Loading...
Agenda Reg 03-13-03City of Delray Beach Regular Commission Meeting Thursday. March 13. 2003 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. Public Hearings 7:00 p.m. Commission Chambers Deltay Beach City Hall 100 NV/1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Phone: (561) 243-7000 Fax: (561) 243-3774 RULES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: The public is encouraged to offer comments with the order of presentation being as follows: City Staff, public comments, Commission discussion and official action. City Commission meetings are business meetings and the right to limit discussion rests with the Commission. Generally, remarks by an individual will be limited to three minutes or less. The Mayor or presiding officer has discretion to adjust the amount of time allocated. A. Public Hearings: Any citizen is entitled to speak on items under this section. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public: Any citizen is entitled to be heard concerning any matter within the scope of jurisdiction of the Commission under this section. The Commission may withhold comment or direct the City Manager to take action on requests or comments. Ce Regular Agenda and First Reading Items: When extraordinary circumstances or reasons exist and at the discretion of the Commission, citizens may speak on any official agenda item under these sections. 2. SIGN IN SHEET: Prior to the start of the Commission Meeting, individuals wishing to address public hearing or non-agendaed items should sign in on the sheet located on the right side of the dais. If you are not able to do so prior to the start of the meeting, you may still address the Commission on an appropriate item. The primary purpose of the sign-in sheet is to assist staff with record keeping. Therefore, when you come up to the podium to speak, please complete the sign-in sheet if you have not already done so. 3. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION: At the appropriate time, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. All comments must be addressed to the Commission as a body and not to individuals. Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the Commission shall be barred by the presiding officer from speaking further, unless permission to continue or again address the Commission is granted by a majority vote of the Commission members present. APPELLATE PROCEDURES Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record. The City will furnish auxiliary aids and services to afford an individual with a disability an opportumty to participate m and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Contact Doug Randolph at 243- 7127 (voice), 24 hours prior to the event in order for the City to accommodate your request. Adapuve hstenmg devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. 2. 3. 4. 5. o ROLL C31.1.. INVOCATION. PLEDGE OF AI.I.EGIANCE TO THE FLAG. AGENDA APPROVAL. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 18, 2003 - Regular Meeting February 24, 2003 - Special Meeting PROCLAMATIONS: Recognizing and commending the Toussaint L'Ouverture High School Students PRESENTATIONS: 2001/2002 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - Ernst & Young Handover/Windy Creek Homeowners' Association -Jake Epperson Art in Public Places - Rich McGloin CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. RESOLUTION NO. 12-03; Approve Resolution No. 12-03 assessing costs for abatement action required for the emergency board-up of an unsafe structure located at 24 N.W. 7m Avenue. AMENDMENT NO. 4/INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Approve Amendment No. 4 to the interlocal agreement between the City of Delray Beach and the City of Boynton Beach regarding Annex I, Section 3, "Failure of Meters" changing the basis for billing in the event of meter failure from the daily average of three preceding months to seven preceding days. ACCEPTANCE OF HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT: Approve and accept a hold harmless agreement between the City and Richard F. Roehm to allow for the installation of a fence in the public right-of-way, located at 2300 Dixie Highway. RESOLUTION NO. 14-03: Approve Resolution No. 14-03 abandoning a portion of the 16 foot north/south alley right-of-way lying within Block 2, Atlantic Pines, located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue, between N.W. 10m Avenue and N.W. 11~ Avenue. ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT DEED/pLAZA AT DELRAY: Approve and accept an easement deed for the Plaza at Dekay, located at the northwest comer of Linton Boulevard and South Federal Highway. 03-13-2003 Fo Mo FINAL PAYMENT/DRILLING SERVICES. INC.: Approve final payment to Drilling Services, Inc. in the mount of $8,099.79 for the completion of the Reconstruction of Drinking Water Well ~¢26 Project. Funding is available from 442- 5178-536-61.82 Cgqell Rehabilitation/Replacement & Upgrade). I~HAN(3E ORDER NO. 1/FINAL PAYMENT/PIONEER CONTRACTING. INC.: Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,282.93 and final payment in the amount of $15,002.69 to Pioneer Contracting, Inc. for the completion of the Delray Shores Sidewalks and Traffic Calming Project. Funding is available from 334-6111-519- 63.89 (General Construction Fund/Neighborhood Enhancements). FDOT GENERAL USE PERMIT & HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/ OLD PALM GROVE; Authorize the City to act as the general use permit applicant for the existing water main connection within the state right-of-way (located on the southeast comer of Federal Highway and Royal Palm Boulevard) and approve a Hold Harmless Agreement with the developer (New Urban/RFC Developers, L.L.C.). PALM BEACH COUNTY AGREEMENT; Approve an agreement between the City of Delray Beach and Palm Beach County in the amount of $450,000.00 for the design and installation of landscaping, irrigation, sidewalks, and curbing for the NW/SW 5~ Avenue Project. HOUSING REHABILITATION GRANT\CONTRACT AWARD: Approve Housing Rehabilitation grant\contract awards through Community Development Division in the amount of $23,940.00 to Preston Construction (16680 S.W. 8m Avenue), $12,400.50 to South Florida Construction (218 S.E. 1st Avenue), $12,547.50 to Henry Haywood 011 S.W. 8~' Street). Funding is available from 118-1924-554-49.19 (SHIP Housing Rehabilitation Grant). DELRAY BEACH RENAISSANCE PROGRAM SUBSIDY; Approve a fund subsidy for one (1) eligible applicant/family in the amount of $25,000.00 for N.W. 13~ Avenue. This brings the number to 151 homeowners assisted under the Renaissance Program. Funding is available from 118-1924-554-83.01 (SHIP Program). RESOLUTION NO. 15-03; Approve Resolution No. 15-03 opposing the reduction of approximately $94.5 million in funds for affordable housing programs. GRANT ACCEPTANCE/FEDERAL COPS IN SCHOOLS: Approve and accept the Federal COPS tn Schools grant award in the amount of $125,000.00 with a local cash match of $32,557.00 providing funding for a School Resource Officer position for the Village Academy for a three (3) period. Funding is available from 001-2119-521- Various Administrative Accounts/General Fund Police District 2. 03-13-2003 SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/DELRAY AFFAIR; Approve a special event request from the Chamber of Commerce to allow the Dekay Affair to be held on April 25-27, 2003; including a temporary use permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(I-I) for street closures of Atlantic Avenue from NW/SW 1 s, Avenue to the Intracoastal Waterway and blocking access to Atlantic Avenue on each side street in this area at the alley running parallel to Atlantic Avenue; waiver of LDR Section 4.6.70D)(3)0)(ii) to allow event signage to be placed more than one week prior to event, staff support for security and traffic control, contingent upon specified staff recommendations contained in 2/26/03 memo and the receipt of a hold harmless agreement and certificate of liability insurance. ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT DEEDS/ART AND GLASS ENVIRONMENTS; Approve and accept easement deeds to allow for the encroachment of a public sidewalk and a public access easement along the west side of the property, adiacent to an alleyway, for Art and Glass Environments, located at 440 S.E. 5~ Avenue. REVIEW OF APPEAI.ABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period February 18, 2003 through March 7, 2003. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: Bid award to Chaz Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $26,500.00 for the emergency repair of the force main from Lift Station 19A. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-63.90 (Water/Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund/Other Improvements). Purchase award to Dural Ford in the amount of $22,111.00 via the Florida Sheriffs Association and Florida Association of Counties Bid Specification #19 for the purchase of a 2003 Ford F-250 crew cab pickup truck for the Parks and Recreation Depatunent. Funding is available from 119-4144-572-64.20 (Beautification Trust Fund/Automotive). Purchase award to Duval Ford in the amount of $35,539.00 via the Florida Sheriffs Association and Florida Association of Counties Bid Specification #23 for the purchase of a 2003 Ford F-450 crew cab pickup truck for the Environmental Services Depatunent. Funding is available from 441-5145-536- 64.20 (Water/Sewer/Automotive). Bid award to multiple vendors at an estimated annual cost of $78,616.00 via the City of West Palm Beach Co-op Bid #02/03-20 for the purchase of liquid chlorine and calcium hypochlorite. Funding is available from 441-5122-536- 52.21, 441-5144-536-52.21, 441-5123-536-52.21, and 441-5141-536-52.21 (Water/Sewer Fund/Chemicals). Contract award to Rosso Paving & Drainage, Inc. in the amount of $147,560.00 for the Sherwood Park Traffic Calming Project. Funding is available from 334- 3162-541-65.60 (General Construction Fund). -4- 03-13-2003 o REGULAR AGENDA: A. MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS: Canvass the returns, and declare the results of the March 11, 2003 First Nonpartisan Election. B. APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD 10. ACTION/PARK PLACE TOWNHOMES: Consider an appeal of a decision of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board regarding the Class V Site Plan for Park Place Townhomes, located on the south sxde of S.E. l0th Street, approximately 300 feet west of S.E. 5th Avenue. (Quasi-Juch'cial Hearing) WAIVER REQUEST TO REDUCE PAVEMENT WIDTH/PARK PLACE TOWNHOMES: Consider a request to waive LDR Section 6.1.2 (C) to reduce the pavement width from 24 feet to 20 feet for the residential streets located within the Park Place Townhomes Development and waive LDR section 6.1.3 regarding the provision of sidewalks along both sides of the loop road. The property is located on the south side of S.E. 10a' Street, approximately 300 feet west of S.E. 5th Avenue. (O. uasi- Judicial Hearing) SPECIAL EVENT REOUEST/SCHOOL SHOWCASE OF THE ARTS/SOUTH FLORIDA PARENTING BLOCK PARTY: Consider a request for special event approval to allow the School Showcase of the Arts - South Florida Parentmg Block Party sponsored by the Delray Beach Education Board and South Florida Parenting to be held on March 29 and 30, 2003 from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.; granting a waiver per LDR Section 4.6.70D)(3)(j)(ii) to allow event signage to be made and put up on March 18, 2003, staff support for security and traffic control, and trash removal. REJECTION OF BIDS/2003 RESURFACING PROJECT: Consider rejection of all bids received for the 2003 Resurfacing Contract due to oil increases and authorize staff to re-bid contract later in the year. AUTHORIZATION TO CHALLENGE A RULE: Consider authorizing staff to challenge the rule regarding rate-making authority of Water Management Districts and to engage Lewis, Longrnan, & Walker in this process at an hourly rate of $195-$205 per hour. Go RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD: Rat/fy the appointment of Norbe~ Poll as the IVest ~ttlantic Redevelopment Coalition representative on the Parking Management Advisory Board for a term ending September 30, 2004. PUBLIC HEARINGS: WAIVER REQUEST/MARRIOTT: Consider a request from the owner of the Marriott Residence Inn, located on 1111 East Atlantic Avenue, to waive Section 4.6.7(G)(7) of the Land Development Regulations regarding signs. (Quasi-Ju&'cial Hearing) 03-13-2003 11. FROM THE 12. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC- IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. B. From the Public. FIRST ~INGS: A. NONE COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. A. City Manager B. City Attorney C. City Commission POSTED: MARCH ?, 2003 03-13-2003 CITY COMMISSION CITY OF DELRAY BEACH~ FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING - THURSDAY~ MARCH 13~ 2003 6:00 P.M. - COMMISSION CHAMBERS AGENDA ADDENDUM THE AGENDA IS AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING ITEM TO: REGULAR AGENDA: DELRAY BEACH ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY INITIATIVE: Consider a request to endorse a Delray Beach Economic Self-Sufficiency Initiative, the proposed Mission Statement and three-step implementation strategy and establish a task force as recommended. ********************************************************************************* 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. £1TY Ol: [IEUlI:IY BEACH DELRAY BEACH NI-AmedcaCib/ 1993 2001 TO: 100 N W 1st AVENUE MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 David T. Harden, City Manager ~-//Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager March 10, 2003 AGENDA ITEM~'~"kCITY COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 13~ 2003 DELRAY BEACH ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY INITIATIVE ACTION City Commission is requested to endorse a Delray Beach Economic Self-Sufficiency Initiative, the proposed Mission Statement and three step implementation strategy, and establish a task force as recommended to help implement this initiative. BACKGROUND Various concerned individuals from various community organizations have been meeting to discuss services needed and currently available to address the difficulties low income families and individuals have in obtaining economic success. The group that has meet has developed a mission statement and a three (3) step process for implementing a strategy to promote an economic self-sufficiency initiative for low income families and individuals. Attached is a copy of a summary for this initiative. Commission is requested to support this initiative by establishing a task force to evaluate programs currently available and for the City to take a lead role by providing staff support for the analysis of existing programs, and for coordinating efforts of different service support groups and provide staff support for implementation. Commission is being requested to endorse this initiative, establish a task team as recommended, and authorize staff support for this initiative. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends consideration of support for this initiative and establishment of a Task Force similar to the Elder Ready Task Force. RAB/gb Attachments 561/243-7000 U LRABLatgenda Item Economw Self Suffi/Taency,lM3-03 doc I HE I"FFORT ALWAYS MATTERS Prtnted on Recycled Pa, oor DELRAY BEACH ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY INITIATIVE Mission Statement "To develop a comprehensive plan by bringing together a wide range of community resources to address the difficulties iow- income families and individuals face in achieving economic success, by integrating workforce development, family/individual economic support, community investment initiatives, and education opportunities." Earning a living wage that allows a family to be self-sustaining is the dream of almost every American. Impediments to achieving this dream include lack of education, lack of job skills, lack of jobs, housing costs, healthcare costs, childcare costs and availability, and transportation. A variety of non-profit organizations and government agencies provide programs to assist people to overcome these impediments. At this time, however, there seems to be little coordination among the various organizations to determine who they are serving and if there are overlaps or gaps in providing services. It is projected that federal and state funding for traditional "social service" programs will decline in the next 5-7 years. President Bush has professed a belief that faith-based organizations need to fill this breach, but does not propose adequate funding for them to be able to do this. Local governments will be faced with the economic impact of trying to meet needs traditionally met by higher levels of government. In addition, local governments will face the growing burden of unfunded mandates from the federal and state governments. Therefore, it will be of the utmost importance for local governments to maximize the support that non-profits and remaining government programs can give to their communities. Local governments must assess and evaluate the programs available to their residents, and coordinate the efforts of the various groups to ensure that the greatest number of residents are served. The Annie E. Casey Foundation "Family Economic Success" (FES) initiative provides one model for economic self-sufficiency. FES promotes three strategies: workforce development, and its related benefits, focused on improving job access and quality employment for residents of under-employed neighborhoods; family economic support proqrams, focusing on maximizing income and increasing the assets, financial sophistication and, ultimately the wealth of low-income families; and, community investments that are focused on strengthening community services and institutions most critical to working families. The residents of Delray Beach have identified a fourth component: education. This means not only education for the workforce that might be undereducated or lacking social and/or employment skills, but a sound, fundamental education for every child. Page 1 of 2 The Delray Beach Economic Self-Sufficiency Initiative proposes a three step process to implement this initiative. First, the establishment of a "task force" to evaluate the programs currently available to residents in Delray Beach. This would include identifying the groups or organizations providing services in the community at this time; determining the programs they provide, who they target, and who they actually provide services to; and, identifying overlaps or gaps in services or target groups. The task force could hopefully enlist assistance from FAU to make this evaluation. It is estimated that such an evaluation could be completed within 6 months. Second, the City would take the lead after the analysis is completed to coordinate efforts among the groups identified. In addition, a consortium of the organizations would be formed. This consortium would develop a plan for coordination of resources to provide the maximum benefit to the community. Possibly a non- profit 501(c) (3) corporation would be established to provide an entity that could seek funding to coordinate the effort and implement the initiative. In addition, community facilities would be identified where services could be provided close to the residents who need the services. These include churches, schools and public and private recreational facilities. The third step would be implementation of the plan. A mechanism for long-term coordination would have to be established. If a non-profit corporation was established, it is envisioned that the director would work in conjunction with a city staff person to coordinate the effort in the city. The following people have agreed to serve on the task force: Juanita Bryant, Caring Kitchen Elder Lionel Cook, Sutton Chapel Dorothy Ellington, Delray Beach Housing Authority Kendra Graham, City of Delray Beach Sarah Ingraham-Herring, Village Foundation Pastor Lionel McGahee, St. Paul AME Karlie Richardson, Haitian American Council Bill Sanders, Community Development Corporation Seabron Smith, TED Center David Schmidt Jimmy Weatherspoon, Urban League Bill Wood, Workforce Development Carolyn Zimmerman, Presidents' Council We hope to also add representatives from the School District, the Delray Beach Police Department, the Delray Beach Clergy Association, and from FAU. Page 2 of 2 FEBRUARY 18~ 2003 A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor David W. Schmidt in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:02 p.m. Tuesday, February 18, 2003. 