The URL can be used to link to this page

06-18-91 Special/Joint Workshop . . CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING/JOINT WORKSHOP - JUNE 18, 1991 - 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, June 18, 1991. This meeting has been called for the purpose of considering the following: 1. Prioritization of golf course capital improvement/master plan schedule. 2. Approve a modified agreement between the City and Environmental Design Group for design and construction management services for golf course improvements. Oiùen ilk}l~ 1Ic~ Alison MacGregor Harty City Clerk JOINT WORKSHOP AGENDA 1. Joint discussion with the Community Redevelopment Agency with regard t"O the Swaim (The Anchorage) property. I', , L·, ,/ ~ 2 . Joint discussion with the Community Redevelopment Agency, Downtown Development Authority, and Planning and Zoning Board with regard to the in-lieu of parking fees in the Central Business District (CBD) . - CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING/JOINT WORKSHOP - JUNE 18, 1991 - 6:00 P.M. COMMISSION CHAMBERS ADDENDUM NO. 1 THE JOINT WORKSHOP AGENDA IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE: 3. Joint discussion with the Community Redevelopment Agency with regard to identification of funding to de1;ray the cost of processing the Geographic Area of Exception (GAE) application. 4. Commission comments. [ITY DF DELIAY BEA[H 100 N.W. 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 407/243-7000 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:~ Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager/ Administrative Services SUBJECT: A enda Item #~ I S ecial Meetin of June 18 1991 Final Approval Draft Golf Course Master Plan DATE: June 14, 1991 ACTION REQUESTED City Commission is requested to provide final direction and approval for the golf course master plan and to make a determination concerning the feasibility of incorporating the required work into a change order with Tifton Turf Company, Inc. BACKGROUND At your meeting last week, it was the consensus of Commission that the capital improvement costs would not exceed $338,500, the amount of funds including interest, available from the Decade of Excellence Bond Fund. Mr. Safford has indicated that we can add another $10,000 interest earnings to this total bringing it to $348,500. A consensus was reached on the following projects by Commission: Phase I Proiects Estimated Cost I. Fairway reseeding/renovation (includes post plant fertilization and herbicide costs, Tifton Turf contract $109,500) $150,000 2. Architect Design and Construction Mgt. Services 36,000 * 3. New sand for bunkers 15,000 4. Hole #1 - removal and relocation of mound - right side of fairway 3,000 5. Hole #2 - Recontouring of fairway, berm along right side and partial fill in of the lake 9,000 6 . Hole #3 - Berm fairway in front of canal 9,000 7 . Hole #12 - Reconfigure bunkers in front of the green, irrigation changes, grass sprigs 4,500 8. Hole #16 - Berm along Atlantic Avenue 10,000 9. Refurbish tee stantions, course restrooms 10,000 10. Hole #11 - Remove division between lakes - interconnect 14,000 I!. Landscaping improvements holes 2, 3, & 16 37,000 Subtotal $297,500 THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS ~/I Proposed Additions 12. Bunker Improvements 14,000 13. Tie restroom at #14 hole into sewer system 10,000 14. Contingency 27,000 Total 348,500 * This item adjusted after continued negotiations in finalizing the consultant's contract. These increases are due to more real assessments of costs not to exceed items, i.e., those paid on an hourly or reimburseable basis. Consensus was not reached on other improvements at your meeting last week, i.e. , bunker changes, cart paths, and additional landscaping. Commission directed staff (myself, Mr. Dubin, and the Golf Course Architect) to meet and try to arrive at a consensus for other improvements. Commission also indicated that they would rely on the golf course staff to make the final recommendation, but Commission wanted to see the final plan. We met and have developed a final plan. Mr. Meroney will present the final plan at your meeting. Many items were agreed to but deferred into future years and/or when funding is available. These were primarily cart path improvements and additional landscaping. Approximately $14,000 in additional improvements are being proposed for completion now, basically bunker work with a balance of $27,000 to be held as contingency primarily for irrigation adjustments that will be needed, sod for bunker edges where changes are made, and any cost overruns. Please keep in mind that the above costs are estimates at this time. CHANGE ORDER ISSUE As discussed at your last meeting, due to work on fairway renovation beginning July 1st and the requirement to reopen the course on October 1st, it would be advantageous to change the scope-of-services to add work to the Tifton Turf, Inc. contract. The time needed to bid and award a contract for the additional work would be prohibitive. The earliest we would be able to start work would possibly be August 1-15. Work coordination efforts would be difficult at best. The original contract with Tifton Turf is for $109,500 and is for fairway renovation, reseeding, and minor grading only. Project