Agenda Reg 01-04-00APPELLATE PROCEDURES
Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made
by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this
meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City
neither provides nor prepares such record.
AGENDA
2.
3.
4.
5.
Roll Call.
Invocation·
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Agenda Approval.
Approval of Minutes:
Regular Meeting of December 7, 1999
Regular Meeting of December 14, 1999
Proclamations:
Presentations:
Consent Agenda:
None
None
City Manager recommends approval.
~UTHORIZATION FOR SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO HANDLE MUNICIPAL
~LECTION ITEMS: Authorize the Palm Beach
County Supervisor of
Elections to handle and canvass the City's absentee ballots
for the March 14, 2000 municipal election, and represent the
City at the requisite logic and accuracy tests.
CHURCH: Accept an easement deed from Emmanuel Evangelical
Lutheran Church granting to the City a 12 ft. utility easement
to accommodate the installation and maintenance of water and
sewer main extensions in conjunction with the construction of
the church.
AUTHORIZATION ~ PROCEED/SEVEN YEAR PERFORMANCE MONITORING
STUDY OF THE ~BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT: Authorize ~6astal
Planning & Engineering, Inc. to proceed with the Seven Year
Performance Monitoring Study of the beach nourishment project
at a cost not to exceed $35,998. Funding is available from
332-4164-572-31.30 (Beach Restoration Fund). The majority of
the cost will be reimbursed from federal, state and county
appropriations.
Regular Commission Meeting
January 4, 2000
/
BOULEVARD: Approve two agreements and the respective
resolutions (Nos. 3-00 and 4-00) between the City, the Florida
Department of Transportation and the F~C Railway for the
u~grade of the railroad crossings at %P(indell Boulevard and
~eorge Bush Bou~vard.
AGREEMENT FOR ~IDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS/MUCHA & KLINE: Approve an
agreement between the City and Michael Mucha & Carolyn Kline
to allow the deferral of sidewalk improvements within the
Spanish Trail and Dogwood Drive rights-of-way immediately
abutting Lot 130, Second Section of Tropic Isle, until such
time as the City/requests the sidewalk to be constructed.
/
AGREEMENT FOR ~IDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS/250 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
(JOHN R. WESTINE): Approve an agreement between the City and
Dr. John R. Westine to allow deferral of sidewalk improvements
within the Royal Court right-of-way immediately abutting Lot
24, Block 10, Del-Ida Park, associated with the construction
of a 10 space parking lot for the 250 Professional Building,
until such time as the City requests the sidewalk to be
constructed.
RESOLUTION NO. 2-00:
the abatement of
throughout the City.
Approve a resolution assessing costs for
nuisances on sixteen (16) properties
REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept
the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards
for the period December 13th through December 30, 1999.
AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS:
Purchase award in the amount of $17,140.00 to Otto
Industries, INT., sole source vendor, for the purchase of
404 new ~arbage carts, with funding from
433-3711-534-49.35 (Sanitation Fund - Cart Renewal &
Replacement).
Bid award in the amount of $32,709 via Florida Sheriffs
Association & Florida Association of Counties contract
for a 2000 Ford Excursion 3/4 ton 4X4, as replacement for
a 1994 GMC Suburban (%9411) which was wrecked on November
/
30, 1999t Funding is available from 501-3312-591-64.20
(Garage/~ehicle Replacement - Automotive) .
Service award in the amount of $14,000 to Pressure
Cleaning Services, Inc. for t~e cleaning (descaling) of
four (4} clarifiers at the Water Treatment Plant, with
funding from 441-5122-536-34.90 (Water Treatment &
Storage - Other Contractual Services).
-3-
Regular Commission Meeting
January 4, 2000
e
Regular Agenda: ~C
RESOLUTION NO./l-00 (RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR REST/
DEL-IDA PARK ~PECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT): Consider approval
of a resolution declaring the necessity for public
improvements for the Seacrest/Del-Ida Park neighborhoods, and
directing the establishment of a special assessment district
to defray a part of the expense for such improvements.
PECI EVENT REQUEST/ART JAZZ ON THE AVE E: Consider a
request for special event approval for Art & Jazz on the
Avenue scheduled for January 27, 2000, including temporary use
permit and street closure, staff support, use of City
e~uipment, and specified overtime costs.
~ARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT/PETER'S STONE CRABS: Consider
approval of a parking license agreement with Peter's Stone
Crabs Ltd. for the use of three (3) spaces located east of
N.E. 4th Avenue on the north side of Atlantic Avenue from 5:00
p.m. until 1:00 a.m., seven days per week, for valet parking
queues. ~AI
REQUEST FOR VER OF PERMIT FEE/ L TRACE DEVELOPMENT:
Consider a request from Spear Coral Corporation to waive the
plan check fees for the site development permits for Phase II
of the Coral Trace development.
/
CLUB RESTAURANT): Consider a request for conditional use
approval to allow the re-establishment of a restaurant (Sand
Dollar Grille, f/k/a Rod & Gun Club Restaurant). The subject
property is located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue,
between Carver Middle School and Villas D'Este Apartments, and
is zoned POC (Planned Office Center). QUASI-JUDICIAL
P~OCEEDING
NDITIONAL USE ,REQUEST/BUILDING HEIGHT AND DENSITY FOR
WORTHING PLACE (~OCK 77).~ Consider a request for conditional
use approval to allow within the Central Business District
(CBD) a building height of 60 feet for a 6-story mixed use
building (residential/retail) and to allow the residential
units to exceed 30 units per acre for ~brthing Place. The
subject property is located south of Atlantic Avenue, between
S.E. 1st and 2nd Avenues. QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
Public Hearings:
ORDINANCE NO. 47-99 (SECOND/READING/SECOND PUBLIC HEARING):
An ordinance amending q/DR Sections 4.4.24(B)(9) ~nd
4.4.24(F) (1) by adding Lots 19 through 24, inclusive,~ock
69, to theist of lots in the Old School Square Historic Arts
District (~SHAD) that may be developed pursuant to certain
standards of the Central Business District. QUASI-JUDICIAL
HEARING
Regular Commission Meeting
January 4, 2000
11.
Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items
Immediately following Public Hearings.
from the Public-
A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries.
B. From the Public.
12.
First Readings:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 1-00:
/
An ordinance amending Chapter 96, '%Fire
Safety and Emergency Services", Section~6.66, "Emergency
Medical Transportation Fees", of the City~ode to adjust the
fee schedule for emergency medical transportation in
accordance with the Inflation Index Charge applicable to
Medicare services and fee schedules. If passed, a public
hearing will be scheduled for January 18, 2000.
13. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items.
City Manager
City Attorney
City Commission
JANUARY 4, 2000
A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City
of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Jay
Alperin in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, January 4, 2000.
Roll call showed:
Present - Commissioner Patricia Archer
Commissioner David Randolph
Commissioner David Schmidt
Commissioner Michael Wright
Mayor Jay Alperin
Absent - None
Also present were - City Manager David T. Harden and
City Attorney Susan A. Ruby
2. The opening prayer was delivered by Reverend Matthew
("Bump") Mitchell, Christ Missionary Baptist Church.
3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America was given.
A~enda Approval.
Mayor Alperin noted that the approval of the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of December 7, 1999 and December 14, 1999
would be deferred to a future meeting.
The City Manager stated that Item 8.I.2., Bid Award
for a Replacement Vehicle, should be removed from the agenda as
there is a question yet to be resolved.
Mrs. Archer moved to approve the agenda as amended,
seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted
as follows: Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Wright -
Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes. Said motion
passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
Approval of Minutes:
The approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
December 7, 1999 and the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
December 14, 1999 was deferred to a future meeting.
Proclamations: None
7. Presentations: None
CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager recommends approval.
AUTHORIZATION FOR SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO HANDLE
MUNICIPAL ELECTION ITEMS: Authorize the Palm Beach County
Supervisor of Elections to handle and canvass the City's absen-
tee ballots for the March 14, 2000 municipal election, and
represent the City at the requisite logic and accuracy tests.
8.B. ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT DEED/EMMANUEL EVANGELICAL
LUTHERAN CHURCH: Accept an easement deed from Emmanuel Evangeli-
cal Lutheran Church granting to the City a 12 ft. utility ease-
ment to accommodate the installation and maintenance of water
and sewer main extensions in conjunction with the construction
of the church.
8.C. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED/SEVEN YEAR PERFORMANCE MONI-
TORING STUDY OF THE BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT: Authorize Coast-
al Planning & Engineering, Inc. to proceed with the Seven Year
Performance Monitoring Study of the beach nourishment project at
a cost not to exceed $35,998. Funding is available from
332-4164-572-31.30 (Beach Restoration Fund). The majority of
the cost will be reimbursed from federal, state and county
appropriations.
SoD,
AGREEMENTS/RESOLUTIONS WITH FDOT & FEC RAILWAY FOR
UPGRADE OF RAILROAD CROSSINGS AT LINDELL BOULEVARD AND GEORGE
BUSH BOULEVARD: Approve two agreements and the respective
resolutions (Nos. 3-00 and 4-00) between the City, the Florida
Department of Transportation and the FEC Railway for the upgrade
of the railroad crossings at Lindell Boulevard and George Bush
Boulevard.
80Eo
AGREEMENT FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS/MUCHA & KLINE:
Approve an agreement between the City and Michael Mucha & Caro-
lyn Kline to allow the deferral of sidewalk improvements within
the Spanish Trail and Dogwood Drive rights-of-way immediately
abutting Lot 130, Second Section of Tropic Isle, until such time
as the City requests the sidewalk to be constructed.
AGREEMENT FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS/250 PROFESSIONAL
BUILDING (JOHN R. WESTINE): Approve an agreement between the
City and Dr. John R. Westine to allow deferral of sidewalk
improvements within the Royal Court right-of-way immediately
abutting Lot 24, Block 10, Del-Ida Park, associated with the
construction of a 10 space parking lot for the 250 Professional
Building, until such time as the City requests the sidewalk to
be constructed.
8.G. RESOLUTION NO. 2-00: Approve a resolution assessing
costs for the abatement of nuisances on sixteen (16) properties
throughout the City.
The caption of Resolution No. 2-00 is as follows:
-2- 1/04/00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 100 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR
ABATING NUISANCES UPON CERTAIN LAND(S)
LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH AND
PROVIDING THAT A NOTICE OF LIEN SHALL ACCOM-
PANY THE NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT, SETTING OUT
ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOM-
PLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING THE COST OF
SUCH ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES; PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE DATE AND
INTEREST ON ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE
RECORDING OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND DECLARING
SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS.
(The official copy of Resolution No. 2-00 is on file
in the City Clerk's office.)
REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS:
Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development
Boards for the period December 13th through December 30, 1999.
AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS:
Purchase award in the amount of $17,140.00 to
Otto Industries, Inc., sole source vendor, for
the purchase of 404 new garbage carts, with
funding from 433-3711-534-49.35 (Sanitation Fund
- Cart Renewal & Replacement).
2. REMOVED
Service award in the amount of $14,000.00 to
Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc. for the cleaning
(descaling) of four (4) clarifiers at the Water
Treatment Plant, with funding from
441-5122-536-34.90 (Water Treatment & Storage -
Other Contractual Services).
Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as
amended, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commis-
sion voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Wright - Yes; Mr.
Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
With respect to Item 8.D., Agreements with FDOT and
the FEC Railway for upgrade of the railroad crossings at Lindell
Boulevard and George Bush Boulevard, the City Manager stated
that getting the George Bush Boulevard crossing upgraded will
allow the City to install the pedestrian crossing at that loca-
tion. This was a Decade of Excellence project that the City has
never been able to do because the railroad crossing alone would
-3- 1/04/00
have cost over $100,000. With this agreement, the City will now
be able to go ahead and finish that Decade of Excellence project
which is the only one outstanding.
REGULAR AGENDA:
9.A. RESOLUTION NO. 1-00 (RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR
SEACREST/DEL-IDA PARK SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT): Consider
approval of a resolution declaring the necessity for public
improvements' for the Seacrest/Del-Ida Park neighborhoods, and
directing the establishment of a special assessment district to
defray a part of the expense for such improvements.
The caption of Resolution No. 1-00 is as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, DECLARING THE
NECESSITY FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
SEACREST/DEL-IDA NEIGHBORHOODS AS SHOWN ON
EXHIBIT "A", AND DIRECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TO DEFRAY A
PART OF THE EXPENSE FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE SEACREST/DEL-IDA NEIGHBORHOODS,
PROVIDING FOR THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE
IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE PREPARATION
OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL.
(The official copy of Resolution No. 1-00 is on file
in the City Clerk's office.)
Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the
City has worked closely with the Seacrest and Del-Ida Park
neighborhood associations in developing a plan for the special
assessment district that is acceptable to all concerned. The
total projected cost for the construction of the sidewalks with
driveway aprons, landscaping, repaying and regrading of swales,
roundabouts, and landscaping medians is $1,543,900.50. The
property owners will be assessed for one half of this cost or
$771,950.25. The City will pay the other half of the cost.
Once the resolution of necessity is passed by the City Commis-
sion, staff will begin preparing the preliminary assessment roll.
Mr. Wright moved to approve Resolution No. 1-00,
seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as
follows: Mr. Wright - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin -
Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed
with a 5 to 0 vote.
9.B. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/ART & JAZZ ON THE AVENUE:
Consider a request for special event approval for Art & Jazz on
the Avenue scheduled for January 27, 2000, including temporary
use permit and street closure, staff support, use of City equip-
ment, and specified overtime costs.
-4- 1/04/00
Mr. Randolph moved to approve the special event re-
quest for the January 27, 2000 Art and Jazz on the Avenue as
recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Archer.
Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Randolph -
Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes;
Mr. Wright - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
9.C. PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT/PETER'S STONE CRABS: Consid-
er approval of a parking license agreement with Peter's Stone
Crabs Ltd. for the use of three (3) spaces located east of N.E.
4th Avenue on the north side of Atlantic Avenue from 5:00 p.m.
until 1:00 a.m., seven days per week, for valet parking queues.
Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, explained
that this is basically a request to reinstate a valet parking
agreement for Peter's Stone Crabs under the terms and conditions
of the new standard agreement which includes the insurance and
the agreement for private parking. The spaces requested were
previously designated as one of the four queue locations allowed
for valet use.
Mrs. Archer commented that at the Parking Management
Advisory Board meeting where this request was reviewed, a con-
cern was expressed that this parking agreement not be rescinded
and then reinstated every six months or so based on the season.
She felt that necessary steps would be taken to be sure that
some agreement is reached on how to handle this.
Mrs. Archer moved to approve the parking license
agreement with Peter's Stone Crabs Ltd., seconded by Mr.
Wright. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor
Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Wright
- Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0
vote.
9.D. REOUEST FOR WAIVER OF PERMIT FEE/CORAL TRACE DEVELOP-
MENT: Consider a request from Spear Coral Corporation to waive
the plan check fees for the site development permits for Phase
II of the Coral Trace development.
Mayor Alperin asked if there was a representative for
the applicant, Spear Coral Corporation, present to speak on the
request? No one came forward on behalf of the applicant.
On question from Mrs. Archer, Lula Butler, Director of
Community Improvement, stated that the applicant is required to
submit new applications and plans for the site work for Phase II
of the project. Staff is responsible for reviewing the plans
again to ensure all comments have been addressed and are submit-
ted in compliance with the approved site plan. It is staff's
position that new fees are applicable since the submission
includes changes and the initial review of the plans was done
two years ago. Hence, the staff recommendation is for denial of
the waiver request.
-5- /o4/oo
Mrs. Archer moved to DENY the request to waive the
plan check fees for the site development permits for Phase II of
the Coral Trace development. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Schmidt. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr.
Schmidt Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Wright - Yes; Mr. Randolph
- Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0
vote.
9.E. CONDITIONAL USE REOUEST/SAND DOLLAR GRILLE (FORMERLY
ROD & GUN CLUB RESTAURANT): Consider a request for conditional
use approval to allow the re-establishment of a restaurant (Sand
Dollar Grille, f/k/a Rod & Gun Club Restaurant). The subject
property is located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue,
between Carver Middle School and Villas D'Este Apartments, and
is zoned POC (Planned Office Center). QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
The City Attorney stated this item would be conducted
as a quasi-judicial proceeding which allows for presentations by
all involved parties, the admission of documents into the record
and public testimony.
The City Clerk swore in those individuals who wished
to give testimony on this item.
Diane Dominguez, Director of Planning and Zoning,
entered the project file into the record. She stated that the
Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on the condition-
al use request on December 13, 1999, and voted unanimously to
recommend approval based upon positive findings with respect to
Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(E) (5) of the
Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan, and subject to the following revised conditions of approv-
al:
(1) That the site plan be in general conformity to
the sketch plan and incorporate recommendations made in the
Planning and Zoning Board staff report;
(2) That queuing for the valet service be extended
west of the porte cochere to ensure adequate stacking;
(3) That a minimum five foot (5') landscape strip be
provided between the parking area and the east property line;
(4) That additional trees be planted along the east-
ern and northern property line between the parking area and the
Villas D'Este Apartments to provide a maximum spacing of 25 feet;
(5) That additional trees be planted along the west-
ern property line adjacent to Carver Middle School to provide a
maximum spacing of 30 feet;
6 1/04/00
(6) That the parking space at the southeastern corner
of the east parking lot be eliminated and landscaped in order to
provide the required 6' x 24' maneuvering apron;
(7) That the parking space at the southwest corner of
the building be removed and the area landscaped.
There being no one else who, having been duly sworn,
wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Archer moved to approve the conditional use
request to re-establish a restaurant (the Sand Dollar Grille),
based upon the findings and recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon
roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes;
Mr. Wright - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr.
Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
9.F. CONDITIONAL USE REOUEST/BUILDING ~EIG~T AND DENSITY
FOR WORTHING PLACE (BLOCK 77): Consider a request for condition-
al use approval to allow within the Central Business District
(CBD) a building height of 60 feet for a 6-story mixed use
building (residential/retail) and to allow the residential units
to exceed 30 units per acre for Worthing Place. The subject
property is located south of Atlantic Avenue, between S.E. 1st
and 2nd Avenues. QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
The City Attorney stated this item would be conducted
as a quasi-judicial proceeding which allows for presentations by
all involved parties, the admission of documents into the record
and public testimony.
The City Clerk swore in those individuals who wished
to give testimony on this item.
Diane Dominguez, Director of Planning and Zoning,
entered into the record the Planning and Zoning Department's
project file, including a table of contents of all of the docu-
ments included therein. This includes the Comprehensive Plan,
the Land Development Regulations, the Official Zoning Map, the
Future Land Use Map, Transportation Concurrency Exception Area,
and all of the documents, plans, letters and staff reports that
are included in the file.
Ms. Dominguez gave a brief history of downtown redevel-
opment efforts in Delray Beach to give a sense of how the sub-
ject conditional use application came about. In 1984 the Atlan-
tic Avenue Task Force was convened and was comprised of people
who were mainly interested in improving Atlantic Avenue from
1-95 to the Atlantic Ocean. Zoning and land use issues were
reviewed, with a heavy concentration on beautification. The
Task Force developed a number of recommendations for landscap-
ing, lighting, paver blocks and the like. With respect to
housing in the downtown, the Task Force discussed some zoning
1/o4/oo
changes that would allow infill housing in the downtown. In
1985 the Community Redevelopment Agency was formed. The CRA's
Community Redevelopment Plan included many objectives for stimu-
lating the downtown, with a major goal being to provide addition-
al housing. The Visions 2000 session was held in 1988. One of
the focus areas was revitalization of the downtown and a number
of proposals came out of Visions 2000 that were intended to
stimulate the downtown while also preserving the village charac-
ter. Some of the major objectives were incentives for residen-
tial uses and the provision of additional public parking. In
1989 a new Comprehensive Plan was adopted which incorporated
many of the recommendations of the Visions 2000 session. In
1990 the Central Business District was expanded to include the
area east of the Intracoastal Waterway and also some area to the
north and south of the original CBD boundaries.
In 1991, the City, along with Palm Beach County,
sought an exception to traffic concurrency for the downtown
area. At the time this was referred to as a Geographic Area of
Exception (GAE), recognizing that the goal was revitalization of
the downtown, to have new growth and have additional traffic
without the burden of having to widen roads. Instead of going
with the GAE, the State Legislature amended the Department of
Community Affairs regulations to allow for Transportation Concur-
rency Exception Areas (TCEAs). The City adopted its TCEA in
1995. This allows the downtown area, along with West Atlantic
and the portion of the downtown east of the Intracoastal Water-
way, to be exempt from the Traffic Performance Standards ordi-
nance of Palm Beach County in order to allow for additional
growth. In 1997 the City adopted a new Comprehensive Plan and
one of the issues addressed in the Housing Element was housing
in the downtown area. Ms. Dominguez then read an excerpt from
the Housing Element, as follows: "A critical missing element of
the downtown is a significant housing development. We recognize
the importance of providing housing in close proximity to shop-
ping, employment, transportation, and the need to have a residen-
tial base to support the businesses in the downtown area." A
policy to implement this was that the Planning and Zoning Board
would work with the CRA to review the Central Business District
regulations to determine if there were any significant impedi-
ments to residential development in the downtown, and then the
code would be amended as necessary to eliminate any such barri-
ers. In 1998 the City Commission adopted the regulations that
would allow density to exceed 30 units per acre based on meeting
stated performance standards and consistency with the Comprehen-
sive Plan and Land Development Regulations.
Ms. Dominguez then reviewed the development history of
Block 77, noting that in 1998 the CRA issued a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the City and CRA-owned properties located in
Block 77. The objectives as stated in the RFP were to assemble
a site large enough for a large scale project, provide for
economic stimulation, improve marketability and demand for the
retail core, increase night-time activity downtown, provide
8 1/04/00
housing opportunities, eliminate slum and blight conditions,
provide more parking downtown, and create jobs. Three responses
were received, and the Block 77 Development Group was ultimately
selected by the CRA as the developer to work with. A number of
changes were then made from the original proposal, including the
relocation of the residential units that were originally pro-
posed to be on Block 69 to Block 77 which resulted in an addi-
tional story on the building. Public parking and GRIP parking
were moved to a garage on Block 69. The original idea was that
much of the-parking would be on Block 77. It was also deter-
mined that the Block 77 Group would make a financial contribu-
tion for improvements to Worthing Park as opposed to the develop-
er redoing the park. The current development proposal includes
219 units, 12,292 sq.ft, of retail space, a 400 space parking
garage on Block 77 for the residential and retail components, a
202 space parking garage on Block 69 to replace the public
parking and provide parking for the GRIP building. The building
is proposed at six stories (about 59 feet 6 inches). The east
facade is 368 feet long and the west facade is 332 feet long.
The proposal requires two conditional use requests; one to allow
density greater than 30 units per acre (the proposed density is
92 units per acre) and the second request to allow a building
height up to sixty (60) feet.
Ms. Dominguez briefly reviewed the site plan for the
proposed project as well as the criteria that must be met in
order for the conditional use requests (both the increased
height as well as the increased density) to be approved. She
noted, too, that notwithstanding the ability to meet the stated
criteria, the approving body may deny an application for an
increased density where it is determined that the proposed
project is not compatible in terms of building mass and intensi-
ty of use with surrounding development. So even if all of the
standards are met, there is still an "out". If a project is
determined to be incompatible, it can still be denied. Ms.
Dominguez commented on the other required findings for condition-
al use approval pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(E) (5) which pro-
vides that the City Commission must make a finding that estab-
lishing the conditional use will not (a) have a significantly
detrimental effect upon the stability of the neighborhood within
which it will be located, nor (b) hinder development or redevel-
opment of nearby properties. She stated that with the proposed
project, the whole basis for having residential units in the
downtown is to stabilize the downtown. The downtown is the
neighborhood within which the project should be considered. The
City has consistently advocated housing in the downtown since
the mid-1980s to have people living there day-to-day, year-
around so as to stabilize the businesses and provide for the
basic goods and services that are needed for a truly sustainable
downtown that can function when the economy takes a downtown or
when Delray Beach's Atlantic Avenue is no longer the latest hot
spot. She stated that the proposed project would not have a
detrimental effect upon the stability of the neighborhood nor
-9- 1/04/00
would it hinder development or redevelopment; rather, just the
opposite would be expected to occur.
Ms. Dominguez stated that the Planning and Zoning
Board held a public hearing on the conditional use requests on
December 13, 1999. The Board voted as follows: 5 to 1 (Eliopou-
los dissenting) to recommend approval of the request to allow a
building height of up to sixty feet, and 4 to 2 (Eliopoulos and
Carter dissenting) to recommend approval of the request to allow
density greater than 30 units per acre for Worthing Place.
At this point, Ms. Dominguez introduced Mr. Joe McMa-
hon, principal with McMahon & Associates, as an expert witness
to speak on the traffic issue.
Mr. McMahon, President of McMahon & Associates Trans-
portation Engineers, stated that his firm was retained by the
City to review the traffic study for the proposed project. His
firm provided comments and questions to the applicant's traffic
consultant who addressed those issues. Mr. McMahon stated that
his firm essentially concurs with the findings of the appli-
cant's consultant. He further stated that the project was
reviewed relative to the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance
Standards ordinance and their residential exemption for projects
east of 1-95. The entire project is located within the Transpor-
tation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). A lower level of
service and congestion is anticipated and was approved. Level
of Service "E" was adopted for Atlantic Avenue and level of
service "F" for Swinton Avenue. The level of service calcula-
tions included 926 total multi-family residential units by the
year 2015 in the central core. The residential units in the
proposed project fall within this calculation. The average
daily traffic is 1,471 new trips for the proposed project. Mr.
McMahon commented that it is important to look at the peak hours
of the project relative to the downtown peak hours. The proj-
ect's morning peak hour is from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. whereas
the downtown peak hour is from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., so they
are complimentary in that the majority of the traffic from the
project will be occurring at a time when there is not a lot of
traffic existing on the streets. The afternoon peak hour for
the project occurs between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., while the
downtown afternoon peak hour occurs between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m.
However, the substantial amount of traffic is the residential
traffic generation which is counter to the peak flow. Mr.
McMahon stated that his professional conclusion is that the
traffic distribution has no negative impact on the adjacent
residential developments.
At this point, the applicant's presentation was made.
Michael Weiner, attorney with offices at 102 North Swinton
Avenue in Delray Beach, introduced himself as agent for the
applicant, Block 77 Development Group. Mr. Weiner stated that
the applicant is proceeding on the recommendation of the City
Attorney as a quasi-judicial hearing. The standard of proof is
-lO- 1/o4/oo
that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
that the requirements of the City ordinances are met. As part
of that burden, there are required findings under Chapter 3 of
the Land Development Regulations and under Section 2.4.5 of the
Land Development Regulations. Mr. Weiner stated that he wished
to adopt the staff report where it is concluded that the project
meets each and every one of the requirements of those particular
ordinances. Mr. Weiner noted that a standard application and a
sketch plan showing the improvements have been submitted by the
applicant, along with a presentation before the Planning and
Zoning Board on December 13, 1999, as well as tonight's presenta-
tion before the City Commission, including the Powerpoint presen-
tation, as well as other submissions to Planning and Zoning
staff, all of which are incorporated by reference into the
record. The processing fee has been paid. Mr. Weiner stated
that the resumes of the applicant's witnesses and experts show-
ing the respective expertise have been submitted.
Mr. Weiner stated that a great number of civic organ-
izations, independent of the City, have reviewed the proposal
and affirmatively supported the concept with each recommending
approval. These organizations include the Council of 100,
Pineapple Grove Main Street, Delray Beach Merchants Association,
Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce, Old School Square, the Communi-
ty Redevelopment Agency, the Downtown Development Authority and
the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition. The proposal has
also been scrutinized at no less than eleven (11) different
public meetings before three different boards (i.e. the CRA, the
Planning and Zoning Board and the Historic Preservation Board),
and has previously been before the City Commission. Mr. Weiner
stated that at all of these meetings there was a favorable and
positive vote moving the proposal forward.
Mr. Weiner then discussed the proposed project's
compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the
Plan set the goal of obtaining a significant residential housing
component in the downtown which would be a part of a mixed use
development within a compact and vibrant downtown, accompanied
by innovative parking solutions. Mr. Weiner cited passages from
the Housing, Future Land Use, Transportation and Intergovernmen-
tal Coordination Elements of the Comprehensive Plan in support
of the proposed project's compatibility with the stated poli-
cies, goals and objectives of the City's adopted plan. He
summarized by stating that the Block 77 mixed use proposal is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, in fact, the Compre-
hensive Plan encourages such a proposal.
Michael Covelli, with the planning firm of Caulfield &
Wheeler, gave a presentation in which he discussed in detail how
the Block 77 development proposal has been designed so as to be
physically and architecturally compatible with the surrounding
area. He reviewed each of the performance standards set forth
in the Land Development Regulations and outlined how the project
had complied with each one. Mr. Covelli concluded his presenta-
-11- 1/o4/oo
tion by discussing the building height issue from the perspec-
tive of a pedestrian walking along the Atlantic Avenue corridor.
Richard Orman, Ph.D. in Master Planning, addressed the
Commission concerning the compatibility of the proposal in terms
of its function and economics with the surrounding area. Dr.
Orman testified that the project is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, that it is compatible with the surrounding
land uses and that it implements the City's vision as set forth
through the 'stated goals, objectives and policies of the Compre-
hensive Plan. He testified as to the economic and functional
compatibility with current and future uses, stating that the
proposed Worthing Place project will not be detrimental to the
stability nor hinder the redevelopment of the surrounding neigh-
borhood. Rather, there is a need for a consistent customer base
to support businesses in the downtown for long term sustainabili-
ty as opposed to only the restaurant and entertainment ven-
tures. Dr. Orman also addressed the City's vision for maintain-
ing the "village-like" ambiance of Delray Beach, asserting that
it is not so much physical but rather rooted in the community
itself where there is a sense of belonging, history and tradi-
tion. Downtown Delray Beach is clearly a distinctive and identi-
fiable place with a sense of identity, inclusiveness and face-
to-face interaction which is really what 'urban' is all about.
Dr. Orman stressed that Delray Beach and every small city inter-
ested in revitalizing its downtown needs every residential
pedestrian it can attract to assure its long term sustainabili-
ry. He stated his professional opinion that the approval of the
Worthing Place/Block 77 project is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, the project design is compatible with the
existing and surrounding land uses and with future land uses,
and that the project is economically compatible with and essen-
tial to the long term viability of the downtown and toward
implementing the vision of the City for a village-like community
by the sea.
Mr. Weiner reiterated that the development proposal
meets each and every one of the required design standards,
noting that the applicant went to the degree that was necessary
to meet the requirements as interpreted by staff. The Comprehen-
sive Plan said to remove impediments and get a significantly
large housing component downtown. The City Commission passed
ordinances that said any such project would be designed so as to
fit the downtown experience and to be sensitive to any difficul-
ties of mass and intensity. All of the adopted standards pro-
vide for a proposal that is going to have varying horizontal and
vertical planes to the building, a 5-story appearance, diverse
architectural elements, screening of automobiles, pedestrian
links, upscale amenities and so forth. Mr. Weiner stated that
by going through this exercise, the City is going to get exactly
what it wanted, namely, a project that is not massive and not
intensive, and one that fits with the Delray Beach experience.
Mr. Weiner reiterated that the Planning and Zoning staff report
states that the proposal meets or exceeds all concurrency re-
/04/00
quirements, all items of the performance standards are met or
exceeded, and the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and compatible with the surrounding area, creating stabili-
ty and encouraging redevelopment as called for under the Land
Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, including,
but not limited to, Chapter 3 and Section 2.4.5. In view of
these findings, Mr. Weiner asked that the City Commission ap-
prove the conditional uses that the Historic Preservation Board,
the Planning and Zoning Board, the Planning and Zoning staff,
and the Commanity Redevelopment Agency have previously approved.
At this point, Mayor Alperin prefaced the opening of
the public hearing by clarifying that each speaker would be
limited to a maximum of three minutes. He asked that everyone
conduct themselves courteously and considerately so that every-
one would have an equal opportunity to be heard. The public
hearing was opened.
Michael Listick, 616 East Atlantic Avenue, and Chair-
man of the Downtown Development Authority and member and Chair-
man of the Downtown Joint Venture, stated that these organiza-
tions have worked for many years to help bring about the stated
goal of bringing a significant residential project to the down-
town. The development proposal for Block 77 came in response to
the CRA's and the City's call. The developers have been very
cooperative and have tried to accommodate everything that has
been asked of them. Mr. Listick felt they ought to be encour-
aged especially if we expect to receive quality responses to
future RFPs. The proposed project represents many of those
things that the entire community has been working so hard to
bring to the downtown. Mr. Listick felt it would be a terrible
blow if we were to step backward at this point.
Joe Gillie, Director of Old School Square, 51 North
Swinton Avenue, reiterated Old School Square's position to
support the City Commission in a partnership to redevelop the
area surrounding Old School Square, and also to support the
CRA's choice of development in the RFP process and the selection
of Block 77 for the development of Worthing Place. Mr. Gillie
further stated he feels there is a direct link between the
parking garage and the success of Old School Square. Based on
the success the facility has enjoyed thus far, he urged the City
Commission to consider the parking and the direct link that the
proposed Worthing Place project will have to Old School Square.
Jon Levinson, 943 Everqreen Drive, and Vice-Chairman
of the Downtown Development Authority, stated that the DDA has
supported the proposed project from its inception and has voted
twice to support Worthing Place. The project will do a great
deal for the DDA in providing additional tax revenues which can
help in what is now the expanded DDA area west of Swinton Avenue
to 1-95. The DDA is also excited about the prospect of having
residential housing downtown since that has been another focus
-13- 1/04/00
area. Mr. Levinson stated that the DDA is very much in support
of the Worthing Place project.
Irwin Rockoff, 743 N.W. 23rd Lane, stated his opposi-
tion to the Block 77 proposal based on the way it has been
presented and the scope of the proposal. He is not opposed to
residential housing in the downtown; however, the Block 77
project is too big for the site and there is no guarantee that
the people who will be renting there will support the downtown
or become part of the community. Mr. Rockoff stated that the
community should be concerned about who is going to pay for this
if it turns out to be a big mistake. He felt it would be a
mistake to approve the project.
Dudley Remus, 35 S.E. 7th Avenue, stated that he felt
the proposed project is something that is needed in the downtown
(residential housing), but he was not sure that 219 rental units
is the right way to go as it will bring a lot of transient
people. He was further concerned about the additional traffic
impact the project will have on the downtown situation which is
at gridlock now. A residential project downtown is fine; howev-
er, the proposed Block 77 project is too big. Mr. Remus felt
the project would not be good for the majority of people in
Delray Beach, rather only for a select few.
Jim Knight, 740 Havana Drive, Boca Raton, representinq
the DeSantls Group which has a number of investments in Delray
Beach, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Knight felt it impor-
tant for the project to move forward and urged the City Commis-
sion to support it.
Fred Ebner, 710 Bond Way, expressed his total opposi-
tion to the proposed Block 77 development being built in the
downtown. He stated the building is totally out of proportion
and is not compatible with the surrounding area. He submitted
pictures of two and three story apartment buildings and office
buildings that are being built within a few blocks of Atlantic
Avenue, and stated that their sizes are much more complimentary
to Delray's urban village. They will all provide a customer
base for businesses downtown and there are more apartments
coming in the future. Mr. Ebner stated he is not against rental
property, but is against going from 30 units per acre to 92
units per acre on this particular site. He questioned what the
building will be able to be used for if it does not make it as a
luxury apartment building? He stated that a building of this
size and scale would impact Delray Beach negatively, and urged
the Commission not to allow the project.
Jack Pitts, 3750 Lone Pine Road and a former City
Councilman, expressed his opposition to the proposed project as
he felt the size of it would be too much for Delray Beach's
downtown. He felt that if the Commission allowed this project
to go through in its present form, the door will have been
opened and a dangerous precedent set.
Carolyn Patton, 1020 Tamarind Road, spoke in support
of the proposed project. She felt it would only help to bring
the neighborhood up and that it is in the right location for
this type of project. She asked the Commission to consider
having another visioning process for the redevelopment of Delray
Beach after this project is approved, to help bring the communi-
ty together ~gain to move forward in a positive way.
Bill Wood, 3777 N.W. 8th Street, and President of the
Greater Delra¥ Beach Chamber of Commerce, reiterated the Cham-
ber's position, and that of the Council of 100, in support of
the proposed project. It is the right project on the right
piece of property. Developers were invited to come in and pro-
pose dense, mixed use purposes and projects for this property.
In order to build to the density and height requested, the
developer must build according to agreed upon and very stringent
design criteria. It represents the opportunity that many have
been striving for, to add quality housing to the City's down-
town, a goal resulting from many planning hours by talented
professionals and community and business leaders. It has come
about through careful visioning, partnerships, maturity and hard
work. It is not a project that can or will be repeated on every
corner. It stands entirely on its own and Mr. Wood felt the
City was fortunate to have attracted such a talented development
group and a project that meets the highest and best us of Block
77.
Rosetta Rolle, 301 N.W. 3rd Avenue, expressed her
opposition to the proposed project as she feels it is too large
for downtown Delray Beach. Further, she is not is support of
the rental aspect which she felt would create an instant ghetto
because of the transient nature of the residents.
Fred Love, 315 N.W. 18th Street, expressed his opposi-
tion to the proposed project. While he strongly supports the
concept of residential housing in the downtown, he felt the
Block 77 project is totally out of scale and out of character
with the ambiance and nature of Delray Beach.
Rodne¥ Romano, representinq Eichas Real Estate Partner-
ship, 14 South Swinton Avenue, expressed his opposition to the
proposed project, stating that it is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it is too much in terms of
mass, density and intensity. It is a behemoth that is way out
of scale and violates both the letter and the spirit of the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Romano asserted that the proposed
project is not compatible with surrounding development in terms
of mass, density or intensity. Therefore, he contended that the
applicant had not met the burden of proof and could not be
entitled to approval.
-zs- z/o /oo
Rich McGloin, 2275 North Swinton Avenue, stated that
Pineapple Grove Main Street voted to support this project as did
the Downtown Merchants and Business Association. The project
itself is something that is needed in the downtown according to
the City's Comprehensive Plan and, in addition, it comes with a
parking garage which is something else that the City needs but
cannot afford to build.
Mark Little, 1220 North Swinton Avenue, expressed
support for the project as it does meet all of the criteria that
was set forward through the visioning process for the future of
Delray Beach and its growth and redevelopment. He viewed this
project as a benefit to the community both economically and as a
the right project for this particular location downtown.
John Weaver, Chairman of the Community Redevelopment
Aqencv, reviewed the RFP process for Block 77 and the rationale
behind the CRA's selection of the Worthing Place project for the
Block 77 site. Mr. Weaver stated the project is a "win-win" for
everyone involved and urged the Commission to unanimously sup-
port it.
Charles Siemon, Siemon & Larsen, 433 Plaza Real, Boca
Raton, representinq Dharma Properties, restated his prior re-
quest to the City Attorney, now to the City Commission, that
Dharma Properties, as owner of several nearby parcels of land,
be granted party status and that he be given full opportunity to
present the same length of time that staff and the developer
have had to make their presentations.
Mayor Alperin stated that Mr. Siemon would be afforded
the same amount of time (three minutes) as everyone else speak-
ing at the public hearing.
Mr. Siemon then asked that four (4) additional items
be included in the record. There is in the list of documents
which are included in the record here a voice transcript, a
voice tape of the proceeding before the Planning and Zoning
Board. Mr. Siemon stated that at that meeting he made a Power-
point presentation, and he asked that that Powerpoint presenta-
tion in both digital and printed form be included in the record,
or the voice tape be excluded from the record. Otherwise the
record is incomplete and not appropriate to be included in this
matter. In addition, Mr. Siemon asked that Susan A. Ruby's
letter of November 17, 1999, the Community Redevelopment Plan
and the Block 77 Request for Proposals be entered into the
record as well.
The City Attorney stated these items would be accepted
into the record.
Mr. Siemon then stated that it would be impossible to
rebut in three minutes what had been presented by staff and the
applicant. He stated the proposed Block 77/Worthing Place
-16- 1/04/00
project does not come close to satisfying the required perfor-
mance standards. He stated that the City's code provides an
obligation to calibrate the amount of density bonus to be grant-
ed on the basis of the degree to which the proposed development
satisfies or complies with each of the performance standards.
Mr. Siemon argued that there has not been one word offered in
the record of any analysis of the degree of compliance.
Richard ~ehrinH, Prime Interest, Inc. on behalf of
Dharma Holdi~Hs, submitted for the record a report he prepared
and submitted to Siemon & Larsen, in opposition to the proposed
project. He spoke primarily on Delray Beach's "village-by-the-
sea" character and ambiance and his opinion that the Block 77
project would have a detrimental and negative impact on that
character. He contended that the project is too excessive, and
submitted his Powerpoint presentation for the record.
