Fund and an agreement reached on the amount of beach meter revenue returned for beach renovation. Payment for parking services already provided by the City (meter collections, enforcement, etc.) should be made from the Fund. Enforcement revenue could be deposited in the Fund and an ~greement reached on the amount returned to the City for Enforcement expenses. The CRA and City should make annual contributions to the Fund. The DDA contribution should be equated with the parking meter revenue that is 10st- by maintaining free parking in the Downtown Area. III. PARKING IMPROVEMENTS The PMT should review, prioritize and act on the traffic engineering, parking management and parking supply improvement programs contained in Part Two: Traffic Engineering (TE) TE.1 Directional Signing Program TE.2. Swinton Avenue Intersection Reconstruction TE.3. Alley Improvement Program TE.4. Atlantic Avenue Left Turn Program TE.5. Pedestrian Access across Atlantic Avenue at Veteran's Park Page 34 '. . Parking Management (PM) PM. 1. Parking Signing Program PM. 2. Pavement Marking (Striping) Program PM. 3. Municipal Lot Improvement Program PM. 4. Parking Meter Program at Public Spaces Parking Supply (PS) PS.1. Parking Supply Management Program PS.2. Public Leasing of Private Lots Program PS.3. Parking Lot Acquisition Program The PSC recognizes that some low-cost improvements might be unnecessarily delayed because the creation of a formal PMT and Parking Trust Fund will take several months. These programs can be performed by City Staff and include the following: TE.1. Directional Signing Program PM. 1. Parking Signing Program PM. 2. Pavement Marking (Striping) Program IV. REGULATION MODIFICATIONS The PSC defers any recommendations regarding LDR modifications to the PMT. The PSC did however, reach consensus on these general problems with the existing special CSD parking requirements and the in-lieu fee but defers the specifics to the PMT: · It seems to unfairly penalize residential use in the CSD. · It seems to unfairly penalize the OSSHAD with no in-lieu fee option. · It seems to be too generous in the Expanded CSD Area with uniform parking requirements that are not based on land use. · The in-lieu fee does not reflect the actual cost of parking. · The in-lieu fee as an up-front, lump-sum payment may restrict development. · The in-lieu fee might restrict small expansion projects. Page 35 '. · The first phase of the Handicap Parking Program should begin before the PMT is formed. The City should seek State! Federal interpretation of the American Disabilities Act and calculation of handicap requirements. V. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND DECISIONS The entire complexion of parking would change in Delray Beach if a parking structure is ever constructed in the Downtown Area. It is likely that user fees would be charged, parking meters installed in the entire Downtown Area, and a special assessment made to meet the operating expenses and debt service of a new structure. There are difficult and important decisions to be made even in the acquisition of new parking lots to meet the parking supply problems in the Downtown (OSSHAD) and Beach Areas. Therefore, PSC defers any recommendation about future development and policy decisions to the PMT. The PSC recommends that the PMT proceed very carefully with the construction of any parking structure. A plan for a city-owned structure in conjunction with a major downtown project should be prepared, but the full consequences of this action including paid user parking, meters and special assessment districts must be thoroughly examined. The PSC recommends that the construction of convenient surface lots should be a short-term goal of the PMT. but new lots should be acquired with a long-term perspective that the lots might become the site of a future parking structure. Page 36 '. · Exhibit 1 The Parking Study Committee (PSC) Armond Mouw, City Commissioner Mark Krall, Planning & Zoning Board Bruce Gimmis, The Trouser Shop, Atlantic Avenue Association (AM) Kevin Egan, Field Associates, CRA Kathy Shabotynski, The Chamber of Commerce Skip Matteis, Sal's Sports, DDA Staff: Chris Brown, Executive Director, CRA David Kovacs, Director Planning & Zoning, City of Delray Beach Ron Hoggard, Planner, CRA Greg Luttrell, Traffic Engineer, City of Delray Beach Exhibit 1 '. ' , . . . . ~ as . .c c Q). 0 Q .. - ID L..~·ëu <is!: C 'a >-;1;- C Ny~oo :)fJ.N.-U.- E!ii! CJ) ..: Ñ cot .. -....... ~ . -y -"< ~ ill :- I ~ r-- ~. T --f3::-- J \ ,-~ J ',-1 r [J~ .... - I -.;:.~.. ""~..... I ~~~ ~~~ R ~t~.~==a '- (] !II t"';::,.... --- ( 1'- .. fL I U r--- '""'t ~- :::J [r- ~Lr If I C h - II - ~ -:::::- r I ! \,... ~ ~ ~ ,1 ~" ~ -L ~ u---i E:3 - hi! ..J ~ OJ ~ ~~. ....... ~ -= ¡ r~~h' 18 ' Bß ~~ [B~~ (~=. J l ~! .. ~, ~ I ~,f r- J!c: I "I~ ~ :c::JE:: ~ ~ to-- ~' I 11 tE::3 CJE = u ~ II :X5) ~I §'~ I; tc:: 8.... Ë3 E3~ :.lÞ'.lSIt . ~.l " NI fI-!JL., .... - I J ... .......~ --- -- I ............. . . ~ '1 ~ ~ ~ ----- ~\ ~ Exhibit 2 '. '. . > ~" 00 0 ..1: - .. o a. 0 -c a.D :z: ..1: fA . CII '" C_ - . o G. 2 · N~3:)O :)'JN~"J~ · · ---...'-------- · j-U ""If..U'", ""l'''O:)YlfU., - ~ß CJ -. ~ E3 CJE - 00 E3 E.:::3 ': ~~:~ - -~/ - --------- IT ::J , -- \ \, Exhibit 3 " · , I I ""III~_"" ~ c: ~ ~ ¡ c ~ 0 £:) JnNIIIW ~ Exhibit 4 " , - ~-- -,;...-- IIY~ ~ - ~ - - - IW1tw ro Q) .... ~ .c z () ~ ro ~ ~ . - - "-WlJ._ ""J.~ Exhibit 5 '. · ~- ~ - ~ð Q)~ ~o «0.. c .. O~ ~ .- . ...... ~ cw w ~- Þ- ¡¡; - ..... - ! - - [lJllrn 0 rn CJ DJimooDUJ 0 [ DO \JoeL DO OJ d:J8 CJ 00 0 00 rnO .\II.,. - B r.u~I~5 ;;mL1fu~ I Exhibit 6 '. ' · ,-~.;;~: j '- ~ ctSê .~æ rn Q).!:! ....,: <-:. [jjD [TIill ~-. OE .- . ...- - c:: m ~ ctS~ It -- w ... Ii <- ... en Q) ~ 0 {!] O. rnO rn ~ D 0 1] "-I IUIION ~ '7Fr ~ ~ Exhibit 6A '. , . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J . . !C- . ~ . .