work items that would need to be added to this contract are items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 from the proposed project list. The total estimated costs for these projects is $63,500. The landscaping work, stantions and restrooms would be completed under separate contracts. If the change order method is approved, a signed change order will be brought before Commission for final approval at the next available meeting. RECOMMENDATION Approve the final master plan and phase I projects and make a determination concerning a change in scope-of-services to the Tifton Turf contract. RAB:kwg - . COeQ¡{oyCBeacr\ Coul\lh~CQub Men's golf Association 2200 HigfilanJ Avenue , Dtlray Btaeli, :11oriJa 3311115 . . June 13, 1991 The Honorable Thomas Lýnch Mayor of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Sir: On behalf of the Delray Beach Mens Golf Association I would be remiss if I did not express some çonce~n regarding the reconditioning of the Delray Beach Golf Club. Having attended the meeting at City Hall on June 11, 1991 and listen- ing to the proposal, by Environ~ental Design Group, I feel the challenge of the course would be eliminated. Why take those Bunkers out? Landscaping I can see and .the altering concept of the Fairways of Holes '1., 2, 3, 11, .12, and 16. But leave the Bunkers in! ~ feel Richard Hinto~ made a very precis~ presentation and w.ithout a do~bt considered the'everyday golfer. Most of our membership, (approximately 185 men), are high handicapers, mayþe average 24 to 26, and all enjoy playing golf at the Delray Beach Golf Club. Lets not ever. do what we intended to do by redesigning instead of "repairing". Mayor Lynch, thank you for your attention and consideration for keeping the Delray Bea~h Golf Cl~b a Donald Ross Layout. . ens Golf Association cc: Brahm Dubin Rich Hinton Helen Kline ~ Robert Barcinski Bill Andrews David Randolph Jay Alperin Armand Mouw .. . JUN 1 '4 91 June 13, 1991 Thomas Lynch Mayor 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Mr. Mayor: At the present time I cannot speak for the majority of our Ladies Golf Association members, however the few members I have contacted all expressed despair when they heard the drastic changes the Environmental Design Group presented June 11, 1991. I personally was greatly relieved when Mr. Hinton made his presenta- tion. Mr. Hinton, I believe, is a traditionalist and has a vast knowledge of Golf and Golf Courses and therefore his input is vital to retain our Donald Ross layout. I think it would be sad to change our course to resemble the majority of the "new" Florida courses. I feel that we must think of those that come after us. Our course should offer the ultimate ~n challenges so that our children and grandchildren are nott lulled into believing that all golf courses are as easy as Environmental Design has proposed. We stand behind Mr. Hintons' proposal 100% - please don't permit drastic changes to our City Course. Thank you, - 'v ~~ )¿¿~ . Helen Kline President, Ladies Golf Association HK/csl cc: William Andrews, Deputy Vice-Mayor Robert Barcinski, Asst. City Manager David Randolph, Commissioner Jay Alperin, Commissioner' Armand Mouw, Commissioner Brahm Dubin, General Manager Richard Hinton, Golf Professional [ITY DF DELIAY BEA[H 100 N.W. 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 407/243- 7000 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: ~Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager/ Administrative Services SUBJECT: Agenda Item #~~ Special Meeting of June 18, 1991 Ratify Golf Course Design and Construction Management Aqreement - Environmental Desiqn Group DATE: June 14, 1991 ACTION REQUESTED City Commission is requested to ratify an agreement with Environmental Design Group for design and construction management services for golf course improvements. The total amount of the agreement is not to exceed a figure of $36,000 with funding to come from the Decade of Excellence Bond Fund account #225-4762-572-33.15. BACKGROUND Staff met with Mr. Frank Meroney, ASLA, Principal, Environmental Design Group on Friday, June 14th to finalize the detail agreement language. During our discussions a more real assessment of non-fixed cost estimates, and scope of work was made. As a result of our assessment and discussions the contract amount changes from a maximum of $30,000 to $36,000. A summary of the scope of services and costs are as follows: Part I - Inventory/Analysis Report (Master Plan) Fixed Fee $ 8,625 Part II - Detail Design - Priority Holes Fixed Fee 3,600 Part III - Detail Design - Other Holes Fixed Fee 7,775 Part IV - Construction Observation - Based on hourly rates not to exceed 12,500 Part V - Additional Services - Based on hourly rates not to exceed 2,000 Part VI - Reimbursables - Actual costs not to exceed 1,500 TOTAL $36,000 A completed agreement will be presented to you at your meeting. Recommendation Ratify agreement as proposed. RAB:kwg THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS SP/~ "CD Community Redevelopment -a Agency Delray Beach CRA MEMO TO: Bob Barcinski, Acting city Manager ~ FROM: Frank R. Spence, Executive Director DATE: June 14, 1991 SUBJECT: Wm. Swaim's "The Anchorage" Project Backaround Per your request I am providing the following background