Sylvia Cohen, 544 N.W. 47th Avenue, spoke in support
of the Block 77 project. She saw it as the culmination of some
15 years of comprehensive planning in Delray Beach and felt that
it represented a good use of land resources in the downtown.
Bill Schwartz, 3863 Live Oak Boulevard, spoke first as
Communications Director for Progressive Residents of Delray
(P.R.O.D.). He corrected several misquotes which had appeared
recently in The Delray Times and were attributed to three mem-
bers of P.R.O.D. Speaking on his own behalf, Mr. Schwartz
stated that he felt the applicant's presentation, including the
expert witnesses, summed up everything the City Commission
needed to know in order to make a positive decision concerning
the Worthing Place project. He stated that the project repre-
sents good planning, a good future and is just what Delray Beach
needs.
Tom FleminH, 215 N.E. 1st Avenue, spoke in support of
the Block 77/Worthing Place project. He urged the City Commis-
sion to approve the conditional use requests.
Kevin Warner, 248 Venetian Drive, entered into the
record a letter from an ad hoc group of citizens opposing this
particular project, but supporting the concept. Mr. Warner
reminded the City Commission of their stewardship responsibility
for protecting the interests of the City. He felt that the
Block 77 project is a turning point for this type of project as
far as what sort of precedents will be set and what will be
coming next. Mr. Warner expressed the opinion that the project,
as proposed, is way too big and asked the City Commission to
consider what sort of legacy the Commission will have left for
Delray Beach if the project blows up and is not successful. He
urged the Commission to send the project back and ask for some-
thing smaller, a compromise.
Jean Beer, 2145 S.W. 26th Terrace, speaking on behalf
of the Board of Directors of P.R.O.D., read the following state-
ment: "P.R.O.D. is in favor of mixed use development in the
downtown. However, the Board recommends that the height and
density of this project be scaled down. We encourage the Commis-
sion to send a strong message to the developer to return with a
scaled down version of the project." Speaking on her own be-
half, Mrs. Beer stated she concurs with the position of the
P.R.O.D. Board. She reitereated that in her opinion the perfor-
mance standards have not been sufficiently complied with to
receive the full density and that the combination of mass and
height is not compatible with the surrounding area.
Pat Duane, 1020 Vista Del Mar Drive, spoke in opposi-
tion to the Block 77 project. She felt that the project is far
too big to fit in with Delray Beach and urged the Commission not
to approve it.
Ann Fulton, 1124 Vista Del Mar Drive, spoke primarily
in opposition to the proposed parking garage associated with the
Block 77 project as it would be taking out six lots that are
part of a historic district. While they will still be zoned
OSSHAD, CBD uses will be allowed which she felt would be com-
pletely inappropriate. The purpose and intent of the historic
districts was to maintain the atmosphere and feeling of old
Delray Beach, and the overall liveability of the district. A
parking garage in an historic district does not seem proper at
all.
Deborah Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, spoke in opposi-
tion to the Block 77 project. She felt it would be completely
out of character with the uniqueness of Delray Beach and not
compatible with the lifestyle that has made Delray so attractive
to so many people.
Vi Hinchliffe, 1112 N.W. 4th Avenue, stated that she
was opposed to the Block 77 project because of the large size
and intensity. She felt it should be pared down to something
that would be compatible with Delray Beach.
Alice Finst, 707 Place Tavant, spoke in opposition to
the proposed project. It is totally out of keeping with the
'village-by-the-sea' character that so many people have fought
to maintain for Delray Beach. Mrs. Finst stated she felt com-
pletely disenfranchised over the whole prospect of what is going
on with the Block 77 development. The regular citizens feel
they have been left out and that the City Commission is not
protecting them. The project is too big and needs to be cut
back in some sort of a compromise.
Alexander "Sandy" Simon, 555 S.E. 6th Avenue, stated
that he felt there was a feeling of "disconnect" between the
people and the governing bodies of the community, and he looked
to this City Commission to do what is best for the citizens of
Delray Beach.
/04/00
John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, submitted a peti-
tion into the record containing the signatures of approximately
1,400 residents of Delray Beach who oppose the Worthing Place
development on the grounds that it is too large, too tall and
too dense for its surroundings and not compatible with the
downtown.
Bob Costin, 362 N.E. 5th Avenue, spoke as a local
businessperson in the community who supports the Block 77 devel-
opment proposal as a quality project for a quality town being
built by quality people. He urged the City Commission to vote
in favor of the project.
Judy Washington, 326 S.E. 1st Avenue, expressed her
opposition to the proposed Worthing Place project. She felt it
would be entirely too massive for the downtown and would lead to
increased crime and safety concerns.
Simon Harvey, 1040 Seasage Drive, spoke in opposition
to the Block 77 project. As currently designed, he felt it
would further divide the City both racially and economically,
and be harmful to the City's image.
Bruce Gimmy, 439 East Atlantic Avenue, spoke in sup-
port of the Block 77 project from a downtown merchant's perspec-
tive. It is imperative that the year-round customer base for
downtown businesses be expanded, and he urged the Commission to
support the project as a means of accomplishing this goal.
There being no one else from the audience who wished
to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed.
At this point, Michael Weiner gave a brief rebuttal to
the comments made in opposition to the project during the public
hearing.
Discussion by the Commission followed.
Mayor Alperin stated that after listening to all of
the presentations and upon the evaluations by the Planning and
Zoning staff, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Historic Preser-
vation Board, and the Community Redevelopment Agency, all of
which have recommended approval, he felt that the project meets
all of the requirements put forth by the City's Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Regulations, and he would support it.
Mr. Randolph stated that he has always supported the
concept of housing in the downtown, but not at the density that
is proposed for this project. He expressed particular concern
that if the Block 77 project is allowed to go forward in its
current form, what might this mean for the West Atlantic Avenue
corridor? There is some pretty prime land along West Atlantic
and he would not want to see something of this nature allowed in
that area as it would be completely contrary to the character of
1/04/00
the neighborhood. Mr. Randolph stated that in his opinion the
Block 77 project is too intense and he would not support it.
Mr. Wright stated that originally he was not in favor
of the project. However, after the months of discussion and
debate and public hearings and open dialogue, it all boiled down
to whether or not the project would be good for the City and the
future of Delray Beach. He reached the conclusion that the
project will be good for the City and stated that he would vote
in favor of it.
Mr. Schmidt stated that he did not think there was
anybody who was involved in this process who had been more
impartial than Diane Dominguez and the Planning staff. He took
offense at the attacks on Diane and her staff as to the approach
they used to come to the conclusion that they did. As for his
own conclusion, a tremendous amount of time was put into meet-
ings and discussions with staff, the applicant as well as the
opposition. He acknowledged Mr. Warner's remarks that if the
project is not successful, he was only too aware that in ten
years everyone would remember that he was on the Commission when
the project was approved. If it is successful, no one will
remember anything. Nonetheless, after a lot of hard thought, he
reached the conclusion that the proposed project in the proposed
location will be a positive for the City and he would support it.
Mrs. Archer commented that the project meets all of
the criteria set out in the City's codes as well as the Compre-
hensive Plan. She felt it will be a good project for the City
and relied heavily on the staff recommendation that it will be
compatible and in keeping with the character of Delray Beach.
She noted that the area in town where projects like this can be
built is extremely limited, and that the approval of one does
not mean the approval of many. Mrs. Archer stated she felt it
important to approve the project and she would support it.
Mrs. Archer moved to approve the request for condition-
al use approval for Worthing Place to allow a building height of
up to sixty (60) feet, based upon the sufficient facts presented
to support the positive findings with respect to LDR Section
4.3.4(J) (4) (b) (Height Allowance Criteria), Chapter 3 (Perfor-
mance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(E) (5) (Conditional Use
Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, as well as appli-
cable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and subject to the
conditions outlined in the City Commission Documentation staff
report from the Planning and Zoning Department. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wright. Upon roll call the Commission voted as
follows: Mr. Wright - Yes; Mr. Randolph - No; Mayor Alperin -
Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed
with a 4 to 1 vote.
Mrs. Archer moved to approve the request for condition-
al use approval for Worthing Place to allow 219 dwelling units
for a density of approximately 92 units per acre based upon the
-20- 1/04/00
sufficient facts presented to support the positive findings with
respect to LDR Section 4.4.13(I) (Performance Standards for
Density), Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section
2.4.5(E) (5) (Conditional Use Findings) of the Land Development
Regulations, as well as applicable policies of the Comprehensive
Plan, and subject to the conditions outlined in the City Commis-
sion Documentation staff report from the Planning and Zoning
Department. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wright. Upon roll
call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Randolph - No; Mayor
Alperin - Y~s; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Wright
- Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote.
At this point, the City Commission moved to the duly
advertised Public Hearings portion of the agenda.
10.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10.A. ORDINANCE NO. 47-99 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC
HEARING): An ordinance amending LDR Sections 4.4.24(B) (9) and
4.4.24(F)(1) by adding Lots 19 through 24, inclusive, Block 69,
to the list of lots in the Old School Square Historic Arts
District (OSSHAD) that may be developed pursuant to certain stan-
dards of the Central Business District. Prior to consideration
of passage of this ordinance on Second and FINAL Reading, a
public hearing has been scheduled to be held at this time.
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING
The City Manager presented Ordinance No.47-99:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.24,
"OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT
(OSSHAD)", SUBSECTION 4.4.24(B), "PRINCIPAL
USES AND STRUCTURES", AND SUBSECTION
4.4.24(F), "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS", TO ADD
LOTS 19 THROUGH 24, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 69, TO
THE LIST OF LOTS WITHIN THE OSSHAD ZONING
DISTRICT THAT MAY HAVE THE SAME PRINCIPAL
USES AS THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND
THAT MAY BE DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO THE STAN-
DARDS OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT;
PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A
SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Ordinance No. 47-99 is on file
in the City Clerk's office.)
The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance
and stated that the item would be conducted as a quasi-judicial
hearing which allows for presentations by all involved parties,
the admission of documents into the record and public testimony.
-21- 1/04/00
The City Clerk swore in those individuals who wished
to give testimony on this item.
Diane Dominguez, Director of Planning and Zoning,
entered into the record the project file for LDR amendment,
including the documents that are listed on the table of con-
tents. She presented an overview of the proposed text amend-
ment, stating that it will allow for a use and development
pattern that is more consistent with the rest of the downtown.
She noted that the current proposal is to construct a parking
garage that is associated with the Worthing Place development on
three of the six lots that would be affected. The reason for
the garage is to replace the public parking and the GRIP build-
lng parking that is being eliminated with the Block 77 develop-
ment and also to add additional parking for the public and for
GRIP. A total of 202 parking spaces are proposed at this time.
The building itself will be subject to review by the Historic
Preservation Board and will have to comply with the design
guidelines and standards set out in the Land Development Regula-
tions.
Michael Weiner, attorney representing the Block 77
Development Group, gave an opening presentation in which he
reviewed the existing uses in the area and surrounding zoning
districts. He cited policies of the Comprehensive Plan in
support of the text change amendment.
A public hearing was held having been legally adver-
tised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and
the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida.
Mayor Alperin declared the public hearing open.
Jean Beer, 2145 S.W. 26th Terrace, stated the position
of the Board of Directors of Progressive Residents of Delray, as
follows: "The P.R.O.D. Board supports the integrity of the
historic district and therefore feels that the proposed text
amendment is inappropriate." As an individual, Mrs. Beer con-
curred.
John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, questioned the
need to include six lots in the text amendment when only three
of the lots will be used for the parking garage? He objected to
the CBD uses being allowed on the other three lots without any
showing of need for it.
Charles Siemon, on behalf of Dharma Properties, repeat-
ed his request to be made a party on behalf of Dharma Properties
and participate fully in this proceeding and to have unlimited
time to make a presentation.
Mayor Alperin advised Mr. Siemon that he would be
limited to three minutes.
-22- 1/04/00
Mr. Siemon stated that the issue is the integrity of
the historic district and that the implications for this deci-
sion are significant. He felt that every other property owner
in the OSSHAD was being sent a message that those special regula-
tions and limitations imposed on properties zoned OSSHAD are
only appropriate if they do not stand in the way of something
the City wishes to do.
Richard ~ehrinq, 748 Broadway, Dunedin, and expert
witness to Siemon & Larsen, stated that the proposed text amend-
ment would be extremely damaging to the historic district and
that it seems to be a convenience of the City's ownership of the
land and the Block 77 developer's and the City's need for park-
ing.
Fred Ebner, 710 Bond Way, stated that he felt the
parking garage is being put in the wrong area. There are other
locations that would seem to be more accessible to Old School
Square and the Tennis Center, and that would be much more favor-
able to the businesses in the downtown. Mr. Ebner felt that
this location would prove to be a very inaccessible site.
There being no one else who, having been duly sworn,
wished to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed.
Discussion by the Commission followed. Mayor Alperin
stated that since the Historic Preservation Board, the Planning
and Zoning Board, and staff have all reviewed this request,
found that it meets all of the requirements and recommended in
favor of it, he would support it.
Mr. Schmidt moved to approve Ordinance No. 47-99 on
Second and FINAL Reading, making the finding that it is consis-
tent with the Comprehensive Plan, complies with the LDR require-
ments as it pertains to a rezoning, and the performance stan-
dards in Article 3.2.2. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Ar-
cher. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor
Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Wright
- Yes; Mr. Randolph - No. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote.
11. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Aqenda Items from the
Public-Immediately followinq Public Hearinqs.
11.A. City Manaqer's response to prior public comments and
inquiries.
There were no prior public comments or inquiries
requiring a response.
11 .B.
From the Public.
11.B.1. Alice Finst, 707 Place Tavant, expressed her apprecia-
tion to staff for having the Commission Chambers' speaker and
intercom system fixed so that the public can hear what is being
-23- 1/04/00
said while in the conference room or in the lobby. Mrs. Finst
also expressed her thanks to the City Manager for seeing to it
that the sidewalk at Atlantic High School was installed in a
timely manner.
11.B.2. Kevin Warner, 240 Venetian Drive, congratulated the
City Commission for approving the recent master borrowing resolu-
tion and arrangement for the $4 Million bank note with Sun-
Trust. He complimented staff for doing a good job of putting
the package together and pursuing some creative financing.
12.
FIRST READINGS:
12.A. ORDINANCE NO. 1-00: An ordinance amending Chapter 96,
"Fire Safety and Emergency Services", Section 96.66, "Emergency
Medical Transportation Fees", of the City Code to adjust the fee
schedule for emergency medical transportation in accordance with
the Inflation Index Charge applicable to Medicare services and
fee schedules. If passed, a public hearing will be scheduled
for January 18, 2000.
The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 1-00:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 96, "FIRE SAFETY AND EMERGENCY
SERVICES", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION
96.66, "EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION
FEES", SUBSECTION 96.66(A), TO ADJUST THE
FEE SCHEDULE FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPOR-
TATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANNUAL INFLA-
TION INDEX CHARGE; PROVIDING A GENERAL
REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Ordinance No. 1-00 is on file in
the City Clerk's office.)
The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance.
Mr. Schmidt moved to approve Ordinance No. 1-00 on
FIRST Reading, seconded by Mr. Wright. Upon roll call the
Commission voted as follows: Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mrs. Archer -
Yes; Mr. Wright - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes.
Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
13.
Comments and Inquiries on Non-Aqenda Items.
13 .A.
City Manaqer.
The City Manager thanked Commissioner Schmidt for his
comments earlier in the evening in support of the Planning
staff. A tremendous amount of work has gone into the review and
-24- 1/04/00
analysis of the Block 77 project. The staff has agonized over
it just as the City Commission has, but studied it very thorough-
ly and presented their professional point of view.
The City Manager also mentioned that we are now trying
to have everyone who presents anything of a visual nature to use
the Powerpoint presentation because that is visible to everyone
in the room. Hopefully, this will solve the problem we have had
with people .not being able to see things as they were presented
to the Commission.
13 .B.
City Attorney.
The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries.
13 .C.
City Con~,ission.
13.C.1. Commissioner Schmidt commented that with the approval
of the resolution of necessity for the Seacrest/Del-Ida special
assessment district, one issue has been traffic enforcement. It
is his understanding there has been resolution of the case
dealing with speed bumps and traffic devices like that. He
asked that the City Attorney provide an update at the next work
session.
13.C.2. Commissioner Archer had no comments or inquiries.
13.C.3. Commissioner Wriqht read the following statement:
"With much regret I must announce I am resigning as a City
Commissioner. My effective date of resignation will be January
18, 2000. The reason for my resignation is I have been promoted
to Assistant Director of Uniform Operations for the Palm Beach
County Sheriff's Office. This position gives me the responsibil-
ity for all Uniform Forces of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's
Office. This assignment requires me to reinstate my status as a
sworn Police Officer. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Attor-
neys have advised me that I am legally unable to be a City
Commissioner and a sworn Police Officer concurrently. I did not
anticipate this type of promotion when I decided to run for the
City Commission. I have enjoyed my term and will continue to
work hard for the city I love and will be at your service."
It was the consensus of the City Commission to make it
known that anyone interested in being considered for appointment
to complete Commissioner Wright's unexpired term should submit a
letter of interest and a resume no later than next Tuesday,
January 11, 2000, so they can be distributed to the City Commis-
sion at the January llth workshop meeting. The Commission would
then have the opportunity to consider applications, with the
formal appointment to be scheduled for action at the next regu-
lar meeting on January 18, 2000.
-25- 1/04/00
The City Manager commented that because the resigna-
tion is effective within sixty days of the election, the appoint-
ment would be for one year.
13.C.4. Commissioner Randolph had no comments or inquiries.
13.C.5. Mayor Alperin had no comments or inquiries.
There being no further business,
adjourned by'Mayor Alperin at 10:15 p.m.
the meeting was
ATTEST:
City ~le~ ' - - '
The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, and the information provided herein is the minutes of
the meeting of said City Commission held on January 4, 2000,
which minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City
Commission on ~lL~n~ 7 o~CkOO
/
~ity Clerk r
NOTE TO READER: If the minutes you have received are not com-
pleted as indicated above, this means they are not the official
minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official
minutes only after review and approval which may involve some
amendments, additions or deletions.
-26- 1/04/00
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
CITY MANAGER~I
AGENDA ITEM ~f"/~ '
AUTHORIZATION
- REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2000
FOR SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
TO
HANDLE/CANVASS ABSENTEE BALLOTS AND REPRESENT THE
CITY AT LOGIC & ACCURACY TESTS FOR THE MUNICIPAL
DATE:
ELECTION
DECEMBER 29, 1999
This is before the City Comvmssion to authorize Theresa LePore, Palm Beach County Supervisor of
Elections, to handle the City's absentee ballots for the March 14, 2000 mumcipal election. Ms.
LePore's office is equipped with a computerized system for momtoring ballot requests, distributtons,
accounting for uuremmed ballots, as well as electronic signature verification. She will also insure that
the absentee ballots are held m safekeeping prior to canvassing. The Supervisor of Elections should
also be authorized to represent the City at the canvassing of the absentee ballots.
It is further recommended that Ms. LePore be designated to represent the City's canvassing board at
the logic and accuracy (L&A) testing of the dectronic tabulating equipment. The L&A tests will be
conducted simultaneously m West Palm Beach and De[ray Beach at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, March 10,
2000, for the March 14~ elect~on as well as on election day both before and after counting of the
ballots.
Recommend authorizing the Supervisor of Elections for Palm Beach County to handle/canvass the
City's absentee ballots for the March 14, 2000 municipal elect~on, and designate her as the City's
representauve at the requisite logic and accuracy tests.
RefiAgmemo.Auth. Supexwisor of Elections March 2000
Palm Beach County
THERESA LePORE
Supervmor of Elec~ons
P.B.C. GOVERNMENTAL CENTER
301 N. OLIVE AVENUE, FI00M 105
VVEST PALM EEACH, FL 33401-4795
~ R:~HDI~: [561 ) 355-26,~2)
FAX NUMBER: (561)
QUESTIONNAIRE
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND RETURN TI'IlS FORM AND A COPY OF THE
ACTION TAKEN TO APPOINT THERESA ~ TO YOUR MUNICIPAL CANVASSING BOARD BY
JANUARY 14, 2000.
For your upcoming Munidpal Eleclion, do you wish to have Theresa LePore represent your Munidpai
Canvassing Board, as an addilional member of your Canvas~ng Board, at:
The Logic and Accuracy Test on lhe F~lay morning bef~ the eleclion?
YES , NO.
2. The Logic and Accuracy Test prior to the eleclion on eleclion night?
YES NO
The Logic and Accuracy Test alter the eleclion on eleclion night?
YES NO.
Would you like Theresa LePore to:
4. Handle the absentee balots for tl~ election?
YES NO
YES NO
Signature ol' Munidpal ~
PLF-A~E RETURN TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS BY JANUARY 14, 2000.
Revised 12/22/1~
[ITY OF OELRI:IV BERTH
CiTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DELRAY BEACH
1993
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755
Writer's Direct Line: 561/243-7091
MEMORANDUM
December 27, 1999
City Commission ~
Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Utility Easement - Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church
The attached easement deed is before you for your acceptance. The easement is needed
to extend water and sewer service to the proposed development. The City will be
installing water and sewer main extensions into the easement in conjunction with the
construction of the church.
By copy of this memo to David Harden, our Office requests that this item be placed on
the January 4, 2000 City Commission agenda for approval. Please call if you have any
questions.
Attachment
David Harden, City Manager
Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk
Barton Caronite, Asst. City Engineer
Prepared by: RETURN:
R. Brian Shutt, Esq.
City Attorney's Office
200 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33~.~.~
EASEMENT DEED
THIS INDENTURE, made this ~ r'-'day of ~ ~c_~e~ag~1999, by and between
Erananuel Evangelical Lutheran Church , with a mailing address
of. 400 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 , party of
the first part, and the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, with a mailing address of 100 N.W. 1st
Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33~.4, a municipal corporation in Pall Beach County, State
of Florida, party of the second part:
WITNESSETI:I: That the party of the first part, for and in consideration of the mutual
promises herein contained and other good and valuable considerations, does hereby grant,
bargain, sell and release unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, a right of
way and perpetual easement for the purpose of: installation and maintenance of a public
sidewalk and/or installation and maintenance of public utilities with full and free right, liberty,
and authority to enter upon and to install, operate, and maintain such utilities or sidewalk well
under, across, through and upon, over, under or within the following described property
located in Palm Beach County, Florida, to-wit:
DESCRIFrION
See Exhibit "A'
Concomitant and coextensive with this right is the further right in the party of the
second party, its successors and assigns, of ingress and egress over and on that portion of land
described above, to effect the purposes of the easement, as expressed hereinafter.
That this easement shall be subject only to those easements, restrictions, and
reservations of record. That the party of the first part agrees to provide for the release or
subordination of any and all mortgages or liens encumbering this easement. The party of the
first part also agrees to erect no building or effect any other kind of construction or
improvements upon the above-described property.
It is understood that upon completion of such installation, all lands disturbed thereby as
a result of such installation or spoilage deposited thereon, will be restored to its original or
like condition without expense to the property owner.
Party of the first part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land and will defend the
same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever claimed by, through or under it, that
it has good right and lawful authority to grant the above-described easement and that the same
is unencumbered except as provided above. Where the context of this Easement Deed allows
or permits, the same shall include the successors or assigns of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Easement Deed set their hands and seals
the day and year first above written.
WITNESS #1'
Edouane Jean
(name printed or typed)
PARTY OF THE FIRST PART
Print Name: Gerald Joseph~
1005 Mango Drive, Delray Beach,FL 33444
(address)
WITNESS ~2:
Albert L. "Bob" Hiller~ Jr.
(name printed or typed)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was
~'o__~rr~lo~c-, 1999 by
known to m_e or has produced
casment.frm
acknowledged before me this ~ day of
f]-o~e.~ ~x (~She is pe.rsonall.y
as identification.
Si~am~re of Notary~te
of Florida
2
EXHIBIT A
12' UTILITY EASEMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR A 12' UTILITY EASEMENT LYING IN THE PROPOSED DRIVE F~R THE
EMMANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, BEING A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER,
OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, LYING EAST OF STATE ROAD 9
( INTERSTATE 95 ), DELRAY BEACH, PAI~M BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
COMM~CING AT THE SOUTHEAST ~OP. NER OF TIlE ABOVE DESCRIBED TIIACT AND A POINT ON THE
CENTHRLINE OF SW 6th STREET; THENCE RUN N 0"07'50" W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
SECTION 19, A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF SAID SW 6th STREET AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CARVER PAP. K, A
SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27, PAGE 55, IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM
BEACH COUNTY,.FLORIDA; THENCE RUN S 89"23'56" W ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE A DISTANCE OF 17.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE CENTERLINE OF THE
HEREIN DESCRIBED 12' UTILITY EASEMENT; THENCE RUN N 4"05'30" W ALONG SAID CENTERLINE,
200.94 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CENTERLINE.
,,,'q~GI~ERED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER NO. 2S80
_ ,~/~ / ~
SHEET I OF 2
i
:I
[IT¥ OF DELRR¥ BEI:I[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DELRAY BEACH
1993
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755
Writer's D~rect Line: (561) 243-709!
December 28, 1999
City Commission _~
Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Agreement for Sidewalk Improvements
The attached agreement is between the City and Michael Mucha and Carolyn Kline, the
owners of the property, to allow the waiver of the requirement to construct a sidewalk
along the Spanish Trail and Dogwood Drive right-of-way until such time as the City
requests the sidewalk to be constructed. The proposed construction of a 3-unit
townhouse development triggered the requirement for the sidewalk construction. If and
when the City requires the Owners to construct the sidewalk, it would be at the Owners'
sole cost and expense and in accordance with all current ordinances of the City of Delray
Beach. This Agreement shall run with the land and be binding on the parties' heirs,
assigns and successors.
By copy of this memorandum to David Harden, our office requests that this Agreement
be placed on the City Commission January 4, 2000 agenda for Commission Approval.
Attachment
CC:
David Harden, City Manager
Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk
Michelle Hoyland, Planner
A 3REEMENT FOR
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of , ,
between the City of DeLray Beach (hereinafter the City) and Michael Mucha
&Carolyn Kline (hereinafter the Owners), for the purpose of waiving the
requirement of thc installation of a sidewalk along Spanish Trail and Dogwood Drive
until such time as the City requests the construction of the sidewalk by the Owner.
WHEREAS, Land Development Regulation Section 6.1.3(C) requires the installation of a
sidewalk, within the Spanish Trail & Doqwocx/ Dc. right-of-way immediately abutting the
subject property, by the Owner prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; and,
WHEREAS, the Owners have requested a waiver from the requirement of thc installation
ora sidewalk pursuant to Land Development Regulation Section 6.1.3(D)(1)(h); and,
WHE~S, in order to provide conformity along the street the City Commission voted to
waive the requirement for the installation of a sidewalk until such t/me as the City requests the
Owner construct thc sidewalk.
WITNESSE~
NOW, THEREFORE, in witness of the above and in consideration of the City agreeing to
waive the requirement for the installation of a sidewalk, at this time, for thc property located at:
Lot 130 in the Second Section of Tropic Isle, a subdivision of the City of Delray Beach
and located in Palm Beach County, Florida, as recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 246
of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Said lands containing .30 ac.
more or less.
1. The Owner agrees to construct a sidewalk, at its sole cost and expense, along the
Spanish Trail & Dogwood Drright.of. way abutting the subject property, within a t/me period
t
that is acceptable to the City, after being requested to do so by the City. The sidewalk, when
constructed, shall meet all of the current ordinances of the City of Delray Beach.
2. It is the intent of the parties that this Agreement shall run with the land. This
Agreement shall be recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida and shall be
binding on the parties' legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this agreement set their bands and seals this
__ day o f ~~~ ,//~7}~_~.
WITNESSES:
(Please type or print name)
OWNER:
By:
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .~ ~ day of
%~(e'tr~4'"~,/~;~ by ~r_~J__~~ ~,~'~.~ t~'~._~
u~u~ vf v~r m ~gcnt), ~f ~~~ ~(n~ of co,matin0, a
(State or place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the
corporation. He/She ~e~sonally ~ me or has produced
(type of identification) as identification and did/did not take an oath.
(SEAL)
2St/~ature of Notar~ Public -x7~
tS~ate of Florida
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form and sufficiency:
City Attorney
crrY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor
DELRA Y
LINCOLN
MERCURY
TROPIC
BOLENDER
BOULEVARD
STREET
DAN BURNS
OLDSMOBILE
ALLAMANDA
DRIVE
ED MORSE
BANYAN
DRIVE
OMC TRUCKS
DELRA Y
PLAZA
CYPRESS
DRIVE
SHER WOOD
PONTIAC
TO YO TA
USED CARS
DOGWOOD
DR~VE
=~EN DRIVE
DELRA Y
KIA
DELRA Y
TO YO TA
G
AVENUE
A
GARDENIA
FERN
DRIVE
DRIVE
MORSE
SA
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
DUMAR
PLAZA
EAS TVIEW --
VILLAGE
ITH
ADVANCED BUILDERS
DRIVE
--- O/G/I'A/. ~4~ t~,44P SYET[M -- MAP REF. LI,i3gg
tO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THRU: DIANE"E/OMINGUEZ, plRECTOR OF PLANNING & ZONING
FROM: PAUL DORLING, PR~NC/IPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2000 ** CONSENT AGENDA**
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED - SEVEN YEAR PERFORMANCE
MONITORING STUDY OF THE BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT
The action requested of the City Commission is that of approval of an
authorization to proceed with the Seven-Year Performance Monitoring Study of
the beach nourishment project.
The State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), coastal
construction permit for the renourishment project requires annual topographic surveys
of the beach, dune and borrow area. The surveys provide the required data for coastal
evaluations which are conducted to monitor the long-term performance of the
renourishment project. In addition to complying with permit requirements, the
information will also be utilized in the design of upcoming beach renourishment project.
The DEP permit requires the survey to be conducted in January, 2000.
This item is covered in our contract with Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. Funds
are available in the Beach Restoration Fund (Act # 332-4164-572-31.30). The majority
of the cost will be reimbursed from Federal, State and County appropriations.
By motion, approve an authorization for Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. to
proceed with the Seven-Year Beach Performance Monitoring Study at a cost not to
exceed $35,998 as requested in their attached correspondence.
Attachment:
· Letter from CPE
s:adv/beach/surveyl I
COASTAL PLANNING &
ENGINEERING, INC.
COASTAL & OCEAN ENGINEEPJNG
COASTAL SURVEYS
BIOLOGICAL STUDIES
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
2481 N.W. BOCA RATON BOULEVARD, BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4819.08
(561) 391-8102 Fax: (561) 391-9116
Internet: http://www.cpeboca.com
E-mail: mail@cpe.dynip.com
December 14, 1999
Mr. Paul Dorling
Project Coordinator
City of Dekay Beach
100 N.W. 1 st Avenue
Dekay Beach, FL 33444
Proposal for 84-Month Post-Construction Beach and Offshore Monitoring Study of the
1992 Beach Renourishment Project
Dear Mr. Dorling:
This is a proposal to conduct the 84-month (7 year) post-construction beach and dune monitoring
survey of the 1992 beach renourishment project.
The State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), coastal construction permit
for the renourishment project requires annual topographic and hydrographic surveys of the beach,
dune and borrow area. The surveys provide the required data for coastal evaluations which are
conducted to monitor the long-term performance of the renourishment project. In add/tion to
complying with permit requirements, the information will be utilized in the design of the beach
renourishment project. The DEP permit requires that the survey be conducted in January, 2000.
The proposed monitoring study will provide the required information to assess the beach
performance, provide information required for design purposes and meet the State of Florida permit
requirements, as follows:
1. Dune, Beach and Offshore Survey_ Profiles:
Beach profile cross-sections from beach monuments R-175 through R-192 will be surveyed
in accordance with the state permit beach monitoring requirements. Each profile will be
surveyed from the dune to the 30 foot offshore depth contour. A total of 18 profile lines will
be surveyed.
2. Sand Grain Sampling and Size Analysis:
A total of 36 surface sand samples will be collected at 4-foot contour intervals from +12 feet
to -20 feet (9 samples per line) along four State of Florida beach profile lines. Each sample
will be subjected to a mechanical sieve analysis. Based on the sieve analysis results, the
mean grain size will be computed and compared to post-construction data. Changes in mean
grain size at each study site will be compared to previous study results and the information
4819.08
Mr. Paul Dorl/ng
December 14, 1999
Page 2
provided to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Bureau of Beaches &
Coastal Systems, in accordance with permit requirements.
3. Beach Volumetric and Shoreline Position Analysis:
The data obtained from the beach profile topographic and hydrographic surveys will be
reduced, plotted and compared to the 1992 post-construction and January 1999 surveys.
Volume changes within the project area beach will be computed. The mean high water
shoreline position will also be determined and compared to its position in previous surveys.
This information will be used to provide an engineering assessment of the performance of
the previous (1992) beach renourishrnent project, and to plan for the next renourishment.
Areas of accelerated erosion (i.e. "hot spots") will be identified for future consideration in
the project redesign and also to monitor the extent of hot spot progression into the beach.
4. Sand Dune Evaluation:
The increase in the volume of sand in the dune will be computed based on the profile
comparisons to determine the extent of sand deposition in the dune system. The quantity of
volumetric accretion will be determined for the years after construction of the I992
renourishment. Profile cross-sections on DEP profile lines will provide dune dimensions
including dune height and seaward progression of the dune. The change in the dune profile
will also be evaluated for proper management of the dune system.
5. Beach and Dune Monitoring Report:
A report will be prepared summ~g the results of the study. We will provide three copies
of the report to the City; one copy to the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Beaches and Coastal Systems, and one copy to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The engineering fee for the surveys, evaluations and report is $35,997.99. A cost breakdown is
attached for your review.
Thank you for the oppommity to continue to serve the City of Delray Beach. If you should have any
questions, please call me.
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
4819.08
Mr. Paul Doffing
December 14, 1999
Page 3
Very truly yours,
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGIN'EERING, INC.
Vice President
Jeff Andrews, PSM, CPE
Craig Kmempel, CPE
John Walker, CPE
Earl Soeder, PSM, CPE
Norman Beumel, CPE
f:wp61 docs/palmbeach/delray/481908.347
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
[IT¥ OF DELRI:I¥ BEI:I[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DELRAY BEACH
1993
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755
Writer's Direct Line: 561/243-7091
MEMORANDUM
December 15, 1999
David Harden, City M~
Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Agreemems Between City, FDOT and FEC - Upgrading of
Railroad Crossings at Lindell Blvd. and George Bush Blvd.
Enclosed is a copy of two agreemems and the respective resolutions for the upgrade of
the railroad crossings on the above memioned roadways. The railroad crossing on
George Bush Boulevard, in addition to being upgraded will also have pedestrian gates
installed.
I will send the originals and the resolution, a copy of which is to be affixed to the
agreements, to the City Clerk.
Please place the agreement and resolution on the City Commission agenda for approval.
I have reviewed and approved the agreements as to legal sufficiency and form.
Enclosure
CC:
Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk
Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer
JEB BUSH
GOVERNOR
Florida Department of Transportation
;:
34O0 Welt Commercial Blvd.
Ft. L,l~llrdlb, Fkx'ldl, 33315
T~ (3O5') 77'/-44~0
PUB~ T~SPORTA~ON OFFICE
THOMAS F. BARRY, .IR.
SECRETARY
December 01,1999
Mr. Randall Krejcerek, City Engineer
City of Delray Beach
434 South Swinton Ave.
Delray Beach, FL ~
REF.
WPI No. NA FAP No.
Project No. 407488-1-57-01 Location Lindell Blvd.
County. Palm Beach Ref. I (Sig R)
Crossing No. 272489-Y RR. MP. 319+1920'
Dear Mr. Krejcarek:
The Department of Transportation proposes to have Automatic Grade Crossing Traffic
Control Devices installed, estimated at $165,570.00. This project is scheduled for
completion of negotiations by October 01, 2000.
Please execute and seal all original copies provided and return all copies to this office,
attn. Al Urgo, VVhen all copies have been executed by all parties, I will retum
one (1) copy to you for your files.
The project under this contract shall be performed in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Highway Administration's Federal-Aid Policy Guide, Subchapter B, Part 140,
Subpart I; Subchapter G, Part 645, Subpart B, as required.
Should additional information of a meeting with Department representatives be needed,
please cell me at (954) 777-4499.
Sincerely,
Alan F. Urgo
Rail Projects Specialist
AU:au
CC:
Nancy Bungo, Manager, Public Transportation Office
Ed Radson, District 4 Railroad Coordinator
www.dot.state.fl,us ~ RECYCLED PAPER
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMEN~ ~F TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF PUBUC TRAI~PORTATION
CITY RESOLUTION
GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AND FUTURE RESPONSIBILITY
FINIANCIAL PROJECT ROAD NAME COUNTY NAME PARCEL & FAP
NUMBER OR NUMBER R/W NUMBER NUMBER
407488-1-57-01 Lindell Blvd. Palm Beach l(Sig R)
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A RAILROAD REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, AND FUTURE
MAINTENANCE AND ADJUSTMENT OF SAID DEVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS; AND PROVIDING WHEN THIS RESOLUTION SHALL TAKE EFFECT.
RESOLUTION NO. 3- 00
ON MOTION OF Commissioner (Councilman)
seconded by Commissioner (Councilman)
Resolution was adopted:
, the following
WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Transportation is constructing, reconstructing or
otherwise changing a portion of the Public Road System, on Lindell Blvd.
, which shall call for the installation and maintenance of railroad
grade crossing traffic control devices for railroad grade crossings over or near said highway; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
Delra¥ Beach , FLORIDA:
That the City of Delray Beach , enter into a
RAILROAD REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT with the State of Florida Department of Transportation
and the Florida East Coast Railway Company for the installation and Maintenance of
certain grade crossing traffic control devices designated as job No. 407488-1-57-01
on Lindell Blyd. which crosses the right of way and tracks of the Company at FDOT/
AAR Crossing No. 272489-y located near Delrav Beach , Florida; and
That the City assume its share of the costs for future maintenance and adjustment of said grade
crossing traffic control devices as designated in the RAILROAD REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT; and
That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to enter into such agreements with the State of
Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida East Coast Railway Company as herein
described; and
That this RESOLUTION shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED by the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach
Florida, in regular session, this day of ,19
ATTEST:
City Auditor and Clerk
SI'ATE OF FLOI~I~& I~.~AR~ OF TRA~,~sOR"rATION
RAH,ROAD REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
COUNTY SECTION JOB ROADNAME COUNTY PARCEL & FAP
NUMBER ORNLrNBER NAME RAV NUMBER NUMBER
407488 -1-$7- 01 Lindell Blvd. Palm Beach 1 (Sig R)
T~S AGREEMENT, made and entered into this __ Day of ,19 ,
by and between the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter called
the DEPARTMENT, and Florida East Coast Railwa_v Compan_v
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida .
with its principle place of business in the City of St. Augustine
County of St. ]'ohns , State of Florida
her6mfter called the COMPANY; and the City of DeUay Beach
corporation, hereinafter called the CITY.
, a municipal
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT is constructing, reconstructing or othervase changing a portion of the
Public Road System, designated by the DEPARTMENT as/ob No. 4074~8-1-57-01 , on
Lindell Blvd. , which crosses at grade the right-of-way and
tracks of the COMPANY'S lk~lepost 319+1920' , FDOT/AAR Crossing Number ~
at or near,
No. NA
Delray Beach , ,,
, attached hereto as a part hereof, and
, as shown on the DEPARTM[ENT'S Plan Sheet
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings as herein set forth, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. The COMPANY shall furnish the necessary materials and install Automatic Grade Crossing Signals Type
,Class, ITl , and/or traffic control devices at said location on an actual cost basis,
and in accordance with the DEPARTMENT'S Plans and Standard Index Number 17882 attached hereto and
by reference made a part hereof.
2. After installation of ~aid signals is completed, fifty (50) percent of the expense thereof in maintaining
the same shah be borne by the CITY and fifty (50) percent shah be borne by the COMPANY, as enumerated by
the Schedule of Annual Cost of Automatic Highway Grade Crossing Devices attached hereto and by this reference
made a part hereof and subject to future revision.
3. After said signals have been installed and found to be in satisfactory working order by the parties hereto,
the same shall be immediately put into service, operated and maintained by the COMPANY so long as said
COMPANY or its sucessors or assigns shall operate the said signals at said grade crossing; or until it is agreed
between the parties hereto that the signals are no longer necessary or until the said crossing is abandoned; or
legal requirements occur which shall cease operation of signals thereat. The COMPANY agrees that any future
relocation or adjustment of said signals shall be performed by the COMPANY, but at the expense of the party
initiating such relocation. Upon relocation the maintenance responsibilities shall be in accordance with the
provisions of this agreement. It is further agreed that the cost of maintaining any additional or replacement signal
equipment at the same location will be shared as provided under Paragraph 2. Above.