1. Roll call showed. Present - Commissioner Patricia Archer Commissioner Jon Levinson Commissioner Jeff Perlman Mayor David W. Schrnidt Absent - Commissioner Alberta McCarthy Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney Barbara Garito, City Clerk 2. The opening prayer was delivered by Rabbi Suzanne Carter, Chief Chaplain for the Delray Beach Fire Department and the Delray Beach Police Department. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. AGENDA APPROVAL: Mayor Schmidt stated that Joanne Peart has requested that Item 7.B. Presentation for the Lake Ida Homeowners' Association be rescheduled to March 13, 2003. Mayor Schmidt requested that Item 8.M. Review of Appealable Land Development Board Actions (Item J of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Actions) of the Consent Agenda be moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 9.A.A. For clarification, the City Attorney stated there is a change with regard to Item 9.I. Quiet Title/County Parcels and noted that the City has Quiet Title on any of the necessary parcels. Mr. Levinson moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 5_. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Peflman moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 4, 2003, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Mr. Perlman moved to approve the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 11, 2003, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. PROCLAMATIONS: 6.Ao Calline for the First Nonpartisan Election to be held on March 11~ 2003 Mayor Schmidt read a proclamation hereby calling for the First Nonpartisan Election to be held on Tuesday, March 11, 2003, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., at all the precincts and polling places in the City of Delray Beach as designated by the Supervisor of Elections. PRESENTATIONS: 7.A. Kathleen Daley- Legislative Update Kathy Daley, City Lobbyist, gave a brief overview of the Legislative session. Ms. Daley stated Beach Re-Nourishment was discussed and noted this project was cut to $15 million in the budget for this program. Brief discussion continued by the Commission and Ms. Daley with regard to Article 5 which is of concern to our Police Department, the CRA Legislation, and SHIP dollars being cut. Ms. Daley stated the next Legislative session begins March 4th and she will return in approximately three weeks after that date with an update. 7oB. Lake Ida Homeowners' Association - Joanne Peart This item has been rescheduled to the Regular City Commission Meeting of March 13, 2003. 7oC. Carver Estates Kids of Character Essay Contest - Officer Jeff Messer Officer Jeff Messer, Community Relations/Police Department, introduced the following winners of "Negative Effects of Drugs in the Community and the Family" essay contest: -2- 02/18/03 ~ 1st Place - Preston Mack (15 years old) >' 2na Place - Latoya Peele (16 years of age) ~ 3ra Place - Quinesha Smith (13 years of age) Preston Mack (1st Place) and Latoya Peele (2nd Place) came forward to read their essays. 7.D. 12th Annual Holiday Toy Drive Presentation - Perry. Don Francisco~ Officer Jeff Messer~ and Jennifer Buce Officer Jeff Messer, Community Relations/Police Department recognized Perry DonFrancisco and Jennifer Buce for their continued support of this annual event. He presented special awards to: Morgan Russell/Self Employed John Coban/LaSalle Bank Debbie Chfisman/LaSalle Bank Officer Messer explained that Mr. Russell, owner of the entire plaza, let them use the old Sherwin Williams building for nearly two months (November & December 2002) rent free and donated the space for the toy drive. Officer Messer continued to state that Mr. Coban and Ms. Chrisman adopted a local needy family and went over the top in providing gifts for them. 7.E. Communi.ty Olympic Development Pro,,ram - Pam Gerig~ Palm Beach Countv Sports Commission Pam Gerig, Executive Director of the Palm Beach County Sports Commission and the Palm Beach County Sports Institute, stated the Olympic Committee created a program in 1996 called the Community Olympic Development Program and its main mission is to enhance recreational programs by creating opportunities within the United States for the Olympic movement. To identify talented and motivated athletes and to help them maximize their potential in targeted Olympic sports. Ms. Gerig stated as of October 18, 2002, Palm Beach County has been designated as a Community Olympic Development community and is the only county with this designation. Ms. Gerig continued to state that there are many benefits of this program to our youth, such as a reduction of risk behavior, obesity prevention, substance abuse prevention, gang prevention, life-long physical fitness, safe, fun and healthy activities, character development, education and nutrition, team building habits. Furthermore, Ms. Gerig stated her goal is to develop at least one Community Olympic Development Program (CODP) in each municipality in Palm Beach County within the next five years. Joe Weldon, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated he has been on the Sports Commission for approximately nine years and commented that he would like to see Delray Beach as a designated community for Community Olympic Development for wrestling. Mr. Weldon stated the cost would be $10,000 and a room is available at Atlantic High School Gynmasium for a wrestling program. -3- 02/18/03 It was the consensus of the Commission to support the Parks and Recreation Department moving forward with this program. 8~ CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. 8.A. APPROVAL OF POLL WORKERS FOR THE FIRST NONPARTISAN ELECTION: Approval of the poll workers for the First Nonpartisan Election to be held on March 11, 2003. 8.B. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL/SEABREEZE ISLES: Approve the subdivision plat for Seabreeze Isles, located on the west side of Seabreeze Avenue and south of Lowry Street. 8.C. RESOLUTION NO. 7-03: Approve a resolution amending Resolution No. 40- 02 for the acceptance of a supplemental grant from the Palm Beach County Emergency Medical Services Grant Award program to be used for the purchase of six (6) Automated External Defibrillators. The caption of Resolution No. 7-03 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES GRANT AWARD PROGRAM FOR FY 2002/2003. (The official copy of Resolution No. 7-03 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) 8.D. RESOLUTION NO. 11-03: Approve Resolution No. 11-03 supporting the Annual Beach Management Trust Fund. The caption of Resolution No. 11-03 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING THE ANNUAL BEACH MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND. (The official copy of Resolution No. 11-03 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) 8.E. REQUEST FOR SIDEWALK DEFERRAL/ANDREWS AVENUE: Approve a request to defer the installation of a sidewalk in front of 506 Andrews Avenue. Staff recommends approval. 8.F. NPDES SECOND TERM PERMIT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Approve the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Second Term Permit Interlocal agreement between the City and the Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District (NPBCID). -4- 02/18/03 8.G. SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. 6/LAWSON, NOBLE & WEBB, INC.: Approve Scl-vice Authorization No. 6 to Lawson, Noble & Webb, Inc. in thc amount of $55,862.71 for the design of N.E. 4th Avenue from East Atlantic Avenue to N.E. 2"d Street. Funding is available from thc Community Redevelopment Agency. a.H. FDOT GENERAL USE PERMIT & HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/ WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Authorize the City to act as the general use permit applicant for the addition of a water main connection within the state right-of-way (located on the southwest comer of southbound Federal Highway and S.E. l0th Street) and approve a Hold Harmless Agreement with the developer (Echion USA, Inc.). 8.I. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/AVDA: Approve a landscape maintenance agreement between the City of Delray Beach and Aid to Victims of Domestic Assault (AVDA) for the installation of landscaping within the right-of-way. 8.J. TURTLE MONITORING SERVICES/JOHN FLETEMEYER: Approve sea turtle monitoring services for FY 2003 with John Fletemeyer in an amount not to exceed $27,304.20. Funding is available from 332-4164-572-34.90 (Beach Restoration Fund). 8.K. BEACH PERFORMANCE MONITORING STUDY: Approve a contract between the City of Delray Beach and Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $43,828.75 for the 12-month Post-Construction Beach and Offshore Performance Monitoring Study. 8.L. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/CINCO DE MAYO FIESTA: Approve a special event request to allow thc Cinco Dc Mayo Fiesta to be held Saturday, May 3, 2003, from 12:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. at Old School Square, granting a temporary use permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(H) for the closure of NE 1st Avcnnc on thc north side of thc grounds of Old School Square to thc loading gate area, and staff support for traffic control and security, EMS assistance, trash removal, barricade set up, signage, and waiver of City overtime costs; contingent upon sponsor providing a hold harmless agreement, a certificate of liability insurance, and liquor liability insurance with conditions for serving alcoholic beverages and site fencing. 8oMo MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 9.A.A. SoN° AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: ° 0 Contract award to Dominica Recreation Products in the amount of $158,038.75 for the purchase of Platinum Pro Line Equipment for the skate park. Funding is available from 117-6111-519-63.40. Contract award to RPM General Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $83,910.00 for interior improvements to the Pompey Park Community Center. Funding is available from 334-4172-572-46.10. Contract award to Conquest Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $1,250,460.00 for the SW Area II Infrastructure Improvements. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-65.58 and 448-5470-538-65.58 (SW Area -5- 02/18/03 II). e Purchase award to Red Wing Shoe Store for the purchase of 135 pairs of safety boots for the Fire-Rescue Department. Funding is available from 115-0000-248-64.00 (Paramedic Gift Account) and 001-2315-526-52.22 (Uniforms-Operations Division). Various bid awards in the amount of $289,655.00 via the Florida Sheriffs' Association and State of Florida Contracts for the replacement of City vehicles. Funding is available from 501-3312-591-64.20 (Central Garage Fund/Automotive). Various bid awards in the amount of $275,302.00 via the Florida Sheriffs' Association Contract for Take Home vehicles for the Police Department. Funding is available from 501-3312-591-64.20 (Central Garage Fund/Automotive). Mrs. Archer moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer- Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. e REGULAR AGENDA: 9.A.A. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period February 3, 2003 through February 14, 2003. Mayor Schmidt stated he requested that Item J be pulled fi'om the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and expressed concerns about reducing setbacks and building separation requirements. Mayor Schmidt stated he feels a lot of building is being squeezed into a little space. Mr. Dorling stated a few things that are unique to this property. He explained that this property has the hurricane pines preserve area on it and it has a conservation designation. Mr. Dorling continued to state that there are some environmental areas that are being accommodated with this site plan and it forces a little more congestion on those areas not being set aside as preserve. Mr. Dorling reiterated that the property is unique because they have preserved about 1 V2 acres in preserve area and have also provided some mitigation money for some restoration work at Leon Weekes as part of the site plan approval. Mr. Perlman and Mrs. Archer stated they would both support reviewing this. Mr. Perlman moved to approve that the City move forward with an appeal, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. -6- 02/18/03 9.A. RESOLUTION NO. 8-03: Consider approval of Resolution No. 8-03 for tax abatement for improvements to the historic Crocker residence, located at 105 N.E. 7th Street. The caption of Resolution No. 8-03 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING AN AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION TO KATHLEEN CROCKER FOR THE HISTORIC REHABILITATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 105 N.E. 7TH STREET, DELRAY BEACH; AS FURTHER DESCRIBED HEREIN; DETERMINING THAT THE COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION (LDR) SECTION 4.5.1 (M)(5); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Resolution No. 8-03 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated on September 19, 2001, a COA application was submitted for this property known as the Crocker Residence. The proposal included the demolition of the one car garage, construction of a two-story 1,583 square foot addition, improvements to the original, one-story historic dwelling, construction of a swimming pool, and various site improvements such as installation of Chicago brick paver walkways, deck, and driveway and installation of a fence and gate. At its meeting of July 17, 2003, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed and approved an initial tax exemption request affiliated with the previously approved site improvements. The improvements as outlined in the staff report were constructed. The improvements have been completed and the application is now before the Commission for final approval of the request. The improvements are qualifying improvements under LDR Section 4.5.1(U)(5)(b). As mandated by LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(11), the Historic Preservation Board reviewed the Final Application during its meeting of February 5, 2003, and determined that the completed improvements were in compliance with the previously approved request as submitted by the applicant. The associated landscaping for the project was not deemed a legitimate improvement under the specifications mandated by the State for the tax abatement. It has therefore not been included in the expenditures total. Taking this into account, the legitimate site improvements expenditures total $356,117.54. Mr. Dorling stated the final assessed value of the improvements will be determined by the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser and would be subject to the tax abatement process. Mrs. Archer asked if this would apply to the entire structure or just to the new construction. In response, Mr. Dorling stated this would apply to all improvements to a qualifying property whether it is to the original structure or to a new construction. -7- 02/18/03 Mrs. Archer moved to approve Resolution No. 8-03, seconded by Mr. Levinson. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.B. RESOLUTION NO. 9-03: Consider approval of Resolution No. 9-03 for tax abatement for improvements to the historic Patrick Lynch property, located at 226 South Ocean Boulevard. The caption of Resolution No. 9-03 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING AN AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION TO PATRICK LYNCH FOR THE HISTORIC REHABILITATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 226 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD, DELRAY BEACH; AS FURTHER DESCRIBED HEREIN; DETERMINING THAT THE COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION (LDR) SECTION 4.5.1(M)(5); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Resolution No. 9-03 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this request is for approval of tax abatement for the property at the northwest comer of Nassau Street and South Ocean Boulevard. On August 1, 2001, the Historic Preservation Board approved a list of improvements which were eligible for the tax abatement and are listed in the staff report. These improvements have been completed and the Historic Preservation recommended approval of this tax abatement request at its meeting of February 5, 2003. The applicant is now before the City Commission for final approval of the request. The property qualifies for the tax exemption per LDR Section 4.5.1 (M)(5)(a)(iii) as it is designated as a historic property, or as contributing to a historic district, under the terms of the City's historic preservation ordinance. Mr. Doffing stated the improvements noted in the staff report are qualifying improvements which are also subject to LDR Section 4.5. l(M)(5)(b). Mr. Doffing stated the total legitimate site improvements equate to $327,542.76 and does not take into account the associated landscaping for the project has been deemed not to be eligible. The final assessed value of the improvements will be determined by the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's office. Staff recommends approval of the request. Mrs. Archer asked if the property is sold does the exemption follow the property. In response, Mr. Dorling stated if the property is sold the exemption follows the property for ten years. -8- 02/18/03 Mr. Levinson moved to approve Resolution No. 9-03, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.C. DELRAY BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY ASSOCIATION~ INC.: Consider a grant/loan request from Delray Beach Public Library Association, Inc. regarding the relocation of the library. Mr. Levinson stepped down and stated he will file the appropriate Conflict of Interest form with the City Clerk. John J. Callahan III~ Library. Director, stated the library has accumulated to date $7 million in cash and grant commitments and expects to raise an additional $2 million by the end of 2004. In late spring 2003, the Library will need to provide the County $2.5 million as its share of the parking structure. Additionally, the $500,000 grant awarded by the State of Florida requires that a signed construction contract be in force by December 21, 2003. In order to meet the State's deadline, design of the Library must resume and be completed in the next six months. Given the current economic conditions and fundraising climate, the Library Board does not expect to raise by year-end the needed $2.5 million which would allow construction to commence in early 2004. Therefore, it is requesting a grant in this amount from the City. Dr. Daniel Murtaueh~ President of the Board of Directors for the Delray Beach Library, stated thc Library will be owned by thc City and it will be in thc heart of Delray Beach. In addition, given the fact that the prominent role the library and adjacent parking will play in thc redevelopment of West Atlantic Avenue, Dr. Murtaugh stated hc believes an investment of public dollars will resonate positively with the city's residents and with your assistance we will build an outstanding library fitting for an All-America City. Dr. Murtaugh stated he also feels it will be a powerful incentive for potential donors to the library who will be paying for about 75-80% of thc cost of thc building if they know the City of Delray Beach supports it. Mayor Schmidt stated he is not ready to vote on this item this evening and he feels the CRA should step up to the plate and take on at least half of the responsibility because the new library will be in the heart of the CRA redevelopment area. Mrs. Archer stated she strongly supports the library and feels there is an unusual relationship in Delray Beach because of the private/public partnership. Mrs. Archer continued to state she feels we are lucky to have a local library and she would like to find some way to support the library financially. However, Mrs. Archer stated by the same token she is concerned over the library's request for a $2.5 million grant in addition to a $900,000 bridge loan. Mrs. Archer stated she concurs with Mayor Schmidt and she would like to be able to explore other sources and review further. Mr. Perlman stated he would support talking to the CRA for participation and ultimately he is excited about the relocation of the library and he feels this represents a great opportunity for West Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Perlman stated he would like to find a way to get this done. -9- 02/18/03 The City Manager stated there are a lot of capital needs with regard to the Southwest Area Plan, the Downtown Plan, and the Parks Maintenance Plan and he expressed concern over how the City will handle the replacement of funds for these facilities if it proceeded with this grant request. The City Manager stated if the City can get some significant assistance from the CRA, then the City can make it happen. Mr. Perlman moved to approve the Bridge Loan in the amount of $900,000, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. At this point, Mr. Levinson returned to the dais. At this point, the time being 7:10 p.m. the Commission moved to the Public Heatings portion of the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.A. ORDINANCE NO. 3-03: An ordinance amending Chapter 101, "Parks, Beaches, and Recreation", of the City Code of Ordinances by amending Section 101.24, "Traffic Regulations", to prohibit the use, operation, and propelling of parasails, parachutes, and hang gliders on the City's municipal beach. 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. The caption of Ordinance No. 3-03 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE IX, "GENERAL REGULATIONS", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 101, "PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION", BY AMENDING SECTION 101.24, "TRAFFIC REGULATIONS", IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE SAFETY OF CITIZENS AND TOURISTS ENJOYING THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH'S MLrNICIPAL BEACH BY PROHIBITING THE USE, OPERATION, AND PROPELLING OF PARASAILS, PARACHUTES AND HANG GLIDERS ON THE MUNICIPAL BEACH SITE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 3-03 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Mayor Schmidt declared the public hearing open. -10- 02/18/03 Christopher Heffernan, 1200 Thomas Street, Delray Beach, stated having spent a considerable amount of time at the beach since he has lived here, he has never seen anyone doing any of the activities that are outlined in Section 1, Paragraph (B) of the ordinance. Mr. Heffernan stated activity going on at the beach is kite surfing. Kite surfing is a wind propelled kite with a person on a surfboard; it's a water sport that does not take place over land. Mr. Heffernan stated another activity is a paragliding which is an engine propelled parachute type apprentice and noted that the kite surfing and paragliding are not covered in the ordinance. Mr. Heffernan stated rather than enacting this ordinance he suggested one that definitions the terms and addresses specifics. Rick lossi, Post Office Box 4472, Boynton Beach, represents the Florida Kite Surfing Association which is a state-wide non-profit corporation formed to support the sport of kite surfing. Mr. Iossi stated there have been rumors that the proposed ordinance may be applied in some way restricting the kite boarding activity. Mr. Iossi distributed a hand-out to avoid any possible confusion between the activity of power paragliding and kite boarding and supports this activity in Delray Beach. Larry. Littlefield, 57008 Antilles Bay, Boynton Beach, stated he represents the power paragliding group and stated they have a flawless safety record for the last 10-15 years. Mr. Littlefield stated he feels that paragliding adds a lot of ambience to the beach and commented that many spectators come to the beach just to watch the sport. Mr. Littlefield stated he feels to legislate against this sport does not make sense. David Eigen~ 902 Lake Shore Drivel Delray Beach~ activity pursues the sport of paragliding and stated he is only aware of one complaint and supports this activity in Delray Beach. Barry. Bernstein~ 1!01 Lake Drive, Delray Beach, proposes to either form a club or post signs that state "No Fly Zones" in an effort to keep the area a little bit more noise free. Mr. Bernstein stated there is really only noise for the first thirty seconds until getting up to the correct altitude and until one lands. Mr. Bernstein stated perhaps some type of rules can be developed or certain permits required that one needs to fly out of a particular area regulated by the City. Jennifer Littlefield, 57008 Antilles Bay~ Boynton Beach, stated if noise is an issue then she feels people need to be concerned with the motorcycles that travel up and down the street and generate much more noise. Mrs. Littlefield stated since the beach is a public beach the public has a right to use it. Andy Katz, 220 S. Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach, stated the noise level generated from the paragliding is minimal and he feels it adds to the variety and beauty of Delray Beach. Pastor Doug Fountain~ Epiphany Lutheran Church in Lake Worth, stated he is a paraglider and flies under FAA regulations. Reverend Fountain continued to state that the motors are aircraft motors and have the highest safety standards of any other aviation industry in -11- 0W18~3 the country. Reverend Fountain stated they fly at the beach for safety reasons because the wind is unobstructed and feels overall paragliding is safe, beautiful, and adds ambiance to the beach. John Sasson, resident of Loxahatchee and also a member of U.S. Ham? ulidinu Association, stated that hang-gliding is a beautiful and safe sport. Mr. Sasson stated thc people who arc a part of this sport arc responsible individuals who want to essentially enjoy a safe flight. Christopher Singer, resident of Highland Beach, stated he is a power paraglider and noted that he is very cautious. Mr. Singer stated the noise level is approximately 70 decibels right near him and once he is approximately ten seconds into the air it is almost inaudible at the beach level. Mr. Singer stated he enjoys the peaceful beautiful sunset and most people wave because they are so thrilled. Ira Fine, practicing Internist in Delra¥ Beach and lives on S. Ocean Boulevard, stated hc enjoys watching the paragliders and docs not hear any noise unless hc is outside his home. Dr. Fine said he and his children have flown with Mr. Littlefield and it is a great sport and urged the Commission to deny this ordinance. Gary. Gross~ lives in Riviera Beach~ stated he is 65 years old and is a surfer, jet skier, sailor, and for the last two years a power paraglider. Mr. Gross stated paragliding is a safe sport and commented that they would like to police themselves and prove to the Commission that everyone can get along. Chad Richard~ 1200 Thomas Street, Delray Beach, stated he is a kite surfer and very much enjoys the sport. Furthermore, Mr. Richard stated he feels the ordinance is vaguely written and could be interpreted incorrectly by a well intention officer who is trying to do his/her best to appease a homeowner. Mr. Richard stated he wants to ensure that thc ordinance is written clearly so that kite surfer is clearly defined as an acceptable activity regardless of where it takes place. Dana Harh 4696 Lucerne Lakes Boulevard~ resident of Lake Worth, stated she would not participate in kite surfing if it were not safe. Ben (no last name and address available due to no signature on siun-in sheet), resident of West Palm Beach~ stated he discovered Delray Beach because of the paragliding group and feels everyone is very responsible since the average age in this sport is 50- 55 years old and thc cost of equipment is between $6,000-8,000. He continued to state that he feels it is good to keep the active vibrant activities here because he feels it does a lot of good for Delray Beach. Ayorinde O. Georee~ 551 N.W. 46th Avenue, Delray Beach, stated the sport is very enjoyable and urged the Commission to support paragliding and parasailing. -12- 02/18/03 AHce Finst~ 707 Place Tavant~ Delray Beach, stated she would like to know where this complaint came from, the timeframe, and how this ordinance got this far along in the process so quickly. John (no last name and address available due to no sienature on si~,n-in sheet)~ resident of Pompano, stated he and his wife came to Delray Beach to learn about paragliding/parasailing and feels most of the people who have taken up this sport have gone out of their way to educate the newcomers. David Sereeant, resident of Riviera Beach~ concurs with everything the previous speakers have said and feels there are very few complaints compared to the good that this sport has done for the City. There being no one else who wished to address the Commission regarding Ordinance No. 3-03, the public hearing was closed. Terrill Pybum, Assistant City Attorney, stated this ordinance was not intended to regulate the kite surfing or kite boarding. Ms. Pybum stated the City understands that this is an activity that takes place out over the water. In speaking to Bob Taylor, Superintendent of Ocean Rescue, that it has been the policy that these individuals should stay away from the public and the municipal beach area that they stay south of the Seagate and north of Atlantic Dunes for safety reasons because there are high tension cable wires connected with that activity and the City does not want the wires to get tangled with any swimmers. With regard to the paragliding, this is an activity which involves a motorized pack that they wear and explained that this ordinance is not intended to regulate the activity as much as it is the taking off and landing on the public beaches themselves. With regard to the municipal beach the area north of the Seagate and the Atlantic Dunes Park area anything south of the Seagate is considered State beach. However, Ms. Pyburn stated this does not mean that the City of Delray Beach cannot regulate in that area to the extent of noise complaints and/or unlawful activities. Mayor Schmidt stated the people who spoke this evening seemed to make a distinction between paragliding and the definitions of parasail, parachutes, and hang glider and asked if we are going to run into a problem if someone is paragliding is on the beach and the City tries to enforce this ordinance. In response, Ms. Pybum stated she feels it would be helpful to institute some definitions. Brief discussion followed between staff and the Commission. Bob Taylor, stated with regard to parasailing there has never been an incident on the public beach where it caused anyone injury. Mr. Taylor stated a concern from a public safety point of view to keep a fair enough distance from the public beach and suggested that there be a 500' limit outside of the public beach. In addition, Mr. Taylor suggested that there be an ordinance in place so if there were problems there would be recourse that could be taken as it relates to kite surfers. -13- 02/18/03 The City Attorney stated she does not know the origin of the complaint. However, she does know there was a question about whether we could site them as being a "vehicle" and the answer is no. The City Attorney stated she believes this is why this ordinance was generated and suggested that this ordinance be revised to address all the issues raised this evening. Mrs. Archer suggested that staff look at the distinction between recreational use versus a commercial operation and expressed concern over a commercial operation giving lessons and whether or not this is considered commercial activity. The City Attorney stated currently any commercial use of the beach without a license agreement is prohibited. Mr. Levinson stated the concern he had originally was that it did appear that we needed some more definitions because of the questions about these terms which have interchanging words in them. Mr. Levinson continued to state he also had a concern for the safety of the people on the beach. Mr. Perlman stated he does not have a problem with paragliding as a sport and stated he cannot support the ordinance as it is currently written. Mayor Schmidt stated he is also concerned with the safety of the people on the beach. Mr. Levinson moved to approve Ordinance No. 3-03 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - No; Mayor Schmidt - No; Mr. Perlman - No; Mrs. Archer - No. Said motion FAILED with a 4 to 0 vote. 10.B. ORDINANCE NO. 4-03: An ordinance amending Chapter 91, "Animals", of the City Code of Ordinances by amending Sections 91.20, "Running At Large" and 91.28, "Impoundment; Disposition", to amend the definition of "At Large" and provide consistency for grounds of impoundment. 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. The caption of Ordinance No. 4-03 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING TITLE IX, "GENERAL REGULATIONS," OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 91, "ANIMALS", SECTION 91.20, "RUNNING AT LARGE", PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE DEFINITION OF AT LARGE; BY AMENDING CHAPTER 91, "ANIMALS", SECTION 91.28, "IMPOUNDMENT; DISPOSITION", PROVIDING FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE AMENDED DEFINITION OF RUNNING AT LARGE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE, A -14- 02/18/03 GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Resolution No. 4-03 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Mr. Levinson inquired about the term "secure fence" and also expressed concern with regard to places that are other than the primary residence such as the dog park. well. fence. The City Attorney stated the secure fence could also mean the electronic fence as With regard to the dog park, the City Attorney stated she believes it is within a secure Mrs. Archer expressed concem over the invisible/electronic fence and stated from the public's point of view it looks as though there is no fence. In response, the City Attorney stated she feels this is an enforcement issue and a sign would be good. The City Attorney continued to state that there are always issues with enforcement and noted that staff can modify the ordinance. Mayor Schmidt declared the public heating open. Carol,yn Zimmerman~ 212 S.W. 2na Avenue~ Delra¥ Beach~ stated there have been numerous complaints over the last several years regarding loose dogs and feels anyone that wants to own a dog should maintain control of the dog. Ms. Zimmerman stated something should be done before someone else is hurt. Gail-Lee McDermott~ 721 S.E. 3ra Avenue~ Delray Beach (President of the Osceola Park Neighborhood Association), stated many dogs run loose with their owners and the owners have no control over them. On the other hand, Ms. McDermott stated does this mean the Animal Control Officer could come and site her for having her dog in the front yard in she walks out to pick up the newspaper? There being no one else who wished to address the Commission regarding Ordinance No. 4-03, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Perlman commented about the definition "ming at large" and stated he would have a hard time supporting it. However, Mr. Perlman stated he feels the problems of the dogs running loose outside of people's private homes should be addressed. Mayor Schmidt stated he has had experience with this and noted that an owner can have their dog in their yard and may think they have the dog under voice control. However, Mayor Schmidt stated that if there is no fence and the dog is not on a leash and something catches the dog's attention the dog reacts by running off and either attacks another person or -15- 02/18/03 another animal. Mrs. Archer stated she is the owner of