information on the above project which will be the subject of a joint meeting between the City Commission and the CRA on Tuesday, June 18, 1991. Mr. Swaim is developing a 17 acre tract of vacant land located at the north end of Palm Trail north of N.E. 8th St. (George Bush Bl vd. ) along the Intracoastal. Current assessed value, $4.1 million. He plans on creating 42 single family residential lots, most of which will be located on the Intracoastal Waterway and a dredged canal off of it. The lots will be offered for sale at $250K-$750K each. At build out in 1995, Mr. Swaim estimates the value of the Project will be between $42 million and $50 million. This project currently lies wi thin the CRA District boundaries. All TIF Funds (Tax Incremental Funds) from the taxes on all new improvements and construction would go to the CRA. At build out, estimated TIF Funds generated would be approximately $400,000- $450,000 per year. Reauest Mr. Swaim is requesting some level of assistance and participation by the CRA and/or the City for road improvements and beautification of public thoroughfares which are located outside of his development and the CRA District. Mr. Swaim would "up-front" the cost of these improvements, with reimbursement to be made after adequate TIF Funds are generated from this Project. 1 jVJS!1 1 S.E. 4th Avenue, Suite 204, Delray Beach, Florida 33483 (407) 276-8640 ... Issues 1. What should be the responsibility of the CRA to assist a developer to increase property values to generate significant TIF Funds to be used for other redevelopment improvements within the CRA District? 2. Should the CRA provide cash incentives for developers to come in and build within the CRA District, based on the first two or three years of TIF Funds generated from that project? Alternative Considerations 1. If the CRA does not want to participate, "de-annex" the 17 acres out of the CRA District. The City would receive their taxes ($260,000) directly from the project and spend them as they wished. However, we (the City and the CRA) would lose the County's portion of these taxes, approximately $211,000 per year or $5.7 million over 20 years. 2. If no agreement can be reached and Mr. Swaim cancels the project, then the anticipated revenues (TIF's) over the 20 years after build out, estimated at $13.6 million, would never be realized. 3. The city agrees to reimburse Swaim for public improvements. The CRA, by separate agreement with the City, would agree to indirectly pay back the City by expending a comparable amount of money on city projects located within the CRA District out of TIF Funds collected from the Anchorage Project. Mr. Swaim will be present to answer any questions. Attachment: Sketch Plan Â - - ----- .e:1 " i I t I I I I I :t~ I I I èf ::: d 'C:.~ a: ..J I ---J « c:- u ii: >- :::J . I- "'. , -.--- Figure 1 . . CITY COMMISSION WORK SESSION DOCUMENTATION SUBJECT: CBD PARKING ISSUES ~ MEETING DATE: JUNE 18, 1991 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING~ PREPARED BY: DAVID J. KOVACS, BACKGROUND: Issues: There have been several issues which have arisen with regard to the subject of parking in the Central Business District. These include: * the continuing question of "is there a downtown parking problem?" * possible elimination of on-site parking obligations within the "downtown" ; * possible revocation of the in-lieu parking option; * either increasing or decreasing the amount of the in-lieu fee * revisiting the disposition of funds received through the in-lieu option; * revisiting the broad application of the 1/300 parking requirement throughout the expanded CBD (10/1/91); * revisiting the application of on-site parking requirements as they pertain to change of use within the CBD Zone District; * creation of a mechanism (financial and/or organizational) which would be able to proceed with undertaking a significant CBD parking facility or facilities. Chronology: Those issues focussing upon the provision of facilities came to a head about a year and one-half ago after the City Commission received a recommendation for the DDA to accept and implement a downtown traffic study. At that time, the DDA also sought elimination of the in-lieu fee and along with it, the elimination of parking requirements for new construction in the CBD. The City Commission placed a directive to the DDA to come forward with a mechanism through which long term parking needs in the downtown would be met. In October, 1990, the Official Zoning Map was amended to extend the boundaries of the CBD Zone District and the special provisions of a uniform parking requirement, parking not being required for use conversions, and ability to use the in-lieu fee option become effective in the expanded area. ~ 'Ws./d · City Commission Work Session Documentation CBD Parking Issues Meeting of June 18, 1991 Page 2 In early, 1991, Fiduciary Research, Inc. was assessed in-lieu fee charges for an expansion of their facility. Upon appeal to the City Commission arrangements were made for placement of the required payment in an escrow account while further resolution of the applicability of the in-lieu fee option was addressed. At that time, the City Commission directed the Planning and Zoning Board to take the matter of the in-lieu fee under advisement and