\ . . \ Remove Exist. Landscape . . "- . . . Exist - ----------- . West Atlantic Avenue . . Curb ¡c- New Left-turn Lane , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . , East Atlantic Avenue ~ ~ , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 2's , -=" . . ë~ . u~u:~ . , , , , , , , ~ . . """" , , , , , , , , , (1)1 ' , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , S~ ~s ~ ~ ~9J ~ ~ ~~ ~ Optional Atlantic/ Swinton Intersection Gateway to "Historic Downtown" Exhibit 7 '. · !/ 22' Typical / 1/ 1/ / / ·Parking· Stripe, Typ. J/ Atlantic Avenue '" Curb Parking 1/ ~ Existing Striping 22' Typical / 18' 4' 4' 18' 18' 8' 18' 7 / 7 1/ / 7 J ·Parking- Stripe, Typ. Atlantic A venue ,c-- -No Parking- Stripe, Typ. ~ ~ ~.;~ Parking 1/ ~~ ............... Optional Striping Exhibit 8 '. ,. Parking Management Team/ Parking Trust Fund Organization City Commission / I' Referrals Authorizes $ " / " 1/ Parking Parking Management Trust Team Fund / " / " CRA " / DDA City Commission Revenues Expenses Planning & Zoning Board Chamber of Commercel AAA Community Members: I~Lieu Fees Studies Downtown Area Meter Revenue New Lots Beach Area Enforcement Revenue New Meters Expanded CBD Area DDA Contribution Operation West Atlantic Area C RA Contribution Lease Program City Contribution Signing Program Striping Program Debt Service Staff Support Returns to City: · Beach Renovation · Maintenance · Enforcement · Accounting , / CRA 1/ " Planning & Zoning I' / Planning, Traffic Engineering Staff Support Agenda Setting 1/ " Police Department Coordination I' / Enforcement 1/ " Public Works f' / Maintenance, Meter Collection V " Finance Department f' / Accounting, Data Processing l/ " Parking Clerk f' / Fines, Adjudication Exhibit 9 '. ' , . ~ \. , 'r I DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, C I TV t'IANAGER a EFFREY Kurn z , CITY ATTORNEY Fr~OM : JOSEPH M. SAFFORD, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: AUBURN TRACE- REQUEST TO ALTER LOAN TERMS DATE: OC:TOBER 1. tJ , 1992 Auburn T''''¿lce Li mi ted, ë.~ Florida limited partnership, -,as developed some significant fin ,''::'In c i è."\ I prob 1 t'?OH' in thl~ AubuY"n Tt-ace Proj ect and tìë:\!::; been unable to secure a permanent first mortl)age as of this dab? ThE? partnershi p, in an r~ffort to resolve this financial prob I £~m, has requested th¿~t thl~ City of Del r,:;\y Be,::H:h consi det- e:·: tend i ng its py-esent loan debt service repayment schedules from the existing 15 year ,,,;nor'l: i ~: è."\ t ion to a 50 year amortization w:i ttl a balloon Pè."\yout dt 25 years, t-equested thc":\t the City subordinate i ts n~vi sed loan to both the ·f i yost and second mcwtgage, and has asked that OLlr loan become a cash-flow loan (to be pai d only if ':- c.\ ~~h flow it'; sufficient). In <'.1ddition, the State CJf Florida . bei ng ëtskf2d to issue a low-interest second mortgage IJ<'."\yable only :if cash flow is sufficient to make the payments (SAIL loan) . ÐI~q:::C3ROUN!l In 1988, PILlb UI'" n Tt-ac£.¡) Li (fIi ted initiatE'd a c:onstt-uct ion project involving 256 units of low i nc:omE! Y"E:?ntal 110usi ng on :::::6 acres o-F land at a cost of :t-14 , 992 , 879. Sever ë:-c.l other developers rejected this project since they felt that thf::t-e \.,¡(~r(':! not enough allowable units to make this venture pro·f i tab I (=. ~\ubu.rn Tra.ce Li mi ted is a Florida domiciled li mi ted partnership consisting of the -Following: Gf::!ner-¿:\l Partner- Auburn Trace Joint Venture F' ar tic: i p .:."\n t s : Roger Boos Glen Hagqay-t y F~i c:hëH"d 13rë.~Llti gan Fr" ¿"In k McAlol1an Loretta McGhee '1ar k SemkcJ Jay FeIner Charlotte Durante John Cassr~r I y Inv(-?stor Limited F'artner- Boston Capital T a~·~ Cy-edit F Ltn d ~S/~ '. . . (2) The pl'''Dj(~ct cost :f.1.4, 992? 879 \OJas f Ur1ch'?cJ -F rom the followir1CJ SOl.lrCE~S : Fi t-~,;t Union ConstrLlction L.oan "t 5, 600 , 000 City- U.D.A.G. 1 CJc.'\n ::-::; , f:340 , 000 20ï. matchi nçl loan 768,000 Purchase Money Mortgage 720,000 Grant 200,000 Limited Partner Capital Con tr· i l':H.l'l: ion 3 , £.154· , 879 DevelopE?r Land 10,000 -..---------- T C) t 211 SOl_II~c:es of FLIllds :$14,992,879 -...------..----.- In ,'::\dd i 1: ion, the I..i mi 'I:ed Par-tnE?r still holds $1 , 1 Öo , 000 in esc r OI.oJ in Development Fees for the benE!f i t of the General P,::\r-1: 11 t'?II"S . This ~.oJOl.l1 d be n~l eë:lsed Llpon t: h E'~ securing 01: a p er- më:\n (~n t of i t-st mC>t-tgage. 6i m:i b'?rJ Pi:::l.r-'l:n er Sl'l i P Bostc)1l C¿tP it é:il Ta}·{ Credit Fund Limited Pë~rtnet-sh i p Capi t.;:\1 c(:mtr i bLlti 011- ~t4 , 83~:' , L'].90 InvE.::!stmEmt. incE'mtive-' 'j(' dCIII at- f ('Jt- doll ¿lr ta){ c:redi t'E; of ;:;'9, L~1.0, 250 OVE?r 10 yec.'\r f~ ,*. Si h i:\t- t.~ of op(.¡)r,;;\tinc;;¡ profits .¡¡. r-epm-t i I1g ·fees Prop(~rty mLlst t-emai n affordable housing -F Ot- 15 year- s If specific cOlìd it i ems not met, Limited Partnl~r-5 can dE.'mand t-eturn of 'their investment General F'ar- tner s. !;.ï.f]D.§.r~J_E:.~~ r t O.g.r- SJlU1_ (-'.Llb Llt- n Trace Jc¡i nt Venturr.¡) C.::\p:i ti:\l c: c.m t r i 1:)(.1'1: ion - "t 1 00 I nVf:?stment incentive- * Construction-related fees .¡¡- ConstructiQn and Devel cJpment Fee of $1,518,792 ,¡(- Insurance commissions 'j(- Real Estate commissions 'j(- sh¡..:w~? of operating proof i 1:S '* shé:\rr.,) of ultimate profits on sale Man aq f:'?mE.'n t FJ. or i d¿~ Affordable HOLlsing, Inc. Ff?e = 5ï. c),f (Jr-oss income or :;Oï. CI-F n€.¡)t cash flow I~S of this date, Aubur-n Tr-ace Li mi ted has not been able to 'onvert th€~ Fi t-st Union constt-Llcti on loan into a permanent irst mortgage loan primarily elLle to the financial performance of the I'::¡uburn Trace project: to date. The receipt of a f i r-st mortgë\ge loan ~oJol.ll d release $1,100,000 '. . (3) held by the':! I nvest:or Li mi te·d F'ar t.nø- for the Genet-al F' ,lr- t 11 €~r- 5 (DE-:?v(~l opli1!:-mt Fef:?). Undf2t- an ¿:'Igt-E~('",mr",nt between thE~ GenE't- aI P ¿~.t- t n ('",t- and t:.he I 11V~?stOI'- Limited F"lr·tnf::~r , nE?i tl'l~"?r t:.hE~ Gellet-al Pat-tller's nor th€~ In VE'S t: CJt- U. mi t.ed F'at-t net- So; art'" liablE' -F or thE: first if101'- t (J ,'::\~1 e:~ o·f A l.', I:! Llr n Tr-¿"¡'cf-'? How~,v~?r , tl1'2 Gl~1l E::r- a.I P "'l.r- t n f-:?t- s are n?CLÜ t-ed t.o establish ¿:In "Opr.wating De-r i c it Reserve" o-F $300,000 to cover op¡;::-rat i nq e;.