4. Unless otherwise agreed upon here'm, the CITY agrees to insure that at the crossing the advance
warning signs and railroad crossing pavement markings will conform to the U.S. Department of Transportation
Manual bn Uniform Traffic Control Devic~ within 30 days of notification that the rai/road signal improvements have
been completed and that such signs and pavement markings will be continually maintained at an acceptable level.
5. The COMP~ herby agrees to install and/or adjust the necessary pans ofits facilities along said road
in accordance with the provisions set forth in the:
DEPARTMENTProcedure No. 725-080-225 "Reimbursement", dated November 8, 1989
And Rule 014-46.002 "Responsibility for the Cost of Raikoad/Highway Crossings",
Florida Administrative Code, dated July 22, 1982.
xxco)
Federal Highway Administration Federal-Aid Policy Guide, Subchapter G, Pan 646,
Subpart B, dated December 9, 1991,
and any supplements thereto or revisions thereof~ which, by reference hereto, are made a part hereof. The
COMP~ further a~rees to do all of such work with its own forces or by a contractor paid under a contract let
by the COMPANY, all under the supervision and approval of the DEPARTMENT and the Federal Highway
Administration, when applicable.
6. The DEPARTMENT hereby agrees to reimburse the COMP~ for all costs incurred by it in the
installation and/or adjustment of said facilities, in accordance with the provisions of the above indicated
Reimbursement Policy, and any supplements thereto or revisions thereof. It is understood and agreed by and
between the parties hereto that preliminary engineering costs not incorporated within this agreement shall not be
subject to payment by the DEPARTM],~NT.
7. Attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof~ are plans and specifications of the work to be
performed by the COMPANY pursuant to the terms hereof~ and an estimate of the cost thereof in the amount of
$ 165.570.00 . All work performed by the COMPANY pursuant hereto, shall be
performed according to these plans and specifications as approved by the DEPARTMENT and the Federal Highway
Administration if federal aid participating; and all subsequent plan changes shall likewise be approved
by the DEPARTMENT and the Federal Highway Administration, when applicable.
8. All labor, services, materials and equipment furnished by the COMPANY in carrying out the work
to be performed hereunder shall be billed by the COMPANY direct to the DEPARTIVIENT. Separate records as
to the costs of contract bid items and force account items performed for the COMPANY shall also be furnished
by the COMPANY to the DEPARTMENT.
9. The COMPANY has determined that the method to be used in developing the relocation or
installation cost shall be as specified for the method checked and described hereinafter:
XX(a)
Actual and related indirect costs accumlated in accordance with a work order accounting
procedure prescribed by the applicable Federal or State regulatory body.
Actual and related indirect costs accumlated in accordance with an established accounting
accounting procedure developed by the COMPANY and approved by the DEPARTMENT.
An agreed lump sum S , as supported by a detail analysis of
of estimated cost attached hereto. (NOTE: This method is not applicable where the
estimated cost of the proposed adjustment exceeds $100,000.00.)
10. The installation and/or adjustment of the COMPANY'S facility will/will not) involved additional work
over and above the minimum reimbursable requirements of the DEPARTMENT. (If upgrading and/or
nonreimbursable work is involved at the option of the COMPANY, then credit against the cost of the project is
required and will be governed by the method checked and described hereafter):
% will be applied to the final billing of work actually
accomplished to determine required credit for (betterment) and/or (expired service life)
and/or (nonreimbursable segrnenu)
All work involving nonreimbursable segments will be performed by special COMPANY
Work or job order number apart and separate from the reimbursable portion of the work or
]'ob order number to be . The COMI~ANY further agrees to
clearly identify such additional work areas in the COMPANY'S plans and estimates for the
Total work covered by this Agreement.
$ credited for (betterment) and/or (expired
service life) and/or (nonreimbursable segments) in accord with Article 9.(c) hereinabove.
11. h is specifically agreed by and between he DEPARTMIiNT and the COMPANY that the
DEPARTMENT shall receive fair and adequate credit for any salvage which shall accrue to the COMPANY
as a result of the above installation and/or adjustment work.
12. It is further agreedthat the cost of all improvements made during this adjustment work shall be borne
by the COMPANY, subject only to the DEPARTMENT bearing such portion of this cost as represents the cost
of adjustment of previously existing facility, less salvage credit as set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph.
13. Upon completion of the work the COMPANY shall, within one hundred eighty (180) days, furnish
the DEPARTMENT with two (2) copies of its final and complete billing of all costs incurred in connection with
thevwork performed hereunder, such statement to follow as closely as possible the order of the items contained in
the estimate attached hereto. The totals for labor, overhead, travel expense, transportation, equipment, materials and
supplies, handling costs and other services shall be shown in such a manner as will permit ready
comparison with the approved plans and estimates. Materials shall be itemized where they represent major
component of the relocation following the pattern set out in the approved estimate as closely as is poss~le.
Salvage credits f~om recovered and replaced permanent and recovered temporary materials shall be reported in
bills in relative position with the charge for the replacement or the original charge for temporary use.
The final billing shall show the description and site of the Project; the date on which the first work was
performed, or, if pre 'krninary engineering or right-of-way items are involved, the date on which the earliest item
of billed expense was incurred; the date on which the last work was performed or the last item of billed expense was
incurred; and the location where the records and accounts billed can be audited. Adequate reference shall be
made in the billing to the COMPAA~"S records, accounts and other relevant docunents. All cost records and
accounts shall be subject to audit by a representative ofthe DEPARTMIiNT. Upon receipt of invoices, prepared
in accordance with the provisions of the aboveindicated Reimbursement Policy, the DEPARTMIiNT
agrees to reimburse the COMPANY in the amount of such actual costs as approved by the DEPARTM~ENT'S
auditor.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
1. Paragraph 14 deleted by all parties pr/or to execution.
IN W1TNESS WtlEREOF, the partie~ hereto have caused the~ l~-e, sents to be executed by their duly
authorized officers, and their official seal hereto affixed, fl~e day and year first above written.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY:
ATTEST:
District Secretary
Secretar7
(SEAL)
COMPANY:
ATTEST:
Secretary
Approved as to form and
CITY OF Delray Beach ,FLORIDA legal sufficiency:
BY: A~.City Attorney
(rifle ) (SEAL)
ATTEST:
Approved as to Form, Legality
and Execution
Approved as to Funds
Available
Approved as to FHPG
P. equirement~
BY: BY: BY'
Attorney - DOT Date Fiscal - DOT Date FI-1WA Date
O~T 13 '99 ll:~6PM FEC EN~IMEERIMG MW&S P.6
OF SZ~&L~ AND CCeA~ZCA~0N
DATE: 10/11/99
FILE: 10.2
TYPE: i'V
CT, ASS: III
1~. Off DAYS: 14
AAK / DOT #: 272495V
MILE POST: 319 · 1920t
P=oject Ty~e: FDOT
EST~TED COST FOR HIGHNAY CROSSING~TARNING DEVICES LINDBLL BOULEVARD.
This es~=e should be con.side=ed void al=e= one (1} yea=.
M~JJ~L Ut~IT cos~ ~NITS
GATE ASS~MBLZES $4,997.00 2EA.
GATES $500.00 2~.
~ FO~T~ONS $5~5.00 3~.
~DITIO~ ~HING LIG~ ~S~LI~ $1,337.00 3 ~.
~IL~R 23~ $6,100.00 1~.
~IL~ FO~ATIONS ~3,200.00 1~.
WI~D ~E, ~ & ~-3R ~38,670.00 1~.
~RY BOX $675.00 1~.
MISC. GRO~ ~T~ $1,522.6l I P~.
CO~UIT g DI~XO~ BO~ ~45.00 90 ~.
~EKIES ~200.00 30 ~.
~SCEL~O~S ~Y EOUIP $!,120.00 i P~.
~ SE~CE $900.00 1 ~.
~TORING ~I~ S5,422.00 1 PKG.
S~T~ION & DIS~S~ $1,500.00 i PKG.
~IG~ & ~L~NG
EXCAVATING E~UZPMENT. PER DAY
E~UZPH~/~T RENTA~ PER DAY
FOR~A/~*S TRUCK EER DAY
GAnG TRUCK PER DAY
SUPSRVISORS TRUCK PER DAY
$181.00 14 DAYS
$125.00 14 DAYS
$35.00 14 DAYS
$63.00 L4 DAYS
$3§.00 14 DAYS
$4, S~0.00 i
CONSTRUCTION Sb~BRVISZON
LABOR ADDITIVE
SUltRY/SIt, TOTAL
$26O.O0
14 DAYS
LABOR PER DAY
NUMBER OF DAYS
LA~ORADDZ~IVE
$990.76
14
GANG EXPENSES PER DAY
NON, ER OF DAYS
~ GANG EXI~NSES
$$53.00
14
TOTAL
$9,994.00
Si, 000.00
$1,725.00
$4,011.00
$6,100.00
$3,200.00
$38,670.00
$ 675.00
$1,522.62
$4,050 · O0
$6, 000.00
$6,278.00
$1,120.00
$900.00
$$, 422. O0
$1,500.00
$13,600.00
$111, ~ 60.
$2,534.00
$490.00
$882.00
$490.00
$6,146.00
s4.soo.oo.
$4,500.00
$3,640.00
$5,667.00
$13,871.00
S8.095.00
$21,966.00
~7,742.00
$157,681.62
$7,8~4.00 _
· O~L $16S,$70.00
~"~498V ~i~
LINDELL BOULEVARD
North
Palm Beach County to remove
the poles and the overhead wire
15'-0"
Install new flashing
lights and gate with
additional mast lights
10'.0'~
!
Install a cantilever with bac~( 15'-0"
!
to back lights. Install new
flashing lights and gate with
additional mast lights.
No curb & gutter
No curb & gutter
18'-0"
12'-0"I
TITLE II SIGNAL SAFETY PROGRAM FOR THE YEAR 2000 1 2001
PROJECT LOCATION Lindell boulevard in Delray Beach with the FEC RAILWAY Co.
PRIORITY NUMBER 302
RAILROAD CROSSING NUMBER 272498-V
RAILROAD MILEPOST 319 + 1920'
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT
Install a cantilever with back to back lights on the southwest side of the crossing.
Install new flashing lights and gates with additional mast lights on both sides of the
crossing. Palm Beach County to remove the poles and wire on the west side of the
crossing.
FORM 7'25-090-05
10/g8
Page I of 1
I COUNTY I SECTION
40748 I 8-1-5
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFlrICw- OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
RAH.ROAD RELOCATION SCHE~DULE
NUMBER OR NUMBER NAME R/W NUMBER NUMBER
RAILROAD COMPANY
F.E.C. Railway Co. Inc.
Ae
Be
Facilities Involved (Detail as to Tvoe and Location):
Install new roadway and pedestrian gates. New controller with event recorder.
crossing no: 272489-Y R.R.M.P. 319+1920'
Relocation Work AnticiPated (Describe and Relate to Location on Pro4ect:
C. Anticipated Relocation Schedule (Based on normal and a 5 day work week):
DAYS ESTIMATED
De
Preliminary Engineering
Material Procurement
Right of Way Acquisition
Contract Negotiations (For railroad installationwork)
Other
Construction (A=tual railroad relocation td~at Job site]
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM TOTAL 14 davs
ADJUSTED RAILROAD RELOCATION PERIOD
(A~lowfor concurrent activities) ESTIMATED MINIMUM TOTAL
* See Highway Contract Special Provisions
Special Notation(s) to be included in Hiahwav Contract Special Provisions:
Railroad Protective Public Liability and Property Damage Liability Insurance
Coverage Policy must conform to police form outline prescribed by ~ISO-RIMA"
Insurance Service Oraanization - Railroad Insurance Manaaement.
E. This COMPANY proposes to commence actual relocation and/or adjustment work:
(Check One)
D Prior to highway contract advez~cisement, and relocation should be __ % complete by date
of preconstruction conference.
D Concurrently wi~h project advertisement.
D Concurrently wi~h cm~nc~w--nt of highway construction.
The above date is based on construction plans and schedules prepared by the DEPARTMENT, and ~herefore
is furnished for informational purposes only. This CCIdPANY is not responsible for circumstances beyond
its normal control. However the CCI(PANY will endeavor to fully cooperate with the DEPARTMENT, end its
contractor, in clearing the project right of way as expeditiously as possible. The COMPANY's field
representatives can be contacted at:
Mr Thomas Travato Telephone ~,~er: 1-800-342-1131 Ext 2327
SUBMITTED FOR THE COMPANY BY:
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL BY: E.F. Radson
District Railroad Coordinator
DATE:
DATE:
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
WORK DESCRIPTION
GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
FORM 725-090-09&
REPLACES 841-33
01/90
['AGE ! of 1
COUNTY SECTION JOB ROAD NAME COUNTY PARCEL & FA~
NUMBER OR NUMBER R/W NUMBER NUMBER
40748 8-1-5 7-01 Lindell Blvd. Palm Bch I (Sig R)
RAILROAD COMPANY
IFloridaEast Coast Railway Co. Inc.
Ae
Do
F®
He
JOB DESCRIPTION & LOCATION: New pedestrian . rdwv aates, controller
TYPE OF ROADWAY FACILITY: Citv arterial
FDOT/AAR XING NO. 272489-¥ RR MILE POST: 319+1920'
TYPE SIGNALS PROPOSED:
STATUS AND PROPOSAL:
1. EXISTING DEVICES:
a.
b.
C.
d.
f.
IV CLASS: III DOT INDEX NO: 178~2
(See Agreement dated
None-New Crossing.
Crossbuck and Disk.
Flashing Signals with Disk.
Flashing Signals with Cantilever.
Flashing Signals with Gate.
Flashing Signals with Cantilever and gate.
Company
Yes No
City Of Delray Beach
2. PROPOSED DEVICES (Safety Index Rating 702
a. No revision required.
b. Crossbuck and Disk.
c. Flashing Signals with Disk.
d. ,Flashing Signals with Cantilever.
e. .Flashing Signals with Gate.
f. XX Flashing Signals with Cantilever and Gate.
g. Relocate existing signal devices:
( 1 ) ~With-Withou=) addition of Gates.
(2) XX (with-///////) synchroniz&tion with highway traffic signals.
COMMUNICATION AND/OR POWER LINE ADJUSTMENTS:
1. By Others (
2. By Railroad Company.
AUTHORITY REQUESTED: (Draft attached:
1. XX Agreement (Third- Party Participating
2. Supplemental Agreement No.
3. Crossing Permit.
4. Estimate for Change Order No.
5. Letter of Authority.
6. Letter of Confirmation (No Cost to Department).
OTHER REMARKS:
Negotiations to be completed by:
Signal installation target date:
Synchronization: (Draft attached
October 2000
Yes XX No
OFFICE OF PUBLIC TRANSPOI~TATTON
RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
FORM 725-090-41
ItAIL
COUNTY SECTION JOB ROAD NAME COUNTY PARCEL & FAP
NUMBER OR NUMBER NAME R/W NUMBER NUMBER
40748 8-1-57 -01 Lindell Blvd. Palm Bch 1 (Sig R)
COMPANY NAME: Florida East Coast Railway Co
A. SOB DESCRIPTION & LOCATION: New Rdwv & Pedestrian Gates & Cantilever
B: TYPE OF ROADWAY FACILITY: Minor City Arterial
C: FDOT/AAR XING NO.: 272489-Y
RR MILE POST TIE: 319+1920'
D. TYPE SIGNALS PROPOSED: IV
CLASS III DOT INDEX 17882
SCHEDULE OF ANNUALCOST OF AUTOMATIC
HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
I
II
III
IV
Annual Maintenance Cost Exclusive of Installation
DESCRIPTION
Flashing Signals - One Track
Flashing Signals - Multiple Tracks
Flashing Signals and Gates - One'Track
Flashing Signals and Gates - Multiple Tracks
* Effective July 7, 1996
COST *
$ 1,637.00
$ 2,166.00
$ 2,468.00
$ 3,098.00
AUTHORITY: FLORIDAADMINISTRATIVE RULE 014.46.002
Responsibility for the Cost of Automatic Highway
Grade Crossing Traffic Control Devices
EFFECTIVE DATE:
GENERAL AUTHORITY:
SPECIFIC LAW IMPLEMENTED:
July 22,19B2
334.044 F.S.
335.144 F.S.
*This schedule will become effective July 1, 1996 and will be reviewed
every 5 years and revised as appropriate based on the Consumer Price Index
for all Urban Consumers published by the U.S. Department of Labor.
0
.I
0
Z
o -)
SEE MAP NO. 112
~.agle
untryO
BENJAMIN AV
mF'lreSta
//.3
. - ~l=-VO
Delray
~ 7
McClear¥ St
Tfop,c--Blvd' /
Allamanda-Dr -~
Banyan--Dr ..... \
Cy[
ES
dcal
L -- AV
LRAY
:antic
I BOSUN CIR
2 HARBOR ClR
3 ADMIRALS PORT
4 CAPTAINS WALK
, S COMMODORE CIR
I I ADMIRALS WY
7 PELICAN POINT DR
II FREDERICK ELVO
GHLAND
32
H,dden
Blvd
~'PPL
BERKLEY ST
'St
iland Beach
T
T
46S ~'~
47 S
Ipswich
JEB BUSH
GOVERNOR
Florida Department of Transportation
FL I.~xl,rd,le. Yl~ 33315
T~lephone (305) 777-4480
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OFFICE
THOMAS F. BARRY, JR.
SECRETARY
December 01,1999
Mr. Randall Krejcarek, City Engineer
City of Delray Beach
434 South Swinton Ave.
Delray Beach, FL 32444
REF.
WPI No. NA FAP No.
Project No. 407489-1-57-01 Location N.E. 8th Street
County. Palm Beach Ref. I (93010-Sig R)
Crossing No. 272488-T RR. MP. 315+5167'
Dear Mr. Krejcarek:
The Department of Transportation proposes to have Automatic Grade Crossing Traffic
Control Devices installed, estimated at $138,470.00. This project is scheduled for
completion of negotiations by October 01,1999.
Please execute and seal all original copies provided and retum all copies to this office,
attn. Al Urgo, VVhen all copies have been executed by all parties, I will return
one (1) copy to you for your files.
The project under this contract shall be performed in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Highway Administration's Federal-Aid Policy Guide, Subchapter B, Part 140,
Subpart I; Subchapter G, Part 645, Subpart B, as required.
Should additional information of a meeting with Department representatives be needed,
please call me at (954) 777-4499.
Sincerely,
u .o IV i £ERiN
Rail Projects Specialist
AU:au
cc: Nancy Bungo, Manager, Public Transportation Office
Ed Radson, District 4 Railroad Coordinator
www.dot.state.fl.us i~ RECYCLED PAPER
STATE OF FLORJDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
CITY RESOLUTION
GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AND FUTURE RESPONSIBILITY
FINIANCIAL PROJECT ROAD NAME COUNTY NAME PARCEL & FAP
NUMBER OR NUMBER RAN NUMBER NUMBER
407489-1-57-01 N.E. 8th Street Palm Beach 1(93010-Sig R)
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A RAILROAD REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, AND FUTURE
MAINTENANCE AND ADJUSTMENT OF SAID DEVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS; AND PROVIDING WHEN THIS RESOLUTION SHALL TAKE EFFECT.
RESOLUTION NO. 4- o o
ON MOTION OF Commissioner (Councilman)
seconded by Commissioner (Councilman)
Resolution was adopted:
, the following
WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Transportation is constructing, reconstructing or
otherwise changing a portion of the Public Road System, on N.E. 8th Street
, which shall call for the installation and maintenance of railroad
grade crossing traffic control devices for railroad grade crossings over or near said highway; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
D~lmy Beach , FLORIDA:
That the City of Delrav Beach , enter into a
RAILROAD REIMBURSEMENT-AGREEMENT with the State of Florida Department of Transportation
and the Florida East Coast Railway Company for the installation and Maintenance of
certain grade crossing traffic control devices designated as job No. 407489-1-57-01
on N.E. 8th Street which crosses the dght of way and tracks of the Company at FDOT/
AAR Crossing No. 272488-T located near Delrav Beach , Florida; and
That the City assume its share of the costs for future maintenance and adjustment of said grade
crossing traffic control devices as designated in the RAILROAD REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT; and
That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to enter into such agreements with the State of
Flodda Department of Transportation and the Flodda East Coast Railway Company as herein
described; and
That this RESOLUTION shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED by the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach
Florida, in regular session, this day of ,19
ATTEST:
c~ Audit .nd C,,~.~k
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RAILROAD REIMBURSE~ AGREEMENT
GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
COUNTY SECTION SOB ROAD NAME COUNTY PARCEL & FAP
NUMBEK OR NUNBEK NAME R/W NUMBEK NUMBEK
407489 -1-57- 01 N.E. 8th Street Palm Beach 1 (93010-5ig R)
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this Day of, ,19~
by and 'between the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereina~er callec~
the DEPARTMENT, and Florida East Coas~ Railway Company ,
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida ,
with its principle place of business in the City of St. Au_~,usfine ,
County of St. lohns , State of ~'lorida ,
hereinsfh~' called the COMPS; and the City of Delra~v B~ach
corporation, hereinafter called the CITY.
, a muni~p~
W1TNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT is constructing, reconstructing or otherwise changing a portion ofthe
Public Road System, designated by the DEPARTMENT as Job No. 407489-1-57-01 , on
N. E, 8th Street , which crosses at grade the right-of-way and
tracks of the COMP~'S Milepost 315+~ 1~7' , FDOT/AAR Crossing Number 272488-T
at or Bear,
No. NA
Deb'ay Beach
, attached hereto as a part hereof; and
, as shown on the DEPARTMENT'S Plan Sheet
NOW, TH'F~REFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings as herein set forth, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. The COMPANY shall furnish the necessary materials and install Automatic Grade Crossing Signals Type
IH ,Class, IH , and/or traffic control devices at said location on an actual cost basis,
and in accordance with the DEPARTMENT'S Plans and Standard Index Number 17882 attached hereto and
by reference made a part hereof.
2. After installation of said signals is completed, fii~ (50) percent of the expense thereof in maintaining
the same shall be borne by the CITY and ~ (50) percent shall be borne by the COMPANY, as enumerated by
the Schedule of Annual Cost of Automatic Highway Grade Crossing Devices attached hereto and by this reference
made a pan hereof and subject to future revision.
3. Af~f said signals have been installed and found to be in satisfactory working order by the parties hereto,
the same shall be immediately put into service, operated and maintained by the COMPANY so long as said
COMPANY or its sucessors or assigns shall operate the said signals at said grade crossing; or until it is agreed
between the parties hereto that the signals are no longer necessary or until the said crossing is abandoned; or
legal requirements occur which shall cease operation of signals thereat. The COMPANY agrees that any future
relocation or adjustment of said signals shall be performed by the COMPANY, but at the expense of the party
initiating such relocation. Upon relocation the maintenance responsibilities shall be in accordance with the
provisions of this agreement. It is further agreed that the cost of maintaining any additional or replacement signal
equipment at the same location will be shared as provided under Paragraph 2. Above.
4. Unless othet~vise agreed upon herein, the CITY agrees to insure that at the crossing the advance
warning signs and railroad crossing pavement markings will conform to the U.S. Department of Transportation
Manual'on Uniform Traffic Control Devices within 30 days of notification that the railroad signal improvements have
been completed and that such signs and pavement markings will be continually maintained at an acceptable level.
5. The COMPANY'herby agrees to install and/or adjust the necessary parts of its facilities along said road
in accordance with the provisions set forth in the:
DEPARTMEN'IYrocedure No. 725-080-225 "Reimbursement", dated November 8, 1989
And Rule 014-46.002 "Responsibility for the Cost of Railroad/Highway Crossings",
Florida Administrative Code, dated July 22, 1982.
Federal Highway Administration Federal-Aid Policy Guide, Subchapter G, Pan 646,
Subpan B, dated December 9, 1991,
and any supplements thereto or revisions thereo/; which, by reference hereto, are made a part hereof. The
COMPANY further agrees to do all of such work with its own forces or by a contractor paid under a contract let
by the COMPANY, all under the supervision and approval of the DEPARTMENT and the Federal Highway
Administration, when applicable.
6. The DEPARTMENT hereby agrees to reimburse the COMPANY for all costs incurred by it in the
installation and/or adjustment of said facilities, in accordance with the provisions of the above indicated
Reimbursement Policy, and any supplements thereto or revisions thereof. It is understood and agreed by and
between the parties hereto that preliminary engineering costs not incorporated within this agreement shall not be
subject to payment by the DEPARTMENT.
?. ARached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof; are plans and specifications of the work to be
performed by the COMPANY pursuant to the terms hereof; and an estimate of the cost thereof in the amount of
$ 138.470.00 . All work performed by the COMPANY pursuant hereto, shall be
performed according to these plans and specifications as approved by the DEPARTMENT and the Federal Highway
Administration if federal aid participating; and all subsequent plan changes shall likewise be approved
by the DEPARTMENT and the Federal Highway Administration, when applicable.
8. All labor, services, materials and equipment furnished by the COMPANY in carrying out the work
to be performed hereunder shall be billed by the COMPANY direct to the DEPARTMENT. Separate records as
to the costs of contract bid Rems and force account items performed for the COMPANY shall also be furnished
by the COMPANY to the DEPARTMENT.
9. The COMPANY has determined that the method to be used in developing the relocation or
installation cost shall be as specified for the method checked and described hereina~er:
Actual and related indirect costs accumlated in accordance with a work order accounting
procedure prescribed by the applicable Federal or State regulatory body.
Actual and relaxed indirect costs accumlated in accordance with an established accounting
accounting procedure developed by the COMPANY and approved by the DEPARTMENT.
An agreed lump sum $ , as supported by a detail analysis of
of estimated cost attached hereto. (NOTE: This method is not applicable where the
estimated cost of the proposed adju .stment exceeds $100,000.00.)
10. The installation and/or adjustment of the COMPANY'S facility will/will not) involved additional work
over and above the minimum reimbursable requirements of the DEPARTMENT. (If upgrading and/or
nonreimbursable work is involved at the option of the COMPANY, then credit against the cost of the project is
required and will be governed by the method checked and described herea~er):
NA (a)
% will be applied to the final billing of work actually
accomplished to determine required credit for (betterment) and/or (expired service life)
and/or (nonreimbursable segments)
All work involving nonreimbursable segments will be performed by special COMlSANY
Work or job order number apart and separate fi.om the reimbursable portion of the work or
Job order number to be . The COMPANY further agrees to
dearly identify such additional work areas in the COMPANY'S plans and estimates for the
Total work covered by this Agreement.
$ credited for (betterment) and/or (expired
service life) and/or (nonreimbursable segments) in accord with Article 9.(c) hereinabove.
11. h is specifically agreed by and between he DEPARTMENT and the COMPANY that the
DEPARTMENT shall receive fair and adequate credit for any salvage which shall accrue to the COMPANY
as a resi~lt of the above installation and/or adjustment work.
12. It is further agreedthat the cost of all improvements made during this adjustment work shall be borne
by the COMPANY, subject only to the DEPARTMENT bearing such portion of this cost as represents the cost
of adjustment of previously existing facility, less salvage credit as set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph.
13. Upon completion of the work the COMPANY shall, within one hundred eighty (lS0) days, furnish
the DEPARTMIiNT with two (2) copies of its Canal and complete billing of all costs incurred in connection with
thevwork performed hereunder, such statement to follow as closely as possible the order of the items contained in
the estimate attached hereto. The totals for labor, overhead, travel expense, transportation, equipment, materials and
supplies, handling costs and other services shall be shown in such a manner as will permit ready
comparison with the approved plans and estimates. Materials shall be itemized where they represent major
component of the relocation following the pattern set out in the approved estimate as closely as is possible.
Salvage credits from recovered and replaced permanent and recovered temporary materials shall be reported in
bills in relative position with the charge for the replacement or the original charge for temporary use.
The final billing shall show the description and site of the Project; the date on which the first work was
performed, or, if preliminary engineering or right-of-way items are involved, the date on which the earliest item
of billed expense was incurred; the date on which the last work was performed or the last item ofbilled expense was
incurred; and the location where the records and accounts billed can be audited. Adequate reference shall be
made in the billing to the COMPANY'S records, accounts and other relevant docunents. All cost records and
accounts shall be subject to audit by a representative of the DEPARTM]!iNT. Upon receipt of invoices, prepared
in accordance with the provisions of the aboveindicated Reimbursement Policy, the DEPARTMENT
agrees to reimburse the COMPANY in the amount of such actual costs as approved by the DEPARTMENT'S
auditor.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
1. Paragraph 14 deleted by all parties prior to execution.
IN V~ITNESS 'WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these l~'esents to be executed by their duly
authorized officers, and their official seal hereto affnced, the day and year first above written.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DF..PARTM:ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY:
ATTEST:
Secretary
(SrAL)
BY: (SEAL)
ATTEST:
Secretarr
CITY OF
BY:
(Title
ATTEST:
Delrav Beach
,FLORIDA
ved as to form and legal
ciency:
/~ City Attorney
(STOL)
Approved as to Form, Legality
and Execution
Approved as to Funds
Available
Approved as to H-lPG
Requirements
BY:
BY:
BY:
Attorney - DOT Date Fiscal - DOT Date FHA Date
DATE: 10/11/99
FILE: 10.2
TYPE: III
NO. OF DAYS: 10
AAR / DOT 9: 272488T
MILE POST: 315 + 5167'
Project Type: EDOT
ESTI. M~TED COST FOR HIGH~Y CROSSlNG~RNING DEVICES N.E. 8th STREET.
This es=ima=e should be considered void a~=er one (1) year.
GATE ASSEM~LIE S
G~TES
GATE FOUNDAXI ONS
WIRED CA~E, SAR & ~MD-3R
BATTERY BOX
MISC. GROUND M~TERIAL
CONDUIT & DIRECTIONAL BORE
BATTERIES
CABLE
MISCELt-~NEOUS ~ELAY EQUIP
POWER SERVZCE
MONITORING EQUIPMENT
SANITATION & DISPOSAL
ET~IGHT & HANDLING
TAX ~ 6.5%
$4,997.00
$500.00
$575.00
$38,670.00
$675.00
$1,539.12
$45.00
$200.00
$3,500.00
$1,120.00
sgo0.00
$5,422.00
$1,500.00
3P,~.
3EA.
3~,.
I~G.
F'~o
PKG.
P~.
1~.
P~.
PKG.
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT PER DAY
EQUIPMENT RENTAL PER DAY
FOREMAN'S TRUCK PERDAY
G~NG TRUCK PER DAY
SUPERVISORS TRUCK PER DAY
$1Sl.00
$125.00
$35.00
$63.00
$35.00
10DAYS
10 DAYS
10DAYS
10DAYS
10 DAYS
ENGINEERING
~4,500.00
CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION
LABOR ADDITIVE
$260.00
10 DAYS
LABOR PER DAY
N'd~BER OF DAYS
LABOR ADDITIVE
$990.76
10
GANG EXPENSES PER DAY
NUMBER OF DAYS
$553.00
10
CONTINGENCIES
$14,991.00
$1,500.00
$1,725.00
$38,670.00
$675.00
$1,539.12
$3,150.00
$6,000.00
$3,500.00
$1,120.00
$900.00
$5,422.00
$1,500.00
$11,879.00
$1;810.00
$1,250.00
$350.00
$630.00
$350.00
$4,390.00
$4.500.00
04,S00.00
$2,600.00
04,~4~.~0
$9,908,00
05,530.00
$131,876.12
$6,594.00
$138,470.00
NE. 8th STREET
North
13'-0"l
No curb & gutter
Install new flashing
lights and gate with
back scissors gate
for pedestrians
15'-0" 15'-0"
Install new flashing
lights and gate
13'-0"
No curb & gutter
Install a pedestrian gate
TITLE II SIGNAL SAFETY PROGRAM FOR THE YEAR 2000 1 2001
PROJECT LOCATION NE. 8th Street
PRIORITY NUMBER 702
RAILROAD CROSSING NUMBER 272488-T
RAILROAD MILEPOST 315 + 5167'
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT
Install new flashing lights and gate on both sides of the crossing with a back
scissors gate on the south side. Install a Pedestrian gate on the south east side.
FORM'725-090-05
Page 1 of I
~TATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF PUBL/C TRANSPORTATION
RAU.ROAD RELOCATION SCH~DULE
I I
[ ]NUMBER OR NUMBER NAME R/W NUMBER NUMBER
40748 9-1-5 7-01 N E. 8th Street Palm Bch 1(93010-
Sig R)
RAILROAD COMPANY
F.E.C. Railway Co. Inc.
Be
Facilities Involved (D~tail as to Tvoe and Location):
Install new roadway and pedestrian gates. New controller with event recorder.
crossing no: 272488-T R.R.M.P. 315+5167'
Relocation Work Anticipated CDCscribe and Relate to Location on Pro4ect:
C. AnticiPated Relocation ~hedul9 (Based on normal and a 5 day work week):
DAYS ESTIMATED
Preliminary Engineering
Material Procurement
Right of Way Acquisition
Contract Negotiations (For railroad installationw~rk)
Other
Construction (Actual railroad relocation ~4m. at job site)
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM TOTAL
ADJUSTED RAILROAD RELOCATION PERIOD
(Allow for concurrent activities) ESTIMATED MINIMUM TOTAL
* See Highway Contract Special Provisions
( 14 days
14 days
De
Special Notation(s) to be included in Hiahwav Contract SDeclal Provisions:
Railroad Protective Public Liability and Property Damage Liability Insurance
Coverage Policy must conform to police form outline prescribed by "ISO-RIMA#
Insurance Service Oraanization - Railroad Insurance Manaaement.
E. This COMPANY proposes to commence actual relocation and/or adjustment work:
(Check One)
D Prior to highway contract advertisement, and relocation should be
of pr.construction conference.
D Concurrently wi~h project advertisement.
D Concurrently with commencement of highway construction.
The above date is based on construction plans and schedules prepared by the DEPARTMENT, end ~herefore
is furnished for informational purposes only. This COMPANY is not responsible for circumstances beyond
its no~mal control. However the C~ANY will endeavor to fully cooperate wi~h the DEPARTMENT, and its
contractor, in clearing the project right of way as expeditiously as possible. The C~dPANY's field
representatives can be contacted at:
Mr Thomas Travato Telephone Number: 1-800-342-1131 Ext 2327
% complete by dace
SUBMITTED FOR THE COMPANY BY:
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL BY: E.F. Radso~
District Railroad Coordinator
DATE:
DATE:
mATE OF ~ORI~ DEP~TM~NT OF TRARSPORTATI~
OFFICE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
WORK DESCRIPTION
GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
725-090-09a
~PLACEs 841-33
01/90
PAGE ! of I
COUNTY SECTION JOB ROAD NAME COUNTY PARCEL & FAP
NUMBER OR NUMBER R/WNUMBER NUMBER
40748 9-1-5 7-01 N.E. 8th Palm Bch · i (93010-
Street Sig R)
RAILROAD COMPANY
IFlorida East Coast Railway Co. Inc.
Ae
De
Fe
Ge
He
JOB DESCRIPTION & LOCATION: New Pedestrian , rdwv aates, controller
TYPE OF ROADWAY FACILITY: City arterial
FDOT/AAR XING NO. 272488-T RR MILE POST: 315+5167'
TYPE SIGNALS PROPOSED: III CLASS: III DOT INDEX NO: 17882
STATUS AND PROPOSAL:
1. EXISTING DEVICES: (See Agreement dated
a. None-New Crossing.
b. Crossbuck and Disk.
c. Flashing Signals with Disk.
d. Flashing Signals with Cantilever.
e. XX Flashing Signals with Gate.
f. Flashing Signals with Cantilever and gate.
2. PROPOSED DEVICES (Safety Index Rating 7Q~ )
a. No revision required.
b. Crossbuck and Disk.
c. Flashing Signals with Disk.
d. Flashing Signals with Cantilever.
e. XX Flashing Signals with Gate.
f. Flashing Signals with Cantilever and Gate.
g. Relocate existing signal devices:
( 1 ) Pith-Without) &d4/tion of Gates.
(2) XX (wi~h-///////) synchronization with highway traffic signals.
COMMUNICATION AND/OR POWER LINE ADJUSTMENTS:
1. By Others (
2. By Railroad Company.
AUTHORITY REQUESTED: (Draft attached:
1. XX Agreement (Third- Party Participating
2. Supplemental Agreement No.
3. Crossing Permit.
4. Estimate for Change Order No.
5. Letter of Authority.
6. Letter of Confirmation (No Cost to Department).
OTHER REMARKS:
Company
Yes No
City Of Delrav Beach
Negotiations to be completed by:
Signal installation target date:
Synchronization: (Draft attached
October 2000
Yes XX No
OFFICE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
RA/LROAD GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
FORM 725-090-41
RAIL
0'7/96
I
COUNTY SECTION JOB ROAD NAME COUNTY PARCEL & FAP
NUMBER OR NUMBER NAME R/W NUMBER NUMBER
40748 9-1-57 -01 N.E. 8th Street Palm Bch 1(93010-
Sig R)
COMPANY NAME: Florida East Coast Railway Co
A. JOB DESCRIPTION & LOCATION: New Rdwv & Pedestrian Gates
B: TYPE OF ROADWAY FACILITY: Minor Citv Arterial
C: FDOT/AAR XING NO.: 272488-T
RR MILE POST TIE: ~15+5167'
D. TYPE SIGNALS PROPOSED: III
CLASS III DOT INDEX 17882
SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL COST OF AUTO~2%TIC
HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
I
II
III
IV
Annual Maintenance Cost Exclusive of Installation
DESCRIPTION
Flashing Signals - One Track
Flashing Signals - Multiple Tracks
Flashing Signals and Gates - One Track
Flashing Signals and Gates - Multiple Tracks
* Effective July 7, 1996
COST *
$ 1,637.00
$ 2,166.00
$ 2,468.00
$ 3,098.00
AUTHORITY: FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE RULE 014.46.002
Responsibility for the Cost of Automatic Highway
Grade Crossing Traffic Control Devices
EFFECTIVE DATE:
GENERAL AUTHORITY:
SPECIFIC LAW IMPLEMENTED:
July 22,1982
334.044 F.S.
335.144 F.S.
*This schedule will become effective July 1, 1996 and will be reviewed
every 5 years and revised as appropriate based on the Consumer Price Index
for all Urban Consumers published by the U.S. Department of Labor.
SEE MAP NOS. 105 & 106
Boat
Lahe
Ida
tAKE
13
ST',~
12
.:lOYAL
Ave
13 ST ~
OE~
2 ST
ST
Basin
-; ~-CLUB
"RILLIUM
.i
~JSHd
Beach
WATERWAY'
Cre$/'w
wy
3each
33483
ar Dr
I
' PARK
AUBURN
AUBURN
--lOTH
Bess
ST
SW 6
St
arbor Side
Dr
Ba.~in
Casuarin
,Beach
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIANE DOMINGUEZ, PLANNING AND Z~NING DIRECTOR
SCOTT PAPE, SENIOR PLANNE
MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2000 **CONSENT AGENDA**
AGREEMENT FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE 250 PROFESSIONAL
BUILDING (250 DIXIE BOULEVARD).
The action requested of the City Commission is that of acceptance of an agreement between the City
and 250 Professional Building (Dr. John R. Westine) to allow the deferral of the sidewalk
improvements along Royal Court associated with the construction of a 10-space parking lot. The
subject property is located at the southwest corner of Royal Court and NE 3rd Avenue, within the RO
(Residential/Office) zone district.
At its meeting of May 12, 1999, the Historic Preservation Board approved the site plan modification for
the 250 Professional Building 10-space parking area. The Board approved the modification subject to
installation of the required sidewalk. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a waiver request to defer
installation of the sidewalk until such time that that sidewalks are installed elsewhere as part of the
SeacrestJDel Ida Neighborhood Plan improvements. The Board considered the request at its meeting
on December 15, 1999, and approved the waiver subject to the owner entering into a deferral
agreement to install the sidewalk when required by the City.
Pursuant to Section 6.1.3(B)(1) of the Land Development Regulations, a 5' wide sidewalk is required
along Royal Court. Pursuant to Section 6.1.3(D)(2), where it is clear that the sidewalk system will not
serve its intended purpose the requirement for the sidewalk may be waived during the site plan
approval. Presently there are no sidewalks along NE 3rd Avenue or Royal Court or in the vicinity of the
subject parking lot. Sidewalks are planned as part of the Seacrest/Del Ida neighborhood
improvements. It is appropriate to defer the sidewalk installation until the time that they are installed
through that program, or until the City otherwise determines they are needed. The waiver request was
reviewed and supported by the Development Services Management Group (DSMG) and the City
Engineer. The attached sidewalk deferral agreement shall run with the land and be binding on the
parties' heirs, assigns and successors. The Assistant City Attorney has reviewed and approved the
attached agreement as to form and sufficiency.