to provide a recommended course of action to the City Commission. The P&Z Board was to seek input from the DDA. prior to making a recommendation. In April, 1991, a site plan submittal for the Historic Executive Suites conversion project raised questions about the appropriateness of the exclusion of changes in use from the need to provide on-site parking. The Planning Director produced a memorandum on the subject, copy attached, and appeared before the DDA and the CRA to discuss the subject. Upon receipt of the Director's report (of the meetings with DDA and CRA), the Planning and Zoning Board declined to pursue an immediate change to application of the code as it pertains to use conversions. They did, however, seek a special work session with the DDA and the CRA to address the breadth of matters associated with the subject of "downtown parking". A June 20th work session date was set, however there was a problem with the date in that several members of the DDA were to be out-of-town at that time. Separately, the CRA sought a special meeting with the City Commission to discuss The Anchorage project and downtown parking matters. The Mayor suggested that all parties come together at a special meeting/work session of the City Commission in order to have a single focus on the matter. Thus, the subject of CBD / "downtown" parking is before the Commission and its advisory bodies at this time. ANALYSIS: The following information is presented as a position relative to each of the previously listed "issues". The position has been prepared by the Director of Planning based upon his knowledge of the subject(s) and his discussions with the advisory boards. The purpose of having a stated position is to have a point of beginning for discussion. If the position is generally agreed upon, the subject does not have to be discussed in any depth. If there is disagreement, then a consensus position should be arrived at. I. The continuing question of "is there a downtown parking problem?" city Commission Work Session Documentation CBD Parking Issues Meeting of June 18, 1991 Page 3 Previous parking studies have shown that there are sufficient parking spaces to meet needs with a possible exception in the vicinity of the municipal beach where on-street parking is inappropriately used by beach visitors and is not available for adjacent retailers. Current problems do exist in the use of the spaces, signing to get to them, the location of the spaces vis-a-vis need, etc. Thus, there is a need for a parking management plan. New development and redevelopment pursuant to the recently accepted downtown development scenario will create a need for providing new parking facilities in both location and quantity to serve new uses and floor area. Thus, there is a need for a physical improvements parking plan/program. Such a program could (should) be part of the Downtown Development Plan to be undertaken under the leadership of the CRA later this year. 2. Possible revocation of the in-lieu parking option: "Do away with the fee" was a frequent cry raised mainly by the DDA. A basis for the request was that it was a hindrance to new development. Upon analysis of the request the following was determined: (a) the fee was an option to providing parking when other alternatives were not available; thus, elimination of the fee would either require mandatory on-site parking (a greater deterrent to new development) or elimination of on-site parking requirements. (b) there is no additional parking required for a change in use, thus for conversions, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of existing structures the fee would not apply. (c) in reality, the fee option was applicable only in the limited sense of creating additional floor area. Given that the fee was (up until October 1, 1991) an option available only in the DDA boundaries and that area is essentially built-up, the rationale that the fee inhibited new development did not seem to have a basis. Also, there have been no specific instances within the last five years of a new development proposal which did not proceed because of the existence of the in-lieu fee option. It is clear that doing away with the in-lieu fee option without doing away with parking requirements is not a responsible or viable action. City Commission Work Session Documentation CBD Parking Issues Meeting of June 18, 1991 Page 4 3. Possible elimination of on-site parking obligations within the "downtown" Providing parking to serve the needs of a business is normally a requirement of development. In some situations, such as a CBD, a public entity assumes this obligation. If there is no obligation for anyone to provide such parking, a successful retail operation will not occur. The City Commission has acknowledged this position by charging the DDA to come up with a program for providing downtown parking if there is no obligation upon private development. However, during discussion of the subject there have been some instances where the provision of parking (or in-lieu fee) could be a detriment. This is evident in building expansion to accommodate relatively minor business expansion. Such expansions may not have a proportionate impact upon parking demands. Such may be the case with Fiduciary Research, Inc. To accommodate the above instance, it is proposed that parking requirements be calculated on a standard basis but that within the CaD Zone District, a credit (deduct) of three spaces be granted for each expansion, change of use, or new development. By applying a standard deduction, all properties are treated in the same manner. 