(pf:?n:3E::-s that (~;.(c:eed operating income and other CCJ~~ts . If -Funds arc'? Ilot av¿Ü]' ¿;Ib 1 e in ·the "Oper-atinq D(~f i c i t Re~::;erve" , l:ht:? OE!net'-al P at- t n (;?t- s "'1.re 1'- ¡;:", C L.l :i. I'" ;;:", d (f c!r 120 month~;; following completion) to adV¿\r1CE' ·f Ulld!;; t:o meet (:Jp et- <~\ till 9 (=:.( p E~n SE?S ~..¡l1i ch 12:-:C:E~ed opel~atilì(] incDme. If funds ¿:IY'€':) not élvail¿1l'Jle in this t-'E'?set-Ve, the fUlld!:; avai 1 <,:¡.tJ 1 E? {r-om the Li mi b::?d F'artnl~rs $1,100,000 b(·Ü nq hf!~1. d for the General F'¿u-tners (upon t-ecei pt o-F the -First mOI~t!Jage ) can bE' uti 1. i ~~ ed . Th~"? loans -From the City of Del t-ay Beach ¿u-e CLlrt-entl y ~;trLlctLlr!?d over 2\. 15 year payoLl"t ~:¡chedLll e and <::~rE? 5ubord:i. nate eml y to the ~:.5 , 600 , 000 construction I o¿\n . Auburn Tr(~ce Joi nt V!:?ntl.lre i ~. asking the City to consider . :::> I'-esb-Llctur i ng this loan to ¿I 50 year amortization with a balloon paymE-?nt at 25 years or an al·tt:rïìa't:i ve thi:3.t wt"Jl.lI d (Jenf?t- ¿It f..? a similë:lr annLlal debt service. This is being 5t"JLlg h t to assist I!.)Llb 1.lF" Il Trace ill secLlr-ing a per-manen'l: first mortgage loan ë:ind a State second mortgage SAIL 1. oan . Fi ni:3.nci 21.1 Condition of A\.\burn Trace In a review of the financial statements -fot- AubLlrn Tt- ace Li mi tE~d fcw period fo.?nding Decemb!?r 31, 1991, thl: ·following obset-vati ons I-Jet- e mad e: * Au b L.lt- n Trë.ice t-ecE)i ved ¿in unquëÜ if i ed opinion -¡:t-om t.he aLldi ti ng firm Q·F D(:?l oi tte ~I. TOl.lcl1e * Short-term payables e:<ceed cash availability .j(. Net I OS!:> from ren'tal opet-ations: 1990- $1,036,006 1991-- $1 , 395 , 953 .Eo Interest cost is almost 52% of total t-eVenLle .K- AdministraticJIì cost is 31% of tDtal r(=VE-?flUe .iI!. DE~pn.?C i ¿It ion is 48i~ of total t- t~VE?n Lle * No contt- i bLlt i On!5 from GeneY-~:.'Il F' .'=11'" t n f.·::-Y· for- c)p!:".!rati ng 1 os~:¡ f:?i thcÖ'r in 1990 or 1991 .K- G(?n(~r~Ú Pdr-tn¡;~r EqLlity- ($846,064) I L"S~:; position * Li rni tt'?d F'at-tnc;!r EqLlity- loss of :fl ,072,855 in 1991 ¿II ant? * Assets valued at CCJst ObsE:!rvat. i ón5 ¿:ind Rec ommen d_0 t i_QD s (1) Thf.:? aud it i nq firm of Deloitte & Touche i s!5ued an unqu",'!l i -F i f:~d opinion lo'Ji tr-I t-eg¿~rd to ÞILlb Ut- n Trace ¡;:",ven .. . . (4) '1:: I', OUï;¡ h the proj i£:?Ct , in E?SSenCE? , h ¿¡ ~'5 no ca~;¡h , is delinquent in P¿{ Yi11(~n t. s of debt S€,?t- vi c: ('~ to thf2 City, :i.n d f.~b t ~s oWE~cI top ~)r'\: n €-?t-· s 1 \'" a ~5 1"1,::'ld s:i. qni·f i cant 1 c)~:;S0?~:; -FrDiT1 01::)E'rat i on~¡ each y e ¿¡ t- o-F thpi t- E,,:,( i !:-:;tf?nce, ¡....h€?rf.~ i nti:?r-('~~¡t ¿mcl ch?pn:?c i <",t i DI1 CC1~:.;t S E!:'( cC:?f:?d 100ï. (Jf their total t- ev!,?n ues 1 E?avi n9 no t-E?V(,?nues ¿¡vai 1 abl e fot- othet- opf:?r-.at:inq costs, ¡....1-1 er e the Gent;~r~.ü F'¿\rtner f:'~quity is in a 1 OS~5 position, ¡..¡here th(~ Li mi t(?d Partner E';'quity lost over- $1,072, E355 in 1991 alon¡;·?, and when:? tht? entity has yet to achieve ¿;\ f i I-~=>t mortgaç.le loan committment, and when= tht-'? ë1ssets are substantially over- valu(,o"?d. Rf-.?c:ommendati on: ThE":! -Firm of Deloitte ~~ Touche shoul d present thei t- ease ¡'JS to why this entity r-eceived é."'In unqual i·f i ed opinion õ:\ n cI ¡..,hy thf.-?y did not tak('~ thf:'..' position qW?st ion i ng the f \.\t Llr t~ "1)\.:1i nl;-j CO\1c(~r'lì " C CJ\1 c: ep·t of t:h i s entity since the construction mot-tgag(~ would bE' due in aune, 1992 and a default COI.l1 d t r- i 9 I;] E'~r-' a pa.ybac k of limited pc")r-tner i nvestmf.~nt and due tel the general -F i n':lnci ëÚ condition p r- f!~5*,?n teeJ above. (2 ) The partnersl-, i p t1as had operc~t i ng 1 OSSf~~5 each year since cCJmp 1 et ion of t:he :wojr=?ct and \10 capital contributions 11¿{Ve bE?en made by thf!~ G€~net-al F'artnet-s to establish the Opt".?rc~ti Ilg De-F i c it Reservf.~ as 5t i pul ab?d in the Limited Partnership-General Pë:It-tnersh i p ~ìoint Venture agreement. F~E?(:C)mmend~:\ti on: Th(;:. Gen E?r- <:1 1 F'at-tnersh i p (Aub L\I- n Trace aoint 'v'entLlre) shc)ul d prc)vi de c.3.p i t.",l contI'" i bLlt i ems to o·f f se'l: thl:'~ operë:\ti ng clef i ci ts in accm-dance wi th the terms of their '::Ig r E!(·?m~~n t . ThE?se funds are è\vé.Ülable in thf-2 resel~ve being held by the Limited Partner to t.he e:·( t en t. of the ~~~ 1 , 100,000. Additional funds should be dt"?posi ted by the GenE?ral Pëlrtners to make up the difference between the i::\(: t u,::\1 operatillg d(·?f i c its and the reser-ve. (3 ) The rnanëlgemellt firm of Florida Affordable Housing, Inc. ( managc~(fH.:mt fino currently opet-a'!: i ng th i~:¡ pro.h:"?ct) contends that the General and Li mi t€~d Partners are not pI·?rSoni:Ü 1 y <and seVf:?r a 11 y 1 :i. ab 1 ¡;~ for the fir-st rnortqage to include i Ilt.et-est costs. FÜ:?coHHnf2I'1da'l: ion: Thf.~ par-tn(öors¡h i p ~;¡hoL\l d seek proff2s~5i anal advice E'i ther f r" om thf2i I'" i ndl,~p€-?ndent audit 'firm or- thG~i r 1 eg<::\l aclvi sOt-~:; ¿~~'5 to wh et~, er this clause in t.h€';\ agreement is i:~pp 1 i cab 1 E? to the cOllstr"uct ion 1 oan as WI,? 11 as thf:"? fir~5t mortgage and \l-Jhether t.his clause e}( tends to i nten:?st Oil this 1 C) é."H1 since i ntG~rf=st is an oper-ati ng e~'{pense and i c' handled differently from an ë~CCOL\nt i ng _a v:i (·?wpoi nt than the principal portion t.