By motion, approve the sidewalk deferral agreement for the 250 Professional Building.
Attachments:
· Sidewalk Agreement
· Location Map
MON lS:00 F.~X 561 278 4755
DEL BCH CTY ATT5'
AGREEMENT FOR
SIDEWALK IMPRO~MENTS
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this
/ q'F~ . , bep,veen the City
the requirement of ~he installation of a sidewalk along 'e'~o.~~
/
as the City requests the construction of the sidewalk by the Owner.
WHEREAS: Land Development Regulation Section 6.1.3(C) requires the installation of a
sidewalk, within the '~'0.~/''~/ ~/~'~"'~ right-of-way immedimely abutting the subject
property, by the Owner prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; and,
WHEREAS, the Owners have requested a waiver from the requirement of the bastallarion
of a sidewalk pursuant to Land Development Regulation Section 6.1.3(D)(1)Co); and,.
WHEREAS, in order to provide conformity along the street the City Commission voted
'to waive the requirement for the installation of a sidewalk until suSn time as the City. requests the
Own~ construct the sidewalk
~ day of
of Delray Beach (hereinaher the CID') and
(hereinafter the Owners), for the purpose of waiving
until such time
WITNESSETH
NOW, __'D~?~FOP~, ;m ~Smess of thc above and -Ln consideration of the CiD' agreeing to
wmive the requirement for the installation of a sidewaY, at Ikis time, for the property located at:
[~002
The Ov~uaer ~e,s ~.o consu-uz.t a sidewalk, at its sole corn and expense, along the
/{', o_9,~,/ ~,,/,"7g right-of-way abutting the subject propercy, within a time period
1~/0~/99
)iON lB:D0 FAX 561 278 4755
DEL BCH CTY ^TTY
that is acceptable to the Ci'o', after being requesled to do so by the City. The sidewalk, when
constructed, shall meet all of the current ordinances of the City of Delray Beach.
2. It is the intent of the parties that this A_m'eement shall nm with the land. This
A~eemem shall be recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida and shall be
binding on the parties legal represematives, heirs, successors and assigns.
WITNESSES:
IN %rlTNrESS WHEREOF, the parties to this a~eement set their hands and seals th/s
day of
(Please tTpe or prin~ nam, e)
(Please rS~pe or print maine)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNq'Y OF PALM BEACH
this ~'" day of
(name of officer or
The foregoing instrmnent was acknowledged before me
of of or
place of ~co~omfion) co~omfiom on behflf of ~e co~orafion. H~ is perso~ly ~o~ to
6;rd/did not take an ox'fa.
(SZAL)
(type of id~ntLfication) as identification and
Si_~_~ of Notary Pubh~-
State of Florida
003
DEL BCH CT]' ATIT
004
ATTEST:
Cky Clerk
Approved as to form and sufficiency:
bt~,~c i-~ Atto.racy
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor -
N E 12TH ST
NW 11TH ST NE
11TH ST
N E 10TH ST
NE
N W 9TH ST r,
TH ST "'
N,W 7 'H ST,
N E 5TH TERR
N E 7TH ST
N W. ETH ST
N E 5TH ST.
LAKE
IDA N.E.
gTH ST.
BONO WAY
N.E
BOULEVARJ
7TH S'r
DELRA Y
BEA CH
6TH
5TH
WAL-
GREENS
CITY OF" DELRAY BEACH, FL
PLANNING &: ZONING DEPARTMENT
WESTINE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
-- L~G/TAL B,4SE MAP SFSTEM -- MAP REF LM343
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
CITY MANAGER ~5~L~
AGENDA ITEM ~'(~- REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2000
RESOLUTION NO. 2-00
DECEMBER 29, 1999
This is a resolution assessing costs for abatement acuon required to remove nmsances on sixteen (16)
properties throughout the C~ty.
The resolutton sets forth the actual costs incurred and provides the mechanism to attach liens against the
properties in the event the assessments remain unpaid.
Recommend approval of Resolunon No. 2-00.
Ref'Agmemol 5.Nuisance. Abatement
RESOLUTION NO. 2-00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 100 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR ABATING NUISANCES UPON
CERTAIN LAND(S) LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH AND PROVIDING
THAT A NOTICE OF LIEN SHALL ACCOMPANY THE NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT~
SETTING OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH
ABATEMENT AND LEVYING THE COST OF SUCH ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES~
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE DATE AND INTEREST ON
ASSESSMENTS~ PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND
DECLARING SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID
ASSESSM~/TTS.
WHEREAS, the City Manager or his designated representative has, pursuant to
Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances, declared the existence of a nuisance upon
certain lots or parcels of land, described in the list attached hereto and made a part
hereof, for violation of the provisions of Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances~ and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 100.20, 100.21 and 100.22 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, the City Manager or his designated
representative has inspected said land(s) and has determined that a nuisance existed in
accordance with the standards set forth in Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances, and
did furnish the respective owner(s) of the land(s) described in the attached list with
written notice of public nuisance pursuant to Sections 100.20, 100.21 and 100.22 of the
Code of Ordinances describing the nature of the nuisance(s) and sent notice that within
ten (10) days from the date of said notice forty-two (42) days in the case of violation
of Section 100.04 pertaining to seawalls) they must abate said nuisance, or file a
written request for a hearing to review the decision that a nuisance existed within ten
(10) days from the date of said notice, failing which the City of Delray Beach would
proceed to correct this condition by abating such nuisance, and that the cost thereof
would be levied as an assessment against said property; and,
WHEREAS, the property owner(s) named in the list attached hereto and made a
part hereof did fail and neglect to abate the nuisance(s) existing upon their
respective lands or to properly request a hearing pursuant to Section 100.21 and 100.22
within the time limits prescribed in said notice and Chapter 100 of the Code of
Ordinances, or if the property owner(s) did request and receive a hearing, said
property owner(s) failed and/or neglected to abate such nuisance(s) within the time
designated at the hearing wherein a decision was rendered adverse to the property
owner(s)~ and,
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, through the City Administration or such
agents or contractors hired by the City Adm4nistration was therefore required to and
did enter upon the land(s) described in the list attached and made a part hereof and
incurred costs in abating the subject nuisance(s) existing thereon as described in the
notice~ and,
WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Delray Beach has, pursuant to
Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, submitted to the
City Commission a report of the costs incurred in abating said nuisance(s) as
aforesaid, said report indicating the costs per parcel of lend involved~ and,
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, pursuant to
Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances desires to assess the cost of said nuisance(s)
against said property owner(s),
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That assessments in the individual amounts as shown by the
report of the City Manager of the City of Delray Beach, involving the City's cost of
abating the aforesaid nuisances upon the lots or parcels of land described in said
report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby levied
against the parcel(s) of land described in said report and in the amount(s) indicated
thereon. Said assessments so levied shall, if not paid within thirty (30) days after
mailing of the notice described in Sec. 3, become a lien upon the respective lots and
parcel(s) of land described in said report, of the same nature and to the same extent
as the lien for general city taxes and shall be collectible in the same manner as
mortgages and foreclosures are under state law.
Section 2. That such assessments shall be legal, valid and binding
obligations upon the property against which said assessments are levied.
Section 3. That the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach is hereby
directed to immediately mail by first class mail to the owner(s) of the property, as
such ownership appears upon the records of the County Tax Assessor, notice(s) that the
City Commission of the City of Delray Beach on the has
levied an assessment against said property for the cost of abatement of said nuisance
by the City, and that said assessment is due and payable within thirty (30) days after
the mailing date of said notice of assessment, after which a lien shall be placed on
said property, and interest will accrue et the rate of 8% per annum, plus reasonable
attorney's fees and other costs of collecting said s,,m,. A Notice of Lien shall be
mailed, along with the Notice of Assessment and this resolution.
Section 4. That this resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days
from the date of adoption and the assessment(s) contained herein shall become due and
payable thirty (30) days after the mailing date of the notice of said assessment(s),
after which a lien shall be placed on said property(s), and interest shall accrue at
the rate of eight (8) percent per annum plus, if collection proceedings are necessary,
the costs of such proceedings including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Section 5. That in the event that payment has not been received by the City
Clerk within thirty (30) days after the mailing date of the notice of assessment, the
City Clerk is hereby directed to record a certified copy of this resolution in the
public records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and upon the date and time of recording
Res. No. 2-00
of the certified copy of this resolution a lien shall become effective on the subject
property which shall secure the cost of abatement, interest at the rate of 8%, and
collection costs including a reasonable attorney's fee.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Res. No. 2-00
COST OF ABATING NUISANCES UNDER CHAPTER 100
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE
ATLANTIC GARDENS DELRAY, LOT 6, BLOCK 9, PB P. & GENEVA ROBINSON
14, P 63, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH & DELORIS JOHNSON, JR
COUNTY, FL P.O. BOX 1233
(SW 11TH AVENUE VAC LOT N 125 BOYNTON BEACH, FL
33425-1233
$55.00
$ 70.00 ADM. FEE
RECORDING
TOWN OF DELRAY, W 50 FT OF E 200 FT OF S 135 JOHNNIE MARTIN, JR
FT OF S 1/2 OF BLOCK 22, PB 10, P 38, PUBLIC 215 SW 7TH AVENUE
RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444
(515 SW 2ND STREET)
$55.00
$ 7000 ADM.FEE
RECORDING
WlL-LIAM H & RUTH HALL ~
LA HACIENDA, DELRAY LOT 13, BLOCK C, PB 15, P 1001 SE 16TH STREET # 14 I
6, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33316
(823 NO. LAKE AVENUE) I
$55.00 '
$ 70.00 ADM.FEE
RECORDING
TOWN OF DELRAY, N 53.05 FT OF S 259.15 FT OF W AAMES CAPITAL CORP.
151.43 FT OF BLOCK 6, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC RECORDS 350 SO. GRAND AVE. 42ND FL
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
(127 SW 8TH AVENUE)
$93.00
$ 70.00ADM FEE
RECORDING
Res. No. 2-00
COST OF ABATING NUISANCES UNDER CHAPTER 100
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE
DEL IDA PARK, LOT 20, BLOCK 13 (DEL-IDA PARK KELI A. NOWLING
HISTORIC DISTRICT) PB 9, P 52, PUBLIC RECORDS 609 NE 3RD AVENUE
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444
(609 N.E. 3RD AVENUE)
$52.00
$ 70.00 ADM. FEE
RECORDING
DELL PARK, LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 8, PB 8, P 56, RICHARD A. COURT, ESTATE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL 1525 WEST 1600 N
(1012 NE 3RD AVENUE) MAPLETON, UT 84664-334
$ 54.00
$ 7000 ADM.FEE
RECORDING
17-46-43, S 50 FT OF N 195 FT OF E 147 FT OF E 1/2 ROY & GERALDINE FARLAND ,
OF LOT 9, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM 728 AVENUE CHAUMONT
BEACH COUNTY, FL DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445
(SW 8TH AVENUE, VACANT LOT N #20)
................... l $55.00 ADM
I $ 70.00 . FEE
RECORDING
TOWN OF DELRAY, W 35 FT OF E 135 FT OF N 100 ETHEL BAINE
FT OF S 50 FT OF N 100 FT OF E 35 5 FT OF W 135.5 C/O G. H. BAIN
FT OF BLOCK 31, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC RECORDS OF 545 NW 5TH STREET
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33435
(410 SW 2ND STREET)
$55.00
$ 70.00 ADM. FEE
RECORDINg_
~'TLANTIC GARDENS DELRAY, LOTS 2 & 3, CARRIE JOHNSON r
BLOCK 9, PB 14, P 63, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM CIO L. DOBSON
BEACH COUNTY, FL 3910 SHERWOOD BLVD.
(SW 11TH AVE. VAC LOT NO. OF 115) DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445 $ 5500
- $ 70.-00 ADM. FEE
RECORDING
Res. No. 2-00
COST OF ABATING NUISANCES UNDER CHAPTER t00
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE
ODMANNS SUB, LOT 19, BLOCK 1, PB 4, P 53, O.W & MILDRED BURROUGHS
,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL 243 BILBOA STREET
,
(NW 13TH AVE. VAC LOT NO OF 44) !ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL
33411-1312 I
$ 57.00~
,$ 70.00 ADM FEE --
TOWN OF DELRAY, S 50 FT OF N 200 FT OF CATHERINE LEWISI RECORDIN~
E 135 FT OF BLOCK 14, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC C/O CYRIL S. LEWIS
RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL 1365 ST. NICHOLAS AVE. #7R
(SW 6TH AVE., VAC LOT S 110) NEW YORK, NY 10033-6207 $ 55.00
$ 70.00 ADM FEE
RECORDING
CARVER SQUARE, LOTS 12 TO 14, INC.
AND LOT 16, PB 24, P 11, PUBLIC RECORDS OF RPI MANAGEMENT CORP
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL HAMPTON REAL ESTATE, INC.
(SW 2ND COURT, VAC LOT WEST OF #700) CHARLOTTE, NC 28204-3053 $ 118.00
$ 70.00 ADM. FEE
RECORDING
POINCIANA HEIGHTS OF DELRAY BEACH,
LOT 24, PB 26, P 245, PUBLIC RECORDS OF FREDDIE M. SMITH
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL 332 NW 11TH AVENUE
(332 NVV 11TH AVENUE) DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 ~ $ 55.00
~ $ 70.00 ADM. FEE
RECORDING
JAMES P. SOMMERS &
TROPIC ISLE 5TH SECTION, E 12 FT OF LOT 11 & MARGARET SOMMERS &
LOT 12, PB 32, P 70, PUBLIC RECORDS KATHERINE MESSMER, ET AL
I
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL 268 LIVE OAK DRIVE
(951 MCCLEAR¥ STREET) ............ VERO BE?CH, FL 32963-9675 $ 64.00
........ $ 70.00 ADM: FEE_
RECORDING
FRED TANTIMONICO, TR
REPLAT DELRAY BEACH HEIGHTS EXT & FELICIA TANTIMONICO
SECTIONS A & B, LOTS 3 TO 6, INC., BLOCK 3, 2881 NE 33RD COURT
PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL IFT. LAUDERDALE, FL
(SW 15TH AVENUE, VACANT LOT) 33306-2048 ~ $ 160.00
i$ 70.00 IADM FEE
i RECORDING
Res. No. 2-00
COST OF ABATING NUISANCES UNDER CHAPTER 100
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE
RIDGEWOOD HEIGHTS DELRAY, S 15 FT OF LOT 3 UNITED CO. LENDING CORP
& N 35 FT OF LOT 4, BLOCK D, PB 14, P 44, C/O BUTLER & HOSCH
PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL 3185 SO. CONWAY RD. # E
!(1109 SW7TH AVENUE) ORLANDO, FL 32812-7315 $ 80.00
$ 70.00 ADM. FEE
RECORDING
7
Res. No. 2-00
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
CITY MANAGER ~
AGENDA ITEM ~'" ~/- REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2000
~..v~w ov .vv~.i~,.~ IXN~ ~W~Om~NX ~O~O aCXXONS
DATE:
DECEMBER 29, 1999
Attached is the Report of Appealable Land Use Items for the period December 13th through
December 30, 1999. It informs the Commission of the various land use acttons taken by the
designated boards which may be appealed by the C~ty Commission.
Recommend review of the appealable actions for the period stated. Receive and file the report as
appropriate.
Re f:Apagmerno/Appealables/1.4.00
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIANE DOMINGUEZ, PLA~INI~ AND ZONING DIRECTOR
MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2000 *CONSENT AGENDA*
REPORT OF APPEALABLE LAND USE ITEMS DECEMBER 13,
1999 THRU DECEMBER 30, 1999
The action requested of the City Commission is that of review of appealable
actions which were made by various Boards during the period of December 13,
1999 through December 30, 1999.
This is the method of informing the City Commission of the land use actions,
taken by designated Boards, which may be appealed by the City Commission.
After this meeting, the appeal period shall expire (unless the 10 day minimum
has not occurred).
Section 2.4.7(E) of the LDRs applies. In summary, it provides that the City
Commission hears appeals of actions taken by an approving Board. It also
provides that the City Commission may file an appeal. To do so:
1. The item must be raised by a Commission member.
2. By motion, an action must be taken to place the item on the next meeting of
the Commission as an appealed item.
Determined on a 7 to 0 vote, that the similarity of use approach is not
appropriate, and that a formal text amendment be processed to allow catering
service as a permitted use in the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts
District) zoning district.
City Commission Documentation
Appealable Items Meeting of January 4, 2000
Page 2
No other appealable items were considered by the Board. The following items
which were considered by the Board will be forwarded to the City Commission for
action.
Recommended approval (7 to 0), of a conditional use request to allow the re-
establishment of a restaurant Sand Dollar Grille (formerly the Rod and Gun
Club), located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue, between Carver
Middle School and Villas D' Este Apartments.
Recommended approval on a 5 to I vote (Eliopoulos dissenting, Morris
abstained) of a conditional use request to allow within the CBD (Central
Business District) a building height of 60 feet for a 6-story mixed use building
(residential/retail) for Worthing Place, located south of East Atantic Avenue,
between SE Ist and 2nd Avenues. The Board on a 4 to 2 vote (Eliopoulos and
Carter dissenting, Morris abstained), recommended approval of the
conditional use request to allow the residential units to exceed 30 units per
acre.
Recommended approval (6 to 0, Morris abstained), of an abandonment of
portions of the east/west and north/south alleyways, located within Block 77,
in conjunction with the Worthing Place development.
Approved (5 to 0, Fowler absent, Shutt arrived late), a request for a color
change for Dolphin Bay Developers, Inc. an existing commercial building,
located on the west side of NE 6th Avenue (northbound Federal Highway),
south of NE 2nd Street (198 NE 6th Avenue).
Approved (5 to 0), a request for a color change for Blossom Brothers, Inc.
an existing commercial building, located at the northeast corner of NE 1st
Street and NE 3rd Avenue (301 NE Ist Street).
Approved (5 to 0), a Class I site plan modification associated with a
reconsideration of a condition of approval for Roseaire Retreat, to allow the
deferral of the
period or to be
first. Roseaire
Gallagher Road
installation of the perimeter landscape buffer for a 2 year
installed with the construction of Phase II, whichever occurs
Reatreat (religious retreat), located on the west side of
at its intersection with Brady Boulevard.
Approved (5 to 0), a request for a color change for Plaza 500, an existing
commercial building located on the west side of NE 5th Avenue (southbound
Federal Highway), north of NE 5th Street (500-504 NE 5th Avenue).
City Commission Documentation
Appealable Items Meeting of January 4, 2000
Page 3
Approved (5 to 0), a Class III site plan modification and landscape plan
associated with the construction of two hard tennis courts at the north end of
the existing Delray Beach Municipal Tennis Center, located at the
northwest corner of West Atlantic Avenue and NW l'"t Avenue.
Approved (6 to 0, Shutt arrived), a Class IV site plan modification, landscape
plan and architectural elevation plan associated with the construction of a
1,978 sq. ft. addition for Bar and Ferg's Academy, located on the south side
of Sterling Avenue, between SW 4th Avenue and South Swinton Avenue.
Approved (5 to 0, Branning stepped down), a Class V site plan, landscape
plan and architectural elevation plan associated with the conversion of a
single family residence to a museum and construction of a 14-space parking
lot for the Haitian Museum, located at the northeast corner of SE 1st Avenue
and SE 1st Street.
Approved (6 to 0, Johnson absent), a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness associated with the construction of a 325 sq. ft. addition to a
contributing single family residence located at '1'12 NE '1st Avenue.
Granted on a 6 to 0 vote a request to defer the construction of a 5' sidewalk
along Royal Court until such time as the City installs sidewalks along NE 3rd
Avenue and Royal Court. This request is in conjunction with the expansion
to the parking lot for the 250 Professional Building which is located on the
west side of NE 3rd Avenue, between Dixie Boulevard and Royal Court.
Approved (6 to 0), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness associated
with the installation of a free standing sign and fa(;ade changes for Gold
Coast Appraisers, located on the north side of NE 4th Street, east of Swinton
Avenue (15 NE 4th Street).
By motion, receive and file this report.
Attachment: Location Map
CITY OF OELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
- City Commission I~leeting-
JANUARY 4, 2000
GULF STREA~ EL VD
L-3O CANAL
NW 2NDST
S.W 2ND ST
SW
C-15 CANAL
S.P.R.A.B.:
A. DOLPHIN BAY DEVELOPERS, INC.
B. BLOSSOM BROTHERS,/NC.
C. ROSEAIRE RETREAT
D. PLAZA 500
E. DELRA Y BEACH MUNICIPAL
TENNIS CENTER EXPANSION
F. BAR & FERG'S ACADEMY
G. HAITIAN MUSEUM
H.P.B.:
1. 112 N.E. 1STAVENUE
2. 250 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
3. GOLD COAST APPRAISAL
......... CJTY UMITS .........
ONE MILE
GRAPHIC SCALE
CITY OF OELRAY BEACH, FL
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
1999
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
CITY MANAGER ~
AGENDA ITEM 0°~-~- REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2000
AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS
DECEMBER 29, 1999
This is before the City Commission to approve the award of the following bids and contracts:
Purchase award m the amount of $17,140.00 to Otto Industries, Inc., sole source vendor, for
the purchase of 404 new garbage carts, with funding from 433-3711-534-49.35 (Samtation
Fund --Cart Renewal & Replacement).
Bid award in the amount of $32,709 via Florida Sheriffs Association & Florida Assocmtion
of Cgff~fies contract for a 2000 Ford Excursion 3/4 ton 4x4, as replacement for a 1994 GMC
S)315urban (#9411) which was wrecked on November 30, 1999. Funding is available from
~601-3312-591-64.20 (Garage/Vehicle Replacement -Automottve).
Service award in the amount of $14,000 to Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc. for the cleaning
(descaling) of four (4) clarifiers at the Water Treatment Plant, with funding from 441-5122-
536-34.90 (Water Treatment & Storage - Other Contractual Services).
Recommend approval of the purchase and contract awards listed above.
RefiB~d.Agrnemo.l.4.00
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
Request to be placed on:
XX Consent Agenda
When: January 4, 2000
Description of agenda item:
AGENDA REQUEST
Special Agenda
Date: December 17, 1999
Workshop Agenda
Requesting Award to Otto Industries, Inc. for the purchase of 404 new garbage cads for a
total purchase of $17,140.00 including delivery.
ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES
Draft Attached: YES
NO
NO
Recommendation:
The Purchasing staff recommends the award to Otto Industries, Inc. for a total
cost of $17,140.00. The items purchased will match existing equipment that has been
ordered from Otto Industries, Inc. by the City since 1996. Funding will be taken from
account number 433-3711-534-4935.~/. / ~ r"%~
Department Head Signature~~ ,
Determination of Consistency w~omprehensive Plan:
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable):
Budget Director Review (required on all items~r~ IO~'~in¥°~ing ~xpenditj~...~'/"~ '~ funds):
Funding available: Yes ~ No
Funding alternatives:
(if applicable)
Account Number:.
Account Description.
Account Balance:
City Manager Review:
Approved for agenda:~
Hold Until:
No
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Action: Approved
Disapproved
P.O. #
PURCHASING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
David T. Harden, City Manager
Jennifer Schillace, Buyer
Joseph Sa~nce Director
December 17, 1999
DOCUMENTATION
CITY COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 4, 2000
PURCHASE OF 404 GARBAGE CARTS FOR THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH FROM OTTO INDUSTRIES, INC.
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION:
The City Commission is requested to approve the purchase award to Otto Industries,
Inc. as sole source vendor for the purchase of 404 garbage carts for a total amount of
$17,140.00 including delivery.
BACKGROUND:
The shipment of 404 new garbage carts will also include 177 warranty replacement
garbage carts and lids for defective cads that were delivered to the City in a previous
order. There will be no charge for delivery of the 177 defective carts. The prices quoted
by Otto Industries, Inc. are for exactly the same carts as the City has purchased from
Otto Industries on various occasions since their initial "roll-out" in 1996.
Richard Bauer, Code Enforcement Administrator, recommends award to Otto Industries,
Inc. for the total purchase of $17,140.00 including delivery for the 404 garbage carts,
per his memo dated December 14, 1999.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Purchasing staff recommends the award to Otto Industries, Inc. for a total cost of
$17,140.00. The items purchased will match existing equipment that has been ordered
from Otto Industries, Inc. by the City since 1996. Funding will be taken from account
number 433-3711-534-4935.
ATTACHMENTS:
Quote from Otto Industries, Inc. (12/12/99)
Memo from Richard Bauer (12/14/99)
cc: Richard Bauer, Code Enforcement Administrator
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
Jackie Rooney, Purchasing Supervisor
Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director~
Richard Bauer, Code Enforcement Administrator
SUBJECT:
DATE:
CITY ROLL CART ORDER
December 14, 1999
RECEIVED
DEC 1 5 1999
~RCHASING, I)E~,
Please prepare and process a Purchase Requisition for the following
merchandise:
QUANTITY
404
MANUFACTURER/
MODEL
OTTO
MSD-682
DESCRIPTION68 GALLON I PRICEEAcH
ROLL CART $39.50
SUB TOTAL
SHIPPING
TOTAL ORDER
TOTAL
PRICE
$15,958.00
$15,958.00
1,182.10
$17,140.10
The above 404 carts are to be shipped with an additional 177 MSD-682 carts
which Otto owes to the City as warranty replacements for defective carts. Otto
will pay the shipping charges for the 177 warranty replacements. All funding will
be from account 433-3711-534.49-35.
I met with Gary Hallen of Otto last week. Gary agreed to ship the 177 warranty
replacements (above) complete with lids. Normally, warranty replacements are
not shipped with lids, but, in this case, lids are to be included at no additional
charge.
Carts are to be forest green with black lid, rubber tires and hot stamping as in the
past. Serial numbers should begin with "00."
The above carts are needed for new installations and to replace defective
95-gallon carts as those carts break.
Thank you for your help in this matter. If you need any additional information,
please contact me.
RB:mh
FROM : OTTO SOUTH DAUID WRIGHT
F~X NO. : 67845~756~
Dec. 12 1999 09:18PM Pi
FACSIMILE
SPEED-MEMO
DATE:
TO:
COMPANY:
FAX:
PHONE:
FROM:
VOICE MAIL:
FAX:
Jackie Rooney
City of Delray Beach FI.
561-243-7163
561-243-7166
David Wright
OTTO Industries Inc.
678-432-7558
603-215-9866
CC: Gary Hallen
Ethel Allison
Number of pages: One Page
Ms. Rooney,
I'm sorry for the confusion on the last quote, however the following should
clear up any questions you may have.
· Otto MSD-682 (68 gallon) carts $39.50 each* (FOB: Charlotte, N.C.)
We will replace 177 carts under warranty and The City of Delray Beach has
agreed to purchase an additional 404 carts to be shipped at the same time. Freight on this
load will be $1,700.00 of which the city will be responsible for $1,182.10, which is the pro-
rated amount.
The MSD 682 carts will be Forest Green with Black Lids and Rubber Wheels,
the hotstamping will be the same as last year.
Please feel free to call me if you require further assistance.
Request to be placed on:,
X Regular Agenda
Agenda Item No.:
AGENDA REQUEST
Date: 12/29/99
Special Agenda .. Workshop Agenda
When: 01/04/00 .
Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much):
Approve a bid award under Florida Sheriff's Association contract for
a 2000 Ford Excursion 3/4 ton 4X4 in the amount of $32,709 with funding
to come from account ~501-3312-591-64.20. Replacement for vehicle #9411.
ORDIN3~NCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED:
Recommendation:
YES/~ Draft Attached: YES/NO
Department Head Signature:
Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable):
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure
of funds):
Funding available: ~)NO
Funding alternatives: (if applicable)
Account No. & Description:
Account Balance: ~o~)~=.,~ ~.. ~QQ~_ (%~_~_%~·_~ '
City Manager Review:
Approved for agenda:
Hold Until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Action:
Approved/Disapproved
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER f _gfft~
OBERT A. BARCINSKI, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
AGENDA ITEM # - CITY OOMMISSION MEETING OF
DATE:
JANUARY 4, 2000 - BID AWARD FORD EXCURSION
DECEMBER 29, 1999
ACTION
City Commission is requested to approve award under Florida Sheriffs
Association contract for a 2000, SA ton Ford Excursion in the amount of
$32,709. Funding is available in 501-3312-591-64.20.
BACKGROUND
Vehicle unit 9411, a Suburban, was wrecked on 11/30/99. The
vehicle was totaled, vehicle proposed for purchase is a replacement
vehicle for unit 9411. vehicle is used as an emergency command vehicle
by the Battalion A SA ton 4X4 is needed to carry equipment, for
towing, and for )ad apphcations.
Staff bid award under the Florida Sheriffs Association Contract
for a Ford Excursion in the amount of $32,709 as a replacement for
unit 9411, a 1994 GMC Suburban with funding to come from 501-
33 .591-64.20.
~idaward
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
Bill Darty, Fleet Maintenance Service Coordinator
December 15, 1999
VEHICLE 9411, FIRE SUBURBAN
Today we received the Intercity Auto Appraisal Evaluation report for the
1994 Suburban, which was wrecked on November 30, 1999. The total
estimated cost for repair is $16,574.93, and the estimated value is
$20,050.00. This vehicle is deemed a total loss and Chief Wigderson has
expressed his concerns of the need to get it replaced with a comparable
command vehicle as an emergency purchase. I have made several phone
calls to local dealer to check into either a new or used replacement
vehicle that may be in stock. As of this time we have not located any
suitable replacement. It is estimated that a new vehicle ordered off
contract will take approximately 9 weeks due to the Christmas holidays.
It is recommended that the replacement vehicle be a Ford Excursion 3/4
ton 4X4 which has a base cost of $29,759.00. This is the only vehicle on
contract that is a large utility 3A ton 4X4 that would be an equivalent
replacement to our current vehicle. Let me know which way you would
like for me to proceed in this replacement process.
c: Chief Wigderson
FLORIDA ~~~ ~ ~
ASSOCIATION ~ ~ ~
o-~ COUNTIES~
FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
& FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
2000 FORD EXCURSION
Specification //09
(Extended Wheelbase Utility, 4 x 4)
The Ford Excursion purchased through this contract comes with all the standard equip-
ment as specified by the manufacturer for this model and FSA's base vehicle specification[s)
requirements which are included and made a part of this contract's vehicle base price as
awarded by manufacturer by specification by zone.
ZONE:
BASE PRICE:
Western
$29,772.00
Northern
$29,732.oo
Central
$29,672.00
Southern
$29,759.00
While the Florida Sheriffs Association and the Florida Association of Counties have at-
tempted to identify and include those equipment items most often requested by participat-
ing agencies for utility vehicles, we realize equipment needs and preferences are going to
vary from agency to agency. In an effort to incorporate flexibihty into our program, we have
created specific add/delete options which allow the purchaser to t~i]or the vehicle to their
particular wants or needs.
The following equipment delete and add options and their related cost are provided here
to assist you in approximating the total cost of the type vehicle(s) you wish to order
through this program. Simply deduct the cost of any of the following equipment items you
wish deleted from the base unit cost and/or add the cost of any equipment items you wish
added to the base unit cost to determine the approximate cost of the type vehicle(s) you
wish to order.
NOTE: An official listing of all add/delete options and their prices should be obtained from
the appropriate dealer in your zone when preparing your order. Additional add/delete
options other than those listed here may be available through the dealers, however, those
listed here must be honored by the dealers in your zone at the stated prices.
Specification Low Bid
LEGEND FOR
DEI,ET~/ADD OPTIONS
Every line will require a DOLLAR VALUE
or one of the following abbreviaUons:
Std. = mantffacturers standard equip.
lx~cl. = included with base specs.
NC -- no addiUonal charge
NA = not applicable to thc vehicle
= option not bid b~' vendor
Bid Award Announcement (99-07-0913) ~ 3 7
VEHICLE:
DEALER:
ZONE:
BASE PRICE:
Excursion
Duval Ford
Western
$29,772.00
DEDUCT: DELETE OPTIONS
Console
Engine: 5.4L V8 in
lieu of 6.8L V10
3rd seat
Limited slip axle
N/A
$ 444.00
$ 170.00
ADD: ADD OPTIONS
Manufacturers heavy-
duty towing package
with class IV receiver
hitch
Limited slip rear axle,
manufacturers standard
ratio per application
Cloth bench seats in lieu
of vinyl bench seats
Gasoline engine,
7.4L, V8
Diesel engine,
6.5L V8 turbo
Diesel engine $
7.3 LT
Mirrors, camper type,
stainless
Skid plate pkg. $
AM/FM cassette radio
Third key $
Complete set of shop $
manuals ..ONLy
5/75 Extended Base $
Care Warranty {gas)
5/75 Extended Extra $
Care Warranty {gas)
5/75 Extended Base $
Care Warranty (diesel)
5/75 Extended Extra $
Care Warranty (die. sel)
6/100 Extended B~e~
Care Warranty ~t'~¢~,
$ 486.00
Incl.
Std.
N/^
N/A
4,005.00
N/A
75.00
Incl.
65.00
225.00
1,2O5.O0
1,405.00
1,505.00
1,705.00
138
Excursion Excursion Excursion
Duval Ford Don Reid Don Reid
Northern ~k Central ~' Southern
$29,732.00 $29,672.00 $29,759.00
N/A N/A N/A
-- $ 400.00 $ 400.00
$ 444.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00
$ 170.00 _
$ 486.0O
Std.
Std.
Incl.
Std.
Std.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Std. N/C N/C
N/A Std. Std.
N/A $ 3,900.00 $ 3,900.00
4,005.00
N/A N/A N/A
75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00
Incl. N/C N/C
65.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00
225.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00
1,205.00 $ 905.00 $ 905.00
1,505.00
1,705.00
$ 1.470.00 $ 1 . '7
v
Bid Award Annoancement (99-07-0913)
VEHICLE:
DEALER:
ZONE:
BASE PRICE:
Excursion
Duval Ford
Western
$29,772.00
Excursion
Duval Ford
Northern
$29,732.00
Excursion
Don Reid
Central
$29,672.00
Excursion
Don Reid
Southern
$29,759.00
Add Options {continued
Delete special service
group (D- 17K)
Comfort & convenience
group (requires D- 17K)
High capacity A/C
Federal Vector lightbar
& smart siren
4 corner strobe system
Headlight flashers
Front mirror strobes
Whelen 9000 FSA
lightbar & siren
Federal Street Haw~k
lightbar & siren
lqainshields
Grille guard
Captain chairs with
dual A/C
A/T tires
$ 1,995.00
$ 167.00
$ 705.00
$ 1,623.00
$ 354.00
$ 87.00
$ 386.00
$ 1,463.00
$ 1,394.00
$ 96.00
$ 670.00
1,995.00
167.00
7O5.00
1,623.00
354.00
87.00
386.00
1,463.00
1,394.00
96.00
670.00
$ 705.00
$ 1,700.00
$ 395.00
$ 1,600.00
$ 3,155.00
$ 255.00
$ 1,995.00
$ 167.00
$ 7o5.00
$ 1,700.00
$ 395.00
$ 1,600.00
$ 3,155.00
$ 255.00
Bid Award Announcement (99-07-09I 3) ~ 39
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 0c;'' -~' ,,-~' '
Request to be placed on:
XX Consent Agenda
When: January 4, 2000
Description of agenda item:
AGENDA REQUEST
__ Special Agenda
Date: December 29, 1999
__ Workshop Agenda
The City Commission is requested to approve a service award to Pressure Cleaning
Services for the cleaning (descahng) of four (4) clarifiers at the Water Treatment Plant for a total
of $14,000.
ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES NO
Draft Attached: YES NO
Recommendation:
Don Haley, Superintendent of the Water Treatment Plant, and the Purchasing Division
recommend the award to Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc. for a total amount of $14,000 for
cleaning of the clarifiers at the Water Treatment Plant. Funding w~ll be taken from account code
441 5122.536.3490.
Department Head Signature: ~,C~,<~
Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable):
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds):
Yes L//
(if applicable)
Funding available: No
Funding alternatives:
Account Number:
Account Description:
Account Balance:
City Manager Review:
Approved for agenda.~ ~ No
Hold Until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Acbon: Approved
Disapproved
P.O. #
PURCHASING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
David T. Harden, City Manager
Jennifer Schillace, Buyer(?
. /
Milena Walinski, Assistant Finance Directo~
DATE:
December 29, 1999
SUBJECT:
DOCUMENTATION
CITY COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 4, 2000
APPROVAL- PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.
FOR CLEANING CLARIFIERS AT WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION:
The City Commission is requested to approve a service award to Pressure Cleaning
Services, Inc for the cleaning (descaling) of four (4) clarifiers at the Water Treatment
Plant for a total of $14,000.
BACKGROUND:
In 1998, Pressure Cleaning Services won the quote for cleaning the City's clarifiers,
drains, and cross-over piping. In 1999, Pressure Cleaning Services has agreed to
rollover their prices for all four clarifiers. Copies of the quotes from 1998 and 1999 are
attached for your reference.
Don Haley, the Superintendent at the Water Treatment Plant, advises that Pressure
Cleaning Services is the only company best qualified to complete the job as they have
all the proper equipment and trained personnel to do the job right. The only other
known vendor cost the city more time and money, and in the end, a substandard
completion of the job.
Don Haley is recommending award to Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc., for a total of
$14,000, for cleaning of the clarifiers at the Water Treatment Plant. See attached
memo dated December 28, 1999.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Purchasing staff is recommending award to Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc. for a
total amount of $14,000 for cleaning of the clarifiers at the Water Treatment Plant.
Funding will be taken from account code 441.5122.536.3490.
Attachments:
Memo 12/28/99
Quotes from PCS 1998/1999
Req.#'s 76509, 76510, 76512, 76513
cc: Don Haley, Superintendent of Water Treatment Plant
FROH : CTY. ENU[ROHENT~L SERUICES P~ONE NO. : 56~24~7060 Dec. 28 ~999 ~2:~6PH P~
I
City Of Delray Beach
Department o/ En vlronmental Services
M E M 0 R A
I
TO:
Jackie Rooney
FROM: Don Haley
N D U M
SUBJECT: Requisition numbers 76509,76510,76512 and 76513
DATE:
December 28, 1999
Last year P.C_S. won the quote for cleaning our Clarifiers, drains, and cross-over piping.
This year P.C.S_ has agreed to rollover their pdces for all four Clarifiers at the same rate.(see
attached) PCS. is the only company best qualified to complete the job as they have all the
proper equipment and trafned personnel to do the job right_ The only other known vendor cost
the city more time and money, and in the end, a sub standard completion of the job_
Please process an agenda item for the above requisitions for Commission Approval I would like
to keep the requisitions separate so payment of each phase can be made upon completion This
entire job should last over a pedod of 2-3 months.
cc: Dan Beatty
ATT: 3
Icr
P.C.S. Inc.
P.O. Box 959
Hobe Sound, FL 33475
(561) 546-8624
(561) 223- 1 fax
Proposal No. 6663
Sheet No. 1 of 1
Date 12-10-99
Proposal Submitted To '~ Work To Be Performed At
Street
City/State
Date of Plans
Name City of Delray Beach Water Treatment Facility
Street 200 SW 6th St.
City/State Delray Beach, FL 33444
Telephone Number (561)-243-7318 FAX (561)-243-7316
Water Treatment Facility
We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of;
WE HEREBY AGREE TO ROLLOVER OUR 1999 PRICING FOR THE FOLLOWING WORK INTO THE YEAR 2000.
HIGH PRESSURE HYDROBLASTING
CLEANING OF CLARIFIERS $ 3,500.00 EA
JETTING OF CLARIF1ER DRAIN PIPES $ 3,500.00 EA
JETTING OF 24" PIPE THAT RUNS BETWEEN CLARIFIERS $ 8,000.00
Protection and Cleanup - Proper protective measures will be taken by P.C.S. Inc. to insure that no damage is done to surrounding property as
well as to contain any resulting debris caused by blasting.
Any costs for litigation, whether for attomeys fees, legal fee, or consultation resulting from the full execution of this contract shall be paid for in full by the
prevailing party. All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and
specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum off
and no/100 .............................................. Dollars ($ 00 )
with payments to be made as follows: Payment to be made in full within 30 days of completion. 1.5% interest per month beyond 30 days.
Respectfully submitted
Per
Note -- This proposal may be withdrawn
by us if not accepted within 30 days.
Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written order, and will become an extra
charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents, or delays beyond our control.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfaclory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be made
as outlined above.
Signatu~
$igaatu~
~__ ~' II II III I III ' I III
P.C.S. Inc. rropos.~o.
P.O. Box 959
Hobe Sound, FL 33475 s~-t ~o.
~1)~~1 fax ~
N~e C~ ofDebay B~h W~ T~ Facili~ N~e Wa~r T~ent Facili~
S~ 200 SW 6th St, S~ A~: D~ Haley
C~/S~ Del~B~ch, FL 33~
Tel~hone N~r (561~243-73 ~8 FAX (56~)-243-7316 Phone
D~ of Pla~s
We h~by pr~e to ~h &~ minis ~d p~ ~ ~or ne~s~ ~r &e ~pletion o~
H~ob~ of~ ~m c~er.