4. Either increasing or decreasing the amount of the in-lieu fee. Parking studies previously prepared for the City shown the range of per space costs for surface parking lots at $4,100 to $4,700 per space and for parking garages at $ 7,400 to $ 8,300. Our staff has recently calculated a cost of $4,500 per space for surface parking. The most signficant cost for the surface lot being the cost of land. The figures used in the recent staff work were $1,000 for improvements and $10 per square foot of developable land. Based on the above, it is not recommended to change the fee at this time. 5. Revisiting the disposition of funds received through the in-lieu option. Initially, funds collected from the in-lieu fee were allocated to the DDA. The DDA used the interest from the funds for operating expenses. This action was deemed inappropriate by the City Commission and the funds were then maintained by the City (Commission meeting of March 26, 1985) . The funds were placed in a special account within the General Fund; however, no provisions were made for interest earnings from reinvestment. Activity in the fund since 1985 has been as follows: . city Commission Work Session Documentation CBD Parking Issues Meeting of June 18, 1991 Page 5 Income, Library, 1984 $ 60,000 Expenditure, Wilber Smith, 1989 $ 25,000 . ------ ------ BALANCE $ 35,000 It is recommended that the City Commission direct that all funds and interest from investments be retained in a special account for use pursuant to Code provisions. 6. Revisiting the broad application of the 1/300 parking requirement throughout the expanded CBD (10/1/91). Please review the attached memorandum for background. It is recommended that the 1/300 requirement apply only between N. 1st Street and S. 1st Street and east of the Intercoastal Waterway. Within the balance of the CBD zone district, the parking requirements based upon individual uses as provided for in LDR Section 4.6.9 shall apply. 7. Revisiting the application of on-site parking requirements as they pertain to change of use within the CBD Zone District. Please review the attached memorandum for background. It is recommended that within the area bounded by N. 1st Street and S. 1st Street and the area east of the Intercoastal, there not be any requirement for the conversion of existing floor area to another use and that the obligation to provide for parking be only in regard to the construction of new floor or use area (this would include parking obligations for new outside dining areas except as already excepted for sidewalk cafes) . 8. Creation of a mechanism (financial and/or organizational) which would be able to proceed with undertaking a significant CBD parking facility or facilities. This item involves more time and study than has yet been accommodated. It is suggested that this item be deferred at this time and included in the C.R.A. Downtown Development Program work effort. City Commission Work Session Documentation CBD Parking Issues Meeting of June 18, 1991 Page 6 DIRECTION: Each of the eight points (issues) should be addressed and a consensus position reached. The Director of Planning will write a succinct accounting of the direction and will bring it before the City Commission for the purpose of initiating appropriate code amendments (June 25th). A public hearing will be conducted by the Planning and Zoning Board on July 15th with Commission consideration of the enacting ordinances thereafter. DJK/lh Attachments: * Director's memo re applicability of change of use exception * Location map of the CBD Zone District DJK/#82/CCPKNG.TXT SUBJECT: CALCULATION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WITHIN THE C.B.D., FOR A CHANGE IN USE LDR 4.4.13(G) Supplemental (CBD) District Regulations: (1) Parking: - ( a) The parking required for the creation of new floor area shall be at the rate of one space for each 300 square feet, or fraction thereof, of floor area in addition to the replacement of an previously required parking which may be eliminated. LDR 4.6.9 Off-Street Parking Regulations (C) Number of Parking Spaces Required: The number of parking spaces required for new buildings, new uses, addition, etc . . . . shall be per the following standards General Commercial @ 4.5 /1,000 sq. ft. Business & Office @ 3.5 /1,000 sq. ft. in buildings Greater than 3,000 sq. ft. (4/1,000 in smaller bldgs.) .... more requirements ...... INTERPRETATIONS The special CBD requirement has been interpreted to apply to changes in use in addition to new floor area i.e. being applicable to any new parking demand in the CBD. Thus, * a new building for an office would provide 1/300 sq. ft. * a new building for a restaurant would provide 1/300 sq. ft. * an addition for storage 'space (associated with an existing use would provide 1/300 sq. ft. 