ìf tile loan. This prof e~5si onal ¿ldvi c:e should determi nr~ the d (~f i nit i on of '. . (5) "operatinÇJ de·f :i. ci t" since thf.?n,? app':~ars;;, to be a cI i -f·f F:.'renCE' of opinion ë:\S to I'Jhat this terifl includes. ('t) TI'H~ Vi::\l ue o'F the buildings :i !:; carl'" i ~?d i.."It cost on thl'? bal ance ~3hE?et ¿It $14,288,Bbb wherE~a~5 the assessed value P E?t- t.he C(Jl.ln t y t.'::.'\N t"'!:'~C:Drds :is ~t8 , 600 , 000 ,:\nd t. 1-1 f? pob:mtial sales VëÜ ue ( p £'Jr Floricl¿l Afforclable HOLlsing, I nc.:. ) :is ami::\)-: i rn Lln1 of $7,000,000 at 'f ot- ec 1 DSLW E~. ThE? presEmt 1 i ë\b i 1 i 'l: i es ë:.1.re ~H 2,595,470. The E.':,:chançJe of the c Oll~;; t I'" l.lC t ion 1 ()~:.\.n of :$5,600,000 (pr"imc:~ plus 1. . :'jï. ) which is payable monthly fOI~ ¿.1. first IHot-tgage 1 o¿'.n of ~~::3 , 600 ,000 ( 9 "~S% 25 YE~ar's ) and a, 5 t ,:\ t I':~ S ¿Ü 1 LOii:\n for ~~:2, 000 , 000 (3.0ï. 15 y(~ars¡) lAd. 1 1 cll?f i ni t.el y ¿:¡ssi s.t in reducing pt"e~5€~nt clE~bt ~5erv:i ce ], (;:·~vel ~5 , but ] ,-. .:::! ins.;ufficient t.o ë:\llow t.h(·~ pë;¡rtnE'Jt-sh i p to genet-ate pl"ofit~~ .:me:! wIJuld t'-E~qui r-E'~ t.he City tQ chanq~: its present 15 yeat- loans; t.o 50 yeë:!t- tjL.lt-é~ti on. AdcH t i onë:ìJ. I y, the State Sëd. 1 III r.Hl and thf~ ccmsor-t i LlIn loan pn:~sentl y ~:50ught \'JO ul cI requJ. t-e the City t:o L1E~ paid on its debt only if ci::lsh f 1 c)W~5 ¿,\r E~ G:\dequatf:!. It appe<:.\t-s that the cost o·f thl? project on a per unit basis was not \.¡at-ranted \.¡hf~n compare~rJ \'Ji th thf? pc-!r unit i nC<J!TI¡;? potent i al and this basic ~)t- ob 1 I?m cannot be t-E'~;ol vecl simply \.¡ith improved debt sf:~rvi ce schE~dul es. F'E.'commendat :i. on: The City nE'eds to eVéÜ uate th(~ P,uburn Tract:;'> project sti"tus, the J(:Jtent J. al ·f 01'"' losses or" reduced p",~yments and thE'J impact of these on our housing rehabilitation pt-ogrê:\01 a'- Ol.lt], i ned in the Compr-ehf:?nsi ve Plan, ancl to . :::> detE?rmi ne oLlr f i n¿Ü cQmmittments to the financial cCiIlcl it ion and t"'(:?c c)mmend ",'It :i ons; o·f 0¡uburr1 Trace. F' t- i ot- to this complete evaluation, the City should not n,?l i nqui sh its 1 ~~çjal rights, subordinate position, .:;.nd i t€; debt service repayment provisions. Until this I:?V,:Ü uati on is completed, the Gener-al Partners should cletE?,,"mi ne if their cash cont.ributions -For- operating def i C i ts wCILll d improve the financial viability of this F't-pject t.o the point that. ë:\ -First mortçJage loan could be n'.'."?cei v(~d withoLlt further d€Õ>9,,-adat:i. on of th~: City'~5 posi t.i em. (5 ) ThE? City o-F Del t-ay BE~ach has e:·: tt~ndt."?d their loan t-t~pr~yment~3 at t.he rE'~qLI(·:?st of {'rub L.ll'O n Tr",~ce 'Few :$:5:1. ,200 ë7lnd ~~::25 , 000. I~¡;?cornmendati on: Therr~ shoul d have been no e:.:tension 0;: loan t-epayments since the General Par·tners are t"'!:!<;;.ponsi b 1 e for cash flow d e-F i c it. s. The payment of these e:.:tensions should be mi:\de i mmE?di atel y with interest charges accr-ui ng ·from the time the original payments \.¡er e d LIe. ,. . (6) This prc.)j ec:t. has dc:~velQPE?d SCJm(i~ set- i ou S financial pt-üb 1 ems <::Ind it "'Ü 11 t,,:lke the coopet- at ion o-F all pat-ties to the aq t-l'?€'?IT1€,?n t s to c: C)j11 f:? togethl-::r- to r-esr,')l ve the~51-:: pt-OIJ 1 (;~iI1S. Thi~:i f i r1¿:,r1C i al condition is c:ontinuinl] to cI (,~t: f:~t- i CJr i:' t e and t.ime j c- . -, of the:? E:'s!::¡ence i::~t this point. It appE::!i:ir's that t,h€'~ City hé\S tht-E:?e (3 ) al t.E~rnë:lt:i. ves ¿It this point: (1.) Mëd. ntai n c w- too. E' n t debt t-equi t-ements (2) Ag t'·,=?I?:.~ to 50 year amort i ~': at ion, "Jr.'.- year'· b¿d.loon, ,:::~nd t.h('~ .Iõ__} r'equisite ~:;ubQt-d i n¿~t:. ion and cash flow c: l,:¡uSE?s (3) Agree to 50 year amortization, '";tG" yt~at· tJi:'ü 1 (Jon, i:.'l.nd a ~.,.J ~5uborcJ:i. flat ion to t.he permanent first mort.gage and the t;econd mortgage only with no chi::\ngE? to cash flo\..¡ basis wit/ï ~t 1 , 1. 00,000 in development f€'~es bei ng pl¿::¡c(·?d in 'UH2 projE!ct 1'10'1: Ç]cJi n9 t.o the Gf.·?f1E?t'·al Partner-s If the City chose alternative (1) , the project would most assl..lrecll y f i::\l I into foreclosure which \,,¡cH.l1 d O1€.:!ë\n that the Gener-al F'ëwtners would bf.~ t-equi red to c: u r' e th i~:; situation ~,¡ith:in 60 days or' 'l:hE~Y \..¡oul rj bf2 requi red to t-,:?'l:urn the L ilid. t eel Par-tnE~r~:¡h i p i nvestm('''!nt. t') -F ~t-3 , 854 , 879 , would not y-ecei Vf!~ th€~i t- developm€·:mt fee of $1 , 100 , 000 ¿Ind '.....,ould have , () C LIt- E.~ th(.;!i r c!(.;!f i ci t equity position. The proJ(;!r't y WOLII d J f~ di·Hicult to 51::1 I 1J~~c,':.'\use it is n i:1 t prCJfitat:Jl(;~ and could therefClt-f.'~ 0111 y be sold at sLlbstant iëd 1 Y t-educed values ~..¡hich COl.Il d mean th':3.t the City ~..¡oul d not r-ec:clver its loall Vé.Ü LIes ¿It all or, in th(~ be~~t case, would cml y partially recover DLlr loan values. The propet-ty \..¡ o!_II d no longer havf::? affor-dable-housing st.atus which could tt-i gger the refLtndi ng of thf.? LJDAG 1 clan. The City WQuld not ~..¡ant to take over- the proj€':!ct in this case since we ftmLll d be in the same financial ccmdi ti on as ·the pn:'?sent o~..¡ner and th(;~ deficits ~'oul d have to be më\de up f t-om property ta}{(-?s. \.1Je are not in the rentë.Ü busi nf.?SS and the r3ssoci ated probl f?mS \'i th this project could not be t-esol ved simply with a City takeovet- . This <Ü ternati ve appears to have ri:.\ther- severe consequences -For thl~ General Partners and the City, vÚ th no i mp¿.¡ct upon tilE:.' Li mi tf?d Pi::\rtners. Pd. t.€·?rn,,~ti ve (2 ) would mean that the General F'artnet- could pl~c)ceed ~..¡:i th the State SAIL loan and subsequently '1:0 the s.~eCLlt- i ng C)f ¿:\ permanent first fHortgëige. The City debt would b €'! i;! wb:?f1 d E~ d to thf? poi ITt tl-\,,~t our Comprehensive Plan HDLI!:5i ng R(,~hë:\bi 1 i tat ion El €-?ment would b€'~ SLlbstc:\nt.i all y t-educecJ and, ·f or- all practical pLtrpo!:íes, non-eN i stf?nt. Df2bt payrnl:?n·ts ¡..