P.C.S. I~. ~ to ~o~c h~r, ~t~ ~ffo~ ~ w~tev~ ei~ h n~d~ ~h the ~c~t~n of ad~e
~t~ ~pp~, ~r the cle~g ofc~ ~ 3. Ev~ ~e the ~ ~pt thc co~tc ~s
ci~ do~ to ~ ~ ~t~ or ~ ~u~ ~me s~t r~id~ ~y ~
P.C.S. I~. ~ u~ 20,~ ~i m co~e ~ ~t.
P.C.S. ~. ~ ~ ~~ to o~e ~u~ t~ c~ck ~& ~r ~g to ~ s~ ~ P.C.S.
Wat~ to ~ pw~ on s~e ~ ~ o~.
R~ of~ ~om ~c t~ to ~ co~ ~ o~r of~ ~.
T~ ~ fi~ h~ f~ ~1 ~ ...................................... D~I~ ( S 3,5~.~ )
_~ N~ -. This pr~oul
R~p~l~
su~d
by ~ if n~ ~ep~ ~h 30 days,
CITY DF DELRI:I¥ BEI:II:H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DELRAY BEACH
~li.America Cit~
1993
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755
Writer's Direct Line' 561/243-7091
MEMORANDUM
December 28, 1999
City Commission ~
Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Seacrest/DeMda Special Assessment District-
Resolution of Necessity
The attached resolution, if approved, will authorize City staff to prepare the assessment
roll, mail notices, and advertise a public hearing for the Seacrest/DeMda Special
Assessment District. The total projected cost for the construction of the sidewalks with
driveway aprons, landscaping, repaying and regrading of swales, roundabouts, and
landscaping medians is $1,543,900.50. The property owners will be assessed for one half
of this cost or $771,950.25. The City shall pay the other half of the cost.
The Seacrest/Del-Ida Neighborhood Plan called for the cost of the improvements to be
divided by thirds between the City, CRA and the property owners. The CRA will not be
responsible for a third of the special assessment cost as they will be providing their share
of the costs under the Neighborhood Plan in the purchase of land and construction of
parking lots in the Assessment District. The purchase of the land and construction of the
parking lots was not included in the special assessment cost.
The City Commission must approve the resolution of necessity in order for City staff to
prepare the assessment roll. The City will publish the resolution for two consecutive
weeks after adoption by the Commission.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call.
Attachment
CC:
David T. Harden, City Manager
Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk
Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer
RESOLUTION NO. 1-00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DI~I.RAY BEACH, FLORIDA, DECLARING THE NECESSITY FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SEACREST/DFr. L-DA
NEIGHBORHOODS AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A", AND
DIRECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT TO DEFRAY A PART OF THE EXPENSE FOR PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SEACREST/DFI-IDA
NEIGHBORHOODS; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTIMATED COST OF
THE IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE PREPARATION OF
THE ASSESSMENT ROLL.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach is authorized to impose
special assessments pursuant to Article 8.4 of the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations and
Chapter 170 of the Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that there is a need for public improvements in the
Seacrest/Del-Ida neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment district will encompass the area as shown on Exhibit
"A"; and
WHEREAS, the area in which the improvements will be performed shall be known as the
Seacrest/Del-Ida Special Assessment District ("Assessment District"); and
WHE1LF_akS, the owners of property within the Assessment District requested the City
perform these improvements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements include water main upgrades by the City; the
purchase of land and construction of parking lots by the Community Redevelopment Agency ("CRA"); the
installation of sidewalks with driveway aprons on certain streets, the installation or repaying of parking areas
in certain areas, the installation of roundabouts in certain areas, the installation of landscaping medians on
certain streets, the installation of general landscaping, the re-grading of swales in certain areas and other
related ancillary improvements (referred to as Neighborhood Improvements and shown on Exhibit "B") as
generally in accordance with the Seacrest/Del-Ida Neighborhood Plan adopted by the City Commission on
March 3, 1998 and on file in the City Clerk's office; and
WHEREAS, the water main upgrades, as shown on Exhibit "B", which axe requixed at this
time to minimize the disruption of the right-of-way, shall be paid by the City in addiuon to its share of the
Neighborhood Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the cost of the purchase of land and the construction of parking lots on the
land is a cost that shall be paid by the CRA; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the Neighborhood Improvements is estimated not to exceed
the amount of $1,543,900.50 and the total cost to be assessed to the property owners shall not exceed half
of that amount or $771,950.25; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission directs City staff to place on file in the City Clerk's office
specifications and cost estimates for the improvements; and
WHEREAS, the property owners may pay the special assessment in one lump sum no later
than sixty (60) days following final consideration of the special assessment after construction is completed
or the property owners may pay the assessment in ten (10) annual installments at an interest rate of eight
percent (8%); and
WHEREAS, the lands upon which the special assessment shall be levied are all lots and
lands adjoining and contiguous or bounding and abutting upon the improvements or specifically benefited
thereby and further designated by the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager shall prepare and present to the Commission an assessment
roll showing the lots and lands to be assessed and the amount of the assessment as to each.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Commission hereby declares a need for the public improvements
within the special assessment district in conformance with the above recitals and for the imposition of a
special assessment in conformance with this resoluuon.
Section 2. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 4m day of January, 2000.
ATTEST:
~City C~erkff I
- 2 - Res. No. 1-00
EXHIBIT "A"
L£GEND
JJONSYB~ Aq Pal]Old 666I gY LY 0~ £~ [rip anl §~P eq[xa9gxv~¥~saaoeas\900-BB\Sl~a[oad\00¥3§u3\s]ua~]j~dap\g00^assa\\
EXHI BI T "B"
LEGEND
[IT¥ ElF DELIII:I¥ BEI:I[H
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE
993 TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: ~Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
DATE:
December 29, 1999
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
561/243-7000
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM CITY COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 4, 2000 SPECIAL EVENT APPROVAL -
ART & JAZZ ON THE AVENUE
ACTION
City Commission is requested to endorse the next Art & Jazz on the Avenue scheduled
for January 27, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., to grant a temporary use permit per
LDR Section 2.4.6. (H) for the closure of Atlantic Avenue from Swinton to N.E. 7th
Avenue, the south side of Atlantic Avenue from N.E. 7th Avenue to just past the Blue
Anchor Pub and Railroad Drive from Atlantic to N.E. 1st Street, and to authorize staff
support for security and traffic control, banner hanging and removal, barricade set up and
removal, clean up, use and set up of City stages.
B&CK6ROIJN9
Attached is a request for approval and City assistance for this event from Marjorie Ferrer.
The estimated overtime cost for this event is $7,000. City Commission capped the
mount the City would pay for overtime at $7,000 for the last event. Actual overtime
costs for December's event were $5,185. A copy of the certificate of insurance and hold
harmless agreement are attached.
R~COM~EIqDh.TION
Staff recommends endorsement of the event, approval of the temporary use permit and
street closure, staff support as requested, use of stages and City barricades, setting an
upper limit of $7,000 for overtime costs with any difference to be paid by the Joint
Venture.
RAB/dr
CC:
Lt. Geoff Williams
Joe Weldon
Hoyt O~vens
File:U:RANGE~/
Agenda/Art & Sazz
Ptfnted oo Recycled Paper
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
December 15, 1999
Mr. Robert A. Barcinski, Assistan~anager
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1''t Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
RE:
AGENDA ITEM - CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL
SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST - ART & JA77 ON THE AVENUE
Dear Mr. Barcinski:
City Commission is requested to endorse the Art & Jazz on the Avenue event
scheduled for Thursday, January 27, 2000, and to grant a temporary use permit
per LDR'S section 2.4.6(H) for use of City property and right of way.
We are requesting street closure on Atlantic Avenue from:
o Swinton Avenue to 7th Avenue
o South side of Atlantic Avenue from 7th to just past the Blue Anchor
Pub
o Railroad Way from Atlantic Avenue to N.E. 1't Street
Closure will be from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
We are requesting that the City provide staff support for barricade setup and
removal, trash removal and clean up, police security for traffic control and
monitoring the FEC railway crossing, stage use setup and removal, and banners
and signage setup and removal.
The City support of this event, with no charge to the Joint Venture, is crucial to
our success. Your consideration and cooperation is very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
MARJORIE FERRER
Downtown Coordinator
Isk
DELRAY BEACH JOINT VENTURE ° Commumty Redevelopment Agency · Delray Beach Chamber of Commerence · Downtown Development Authonty
64 S E Fifth Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483 · Tel 561-278-0424 · Fax 561-278-0555
1~/2~/1999 13:36 5612788555 DB CHAMBER COMMERCE PAGE 82
o~/lo~ Iz:z~ FA! 15~127~$~44 P~S~ID~Z ~001/001
, .......... .
L ,, "" :';, -.' ....T ~:F',,~ ..... '-: ....,r .. , ~'~':~-T'i~;~3~, .'~~~:~ ':'. ...... ,;' 06 ~o
~ [ ~8 CERTIF~A~ 15 I~EO AS A ~R OF INFOE~TtON
t ONLY AND ~ON~ NO EI~T8 UPON THE CEETIFI~ATE
:~e ~Z~~e ~, I~c. I HOLDER. ~18 CERflF~TE ~E~ NOT~END E~END O~
~. O. O:a~: ~30 J AL~RTHE GO~GEAFFORDEO BYTHE PO~CIES BELOW.
~ .......
64 S.E. Strab
Delm~ ~mah FL 33444
COMPANY
THE J~ ~ ~ F~ ~E ~LiGY ~ERIoO
~ ~ LIMITS
01/23/99
0Z/23/00
~AL ,6. ADV el.a.l~Y
~1000000
s~tu~d
slO00000
slO00OOO
sS0000
' s F~lud~d
O~ ~ Al,,t1~ ONLY:
AGGRE-~AT~ ~
· GaOULD ANY Ge~ T~ A~OVE DEaI:;:~i~ POUG~:~ ale CANCELLED S~PO~J~ DiE
~ OAY~ WRITTEN NCfllC~ TO THE ~..~-~'~.iCATE HOLDER N~IEO TO T,4E t~VT.
SPECIAL EVENT
HOLD HARMLESS AGRF"~MENT
i'-ne Downtown OelFav Beach Joint Venture in considec~on of ~e paymen[ of ten (10)
(Name of
dofl~, ~ceJpt of whi~q is hereby ~c~n~g~, ~es to indemni~, held hs~[ess
~nd defend ~e Ci~ of Oe~y Beach, its agen~ ~d employees ~m all ~dJ~, ~ons
and ds/ms including s:omey's fees and ~ ~ndsnt to shy claim, li~gsfion,
adminis~dve p~ceeding, ~ppesJ and judgmem of evew name and descffpuon brought
s~sms~ ~e Ci~ as s ~suJ/of loss, d~mage or inj~ D pe~on or pmpe~ s~sing from
~nd in ex~ange for ~e Oowntown Del~v 8es¢ Joi~ Venire use of Ci~ f~clifies or
(Name of ~)
prope~ for ~e spedsl event of A~ and J~ ' and he.by ~iesses ~he Ci~ of
(Name of
De~y Sea.q, i~ sgen~ and employees ~m ~1 ~, a~ons and d~ms including
sAomey's fees ~d ~s a~endant to shy ~m, I~¢on, admini~e proceedings,
appeal ~nd judgment of eveW name and d~on brought sg~n~
result cf loss, d~sge or injuW to pe~on or pmp~ ~sing ~om ~e sp~ event of
A~ And d~
(Name of
' %his Indemnifi~on and Hold Ha~ess and Deled Ag~ement is only tc ~e e~ent
of insu~n~ mainlined by Be Downtown D~y 8~q Joint Venom Es covered
under Scc~dale Insumn~ Company Poli¢/numb~ CLS420116.
ART AND JAZZ
(NAme of SpedaJ Everr0
Witness
(Please type or print n.~me)
¢/itneSs
(PleAse type or print marne)
Name
- - .~I-L~
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ~ROBERT A. BARCINSKI, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~.e _ CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF
DATE:
JANUARY 4, 2000- APROVAL PARKING AGREEMENT
DECEMBER 29, 1999
ACTION
City Commission is requested to approve a Parking License Agreement with
Peter's Stone Crabs Ltd. for a three (3) space valet parking queue on the
north side of Atlantic Avenue east of N.E. 4th Avenue from 5 p.m. till I a.m.
Monday through Sunday.
BACKGROUND
Peter Stone Crabs Ltd. previously had an approved valet agreement for the
requested spaces under old terms and conditions. In August 1999, Mr.
Guttuso informed me that he would no longer need the valet spaces but had
reserved the right to reinstate the agreement under the terms and conditions
agreed to in January 1999. Attached is a copy of the executed agreement,
required insurance certificate, and proof of private lot lease. The spaces
requested were previously designated as one of the four (4) queue locations
allowed for valet use. The applicant will also pay the required fee for use of
these spaces. The Parking Management Advisory Board reviewed the
request at their December 28, 1999, meeting. However, due to lack of a
quorum, a vote could not be taken.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Parking License Agreement with
Peter's Stone Crabs Ltd.
Parking
LICENSEE PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT ("The Agreement") is made this th" day of
~ ECe. wf3eY~, 199q'
by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a Florida Municipal Corporation (the
"CITY" ), and
("LICENSEE").
WITNESSETH:
, a Florida ~ofitv~,,~),,'
WItEREAS, LICENSEE has requested permission to use a certain number of public
parking spaces along Atlantic Avenue and certain side streets for valet parking queues; and
WHEREAS, in order to use the parking spaces, the CITY requires that LICENSEE
enter into this non-exclusive License Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the mutual
covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereby agree as follows:
1. Incorporation of Recitals. The parties hereby represent and warrant that the
above recitals are accurate and correct and hereby incorporate them in this Agreement.
2. Parkin~ Queues. The CITY agrees to allow LICENSEE the no~]exclusive ~t^c.e.s z.$.~/_ c~o. ,l. ¢~:~ JYo~,
use of ,3 (number) parking spaces located q I( f-. ,AWCA-~'i"t (.. for valet parking queues.
The parking spaces are to be used for valet parking queues daily between the hours of .5500 g~,
p.m. to l:co a.m. on mo,.~rm *w.~ 5u,-,~7 ((.'~) (days per week). LICENSEE
acknowledges that the valet parking queues may be unavailable for use during certain special
events from time to time (as determined in the CITY's sole discretion) and during the special
events the license will not be valid. It is also understood by the terms of this Agreement that
the valet queue location may from time to time be re-located by the CITY in its sole discretion
after providing thirty (30) days' written notice to LICENSEE. The valet queues assigned may
also be shared by other licensees who enter into a "Valet Parking License Agreement" with the
CITY. The City Police Department is assigned enforcement responsibilities for the provisions
valet service.
designee.
6.
of this agreement regarding the location, time, days of the valet service, parking limitations
and requirements, and compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances.
3. Parking Locations/Agreements. LICENSEE agrees that it will not park any
cars in CITY owned on-street or off-street parking spaces. LICENSEE further agrees that
LICENSEE will provide the CITY with written assurances and/or a lease agreement for use
of a private parking lot(s). The private lot(s) must also comply with minimum City codes for
a parking lot(s). These assurances and agreements must be provided upon execution of this
License Agreement. Failure to comply with these conditions will be a basis for termination of
this License Agreement.
4. Payment for Parking. Queue Spaces. LICENSEE agrees to pay the CITY
fifty dollars ($50.00) per month, per parking queue space utilized by the 10th of each month.
A late fee of 5 % will be charged after this date. If more than one License Agreement is issued
for the queues, the fee will be shared proportionately.
5. Signage. The CITY agrees to post the valet parking queue spaces with valet
parking times and days authorized. Sandwich board signs may not be used to advertise the
Advertising signs will be allowed as prescribed by the City's Manager or his
Valet Equipment. The LICENSEE'S operator may for the storage of keys
install a moveable, temporary, valet desk on the sidewalk, either public or private, during the
hours of valet service so long as the desk does not impede the pedestrian flow.
7. Term and Renewal. The term of this Agreement shall be for one year from
the date written above. The license may be renewed annually by the City Manager following
receipt of a written notice from LICENSEE that LICENSEE desires to continue using the
parking spaces for valet parking queue, if the City Manager determines in his sole discretion
that the renewal is in the best interests of the CITY.
8. Revocable License. This Agreement is only a non-exclusive License
Agreement and may be revoked by the CITY at anytime without cause upon providing written
notice via U.S. Mail to LICENSEE. The revocation shall be effective when mailed.
9. Compliance with Laws. LICENSEE agrees to comply and adhere to all state
laws and local ordinances regarding parking that exist or as amended from time to time.
LICENSEE further acknowledges that due to the high traffic in this area, double parking
unattended vehicles will not be permitted.
10. Notice. Notices required to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be
sent to the following addresses:
To CITY: David Harden, City Manager
100 N.W. 1 st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
To LICENSEE: r~r-~C_~ ,,,~ O.~$ UFO.
11. Insur~ce. LICENSEE agrees to provide ~e CITY insurance for the valet
service in the amounu and uMer ~e conditions prescribed in Ex,bit A and ~e CiW of Delray
Beach shall be named ~ additional ~umd.
I2. Indemnification. In consideration of the payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00),
receipt of which is hereby ac~owledged, LICENSEE shall protect, defend, indemni~ and hold
ha~less the CITY ~om ~d against ~y ~d all claims, suits, actions, dmages ~or causes of
action ~ising d~ng ~e Te~ offs Le~e for ~y personal init, loss of life ~&or dmage to
prope~ sustained in or aborn ~e p~hng spaces/queues by reason or as a result of ~e use and
occupancy of the p~king spaces/queues by LICENSEE, its agents, employees, licensees,
invitees, ~d membem of the public generally, and from ~d against ~y orders, judgments,
~&or decrees w~ch may be entered thereon, ~d ~om ~d ag~nst all cosB, aRomey fees,
expenses ~d liabilities inched in ~d about ~e defense of ~y such claim. In the event the
CITY shall be made a p~ to ~y litigation co~enced ag~nst LICENSEE or by LICENSEE
against ~y third p~, ~en ~e LICENSEE shall protect, defend, indemi~ ~d hold the CITY
ha~less ~d pay all costs ~d a~omey's fees inched by ~e CITY in co~ection with such
litigation, ~d ~y appeals ~ereof.
13. T~rd P~es. No~ng in ~is Agreement, whe~er express or implied, is
intended to confer ~y righB or remedies uMer or by reason of ~s Agreement upon any
person o~er ~ ~e panics hereto and ~eir respective heks, successors, legal
representatives, and permitted assigns, nor is anything in this Agreement intended to relieve or
discharge the obligation or liability of any third persons to any party to this Agreement, nor
shall any provision thereof give any third person any right of subrogation or action over or
against any party to this Agreement.
14. Termination. LICENSEE acknowledges that the CITY may terminate this
non-exclusive License Agreement for cause for any violation of any terms and conditions
contained herein without notice unless otherwise specified, and this agreement shall be
immediately deemed null and void and shall have no further force and effect. LICENSEE
will at all times comply with the City's policy/procedure for use of public parking
spaces/queues which shall change from time to time subject to the sole discretion of the City.
15. Taxes. LICENSEE shall pay and comply with all laws regarding taxes, levies,
assessments, fees and charges, including, but not limited to gross receipts, taxes, use taxes,
property taxes, and sales taxes that may be imposed.
16. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be transferred or assigned without the
express written consent of the CITY, which the CITY may withhold grants in its sole
discretion.
17. Further Assurances. The parties shall from time to time execute and deliver
such other and further instruments and documents and do all matters and things which may be
convenient or necessary to more effectively and completely carry out the intent of this
Agreement.
18. Binding Effect. All of the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be
binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the parties hereto and their
respective heirs, successors, legal representatives, and permitted assigns.
19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject matter of it. All prior understandings and agreements
between the parties with respect to such matters are merged into this Agreement, which alone
fully and completely expresses their understanding.
20. Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended, modified, altered, or
charged in any respect, except by a further agreement in writing duly executed by each of the
parties hereto.
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed on their behalf this ~ day of ,199
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
a Florida Municipal Corporation
By:
Jay Alperin
Mayor
City Attorney
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OR PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 199 by Jay Alperin, as Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, a Florida
municipal corporation, on behalf of the corpo.ration.
(OFFICIAL NOTARIAL SEAL)
Notary Public
State and County Aforesaid
My Commission Expires:
a Florid~-ot'poratSma L~k,'kcl /'~rC,~o.t-$
//
/Name P~inted:_ 3"'o~/,.,¢~ a~.~-I-u ~,
(SEAL)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OR PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged
~, 199~ by~-~fc~...~.~ -~-----,-,qq-'~ .x_ c~ ,
' of the corporation.
before me this /'/-day of
as~-~,.,r,v,.,. I ?ai,~.4-.. o,' of
~ on behalf
Notary Public
(OFFICIAL NOTARIAL SEAL)
Carol Howard
MY COMMISSION # CC789714 EXPIRES
3anuary 19, 2005
State and County Aforesaid
My Commission Expires:
valet parkmg.agt
', D~¢-17-99 03:59P Grande Palms i 561 734 1229 P.02
Witness
LEASE
Fred B. Devitt, Jr., and Betty P. Devitt, hereinafter called the "Lessor", hereby lease to
(' oa~ fo [oasJf [ ~lc. hereinafter called the"Lessee", theuse
of the parking lot located on p.roperty at 30 S.E. 4" Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33483, to hold
the same for one month from ~cms]l' ~1~ ,1999, and so on from month to month until one
of the parttes shall give to the ot}/er one month s notice tn writing of his intention to terminate the
lease at the end of the following month, to be used by said Lessee as a parking lot for automobiles
within said lot in consideration of the payments of the rental provided for and other terms as
contained in Schedule "A" hereto attached and made a part hereof.
For the duration of this lease, Tenant, at its expense, shall insure Landlord, Landlord's agent
and itself against liability for injury to persons in connection with the premises in the amounts of
4~ILL{01',I ($11000,000~) Dollars for any one person and ~7~O~t[~t~t{~e~,
($'i' I'b0,0- ) Dollars for more than one person in any one occurrence. This insurance shall b'e
in a ~'orn~ and through an insurance company satisfactory to Landlord and Tenant shall deposit the
original policy (with evidence of premium payment) with Landlord.
The Lessee shall keep the premises in good order and free from all refuse, and shall promptly
remove all trash, garbage, and refuse of any kind from the premises during said term. The Lessee
agrees not to creW, affix or display any sign on the exterior of said premises without, in each instance,
first securing the written consent of the Lessor.
In case the Tenant shall default in the performance of any covenant or agreement herein
contained, and such default shall continue for ten days after receipt by the Tenant of written notice
thereof given by the Landlord, then the Landlord, at his option, may declare said term ended, and may
re-enter upon the leased premises either with or without process of law, and remove all persons
therefrom.
Said Lessee hereby further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Lessor, Devitt, Thistle
& Devitt and each of its.tenant companies from any claim or demand on account of the liability herein
by him assumed.
The lessee agrees to abide by such rules as may be established from time to time by the Lessor
covering the use of said parking lot.
of the
Lessor
SCHEDULE "A"
Described premises to be used solely for valet car parking services.
The Lessee agrees to pay to the Lessor as rent for said premises the sum of
dollars payable on the first day of each month in advance, commencing on Pn~ cv~'~' /} sc, , 1999.
Lessee's use of parking lot shall only be during the time period beginning at 6:00 p.m. and
ending at 2:00 a.m., Wednesday thru Saturday. Any employee of Devitt, Thistle & Devitt shall be
allowed to park h~ the office lot at any time, without further question.
Lessee agrees to detail (wash, wax, vacuum) up to three vehicles for Lessor per month.
Certificate of Insurance
Thts certtflcate is issued as a matter of mformaQon only and confers no rtghts upon you the cert~ftcate holder Thts cerhftcate Is not an insurance pohcy and does not amend, extend,
or alter tile coverage by the pohctes hsted below
Named Insured(s):
Staff Leasing, LP, by Staff Acquisition, Inc, The General Partner, and
The Affdtated Limited Partnerships of Which Staff Acqmslt~on, Inc. is
The General Partner and their Successor Corporations
600 301 Boulevard West, Suite 202
Bradenton, Florida 34205
CNA
RISK MANAGEMENT
Insurer Affording Coverage
Coverages: Continental Casualty Company
The pohcy0es) of insurance listed below have been Issued to the insured named above for the pohcy period Ind~caled Tile insurance afforded by the pohcy0es) descnbed hereto ~s
subject to all the terms, exclusions and conditions of such pohcy0es)
Certificate Exp. Date
Type of Insurance [] Cont,nuous Policy Number Limits
[] Extended
* [] Pohcy Term
Employer's Liability
Workers' 1-1-2001 WC 189165165
Compensation WC 189165182 8oddly In,lury By Acodent
$1,000,000 Each Accidenl
Boddy Injury By D~sease
$1,000,000 Pohcy Limit
Boddy Injury By Disease
$'1,000,000 Each Person
Employees Leased To: Effective Date: 1/1/00
16385
Coast to Coast Valet Inc
The above referenced workers' compensation policy(les) prowde(s) statutoqt benefits only to the employees of the Named Insured(s) on such pohcy(les}, not to the employees of any other employer
*If the cerhflcate expiration date is continuous or extended term, you will be not~hed if coverage ~s terminated or reduced before the
certificate expiration date However, you wdl not be nohfled annually of the continuation of coverage
Notice of Cancellation: (Not applicable unless a number of days are entered below)
Before the stated expiration date the company will not cancel or reduce the insurance afforded under the above pohcy(ies) untd at least
3_0_0 days notice of such cancellation has been mailed to:
Certificate Holder:.
COAST TO COAST VALET INC
295 NW 36TH AVE
DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442-8084
Martin Oosterbaan
Authorized Repre~entative
Office. St Louis, MO 12/15/99
Phone (877) 427-5567 Date Issued
DEO.-17'99(FR]) 14:27
AGORDIA WPB
TEh:561 8fi$ 9654
P. OOI
:ir.,,,o:: .... :,',.:.,,~ :. .... ,'..', >:"~i.:.~.,.';:::.~..'~':~.'.~,.,' ','c, r, .. ":' "' "'L~ ": "', ~' ,; ....... :.'' ~:,,,i",i ;" ~ 12/17/99
PF~DUO~FL '1%118 C~R~FICKr~ I~ I$~O ASA ~R O~ IN~~
~R~ NO RI~ U~ T~ ~TJFJ~ ~R, THIS
· CO~IA S0~~T ~u~s
501 S. F~R DR. %600
~ST P~ B~ ~ 3~401 oomF~"rA B~IN~TON II{S~CE ~
:O~T TO CO~T ~ET/INC OOMPANW C
295 ~ 36~ A~ LE~ER
3EERFIE~ B~, FL 334~2 comPaN~o
~PAN~ E
.~ v. ~t',,''~'*' p . ~ .... .*...:..~;;' , '.,~ ~.~'~.'~:~'".'V~
~,*~ .................... ~,:?. :"~..~,"~-.,,~ "; ...... '..V, .~,.", ..... .,": ..... : . ~ .' '?~:, '"~ ~. .* .":~.,.., .... ,..~ * ~ ..:,.,.~ ..~*,>~'~.~,.j~.
~MB~IAL gENE~ LIASILI~ P~ODUOTS.GOMP/OP Ae G. t '
~'~,~ ,,~ "
OO~U~, , .....
' ' ']~ p~ o~aeE ~v~,t~,; ~
,,, MED.E~, ~ ~1 p~)
~ A~0~BI~BlU~.] B~43069 11/15/99 L1/15/~0 00MD,N=om~Neu~' ,
'~.YAum ~,u,~ ~, 000,, OOO
~t OW~Q AUTO~ BDD~Y
~HE Ou~K ~ AUTO~ ~er ~'s~} S
~IRED AUTOS BODiLYigdU~y .....
~ bDN'DWMED A~O~ ~,~Jdmnl)
~R~ DAMAa5
% ~ml~ ~I~RA306'9 ~1/15/99 11/15/00 ~.oo~.cE ~ 2.000.00C
UMBRELLA F~M ~flE~A~
,'.,,~c
~D i~ ACOlDEN~ $
,
SERVCMM PROVIDED BY ~ ~D INM~D AT 30 SE 4TM A~ DEL~Y B~, ~
::: ~ ~ ~E~VE ~IBED ~E8 ~ C*~O
~ ~ ~ITT ~" ~,~FA~RETO~IL~E~I~SE~O~T~N~
Memo
To:
From:
Re:
David Harden, City Manager
Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement
December 28, 1999
Coral Trace Development Request for Waiver of Permit Fee
ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
City Commission consideration of a request as submitted by Mr. Jeffrey N. Spear, President of the Spear Coral
Corporation, which is the managing partner for the Coral Trace Development. Mr. Spear is requesting waiver of
the $12,077.35 permit fee assessed for the site development permit for Phase II of the project
BACKGROUND:
The odginal developer, via his contractor, Shelter Construction, submitted the appropriate applications and
plans for site development November 12, 1997 for Phase II of the Coral Trace Development. Plan check fees
in the amounts of $7,626 and $4,451.35 (totaling $12,077 35) were assessed, representing one half of the
actual permit fees. Sometime after November 1997, the developer filed for bankruptcy. The site development
permits were unable to be issued because of comments from staff, which triggered required changes to the
plans before final approval. The City Engineer did the last staff review on July 14, 1998 and he disapproved the
plans because of deficiencies. Revised plans addressing the Engineer's comments were never responded to.
The permits were closed on November 30, 1999 after no activity for more than 180 days.
The Spear Group, under a joint venture w~th Aurora Homes (the odginal developer), is the development group
for the Coral Trace project. Mr. Spear has put forth an argument that the plans which require m~nor changes
should be accepted with a credit for the plan check fees pa~d, since staff has already done the major plan review
work and the changes that must be submitted at this time are minor or are required by City Staff. He is also
claiming a financial hardship to the company.
The applicant is required to submit new applications and plans for the site work for Phase II of th~s project. Staff
is responsible for rewewing the plans again to ensure all comments have been addressed and are submitted in
compliance with the approved site plan. It is staffs position that new fees are applicable since the submission
includes changes and the initial review of these plans were done two (2) years ago. We also believe the new
Joint Venture partners were fully aware that the original permits had been closed and that new applications
would be necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request to waive the plan check fees for the site development permits for Phase
II of the Coral Trace Development submitted by Mr. Jeffrey N. Spear, President of the Joint Venture for the
development.
Coralwaiver. 1299
3721 $ W ,~Tth Avenue
.~,u ~[e 307
FI. L,~ude~dmlc, Florida
'}3314 201b
954 · b81 9000
FAX 95~ · 792.71;~6
The Spear Group
December 20, 1999
Ms. Lula Butler
Community Improvement Director
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
100 NW 1" Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Re:
Coral Trace Development Permits
Permit #97-51020 and 97-5'1021
Dear Ms. Butler:
The above referenced permit~ for pavin~ and utilities have expired. This occurred because the builder under
contract to build this project fih':d bankruptcy. Subsequently, the permit applicm~t also flied banl(ruptcy.
Numerous attempts were made to get this project ~tarled over a one ~md a half year period without success,
until recently when the Spear Group formed a Joint Venlure with Aurora Homes to build oul this project.
Permit Fees in the amount of $12,077.35 were originally paid Lip front, in part to cover the cost of reviewing
tile plans. The plans have not changed other than some minor adjustments requested by tile City Staff. The
current policy would void out the permits and all monies forfeited. Tills would be a severe hard~hip to this
project. The early stages o( a project are especially sensitive to development n~omentum and expenses. The
budget projections and b~nk funding requests all have been based on the assumption that these funds were
already covered.
.We respe(tfuliy request that these permi! fees be credited to a new permit for this work.
We greatly appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
CORAL TRACE, A JOINT VENTURE
By: Spear Coral Corp., managing partner
Jeffrey N. Spear
President
J N S/gs
I: L; i-:_ I
DEC 2 ? 1999
CT cily ef delray dcvelol~men~ permit, 122099
Date: December 29, 1999
Agenda Item No.
AGENDA REQUEST
Agenda request to be placed on:
__X Regular __ Special __ Workshop
When: January 4, 2000
Description of Agenda Item:
Request to Waive Permit Fees - Coral Trace Development
Consent
Ordinance/Resolution Required: Yes
Draft Attached: Yes / (~
Recommendation: Denial
Department Head Signature:
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds):
Funding Available: Yes /No
Funding Alternatives:
Account # & Description:
Account Balance:
(if applicable)
City Manager Review:
HoldApproved Until: for agenda: ~ / No ~
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Action: Approved / Disapproved
1/17/96
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
DIANE DOMINGUEZ, PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
JASMIN ALLEN, PLANNER.
MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2400
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST TO RE-ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT SAND DOLLAR
GRILLE (FORMERLY ROD AND GUN CLUB)~ LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF W.
ATLANTIC AVE, BETWEEN CARVER MIDDLE SCHOOL AND VILLAS D' ESTE
APARTMENTS
The former Rod & Gun Club restaurant was established in 1983 under an SAD zoning designation. With the
Citywide rezonings in 1990, the parcel was rezoned to POC which allowed restaurants associated with an
office complex as a conditional use. The restaurant has vacated the premises for more than 180 days,
therefore, a new conditional use is required in order to re-establish the use. It is noted that in order to
accommodate this request, an LDR amendment had to be processed to allow stand-alone restaurants in the
POC. A full description of that amendment, as well as an analysis of the proposed new restaurant, is
contained within the attached Planning and Zoning Board staff report.
At its meeting of December 13, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing in conjunction with
the request. One member from the public spoke in support of this item. The Board voted 7-0 to recommend
approval of the Conditional Use based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance
Standards) and Section 2.4.5(E)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan subject to the following revised conditions of approval:
1. That the site plan be in general conformity to the sketch plan and incorporate recommendations made in
this report.
2. That queuing for the valet service be extended west of the porte cochere to ensure adequate stacking.
3. That a minimum 5' landscape strip be provided between the parking area and the east property line.
4. That additional trees be planted along the eastern and northern property line between the parking area
and the Villas D' Este Apartments to provide a maximum spacing of 25 feet.
5. That additional trees be planted along the western property line adjacent to Carver Middle School to
provide a maximum spacing of 30 feet.
6. That the parking space at the southeastern corner of the east parking lot be eliminated and landscaped in
order to provide the required 6' x 24' maneuvering apron.
7. That the parking space at the southwest corner of the building be removed and the area landscaped.
By motion, approve the Conditional Use request to re-establish a restaurant, the Sand Dollar Grille, based
upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.5(E)(5) of the Land
Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the conditions recommended
by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Attachments: P& Z Staff Report and Documentation of December 13, 1999
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT---
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
ITEM:
December 13, 1999
V.A.
Conditional Use Request to Allow the Re-Establishment of a Res.taurant,
Sand Dollar Grille (Formerly the Rod & Gun Club), Located on the North
Side of West Atlantic Avenue, Between Carver Middle School & Villas
D'Este Apartments.
GENERAL DATA:
Owner/Applicant ............................. Love 411 LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company
Agent .............................................. George M. Philbeck
Location .......................................... North Side of W. Atlantic Avenue, between Carver Middle
School and Villas D'Este Apartments
Property Size ..................................
Future Land Use Map Designation.
Current Zoning ...............................
Adjacent Zoning ................... North:
East:
South:
West:
1.48 Acres
Transitional
POC (Planned Office Center)
RM (Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density)
RM
R-I-A (Single Family Residential)
CF (Community Facilities)
Existing Land Use .......................... Vacant Restaurant
Proposed Land Use ....................... Conditional use request to allow the re-establishment of a
restaurant
Water Service ................................. Existing on site.
Sewer Service ................................ Existing on site.
The action before the Board is making a recommendation to the City
Commission on a request for Conditional Use approval for Sand Dollar Grille.to
allow the re-establishment of a restaurant, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(E).
The subject property is located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue,
between Carver Middle School and Villas D' Este Apartments and is the former
site of the Rod and Gun Club Restaurant.
Recently, several land use petitions have been processed which have been
geared towards resolving the nonconforming status of the former Rod and Gun
Club restaurant located on West Atlantic Avenue. The restaurant was
established in 1983 under an SAD zoning designation. With the Citywide
rezonings in 1990, the parcel was rezoned to POC. The PO(~ district allowed as
a conditional use "Restaurants when it is designed to be a part of the overall
POC concept and is primarily directed toward meeting the noon time demands of
the POC.' The restaurant was the only structure on this POC zoned parcel,
therefore it was impossible to comply with the provision that it be geared toward
meeting the noontime demands of an office center. Apparently it was thought at
the time that the adjacent 18-acre vacant tract would eventually develop as an
office park, and the restaurant would become a part of that development. The
18-acre tract was annexed into the City in 1995 and zoned RM (Medium Density
Residential) in part and RM-6 (Medium Density Residential- 6 du/ac) in part.
Subsequently, approval was granted for a 191 unit multi-family development
known as Villas D' Este. With the development of the property for residential
purposes, there was no possibility of the Rod and Gun Club restaurant becoming
a conforming use.
On September 3, 1998, the Occupational License Division was notified by the
property owner that the Rod and Gun Club restaurant had been evicted, and the
existing license became inactive. Once a nonconforming use vacates the
premises for 180 days or more it cannot be re-established unless it complies with
current regulations. As stand-alone restaurants were not permitted in the POC,
a rezoning or text amendment was necessary in order to re-establish the use.
In September of this year the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing
on a request to rezone the subject property to NC (Neighborhood Commercial).
The NC district allows restaurants, but it also allows numerous other retail and
service type uses that the surrounding neighbors found objectionable. There
was substantial public testimony supporting the reestablishment of the restaurant
but opposing the rezoning. The Board voted unanimously to deny the petition,
P&Z Staff Report
Conditional Use Request for Sand Dollar Grille (former Rod and Gun Club) Restaurant
Page 2
and directed staff to seek alternative approaches to allow the restaurant without
opening the property up to a variety of other more intensive uses. A text
amendment was subsequently approved by the City Commission on November
16, 1999, to allow stand-alone restaurants (excluding drive-in and drive-through
facilities) in the POC that are not limited to primarily serving employees and
customers of an associated office center.
I
!
The site currently contains: a 6,728 sq. ft. structure with a porte cochere awning
at its entrance; two parking pods (at the east and west ends of the building)
containing a total of 95 parking spaces; 24' wide driveway on West Atlantic
Avenue; a trash receptable at the east end of the building and associated
landscaping. The sketch plan indicates the following improvements to the site:
· Modification to the entranceway and traffic circulation pattern to facilitate a
drop-off area for valet service;
· Replacing the existing pavers beneath the porte cochere and installing new
pavers in the outdoor waiting area adjacent to the building;
· Removal of curbing at the driveway; modifying the landscape island to
accommodate a monument sign.
· Relocating the trash receptacle from the east side of the building to the east
property line;
· Elimination of 3 parking spaces at the east end of the site to accommodate
the relocated dumpster and a maneuvering area.
The applicant has submitted the following narrative, which describes the
operation:
"Full service, full bar with liquor and wine, 230 seat seafood restaurant.
The hours of operation daily are from 11:00 A.M. until 2:00 A.M. Sixty
employees will be employed at peak season. The restaurant will not have
typical nightclub entertainment such as Deejay or dancing, or nightly live
entertainment. The normal nightly hours that business will be finished
should be in the 11:00 P.M.-midnight range, however for special events
such as wedding receptions there may be entertainment of some type
and may last longer than midnight".
P&Z Staff Report
Conditional Use Request for Sand Dollar Grille (former Rod and Gun Club) Restaurant
Page 3
II
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, written materials submitted
by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made
by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the
development application.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The resulting use of land or structures must be
allowed in the zoning district within which the land is situated and said
zoning must be consistent with the applicable land use designation as
shown on the Future Land Use Map.
The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of TRN
(Transitional) and a zoning designation of POC (Planned Office Center).
The zoning district is consistent with the TRN Future Land Use Map
designation and "restaurant excluding drive-in and drive-through facilities"
is listed as a Conditional Use in the district [LDR Section 4.4.15 (D)(1)].
CONCURRENCY: Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the
Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a
determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use
and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to
fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital
improvements in order to maintain the Levels of Service Standards
established in Table CI-GOP-1 of the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the
City of Delray Beach.
Streets and Traffic:
The present development proposal is to re-establish the restaurant which would
result in no additional vehicular trips.
Water and Sewer:
Water service exists on the site via a service lateral connection to an existing 12"
water main located along the north side of Atlantic Avenue. Sewer service is
available to the site via a gravity service which ties directly into the lift station
located at the southwest corner of the site. The Comprehensive Plan states that
adequate water and sewer treatment capacity exists to meet the adopted LOS at
the City's build-out population based on the current Future Land Use Map.