two dogs and noted one of her dogs has the instinct to hurt. Mrs. Archer continued to state if she is walking her dog and anyone is riding a bicycle or running the dog has the instinct to hurt and feels if the dog is not on a leash the dog would mn after anyone. Mr. Perlman stated he feels there needs to be some discretion and enforce to residents to be responsible for their animals and if they are not responsible with their animals there ought to be a penalty for it. The City Manager stated he feels this is a practical matter from the administration enforcement and stated the Animal Control Officer is not going to be there when someone comes out to pick up their newspaper, etc. but will be finding dogs that are running loose. The City Manager continued to state that if a dog is running loose on private property there is no way to know if the dog belongs to the owner or someone else. Mr. Levinson expressed concern over dogs running loose and stated he would like to see more specific language about people who install electronic fences and feels this is a significant investment that some people have made and feels we should be cognoscente that they have made a good faith effort to retain and restrain their dog. After brief discussion of the Commission, it was stated that it is the intent of the Commission that secured fences also include electronic fences. Mr. Levinson moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4-03 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - No; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 1 vote, Mr. Perlman dissenting. At this point, the Commission moved to Item 11, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the City Manager and the Public. ll.A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. In response to prior public comments expressed by some residents from Del Haven Drive and Del Harbour Drive who commented about the noise caused by traffic on the moveable sections of the Linton Boulevard Bridge, the City Manager stated on some of the bridges the County used concrete in-filled wheel paths to deaden the wheel noise on the steel grated moveable bridge sections. The City Manager stated that the city has been advised by the County Road & Bridge Division of the County Engineering Department that they met with residents of the neighborhoods on the east side of the Linton Boulevard Bridge on February 6, 2003 to discuss the issue. The City Manager continued to state that based on their meeting with residents County staff is going to prepare a feasibility study of the Linton Boulevard Bridge to determine if concrete in-filled wheel paths are a viable option for sound reduction. The City Manager stated since this technique adds weight to the moveable bridge sections, the County -16- 02/18/03 must ensure that the spans can support the additional weight and most importantly determine if the apparatus used to raise the spans has sufficient mechanical capacity to accommodate the additional load. The City Manager stated we will monitor the progress of this study and report the results as they become available. 11.B. From the Public. 11.B.1. Scott Schley~ American Legion Post #65, readdressed a concern regarding speed humps and stated he called the City Engineer who said he would send over some rubber tubing and take a traffic count. Mr. Schley stated as of this date nothing has been done with regard to the speed humps and he feels it is imperative to get the traffic traveling along the alleyway to slow down. ll.B.2. Chuck Ridle¥, 137 S.W. 12th Avenue~ Delray Beach, expressed his gratitude and support for the Rhythm & Blues on the Avenue Festival. Mr. Ridley stated this weekend Delray Beach was truly an All-America City and it gave residents the opportunity to feel connected. Furthermore, Mr. Ridley commended the Commission for a job well done. ll.B.3. Carolyn Zimmerman~ 212 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach, suggested that the Public Comments section of the Agenda start at 7:00 p.m. instead of the Public Hearings portion. 11.B.4. Ayorinde O. George, 551 N.W. 46th Avenue, Delray Beach~ expressed interest in bringing some young kids from his neighborhood to a City Commission meeting to see government in action and asked if the City has a procedure with regard to this. The Commission informed Mr. George that the public is welcome to attend the City Commission meetings. At this point, the Commission moved to Item 9.D. of the Regular Agenda. 9.D. MILTON-MYERS AMERICAN LEGION POST: Consider approval of a matching grant request in the amount of $50,000.00 for the stabilization and rehabilitation of the Milton-Myers American Legion Post No. 65, located at 263 N.E. 5th Avenue. Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is a request for a matching grant in the amount of $50,000 for the stabilization of the Milton-Myers American Legion Post No. 65. The building's west, north, and south elevations have been deemed structurally unsound by an engineering consultant and the rehabilitation of the building has been divided into two phases in order to allow continued public access. The initial phase includes shoring up the walls, stabilizing the masonry footings, re-pointing and repairing the masonry, and exterior stucco repair. The second phase will consist of additional cosmetic exterior rehabilitation of the building. The initial phase of the rehabilitation is estimated at $156,530 and is considered an essential phase for preserving the building. Grant funds of $50,000 were awarded by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) in December 2002 to aid in the rehabilitation project. The local chapter of the American Legion is requesting a matching grant in the amount of $50,000 from the City. The remainder of the rehabilitation funds will be sought through various preservation grants, State and County support, and fund raising efforts. -17- 02/18/03 At its meeting of February 5, 2000, the Historic Preservation Board recommended approval (6-0) of the $50,000 rehabilitation matching grant subject to the condition that a Grant Award Agreement be executed between the City of Delray Beach and the owner/applicant. Gail-Lee McDermott~ member of the Historic Preservation Board, stated Post #65 was built in 1921 by volunteer labor and has served not only as the old soldiers' home but as a community center. Scott Schley~ American Legion Post #657 stated the Charter date is 1920 and noted that anyone who drives by will notice the top has been restored and painted and base coat has been put on the front of the building. Mr. Schley stated the membership in 1999 was 140 and currently the membership is 216. Mr. Schley continued to state the auxiliary has 43 members and the sons of the legion is up to 20 members which brings the total membership to close to 300 members. Mr. Perlman moved to approve the matching grant request in the amount of $50,000 for the stabilization and rehabilitation of the Milton-Myers American Legion Post #65 subject to the condition that the City monitor the rehabilitation progress, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9oEo AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL EVENT/CHILDREN'S HOPE SOCIETY 5K WALK/RUN: Consider a request to amend the approval given on September 3, 2002 for the Children's Hope Society 5K Walk/Run Event to allow the closing of Ocean Boulevard from Casuarina to George Bush Boulevard from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on April 13, 2003. Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated this is a request to amend the approval given on September 3, 2002 for this event to allow the closing of Ocean Boulevard from Casuarina to George Bush Boulevard from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on April 13, 2003, with a waiver of all overtime costs. The event was originally approved for use of the sidewalks along A-1-A with minimal overtime costs. The estimated overtime costs to change the event as requested are approximately $2,500. The City Manager expressed concern over the budget and stated a small deficit is projected. The City Manager stated he feels this can be corrected and noted that the major source of the deficit is police overtime. Mayor Schmidt concurred with the City Manager and stated he could support the amendment if Ms. Coven agrees to pay for the overtime. Beverly Marinaro~ 5215 Greenwood Drive, Deiray Beach (President of Children's Hope)~ stated they would like to make this an annual event and commented that this is the first big fund.raiser for the foster parents. Furthermore, she stated their concern is for the safety of the children participating and the thus the request to close the streets for this event. Robin Coven~ Board of Directors for Children's Hope, stated this is an insurance issue with regard to the safety of the children. -18- 02/18/03 Mrs. Archer asked how many volunteers there are and if there would be any way to post volunteers along the walk to try and keep the children on the sidewalk so that they could still have the event but not have to incur the financial burden. Mrs. Archer suggested that the children walk around Anchor Park and terminate it at the end of the sidewalk at the northern end and turn around and come back. Mrs. Archer stated she would like to support the event but would like to find some way to work this out so that the children can be on the sidewalk. Mayor Schmidt stated he would only support the amendment with the condition as suggested that the organization be responsible for the overtime costs and the City will work with them to minimize the cost as much as they can. Mr. Levinson suggested that this be worked out with the police to possibly cut costs of overtime. Mrs. Archer moved to approve the amendment for the Children's Hope Society 5K Walk/Run Event subject to overtime costs of $2,500 to be paid by the event supervisors, seconded by Mr. Levinson. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.F. BID AWARD/BELL SOUTH COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS: Consider approval of a bid award to Bell South Communications Systems in the amount of $148,766.01 via the Broward County Contract RLI #060597-RB for the purchase of the Nortel Option 1 lC PBX Phone System, conversion of the City's line service to Centrex, election of Private Relay Interface Service for City Hall/Community Center, and changing the long distance service provider to Bell South Long Distance Service. Funding is available from savings as a result of these changes. Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated this item is to authorize a bid award to Bell South Communications Systems under the Broward County Contract in the amount of $148,766.01 for a Nortel Option 11CPX System and authorize conversion of line service to Centrex, elect Private Relay Interface Service for City Hall and the Community Center, and to switch our long distance service to Bell South. In reviewing the options available, the Telecommunications Manager has concluded through her analysis that it would be more cost effective to replace all of the City Hall systems as well as the Community Center with the Nortel Option 11C PBX System from Bell South Communications. The estimated first year savings for these changes is $55,225.56 with an estimated annual savings of $39,364. The Finance Department is recommending a three year lease purchase. Mr. Levinson asked if the voice mail boxes for everyone will have sufficient amount of hours. In response, Amanda Solomon, Telecommunications Systems Manager, stated the voice mail box is built into the system. Mr. Levinson also asked if the automated attendant will allow someone to make a call after hours call and get to a voice mailbox. Mrs. Solomon stated the system will allow someone to make a call after hours and a directory will be available. Mr. Perlman commended Amanda Solomon, Telecommunications Manager for moving forward with this and saving money at the same time. -19- Systems 02/18/03 The City Manager concurred with comments expressed by Mr. Perlman and stated that Mrs. Solomon has done an outstanding job with putting this together. Mr. Perlman moved to approve the bid award with Bell South Communications Systems including all proposed changes, seconded by Mr. Levinson. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer- Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.G. RESOLUTION NO. 6-03: Consider approval of Resolution No. 6-03 authorizing the City to purchase property for drainage retention located on N.W. 15th Avenue; and Contract for Sale and Purchase between the City and the Delray Beach Community Development Corporation in the amount of $76,000.00. The caption of Resolution No. 6-03 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO PURCHASE FROM SELLER CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESCRIBED LOTS 15-18, BLOCK B, CARVER MEMORIAL PARK SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON N.W. 15TH AVENUE AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, HEREBY INCORPORATING AND ACCEPTING THE CONTRACT STATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE BETWEEN THE DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA. (The official copy of Resolution No. 6-03 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney, stated there are four vacant lots that the City would like to purchase from the Community Development Corporation (CDC). Mr. Shutt explained that the purchase price of $76,000.00 includes various closing costs incurred and due diligence activities. Mr. Perlman asked what the intention of the CDC was when they purchased this property. In response, Mr. Shutt stated this was purchased by the CDC for single family homes and the City needs the property to provide drainage retention in this area. Mr. Levinson stated he does not want to set a bad precedent and feels that if the CDC makes a bad purchase he is not so sure that the City should make it our obligation to make it good. The City Manager stated the City has worked very hard to find enough land in one place to do the retention that we need to do to solve the drainage issues in this area. The City Manager continued to state that originally this property was owned by a church and somehow the CDC ended up purchasing it before the City could buy it from the church and -20- 02/18/03 commented that the CDC is in the business of providing housing to first time homebuyers and the money will go into other properties. Dick Hasko, Director of Environmental Services, stated that these parcels were identified during the 2000 Road Bond Study as being the ideal location and size to address a drainage problem in the area during heavy rainstorms. Mr. Perlman moved to approve Resolution No. 6-03, seconded by Mr. Levinson. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.H. PARKING LEASE AGREEMENT: Consider approval of a parking lease agreement between the Block 77 Development Group and Sun Atlantic Properties, L.L.C. for 100 full-time and part-time parking spaces on Block 69. The City Attorney stated this is a request for a parking lease agreement between Block 77 Development Group and Sun Atlantic Properties, L.L.C. which the City is not a party to yet. The City Attorney stated when that time comes it will be assigned and advertised according to the City's policy. However, the agreement calls for approval of the terms of the lease at this time and the lease is for 99 years. The essential terms of the lease are that the tenant will pay operating expenses for the sixty full-time and forty part-time spaces which will be located on the first level unless that level cannot accommodate this number then they would overflow to the second level. Mr. Perlman moved to approve the Parking Lease Agreement between the Block 77 Development Group and Sun Atlantic Properties, L.L.C., seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.I. QUIET TITLE/COUNTY PARCELS: Consider authorization to Quiet Title two (2) of the six (6) parcels acquired from Palm Beach County. Mayor Schmidt stated as suggested by the City Attomey she is requesting that the Commission approve this request so that they will be authorized to Quiet Title any parcel they deem necessary. Mrs. Archer moved to approve authorization to Quiet Title of any parcels the City Attorney deems necessary, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 12. FIRST READINGS: None. -21- 0~18~3 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 13.A. CiW. Manager. The City Manager had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.B. Ci.ty Attorney. The City Attorney updated the Commission with regard to the lifeguard stands and towers and noted that Paul Dorling, Planning and Zoning Director has made contact with the Director of Beaches and Shores and is hoping to work with them on some language for a new law if needed. The City Attorney continued to state that the City also has some legislation they can propose through Representative Hasner's office who contacted the City Attorney through the Mayor today. Mayor Schmidt stated Kathy Daley is aware of this situation and will assist if necessary. 13.C. 13.C.1. Ci.ty Commission. Commissioner Levinson Mr. Levinson stated he received a copy of The Wall Street Journal (February 3, 2003) and suggested that the article regarding Delray's Home Front Security Force be scanned and placed on the City's website. Secondly, Mr. Levinson stated he is pleased to see that the City is purchasing another thirty take home cars for the Police Department and noted this is something that is very important to the success of the Retention and Recruitment Program. 13.C.2. Commissioner Periman Mr. Perlman stated the concert at Old School Square was fabulous and noted that this is an example of Old School Square fulfilling its potential and promise. Secondly, Mr. Perlman stated he met with Joe Gillie, Marjorie Ferrer, and Randi Emerman who is the Executive Director of the Palm Beach International Film Festival and as a result and as part of the Film Festival they are going to be screening the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding on April 6, 2003. In addition, Mr. Perlman stated some of the stars in the movie will be coming to the Pavilion. Mr. Peflman stated the movie actually got its start at the film festival a year ago and has since gone on to become the most successful romantic-comedy of all time. Mr. Perlman stated the Village Academy ground breaking ceremony will be held tomorrow for the expansion and he feels this is a very exciting project for the City of Delray Beach and the southwest section. -22- 02/18/03 Lastly, Mr. Perlman echoed comments expressed by Chuck Ridley regarding the Rhythm & Blues on the Avenue Festival and stated the event was well attended. Furthermore, Mr. Perlman commended Rosalind Murray and noted that she deserves a lot of credit with regard to the festival. 