¡ou1 d depend on the project having posi t i Vt'-? Cè'jsh flQWS which is questiQnablf:~. The $1,100,000 presently held in esc,.-o\..¡ by I.. he Limited P,,:\rtner WOLII d be reI eëiS(.;!d ancl over ~:¡;700 , 000 is 1 i::\nn;:.~d to be put into the pr·oj f~Ct ¡..¡i 'l:h the r&?mai nder qoing t.o the General F'ar-tnE.'rs. This 21.1 t.('~rnat i ve appears to caLise d tCJtal de(;}r"¿\dati on o·f the City's position i:J,nd appe¿u-s to ,. . . . (7) have a minimal impact upon both the Limited Partners and General Partners. Alternative (3) would improve upon (2) i 11 that our debt service would be required and not simply dependent upon a positive cash flow, it would provide that $1,100,000 that was intended to go to the General Partners would be required to go into the Project and be used {or appropriate reserves and financial position, yet the City position would still be substantially compromised from C)LI~- current position. The project would remain intact as affordable housing and we would be paid over 25 years instead of 15. The General Partners would be required to give up their Development Fee. The Limited Partner would be unaffected. These alternatives will be discussed at the upcoming workshop meeting with the City Commission on October 20th. . ~ ·. . ÄUI3LJRf'.J .TRAC:E APART[v\fNTS October 16, 1992 Mayor Thomas Lynch Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner William Andrews Commissioner Armond Mouw Commissioner David Randolph City of Delray Beach 100 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Gentlemen: I am writing to request your assistance with respect to revisions in the City of Delray Beach loan documents regarding Auburn Trace, which revisions are needed to make the project financially viable. To date Auburn Trace has not been a financial success, and has not been as successful as originally contemplated, for the following reasons: 1. Our original cost budget was exceeded because the Community Appearance Board required some improvements, we voluntarily elected some improvements (doubled the size of the child care center, added a fountain and pond to remove rust from well water for irrigation, etc.) and there were some unforeseen site problems; 2. Miscalculation as to the degree of difficulty of developing and operating an apartment community in the middle of a high crime, slum neighborhood, immediately adjacent to a public housing project; 3. The severe recession which has impacted greatly on the low income and very low income service sector workers who reside at Auburn Trace; 4. Significant, unforeseen increases in utility costs and real estate taxes; and 5. We miscalculated with respect to the ability of low income families, who are earning a bit too much to be entitled to Title 20 child care assistance, to pay even the below market rates that our child care operator needed to break even, 621 Auhurn Circle West Dclray Reach, FL 11444 DRB-1016.DOC/Page 1 407241-6KC!lÎ 407-261-4LJ\1 F,AX ,. , so we had to reduce the rent charged to the child care operator, and assist our residents financially in paying for child care, summer camp and after school care. From the beginning it was our plan to provide more than a stark, bare bones, barracks-like apartment project, and to provide a decent quality of life and holistic programs for low income families otherwise mired in a drug infested, dangerous, debilitating neighborhood. Our reasons for developing Auburn Trace into the great community that it has become are both moral and selfless, and also selfish and practical in that we do not believe a bare bones apartment project built in this locale would survive for long. If we reduced the operating expenses of Auburn Trace to the level of an apartment development in a conventional apartment neighborhood, the property and quality of the residents would very quickly deteriorate to the point where the only residents left living there would not be inclined to pay the rent. This area is very management intensive and in great need of the positive programs we have instituted at Auburn Trace. Because of the neighborhood in which Auburn Trace is located, we need higher quality office staff and security staff than we would if we were in a conventional apartment neighborhood. Keeping out drug traffickers, burglars, vandals, etc. in this high crime neighborhood requires security, and better security personnel than normal. Providing the holistic programs and services which the City, HUD and the Florida Housing Finance Agency encourage requires more office staff than normal to oversee those programs and services. As a reminder, let me set forth those programs and services requiring staff time: · Working with our Child Care Center which is open 18 hours per day, six days per week. · An after school latchkey tutoring program including computer training on five computers and printers. · A Girl Scout program operated in our Clubhouse. · Summer camp and programs all day long on weekdays when children are off from school. · Auburn Trace basketball team as well as Auburn Trace cheerleading teams. · Four Auburn Trace competitive swimming teams. · The Auburn Trace "Dodgers" Little League baseball team. · A free daily meal program, free daily transportation and an activities director for low income seniors provided by Palm Beach County at Auburn Trace, formerly hosted by Carver Estates. · Computer training and other educational programs for adults. · Crime Watch programs. · CPR training. · "Face to Face With Our Local Government" program. · Community Pride activities. · Aerobics classes. DRB-I016.DOC/Page 2 .. "'1' , . Overseeing 24-hour security at the Gatehouse entrance to this enclosed community plus a roving security guard 11 hours per day. . Maintaining and programming the usage of basketball courts, a tennis court, a volleyball court, an adult swimming pool, tot pool, 10 totl1ot playgrounds, 14 picnic/barbecue areas, a fully-equipped fitness center and a