P&ZStaffRep0
Conditional Use Request for Sand Dollar Grille (former Rod and Gun Club)Restaurant
Page 4
Drainage:
Paving and drainage plans are not required for the conditional use analysis. The
proposed site changes are minimal and should have no impact on existing
drainage.
Parks and Recreation:
Parks and Recreation dedications do not apply to non-residential developments.
Solid Waste:
As the proposed use of the property will be unchanged no increases in the trash
generated are anticipated. The Solid Waste Authority has indicated that it can
accommodate all development proposals under existing FLUM designations
through the year 2020.
CONSISTENCY: A finding of overall consistency may be made even though
the action will be in" conflict with some individual performance standards
contained within Article 3.2, provided that the approving body specifically
finds that the beneficial aspects of the proposed project (hence compliance
with some standards) outweighs the negative impacts of identified points
of conflicts.
A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was
conducted and no applicable objectives or policies were found.
SECTION 2.4.5(E) REQUIRED FINDINGS: (Conditional Use)
Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of
Chapter 3, the City Commission must make find!ngs that establishing the
conditional use will not:
A. Have a significantly detrimental effect upon the stability of the
neighborhood within which it will be located;
B. Nor that it will hinder development or redevelopment of nearby
properties.
P&Z Staff Report
Conditional Use Request for Sand Dollar Grille (former Rod and Gun Club) Restaurant
Page 5
As the site is developed and was occupied by a restaurant use for many years
no compatibility concerns are noted. The site has been unoccupied for some
time and the landscaping has been allowed to deteriorate creating an eyesore.
The proposed improvements and provision of new landscaping will be a great
improvement. Based on the above, the proposed use will not have an adverse
impact on the surrounding area nor will it hinder development or redevelopment
of nearby properties.
COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
In conjunction with the Conditional Use request a sketch plan was
submitted which staff has reviewed. If the Conditional Use is approved, a
site plan modification must be processed complying with LDR Section.
Based upon staff's review of the sketch plan and site inspections, the
following "Items of Concern" have been identified.
Valet Parking:
Parking will be valet Service only, thus concerns with stacking and queuing at
the entrance are noted. The entrance area is proposed to accommodate three
queuing lanes. In order to delineate the queuing lanes, pavers will be used.
Pursuant to Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c), provisions must be made for 100' clear
stacking from the first point of transaction for each lane of a drive-thru facility and
in advance of all guardhouses or security gates. Since three queuing lanes are
proposed, the stacking requirement would be met. However, in order to provide
adequate stacking staff is recommending that the queuing area be moved as far
west as possible. An additional awning may be added west of the porte cochere
to facilitate the extension of the stacking area. The location of the customer/valet
service stand must be delineated on the revised site plan.
Dumpster Location:
The sketch plan indicates that the dumpster is to be relocated from the east side
of the building and placed adjacent to the east property line. The striped
maneuvering space at the southeast corner of the parking lot does not function
and should be eliminated and landscaped. The existing curbing should be
modified to provide the required 6' x 24' maneuvering apron required for dead-
end parking bays.
Landscaping:
The landscape materials have deteriorated and a landscape plan addressing
installation of plant materials must be approved. Along the eastern and northern
property lines between the parking areas and Villas D' Este development, trees
are to be planted 25' on center in order to provide a solid tree line between the
commercial and residential uses. Along the western property line, adjacent to
P&Z Staff Report
Conditional Use Request for Sand Dollar Grille (former Rod and Gun Club) Restaurant
Page 6
Carver Middle School, additional trees must be installed to provide a maximum
spacing of 30' on center.
In addition there are three parking tiers where there are more than 10 continuous
spaces in a row. This will require the elimination of three parking spaces to
provide the required landscape islands. As parking rows are required to end with
a 5' wide terminal landscape island, the parking space at the southwest corner of
the building should be eliminated and landscaped.
Parking:
Pursuant to Section 4.6.9(C)(3)(d), restaurants shall provide 12 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft. of floor area up to 6,000 sq. ff. and then 15 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of
floor area over the initial 6,000 sq. ft. Based on the above, a total of 83 parking
spaces are required. To accommodate the proposed site changes and the
modifications identified in the staff report (in order to bring the parking lot up to
code) 7 spaces will be eliminated. The parking requirement will be met as a total
of 88 spaces will be provided.
The development proposal is not located within a geographical area requiring
review by the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) or the DDA (Downtown
Development Authority).
Site Plan Review and Appearance Board:
If Conditional Use approval is granted, a revised site plan as well as a landscape
plan must be submitted accommodating the concerns raised through the
conditional use petition. Final action on the site plan modification submittal will
rest with the SPRAB (Site Plan Review and Appearance Board).
Public Notice:
Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500 foot
radius of the subject property. Letters of objection, if any, will be presented at the
Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
Courtesy Notice:
Courtesy notices have been provided to the following homeowners associations:
· High Point Homeowners Association Sections 1-6
· Windy Creek Homeowners Association
· Hanover SquareNVindy Creek Homeowners Association
· PROD
P&Z Staff Report
Conditional Use Request for Sand Dollar Grille (former Rod and Gun Club) Restaurant
Page 7
· President's Council
· Hamlet Homeowners Association
· Greensward Village Homeowners Association
· Woodlake Homeowners Association
· Sherwood Forest Homeowners Association
Letters of support and objection, if any, will be presented at the Planning and
Zoning Board meeting.
The proposed conditional use is the re-establishment of a restaurant for Sand
Dollar Grille. The significant change proposed with the re-establishment of the
restaurant is to offer a valet parking service some modifications are suggested to
the queuing arrangement in order to provide the maximum possible vehicular
stacking area. The proposed use is consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations.
Positive findings can.,be made with respect to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) regarding
compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding properties.
Ao
Continue with direction.
Recommend approval of the Conditional Use request for Sand Dollar
Grille, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(E)(5)
(Compatibility) and Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land
Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
subject to conditions.
Recommend denial of the Conditional Use request for Sand Dollar
Grille, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to
Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Compatibility).
Recommend approval of the request for Conditional Use to re-establish a
restaurant for Sand Dollar Grille, based upon positive findings with respect to
Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(E)(5) of the Land
Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the site plan be in general conformity to the sketch plan and incorporate
recommendations made in this report.
P&Z Staff Report
Conditional Use Request for Sand Dollar Grille (former Rod and Gun Club) Restaurant
Page 8
2. That the queuing for the valet service be extended west of the porte cochere
to ensure adequate stacking.
3. That a minimum 5' landscape strip be provided between the parking area and
the eastern property line.
That additional trees be planted along the eastern and northern property line
between the parking area and the Villas D' Este Apartments to provide a
maximum spacing of 25 feet.
5. That additional trees be planted along the western property line adjacent to
Carver Middle School to provide a maximum spacing of 30 feet.
That the parking space at the southeastern corner of the east parking lot be
eliminated and landscaped in order to provide the required 6' x 24'
maneuvering apron.
That 3 parking spaces be eliminated and landscape islands provided to
break-up those parking tiers which have more than 10 continuous parking
spaces in a row.
8. That the parking space at the southwest corner of the building be removed
and the area landscaped.
Attachments:
· Sketch Plan
P&Z:Sand Dollar Grdle
I,
""9'
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2000
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST TO ALLOW A DENSITY OVER 30 UNITS PER ACRE AND
TO ALLOW FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT OF UP TO 60 FEET IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT (CBD). THE REQUESTS ARE IN CONJUNCTION WITH WORTHING PLACE~ A
PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED SOUTH OF ATLANTIC
AVENUE IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF WORTHING PARK~ BETWEEN SE IsT AND 2ND
AVENUES (APPROXIMATELY 2.37 ACRES).
This proposal involves the establishment of a mixed-use building on Block 77 containing 219 apartment units
and 12,292 sq. ft. of retail space. The building height varies up to a maximum of 60', and the density is
approximately 92 dwelling units per acre; therefore, conditional use approval is required. A detailed description
and analysis of the proposal is contained within the attached Planning and Zoning Board staff report.
At its meeting of December 13, 1999 the Planning and Zoning Board held a lengthy public hearing in
conjunction with the Conditional Use requests. Presentations were made by staff, the applicant, and an
attorney representing an opposing property owner (Dharma Properties), as well as testimony from the public
both in favor of and opposed to the requests. The Board voted as follows on the Conditional Use requests:
5-1 (Eliopoulos dissented) to recommend approval of the request to allow a building height of up to 60', and
4-2 (Eliopoulos and Carter dissented) to recommend approval of the request to allow density greater than
30 units per acre for Worthing Place,
based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.3.4(J)(4)(b) (Height Allowance Criteria), Section
4.4.13(I) (Performance Standards for Density), Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Conditional Use Findings) and Chapter 3
(Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), as well as applicable policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. The recommendations were made subject to the attached list of conditions.
By
1.
separate motions:
Approve the request for Conditional Use for Worthing Place to allow a building height of up to 60', based
upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(4)(b) (Height Allowance Criteria), Chapter 3
(Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Conditional Use Findings) of the LDRs.
Approve the request for Conditional Use approval for Worthing Place to allow 219 dwelling units for a
density of approximately 92 units per acre, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.4.13(I)
(Performance Standards for Density), Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(E)(5)
(Conditional Use Findings) of the LDRs, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
Said approvals to be subject to the attached conditions.
City Commission Documentation
Conditional Use- Worthing Place
Page 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR WORTHING PLACE
1. Approval of a site plan by SPRAB that is in general conformance to the submitted sketch plan.
2. That the elevations be in general conformance to the elevations submitted with the conditional use
requests.
3. That the public parking and parking for GRIP that currently exist on Block 77 be replaced in the proposed
Block 69 parking garage, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the CRA/Block 77 Development Group
contract.
4. That an easement agreement be executed for the proposed improvements (service court) behind the GRIP
Building.
5. That an easement agreement be executed for the public sidewalk that is to be located on the subject
property along SE 1st Avenue.
6. That the unsecured parking within the residential/retail garage be evaluated by the Planning Director
approximately 24 months after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, in order to determine if the
parking should be restricted to use by residents and the project's commercial customers only.
7. That if any of the streetscape plant material dies it be replaced at its original installation height.
8. That the time frame within which the conditional use must be established be 24 months.
9. That insulated windows and doors be provided in the residential units that front along SE 2"d Avenue, or
that another method of sound control be approved by SPRAB.
10. That the illumination level of the lighting along the sidewalk within the alley behind the GRIP building be
equivalent to that provided by the street lighting along Atlantic Avenue.
Attachments: P& Z Staff Report of December 13, 1999
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT---
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
ITEM:
GENERAL DATA:
December 13, 1999
V.C.
Conditional Use Request to Allow Within the CBD (Central Business District) a
Building Height of 60 Feet for a 6-Story Mixed Use Building (Residential/Retail) and
to Allow the Residential Units to Exceed 30 Units per Acre for Worthing Place,
Located South of E. Atlantic Avenue, Between S.E. 1st Avenue & S.E. 2nd Avenue.
Owners ............................ B)ock 77 Development Group,
L.C., Community Redevelopment
Agency, City of Delray Beach, Grip
Development Inc.
Applicant ........................ Block 77 Development Group, L.C.
Agent .............................. Michael Weiner, Esquire
Location .......................... South of E. Atlantic Avenue,
between S.E. qst Avenue & S.E.
2nd Avenue
Property Size .................. 2.37 Acres
Future Land Use Map ..... Commercial Core
Current Zoning ................CBD (Central Business District)
Adjacent Zoning .... North: CBD
East: CBD
South: CBD
West: OSSHAD (Old School Square
Historic Arts District)
Existing Land Use ...........Paved Parking Lots, l-story
Veterinary Clinic, l-story
Commercial Building (Computer
Parts Outlet), and Vacant Land.
Proposed Land Use ........ Conditional Use Request to allow
within the CBD a building height of
60 feet for a 6-Story mixed use
building (residential/retail) and to
allow the residential units to
exceed 30 units per acre
Water Service .................Existing on Site.
Sewer Service .................Existing on Site.
N W 2ND S'[ N F- 2ND ST
ATLANTIC AVENUE
· s £ . ST.
V.C.
!1
The action before the Board is making a recommendation to the City Commission on
the following requests for Conditional Use approval pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(E):
> to allow a density over 30 units per acre in the Central Business District (CBD) and
> to allow for a building height of up to 60 feet.
The requests are in conjunction with Worthing Place, a proposed mixed-use
development to be located south of Atlantic Avenue immediately south of Worthing
Park, between SE 1st and 2nd Avenues (approximately 2.37 acres).
The development proposal incorporates the following properties located within Block 77
of the Town of Linton plat: the south 59.84' of Lots 4 - 6, Lots 7-10, the north 50.5' of Lot
11, Lots 13-16, and portions of the east/west and north/south alleyways abutting the
referenced properties.
The development area consists of City-owned parking lots, CRA-owned vacant parcels,
and four other privately-owned properties which include a 50-space parking lot
associated with the GRIP building, a veterinary clinic, a consignment shop, and a
computer parts outlet. The northeast portion of the site (City parking lot) once contained
the kitchen area of the Casa Delray Hotel, which was constructed in 1925 and occupied
the existing Worthing Park site. The 53 room hotel was a combination of three and four
stories in height, with a dining and dancing terrace on the top floor. At that time, Block
77 had commercial development fronting on Atlantic Avenue with the balance of the
block (south of the east/west alley) containing single family residences. The hotel was
demolished in 1968 and the property was acquired by the City for an urban park and
parking.
Block 77 has been considered a prime block for redevelopment for many years. In
March 1996, a response to the CRA's request for proposals was received from SIRS,
Inc. (Social Issues Resources Sedes, Inc.), a publishing company. The proposal was to
relocate the company's headquarters from Boca Raton to Block 77, in a two-phased
development. Phase I was to include the south two-thirds of the Block and consisted of
a six-story 64,000 sq.ft, office building and a separate two-story 36,000 sq.ft, building to
accommodate storage, printing operations and related loft office space, south of SE 1st
Street. Also included was a 230-space surface parking lot located north of SE 1st
Street, and 60 spaces on the south side of the printing operations. Phase II was to
consist of the north one-third of the Block (existing Worthing Park and GRIP building)
and included 92,000 sq.ft, of floor area in two separate structures, with 27,000 sq.ff, of
retail space on the first floor, and 65,000 sq.ft, of office space divided between the
second and third floors and lofts. Also included in Phase II, was a 310-space multi-story
· Planning and Zoning Board.,.~a, ff Report
Conditional Use Request- . 'thing Place
Page 2
parking facility to be constructed above the SIRS surface parking area. The six-story
office building stepped-back every two floors in a wedding cake fashion. The proposal
required additional land acquisition by the CRA and public funding for the parking
garage, thus, the project did not materialize. SIRS plans to locate on an alternate site
on Congress Avenue.
In 1998, the CRA issued another request for proposal for Block 77, for a mixed-use
(residential and commercial) development. In September, 1998, three responses were
received. As required by the RFP, each proposal accommodated relocation of the 63
existing City parking spaces as well as improvements to Worthing Park, to make it
function more as an urban park. The following is a brief description of the RFP
responses:
Block 77 Development Corporation: The development proposal consisted of 219
residential rental units and 12,000 sq.ft, of retail space on a site comprising most
of Block 77, and Lots 20-22, Block 69. Forty-six (46) of the 219 units were to be
located on Block 69. The building height was to be 48'. In addition to replacing
the 63 City spaces, 44 additional public spaces would be provided (107 total).
Further, as the proposal included the 50-space GRIP parking lot, those spaces
as well as an additional 50 (100 total) would be provided for the GRIP building.
Forty (40) of those spaces would be made available to the public during the
evenings and weekends. These spaces were to be provided within the ground
floor parking area.
P.A.C. Land Development Corporation: The development proposal consisted of
240 residential rental units and up to 9,600 sq.ft, of retail space on a site
comprising all of Block 77 except for the GRIP building and Worthing Park. The
building height was to be approximately 60'. In addition to replacing the 63
spaces, 51 spaces would be provided for GRIP. The public parking was to be
accommodated through dedication of right-of-way and the installation of 39 on-
street/parallel spaces along SE 1~t and 2nd Avenues, with the 24 remaining
spaces to be provided on the ground floor of the proposed structure.
Park/and Corporation: The development proposal consisted of 58 residential
condominium units and 7,000 to 12,000 sq.ft, of retail space on a site comprising
only the City and CRA land offered in the RFP. The proposed building height
was 60' and did not include abandonment of the adjacent alleys. This proposal
replaced the 63 spaces with an additional 24 spaces possible with public
participation/funding.
At its meeting of October 8, 1998, the CRA Board reviewed the three proposals. On
October 13, 1998, there was a joint work session with the CRA and City Commission to
review the proposals. On October 22nd, the CRA ranked the Block 77 Development
Group's proposal as the number one proposal.
.Planning and Zoning Board..C~,ff Report
Conditional Use Request- thing Place
Page 3
On March 27, 1999, a charrette was held at Worthing Park to gain consensus on a
development plan for improvements to the park.
At its meeting of August 30, 1999, the City Commission and CRA held a joint work
session with respect to the contracts for Worthing Place. During the meeting there were
numerous concerns raised with regard to the improvements to Worthing Park, the
project density, and the time frame for construction. There were also discussions
regarding the developers proposal to potentially increase the number of units up to 236
due to the construction costs with the subgrade public parking.
Subsequent to the work session, various changes were made to the plan which
included construction of a parking garage for GRIP and public parking on Block 69, and
the elimination of most of the sub-grade parking. Some of the units that were to be
located on Block 69 were transferred to the Block 77 building.
The draft agreements were modified accordingly, and included a clause that
construction of the Block 77 development could not occur until a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued for the parking garage on Block 69 and the garage is deeded to
the City. In October, conditional use applications were submitted to allow the residential
units to exceed 30 units per acre (219 units) and to allow a building height up to 60'. In
conjunction with the conditional use applications, a text amendment to the OSSHAD
(Old School Square Historic Arts District) zoning district regulations is being processed
to include Lots 19-24, Block 69, Town of Linton, as properties that could be developed
per the CBD zoning district regulations. The purpose of the LDR amendment is to
accommodate the GRIP/public parking structure. On November 2, 1999, the City
Commission approved the sales contract and associated agreements to allow the
proposal to go through the development review process.
The conditional use requests involve the establishment of a mixed-use
(residential/retail) building on Block 77 with a maximum building height of up to 60' and
a density that exceeds 30 units per acre (92 du/ac).
The development proposal incorporates the following:
Demolition of the existing improvements which include Ascot Veterinary
Clinic/Consign-N-Design (Lot 16), Computer Parts store (Lot 10), City parking lots
(Lots 7 and 13 and the southern portion of Lots 4-6), and the GRIP building private
parking lot (Lots 8 & 9);
Abandonment of portions of the north/south and east/west alleys located within the
block (to be processed as a separate application);
A new mixed-use project comprised of a 6-story retail/residential apartment building
and 6 level parking garage. The building will consist of 12,292 square feet of retail
· Planning and Zoning Board Ara? Report
Conditional Use Request- - -',thing Place
Page 4
(ground floor) and 219 units with a mix of 87 l-bedroom units, 124 2-bedroom units,
and 8 3-bedroom units. The 6-level parking garage will be located at the southeast
portion of the building and will contain 400 parking spaces (to be part of the
residential building) with primary access from SE 2nd Avenue, and a secondary
access point for residents from the alley to the south;
Amenities for the residents to include a pool, spa, clubroom, health club with men's
and women's locker rooms, and a business center;
Pedestrian entrances to the building are at the mid point of the structure on both SE
2nd and SE 1st Avenues. Elevators are to be provided at both entrances, with a third
elevator available from the parking garage;
Off-site loading for the retailers is to be accommodated within the alley and a
proposed service court located behind the GRIP building. On-site loading for the
residential units is to be from a service garage area that contains a service elevator.
Off-site loading zones are proposed within SE 2nd Avenue adjacent to the service
garage and on SE 1st Avenue;
Installation of 9 off-site parking spaces within the SE 1st Avenue right-of-way and 5
new off-street parking spaces within SE 2nd Avenue right-of-way;
Installation of decorative pavers and street lighting to match that of Atlantic Avenue,
from Atlantic Avenue to the south end of the project along both SE 1st and 2nd
Avenues;
Pedestrian access provided from SE 1st Avenue to Worthing Park via a 5' wide
sidewalk that is to be installed adjacent to the service court behind the GRIP
Building.
The public parking and the GRIP parking spaces that are being eliminated with this
development are to be replaced by a 202-space parking garage, which is to be located
on the west side of SE ls~ Avenue across from the Worthing Place project. The garage
will be constructed by the Block 77 Group and deeded over to the City. The site plan for
the garage will be processed as a separate application.
The applicant has submitted a development narrative, which describes the development
proposal as follows:
The Block 77 Development Group ("Group") has assembled a series of properties
contiguous to the De/ray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency ("CRA") and
City owned properties to provide a functional downtown neighborhood on
approximately 3 acres. The development plan will include 219 luxury mu/ti-family
retail apartments and approximately 12,300 sq. ft. of upscale retail space that will
front on Worthing Park and continue along SE 2~d Avenue.
. Planning and Zoning Board?,faff Report
Conditional Use Request- . .; }thing Place
Page 5
Through the combination of two separate unobtrusive parking garages, Group is
able to accommodate the parking requirements of the multi-family and retail uses as
well as replace the 63 open parking spaces currently owned by the City. Worthing
P/ace will provide 400 residential and retail parking spaces in a structured parking
facility attached to the residential apartment structure. In addition to the residential
and retail parking, Group will build a 202 space public parking garage on Lots 20,21,
and 22 of Block 69, directly west of Worthing P/ace. This parking garage will be built
prior to the commencement of construction on Block 77 and will provide the City 107
parking spaces for its exclusive use 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a
year. Further, upon the completion of the public parking garage, Group will deed
said garage to the City. In addition the '107 exclusive parking spaces, the City will
have access to an additional 40 spaces from 6:01 p.m. through 7:59 a.m. Monday
through Friday and 12:01 p.m. Saturdays through 7:59 a.m. on Mondays. These
107 exclusive and 40 non-exclusive parking spaces are in addition to the 16 new on
street parking spaces which will be built along SE 1st and SE 2~d Avenues.
The residential component of Worthing Place includes 219 luxury multi-family rental
apartments in courtyard settings. Each residential apartment will face on one of the
fo/lowing: Worthing Park, SE 1st Avenue, SE 2~d Avenue or an internal courtyard
featuring lush tropical landscaping and a pool. The residence structure features an
architectural theme in soft exterior colors to complement the ambience of the City.
Worthing P/ace will feature an "on the Avenue lifestyle" amenity package for its
residents which includes a pool, spa, health club, locker rooms and business center.
The building will feature a main entrance on SE 2~d Avenue, and a secondary
entrance on SE 1st Avenue, both of which will be secured. Each resident will have
direct access to the residential parking garage through locked and secured entries
into the garage on each floor.
The retail and residential structure is recessed off of the property line of Worthing
Park and will not disturb the present use of the park. In addition, the building has
several architectural details, which keep the scale of the building similar to that of
other Atlantic Avenue structures. The third, fourth, and fifth floors are tiered back off
of At/antic Avenue in a "wedding cake" style mitigating the street-side impact.
Further, the sixth floor is setback beyond the parapets of the fifth floor to create true
internal units, which will not be visible from Atlantic Avenue.
The one, two, and three bedroom apartments will range in size from 774 (one-
bedroom) square feet to 1,475 square feet (three bedroom)* and are anticipated to
rent between $1,150 and $1,900 per month. Ail marketing data indicates that the
residential component of Worthing P/ace will realize absorption or lease up rates of
20-25 units per month.
Each of the apartment types will vary in size and layout including the size and
shapes of the balconies. Further, the two bedroom apartments feature double
master bedroom designs in keeping with the upscale nature of the development. Ail
Planning and Zoning Board Sta? Report
'Conditional Use Request- 'lhing Place
Page 6
apartments will feature 9' ceiling heights, built in kitchen cabinets, moldings and
complete laundry facilities. The complex will have trash chutes as well as a loading
area with separate service elevator at the southeast comer of the facility. These
facilities will reduce the impact on the building's two passenger elevators during
move-ins.
The retail portion of Worthing Place will contribute to the daytime and evening
culture of the "Avenue" as well as bring additional excitement to the City's dynamic
downtown environment. Based on current market comparisons and trends, we
anticipate the retail rents will be approximately $30. O0 per square foot on a triple net
basis.
*See the section of this report addressing required Performance Standards for updated information
on unit sizes.
REQUIRED FINDINGS: (Chapter 3):
Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of
development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part
of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the
application, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body,
which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These
findings relate to the following four areas.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The use or structures must be allowed in the zone
district and the zoning district must be consistent with the land use designation).
The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of CC (Commercial Core)
and a zoning designation of CBD (Central Business District). The zoning district is
consistent with the CC Future Land Use Map designation. Commercial uses such as
retail, restaurants and services are permitted in the CBD district, and residential density
over 30 units per acre is allowed as a Conditional Use [LDR Section 4.4.13 (D)(15)].
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(4)(b), a maximum building height of 60' may be
approved by the City Commission pursuant to the processing of a Conditional Use.
CONCURRENCY: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be
provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service
established within the Comprehensive Plan.
Water and Sewer:
Preliminary water and sewer plans have been submitted and the following is noted:
Planning and Zoning Board .S~ff Report
Conditional Use Request- rthing Place
Page 7
Water service is currently available to the site via an 8" main that is located along the
east side of SE 1't Avenue, an 8" main located along the east side of SE 2"d Avenue,
and a 2" main located in the east/west alley that is situated behind the GRIP
Building.
Sewer service exists to the site via an 8" sewer main that is located within the
north/south and east/west alleys, and an 8" main located within SE 2nd Avenue.
As a portion of the alleys will be abandoned with this development proposal,
modifications to the existing water and sewer mains will be required. Extensions of
mains may also be required. This item will further be addressed at time of site and
development plan approval.
Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's
Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for
the City at build-out, and can service the proposed residential units and commercial
development. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to
these level of service standards.
Draina.qe:
Preliminary drainage plans were submitted which indicate that drainage will be
accommodated via an exflltration trench system to be located within the ground floor of
the parking garage and within the courtyard areas with a connection to the City's storm
water system that is located within SE 1st Avenue. The specifics of the drainage will be
addressed in greater detail during the site plan review process, however, there are no
problems anticipated in accommodating on-site drainage. Thus, positive findings with
respect to this level of service standard can be made.
Streets and Traffic:
This development proposal is anticipated to generate a total of 1,471 new daily trips
resulting in an estimated 81 new trips per hour within the AM peak period (7 AM - 9
AM) and 108 new trips per hour in the PM peak period (4 PM - 6 PM). The traffic
distribution is anticipated to be 90% to and from the north, primarily from Atlantic
Avenue at SE 2nd Avenue. The study concludes that Atlantic Avenue will continue to
operate at Level of Service (LOS) D with the additional project traffic through build-out
(2002).
The subject property is located in the City's TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception
Area), which encompasses the CBD, CBD-RC, and OSSHAD zoning districts, as well
as the West Atlantic Avenue corridor. The TCEA was established in December, 1995 to
aid in the revitalization of downtown, with a purpose of reducing the adverse impacts of
transportation concurrency requirements on urban infill development and
redevelopment. These revitalization efforts are achieved by exempting development
within the TCEA from the requirements of traffic concurrency. It is also noted that if the
· Planning and Zoning Board r,°-~aff Report
Conditional Use Request- -~.'.: ~ thing Place
Page 8
development was outside the TCEA area the residential component would still be
exempt from traffic concurrency under Palm Beach Traffic Performance Ordinance,
which provides exemptions for infill residential developments east of 1-95.
The City first accepted a lower level of service along Atlantic Avenue in the late 1980's,
when it resisted the efforts of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to
widen the road from two to four lanes. With the establishment of the TCEA in 1995 it
was again acknowledged that the roadways within the downtown area would experience
increased congestion and operate at a lower level of service than allowed elsewhere in
the City. The TCEA report projects a reduced LOS for several roadways within the
TCEA including LOS "E" for Atlantic Avenue between Swinton Avenue and US-1 and
LOS "F" for Swinton Avenue between Atlantic Avenue and Lake Ida Road. The
development of multi-family units (249 short term and 926 long term) within this Central
Core sub area of the TCEA was contemplated and factored into these projected levels
of service. Although the Worthing Place development is neither subject to traffic
concurrency nor limited by conventional level of service thresholds, off-site impacts are
expected to the intersections of Swinton, 1st, and 2nd Avenues and Atlantic Avenue.
The AM peak period characteristics of the residential use (7 AM - 9 AM) are of minimal
concern, as it will not conflict with the peak AM hour for Atlantic Avenue, which occurs
between 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM). The project's greatest traffic impact will occur during its
PM peak period (4 PM - 6 PM) which overlaps with the downtown's PM peak of 3:30
PM to 4:30 PM. However, as discussed above, the increased congestion was
anticipated and accepted with the adoption of the TCEA designation for the downtown
area.
While additional traffic will result from the project, it is anticipated that it will be mitigated
in part by future residents finding alternative routes (via SE Ist Street) to avoid the
congestion of Atlantic Avenue. Additionally, several modifications to the traffic
circulation system are currently being contemplated by the City, including the change
from one-way to two-way traffic for SE and NE 1st Streets, and the installation of round-
abouts on Atlantic Avenue at Swinton and SE 2nd Avenues. These improvements will
allow for alternative traffic routes going to and from the project, and will improve traffic
flow through the intersections.
Parks and Open Space:
Park dedication requirements do not apply for the nonresidential uses (retail component
of the project). The Open Space and Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
indicates in its conclusion that "The City will have sufficient recreation facilities at build-
out to meet the adopted standards". A park impact fee is collected to offset any impacts
that the project may have on the City's recreational facilities. Pursuant to LDR Section
5.3.2, a park impact fee of $500.00 per dwelling unit will be collected prior to issuance of
a building permit for each unit. A total fee of $109,500 will be required of this
development for parks and recreation purposes. Additionally, per the sales contract
between the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and Block 77 Development
. Planning and Zoning Board gta. ff Report
Conditional Use Request- thing Place
Page 9
Group, a contribution of $100,000 is required by the developer for improvements to
Worthing Park.
Solid Waste:
Trash generated each year by the 12,292 sq.ft, retail space will be 62.68 tons of solid
waste [12,292 sq.ft, x 10.2 lbs. =125,378 lbs./2000 = 62.68 tons]. Trash generated
each year by the 219 units will be 113.88 tons of solid waste per year (219 units x .52
tons of solid waste per year = 113.88 tons). The mixed-use development will generate
a total of 181.2 tons of solid waste per year. Per the Solid Waste ,Authority, the trash
generated by this proposal can be accommodated by existing facilities. Therefore, a
positive finding with respect to this level of service standard can be made.
CONSISTENCY: Compliance with performance standards set forth in Chapter 3
and required findings in Section 2.4.5(E)(5) for the Conditional Use request shall
be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other
objectives and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in
making a finding of overall consistency.
A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was
conducted and the following applicable objectives and policies that are relevant
to the Conditional Use applications (increase in density and building height) were
found.
Future Land Use Element Objective A-1 - Property shall be developed or
redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate and
complies in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical
considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining
land use needs.
The property is partially developed and contains several commercial buildings as well
as surface parking lots. There are no special physical or environmental characteristics
of the land that would be negatively impacted by the proposed mixed-use development.
There are several large Oak and Mahogany trees on the property, many of which the
applicant proposes to relocate elsewhere on the site or within the adjacent right-of-way
landscape nodes if feasible. The development will be complimentary with the
surrounding commercial developments and provide a customer base for the businesses
on a year-round basis instead of seasonal, which provides economic stability for the
area.
In terms of fulfilling remaining land use needs, the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan states as follows:
One of the most important objectives of the City's overall housing policy is the
establishment of housing in the downtown area. In the years since adoption of the 1989
Comprehensive Plan the downtown has changed from a somewhat sleepy, seasonally
Planning and Zoning Board ,~a, ff Report
Conditional Use Request- . 'thing Place
Page 10
odented shopping district to a vibrant year-round retail, service, and entertainment area
with an active nightlife. A critical missing element is a significant housing development.
The City recognizes the importance of providing housing in close proximity to shopping,
employment, and transportation, and the need to have a residential base to support the
businesses in the downtown area.
The Worthing Place development will help to fulfil this stated land use need, and is
therefore consistent with this policy.
Commercial Core Future Land Use Map Designation -The Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) describes the Commercial Core designation as follows: This
designation is applied to the community's downtown area. It includes a
substantial portion of the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area described
in the Future Land Use Element and graphically shown in Figure L-8. The
Commercial Core designation accommodates a variety of uses including
commercial and office development; residential land use upper story apartments;
older homes renovated to accommodate office use; and uses such as "bed and
breakfast" establishment; and industrial/commerce type uses.
Objective C-4 of the Future Land Use Element states further that The Central
Business district (CBD) represents the essence of what is Delray Beach Le. a
"village like, community by the sea". The continued revitalization of the CBD is
essential to achieving the overall theme of the City's Comprehensive Plan of "A
City Set Apart In South Florida". The following policies and activities shall be
pursued in the achievement of this objective.
Policy C-4.1 The Central Business District (CBD) Zoning District regulations shall
facilitate and encourage rehabilitation and revitalization and shall, at a minimum,
address the following:
a deletion of inappropriate uses
incentives for locating retail on the ground floor with office and residential use
on upper floors
accommodatinq parking needs through innovative actions
incentives for dinner theaters, playhouses, and other family oriented activities
allowing and facilitating outdoor cafes
incentives for mixed use development and rehabilitation
elimination of side yard setback requirements
[] allow structural overhang encroachments into required yard areas.
The proposal is to provide an apartment complex consisting of 219 rental units that offer
floor plans with a variety of sizes along with upscale retail space. The mixed-use
building is consistent with the goal of accommodating a variety of uses within the
downtown, particularly those that include a residential component. The provision of
retail space will help to increase the employment base in the downtown, and the
residential units will help to support the existing retail, service, and restaurant uses in
Planning and Zoning Board ?-~ff Report
Conditional Use Request- ' 'thing Place
Page 11
the area, which are still somewhat affected by a seasonal clientele. The project is
consistent with this objective to revitalize the City's central business district.
The language in the Comprehensive Plan that characterizes Delray Beach as a "village-
like community by the sea" stems from the Visions 2000 Assembly, which was a three-
day workshop held in May of 1988 to develop a shared set of goals and a general
mission statement for the City's future. The assembly focussed on several issues,
including community character, downtown revitalization, community and cultural
resources, the City's gateways (i.e. North Federal Highway and West Atlantic Avenue),
infrastructure planning and finance, and land use. The conclusions and
recommendations from the workshop were articulated in a policy statement. While the
community character section lists the City's "unique village square atmosphere" as an
asset that should be retained, there are several other recommendations in the report
that emphasize the revitalization of the downtown in a manner that would seem to
promote a more urban character. For instance, there are recommendations to: explore
the development of a moderately sized convention and civic center in the downtown;
increase residential densities in the CBD; encourage the development of dinner
theaters, movie theaters, and playhouses in order to stimulate evening activity; consider
the use of tiered parking garages with mixed use development; develop entertainment
facilities and upscale retail stores in the CBD; remove parking requirements for new
residential development above commercial uses; review and revise constraints that
discourage mixed-use development in order to encourage such development;
encourage residential uses above parking facilities; pursue the establishment of a
campus for Palm Beach Community College in Pineapple Grove; create a number of
parking structures throughout the CBD in order to provide incentives for development;
and a recommendation that the City adopt a developer approach in planning and
developing the City, including a statement that government regulations should have a
positive influence on the redevelopment of the downtown and should not be an
inhibiting factor.
The language regarding the village by the sea character of the downtown was adopted
in the City's 1989 Comprehensive Plan, as were many of the recommendations
intended to promote the revitalization of the downtown. For many years subsequent to
the Visions 2000 Assembly there was little activity downtown, and Delray continued to
struggle with its image as a blighted community. There were two failed attempts to lure
a major department store, Jacobson's, to the downtown. This effort, as well as the
1996 effort to establish the SIRS headquarters on Block 77, were also geared more
toward the development of a thriving urban center than the maintenance of a small town
atmosphere. In the mid 1990's the downtown began to see increased redevelopment
activity, much of which was made possible by the changes that had been implemented
as a result of Visions 2000. Services currently offered on or around Atlantic Avenue,
such as specialty art galleries, high-end restaurants, cultural facilities (Old School
Square Museum & Miami City Ballet), high-tech schools (Palm Beach Photographic
Institute), and numerous banking & financial facilities, are more typical of urbanized
cities than a village or small town.
Planning and Zoning Board ~_aff Report
· Conditional Use Request-: ..-;.rthing Place
Page 12
One of the main characteristics that distinguishes Delray Beach from other South
Florida cities and gives it more of a small town feel than cities such as Fort Lauderdale,
Boca Raton, and West Palm Beach, is the relatively Iow scale of the buildings. Fort
Lauderdale's downtown allows building heights of 150', and in certain sections no height
limit applies. Similarly, areas of downtown West Palm Beach allow up to 15 stories, and
other areas are designated as having no height limit. Boca Raton allows buildings of up
to 100' in height, with building step-backs of varying ranges as the height increases. In
Delray Beach's CBD, a height of 48' is permitted, which can be increased to a maximum
of 60' under certain circumstances and with conditional use approval. Buildings of this
height can best be characterized as mid-rise, as opposed to the high-rise structures that
are permitted elsewhere. The 60' height limit has existed since the mid 1980's, and
was in effect during the Visions 2000 Assembly. Except for the portion of the CBD east
of the Intracoastal Waterway, which was limited to 48' in 1990, there has never been a
proposal to reduce the height limit for the rest of the CBD, even after the village-by-the-
sea language was adopted. Recently, a bank/office building and a residential building
have been approved for heights of up to 60 feet, with no public opposition. Mid-rise
buildings of this nature have not been considered as inconsistent with the character of
downtown Delray Beach. It should be noted that there are small villages and towns all
over the world (particularly European villages) that have dense, compact development
that is considered to be part of their charm.
Perhaps what most people would recognize as Delray's "village by the sea" character is
Atlantic Avenue itself. It is a well-defined main street, with a variety of different shops,
restaurants, and other uses, most of which are one or two stories in height. It has a
unified streetscape of palm and oak trees, decorative light poles, and paver block
sidewalks. The architectural character is varied with no specific "theme," which also
adds to the charm. The buildings are for the most part constructed at a zero side
setback, resulting in continuous block-long facades. All of this creates an inviting
environment for pedestrians, with plenty to keep the interest at eye level.
Worthing Place will not detract from the ambiance of Atlantic Avenue. The project will
be set back 85 feet from Atlantic Avenue, behind a public park with mature trees, and
will have little impact on the look or feel of the Avenue. The design of the project along
SE 1st and 2nd Avenues varies so that it has the appearance of being different buildings.
The SE 2nd Avenue far,,ade has retail storefronts along the north half, and the garage will
have windows for store displays. The SE 1st Avenue facade will have landscaped,
fenced residential yards in front of the individual ground floor units. Both streets will be
heavily landscaped with palms and shade trees, and the paver blocks and lighting that
exists along Atlantic Avenue will be extended down these side streets. There is
enough detail and variation along the facades at the street level to keep the height and
length of the building from seeming repetitive or overly imposing to the pedestrian.
Further, the concept of a village type development should not focus only on the size and
scale of buildings, but also on the sense of community that exists in a small town. Right
now the vast majority of people who visit the central business district do not live within
its borders. This project will place 219 households right in the heart of downtown.
Planning and Zoning Board Sta? Report
Conditional Use Request- 'thing Place
Page 13
These people will be able to walk to shops, restaurants, cultural venues, parks, and the
beach. They will interact on a regular basis with the storekeepers and employees, their
neighbors, and others who frequent the area. They will get to know the downtown much
more intimately than the majority of Delray residents. They will become major
participants in, and contributors to, the downtown community.
In summary, the Worthing Place development is consistent with and will further the
objectives of Future Land Use Element Policy C-4.1
Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 - Bicycle parking and facilities shall be
required on all new development and redevelopment. Particular emphasis is to
be placed on development within the TCEA Area.
Bicycle parking is provided within the parking garage just north of the main entrance
and along the west side of the building (north end). Therefore this policy has been
addressed.
Open Space and Recreation Element Policy A-3.1 - Tot lots and recreation areas
serving children from toddlers to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing
developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range
of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential
developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer
than 25 units.
This policy may be waived for projects in the downtown because the City recognizes the
following: that households located in the downtown are likely to have fewer children
than those located in suburban settings; that land in the central business district is at a
premium and it can be cost prohibitive to provide recreational features such as tennis
courts, volleyball courts, etc.; and, that there are other cultural and recreational
opportunities located in the downtown that are not readily available to residents of
suburban apartment complexes.