'I< a change in use from storage to office would not require any additional parking 'I< a change in use from residential to office would not require any additional parking (or \-lOuld require none, if none . - previously existed) * a change from storage to residential apartments in a primarily commercial building would require no additional parking. Prior to October, 1990, the CBD encompassed only the area essentially bounded by Swinton, the Waterway, and the one-way pairs of 1st Streets. In such an area, the implications of not requiring parking when there was a change of use was not significant. 1 .. · There has always been discussion of allowing residences in the "downtown". In most cases the reference to new residential and mixed use development in the "downtown" involved General Commercial property in addition to CBD zoned land. For such property, amendments were made to the zoning regulations to require only one spa~e per one bedroom units and 1.5 for two bedroom units and no provision for guest parking. Now that the CBD zone district extends from 2nd Street (+) on the south to 4th Street on the north, it may be appropriate to revisit the previous interpretation and application of the code only applying to new floor area in the CBD. Previous (zoning) code language (173.532): (2) The minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall be provided whenever any building or structure is erected or enlarged. (3) The minimum number of off-street parking spaces for all uses shall be as follows: all uses shall provide one space for each 300 square feet, or fraction thereof, of the total floor area. Parking spaces necessitated by this chapter shall not apply to existing structures, but only for new construction and additions to existing structures. Should existing parking spaces be eliminated due to new construction or additions, these spaces must be provided in addition to the new spaces required for the new construction or addition. Equivalents: 1/300 = 3.3/1,000 DJK/#81/INLIEU.TXT 2 .. ! '"''"- ... ~ 8¡jo I z ~~~ UJ- 0<l.<C :I: ! IO au;:; . U , ~~o<C~ « , ~ozenIg II enUJ~"~z $ ~ w ' ~~en~Io o m «~, ~UJ>I~NG Q ~. ~~~~OO<c - ~W-:rZWw , .....!!I Ia:u~<c~CD~ = 0&0 ¡ ~<l.UJ 00> ~ a.. >- 0 c, >;¡:~';'o<c \ Cz <t ...J~. LL o.,.,<ca: \ . ~ « I. I >= ö ~ u <'< > ~, = W """ .... . , a: z ...J \ ~ 0:: · UJz"'...."'enO "0 " C) ...J I Uo..:zu::>~ ~ v W I . .UJZ O!' W . ON"';:;<CQ"~ = ...J ........Jza..~~>. : C , en~oOOa:~ ~ ~ · ~ < --- ~ x - ~ ~ ü: ~ 0.. U ~ . .. =: T. ." . ~= . . -,. en ~ u > ..J UJ 0" . ." r-- · I ... ,ì' Ï u.. w UJ >- .-J :I: .: :' g ~ I .. ~'i+:I, ;: ¡.I . ~'! . _'. ~ 0 en ° CD <C ~ . ;. ~ ' , rh . '''~1~r.h'"'' . ~_ _ . '" '. &&.. , *' . f!· ~_. T .¡, .. ìf'lr.¡-"-- JJ::.::. ~_. . . . . . .. " - - ~ ~ a it., ,I 1> :. r,. ¡I en ..~.:-:::::~:-:... _ <{ <I ; -"'!~ ~!. ;'.1'.: ,,_,.r--_,.;;;. .._~.; __--~, ~ . ~~ '.' !~" .'.' < Jlj,.. " : I, .....E".. ".;^ ~>. _ " . . , - . . ¡ !. "'~' ~".' H'" . . I'I . -. - a: a: .........- .¡ !..H:';J:j· .;wi. ,. .: J-¡ j" ;.,. -.. I. '" -. ;"'I'~"" M_ '.' . /. ~ .: :_,,~, '1\. .... (;.: . . , \ \ I. '" '. _ . _ \' z '.' ;,¡,. ..,... 1 . _ . . IL ". _ 11 r~~ Ö I[h ',I. . ,". 'I .;.". .~ìii ~. ". ~ln T r 'T"~CI'",_ ~ ¡;. f7) . . .: II! !"!'fIL' '&!1.~ 7 -. . t~ ".;> I ~ r _ _.~ I Ji!; ø ~hFill·,~-;rl· .t. ¡: ':; . ~i:fi: ~ -Tt¡.g:~tJl.."., '""J: HW' oj . c,,)¡§ [~uitLlJ'Lct;r 1 'li: .:: - '.~ ---o... ~. ~ ~ : iii ¡¡J.' : ~~m!rl::-' ~.'. .. J '. -=.. ~_I ~1·~.2 ~.. B:.:"~~ 'i:~"'2!;-¡;¡;¡:I~- :r.r:-:~,:~:l.~:':'" ,;,' c ~ . '.~. . ~-·~::,·-~~.·'"·:i.....3 .. c.. . ·Pt: _.. . '~"'~_ PJï~ ~:::: ,-;.,. I.;tJ ¡¡¡.. 0..:~~ ,:;;~ J-r ~ ~!¡~"7!.Lq:-;im-:î7~Tf!., ~~ r =1./:1: . - : . ''¡.i:.iìit...:;i!t"~~¡ :-¡f5 &~ ¡ ~~ .is" ~ r--~ I'~·I. ~ - '~1..-.!...!..- .... .:-~.k ~ ~: :' ;l:11~¡"h .~':" I'~ '- ,. en "'¡".;:r, ~~ __. ~'" f -:-. I -:-.~;. J'" i{i¡"~ ~;f¡,! .¡;¡; ___; .~-~~¡:¡~:u . ; ~>. ..... '.,,""" ¡::¡r.i; ~ ¡;I ~--___~--.....L -- .:-.s ,...,~. .,., ........ ,.' .r:-';,.ì.· " l' ~,: . ~~\;! ~ t¡J.J:;......~~:o-.1í ~~1:;~:<,1'~ ~~~! "r :·¡~;M}:. t~~':/7' ~ pJ,!; ~:~ ¡I .. Q. ~.- :.:¡·;r.· I... Ii. JJ I JJrn. I-I . :h ri~1 :C.J I - "'} ,. .Y.J~' Jj: Ul. ...-_. --' . .."¡. . .:j 1 _ ~_ ._r': . ";.",. . ",,.I .,' ... t!~ ¡~~t . ~ ~. ....... '":'1 If ..n>. ....... ........1 ;ro. .,~ ~"r 1'1" ~~' . _ __. ~~~ . - I . " - ',H &'0. ... .. ff· ..-:T.. ... . ..... .., ·'·1·..· ~.~ . .... ¡--,,, ,~ .. . '. .... tL. µ.. ~ _w ' . "" .., ,.'" ".,.. "'<=m";"" . -- =."..' ."..._.~_'" J ,,~ Ö" :_ "'-" ' (,¡) ~ U . ~ ~.... ~I~;· ~~;; ·r·· ::';';"'~~~""''''~;f·;''''''''''~,.;~H~'I~;;;;;;=:;o:.;;:--'$ ':'r' ._'.. .. .J."f8n~ ~J:: . . ~"~.' .' ;].é. ·O!Jf p:j;....[ .~.!. '~..¡ .r·· ~: ,~r. , . " ..' . t· ... "~f. . .,. ........'.'''..1.;" ,.,..,.g... . .'. , ·!.m~t~..i±·'~èJ~~.~'.. '~¡J!~ L~ ·:·¡r~æ ''';';~.;~~'~-:.r:' .~~[.[~~..\~~¿¿. ""__ ~'... __:..~.11,./~~~~~ . J,mt~~: _ ~.l' I ' '". "--1,. ~ ..../,. ~;..f;.I'jrr·F ~:"""1.~\" ~uøa_J .. ,r,r'ITID ~I .....!l~ ,,,. '. .',,-£'. .~~.. ,~:.\......~ ""'" ,.{~~"~:;-¡~.:;;..J~ .~ >:'- ._+ .,h.... I" }..r'. ,..,. .,..' , ' : ,. ., ""f"".~. . . r-"'h ___ . l ". . , . . I' "Ir~" . . . '" . ",,,. - .J ...... t.. ,.. .;t:'I:r.:. ..... c.':."-~' L-L.- _f.. 1 ·"'1'.í i rrK'I:' . _ '. , r:. ...."":':"""---'-'c . '.r:-iÓ ..... c"" ; -:=:..:0: -: ;::~ -. :::.r-';.. ___". ¡;;.~~".. .. _ , . . -,-..-..--..;: "",' . .. . . ........ . ;.\.. ""';:1:', U '. .-'. ¡. r.::., fd!:# i;:.,...~._ n:Qf~~~. i Î):.