car care center. We believe that it was the intent of the City of Delray Beach in sponsoring Auburn Trace to assist in the amelioration of inadequate housing conditions, and the creation of a viable neighborhood which would contribute to the overall economic vitality and enhance the quality of life of the lower income residents of Delray Beach; to provide safe, happy quality living conditions for Delray Beach's low income families and children. Auburn Trace is consistent with the intent of the City's staff and Commission. This was recognized by the National Association of Home Builders which recently presented Auburn Trace with an award designating it as "The Finest Multi-Family Affordable Housing Community in the Country". In order to continue operating this great community we need the following: 1. A substantial cash infusion to cover the aforementioned unforeseen start-up operating losses and establish reasonable cash reserves for the future; and 2. Permanent first mortgage financing in the amount of $5,600,000 to payoff the existing construction loan from First Union Bank which comes due on June 29, 1993. When we receive the replacement permanent first mortgage, our limited partner investors are required to contribute $1,100,000 to our partnership which was originally supposed to be our profit for the substantial effort and risk involved in this Auburn Trace undertaking. Because of the unforeseen costs set forth in the beginning of this letter, it now appears that the general partner investors will be fortunate to æceive a sufficient amount from that $1, 100,000 to cover the 1990 income taxes they had to pay on that amount. Most of that $1,100,000 will be needed to fund a real estate tax escrow account, repair and replacement reserve, net operating deficit reserve, security deposit escrow account, mortgage loan points and closing costs and any shortfall in the principal amount of the replacement first mortgage. Our request, in simplified terms, is to increase the term of the City's loans from 15 years to 25 years, and to utilize a 50-year amortization during those 25 years. The City would receive substantially more during the next three years than under the present schedule, and less during the following 22 years. A comparison of amounts received by the City over the next seven years under the two scenarios is as follows: DRB-1016.DOC/Page 3 .. . Payments Additional Proposed Scheduled Proposed Year Payments Now Payments 1993 $182,681 $76,200 = $106,481 1994 182,681 76,200 = 106,481 1995 182,681 151,200 = 31 ,481 1996 182,681 201,200 = -18,519 1997 182,681 238,234 = -55,553 1998 182,681 269,717 = -87,036 1999 182.681 269.717 = -87 .036 Totals $1,278,767 $1,282,468 = $-3,701 Prospective permanent mortgage lenders are looking at the present loan terms on the three City loans and concluding that there will not be sufficient net operating income from the project to cover present debt service in years 1997 and beyond, and advising us that they will not extend permanent financing unless the City's payment requirements are spread out somewhat. We believe that the proposed new payment schedule and loan revisions are the reasonable and realistic alternatives at this time. From the standpoint of the City of Delray Beach, the City receives substantial additional payments during the next three years over what they would otherwise receive, and they would have a loan structured so as to be able to make the payments called for, which is presently not the case. You would be receiving monthly payments instead of annual payments which should help everyone's budgeting process. We believe that our proposal is a favorable one for the City, and will provide Auburn Trace with the permanent financing it needs. We look forward to meeting with you tomorrow evening at your scheduled workshop. Thank you for your consideration. Kindest personal regards, ;Z~er ~~ cc: David Harden, City Manager Joseph Safford, Finance Director Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney DRB-I016.DOClPage 4 · ~ MEMORANDUM ~ ~9é)- çÞl II (:p:- TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER~ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 11 tu53 - MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1992 APPLICATIONS FOR CITY COMMISSION VACANCY DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1992 Pursuant to direction received on August 18, 1992, notice of the City Commission vacancy created by Commissioner Andrews' resignation was advertised and solicitations of interest requested. As of 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 15, 1992 (the previously established cut-off date), a total of fifteen (15) applications were received from the individuals listed below. The letters of interest and resumes are attached for your review; the names are listed alphabetically: Daniel H. Carter Judith A. Colvard Ken Ellingsworth 1. Paul Friedman Anne M. Gannon Randee J. Golder Thomas S. Haenlon Leonard B. Mitchell Rosalind L. Murray Harry T. Reagan Kenneth S. Rubin David W. Schmidt Jeanette Slavin Nicholas Tullo (*not a registered voter in the City) Carolyn Zimmerman (*not a registered voter in the City) Attached is a copy of the City Attorney's August 12, 1992, memorandum on this subject. Please refer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the first page for his suggestions as to the appointment of a successor. The Commission's upcoming meeting schedule is as follows: October 27, 1992 - Regular Meeting November 3, 1992 - Workshop Meeting November 17, 1992 - Regular Meeting (rescheduled from 11/10/92) Commission direction is requested for the establishment of a schedule to fill the unexpired term of Commissioner Andrews. '. · ¡.~ L~Ó(\ ~~rz: Hµ1j --- [ITY DF DELRAY BEA[H CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ':' :;\\' ,:;1 ,\\T:--:[:1: . DiTIC\'( BL\CH, FLORIDA 3:\';,14 ¡.