Some of the recreational, cultural, and open space opportunities located in proximity to
Worthing Place include: Veteran's Park, located six blocks to the east, which includes a
large playground and recreational area; the Atlantic Ocean, approximately % mile to the
east; the City's Tennis Center, approximately 4 blocks to the west; Old School Square
Cultural center, located one block to the north; the Milagro Center, located
approximately one block to the southeast; and Worthing Park, which is immediately
adjacent to the project along the north side. Based on the above, it is appropriate to
waive this requirement.
Housinq Element Obiective B-2 - Redevelopment and the development of new
land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall
continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile,
and meet the housing needs identified in this Element. Policies, which will
implement this objective, include:
Planning and Zoning Board ~,taff Report
Conditional Use Request- _ -',lhing Place
Page 14
Housinq Element Policy B-2.2 - The development of new adult oriented
communities within the City is discouraged. New housing developments shall be
designed to accommodate households having a range of ages, especially families
with children, and shall be required to provide 3 and 4 bedroom units and activity
areas for children ranging from toddlers to teens. This requirement may be
waived or modified for residential development located in the downtown area,
and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units.
This project will not be excluded to occupancy by adults only. However, it is
acknowledged that downtown dwellings are not typically occupied by households with
children. This complex will primarily accommodate young and middle-age
professionals. As allowed by this policy, it is appropriate that there not be a requirement
to provide 4 bedroom units and activity areas for children.
Housing Element Policy B-2.6 - Housing in and near the downtown area, in close
proximity to employment opportunities and services, is a critical need. In order
to help stimulate demand for new housing in and around the Central Business
District, the development of new rental housing projects outside of the TCEA and
North Federal Highway area is discouraged.
The development proposal complies with this policy as it provides the desired type of
residential development within the CBD.
Housing Objective A-12: To assist residents of the City in maintaining and
enhancing their neighborhood environment, the City shall take steps to ensure
that modifications in and around the neighborhood do not lead to its decline,
such as those described in the following policies.
Housing Policy A-12.3: In evaluating proposals for new development or
redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on
the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic
volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to
negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is
determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any
neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied.
This project is located within the first block of the downtown, which is largely
commercial in nature. There are some residential structures located across SE 1st
Avenue from the project, and just south of SE 1st Street, however, these areas are
zoned for mixed or commercial uses, and several conversions from residential to
commercial use have occurred or have been proposed in recent years. The nearest
nd
predominantly residential neighborhood is located south of SE 2 Street. While this
project may add some trips in this area, the impact will be negligible and will not affect
the stability of any residential neighborhood.
Planning and Zoning Board ~Laff Report
Conditional Use Request- :; '~hing Place
Page 15
In terms of safety, introducing a residential component to the downtown will likely
improve the stability of the area. It will introduce more night time activity, and more
"eyes" to observe what is happening in the area, which should be a deterrent to criminal
activity.
The project will not create any odors or noise, and in fact may block some of the noise
that is generated by downtown outdoor entertainment venues from being heard by
residents to the west.
REQUIRED FINDINGS RELATING TO INCREASE IN HEIGHT:
Structures in the CBD may generally be no more than 48 feet high, unless conditional
use approval is granted to go up to 60 feet in height. Height is measured from the
crown of the road to the top of a flat roof, or to the midpoint of a pitched roof. The
proposed residential building has a flat roof, and will measure 59' 6" to the top.
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(4)(b), the City Commission can approve the
increase in height request based upon a finding of compliance with each of the
enumerated criteria listed below (i, ii, iii).
(i)
That the structure is to be located in one of the following geographical
areas:
(9) Area "1" - all property within the CBD (Central Business District)
except for property lying east of the Intracoastal Waterway.
The subject property is zoned CBD and is located west of the Intracoastal
Waterway.
(ii)
That the increase in height will not provide for, nor accommodate, an
increase in the floor area (within the structure) beyond that which could be
accommodated by development which adheres to a height limitation of 48
feet, except for the following situations:
(1) An increase in intensity is allowed when the increase from 48 feet to 60
feet is for the purpose of accommodating residential use on the top floor of
the structure; however, the increase in intensity is only for the added
residential use area.
The increase in height is requested to accommodate residential use on
the top floor of the structure, thereby meeting this requirement.
(iii)
That the increase in height is based on or will result in one or more of the
following:
Planning and Zoning Board ..~,ff Report
' Conditional Use Request- -- ~hing Place
Page 16
A demonstrable need that, in order to accommodate the nature of a
particular use or a particular matter or type of construction, a greater
than normal space between floors or height of story is necessary; or
(2)
That 75% or greater of an area of the ground floor is devoted to
parking and vehicular traffic circulation; or
(3)
That for each floor in height above 48', an additional building setback
of two feet is provided from the building setback lines which would
be established for a 48' tall structure. The additional setback is
required from all setback lines (i.e. front, side, and rear).
The proposal meets criteria number 1 above. Pursuant to the
Standard Building Code for Construction, Section 1203.2, occupiable
rooms and habitable spaces shall have a ceiling height of not less than
7'-6". Corridors, bathrooms, toilet rooms kitchens, storage rooms and
laundry rooms shall be permitted to have a ceiling height of not less than
7'. Based on the above, the 6-story structure could be built within 48'.
The applicant has indicated that: the increase in building height to 59'-6' is
to increase the floor to ceiling heights of 9'-0" for the residential units and
10'-6" for quality retail space. The additional floor to ceiling height will
provide additional volume for the upscale luxury units. The 9' ceilings will
be provided in the living rooms, dining rooms, and bedrooms. Only the
hallways and bathrooms will have a dropped ceiling to accommodate
plumbing, fire lines, AC ducts, etc.
A finding of compliance with the enumerated criteria listed above can be made to
support the request to allow a structure that is greater than 48' in height.
LDR Section 4.4.13(I) (Performance Standards)
(I) Performance Standards: These standards shall apply to all applications for
new development and modification of existing developments which would result
in a density greater than thirty (30) dwelling units per acre.
Residential development may exceed thirty units per acre as a conditional use
only on property located south of N.E. 2nd Street and north of S.E. 2nd Street.
The maximum permissible density of a particular project will be established
through the conditional use process, based upon the degree to which the
development complies with the performance standards of this section, the
required findings of Section 2.4.5(E), and other applicable standards of the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. Notwithstanding
the above, the approving body may deny an application for increased density
where it is determined that the proposed project is not compatible in terms of
building mass and intensity of use with surrounding development.
Planning and Zoning Board ~aff Report
Conditional Use Request-'- ~hing Place
Page 17
The subject property is located south of Atlantic Avenue between SE 1St And 2nd
Avenues and is within the designated area that allows the residential density to
exceed 30 units per acre. The 219 unit project represents 92 units per acre. The
analysis with respect to LDR Section 4.4.13(I) (Performance Standards), and the
Land Development Regulations is provided below.
2) The applicable performance standards for development under this section are
as follows:
a) The development offers variation in design to add interest to the elevations
and relief from the building mass. For example, the building setbacks or
planes of the facade are offset and varied. In structures having more than
two stories, stepping back of the upper stories (third floor and above) is
encouraged to decrease the perception of bulk. Building elevations
incorporate several of the following elements: diversity in window and door
shapes and locations; features such as balconies, arches, porches; and
design elements such as shutters, window mullions, quoins, decorative
tiles, or similar distinguishing features.
Worthing Place design reflects the "new Mediterranean" architecture which
incorporates the Palm Beach Mizner style and coastal architecture throughout
South Florida. The elevations vary from one side of the project to the other
relating to its contextual surroundings, however there are similar architectural
characteristics. The structure has more than two stories, therefore the upper
levels of the building have been stepped back in some areas to decrease the
perception of bulk. Along the north fa(;ade the 3rd through 6th floors have been
stepped back to create a "wedding cake" effect. In addition, the entire 6th fioor
has been stepped backed to where it will be minimally visible from adjacent rights-
of-way. In addition, the facades of the building are varied and offset. The parking
garage is set back 7 feet from the residential portion of the building. The floors
above the entrance ways (2nd through 5th) are set back approximately 30' from the
building line. Along the south fa(;ade, the residential building is separated from
the parking garage by a 28' wide courtyard that is recessed approximately 90'
from the rear of the garage.
Architectural detailing includes raised banding, decorative louvers, metal railings,
decorative spires, faux columns, and accented tile facades. Variation in window
treatments have been provided. This includes square windows, windows that
contain fixed glass on one side of the window, and arched windows. In some
areas where the windows are the same style and size, variation is provided by
adding different treatments around the windows such as score lines, raised stucco
banding and canvass awnings. Metal seam roofs with wood trellises address the
residential style along the west elevation, while Spanish tile roofs and canvas
awnings reflect the retail aspect of the multi-use project on the east fa(;;ade.
Planning and Zoning Board St~ff Report
Conditional Use Request- 'thing Place
Page 18
The parking garage is of a somewhat different architectural style than the main
portion of the building, which provides yet another element to minimize the feeling
of a long continuous fa(;ade, and adds to the diverse architectural character of the
building. While no window openings are proposed along the south fa~:ade of the
parking garage, faux windows are created by score lines, and raised banding,
which provides relief to what could have been a blank wall. Based on the above,
this Performance Standard has been met.
b)
If the building includes a parking garage as an associated structure or
within the principal building, the garage elevation provides unified design
elements with the main building through the use of similar building
materials and color, vertical and horizontal elements, and architectural
style. The garage is designed in a manner that obscures parked vehicles
except in places where unavoidable, such as entrances and exits.
Development of a portion of the ground floor perimeter adjacent to street
rights of way is devoted to window displays or floor area for active uses
such as retail stores, personal and business service establishments,
entertainment, offices, etc., is encouraged.
The building includes an attached parking garage which, while different in style,
provides for a unified design with the main structure by using similar building
materials, arched details, railings, and raised banding. Display windows are
proposed along the ground floor of the garage that can be utilized by the retail
tenants and to announce happenings in and around the development. These
windows will obscure the parked vehicles from the streetscape. The upper levels
are designed in a manner that will also obscure vehicles from being readily visible
from the street. A 17' building setback is provided in front of the garage along the
SE 2nd Avenue facade. Substantial landscaping will be planted within this setback
area, which will also help to obscure the openings to the garage. Based on the
above this Performance Standard has been met.
c) A number of different unit types, sizes and floor plans are available within
the development. Two and three bedroom units are encouraged, as are a
combination of multi-level units and fiats. In projects consisting of more
than twelve (12) dwelling units, the proportion of efficiency or studio type
units may not exceed 25% of the total units. There is no maximum
percentage established for projects having twelve (12) or fewer units,
however, a mix of unit types and sizes is encouraged.
All of the units are designed as fiats. The development proposal provides for a
wide variety of floor plans having various sizes. The unit mix includes 87 1-
bedroom, 124 2-bedroom, and 8 3-bedroom units. Eight (8) floor plans are
provided for the 1-bedroom units with square footages ranging from 639 sq.ff, to
825 sq.ft.. Six (6) floor plans are provided for the 2-bedroom units with square
footages ranging from 982 sq.ft, to 1,232 sq.ft. The 3-bedroom units contain 1,416
Planning and Zoning Board .o~ff Report
Conditional Use Request- ' ~hing Place
Page 19
sq.ft. The project does not include any efficiency or studio type units. Based on
the above, this Performance Standard has been met.
d)
The interiors of the dwelling units provide unique features and
conveniences that distinguish them from standard multi-family projects and
create an attractive living environment. Examples of some of the features
that could be incorporated to meet this standard are: ceiling heights of 9
feet or greater; extensive use of natural lighting; panel doors throughout the
interior; use of decorative molding for baseboard, door and window
casings; wood or ceramic tile flooring in all or a portion of the units; built in
cabinetry and/or shelving; arched entryways or passageways; individual
laundry facilities; special security features; or a combination of similar
features and elements that meet the intent of this standard.
A floor plan has been submitted which indicates the units will contain the following
features: ceiling heights of 9 feet (excluding kitchen and baths), ceramic tile in
kitchen, bathrooms and foyers, Roman tubs, decorative moldings at the
baseboards and door casings, dishwashers, double sink with garbage disposal,
panel doors, electronic security system, built-in TV in each kitchen, and an
individual washer & dryer for each unit. The proposal provides the desired features
described in this standard, and therefore complies with this standard.
e) The development provides common areas and/or amenities for residents
such as swimming pools, exercise rooms, storage rooms or lockers,
covered parking, gardens, courtyards, or similar areas and/or amenities.
The proposal provides common areas consisting of three interior courtyards, which
are to be extensively landscaped. One of the courtyards will contain a pool and
spa. On the ground level of the residential building, a health club with locker
rooms, clubroom and business center is proposed and have been designed with a
view and entrance to the courtyard containing the pool and spa. Each floor
contains a tenant storage area. Further, a covered parking garage is provided.
Based on the above, this standard has been met.
The development promotes pedestrian movements by providing convenient
access from the residential units to the public sidewalk system. Pedestrian
areas adjacent to the building are enhanced by providing additional
sidewalk area at the same level as the abutting public sidewalk.
Accessways to parking areas are designed in a manner that minimizes
conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The public street or streets
immediately adjacent to the development are enhanced in a manner that is
consistent with the streetscape in the downtown area (i.e., installation of
landscape nodes, extension of existing paver block system, installation of
approved street lighting, etc.).
A pedestrian system that promotes convenient access from the residential units
to the public sidewalks has been provided. This is accommodated by: the
Planning and Zoning Board..o.~,ff Report
Conditional Use Request-~ - ' .thing Place
Page 20
installation of sidewalks from the ground floor units to the adjacent public
sidewalk along SE 1st Avenue; increased sidewalk widths at the main building
entrances; and increased sidewalk widths in front of the retail space located
along SE 2nd Avenue. Access through the park to the retail space is provided as
well as a sidewalk connection from the park to SE 1st Avenue. The residential
units located on the ground floor level along the north side of the building have
access to this public sidewalk via a courtyard gate.
The provision of a parking garage helps to minimize conflicts with vehicles and
pedestrians as it eliminates numerous ingress/egress points that typically exist
with large surface parking lots. The parking garage is designed with a main
entrance onto SE 2nd Avenue and a secondary entrance from the alley on the
south side of the building. This entrance should experience little or no conflicts
between pedestrians and vehicles. While the main entrance to the parking
garage will cross a public sidewalk, it is for a short distance and is unavoidable.
The public streets located adjacent to the project i.e. SE 1st and 2nd Avenues are
enhanced in a manner consistent with the downtown area. The landscape plans
indicate that a decorative paver sidewalk will be extended from Atlantic Avenue
to the south end of the project. In addition, landscape nodes will be installed
within the adjacent rights-of-way as well as new on-street parking spaces.
Lighting fixtures to match those found on Atlantic Avenue are also proposed.
Based on the above, this Performance Standard has been met.
g)
The development provides opportunities to share parking, accessways,
driveways, etc., with adjoining properties, or provides additional parking
spaces that may be used by the public.
This project maximizes opportunities for shared access and parking. The mixed-
use building contains a parking garage that will share spaces between its uses.
The sub-level and ground level of the garage will be unsecured for use by the
retail space and the public at large. Fourteen (14) new on-street parking spaces
will be created within the adjacent rights-of-way for use by the public. Further, as
discussed earlier in the report, a 202-space parking garage is proposed for Lots
20, 21, and 22, Block 69, directly west of Worthing Place. This parking garage will
be built prior to the commencement of construction on Block 77 and will provide
95 parking spaces for the GRIP building, which is 45 spaces more than are
currently in the GRIP parking lot. The garage will also contain 107 public parking
spaces that will be available 24 hours a day. In addition, 40 of the GRIP spaces
will be available for public use from 6:01 p.m. through 7:59 a.m. Monday through
Friday and 12:01 p.m. Saturdays through 7:59 a.m. on Mondays. In terms of
shared accessways, the project will share a service/loading court with the GRIP
building. Based on the above, this Performance Standard is met.
h) Projects fronting on Atlantic Avenue, N.E. 1st Street, or SE 1st Street
contain nonresidential uses on the ground floor. The nonresidential ground
Planning and Zoning Board .~,ff Report
Conditional Use Request- - thing Place
Page 21
floor space has ceilings not less than ten (10) feet in height. At least fifty
percent (50%) of the surface area of the front street wall(s) at the ground
floor of each such building is devoted to display windows and to entrances
to commercial uses from outside the building.
While the subject property does not front directly on Atlantic Avenue it faces the
Avenue from behind a public park. The project provides nonresidential uses on
the ground floor, with ceiling heights of 10'6". More than 50% of the front surface
wall of the nonresidential portion is devoted to display windows and entrances.
Therefore this standard is met.
SECTION 2.4.5(E) REQUIRED FINDINGS: (Conditional Use)
Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(E)($) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter 3,
the City Commission must make findings that establishing the conditional use
will not:
A. Have a significantly detrimental effect upon the stability of the
neighborhood within which it will be located;
B. Nor that it will hinder development or redevelopment of nearby
properties.
The subject property is bordered on the north, south, and east by CBD zoning and to
the west across SE 1st Avenue, by OSSHAD zoning. The adjacent land uses include: to
the north, Worthing Park and The GRIP Building; to the south, consignment shops and
a proposed Haitian museum; to the east across SE 2nd Avenue, Grove Square, which is
a commercial development containing retail space, restaurants, and a proposed 4-story
office building; and to the west across SE 1st Avenue, two single family dwellings,
vacant property, and a single family dwelling that has been converted to an office. It is
noted that the public/GRIP parking garage is intended to be built on the space currently
occupied by one of the single family homes and the vacant property located on the west
side.
The east half of Worthing Place is located approximately 85' south of Atlantic Avenue,
and the west half is behind the GRIP building and the access alley. The proposed
setbacks either meet or exceed the requirements in the CBD zone district. The building
fa(;ade that fronts along Worthing Park is set back 5' from the south edge of Worthing
Park. The upper levels are stepped back further as follows: the 3rd and 4th floors step
back 10' from the front building line, and the 5th floor steps back an additional 6' (16'
total). Along the north property line, building setbacks ranging from 5' to 28' have been
provided. Along the west property line setbacks ranging from 10' to 14' are provided.
Along the east property line setbacks range from 10' to 17'-6". Setbacks along the
south property lines range from zero to 5', with a recessed courtyard that is set back
139'. The entire 6th floor has been stepped back as follows: approximately 28' from the
north fa(;ade, approximately 34' from the east and west facades, and approximately 10'
Planning and Zoning Board _.~3,ff Report
Conditional Use Request- thing Place
Page 22
from the south building line. The stepping back of the sixth floor will make it almost
invisible from the line of sight at street level along Atlantic and SE 1st and 2nd Avenues.
Along the east side of the building the fac~ade extends for 368', which comprises
approximately 61% of the block length. On the west side the fa(;ade is 332' long, which
is 55% of the block. A continuous fa~:ade of this length is typical of an urban setting and
is no different than the block-long facades of buildings located along Atlantic Avenue,
which gives the Avenue its sense of definition. The provision of retail storefronts along
SE 2naAvenue will help to draw people off of the Avenue and onto the side streets,
which has been a goal for the continued stability of the downtown.
As described in the Performance Standards section of this report, the facades are
broken up by the provision of interesting architectural details and off-sets to the planes
of the buildings to give it character. Along SE 1st Avenue the residential character of the
street is enhanced by the provision of courtyards with picket fences and sidewalks that
connect the units to the public sidewalk. Along SE 2naAvenue, the building has been
designed to place its parking garage and retail uses along a street that contains Grove
Square which contains retail, restaurants and a proposed office building component.
The height of the building will be compatible with the 48' high GRIP building, the
proposed 48' high office building at Grove Square, and the 32' high Masonic Lodge
building across SE 1st Avenue.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the stability of residential neighborhoods will not be
affected by this project. The stability of the downtown area will be significantly
enhanced by the addition of 219 households that will patronize area businesses and
contribute to the long term revitalization of the downtown. They will help to create a
demand for goods and services that are currently not readily available downtown, such
as clothing stores and food markets, which will enhance commercial rents and property
values.
Regarding the project's compatibility with some of the commercial uses that contain
outdoor entertainment venues (City Limits, Elwood's), the project has been designed so
that only 20 of the 219 units will immediately face the east side. The windows and
doors on these units should be equipped with double pane glass to provide additional
sound buffers.
As described in the Streets and Traffic section of this report, the project is located in the
TCEA. The TCEA was created to acknowledge that the downtown would experience
heavy traffic. Traffic in downtown has increased significantly since the mid-1990's when
the revitalization began to take off, and it has not at all deterred people from visiting the
central business district. Stop and go traffic and congested sidewalks are indicative of
successful, healthy downtowns, and tend to attract more people and greater investment
in the area. This residential development will primarily impact the late afternoon traffic,
otherwise, its traffic will occur mostly during the downtown's off-peak hours.
· Planning and Zoning Board ~taff Report
Conditional Use Request- .'-thing Place
Page 23
COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
In conjunction with the Conditional Use request a sketch plan was submitted
which has been reviewed by staff. If the Conditional Use is approved, a full site
plan submittal complying with LDR Section 2.4.3 will be required. Based upon
staff's review of the sketch plan and site inspections, the following analysis is
provided.
Parking Requirements:
The development proposal includes 219 residential units and 12,292 sq. ft. of retail
space. The parking requirements for a mixed-use project located in the CBD are
calculated as follows:
Step 1'
The base parking requirements for each use in the project are determined
individually. These are shown in the following table:
,.. Base Parking Requirements
Use Parking Requirement Spaces Required
Resi'denti'al Units
(87) 1 bedroom units 1.25 spaces per unit 108.75
,. (132) 2+ bedroom units 1.75 spaces per unit 231.00
Guest Parking
Units 1-20 .5 per unit 10.00
Units 21-50 .3 per unit 9.00
,._ Units 51-219 .2 per unit 33.80
Sub Total 392.55
Retail Space
12,292 sq. ff. 1 space per 300 sq. ff. 40.97
Step 2:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(8)(a) Shared Parkincl, the minimum parking
requirement for buildings in the CBD district which contain both residential
and commercial uses is determined by the peak parking demand period. The
peak demand period for this project is Midnight to 6:00 AM. The applicable
percentage demand for each use during that time period is 100% for
residential and 5% for commercial/retail. These percentages are applied to
the base requirements for each use in the project as follows:
Mixed-Use Shared Parking Requirements
Use Base Requirement % Shared Requirement
Residential 392.55 100 % 392.55
Retail Space 40.97 5% 2.05
Total 394.60
Rounded up 395.00
Step 3:
Pursuant to the Supplemental District Standards for the CBD in LDR Section
4.4.13(G)(1)(b), "After January 1, 1994, when the parking requirements are
appfied to either new development or a change in use, said parking
Planning and Zoning Board -~a._ .ff Report
Condibonal Use Request- .: - ~h~ng Place
Page 24
requirements shall be reduced by one parking space. This reduction may
only occur once." Applying this standard to the project yields a final parking
requirement of 394 spaces.
All required parking for the project is located in a 400-space multi-level garage on SE
2nd Avenue. This garage utilizes a staggered floor system with ramps at each end and
includes a basement level and 5 levels above grade. The entrance is located on the
south side of the garage on SE 2nd Avenue. Overall, there are 105 parking spaces
located on the ground floor and the basement levels. The proposed plans indicate a
security gate located at the entrance ramp to the upper parking tier of the ground floor
level. This gate will be required to be relocated to the second floor ramp in order to
provide adequate parking for commercial customers and residents' guests. The
remaining 295 spaces are secured "residents only" parking. These spaces are located
on the 2nd through 6th floors and will be controlled by the relocated security gate.
Given the demand for parking downtown in general, there is a concern that the
unrestricted parking on the ground and basement levels of the garage will become part
of the general parking supply for the downtown and be over-run by non-project parkers.
Since the project employs a shared-parking arrangement, this condition may result in
insufficient resident parking at times. The situation should be monitored closely after
the project is completed and if it becomes a problem, some type of controlled access
must be put in place. This is added as a condition of approval.
Compact Parking:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(g), up to 30% of the required parking for any use
may be designated for compact cars. The proposal includes 115 compact parking
spaces located throughout the garage. This represents 28.8% of the total spaces and
meets the requirement.
Handicapped Accessible Parkinq:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(b), special parking spaces designed for use by the
handicapped shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of Florida Accessibility Code
for Building Construction. This code covers the commercial part of the mixed-use
project, but does not cover residential structures. Accessibility for residential structures
is covered by the Federal Fair Housing Act. Pursuant to this act, 2% of the parking
spaces serving the dwelling units must be handicapped accessible and accessible
visitor spaces should be provided at a rate in accordance with the local code.
These regulations result in a total requirement of 10 handicapped accessible spaces for
the project. The proposal includes only 8 handicapped spaces, all of which are located
on the ground floor. The distribution of these spaces should be further evaluated in
order to comply with the applicable regulations in order to enhance accessibility. This
item can be addressed with the site plan review.
Planning and Zoning Board Rtaff Report
Conditional Use Request- ..-.-thing Place
Page 25
On-Street Parkinq
Although not counted toward meeting the parking requirements for the project, an
additional 14 public parking spaces are being provided by the developer along SE 1st
and SE 2nd Avenues. Although available to the general public, these spaces should
help meet the shorter term parking requirements of residents, guests and commercial
customers of the project. A maximum time limit of two hours during the daytime should
be imposed by the City to prevent long term parking.
Stacking Distance:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), parking lots that contain more than 51
parking spaces must provide a stacking distance of 50' between a right-of-way and the
first parking space or aisle way. The applicant will seek an internal adjustment to this
requirement during site plan review. The parking garage contains 400 parking spaces
and a stacking distance of 22' has been provided. It should also be noted that the traffic
lane of SE 2nd Avenue is located 37' from the first parking space. This will
accommodate stacking for two vehicles at the entrance.
To help mitigate some of the traffic at the SE 2nd Avenue garage entrance, a secondary
entrance has been provided from the rear alleyway. There are no drive aisles or ramps
intersecting the main entrance within 50' of the right-of-way. In fact, the sub-level ramp
has been shifted further into the garage to reduce traffic conflicts. This ramp is located
64' from the right-of-way. Within the first 50' of stacking area, potential conflicts exists
with only 3 parking spaces. Therefore a conflict will occur only when someone is
accessing one of these spaces at the same time that more than 2 vehicles are entering
the garage at the same time. Parking is at a premium in around the downtown area,
and this development has provided all of its required parking on site. Given the minimal
potential conflicts within the first 50' of stacking area and the high cost of garage
construction, the elimination of the first three parking spaces in the garage is
unwarranted.
Maneuvering Area:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(c), the maneuvering areas at the end of a dead-
end parking bay shall be 24' wide by 6' deep. This requirement has been met on the 6th
floor level where a dead-end parking bay exists. Additionally, there are dead ends in
the basement level of the garage on both parking bays at the east end of the building.
In each case a space has been striped out to provide adequate back-up space for
turning movement. This item will be further addressed with the site plan.
Lighting:
A lighting plan has not been submitted at this time. A photometric plan is required as a
part of the site plan review submittal. One concern that must be addressed at that time
Planning and Zoning Board ,e~taff Report
Conditional Use Request- - '-thing Place
Page 26
is lighting for the top level of the garage. Lighting must be integrated into the building.
No pole lights extending beyond the parapet will be allowed.
Right-of-Way Dedication:
Per LDR Section 5.3.1 right-of-way dedications to meet minimum standards must be
made with all developments, unless a waiver is granted. Pursuant to LDO, Section
5.3.1(D)(2), the required right-of-way width for SE 1sT and 2nd Avenues is 60 and 50'
currently exists along SE 2nd Avenue and only 40' exists along NE Ist Avenue. For
existing streets where the right-of-way does not meet the minimums, reductions may be
granted by the City Engineer upon a favorable recommendation from the Development
Management Services Group (DSMG). The City Engineer and DSMG have reviewed
the request for a reduction in right-of-way width and have determined that the existing
right-of-way width of 50' is sufficient for SE 2nd Avenue and 40' is sufficient for SE 1st
Avenue.
Sidewalks:
Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B)(1), a 5' wide sidewalk is required within the rights-of-
way adjacent to the properties. While concrete sidewalk exists along both rights-of-way,
they will be reconstructed with brick pavers. The existing sidewalk located along SE 1st
Avenue will be reconstructed on the subject property adjacent to the right-of-way. This
configuration is proposed as the right-of-way width is only 40' and on-street parking
spaces are being created. The applicant must provide a sidewalk easement agreement
for public use of the sidewalk. This item has been attached as a condition of approval.
Landscaping:
The proposed landscaping along the perimeter of the building is being installed at a
height greater than required by code (i.e. 18'-20' versus 12'). The Planning and Zoning
Board at its workshop meeting voiced concerns that if this material dies in the future that
the replacement plant material be at the same height as originally installed. This item
has been attached as a condition of approval.
The City Horticulturalist reviewed the preliminary landscape plans and noted some
concerns with the species selection and possible conflicts with the proposed landscape
material along the fa(;:ade of the building and within the adjacent proposed landscape
nodes. This item can further be addressed at time of site plan approval.
Expiration of Approval:
Pursuant to Section 2.4.4.(E)(2), upon approval of a conditional use said action shall be
valid for a period of 18 months, unless a different period is specifically stated in
conditions of approval. In order to be considered as established, improvements
comprising 25% of the total project cost shall have been constructed. This project
includes all improvements on Block 77 as well as the parking garage on Block 69. Per
Planning and Zoning Board .~ff Report
Conditional Use Request-.:. 'thing Place
Page 27
the contract for the purchase of the property, the public parking on Block 77 cannot be
eliminated until the garage on Block 69 is completed. These conditions will extend the
time frame for construction of the Worthing Place project, therefore, the period for
considering the conditional use as established should be extended to 24 months.
Community Redevelopment A~encv {CRA)
The CRA reviewed the conditional use requests at the meeting of October 28, 1999,
and unanimously recommended approval of the project.
Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
The DDA reviewed the development proposal at their meeting of October 20, 1999.
Their letter supporting the project is attached.
Site Plan Revie,,w and Appearance Board (SPRAB):
If Conditional Use approval is granted, a revised site plan must be submitted
accommodating the concerns raised through the conditional use petition, and
addressing outstanding technical items. Final action on the site plan will rest with the
SPRAB (Site Plan Review and Appearance Board).
Public Notice:
Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500-foot radius of
the subject property. Letters of objection or support, if any, will be presented at the
Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
Courtesy Notice:
Courtesy notices have been provided to the following homeowner's associations which
have requested notice of developments in their areas:
Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce
Progressive Residents of Delray (PROD)
Beach Properties Homeowners Association
The Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency
Pineapple Grove Main Street Association
President's Council
Osceola Park Homeowners Association
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Conditional Use Request-.. "thing Place
Page 28
The proposed conditional uses are to allow for a mixed-use building having a height in
excess of 48 feet (59'-6' proposed) and to allow for a density over 30 units per acre
within the CBD zone district. As described in this staff report the request for additional
height meets the criteda established in 4.3.4(J)(4)(b). The increase in density over 30
units per acre is supported as the project meets or exceeds the Performance Standards
found in LDR Section 4.4.13(I). The combination of housing units in and near the
downtown area and first floor retail space will help in the long term revitalization of the
CBD. The proposed use is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and
Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations. Positive findings can be made with
respect to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) regarding compatibility of the proposed development with
surrounding properties. It is noted that pursuant to Section 4.4.13(I)(1), despite the fact
that the project meets the performance standards, the Board may deny the application
for increased density if it is determined that the proposed project is not compatible in
terms of building mass and intensity of use with surrounding development.
Ao
Continue with direction.
Recommend approval of the Conditional Use requests to allow for a building
height of up to 60' and a density over 30 units per acre for Worthing Place,
based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(4)(b) (Findings
for Height), LDR Section 4.4.13(I), (Performance Standards for Increase in
Density over 30 units per acre), Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Required Findings for
Conditional Use), Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land Development
Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions.
Recommend denial of the Conditional Use requests for Worthing Place based
upon a failure to made positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.4.13(I)
(Performance Standards for Density), and Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Required Findings
for Conditional Use), in that the project is incompatible in terms of building mass
and intensity of use with surrounding development.
By separate motions:
Recommend approval of the request for Conditional Use approval for Worthing
Place to allow a height of 60' based upon positive findings with respect to LDR
Section 4.3.4(J)(4)(b) (Height Allowance Criteria) and Section 2.4.5(E)(5)
(Conditional Use Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and
Planning and Zoning Board St~fl~ Report
Conditional Use Request-_',lhing Place
Page 29
Recommend approval of the request for Conditional Use to allow a density over 30
units per acre within the CBD zone district for Worthing Place based upon positive
findings with respect to LDR Section 4.4.13(I) (Performance Standards for Density),
Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Conditional Use
Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan;
Said approvals to be subject to the following conditions:
Approval of a site plan by SPRAB that is in general conformance to the
submitted sketch plan.
El
That the elevations be in general conformance to the elevations submitted
with the conditional use requests.
That the public parking and parking for GRIP that currently exist on Block 77
be replaced in the proposed Block 69 parking garage, pursuant to the terms
and conditions of the CRA/Block 77 Development Group contract.
El
That an easement agreement be executed for the proposed improvements
(service court) behind the GRIP Building.
El
That an easement agreement be executed for the public sidewalk that is to be
located on the subject property along SE 1st Avenue.
That the unsecured parking within the residential/retail garage be evaluated
approximately one year after the project is substantially occupied (75%), in
order to assess if the parking should be restricted to use by residents and the
project's commercial customers only.
That if any of the streetscape plant material dies that it be replaced at its
original installation height.
That the time frame within which the conditional use must be established be
24 months.
El
That double pane windows and doors be provided in the residential units that
front along SE 2nd Avenue, or that another method of sound control be
approved by SPRAB.
Attachments:
· CBD Overlay Map VVhere Increased Height and Density is Allowed
· AdJacent Building Heights Map
· Site Plan
· Building Elevations
· Landscape Plans
· Letter from DDA
· Letter of Objection from Resident
PZ:BLOCK77
NE
N w 3RD
SW IST ST
$ w 2ND ST S E
4TH
NE
ANTIC
EN
3RD ST S E 5RD ST
TERRACE
CONDO
WATERWAY EAST
COMMERCIAL
CONDO
MIRAMAR
INGRAHA~
m m - AREA WHERE a RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MaY EXCEED
~= i =~ 30 UNITS PER ACRE THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY 0f DELRAY BEACH, FL - AREA WHERE A BULDING HEIGHT OF 60' IS ALLOWED
N
C~1~ ,OF DEI.RAY BEACH,
P~ING · ZONING DEPARTMENT
Worthing Place
- ADJACENT BUILDING HEIGHTS-
!~ ..... ,'m-,,I i ! ~ I ! I , Lr';',~ "--' r' ,-, < ..
~-~ ~ , L ; ~ ~ L H '
:~', ! l,it , ~ I t~ I'1 , ' '
......... . .
,,,t.,.;., / ,, ,..,.'.. ~ ., , ..:,
i* h.
* t It_i' '~ '. '1 I ~ -1
-l*- '-' -" '" ' '~"' '~ *
j~ ~'~ o... o "'/. N. ~' . ,'. . ..' .' . ,' ' ' ' t -L_
~ ~1 .r-.. x ."'~.'/% '/,, ~-~ '.<' /..'/-.- ~-, '. '.. ..~..~'/-/ // x/' '. ~ =
j ~r,J /'. '. ",,.~' " ." '/ .' .< ../ '- ,,.- x .' x '^''- ,~ '.".' / /L ,-t~lL~ ,
I ~ x ~_,, - .. . /S.; /.'. ... './,..-. ....
' ~ . " - ~?d_"?-"~-~'w-~2?>'*-~-z _ ~-'''-"-r~,~', . . ' _~.~
~ " ' ' -- t-
m . ' , ' ' "; ....... -
.q , '. . ' ',i ',~'[i! I :, ~
i__. -- i,q,
~> NEW RENTAL APAFIT'k'~ENT BUILDING COHEN- FREEDMAN-ENCINOSA & ASSOC.
~'-{ WORTHING PLACE
CITY OF: DEL.RAY BEACH, I:LORIDA F Arct]itccts, PA
I 8085 NW 155th Street Miami l~,~k~. Florida 33016 305 826 3999
WORTHING PLACE
CENTRAL COURTYARD
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
DL, WNTO DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City Of Delray Beach, Florida
November 3, 1999
Mr. Robin Bird, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Board
1300 Cormorant Road, South
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Re: Text Amendment - Block 69
Dear Mr. Bird:
At the Downtown Development Authority meeting of October 20, 1999, Jeff Costello,
Planner, for the City of Delray Beach made a presentation to the Board of various items
for consideration by the Planning & Zoning Board. One of the items was the Text
Amendment for Block 69 where the public parking garage will go as part of the Block
77 project.
After the discussion it was suggested that letters be sent to the Planning & Zoning
Board and the Historical Preservation Board that a recommendation was made by the
DDA to approve this text amendment. There was unanimous consent of the DDA
members present to approve the Block 77 project and the text amendment.
Please present our recommendation to your Board for consideration at their next
meeting.
Sincerely,
FRANK WHEAT
Chairman
/sk
64 S.E. Fifth Avenue, Deiray Beach, Florida 33483 · (407) 279-1384 · Fax (407) 278-0555
A Florida Main Street Community
AD HOC GROUP OF CONCERNED CITIZEN~ '~'~$~
28 December"l~00
To: The Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Delray Beach
Subject: Proposed Grants of Conditional Uses to Block 77
Development Corp. for Increased Height and Density
for "Worthing Place"
On behalf of a larger group of concerned citizens, we offer the following
points concerning the proposed grants to Block 77 Development Corporation of
conditional uses for increased height and density above what is normally
permitted by the City's Land Development Regulations (L.D.R.). It is our hope
that, by providing input on the technical issues in advance of the public hearing
on these proposed conditional uses, presentations at the hearing and, thus, the
hearing itself, can be shortened.
We wholeheartedly support downtown residential development, either on
its own or in mixed use projects. We only object to the "Worthing Place"
proposal because, in its current form, the building will be too massive, and its
intensity of use too high, for downtown Delray Beach. Our thoughts on some of
the technical issues involved in the current proposal follow:
1. Sadly, in this case, the City Staff in preparing the "Planning and Zoning
Board Staff Report' ("Staff Report') abandoned the role of objective
analysts and became advocates for the project. Apparently, after weeks
o intense negotiations aimed at making the project more palatable, members of
the Staff came to identify with the development group. For example, at the
Planning and Zoning Board's public hearing, a Board member asked the
developer's team a question. Before they could answer, however, the City's
Director of Planning jumped in to explain that ".we had changed the plans"
(emphasis added). In any event, the Staff Report is replete with selective
recitation of facts, shaded history, and unsupported, concIusory statements.
Examples are discussed in TAB A.
2. The Staff Report wrongly concludes that "Worthing Place" is
consistent with two key policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
Report fails utterly to discuss the issue of appropriate intensity under Future
Land Use Element Objective A-1 and deals disingenuously with the project's
impact on maintenance of "the village like, community by the sea" in
Future Land Use Element Obiective C-4 and its policies. These issues are
discussed in Tab B.
3. The Staff Report wrongly concludes that "Worthing Place" meets the
requirements for increased height. Under L. D.R. Section4.3.4(J)(4)(b)(ii)
and its subparagraph (1), an increase in height may only result in increased floor
space in the building where the increased densiW "is for the purpose of
accommodating residential use on the top floor .... ' The Staff Report on
"'VVorthing Place" carefully ignores that the highest floor in use is the roof
level of the residents' parking garage. Allowing an increase in height that
will, at least in part, accommodate other ~than .residential use on the top floor
would set a precedent that would seriously undermine the future effectiveness
of the conditional use process in guiding the future development of Delray Beach.
This issue is further discussed in TAB C.
4. The Staff Rep0rt fails to analyze properly the project's compliance
with the performance standards" for a conditional use for increased
density. Under L.D.R. Section 4.4.13(I), the "maximum permissible density .
· . will be . . based upon the degree to which the development
complies with the performance standards .... "The Staff Report merely
enumerates features of the project that are consistent with the performance
standards. Analysis of the degree of compliance with several key performance
standards demonstrates that Block 77 Development Corporation has not
complied sufficiently to warrant the grant of a conditional use increasing density
to 92 units an acre. Additionally, granting increased density based on mere
enumeration of consistent features, rather than on the degree of compliance,
would set a precedent that would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the
conditional use process in guiding the development of Delray Beach in the future.
These issues are discussed further at TAB D.