~' I:.' f'~J~ :::'''1:''. ~'+~'Jl0!t[';'''J~.:~:,~-. :;..;,F~' I~ æ'<::: . _..'.....~i+'" ~." I~T.;:'1. - . - -_. .. ;"(cf:,:if" I ,1_- ... ,-.t!:...;... ::,,~I!-:;.:: ~Itf :s. ':J}Y... 1'...,. ... - - ...,...,. , ,T ...; ~ ~.\__ .....-; ...... P""Y ,. . ~ _ ,:d .0.8¡.....f-¡..... . ..... . '.1;. ~·~·t)JL :........~,. ....1 ,J 1i,·H'P¡""I·¡r... ·"·II;'......r;:.".... I....t . .' · "1'1."'," 1,' " " .,~ _"" :, . ¡, , ,"_'" ".'" . .. ~ "J~....t.J1ffi .Ir....rlF. .I.'. )}~t¡!t \..........~.. {""ifT'~_J,.~..·-1.!I!':rl II.. -~\:..r:-.:.:.I...:.. ...1,......... :ç. ~ ~ . 1 ' TIT' .. JJlli ::;:'n.:~·š.L :>;<·-:j;f~~i! ;::;::;=~"n.l''-'I1~ ~". '. ~I' LCnr- .... 1):~;;''':::I ~ ,+ . u.. .r····.~.·;·7ìc-;..·.-.r:¡....11;r-~·.~.m:...:..I-,... :>-. -'h:!;;~~ "g-r.:!-,:-· ,t¡: __.:~. .. . . ".' .... ,1.._.::---.:..:. ..¡..¡ ... ¡¡ ~ ~ St, . _ . .:' .. ..... .'... . ,:',,.,_'' J. -.:.J" U '··.·.1·_'~- ~;.;~;..~ ',:, .. . · ¡-'~'1 ., ..-. I'-if'" __ I: ~ ',I,.¡ .!: E () I. H.... f............· ",.....,.. .. -"~_"" '1111 r .r ..~._.-, "-. rn! . ._::... . ,1 _~",.;.._:'.'''''.<r,....j. ··,····..:'::.I.:.~ l~r.II~)tl<r ]Wl~¡.~:r' ·n· f ' . . I 'j1."]!.-~.' ., I 5'll I :11" ·:WtÞV1¡'!~ ffi··I':·: :m' -- '<- l:n~1:" ¡ . : f ......;Jr. - ""'i¡i'1 ... '..- ':1 ".,'!'" :<:~' I ..~" 1 . ¿' ,,' ~ x=::":' "- . .. ~-~- ... ".~ ~¡,¡:,.~ ." :-. J;" :¡.. :r. j~..~ ~";dH . ·1 ' I.."..j J, .' . 'f '''"flt , ..T.:}J, . .~ . i"·._· . . t ,. ..I ..r ~ " :t :J,p.-'1 ri "~'l'\. 'Æ~ 'I hl1!I ~¡~: ij; ;1. I ';¡:--":a ~;.. :¿-ã-~.]~.~ u.. :-ª1-..~J. U-t t:~: :Jü~ I~: ¡i::.ì·' ;IJ U ·~~~J<~~c._.. 'L1;;it;!S -r:: .. .' '. ._....- I '-'.:.-4"-: "', :_- - ^' . -:'!'. ),. -::t'~_.~. '.1.~',:11:\ :;= rC: ,L ~_Jr;;,;, ''''''''-;r; ~1., ... . ..' .c. J. . . '-:-. , .. _.. ,""' ',', I... >¡".\"..... c rífd~¡:t;:IH.¡:...J;r:~!:~¡ :l~.. '~:.t; ,!IH~L~.1t.· I~ [~~"\... -:...J:'~;,~..j , '1 1 .,'1. t·n:¡···· -. :J't: ¡;::~}"I~I i~ t~ ,~E!:f ~;v..'A" ,1)'.:11. J ~.~~L~~ !~ -~. en- ('''''.;c¡--,- . ,'fa I:. '~J'1': ¡.¡ . Jt~=::I. 1,.' ~ .....-W,. .¡:.~.:....-, "1,0"", r ,.. ~·-::··...~·I.."'·..:rl".t... .:' 1" ::';ø,~,:"h. .1.. ,. "' ,\t4 ' ,.:i, '··'f·~'r.,. !IT"h'.'¡"" ¡..... 1-....ç¡v.:4 Tj,II~;_" t .QE.. -~;¡,:r!..;; ~;.. ~' trrj'~;.·,..",,:. ~~:~""'''~tf;:::'I1-:=J u.. :1\ rr .~''''J . 'r).... <C' ... J 1!..- ""- I~.~ .' _ _1:::. .::;."'-~.:.", ""IIf"~u+] . ..-fl~~""'-'+-O"1f __~..~.,.~Jtl~ -...no. "" , rl'J "~~'. ..~:r.1'jffi; ~ .-;T,. 1 :-......, It ,'"f' ,·11.·'..·· . ... ;.-. '.~;.¡...",.,!Ic':--' l:: ':)'-"-:l'F,~ .,~. :=-..I::j: ""I:: :{' ,.,' · .-. ~.. .\. --=;:::-:- ~'. - ""-~-~ -..".. . ...~ J ~: .;;>w.".-I:C~I..: ' õ t- ''':iI'' ....:: fl'\ · ·1:..'·;··:.!.. . ·$t~·· .,: [ . "I. ,....... "-I~'i"itg?';E;'._~' 'f "-:-':1'1":"" ...." ;AII"f;j''''''''''I.' ':"''''rr:~'" ::t~"~:' U a: "'\)" -, :t JI " . 'I J+!'.. '" ~ I F r'-ff'=. ... ~t.. '''''. -.LL:' .'-......\. "... .~ ' . , '1 ;. · . ., ",''-'''' ~ :<·il·· [;1:'¡ 6~ ......~ ',",+~., ··I·i'.....' ~., ,."., .. .,' ..' _, ....It>.. \~-t" I., -:'j I .......w; ~ 1.:..... '~..~ -. =_._ ....__+". _. 3 _', . .:t!~' (1; ~_,.I) ...... I>.: .1 , ", ';"'1, 1 .7: ;':¡f'i· i f'" ·~t·__ ~":fW[..~Jj' ~~I~7'·'·; ;:.:.,¡. . . '!I=,,!,: ,,".:fH1J---~]H! ·l."~,-·~·.~~:.r~ ro· ::~þ';¡;.t~.rq ~. 'ë %1'H'," ',,<'I . .. t'"'··~~, ~ -oj..."" 0;.;:1." °0' i·¡µ~. .,.:-.,...,. y.,' ~ ....f· .. 't..::t..:,,,,C"".'" '. , I. . .... ~'i..>.1II I-:F: ~: :j' ..' f: I -;'IÇ~~= -' .- i '!:.<{' . I ':':.j" ..:. ~-~-, ." ..' '~U<.iJ¡" ....;., ,.~.y J j;: . . 't ~.<\,.' ~.t::I- ¡'r J"', ii···.. .,~-'---;-r·.·'· :ro-;; ':.~_..- ¡'.... ""'. 'r.',..:!-:ê\":"~¡:; .::t:.,,¡., ;'1''!- .~~ i: L 1 r :~! J . j ,I·! ~2jj[[H:;.:¿jJtn;J , .,. "~F' . .:. ~ ,o~ !~,Bh....~ic":;·~I:"~ ~1 J,;';U,: fL \;~i[~.t~ Jr1f: In.' ··'·ï' , ¡;-1!.tJ,!--3r:f''1't ..':.:..i I!'... ;.1111 -:-:". . t ~t~;· ~'t ¡ }~.... '. I .\~. :IIHJ ..t;.:.:;;...._ .1 \ *. I .!.J~..;;...:..¡¡L,...':"'.~.:.t ,''i _ .;;1- I ·I! ,!t :. I .. '~.~; I '~ )". J1oI- I r:;:...~'~- ~·'1·...-''- ~- : .:;-' t;: . !T" .. ~~., , , " ~ t . "1 . . i~ .;;;. ;--"-.. !,~;.¡:}(II.-!- If' t ~ '.~-::-:: I~: .II ~ '. . . \ .. ~ / / .. (). ~~. ..);:~"F""~f:1I ''''.' t .~F.5' ':1"'.:(" I J. .~i. ..., lOr.,. Ij.. ." a:. '.r;: . .. p.... .' ¡ t:;;¡t·:;;:;~~~E~::~·. .~~. ': ¡ It'~ ';T_....~:~··;rf.,-...: .~.~7:~.., "" . '., . ~'. r. . . '~ ., 11...'<.....I.\I'··Ì.¡~-¡··ŒJ".j···"'·] ~. ·In".·"."'"'' "~".""" t···'··.·..·.···."t'.··..t:..;· ,,~., ~.!."" I~'" '.. ~ . . I,·,. 'fl' '.~.. r "".., ,,-, ..... ..,. "...<e.... '... . .J I', f- _.. " , u .. \ ,I 1,·~~4' : ;.' ff' c;>. ~ ''''''i' '.... ..'~ t.....,..,....., "J'. I . ." .,,'. .. .. '0 ':'. rU)'j'~I~; :1~:i:I:.::~.~.ï;. u.. ì:;;,~). ¡;;r.;.......~.~~.,:,.;~;.ñ:. :;~,,~,r.:~~t:::'~!r'i]:~·l·::· .~ ·t~~!1 ...r.:..·~'I-·\"·{~ '."0.; 'J - I ~" :......;.... :="';1 ':~:"~.' I.. ,.~",.".,,~ :U:f.i.., .~,JII( II - - .:.,..~"'" ."of ". , , . . ,~.. ". () f ........ '~~ ,t.. ....g. ·f· '''-.' ,...., .......... . .... . I;':' ~ . , .¡:~j' ~ .... '., ....... -- Z -"" ··[·1·J,.1·::; . ',:-'-'';¡-- I·~~...I::,'=''':..:;::'';J;:- ::::...:::::- ..... fl,;'. . 1:-. ~ . ,_. ........ C;J':c, .171,) I........ ~'-"....~........_"....'''...... -....~.~. 11, ' .,".. ~ -. . TT:' .', .'... 11.· , 1" ....