13.C.3. Commissioner Archer Mrs. Archer commented about the Delray Philharmonic and she feels it was a superb first attempt and very well attended. Mrs. Archer continued to state the Delray Philharmonic and the Rhythm & Blues on the Avenue Festival and thought it was nice that there was one event from the east side and the other from the west side both having events on the same weekend. Secondly, Mrs. Archer stated it was wonderful to have the children of Carver Estates winning essay contests and she feels this is due in large part to the Delray Beach Police Department for operating this program and turning the community around. Furthermore, Mrs. Archer stated it is nice to see the children participating in educational functions that are helpful for them. Mrs. Archer commented that the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding is also going to have a sitcom on television. 13.C.4. Mayor Schmidt Mayor Schmidt had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. There being no further business, Mayor Schmidt declared the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR -23- 02/18/03 The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeting held on February 18, 2003, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed 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 to the Minutes as set forth above. -24- 02/18/03 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF. VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME MNuNG ADDRESS CITY COUNTY DAT~ ON WHICH VOTE C)C, CJU~0 NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL. GOMI~SSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMklrTTEE J)r=t.A'/,v ~e~c,W' C,,rY Ce ~ cr~ Q COUm~ Q OT~R LOC, N. N3ENC¥ WHO MUST FILE FORM SB !' c~/'t/'~c~cITYCLERK '~' I ]' Thil form ia for use by any person ,ewing at the county, city. m ~her local level of government on an appointed or e4ecte~ ooam. couna~. I =ommi~ion, authority, or committee. It applies equaffy to member~ of m:lvtm:xy and noa-~lvi~3~ bodies who am pmeented with a vobng conflict of interest under Section 112.3t43, Flodda Statutes. Your m~pon~bilttie$ utxl~ the law when faced with ~r~g on a ~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ a ~fli~ ~ ~ ~11 ~ ~a~ ~ndi~ ~ ~t~r y~ hold an el~ m ~va ~n. F~ ~ ~, ~se pay ~ ~n~ ~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~is ~ ~re INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A pert~n holding elective or appointive courtly, municipal, or olher Ex:al ixJblic office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or al~nted local officer ~ is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mae- sum which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a 9ovemment agency) by whom he or ~he is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or ~ is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or Ices of a business a~ociate. ~rs of =ommunity redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent ~=ial lax districts alactad on a ~,~.acre, one-vo~ basis am not prohibited from voting in that rapacity. For puq3cee$ of this law, a 'relative' includes only the Officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A 'business associate' means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise w~th the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or =3rpomte shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from Wing in ~te Ntuatlo~ described ab~we, you me~t ~ the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by IxJbtidy Itlting to the assembly Ihe nalure of your interest in the measure on which you ~ al~,latning from young; and w1'rHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this fora1 with lite per, on re~Qor~iblo fiN' t,~cording the man- APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must M:~ain from vo~ing in ~e =ttuallonl da~:ribad ibove, you MtwnMse may ~te in ~ese matters. However. you by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL SE TAKEN: · YO~ must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to irdluence the dactsion) with the I;Wton i'e~oonslble for re(x)~ng the minutes of the meeting, who will in¢oq3orete the form in 1he minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM BB - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to Ihe ~ members of the agency. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT 13'1.E MEETING: meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of t~e form must be provided immed~tely to ~ other,members of the DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I ..... · . , hl~eby dtlclole Ihlt on ,20 . : (I) A measure came o~ will come before my Igency which (check o~e) ~ inured to my special private gain o~ loss; __ inured to ~he ~.o~ci~l g~in or I~$ of my relative, .. .~L inumdtothe~l~ecialgainorlo~of .~T~.~.t..I~',J~ ~.&.~oc~C~ C.&D~p ..... by whom I am retained; ~' ..._ inum<l to the Ipecial gain Or Io~ of .... which Il I1~ parent organization or lublidiary of I I~incipll which h~ ~ltained me. (b) The measure bofom my Igency and the nature of my ~flioting intef~t in Dire Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2003 A Special Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor David W. Schmidt m the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 8:00 A.M., Monday, February 24, 2003. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Patricia Archer Commissioner Jon Levinson Commissioner Alberta McCarthy Commissioner Jeff Perlman Mayor David W. Schrmdt Absent - None Also present were - City Manager David T. Harden City Attorney Susan A. Ruby and City Clerk Barbara Garito Mayor Schmidt called the meeting to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following item: CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTY: Consider approval of contract to sell 54 acres of City owned properties located between Barw~ck Road and Military Trail and Contract for Sale and Purchase between the City and D.R. Horton, Inc. in the amount of $7,321,000.00. (PubLic Hearing) City Attorney, Susan Ruby stated that this is a public heating regarding the sale and purchase of City owned property located between Barwmk Road and Military Trail as described in the backup. According to the contract the City is to receive $7,321,000.00, the closing is to occur no later than 12 months from the date of execution of the contract, and the buyer shall construct no fewer then 82 townhouses, 10l single family homes and 81 triplex units at cost ranges set forth in the RFP. The City has the right to review the architectural design and approval of the homeowner's association documents. In adchtion, the City has the right to terminate the contract if a financing commitment is not received within 90 days of the effective date of the contract, also the buyer is purchasing said property "As-is". Mayor Schmidt had the following suggestions regarding the contract; (1) include an obligation by the buyer to bmld the park, (2) regarding the initial architectural design approval he suggested that should there be significant architectural design change, the changes be subject to Commission approval; and (3) since a real estate contract merges into the deed at closing, and there are a lot of good qualifies contained m the contact, he suggested a clause be added which states "everything surviving closing" so the City does not lose these rights under the contract. Mr. Perlman and Mrs. Archer both agreed they had concerns regarding the buyer's obligation to build the park and the City's right to approve architectural design should there be significant changes to the architectural design as proposed. Ms. McCarthy asked as to whether Item (7) "The Buyer is buying 'As-is" and has 30 days from the date of the contract to inspect and to cancel if not satisfied with the property, she indicated there was no provision provided which would warrant an extension to the dosing. Mrs. Ruby responded that the City has a right to extend the contract upon mutual agreement between both parties. Mayor Schmidt invited the contract vendee to speak, he so declined. Mayor Schmidt declared the pubhc hearing open. No one from the public came forward to speak, therefore, the public hearing was dosed. Mr. Perlman made a motion to approve the Contract for Sale and Purchase Between the City and D.R. Horton, Inc. of 54 acres of City owned properties located between Barwick Road and Military Trail in the amount of $7,321,000.00, subject to amendments to the contract as discussed, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call, the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said mouon passed 5-0. Mayor Schmidt declared the Special Meeting adjourned at 8:10 A.M. ATTEST: City Clerk MAYOR The undersigned is the C~ty Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the City Comrmssion held on February 24, 2003, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on city Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the officml Minutes of the City Commission. They wdl become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may involve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. -2- Special Meeting February 24, 2003 WHEREAS, Toussaint L'Ouverture High School for Arts and Social Justice and the Poinciana Garden Club of Delray Beach joined together to produce the Delray Beach Flower Festival that is experienced by thousands of Delray Beach Area Residents and visitors to Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, the students of Toussaint L'Ouverture High School created twenty-eight works of art that was displayed at the Flower Festival; and WHEREAS, the students of Toussaint L'Ouverture High School successfully and cooperatively worked side by side with the Poinciana Garden Club and other community volunteers; representing an intergenerational effort resulting in community pride and spirit; and WHEREAS, the students, by virtue of their involvement in creating the Delray Beach Flower Festival of 2003 displayed a positive attitude about their community, with a spirit of cooperation, character, vision, and integrity. NOW, THEREFORE, I, DAVID W. SCHMIDT, Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on behalf of the City Commission do hereby recognize and commend the students of TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE HIGH SCHOOL FOR ARTS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE for their cooperative spirit, creativity, tremendous effort and accomplishments in producing the Delray Beach Flower Festival. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed the 13e' day of March, 2003. DAVID W. SCHMIDT MAYOR AGENDAITEM NUMBER: AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: Consent Agenda When: 03-13-03 Description of agenda item: Date: 03-03-03 Special Agenda Workshop Agenda X Presentation Presentation by Ernst and Young of the City's Comprehenmve Annual F~nancial Report for the F~scal Year Ended September 30, 2002. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: Draft of Resolution Attached: Recommendation: Presentation YES NO X YES NO Determination of Consistency w e lan N/A City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): N/A Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: Yes Funding alternatives (if applicable): Account Number: Account Description' Account Balance' City Manager Review: Approved for Agenda Hold Until. Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action' N/A No No Approved D~sapproved P.O. # Memo to: David Harden, city manager, Mayor Schmidt, and City Commission From: Rich McGIoin, Chairman, Arts in Public Places Taskforce March 13, 2003 PUBLIC ART ORDINANCE PRESENTATION Overview of Ordinance Reque~t~ for action: 1. Send the Ordinance to the P&Z board for review 2. Change the taskforc~ to an implementation committee 3. Authorize the committee to establish a not-for-profit coqxxation and apply for 501(C)3 4. Direct the city finance director to establish Ihe Public Art Trust Account 5. Fund the trust account as startup money for the not-for-profit corporation, $20,000 6. Direct city staff work with the committee on the contract between the city and the not-for- profit corporation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DELRAY BEACH ARTS ORDINANCE & GUIDEUNES ORDINANCE The purpose is to create a public arts program that: · reflects and enl'mnces the city's diversity, character and heritage, · promote and unite the community through art; bring public art and art education to the entire community; create public arts community pertner~i~ linking across lines of race, ethnicity, age, gender, i~-o;ession, and economic levels, · bring public art and ert education the entire community: downtown, commercial and · feature works by professional artists, including local artists, community members and Public Art Trust Fund 1. The city will hold in trust funds received by the following: 2. 1 ½ % of capital improvement projects by the City (excluding the central garage fund and Water & Sewer Enterprise fund), a. ennual estimated funds = $60,000 3. I ½ % of capital improvement projects by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), 4. Art Fees orr Pdvate Construction: a. 1 ½ % of the cumulative permit valuation for new construction or modifications greater than $100,000 to existing nomresidential & mixed use projects b. I ½ % of the cumulative permit valuation for new construction or modifications greater than $100,000 to existing residential projects, except detached single family residences c. Private developers may elect to: i. pay to have the art fee rno~ used within the development's quadrant, ii. have a DBAC selected artwork at the development site valued at 75% of d. past years: 2000 = $255,000 2001 = $585,000 2002 = $660,000 5. donations to the city for pubtic err 6. funds allocated by the City through the budgetary process Art Trust Fund monies will be administered by a not-for-profit corporation 'Delray Beach Arts Council, Inc.' (DBAC) as approved by the city commission. Funds are to be used within the city quadrant in which they am collected, as divided by Atlantic Avenue and 195. DBAC will create an annual art project plan and budget to be approved by the city commission. DBAC will create and update an art master plan for the city to be approved by the city commission. Ownership Art works on public property or public easements on other property owned and maintained by the city, maintenance administered and funded by the DBAC and the Art Trust. Art works incorporated into developments on private property will be owned and maintained by the property owner. Administration by the Delray Beach Arts Council, Inc. (DBAC) City Commission shall appoint a diverse and representative board of directors of a not-for-profit corporation whose sole responsibility will be to: manage the Delray Beach public art program · prepare implementation guidelines for art selection and administration policies, annual project plan, · prepare an arts master plan, working with private developers on private construction projects, · administer the art selection panels and process, · coordinate sources for funding, grants and gifts as well as donated works of art. EXECUllVE SUMMARY GUIDEUNL~ The mission of the Delray Beach Arts Council (DBA, C) is to administer a public arts program that promotes artists and art throughout Delray Beach to reflect and enhm'K~ our city's diversity, character and heritage. By so doing, DBAC: 4, Promotes and unites the community through art: · Brings public art and art education to the entire community, including all downtown and commercial areas as well as residential neighborhoods; · Revitalizes unimproved areas of the city as well as those that are well · Involves community partnemhips across lines of race, ethnicity, age, gender, profession, and economic level. 4, Provides funding for public art: · Establishes mandated civic and private funding sources; · Sc, c.~,s gifts, donations, and grants from other sources; · Creates padrmmhips with community and private developem; and · Ensures that funding is provided to include projects in areas that do not generate construction funds as well as those that do generate construction funds. 4, Links community, educatiorml and artistic goals: · Features the work of professional artists; · Involves local artists, community members and students under the creative leadership of professional artists; · Uses a flexible definition of art to include a vadety of media, subject matter, and · Educates the community about pubic art through instructive signage, appropriate lighting, and public programs. Board of Directors (5 members appointed by the city commission) Minimum of (11-22) members including: 1 Landscape Architect 1 Educator I Historian 3 Active Professional Artists Lesion members: City commissioner Director of Public Works or designee Executive director is non-voting member ( except for tie votes) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GUIDEUNES -2 .dkop~icabi[ity Exemptions Eligible Artwork Eligible Project Costs Ineligible Project Costs ORDINANCE NO. __-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5.3, "DEDICATION AND IMPACT REQUIREMENTS", ENACTING SECTION 5.3.5, "PUBLIC ARTS PROGRAM", BY ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC ARTS PROGRAM; PROVIDING GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR ITS ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION; ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC ARTS FEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR INSTALLATION OF ART; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach recognizes that a superior and diverse aesthetic character of the city's built environment is vital to the quality of the life of its citizens, the economic success of its businesses, an attraction for visitors and a benefit to toudsm; and that a public arts program would contribute to the aesthetic enhancement of the community; and that public and private development shall contribute to a public arts program to enhance and maintain the City's aesthetic character; WHEREAS, the City shall create a public arts program that reflects and enhances the City's diversity, character and heritage through the artworks and designs by artists integrated in the architecture, infrastructure and landscape throughout Delray Beach on public and private property; WHEREAS, the City's public art program shall promote and unite the community through art; bring public art and art education to the entire community; create public arts community partnerships linking across lines of race, ethnicity, age, gender, profession, and economic levels; and WHEREAS, the City's public art program shall link community, educational and artistic goals; by featuring the work of professional artists; by involving local artists, community members and students under the creative leadership of professional artists; by using a flexible definition of art to include a vadety of media, subject matter, and designs; and by educating the community about public art through public programs; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach deems it to be in the public's interest to promote the welfare and advancement of the community through the creation of the Public Arts Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Article 5.3, "Dedication and Impact Requirements", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida is hereby amended by enacting Section 5.3.5, "Public Arts Program", to read as follows: Seqti0n 5.3.5 Public ArtsProgram: (A) Definitions The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: "Aggregate Construction Permit Valuation" means the total of all construction costs associated with a particular site plan project regardless of the number of permits associated with the project, or whether it is a phased project. Construction costs include all labor, structural materials, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, infrastructure, site work, irrigation and landscaping. "Artist" or "Professional Artist' means a practicing fine artist, generally recognized by cdtics and peers as a professional of sedous intent and ability. Indications of a person's status as a professional artist include, but are not limited to, income realized through the sole commission of artwork, frequent or consistent art exhibitions, placement of artwork in public institutions or museums, receipt of honors and awards, and training in the arts. 