\ l >; I \1 ¡ LEt07'2 70 -~ ~5.;:' Writer's Direct Line (407) 243-7092 MEMORANDUM Date: August 12, 1992 /' ,/ ;/; To: City Commission J /' From: Jeffrey S. Kurtz, City Attorney ~~ Subject: Filling the Unexpired Term of Commissioner Andrews It is my understanding that Commissioner Andrews has resigned effective November 1, 1992 leaving the Commission with the responsibility to fill the remainder of his term, which expires the last Thursday of March, 1993. The process for filling a Commission vacancy is set forth in Section 3.06(c) of the City Charter (copy attached). ¡ The re~ining members of the City Commission are to select a person tô-fill the vacancy within two regular meetings of the vacancy taking place. In this case, that would be by November 24, 1992. In the event the Commission did not agree on a selection by the close of the meeting on November 24, a special election would have to be called and held within 60 days to fill the vacancy. Therefore, it would be my suggestion that the appointment of a successor be agendaed for November 10, or if the Commission desires, a special meeting prior to that date. While not explicitly, within the language of the Charter, I think it is implicit that the selection not be made until after November 1. My rationale for that opinion is that there is no vacancy prior to that date, and the Charter does explicitly contemplate that the remaining members of the Commission make the decision. However, if the Commission desired, it would be appropriate to have .::i workshop or regular meetiI"g prior to the vacancy occurring at which time potential candidates for the vacancy would be interviewed by the Commission. Should the Commission desire, it may advertise the opening and ask for solicitations of interest to fill the position within a specified time frame. I wish to reiterate, however, that nothing other than the time for making the decision, that being '. .:_-___. __O<~._'..-..-,_.' __"' " -- City Commission August 12, 1992 Page 2 between November 1st and the 24th, and that the remaining ~ Commissioners making the decision is mandatory. Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. JSK:sh cc: David Harden, city Manager Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk expire.jsk ~ '. 5 DELRAY BEACH CHARTER --- Sect ion 3.06 -~ ordinance or laws of said city, and city manager, and neither the comm i ss i on before entering upon the duties of their nor its members shall give orders to any respective offices, they shall each take such officer or employee, either publicly and subscribe to the following oath: or privately. Nothing in the foregoing is to be cons tn.:ed to prohibit individual "I do solemnly swear (or a f firm) that m ern ~e r s of the commission from closely I will support, protect and defend the scrutinizing by questions and personàl Constitution and Government of the United obse rva t ions, all aspects of ci ty - S ta tes , and the state of Florida, and of government operations so as to obtain the City of Delray Beach; that I ar;I duly indepenàent information to assist the qualified to hold office under the laws members in formulation of sound policies of the State of Florida, the charter a~d to be considered by the commission. It laws of the City of Delray Beach, and is the expres:'3 intent of this charter, that I will well and faithfully perform however, that recommenda t ions for the duties of commissioner of the city impr ovemen t in city government operations upon which I am about to enter, so help by individual commissioners be made to me God. " and through the city manager, so that the (Ord. 4-76, passed 2-3-76, App. at Ref., city manager may coordinate efforts of 2-2-76; Am. Ord. 83-83, passed 11-22-83) all city departments to achieve the greatest possible savings through the Section 3.04. MAYOR, VICE-MAYOR, AND mos t efficient and sound means available. DEPUTY VICE-MAYOR; PO~~R AND DUTIES. (c) Holding of other off ice. No The mayor shall preside at meetings former elected city official shall hold of the commission, shall be recognized as any compensated appointive city office or head of city government for all employment un t i 1 one year after the ceremonial purposes, by the governor for expiration of the term for which he was purposes of military law, for service of e;'ected, unless such appointment or process, execution of contracts, deeds employment be specifically ratified by and other documents, as the city official the a f firm a t i ve vote of the commission. ! designated to represent the city in all (Ord. 4-76, passed 2-23-76, App. at Ref., agreements with other governmental 2-2-76; Am. Ord. 11-83, passed 1-25-83, enti ties or certifications to other ,~?p. at Ref., 3-1-83) C) governmental entities, but shall have no administrative duties except as required Section 3.06. VACANCIES; FORFE ITURE OF to carry out the responsibilities OFFICE; FILLING OF VACANCIES. herein. The mayor, vice-mayor, and ¡, deputy. vice-mayor shall each have voice (a) Vacancies. The office of a : and a ~ in the proceedings of cammissioner including the mayor shall commission, but no veto power. In the become 'vacan t upon his death, absence or disability of the mayor, or resignation, removal fran office in any I should the vice-mayor refuse to perform i:1anner authorized by law, or forfeiture the duties imposed on him by law, the of his office, such forfei ture to be deputy vice-mayor shall have all the èeclared by the remaining members of the powers, duties and prerogatives of the commission. vi ce-mayor. (Ord. 4-76, passed 2-23-76, App. at Ref., (b) Forfeiture of off ice. A 2-2-76; Am. Ord. 10-83, passed 1-25-83, cornro i 55 i on2r including the mayor shall App. at Ref., 3-l-83) forfeit his office if he: Sec tion 3.05. PROHIB IT! ONS. (1 ) Lac ks at any time during his term of office any qualification for the (a) Appointments and remova Is. office prescribed by this charter or by Neither the commission nor any of its ~a¡,...