-~I 1'''_'',,, .,..., ..,. i ." -. '.' ~ ;, è:t ..... . y' .. r ~ . n .f ;'. "'j-:<":¡ I } .. ·c" .., . .... ,Ulo'h.. , U. . J ~ r~f< )'f_.' "V ....... .....' ;=,': :' 1,:. "'~;-...j ~;: 01-., .... ,¡~ -:~L:- -·:;:C.:J . . , :1:. ~Jt' .. : I . ' :'::~', ¡",' . ·.,!.t·.".r......L,?r-.;. ~··I,....,··~ IÃ'\,~.r;..·.-i~¿.¡.,....__ '!,'...~:;r .11~'w,~, ~ ' . ,.J . .' ,. .."......... ., '~'. :r;¡ I~, q.. ., .. .......':,. I .., . '"' , .~~....i:,~... .. .._.~:i>:.:;.J.:.p.: r.~,;.:..~:..4.::J!~::.~~J,*~% I . ~.:,:..,t.".h. :.:':':.'"':''' ..... ..U.. ..... I .' ~:~.!II..fl}; "-.:.']ID'''~ '~.f). :'.J.I';.JwJ..~. 't..'<I, I h{~):;giI .~;t-:~~.-::,~;;~";... "J.......¡..:. ¡..:.;1.~J'.r.~!~~ ,¡,,¡,.,,¡.,¡; ,;; <Y.;> y" ¡~:',1r;\.ï:";;: "" .;!'..,.,: . ~ I ':-;"'7'i. ,. ·f.~~;.f,~:I'"'A.ï:,._i!..::.:I'.;-.;; 1 U. .L'.~,I:1 .'t...~~¡:¡· 1~,~ ' .¿ // / '';Y'~'I{:'b',' . . . ~í'....~...:~L!~ì,.,. ...:.c:.~.¡ç,~¥; ~. . ~.'.. . "~1' 'J", I .)' "'--'--..c::_ / f\ !. f£}/ ç -: ~~..,~~¡~.,,~~::~,.j!=-~:.: -;: U ~!~~""'.i .:::·~~I~ !; : · ¡ 5. _1, 0 6,./ ,,, ~"~;:::-:j~~?-t:.~., ~..;.~-::_. _ , _ )"'V . '. + ~ _ ~J hE-=.! ~ J>~~' J,"",' 0 ---.:...... J(f) / _ ~. ".'...". /<~~=-r L¡¡~ :5;.. _.._.J.L Þ'.L 5 lj J J N ... . .~;~-. . .... '1 ~ .. t". 1 ;'¡'. r;1t~,:!. ¡.-:r to, ~'~"~' .' (). : :1.J -. 1_ , . 0 .' : H.~ ¡ti~' ,.. r.U : U : O· . f·....,.. ,.. ,)' 1 . . .,.' u.. - ¡-I~ a. -= Do ,- . '" -,. .-r.,..__ :.' yo I , " '. i , ; , .: I ~ ,. 2- ~ .:" \:' "'1 n.... , '\ ; ì:"':''-~ _ L::~. :',. - to ._.. : .. -=_. '.. , . MEMORANDUM TO, ~YOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #:31J(3- JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 18 1991 FUNDING ALTERNAT VES/GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF EXCEPTION (GAE) APP- LICATION DATE: June 17, 1991 The Community Redevelopment Agency has received an estimate, from the Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council, in the amount of $10,568 to process the applications for a Downtown Core GAE and Constrained Roadways at a Lower Level of Service (CRALLS) . The Commission has previously discussed the appropriation of funding to defray the costs of these applications. This item is before you to ensure that a source of funding is identified and that payment is made to the Countywide Planning Council so that processing of the applications can commence. csW/3 . PALM . BEACH . COUNTYWIDE PLANNING . COUNCIL 2290 Tenth Avenue N.. Suite 501 Lake Worth, FL 33461 (407) 582-8259/ FAX 533-6112 / Toll-Free in Palm Beach County 1-800-273-5401 June 5, 1991 Mr. Frank Spence, Executive Director City of Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency 1 S.E. 4th Ave., Suite 204 Delray Beach, FL 33483 Dear Mr. Spence: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an estimate of the fee requirements for the City of Delray Beach applications for Downtown Core Geographic Area of Exception (GAE) and Constrained Roadways at a Lower Level of Service (CRALLS) applications. The Planning Council's Procedural Rule for Exceptions to the Countywide Traffic Perfonnance Code (Section IV.E) requires a fixed fee of $500.00 for processing GAE applications. In addition, applicants are required to provide, along with the application, funds sufficient to cover the estimated consultant fees generated based on the requirements of each application. Pursuant to the Procedural Rule for Exceptions to the Countywide Traffic Perfonnance Code the funds will be placed in the project's individual account The Planning Council will pay the consultant directly from the funds provided by the applicant. The Planning Council will expeditiously refund to the applicant all remaining funds after the consultant has been paid in full. The estimat.:::d consultant fee for the GAE and CRALLS applications is $10,568.00. This estimate is based on the attached breakdown of tasks for the traffic consultant. If you have any questions regarding the fee requirements for the GAE and CRALLS applications please contact Fernando de Aragon of my staff. Sincerely, \ é' ~-." _ .- c_~~ Carmen S. Annunziato Executive Director CSNfda Attachment Samuel J. Ferreri, Chairman· Peter L. Pimentel, Vice Chairman. Karen T. Marcus, Treasurer. Clarence E. Anthony, Secretary Carmen S. Annunziato, Executive Director . . . . . PALM BEACH COUNTYWIDE PLANNING COUNCIL Breakdown of Traffic Consultant Fees for the City of Delray Beach Downtown Core GAE and CRALLS Applications Task:Pre-Application Meetings Subtask: Attendance @$415.00 per meeting June 6, 1991 meeting --------------- $ 415.00 Subtotal I: $ 415.00 Task: Sufficiency Review Subtask: Application Review ----------------- $1,394.00 Subtask: Meetings and Written Results _u___________________ $ 946.00 Subtotal II: $2,340.00 Task: Detailed Review of Application Subtask: Review of Input Parameters ------- $ 114.00 Subtask: Code Applicant Variables into Traffic Model u________________ $ 468.00 Subtask: Perform Application Traffic Modeling -------------------- $1,900.00 Sub task: Review Application and Modeled Output ---------------- $1,350.00 Subtask: Review Applicant Capacity and LOS Results -------------------- $ 894.00 Subtask: Review Applicant Land Use and Improvement Alternatives ----- $ 894.00 Subtask: Summarize Review Findings ------ $ 499.00 S ubtask: Meeting3 and Written Results ---------------------- $1.279.00 Subtotal III: $7,398.00 Total (I+II+IiI): $10,153.00