'Artwork' or 'Works of Art' means tangible creations by artists exhibiting the highest quality of skill and aesthetic principles and includes all forms of visual art conceived in any medium, material, or combination thereof, including paintings, sculptures, statues, engravings, carvings, frescos, stained glass, mosaics, mobiles, tapestries, murals, photographs, video projections, digital images, bas-relief, high relief, fountains, kinetic, functional furnishings such as artist designed seating and pavers, architectural elements designed by an artist, and artist designed landforms or landscape elements "Capital Improvement Project' means all projects included in the City's Capital Improvement Annual Plan. "Publicly Accessible" means locations that are open to the general public during normal business hours and visible by the general public at all times. "Public Art Not-for-Profit Corporation" means the entity selected by the city to administer the public art program. (B) p .ublic Art Trust Fund (1) There is hereby created a public art trust fund which shall be a separate, interest bearing account set up by the City to receive monies for the public art program and shall consist of the following: a) Art fees received from the City's Capital Improvement Program b) Art fees received from private development (c) All funds donated to the City for public art (d) Other funds allocated by the City through the budgetary process (2) The public art trust fund shall be used solely for expenses associated with the selection, commissioning, acquisition, installation, maintenance, public education, administration, removal and insurance of the works of art or in relation thereto; and such funds shall be administered by a public art not-for-profit corporation. (3) The art fees collected for private development will be held and monitored within the trust fund in separate accounts for each quadrant of the City as follows: a) All art fees collected with building permits issued for projects in the City, north of Atlantic Avenue and east of 1-95. b) All art fees collected with building permits issued for projects in the City, north of Atlantic Avenue and west of 1-95. c) All art fees collected with building permits issued for projects in the City, south of Atlantic Avenue and east of 1-95. d) All art fees collected with building permits issued for projects in the City, south of Atlantic Avenue and west of 1-95. (4) Art Fees collected for private development from a quadrant will be spent in the same quadrant. (C) AD~)rooriati0.n of Caoital Improvement Project (CIP) Funds (1) All appropriations for City capital improvement projects, except Water and Sewer Enterprise funds, the City Garage Fund and Beach Renoudshment funds, shall include an amount of not less than one and one half (1.5 %) percent of the total ClP budget before the addition of the public art cost, subject to the City budgeting and appropriating such funds. If the funding source specifically restricts the use of the monies, then that portion of the funding shall not be included for the basis for the art fee. trust fund. (2) All appropriations for public art will be transferred to the public art (3) The City Commission shall review and approve an annual plan, and amendments thereto, to be prepared by the public art not-for-profit corporation, for the expenditure of funds appropriated and fees collected in the public art trust fund. (D) Art Fees on Pdvate Construction (1) All projects and developments, as listed below, which are submitted for building permits must pay one and one-half percent (1%%) of the aggregate construction permit valuation as an art fee pdor to the issuance of the building permit. a) All new non-residential and mixed use projects and developments. b) All modifications to existing non-residential and mixed use projects and developments with a total aggregate construction permit valuation greater than one- hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). If modifications affect multiple structures on a project site which may be permitted separately, the aggregate construction permit valuation is based on the construction valuation of all permits for the site. c) All new residential projects, excluding detached single family residences. Relative to planned residential development (PRD) and residential subdivisions, all permits for infrastructure and common area improvements are subject to pay the art fee, but the subsequent construction of the single family residences on each lot is exempt from the art fee. All other residential unit types are required to pay the art fee. d) All modifications to existing residential projects, including , all permits for infrastructure and common area improvements, with a total aggregate construction permit valuation greater than one-hundred thousand dollars ($ 100,000.00), excluding detached single family residences. If modifications affect multiple structures on a project site which may be permitted separately, the aggregate construction permit valuation is based on the construction valuation of all permits for the site. (2) The art fee shall be deposited into the Public Art Trust Fund. (3) Any pdvate developer/owner has the dght to request that seventy- five (75%) percent of the art fee be expended on work(s) of art to be located on the property. The developer shall work with the public art not-for-profit corporation to select the artwork for the site. The public art not-for-profit corporation shall determine the artwork and site selection for the artwork, subject to Subsection (G). (E) Ownership end Maintenance (1) Ownership of all works of art acquired on behalf of the City shall be vested in the City, which shall retain title to each work of art. (2) Ownership of all works of art incorporated into pdvate construction projects shall be vested to the property owner who shall retain title to each work of art. If the property is sold, the title must include deed restrictions that protect the artwork and prevent its removal from the property. The maintenance obligations will be passed on to the subsequent owner(s). The artwork cannot be altered, modified, relocated or removed without the prior approval of the public art not-for-profit corporation. (3) Property owners will be required to maintain the work of art in good condition in the approved location. In the event of theft or irreparable vandalism, the property owner will replace the work of art with a new artwork approved by the not-for- profit corporation. The replacement artwork shall be of equal value of the odginal artwork, or the owner must contribute equal dollars to the public art trust fund. (4) The owner may request that the artwork be removed from the site due to hardship, with the approval of the not-for-profit. (F) Administration (1) A public art not-for-profit corporation shall administer the public art program and the public art trust fund. The purpose, functions and responsibilities shall be as follows: (a) The not-for-profit corporation shall prepare implementation guidelines, selection procedures and organizational policies to facilitate this chapter, subject to the approval of the City Commission. (b) The not-for-profit corporation shall prepare an annual plan for the expenditure of the public and private monies in the public art trust fund, subject to the approval of the City Commission. (c) Related to City construction projects, the not-for-profit corporation shall be responsible for working with property owners to designate sites; program planning; designating sites; determining project scope and budget; managing the artist selection process; commission artworks; approve design, execution and placement of artworks; and overseeing maintenance of the artworks and the process for removal of artworks from the City's public art collection. (d) Related to private construction projects, the not-for-profit corporation shall be responsible for working with property owners to designate sites; approve the project scope and budget; manage the artist or artwork selection process; commission artworks; approve design, execution and placement of artworks; review the ~. 7. o~ owner's maintenance of the artworks and coordinate the process for removal of privately owned artworks commissioned through the public arts program. (e) The not-for-profit corporation shall invite professionals in the visual arts and design fields to serve in the artist selection process in order to ensure works of highest quality, or to assist in the determination or artistic merit of works of art offered to the City as donation or for purchase. (f) The not-for-profit corporation shall also ensure appropriate community participation in this process and public education activities as part of the public art projects. (g) The not-for-profit corporation shall coordinate, investigate, review and recommend to the City Commission other means by which artworks may be obtained, including donations to the public art fund, gifts of artwork, and grant applications for public art projects. (h) The not-for-profit corporation shall encourage public art throughout the City and shall educate and stimulate the participation of all citizens in a joint public and private effort to promote art in public places. (i) All artists shall enter into an agreement with the not for profit corporation that shall also be acceptable to the City. (G) ADDellate Process An owner/developer may appeal any decision of the not-for-profit corporation to the City Commission within 10 days of such decision of the not-for-profit corporation regarding public art. The City Commission shall have final authority on any decision made by the not-for-profit corporation. Section 2. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Se ...ction 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. ,Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the ~ day of . ,200 '~. ?. o'-5 ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM # ,.a~ , - REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2003 RESOLUTION NO. 12-03 MARCH 7, 2003 This is a resolution assessing costs for abatement action required for the emergency board up of an unsafe structure located at 24 N.W. 7m Avenue. The resolution sets forth the actual costs incurred and provides the mechanism to attach a lien against the property in the event the assessment remains unpaid. Recommend approval of Resolution No. 12-03. AgmemoBoardup.24 NW 7th Ave. · ..~80L17~'XONNO. 1~-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7.8, "UNSAFE BUILDINGS",- OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR ABATEMENT ACTION REGARDING AN UNSAFE BUILDING ON LAND(S) LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; SETTING OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING THE COST OF SUCH ACTION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE DATE AND INTEREST ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND DECLARING SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING OF NOTICE. WHEREAS, the Building Official or his designated representative has, pursuant to Article 7.8 of the Land Development Regulations, declared the existence of an unsafe building upon certain lots or parcels of land, described in the list attached hereto and made a part hereof, for violation of the building codes and building requirements adopted by Article 7.8 and those Codes adopted in Cb_~apter 96 of the Code of Ordinances; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 7.8 of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, the Building Official or his designated representative has inspected said land(s) and has determined that an unsafe building existed in accordance with the standards set forth in Article 7.8 and/or Chapter 96 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 unsafe building and detailed report of conditions and notice to vacate as the Building Official determined that the building was manifestly unsafe and is considered a hazard to life and public welfare pursuant to Article 7.8 of the Land Development Regulations, describing the nature of the violations and sent notices that the building was to be vacated and that the building was to be repaired or demolished; work must be begun within ~ixty (60) days and all work must be completed within such time as the Building Official determines, said notice also advised that all appeals must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the notice and failure to file an appeal or to make the repairs required that the Building Official would have the authority to have the building demolished from the date of the said notice; and, WHEP~EAS, all the notice requirements contained within Article 7.8 have been complied with; and, WHEREAS, neither an appeal to the Board of Construction Appeals or corrective action was undertaken in accordance with the order of the Chief Building Official; therefore pursuant to Article 7.8 of the Land Development Regulations the Building Official caused the abatement action to be done; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Delray Beach has, pursuant to Section 7.8.11 of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, submitted to the City Commission a report of the costs incurred in abating said condition as aforesaid, said report indicating the costs per parcel of land involved; and, WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, pursuant to Article 7.8 of the Land Development Regulations desires to assess the cost of said condition 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 amount of as shown by the report of the City Manager of the City of Delray 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 Section 7.8.11 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 and with the same penalties and under the same provisions as to sale and foreclosure as City taxes are collectible. 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 certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, 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 has levied an assessment against said property for the cost of abatement action regarding an unsafe building by the 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 at Res. No. 12-03 the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, plus reasonable attorney's fees and other costs of collecting said sums. 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 six percent (6%) per annum plus reasonable attorney's fee and other costs of collection. 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 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 6%, and collection costs including a reasonable attorney's fee. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the · 2003. day of ATTEST: MAYOR City Clerk Res. No. 12-03 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH UNSAFE BUILDING/STRUCTURE NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT TO,.', MAILING ADDRESS: PROPERTY ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: JOSEPH P. CADET 234 BELVEDERE ROAD, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33405 ~4~v7TM AVE~'~ LOT 17, BLOCK 4, MONROE ACCORDING TO PLAT BOOK 14, PAGE 67 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL You, as the record owner, of, or holder of an interest in, the above described property are hereby advised that a cost of $ 213.18 by resolution of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated ,2002 has been levied against the above described property. The costs were incurred as a result of an abatement action regarding the above described property. You were given notice on Februa~ 6~ 2003 that the Chief Building official had determined that a building/slructure located on the above described property was unsafe. You were advised in that notice of the action that would be taken to remedy that unsafe condition and that the action would be initiated by the city if you failed to act. X__You failed to appeal the decision of the chief Building Official to the Board of Construction Appeals although you were informed of your right to an appeal and of the procedures for obtaining an appeal. You have also failed to take the corrective action required in the Notice of Unsafe Building/Structure. You appealed the decision of the Chief Building official to the Board of Construction Appeals. You were given written notification on the decision of the Board of Construction Appeals within a stated period of time. You failed to take the action as required by the order of the Board of Construction Appeals. You appealed the decision of the Chief Building official to the Board of Construction Appeals. You were given written notification on the decision of the Board of Construction Appeals within a stated period of time. You failed to take the action as required by the order of the Board of Construction Appeals. You appealed the decision of the Chief Building Official to the Board of Construction Appeals on The Board of Conslruction upheld the decision of the Chief Building Official. Res. No. 12-03 The City of Delray Beach has therefore taken remedial action to remove the unsafe condition existing on the above described property on January 25, 2003 at a cost of ~; 213.18 which includes a ten percent (10%) administrative fee. If you fail to pay this cost within thirty (30) days, that cost plus additional administrative and recording costs shall be recorded in the official Records of Palm Beach County, Florida against the above described property. THE CITY MAY ENFORCE THE ASSESSMENT BY EITHER AN ACTION AT LAW OR FORECLOSURE OF THE LIEN, WHICH SHALL BE FORECLOSED IN THE SAME MANNER AS MORTGAGES ARE FORECLOSED UNDER STATE LAW. IN EITHER TYPE OF ACTION, THE CITY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% FROM THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT, COLLECTION COSTS, AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES. SUCH LIENS SHALL BE ON A PARITY WITH GENERAL CITY TAXES AND SHALL HAVE PRIORITY OVER ALL OTHER LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES, INCLUDING MORTGAGES. Copies of all notices referred to in this notice are available in the office of the Chief Building Official. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION City Clerk Res. No. 12-03 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER AGENDA ITEM # ~.x_.> . REGULAR MEETINI3 OF MARCH 13, 2003 AMENDMENT NO. 4/INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT MARCH 7, 2003 This is before the Commission to approve Amendment No. 4 to the interlocal agreement between the City of Delray Beach and the City of Boynton Beach regarding Annex I, Section 3 "Failure of Meters" changing the basis for billing in the event of meter failure from the daily average of three preceding months to seven preceding days. Recommend approval of Amendment No. 4 to the interlocal agreement with City of Boynton Beach. S:\C~ty Clerk\chevelle folder\agenda memos\AmendmentSCRTWDB.3.13.03 ROBERT J. HAGEL Executive D~rector SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL BOARD 1801 North Congress Avenue · Delray Beach, Florida 33445 Telephone (561) 272-7061 (561) 734-2577 Fax: (561) 265-2357 E-mail: scrwwtp@ix netcom.com February 28, 2003 Mr. David Harden, City Manager CITY OF DELRAY BEACH 100 N.W. 1s' Ave. Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear David: RECEIVED 3 - 2 03 C)TY Enclosed are two (2) copies of the Fourth Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement which was approved by the Board at the January 16, 2003 quarterly meeting. Would you please place on your Agenda a Resolution approving this change. Please sign both copies where indicated and return the originals to our office in the envelope provided. Executive Director File #01-401 FOUR~A~ND~NT TO Z~R~OCA~ THIS FOURTH AMENDMENTTO INTERLOCALAGREEMENT is made and entered into this ~ day of F~bf~-~ , 2003, by and between the CITY OF BEACH, FLORIDA, a mun~cipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "BOYNTON," and the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "DELRAY." W I TN E S S E TH: WHEREAS, BOYNTON and DELRAY pursuant to Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, have heretofore entered into that certain Interlocal Agreement dated the 26th day of December, 1974, establishing the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board (the "BOARD"), as amended by First Amendment dated May 27, 1981, by Second Amendment dated September 15, 1983, and by that certain Third Amendment thereto dated October 19, 1995, a copy of which such Interlocal Agreement and above referenced Amendments thereto are attached hereto as composite Exhibit "A"; and W~EREAS, the BOARD is desirous of amending said Section 3 of Annex I of the Interlocal Agreement to more accurately bill for flow due to meter failure by changing the basis for billing of the daily average of the three preceding monthly flow to the preceding seven days' flow; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows: That certain Interlocal Agreement entered into on the 26th day of December, 1974 by and between the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, and the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is amended as follows: 1. Section 3, Failure of Meters, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: "3. Failure of Meters: In the event of a meter failure which prevents the recording of continuous flow data for any period of time for billing purposes, that period of time will be billed on the basis of the daily average of the seven preceding days." 2. This Amendment shall become effective upon ratification by a majority vote of each City Council. 3. This Amendment shall be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in West Palm Beach, Florida. 4. The Interlocal Agreement as heretofore amended shall remain in full force and effect altered only to the extent of this Amendment. RESOLVED this 7-_0__ vote. day of ~_/~/~/j~) , 2003. by a \ ~ $~cret ary Approved as to form: ~ey The undersigned Cities of Delray Beach and Boynton Beach hereby ratify the action taken by the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board in accordance with the foregoing Amendment to Interlocal Agreement. WITNESSES: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Mayor Attest: As to City of Delray Beach City Clerk (SEAL) Approved as to form: City ManaGer City Attorney WITNESSES: / AS to Ci~-of B~ynton B~c~h CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH Approved as to form: (SEAL) City ManaGer ~rne~~y TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT IMPROVEMENTS PLACED WITHIN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. FOR At its meeting of January 27, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approving abandonment of a portion of Dixie Highway right-of-way, adjacent to Lot 5 of the plat of Delray Beach Estates subject to conditions. The abandonment area represents the east 20' of Dixie Highway located approximately 1,640 feet south of Gulf Stream Boulevard. The approved conditions were: 1. The Resolution abandoning the subject area includes language which establishes a utility easement over the entire abandonment area; and, 2. Prior to City Commission action, removal of the concrete block wall and chain link fence installed within the Dixie Highway right-of-way west of the abandonment area. At the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, Mr. Richard Roehm, the applicant, had concerns with respect to the timing of removing the wall and fence. He stated that he would like to have the wall removed after the abandoned property is deeded so that he could construct a fence along the new property line and secure the property. This cannot be accomplished based upon condition number 2 (mentioned above) as written in the staff report. Options were explored with the City Attomey's office to accommodate Mr. Roehm's concern. The solution is to execute two Hold Harmless Agreements. One Hold Harmless Agreement is for improvements placed within a public right-of-way (allowing construction of the proposed new fence in the area before abandonment) and the other is for improvements (fencing) to be allowed within a utility easement since a utility easement will be retained after the abandonment. The Hold Harmless Agreement for improvements placed within a public right- of-way is scheduled for acceptance by the City Commission first while the Abandonment and Hold Harmless Agreement for improvements placed within a utility easement will be scheduled for consideration at a subsequent meeting. The Hold Harmless Agreement for improvements placed within a public right-of-way is currently before the Commission for acceptance. By motion, accept the Hold Harmless Agreement for improvements placed within a public right- of-way. Attachments: · Location Map · Hold Harmless Agreement for improvements placed within a public right-of-way S \Planning & Zomng\Boards\C~ty Cornr~ss~on~Hold Harmless - 2300 D~x~e H~ghway doc " I · I f ~ I , ' " L GULF STREAM BOULEVARD ' . / [ I~ i~ 1,2"'~~~_ ,~~.~ ~'/ - /~ii/~o~ ~"~/_-~ ~, I ~ I 1~ L~ ~ ~ / ~ D i~ "i~ CJTY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT - PROPOSED ABANDONMENT- 2300 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY Prepared by: RETURN: R. Brian Shutt, Esq. City Attorney's Office 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS PLACED WITHIN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY THIS HOLD ~b,~t~o~ , 200~_ by and between the CITY (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and .~.'~ referred to as "OWNER"). WlTNESSETH: WHEREAS, OWNER owns property located at ,-3~.~o HARMLESS AGREEMENT, is entered into this (.o?''' day of OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ~". ~oe-..[~or~ , (hereinafter D ,.~,e ..t:~O[_t~,,~, Delray Beach, Florida, and has requested CITY to allow for the installation of O -G.o¢,-- in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, OWNER agrees to hold CITY harmless for any damage which might be caused m the -f~,-,c ¢ as a result of maintenance within the public right-of-way or any action brought against the CITY as a result of the -/~c~Ct i in the public right-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE, for the mutual covenants and matters set forth herein, as of the date set forth above, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. The recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. OWNER is the owner of property described in Exhibit "A'. That OWNER wishes to install a(n) -~ in the area, as shown on Exhibit "B", in the public right-of-way pursuant to the City of Delray Beach Code of Ordinances. 4. OWNER acknowledges maintenance for the .~xc ~ that the CITY shall assume no responsibility or and any improvements thereto, which OVVNER places within the public right-of-way and that OWNER shall be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of such --~,,,ce. and associated improvements in the public right-of-way in accordance with the Code of Ordinances of the CITY. 5. OWNER, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the CITY, its agents, officers, employees and servants from any and all claims, suits, causes of action or any claim whatsoever made, and damages, which may result from the placement or existence of the -~--e'r3c ~ and improvements in the public right-of-way. OWNER further agrees to hold the CITY, its agents, officers, employees and servants harmless for any damage to the --~r,c e and associated improvements OWNER places within the public right-of-way. It is understood that any cost for replacement or repair of the responsibility, and the CITY and associated improvements shall be the OWNER'S will not be held liable for any damage to the and associated improvements as a result of any maintenance or construction within the public right-of-way by the CITY. 6. All notice required or allowed by this Agreement shall be delivered in person or mailed to the party at the following address: CITY: OWNER: Environmental Services Director City of Delray Beach 434 South Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 7. This Agreement shall be binding on the Parties, their respective heirs, successors, legal representatives, and permitted assigns and shall be recorded in the Public Records of Palm Beach County and shall nm with the land. 8. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for any claim or lawsuit arising out of this Agreement shall be in Palm Beach County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this agreement the day and year fa'st written above. ATTEST: By: City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney WITNESSES: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: OWNER: By: ~ 3 (Print or Type Name) (Print or Type Name) (Print or Type Name) (SEAL) STATE OF ~'~le,/', t~ corn, trY OF The foregoing instrum~e,nt was ae_knowledged before me this {o~'' day of ~erb/'c~ ,2003_by [d)t'_Jao,~ F.~o¢/~r~ (name of officer or agent), of (name of corporation), a (State or place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is p~ to me or has produced (type of identification) asTdentification and did/did not take an oath. Signa _tu~oYNoiary Public - State of (SEAL) 4 DIXIE HIGHWAY U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 DIXIE HIGHWAY AREA - 2.025 FT OF 00465 O~ LE. FS, TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF THE 16 FOOT NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING WITHIN BLOCK 2, ATLANTIC PINES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF W. ATLANTIC AVENUE, BETWEEN NW l0TM AVENUE AND NW 11TM AVENUE. A Site Plan Modification was submitted for the site which showed improvements within this alleyway. At its meeting of March 13, 2002, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approved a Class IV Site Plan Modification with a condition that an application for alley abandonment be submitted and approved. The request involves abandoning a 16' x 355' rectangular shaped parcel containing approximately 5,680 square feet (0.13 acre). The abandonment area represents a portion of an unimproved north-south alleyway within Block 2 of Atlantic Pines subdivision. The abandonment request was submitted by Mr. Jimmy Weatherspoon on behalf of the Community Primitive Baptist Church, the owner of Lots 12, 13, 27 and 28, Block 2 of Atlantic Pines. The applicant intends to aggregate the subject area adjacent to these lots to be used as additional parking for the Community Primitive Baptist Church. The remainder of the northern extension will be divided evenly to adjacent property owners. This portion of alley along with its northem extension to NW 1st Street is now before the commission for consideration. At its meeting of February 24, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the request at a public hearing. There was no public comment concerning the proposed abandonment. After reviewing the staff report and discussion, the Board voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval, with the condition that the Resolution abandoning the subject area includes language which establishes a utility easement over the entire abandonment area. By motion, approve the abandonment of a portion of the 16 foot north/south alley right-of-way lying within Block 2, Atlantic Pines, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.6(0)(5) subject to the conditions mentioned above. Attachments: · Location Map · Abandonment Resolution <:~ · P & Z Staff Report of February 24, 2003 s:\planning & zoning\boards\city commission\community primitive baptist church abandonment,doc RESOLUTION NO. 14-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, VACATING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF THE 16 FOOT NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING WITHIN BLOCK 2, ATLANTIC PINES, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, BUT RESERVING AND RETAINING TO THE CITY A UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE ENTIRE AREA THEREOF, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN. abandonment Atlantic Pines, WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, Flortda, received an application for of a portion of the 16 foot north/south alley right-of-way lying within Block 2, as more particularly described hereto; and WHEREAS, smd apphcauon for abandonment of a general pubhc right-of-way was processed pursuant to Section 2.4.6(O), "Abandonment of Rights-Of-Way", of the Land Development RegulaUons of the Caty of Dekay Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(O)(3)(e), the Planning and Zoning Board, as Local Planning Agency, formally reviewed the matter at a public hearing on February 24, 2003, and voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the abandonment, based upon positive findings wxth respect to LDR Section 2.4.6(0)(5), and sublect to the con&tion that a general utility easement be retained over the entire area; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, finds that its interest m the described property is no longer needed for the public good and deems xt to be in the best interest of the City of Delray Beach to vacate and abandon said right-of-way, based upon posxtive £mdmgs pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(O)(5), but does not abandon and retains and reserves unto itself a utihty easement over the enttre area thereof, as more parttcularly described hereto, for the purpose of emergency access and constructing and/or maintaining, either over or under the surface poles, wires, pxpes, sewers, drainage facihties, or any other facilmes used for various pubhc utthtxes whether owned by the City or private corporattons. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Sectton 1. That pursuant to Chapter 177.101(5) and Chapter 166 of the Florida Statutes, xt ~s hereby determined by the Delray Beach City Commission to vacate and abandon all right and interest ~t holds to the following real property for r~ght-of-way purposes only, but does not abandon and retains and reserves unto itself a utihty easement over the entire area thereof, for the purpose of emergency access and constructing and/or maintaining, either over or under, the surface poles, wtres, p~pes, sewers, drainage facilities, or any other facilities used for various pubhc uttlittes whether owned by the Cxty or private corporations, more particularly described as follows: Resolution No. 14-03 THE 16 FOOT AIJJEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO LOTS 21 THROUGH 29, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 2, AND WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO LOTS 12 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 2, ATLANTIC PINES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. Containing 5,674 square feet (0.13 acre), more or less. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the ,2003. day of ATTEST: MAYOR City Clerk Resolution No. 14-03 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: ITEM: February 24, 2003 IV.B. Abandonment of a Portion of the 16 Foot Wide North-South Alleyway Lying Within Block 2, Atlantic Pines, Located on the North Side of West Atlantic Avenue, Between NW 10th Avenue and NW 11th Avenue (Quasi-Judicial Hearing). GENERAL DATA: Owner/Applicant .................... Community Primitive Baptist Church Agent .................................. Jimmy Weatherspoon Location .................................. North side of West Atlantic Avenue, between N.W. 10th Ave. and N.W. 11th Ave. Property Size .......................... 0.13 Acre Future Land Use Map ............ LD (Low Density Residential, 0 - 5 Units/Acre) Current Zoning ........................ R-1-A (Single Family Residential) Adjacent Zoning ............ North: East: South: West: R-1-A R-I-A GC (General Commercial) R-1 -A Existing Land Use .................. Unimproved alley right-of- way Proposed Land Use ................ Abandonment of a portion of the north-south alleyway to be aggregated into abutting properties for additional land. Water Service ......................... n/a Sewer Service ......................... n/a · . 