5. Even if you conclude that "Worthing Place" demonstrates a sufficient degree
of compliance with the performance standards to warrant the high density being
sought, you should deny the requested conditional use because "the proposed
project is not compatible in terms of building mass and intensity of
use with surrounding development. (L.D.RSection4.4.13(I)(1).) Other than
noting this provision, the Staff Report simply does not discuss this issue. The
Report does, however, contain an "Adjacent Building Heights Map." This aerial
photograph makes it quite clear that "Worthing Place" is wholly out of place
with its surroundings in terms of building mass given its height and sizable
footprint. It is also clearly incompatible in its intensity of use, in view of its six
stories and massive square footage. If you do not invoke this L.D.R. provision to
deny the requested high density_, you will have virtually written it out of the
regulations. If you do not use it in this case, when would you? The
project's incompatibility with its surroundings is discussed further in TAB E.
Finally, we would like to state that we, and others like us, are simply
citizens of Delray Beach who are concerned about the City's future. We are not
led, backed, or supported in any form by any so-called competing developer.
Our views are our own, developed through our own study of the project and the
pertinent regulations. In that light, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO DENY
THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USES FOR INCREASED HEIGHT AND
DENSITY! Please send a strong message to Block 77 Development Corporation
that those of us opposing their current proposal would love to see them return
with something more modest--perhaps 150 units in a building only limited
portions of which exceeded 48 feet in height. PURSUE THE COMPROMISE
SOLUTION! Failing that, please recall that the public's opposition to high
density development of the Yake property along North Federal Highway
triggered fears that turning down that proposal would mean loss of a
development opportunity. In reality, once the City Commission heeded public
concerns, a new developer stepped in and now the City has a lovely project that
did not require a density increase.
Sincerely,
TAB A
EXAMPLES OF ADVOCACY ORIENTATION OF THE STAFF REPORT
1. Page 11, first full paragraph: The Staff Report in essence argues that
"Worthing Place" is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Objective
regarding the village by the sea concept because the report of the 'visions 2000
Assembly contained a number of recommendations deemed by the Staff Report
to promote "a more urban character." It is, however, in the nature of workshops
such as Visions 2000 to develop and record all sorts of proposed actions. None
of the cited recommendations dealt with six story buildings occupying more than
half a city block. Further there is nothing inconsistent with a village having
movie theaters, dinner theaters, and playhouses. Nor is a statement that
governmental regulations should have a positive influence on downtown
redevelopment in any way indicative of an intent to opt for massive, six story
projects over the one and two story buildings typically found in downtown
Delray Beach.
e
Page 12, second full paragraph:
a. The Staff Report states:
For many years subsequent to the Visions 2000 Assembly
there was little activity downtown, and Delray continued to
struggle with its image as a blighted community .... In the
mid 1990's the downtown began to see increased
redevelopment activity, much of which was made possible by
the changes that had been implemented as a result of Visions
2000.'
This ignores that from about 1989, which saw the adoption of the section of the
Comprehensive Plan in question, until about 1992-93, the entire country was in
the grips of a major economic recession. The subsequent development in
downtown Delray Beach has largely been fueled by a booming economy and the
optimism it has engendered.
b. The Staff Report also cites two failed attempts to lure a department
store to town and some preliminary interest on the part of a publishing company
(SIRS) of locating its headquarters on Block 77 as indicating some sort of trend
"toward the development of a thriving urban center [rather] than maintenance
of a small town atmosphere. The department store effort foundered in no small
part as a result of public objections. The populace, therefore, did not agree with
developing an urban center at the expense of small town atmosphere. Similarly,
since the SIRS project never came before the City's Planning and Zoning process,
where the public could have had a role, it provides no evidence of popular favor
of urbanism over small town "feel." All it establishes is that the CRA favored a
big development project.
c. The Staff Report maintains that villages typically do not have "specialty
art galleries," "high-end restaurants," or "cultural facilities." Obviously, the
author of this section of the Staff report has not visited the many small resort
communities that dot the East and West Coasts of the U.S. Similarly, numerous
banking and financial facilities exist in any community that has numerous
residents of substantial wealth. In any event, it is not the supposed absence of
services that creates the feeling a village, but rather the size and massing of the
buildings they occupy. Relatively few of the buildings in downtown Delray
Beach exceed two stories and none occupies anything close to half a city block.
3. Page 12, first full paragraph:
a. The Staff Report cites the lack of public opposition to approval of height
increases for "a bank/office building and a residential building" for the
proposition that "[m]id-rise buildings of this nature have not been considered
inconsistent with the character of downtown Delray Beach, implicitly suggesting
that ~Worthing Place" is of the same character. However, the bank/office
building--Town Square--will be a mere 17,380 square feet; the residential
building--Mallory Square--was approved as a 44,896 square foot condominium
complex with 32 units. ~Worthing Place" would be a structure of 293,150
square feet with 219 rental units. Even its footprint (almost 75,000 square
feet) is well over 50 per cent larger than the entire Mallory Square complex.
b. The Staff Report claims that "there are small villages and towns all over
the world (particularly European villages) that have dense, compact
development that is considered to be part of their charm." It is doubtful,
however, that a truly small village has any development as massive as
"Worthing Place's" 293,150 square feet. And why do we compare ourselves
with European villages, when we have an example closer to home? Seaside on
Florida's west coast was created a seaside village. It has a height limit of 48 feet
and no building any where near the size of "Worthing Place."
4. Page 12, third full paragraph: The Staff Report claims that:
Worthing Place will not detract from the ambiance of Atlantic
Avenue. The Project will be set back 85 feet from Atlantic
Avenue, behind a public park with mature trees, and will have
little impact on the look or feel of the Avenue.
When proceeding westward on Atlantic Avenue, the 48-foot GRIP Building
becomes visible somewhere between N.E. 4th Avenue and N.E. 3rd Avenue.
"Worthing Place" with elements exceeding 60 feet will be at least as visible as
the GRIP Building. Given Its length along S.E. 2nd Avenue (368 feet), it will be
more intrusive. Similarly, the Grip Building is plainly visible from about S.E. 3rd
Avenue (by Police Headquarters) and becomes more so as on walks past the
Court House towards S.E. 2nd Avenue. Once again, the taller, more massive
"Worthing Place" will loom larger than the GRIP Building. Finally, if the trees of
Worthing Park fail to obscure the East facade of the GRIP Building, how will they
conceal the height and bulk of ~Worthing Place?"
5. Page 12. last paragraph: The Staff Report claims that "Worthtng Place" will
contribute to the CiW's village atmosphere because its residents will become
"major participants in, and contributors to the downtown community. Renters,
however, are not known for getting involved in the communities in which they
temporarily reside.
6. Page 15. first oaragraph: The Staff report claims that the influx of "Worthing
Place" residents downtown will make It a safer place. If numbers of residents
deter crime, why are our largest cities not our safest, instead of our more
dangerous? Rather than providing extra eyes to deter crime, "Worthing Place"
and its parking garages are likely to provide more targets instead.
7. Page 22, first full paragraph: After stating that "Worthing Place's" east
facade extends some 368 feet, and its west facade 332 feet, the report claims
that these facades are "No different than the block-long facades of buildings
located along Atlantic Avenue, which gives the Avenue its sense of definition."
One rather major difference, however, is that no block-long facade along Atlantic
Avenue is continuously 59 feet 6 inches high.
TAB B
"WORTHING PLACE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. Future Land Use Element Objective A-1: This Objective of the Comprehensive
Plan requires, inter alia, that development or redevelopment be such that "the
future use and intensity is appropriate."
the Staff reports fails to make any comment on the appropriateness of the
intensity of "Worthing Place." At 293,150 square feet, the project would dwarf
everything in/ts surroundings. Its six stories covering over half a city block
give it a density far in excess of other buildings in the Central Business District
(CBD). This intensity of use is simply not appropriate for its location.
2. Future Land Use Obiective C-4: This Objective recognizes that the
CBD"represents the essence of what is Delray Beach i.e. a 'village like, community
by the sea." The Staff Report relies on some of the factors encouraging
revitalization that are cited in Policy c-4.1 to establish "Worthing Place's"
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This ignores Policy C-4.2 (which is not
even mentioned). This latter policy limits Policy C-4.1 by calling for the
"maximum development which can be accommodated in a competitive
market while still retaining the 'village like, community by-the-sea
character of the CBD." (emphasis added). The Report's disingenuous
arguments that "Worthing Place" is consistent with village character are
discussed in parts of TAB A. At this point it is sufficient to note that a
construction of a six story building that occupies more than half a city block and
comprises 293,150 square feet would completely undercut retention of village
by the sea character.
TAB C
%qORTHING PLACE" DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE FOR INCRF~SED HEIGHT
Under LD.R. Section 4.3.4(J)(b)(ii) and its subparagraph (1), a height increase
may only result in increased floor area in the building (above the floor area that
would be accommodated in a 48-foot building) if:
An increase in intensity is allowed when the increase from 48
feet to 60 feet is for the purpose of accommodating residential
use on the top floor of the structure; however, the increase
in intensity is only for the added residential use area.
(emphasis added)
The Staff Report merely states "The increase in height is requested to
accommodate residential use on the top floor of the structure, thereby meeting
this requirement."
Ex~mination of Plan A.7 of the "Worthing Place" architectural plans clearly
shows that the roof level of the parking garage is at elevations ranging from 52
feet to 58 feet, which is clearly above the floor level of the sixth floor residential
apartments (the apartments have 9-foot ceilings and the roof top is at 5 9 feet 6
inches and the roof has some thickness). This plan also shows two sets of stairs
from the roof parking level down to the Sixth Floor residences. Thus, the top
floor in the building will be used not for residences, but for parking cars. The
increase in intensiW is, therefore, not only for added residential use. In effect,
Block 77 Development Corporation is seeking a conditional use for increased
height in order to build a seven level parking garage that exceeds 48 feet in
height, and this is simply not permitted under the L.D.R.
Moreover, even if the roof parking level were construed as part of the the sixth
floor of the structure, the top floor would still not be used only for residential
use. Allowing a height increase where only part of the top floor would be used
for residential purposes would set a dangerous precedent. Any amount of
residential use would then permit the remainder of the floor to be used for
nonresidential uses.
TAB D "WORTHING PLACE" DOES NOT MEET THE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USE
LDR Section 4.4.13(I)(2) (Performance Standards) requires that "The development
offers variation in design to add interest to the elevations and relief from the
building mass." The Staff Report first says that the elevations vary from one side of
the project to the other. But since you can't see the opposite sides at the same time,
this does nothing to provide relief from the building's great mass.
Next the Staff Report indicates that there are 'stepbacks' in various places to
decrease the bulky appearance; the report refers to the wedding cake effect on the
north facade stemming from the progressive stepping back of the floor above the
second story. But it isn't even the whole north facade - it's actually less than half the
width of the building.
As such, the promoters have not come close to complying fully with this aspect of
the standard. Further, the wing of apartments along 1~ Avenue is actually stepped
forward about 6 feet above the 1a floor. This is apparent by viewing the elevation
provided by the developers. This will, by definition, make the building more
massive, particularly when one uses the walkway beneath this area; note the
human figure drawn on the elevation. We believe the developer loses points here.
The Staff Report further addresses this same performance standard of LDR Section
4.4.13(I)(2) as it pertains to architectural detoils. We found a minimal number of
"decorative louvers," "decorative spires," "decorative tile" areas, "decorative
keystones," "railed balconies," and "rounded awnings" -- to use the reports
language, but no where near enough in number to lend an overall spirit of the type
and amount of architectural detail required by the performance standard.
It appears to us that the developer has read this standard and thrown in most of the
mentioned items somewhere on the building - a little wedding cake here, some
indentations there, awnings and tiling scattered around, some this, some that, but
nothing to the degree and thoughtfulness required by the performance standard. In
short, nothing that in any way mitigates the overwhelming mass of the building.
We conclude, therefore, that the developers have not complied with the
performance standard to the degree needed to earn approval for an increase in
density above 30 units per acre.
TAB E
"WORTHING PLACE" IS NOT COMPATIBLE
WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS
As the Staff Report notes, "It is noted that pursuant to Section 4.4.13(I)(1),
despite the fact that the project meets the performance standards, the Board
(meaning here the Planning & Zoning Board) may deny the application for
increased density if it is determined that the proposed project is not compatible
in terms of building mass and intensity of use with the surrounding
development."
To our way of analysis, it doesn't matter whether you look at the overall height
of nearby East Atlantic Avenue, or whether you calculate the individual square
footage multiplied by height of all nearby buildings, or whether you view a
schematic, map, or mock-up model of the neighborhood with Worthing Place
constructed. It doesn't matter which method you choose - the result is
incontrovertible: Worthing Place is not compatible in terms of building use
with the surrounding development.
That's it, plain and simple. This project is enormous; it will dwarf everything
around it, not only in terms of overall dimensions, but certainly in terms of its
mass. It will swamp the neighborhood with its comparative scale.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
CITY MANAGER~-~44
AGENDA ITEM ! 0 ~' - REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2000
ORDINANCE NO. 47-99 (AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTION 4.4.24,
OSSHAD ZONING DISTRICT, REGARDING USE AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN LOTS IN BLOCK 69 ASSOCIATED WITH
THE WORTHING PLACE DEVELOPMENT)
DECEMBER 30, 1999
This is second reading and a quasi-judicial public heating for Ordinance No. 47-99 which amends
LDR Sections 4.4.2400)(9) and 0~)(1) by adding Lots 19 through 24, inclusive, Block 69, to the list of
lots in the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) that may be developed pursuant to
certain standards of the Central Business District.
A proposal has been submitted by the developers of Worthing Place (Block 77) to construct a parking
garage on three lots located on the west side of S.E. 1't Avenue between Atlantic Avenue and S.E. 1't
Street. This area is currently zoned OSSHAD. The OSSHAD zoning allows parking lots but does
not specifically list parking garages/structures as a permitted use. Additionally, the required 25 ft.
front setback makes the construction of a garage practically infeasible in this area. There are several
lots within the OSSHAD zoning district that can be developed pursuant to the permitted uses and
height/setback requirements of the Central Business District. The proposed text amendment would
add Lots 19-24, Block 69, to that list of lots. The CBD allows parking garages as a permitted use and
requires only a ten foot front setback. The amendment will allow for a use and development pattern
that is more consistent with the rest of the downtown. Development of the lots will remain subject to
review by the Historic Preservation Board. Additional background and a full analysis of the request,
as well as location maps, are contained in the attached Planning and Zoning Board staff report.
On November 3, 1999, the Historic Preservation Board considered the amendment and voted
unanimously to recommend approval. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the amendment
on November 15, 1999, and voted 4 to 1 (Eliopoulos dissented; Moms abstained; McCarthy was
absent) to recommend that the text amendment be approved. At first reading and the first pubhc
heating on November 16m, the City Commission voted 3 to 2 (Mr. Randolph and Mr. Schrnidt
dissenting) to pass the ordinance on to second reading and a quasi-judicial public hearing.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 47-99 on second and final reading, based upon the findings
and recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board and the Planning and Zoning Board.
Ref:Agmemo21.Ord.47-99.Adding Lots in Blk 69.OSSHAD.CBD Standards
ORDINANCE NO. 47-99
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.24, ~OLD SCHOOL
SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT (OSSHAD)",
SUBSECTION 4.4.24(B), "PRINCIPAL USES AND
STRUCTURES", AND SUBSECTION 4.4.24(F),
~DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS", TO ADD LOTS 19 THROUGH
24, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 69, TO THE LIST OF LOTS
WITHIN THE OSSHAD ZONING DISTRICT THAT MAY HAVE
THE SAME PRINCIPAL USES AS THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT AND THAT MAY BE DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO
THE STANDARDS OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT;
PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING
CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and
Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public
hearing on November 15, 1999, and voted to recommend adoption of the
proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4) (c), the
Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has
determined that the change is consistent with and furthers the
objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 4, "Zoning Regulations", Section
4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)",
Subsection 4.4.24(B), "Principal Uses and Structures", subparagraph
4.4.24(B) (9) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(B) Principal Uses and Structures Allowed:
(9)
Within the following described areas, the uses
allowed as permitted uses in Section 4.4.13(B)
pursuant to the base district and special provisions
of the Central Business District regulations shall
also be allowed in the OSSHAD:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Lots 13-16, Block 60
Lots 1-4, Block 61
Lots 1-7 and 19-24, Block 69
Lots 7-8, Block 75
Lots 1-6, Block 75
Section 2. That Chapter 4, "Zoning Regulations", Section
4.4.24, WOld School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)",
Subsection 4.4.24(F), ~Development Standards", subparagraph
4.4.24(F) (1) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Develol~ment Standards:
(1)
The following locations shall be subject to the
standards of the CBD zone district:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Lots 13-16, Block 60
Lots 1-4, Block 61
Lots 1-7 and 19-24, Block 69
Lots 7-8, Block 75
Lots 1-6, Block 75
Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
Section 4. That should any section or provision of this
ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word
be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a
whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
- 2 - Ord. No. 47-99
Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately'upon passage on second and final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final
reading on this the 4th day of
ATTEST:
January , 2000.
First Reading November 16, 1999
Second Reading January 4, 2000
- 3 - Ord. No. 47-99
Planning & Zoning Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVIDT. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER Z~ ~- ~,~~ -
FROM: DIANE DOMINGUEZ, PLANNING AND OR %~'~
DATE: DECEMBER 28, 1999
RE:
ADDITIONAL BACK UP FOR JANUARY 4, 2000 CITY COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM, ORDINANCE 47-99 REGARDING BLOCK 69 (OSSHAD
LDR AMENDMENT)
City Attorney Susan Ruby has suggested that I provide additional information related to
the proposed amendment to the OSSHAD zoning district, adding Lots 19-24 of Block 69
to the list of properties that can be developed pursuant to certain CBD standards. While
the proposed action is an LDR amendment, which is typically considered legislative, the
fact that the change involves permitted uses and applies to so small an area makes it
similar in nature to a change in zoning. For this reason, Susan felt it would be
appropriate to review the proposal in relation to the findings that are applicable to a
rezoning action. In response to her suggestion, the following analysis is provided and
will be made a part of the official record for the LDR amendment.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(D), Change of Zoning District Designation, a
change of zoning must be based upon at least one of the following factors:
a) That the zoning had previously been changed, or was originally established, in
error;
b) That there has been a change in circumstance which makes the current zoning
inappropriate; or
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 applicable reasons for allowing the subject lots to be developed pursuant to the
CBD standards are "b" and "c". In the years since the OSSHAD zoning was originally
established, the downtown area has experienced a major revitalization. The Old School
Square museum and theater complex has been established, numerous new restaurants
have been opened in the blocks immediately east of Swinton Avenue, and the
downtown has a vibrant nightlife. There is an increased need for parking in the area
around Block 69, as outlined in the Parking Facility Study prepared for the CRA in 1997.
While the OSSHAD zoning itself is not entirely inappropriate for the subject lots, it is
more logical to allow the property to develop in a manner that is consistent with that
Memo re: Block 69~Rezoning Findings
Page 2
which is permitted on the CBD-zoned property on the opposite side of SE 1=t Avenue.
The current 25' front setback requirement is not appropriate for the downtown,
especially on property that is immediately south of Atlantic Avenue, which has a zero
(0') front setback requirement. The CBD uses that will be allowed on the subject lots if
the amendment is approved are allowed under the Future Land Use Map designation of
"Other Mixed Use."
Future Land Use Map (FLUM)--the resulting use of land or structures must be
allowed in the zoning district within which the land is situated and said zoning
must be consistent with the applicable land use designation as shown on the
FLUM.
As noted above, the underlying FLUM designation is "Other Mixed Use." This category
references the OSSHAD zoning district for a description of the intensity and types of
uses allowed. The OSSHAD zoning lists several properties that may be developed
pursuant to the CBD standards. Thus, the CBD permitted uses are consistent with the
underlying land use.
Concurrency: Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Future
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination
made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development
application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require
the provision of, needed capital improvements in order to maintain the Levels of
Service Standards established in Table CI-GOP-1 of the adopted Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed changes will allow development that is of a similar intensity to that which
exists throughout the downtown. The property is located in a Traffic Concurrency
Exception Area (TCEA), and is therefore exempt from the County Traffic Performance
Standards Ordinance. The capacity at existing facilities (i.e. solid waste, sewer and
water plants) is sufficient to meet the moderate increases that may occur as a result of
these changes. Concurrency will be more specifically addressed at the time of site plan
approval for a proposed development.
Consistency: A finding of overall consistency may be made even though the
action will be in conflict with some individual performance standards contained
within Article 3.2, provided that the approving body specifically finds that the
beneficial aspects of the proposed project (hence compliance with some
standards) outweighs the negative impacts of identified points of conflict.
This finding refers to the Standards for Rezoning Actions of Section 3.2.2, which are
addressed below.
Compliance with LDRs: Whenever an item is identified elsewhere in these LDRs,
it shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on a land
development application/request. Such items are found in Section 2.4.5 and in
special regulation portions of individual zoning district regulations.
Memo re: Block 69~Rezoning Findings
Page 3
If the LDR amendment is approved, a specific development proposal will be reviewed
by the Historic Preservation Board (HPB), which is the body that will take action on a
site plan for this property. The specific applicable LDR requirements will be addressed
at that time.
ARTICLE 3.2 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Section 3.2.2 Standards for Rezoning Actions
The following standard is applicable to this action:
(D) That the rezoning shall result in allowing land uses which are deemed
compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses both existing and proposed; or
that if an incompatibility may occur, that sufficient regulations exist to properly
mitigate adverse impacts from the new use.
The OSSHAD zoning will still apply to the subject properties, however, the proposed
LDR amendment will allow the same permitted uses and development standards that
exist for the properties located immediately to the north and east. The properties front
on SE 1st Avenue, facing the CBD-zoned properties across the street. The change will
allow for a more consistent and compatible development pattern along the street. The
subject lots are separated from the properties to the west, north, and south by a paved
alleyway, which allows for some separation and buffering opportunities. Development
of the property will be subject to historic preservation criteria contained within LDR
Section 4.5.1, which can help to ensure compatibility with historic structures in the area.
s:~planning & zoning~boards~city commlssion~block69rezoningflndings.doc
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF:
NOVEMBER 15, 1999
AGENDA ITEM:
IV.D. AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTIONS 4.4.24(B)(9) AND
4.4.24(F)(1), ADDING LOTS 19 THROUGH 24, BLOCK 69 TO
THE LIST OF LOTS IN THE OSSHAD (OLD SCHOOL SQUARE
HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT) ZONING DISTRICT THAT MAY BE
DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO CERTAIN STANDARDS OF THE
CBD (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) ZONING DISTRICT
ITEM~BEFORE'T.HE BOARD
The item before the Board is making a recommendation to the City Commission
regarding a privately initiated request to amend LDR Section 4.4.24 Old School
Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), subsections (B) Permitted Uses and (F)
Development Standards. The proposed amendment is to add Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
and 24, of Block 69 to the list of lots within the OSSHAD zoning district that can: 1) be
developed pursuant to the standards of the CBD District, and 2) have the same
principal uses as the CBD.
Pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6(A), the Planning and Zoning Board must make a
recommendation on any amendment to the Land Development Regulations.
DESCRIPTIONIANALYSIS ~
The request has been made by the agent for the Worthing Place mixed use project.
The changes are necessary to accommodate the construction of a 3-story parking
garage on Block 69.
The subject properties are located on the west side of SE 1st Avenue, between the two
east/west alleys located within Block 69 (see Exhibit A). Three of the lots are developed
with structures. Lot 19, adjacent to the south alley, contains a single family Mission
Revival style residence with a garage in the rear which has been converted to an
apartment, both were constructed in 1925. Directly to the north, on Lot 20, is a single
family residence in the vernacular style with a cottage to the rear, the house was
constructed in 1949 and the cottage, which is older, was moved to the site in 1959. The
vernacular style building on Lot 24, the northernmost lot, was constructed in 1919 as a
single-family residence and has since been converted to an office. To the rear of Lot 24
is a garage, which was built in 1951 and has been converted to an apartment.
The following is a summary of the zoning history of these lots. Please note that due to
the fact that zoning maps and codes do not exist for every single year prior to the
1980's, these dates are approximate.
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
LDR Amendment--Block 69 in OSSHAD
Page 2
The earliest zoning map available in the Planning and Zoning Department is dated
1962. On this map, the subject lots are zoned R-3, Multiple Family Dwelling District, as
were the facing lots across SE 1st Avenue within Block 77. The R-3 zoning allowed
single and multiple family dwellings, as well as hotels as permitted uses. Conditional
uses included membership clubs, nursing or convalescent homes/hospitals/clinics, and
cluster development. Structures were permitted to a height of 45 feet. Building setbacks
were as follows: 25' front and street side, 10' interior side, and 10' rear.
The 1970 zoning map indicates that the lots (and the lots across 1st Avenue) were
zoned RM-2. The RM-2 district allowed single and multi-family dwellings (up to 9 units)
as permitted uses, and allowed multi-family dwellings of more than 9 units, as well as
numerous nonresidential uses by special exception (referred to in the current LDRs as
conditional uses). The list of nonresidential uses included facilities such as churches,
clubs, hotels/motels, parking, nursing homes, schools, business and professional
offices, and civic and public buildings. Structures were permitted to a height of 23 feet,
and up to 45 feet by special exception. Building setbacks were as follows: 25' front and
street side, 15' intedor side, and 20' rear.
In 1972 the RM-2 zoning district was eliminated, and the properties were rezoned C-1,
Limited Commercial. In contrast to the regulations of the RM-2, the C-1 permitted a
wide variety of commercial uses by right, and multi-family projects became conditional
uses. Some of the permitted commercial uses were retail sales, banks, restaurants
(excluding drive-thrus), cocktail lounges, barber and beauty shops. In addition to multi-
family dwellings, the list of conditional uses included such uses as churches, hotels,
hospitals, office buildings, recreational facilities, and service stations. Structures were
permitted to a height of 35', with greater height allowed as a conditional use (no
maximum limit specified). The building setbacks were as follows: 10' front and side
street, 0' interior side, and 10' rear.
In approximately 1977, the C-1 distdct was eliminated, and the zoning of the properties
was changed to GC, General Commercial. The GC district allowed a greater variety of
commercial uses than the C-1 district, including drive-thru restaurants, movie theaters,
and offices as a permitted rather than conditional use. Additional conditional uses
included car washes and oil change facilities, amusement game establishments,
storage buildings, and veterinary clinics. Structures were permitted to a height of 45',
and building setbacks were as follows: 10' front and side street, 0' interior side, and 10'
rear.
In February of 1988 Block 69 was included within the newly formed Old School Square
Historic District, which generally included properties within the area from NE 4th Street
to SE 2nd Street, from NE and SE 1st Avenues to NW and SW 1st Avenues. The
underlying zoning districts did not change with this action, including the GC zoning on
Block 69. However, the designation of the area as a historic district meant that any
exterior changes to properties located within the district had to be approved by the
Historic Preservation Board (HPB).
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
LDR Amendment--Block 69 in OSSHAD
Page 3
In 1990 with the Citywide rezonings, the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts
District) zoning district was created and applied to properties located within the historic
district, including Block 69 (the GC-zoned lots on Block 77 were rezoned CBD). The
OSSH^D zoning was, and continues to be, a district that provides for mixed uses of
residential, office, and commercial activities, and promotes the restoration and reuse of
existing structures. Permitted uses include single family and duplex dwellings, offices,
retail shops, restaurants, arts related businesses, training and vocational schools,
libraries and museums, barber and beauty shops, and bed and breakfast inns. Allowed
as conditional uses are multi-family dwellings in a mixed-use structure, outdoor dining,
various types of residential care facilities (i.e. Adult Congregate Living Facilities, alcohol
and drug abuse treatment facilities, nursing homes), parking lots not associated with a
use (i.e. public parking), and residential inns. Structures within the district are permitted
to a height of 35', and building setbacks are as follows: 25' front, 15' side street, 7.5'
interior side, and 10' rear.
There are, however, several lots located within OSSHAD that may be developed in
accordance with the permitted uses and development standards of the CBD. These
lots, which are identified in Exhibit B, include the blocks fronting on Atlantic Avenue on
either side of Swinton Avenue (excluding the Old School Square complex), the Neal
Farms Market property, and the east half of Block 76 across from Old School Square.
These lots were so identified because their existing or potential uses and/or
development pattern were more typical of the CBD than OSSHAD zoning.
The effect of the proposed amendment would be to add the subject lots, Lots 19
through 24, Block 69, to the list of properties that can be developed pursuant to certain
CBD standards. The proposed changes would increase the types of permitted uses
that could be established in the district to allow for a wider range of retail, service, and
office uses, as well as more dense multi-family residential. It also would allow more
permissive development standards, as provided in the following table.
Comparison of Development Standards for CBD and OSSHAD
MINIMUM SETBACKS
LOT LOT LOT LOT MAXIMUM FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR HEIGHT
SIZE WIDTH DEPTH FRONTAGE LOT (ft.)
(sq. ft.) (fi.) (ft.) (ft.) COVERAGE (ft.) STREET (fL) INTERIOR (fL) (fL)
CaD 0 0 0 0 (~) ~0 10 0/(2) 10 48
OSSHAD 8,000 80 100 80 40% (3) 25 15 7 1/2 10 35
(1) refer to individual district regulations (10% non-vehicular open space required)
(2) When there is no dedicated access to the rear of a structure, a 10' side yard setback shall be
provided
(3) In addition, a minimum of 25% non-vehicular open space is required
As previously noted, the main reason for requesting the amendment is to allow for the
construction of a parking garage that will allow a combination of public parking and
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
LDR Amendment--Block 69 in OSSHAD
Page 4 ~-
parking for the GRIP office building located on the southeast comer of Atlantic and SE
Ist Avenues. This garage will be constructed by the developers of the Worthing Place
apartment complex at their expense, and will be deeded over to the City upon
completion. While the OSSHAD district lists "parking lots not associated with a use" as
a conditional use, it does not specifically state that parking garages are permitted.
Additionally, a variance to the 25' minimum front setback would be required. The
CBD regulations specifically list "parking garages" as a permitted use, and allow 10'
front and 0' side interior setbacks.
The amendment will:
· Allow development that is of similar type and intensity to the CBD
· Allow residential densities of up to 30 units per acre
· Allow building heights of up to 48'
The amendment will not:
· allow the same conditional uses that are allowed in the CBD, including increases in
density beyond 30 units per acre
· allow increases in height up to 60' via conditional use approval
· exempt development from review by the HPB.
As noted, there are three primary and three accessory structures located on the subject
lots. As currently proposed, construction of the garage would be on Lots 20-22 and
would require the removal of the 1949 vernacular structure and accessory structure.
There is a possibility that additional property could be incorporated into the proposal,
however, no action has as yet been taken to that effect.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), LDR amendments require that a finding be made
that the text amendments is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Permitting these lots to be developed pursuant to
CBD standards, but still subject to review and approval by the Historic Preservation
Board, will allow for a transition between the more intense development that is probable
within the CBD to the east, and the lower scale development along Swinton Avenue.
This property is in a core area of the downtown facing CBD-zoned properties, and
should have setbacks that are consistent with the majodty of the downtown. In
addition, the amendment will allow for the construction of a private/public parking
garage in a location that will help satisfy the parking demands of the adjacent 4-story
office building, Old School Square, nearby restaurants, and various other commercial
establishments in the area. The garage is an important component of the Worthing
Place project, a mixed use development that will help fulfill the need for year-round
residents in the downtown area. In this regard, the amendment will help to fulfill the
following policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
LDR Amendment--Block 69 in OSSHAD
Page 5
Future Land Use Element, Policy C-3.2 The successful development of the Old
School Square Project is the cornerstone to the rebirth of the economic vitality of
the community. To further accommodate this activity, the City shall evaluate the
potential for the acquisition of land in the Old School Square area of the City for
the purpose of improving public parking and/or creating a linkage between Old
School Square and governmental facilities to the west.
Future Land Use Element, Policy C-4.1 The Central Business District (CBD)
Zoning District regulations shall facilitate and encourage rehabilitation and
revitalization and shall, at a minimum, address the following:
deletion of inappropriate uses
incentives for Iocatin.q retail on the .qround floor with office and residential use
on upper floors
accommodating parkin.q needs throu.qh innovative actions
incentives for dinner theaters, playhouses, and other family oriented activities
allowing and facilitating outdoor cafes
incentives for mixed use development and rehabilitations
elimination of side yard setback requirements
allow structural overhang encroachments into required yard areas.
The proposed amendment was reviewed by the Downtown Development Authority on
October 20, 1999. There was not a quorum at the meeting, however, the three
members present indicated their support of the amendment (see attached letter).
The amendment was reviewed by the Community Redevelopment Agency on October
28, 1999. The Board unanimously recommended approval of the amendment.
The amendment was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board on November 3,
1999. The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment.
The proposed amendment would add OSSHAD-zoned Lots 19-24, Block 69 to the list of
lots that can be developed pursuant to the permitted uses and development standards
of the CBD zoning district. From 1972 through most of 1990, these lots were zoned to
allow for a variety of commercial uses similar to the CBD, with the same setback
requirements. The block immediately to the east has been proposed for redevelopment
as a residential/commercial complex. Even if the current Worthing Place proposal is not
approved, it is likely that the intensity of development on Block 77 will increase
significantly. Development of the eastern half of Block 69 pursuant to CBD standards,
but still subject to HPB review and approval, will allow for an appropriate transition
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
LDR Amendment--Block 69 in OSSHAD
Page 6
between the CBD-zoned parcels and development along Swinton Avenue, with the
north/south alley effectively acting as a zoning district separator. The amendment will
serve a public purpose by allowing the construction of a parking garage to meet the
demands of uses in the downtown area, and is consistent with policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
By motion, recommend approval of the proposed amendment to LDR Section 4.4.24
Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), subsections {B) Permitted
Uses and (F) Development Standards, as attached.
Attachments:
· Proposed Amendment
· Exhibit A: Portion of Block 69
· Exhibit B: OSSHAD Lots Subject to CBD Regulations
· Letter of Support from DDA
File/s/pz/hpb/Amendment for Block 69
PROPOSED LDR AMENDMENT FOR BLOCK 69
LDR Section 4.4.24--OSSHAD Zoning District Regulations
(B) Principal Uses and Structures Allowed
(9) Within the following described areas, the uses allowed as permitted uses in
Section 4.4.13(B) pursuant to the base district and special provisions of the
Central Business District regulations shall also be allowed in the OSSHAD:
(a) Lots
(b) Lots
(c) Lots
(d) Lots
(e) Lots
13-16, Block 60
1-4, Block 61
1-7 and 19-24, Block 69
7-8, Block 75
1-6, Block 75
(F) Development Standards:
(1) The following locations shall be subject to the standards of the CBD Zone
District:
(a) Lots 13-16, Block 60
(b) Lots 1-4, Block 61
(c) Lots 1-7 and 19-24, Block 69
(d) Lots 7-8, Block 75
(e) Lots 1-6, Block 75
EXHIBIT "A"
ATLANTIC
AVENUE
g
I-1 I I ~
S.E. 1ST ST.
N
CITY OF D£LRAY B£ACH. FL
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTM£NT
LDR TEXT AMENDMENT
PORTION OF BLOCK 69
---- Z~/~'I~'A/. ,~4,EE' ~4P SY~7~"/~ ---- 1,4AP REF LN404
EXHIBIT "B"
/
BOY SCOUT
,T OSR
ROA
TRINI T Y
LUTHERAN
CASON
METHODIST
CHURCH
5TH
GC
$ W 1 ST
SW
COMMUNITY
T~NNIS
STADIUM
ATLANTIC
POLICE i SOUTH
COMPLEX I COUNTY
{ COURT
HOUSE
NE
NE
NE
AVENUe'
ST
S.W 1ST ST S,E ~ ST
2ND ST 2ND
BUD'S
N
IOSSHAD LOTS SUBJECT TO C.B.D. REGULATIONS |
! II · · II IIll - OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT (OSSHAD)
CITY OF D~LRAY BEACH, FL
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
--- DIGITAL ~ M4P SYSTEM ---- MAP REF LMA122
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City Of Delray Beach, Florida
November 3, 1999
Mr. Robin Bird, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Board
1300 Cormorant Road, South
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Re: Text Amendment - Block 69
Dear Mr. Bird:
At the Downtown Development Authority meeting of October 20, 1999, Jeff Costello,
Planner, for the City of Delray Beach made a presentation to the Board of various items
for consideration by the Planning & Zoning Board. One of the items was the Text
Amendment for Block 69 where the public parking garage will go as part of the Block
77 project.
After the discussion it was suggested that letters be sent to the Planning & Zoning
Board and the Historical Preservation Board that a recommendation was made by the
DDA to approve this text amendment. There was unanimous consent of the DDA
members present to approve the Block 77 project and the text amendment.
Please present our recommendation to your Board for consideration at their next
meeting.
Sincerely,
FRANK WHEAT
Chairman
/sk
ECE /EO
64 S.E. Fifth Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33483 · (407) 279-1384 · Fax (407) 278-0555
A Florida Main Street Community
£1TV DF DEI. RgV BEI:I£H
FIRE DEPARTMENT
DELRAY BEACH
SERVING DELRAY BEACH · GULFSTREAM · HIGHLAND BEACH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
0£¢ 2 0 fee~
CITy MANAGE~
FROM:
ROBERT B. REHR, FIRE CHIEF
DATE:
DECEMBER 15, 1999
SUBJECT: ADJUSTMENT OF EMS TRANSPORT FEES
We have been nonfied that the Inflation Index Charge (I.I.C.) for 1999, apphcable to
Me&care serv:ces and fee schedules, will be a 1.7% tncrease. According to Qty of Delray Beach
Ordinance No. 5-95, Secnon 96.66, Emergency Medical Transport Fees, Sub-Secnon B:
"The City Commission mav adjust fees annually pursuant to the Inflation Index Charge
(I.I.C.) which is used by Medicare to determine the appropriate fee charges."
It ts our recommendauon that an increase be granted effecnve January 1, 2000. Thts will
allow us to keep up wtth the changes tn Medtcare allowances. I suggest we put th~s on the next
Comm:ss~on Meeting agenda, ff ~t meets w:th your approval The following shows what percentage
charges would be for each charge:
PRESENT FEE 1.7% INCREASE TOTAL
RECOMMEND
ALS $ 300.00 $ 5.10 $ 305.10 $ 305 00
BLS $ 215.00 $ 3.71 $ 221.71 $ 220.00
Mileage $ 6.08 $ .10 $ 6.18 $ 6.20
If you are tn agreement with the above, I have attached an agenda so we can proceed wzth th~s
proposal.
Anachment
Ftre Chief
' - _&D,Z. UAXTEPS · 504 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH FLORIDA 33444
': ~ , ~-.c-, ~'.1~ · .... - ..... · FAX ,s~ ,) 243-7461
F-':,,-'~3 o- ,me; s,eo Fape,
Sheet1
RATES CHARGED BY PALM BEACH COUNTY EMS AGENCIES:
16-Dec-99
American Medical Rescue
Boca Raton Fire REscue
Boynton Beach Fire Rescue
Delray Beach Fire Rescue
Greenacres Public Safety
Lake Worth Fire Rescue
North Palm Beach Public Safety
Palm Beach County Fire Rescue
Palm Beach Gardens Fire Dept.
Riviera Beach Fire Rescue
Royal Palm Beach Fire Dept.
West Palm Beach Fire Dept.
ALS BLS MILEAGE
$328.70 $328.70 $6.50
$272.00 $170.00 $5.80
$289.00 $6.50
$300.00 $218.00 $6.08
$280.00 $197.00 $5.70
$310.00 $6.00
$310.00 $6.00
$325.00 $225.00 $7.50
$297.50 $5.50
$270.00 $270.00 $6.00
$325.00 $225.00 $5.50
$340.00 $7.25
Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. 1-00
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 96, ~FIRE
SAFETY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES", OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY
AMENDING SECTION 96.66, "EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION FEES", SUBSECTION 96.66(A), TO
ADJUST THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANNUAL
INFLATION INDEX CHARGE; PROVIDING A GENERAL
REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, on January 17, 1995, the City Commission
adopted Ordinance No. 5-95, which enacted a new Section 96.66 of
the City Code to provide for emergency medical transportation
fees; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 96.66(B) of the City
Code, the City Commission may adjust fees annually pursuant to
the Inflation Index Charge (I.I.C.) which is used by Medicare to
determine appropriate fee changes; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has been notified that
the Inflation Index Charge (I.I.C.) for 2000, applicable to
Medicare services and fee schedules, will be a 1.7% increase.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Title IX, ~General Regulations",
Chapter 96, ~Fire Safety and Emergency Services", Section 96.66,
~Emergency Medical Transportation Fees", Subsection 96.66(A), of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(A)
The following service charges or fees are levied
for the provision of emergency medical
transportation:
(1)
Advanced Life Support
Transportation fee
$305 00
(2)
Basic Life Support
Transportation fee
$220 O0
(3) Mileage fee
~ $6.20/mile
Sect£on 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances
in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
Sect£on 3. That should any section or provision of
this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence
or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part
declared to be invalid.
Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective
as of January 1, 2000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and
final reading on this the day of , 2000.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
First Reading
Second Reading
MAYOR
Ord. No. 1-00