· , or members shall in any manner dictate the, appointment or removal of any city (2) violates any standard of conduct administrative officers or employees whan or code of ethics established by law for the city manager or any of his ?ublic officials, such violation to be subordinates are empowered to appoint. èeter:nined by remaining members of the but the commission or any of its members corr:ITl i s s i on , or may express their vi ews and fully and freely discuss with the city manager (J) fails to attend four (4 ) anything pertaining to appoi nbT.ent 2:1Ò :::r:sec~:ive regular commission meetings removal of such officers anè E-:Tiployees. '--=~ ..'.-~ss ,2xcused for good ca US e . (b) Interference with (0 ) In the event a VaC3;)cy occurs i:1 administration. Except Eor ':. >(~ ~l1r-?ose ::.e membership of the comm i 55 i on for any of inquiries and investig,J.tirJn:::; , the :'2aso~ I,.¡:tat:;oever, other than a vacancy commission or its members s t-; J ~: c'eal '...; it:: - , t:-:e office of the mayor, or exce t at city officers and employees ,..,;r-:c, ::::~ ':: '~: ~::- C 1 as e 0 f a ::egular ter:T. I it sha 1 be subject to the direction anè 3cDe!.""·v~ision ::-,'2 duty of the remaining members 0 the of the city manager solely t:--:rollsh the C8i\1ffi i .3 S i on , i ncluà ing the mayor, by a Section 3.07 DELRAY BEACH CHARTER __ 6 majority vote, to appoint a qualified calenòar days after appointment. . person to fill the vacancy. The (Ord. 4-76, passed 2-23-76, App. at Ref., ¡ appointed member shall serve until the 2-2-76; Am. Ord. 10-83, passed 1-25-83, last Thursday in March followi~g the next App. at Ref. 3-1-83; Am Ord. 84-83, regular city election, or until the last passeè 11-22-83) Friday in March should the last Thursday fall on a legal holiday. In the event Section 3.07. PROCEDURE. the term of office to which such person was appointed does not expire as of the (a) Meetings. The commission shall last Thursday in March following the next meet regularly at least twice in every regular city election, or until the last month at such times and places as the Friday in March should the last Thursday commission may prescribe by rule. fall on a legal holiday, and the vacancy Special meetings may be held on the call occurs at least sixty (60) or more of the mayor or of a majority of the calendar days preceding the date of the members and, whenever practicable, upon regular city election, then the appointed no less than twelve (12) hours' notice to member filling the vacancy shall serve each member anò the public. until the last Thursday in March following the next regular city election, (b) Rules. The commission shall or until the last Friday in March should determine its own rules and order of the last Thursday fall on a legal business. holiday, and the remainder of the unexpired term shall be filled by (c) Voting. Voting, on ordinances, election at the next regular city resolutions anà motions, shall be by roll election in the manner provided in call anò shall be recorded in the Article V of this charter. If a majority journal. A majority of the commission of said remaining members are unable to shall constitute a quorum; but a smaller agree upon the appointment of a number may adjourn from time to time and < commissioner to fill said vacancy after may compel the attendance of absent ì two (2) regular meetings have been held, members in the manner and subject to the I then the commission shall call a special penalties prescribed by the rules of the election for that purpose, to be held commission. No action of the commission within sixty (60) calendar days following except as otherwise provided in section the said second regular meeting. 3.06, shall be valid or binding unless adopteè by the affirmative vote of three (,- (d) The office of mayor shall become (3) commissioners. vacant for any reason that the office of (Ord. 4-76, passed 2-23-76, App. at Ref., I any other commissioner may become vacant, 2-2-76) " and a vacan~~ the office of mayor shall also be"-med a vacancy in the Section 3.08. -PLANNING AND ZONING BoARD ¡commission. If a vacancy occurs in the AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. office of mayor for any reason whatsoever, the vice-mayor shall (a) The commission shall in the j automatically succeed to the' office of interes t of the publ ic health. safety, i mayor and shall serve as mayor until {:he order; convenience 'and general welfare last Thursday in March following the next create by ordi:1ance a planning and zoning regular city election, or until the last board to make recommendations to the ¡Friday in March should the last Thursday commission. fall on a legal holiday. The commissioner so serving as mayor by (b) The commission shall create a succession shall then complete the boarè af adjustment whose decisions may remainder of his commission term if any be appealed pursuant to general law. part of such term remains unexpired. The (Ord. ~-76, passed 2-23-76, App. at Ref. succession to the office of mayor by the 2-2-76: vice-mayor shall create a vacancy in the commission which shall be filled in the Section 3.09. ALIENATION OF PUBLIC manner set forth in section 3.06(c), BEACHES. shall be for the entire unexpired portion of the mayor' s term of office. ':'::e commission shall not in any manne: ¿lie:1ate from the public, the (e) Extraordinary vacancies. In the publi~ 'Jeac'> , lying between the north and event that all members of the commission sout:: :ounèaries of Section 16, Townshio are removed by death, disability, 46 :::c;~=":, !'.anse 43 East, or ¿my part ' resignation, or forfeiture of office, tte the:ec;:, of t~e City ot Delray Beach, governor shall appoint an interim :lo:~c~. commission, including a mayor, with full (Orè, ~-:6, passed 2-23-76, App. at !'.ef., commission powers that shall then call a 2-2--~ special election as provided under this charter not more than forty-five (45)