1ST ST. LOT 21 LOT 20 LOT 29 LOT 12 ~ pl~ ES LOT 32 LOT g ATLANTIC AVENUE 1ST IV.B. The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the City Commission on the proposed abandonment of a 16' x 355' northern portion of an unimproved north-south alley right-of-way within Block 2 of the plat of Atlantic Pines (Plat Book 13, Page 77) associated with the Community Primitive Baptist Church. The alleyway is located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue, south of N.W. 1st Street, between N.W. 10th Avenue and N.W. 11th Avenue. This right-of-way abandonment is being processed pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(0), Abandonment of Rights-of-Way. The entire 16' north-south alleyway was dedicated with the recordation of the plat of Atlantic Pines (Plat Book 13, Page 77) in December of 1925. The Community Primitive Baptist Church's property consists of Lots 12, 13, 27 and 28, Block 2 of Atlantic Pines and is divided by a portion of this 16' north- south alleyway. The portion of the property west of the alley (lots 27 and 28) received conditional use approval on May 10, 1976 and contains a 1,610 square foot church with a 48 person seating capacity, and 17 parking spaces. The property east of the alley (lots 12 and 13) is utilized as a parking area. A chain linked fence surrounds the entire church property including the alleyway which bisects the east and west parcels. An application was submitted for a conditional use modification to expand the existing church and construct additional parking facilities to provide a total of 30 parking spaces on site. At its meeting of December 18, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the conditional use modification request, subject to conditions, and on January 2, 2001, the City Commission approved the conditional use modification, subject to conditions. A Site Plan Modification was submitted for the site which showed improvements within the alleyway. At its meeting of March 13, 2002, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approved a Class IV Site Plan Modification with a condition that an application for alley abandonment be submitted and approved. This portion of the alley along with its northern extension to N.W. 1st Street is now before the Board for consideration. The portion of alleyway proposed for abandonment is a 16' x 355' rectangular shaped parcel containing approximately 5,680 square feet (0.13 acre). The Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Community Primitive Alley Abandonment Page 2 abandonment area represents a portion of an unimproved north-south alleyway within Block 2 of Atlantic Pines subdivision. The abandonment request was submitted by Mr. Jimmy Weatherspoon on behalf of the Community Primitive Baptist Church, the owner of Lots 12, 13, 27 and 28, Block 2 of Atlantic Pines. The applicant intends to aggregate the subject area adjacent to these lots to be used as additional parking for the Community Primitive Baptist Church. The remainder of the northern extension will be divided evenly to adjacent property owners. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(O)(1), public right-of-way may be abandoned (returned) to the adjacent property to the same degree in which it was originally obtained, Le. property dedicated exclusively from a single parcel shall be returned to that parcel; property dedicated through subdivision shall be divided at the center fine and returned equally to abutting parcels. The entire north-south alley right-of-way was dedicated from the plat of Atlantic Pines. The proposed abandonment area represents the northern 355' portion of the total 475' long alleyway. The southern 120' portion of the alleyway is currently being utilized by the owner of Lots 31 and 32; therefore, this portion will not be abandoned. Lots 12 through 20 abut the abandonment area on the east and Lots 21 through 29 abut the abandonment area on the west. By abandoning this area, the alleyway will be divided at the center line and the property will be returned equally to all abutting lots. Utility Services Adelphia Cable, BellSouth, and the Florida Public Utilities Company did not identify any facilities within the abandonment area; therefore, they have no objection to the abandonment. Florida Power and Light (FP&L) has identified overhead facilities located near the western boundary of the proposed abandonment area. FP&L has indicated that they do not object to the abandonment as long as a 10' wide general utility easement is granted. The City's Environmental Services Department (ESD) did not locate any water or sewer lines within the abandonment area. ESD and the City's Fire Department have no objection to the abandonment. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(0)(5), prior to any right-of-way abandonment being approved, the following findings must be made: Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Community Primitive Alley Abandonment Page 3 A) That there is not, nor will there be a need for the use of the right-of-way for any public purpose. The 16' x 355' portion of alleyway proposed for abandonment is currently unimproved and is not being utilized for any means of access other than cross access between Church owned property on both sides of the alleyway. The City has no plans to utilize this portion of alleyway for any other public purpose. B) That the abandonment does not, nor will not, prevent access to a lot of record. The subject abandonment will not prevent access to any parcel, as all affected parcels will still have primary access from N.W. 10m Avenue and N.W. 11th Avenue. As previously mentioned earlier in this report, the southern 120' of alley right-of-way will remain due to the utilization of this portion by the owner of Lots 31 and 32 for secondary access. C) That the abandonment will not result in detriment to the provision of access and/or utility services to adjacent properties or the general area. No City Utilities have been located within the abandonment area. Florida Power & Light have identified existing overhead electric within the abandonment area. The existing utilities will be accommodated through the reservation of a general utility easement so that the provision of utility services to adjacent properties or the general area will not be affected. The development proposal is within the geographical area requiring review by the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency. The proposed abandonment is not within the geographical area requiring review by the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) or HPB (Historic Preservation Board). Community Redevelopment Agency The CRA reviewed this abandonment request at its meeting of January 23, 2003 and recommended "Approval". Courtesy Notices: Courtesy notices have been provided to the following groups: PROD - Progressive Residents of Delray Presidents Council West Side Heights Homeowners Association Gateway Homeowners Association Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Community Primitive Alley Abandonment Page 4 Public Notice: Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500' radius of the subject property. Letters of objection or support, if any, will be provided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. As previously mentioned, the abandonment area is unimproved and is not being utilized for any means of access other than cross access between Church owned property on both sides of the alleyway. The subject area is not needed nor will it be needed for any public purpose and the City has no immediate future plans on improving this alleyway. Access will not be prevented to any lot of record and no City utilities currently exist. With the reservation of a general utility easement, the existing FP&L overhead facilities and any future utilities will be accommodated. 1. Continue with direction. 2. Recommend to the City Commission approval of the abandonment subject to positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.6(0)(5). 3. Recommend to the City Commission denial of the abandonment based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.6(O)(5). By motion, recommend to the City Commission approval of the abandonment of the 16' x 355' northern portion of alley right-of-way, lying within Block 2 of the plat of Atlantic Pines, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.6(O)(5), subject to the following condition: 1. That the Resolution abandoning the subject area includes language which establishes a utility easement over the entire abandonment area. Attachments: · Location Map · Reduced Survey File: S:\Planning&Zoning\Boards\P&Z\Community Primitive Alley Abandonment.doc N.W. 1ST ST. LOT 29 ~ LOT ~2 ~, pi ~'to , LOT 32 LOT 9 I ' I ~ ~ I LOT ATLANTIC AVENUE I N - ABANDONMENT- ~ (Associated with ~mmuni~ Primitive Baptist Church) ~,~ ~, ~ A potion of ~ ~6' No~h-South Alle~y lying be~een z~ ~[~t Lots 12-29, Inclusive, Block 2 of Atlantic Pines Subdivision LOT 21 LOT 20 LOT 29 ~ LOT 12 pl,~,~'~ LOT ,52 LOT 9 /,/- TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGEI~::~i~' ~ PAUL DORLING, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND~N~JJ)IG NGUYEN TRAN, SENIOR PLANNE, R MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2003 CONSENT AGENDA* ACCEPTANCE OF AN EASEMENT DEED ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLAZA AT DELRAY At its meeting of March 14, 1997, the City Commission approved Resolution No. 20-97 vacating and abandoning certain easements within the Plaza At Delray shopping center located at the northwest corner of Federal Highway and Linton Boulevard, in connection with the renovation of Delray Mall. Water, sewer and drainage easements have been relocated from locations approved on the site plan dated September 20, 1995. New easements were to be dedicated for the relocated facilities reflecting the as built conditions. The City Commission approved Resolution No. 20-97 based on positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.6(P)(5) and subject to the condition that replacement mains be installed and replacement easements be accepted prior to the abandonment resolution being recorded. The renovations of the mall have been completed and replacement mains have been installed. The abandonment resolution has not been recorded pending the acceptance of this easement. By motion, accept the easement deed associated with the Plaza At Delray and forward the Easement Deed and Resolution No. 20-97 for recording. Attachments: · Location Map · Easement Deed · Executed Abandonment Resolution No. 20-97 · City Commission Documentation for the meeting of March 18, 1997 S ~'lannmg & Zoning\Boards\City Comr~ss~on\Easement Deed-Plaza at Delray doc S.W. 10TH ST. S.E. 10TH DELRA Y REIGLE STERLING AVENUE SOUTHRIDGE AVENUE WlLSON AVE. CENTRAL AVE. J PLACE CONDOS EXECU~VE QUARTERS --FLORANDA TRAILER ' S.E. 12TH PARK RD. HARBOUR SIDE DOMAINE DELRA Y LIN TON WOODS BANYAN TREE LANE TREE VILLAGE ONE LIN TON BL VD. OLD HARBOUR PLAZA HARBOURS EDGE LINTON PALM OR TG A GE [ BOULEVARD NATIONS BANK PITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING &: ZONING DEPARTMENT THE PLAZA AT DELRAY (F.K.A. DELRAY MALL) -- OlCfr,41. 8,45£ Iv~P SYSI'E'M -- MaP REF. LM68..3 Prepared by: RETURN: R. Brian Shutt, Esq. City Attomey's Office 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 EASEMENT DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this ~,,o,.. day of /r~gCern~-xc_200~_, by and between ST. STEPHEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, with a mailing address of One Greenway Plaza,. Suite 850, Houston, Texas 77046, party of the first part, and the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, with a mailing address of 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, a municipal corporation in Palm Beach County, State of Florida, party of the second part: WITNESSETH: 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 the construction and maintenance of public utilities with full and free right, liberty, and authority to enter upon and to install, operate, and maintain such utilities well under, across, through and upon, over, under or within the following described property located in Palm Beach County, Florida, to-wit: DESCRIPTION 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 construction, all lands disturbed thereby as a result of such construction performed 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 MIA2001 174135vl 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. 5k'fec (name printed or typed) PARTY OF THE FIRST PART ST. STEPHEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership By: LEF/Delray Mall, Ltd., a Florida limited parmership, its general parmer (name printed or typed) STATE OF COUNTY OF By: LEF/Delray Mall, Inc., a Florida corporation, its general parma. By: ...~ Preside,// The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ag'E.-day of /r~e~er'n~e)~2002 by Leonard E. Friedman, President of LEF/Delray Mall, Inc., a Florida corporation, general partner of LEF/Delary Mall, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, general partner of ST. STEPHEN LIMITED PARTNERSH/P, a Delaware limited partnership, who is personally know to me to be the person who signed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged that the execution thereof was his free act and deed as such officer for the uses and purposes therein expresses, and that the said instrument is the act and deed of said parmership for the uses and purpose therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal this c~,~_~ day of~, 2002. My commission expires: NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF Printe_d_~ _ame_ ?f_N(~ _~ _ _.,.,,~_ _ _ _ _ MIA2001 174135vl 2 t // /z PLAZA O DELRAY UTILITY EASEMENTS SHEET ~T[ P./IO/~. Heller ' ~eaver and Sheremeta, inc. Engineers ... ~urveyor~ ... Planners r~ m ~9 02-15047.201-$$11 EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 1 OF 8 3tO ~ ~ S'tree't, Suite 4 (5~ ;~43-6700 - Prom I z o P.O.E. 'A" '-~ REFERENCE POINT "B" REFERENCE POINT "A" -...,, NO8"10',53"E ,8,-4, o8 w ____x3~.~.:, .... :-{----_ ..... I ~ NO7'57'18'E p, O. B...~..~.*-'"~'J''28'00' WATER MAIN UTILITY EASEMENT .69' ----'~.,~o.oo. oO'[ PLAZA 0 DELRAY UTILITY EASEMENTS Sr,/IL[ I°= ~ I~T[ 1?./10/02 J~ I~ 15047201 02-15047.201 -SS 12 SHEET 2 OF ~ Heller - ~eaver and Shereme[a, inc. Engineers ... Surveyors ... Plnopers Lt ~. ism49 EXHIBIT "A" 3~0 ~r ~ Street, ~tte (56D ~4~'8~0 - Phone k I ~ ~:= P.O.C. , _,,,- J SANITARY SEWER --'52 .9 r.. J UTILITY EASEMENT J NORTHWEST CORNER J REPLAT Of DELRAY MALL~.,~I p ~ I i// /~,- I \ i'-.'~ ~(P.B. 58, P(L 133) PLAZA LJTILITY J[~ Iii, 15~47Z'0l O DELRAY EASEMENTS 02-15047.201-$S13 SHEET ~ OF 8 Heller - Weaver and Sheremeta, ine. ~gineers ... Surveyors ... Planners r~ ~ a034~ EXHIBIT "A" 310 ~ bt Street, ~*~y k,~ch, ~ (5~D ~43-6766 - I~ P.O.E. SANITARY SEWER UTILITY EASEMENT S4Y48'53"E S01 '22'09"E REFERENCE POINT S50'42'42"W S05'25'03"W 35.18' 5.90' ---.--- P.O.E. S39'34'57"E 40.~ / / ,,,~x 27,37' // '1 . ~' ~ ~'~ ~ ~,¢0 N89'02'19"E RE~RENCE POINT ..o... POB ~ SANITARY SE~.~R ~ 0 u~,,TY ~ASEMENT '~~ S00'07'11"E 4.~.82' 54.4.5' N8 PLAZA 0 DELRAY UTILITY EASEMENTS ~CALE 1'= 58' D~I[ IE/IO/02 JOB llft. 15047,L~1 02-15047.201-SS14 SHEET 4 OF 8 Heller - Weaver and Sheremeta, inc. Engineers ... Surveyors ... Planners [.t ~ 0a3~9 EXHIBIT "A" P.O.E. S09'16'27"W ! I' F.'J (~1 Im. PLAZA 0 DELRAY UTILITY EASEMENTS SCI~L.£ t'= ~ ~TE m/lO/O~ J(lJ N~ 15047201 Heller - Weaver and Sheremeta, inc. gngineers ... Surveyor~ ... Planners t~ nx .o.u~, 02-15047.201-SS15 SHEET 5 OF 8 EXHIBIT "A" 3tO ~ ls~ S'l:~,e'~, Sd~e 4 ~,,y kq~ch. ~ 334~3 P.O.E. -~ , WATER MAIN~ S81'3515E UTIUTY ~ 20.79' EASEMENT '~..~ -~ S81 '31 '16"E '/ i - I 74.91' I?  ._REFERENCE POINT "K" I PLAZA 0 DELRAY UTILITY EASEMENTS SC&E 1'-- 50' DATE ]2/lO/O~ JI] I(J. 15047201 P.O.E. "J" ~ S81'33'15'E_~,I 11.60' REFERENCE POINT 02-15047.201-SS16 SHEET 6 OF Heller ' l~eaver and Sheremeta, inc. Engineers ... Sur~eyor~ ... Pla~er~ EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION: 12' Water Main Utility Easement A parcel of land, 12 feet in width, located within Replat of Delray Mall, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 58 at Page 135 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; the side lines of which lying 6 feet on each side of the following described centefline: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said plot; thence, South 89' 44' 06' East, a distance of 122.00 feet; thence, North 90' 00' 00' East, a distance of 151.69 feet; the last two (2) calls being along the South line of said plat and the North line of Linton Boulevard; thence, North 00' 00' 00' East, o distance of 76,65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence, North 07' 57' 18' East, a distance of 28.00 feet to Reference Point Thence, South 82' 02' 42' East, a distance of ,35.49 feet; Thence, North 08' 10' 5,3' East, o distance of 45.69 feet to POINT OF ENDING And, beginning at Thence, North 07. Thence, North 72' And. Beginning at Thence, North 06' Thence, North 81' And, Beginning at Thence South 81' Thence North 08' 24' Thence North 28' 05' Thence South 81' ,31' Thence North 08' 28' Thence North 81' Thence North 05' `32' Thence North 08° Thence North 0`3' Thence South 83' Thence North 10' Thence North 54' Thence South 81' Thence North 67' Thence South 88' Thence North 00' And, Beginning at feet to Reference Thence, North 00' And, Beginning at Thence, North 45' Thence, North 89' Thence, South 01' Thence, South 48' Thence, South 50° Thence, South 59' Thence, South 05' And, Beginning at feet to Reference Thence, South ,39' And, Beginning at said Thence, South 08' 28' Thence, South 77' 00' Thence, South 78' 46' Thence, South 79' 28' Thence, South 09' 16' And, Beginning at feet to Reference Thence, South 81' And, Beginning at feet to Reference Thence, South 81' And, Beginning at Thence, South 81' 02' 27" East, o distance 50' 06" East, o distance 50' 30' East, o distance ,32' 27" East, o distance said Reference Point 'D"; Pmnt 'E'; 07' 11" West, a distance said Reference Point 05' 45' East, a distance 02' 19" East, a distance 22' 09" East, a distance 58' 47' East, a distance 42' 42' West, a distance ,34' 57' East, o distance 25' 05' West, a distance said Reference Point Point 'G"; 54' 57' East, a distance Reference Point 44" West, a distance 08' East, a distance `37' East, a distance 50" East, o distance 27' West, a distance said Reference Point Point sold Reference Point 'A"; thence, North 81' 41' 08" West. a distance of 2.37.90 feet; `36' 56" East, o distance of 78.91 feet to Reference Point 'B"; 00' 16" West, a distance of 20.80 feet to Point of Ending 'B'; said Reference Point 'B'; thence, North 07. 36' 56' East, a distance of 188.97 feet; 05' 29" East, a distance of 112.60 feet to Reference Point `36' 55' West, a distance of 15.40 feet to Point of Ending 'C'; ~oid Point of Reference "C'; thence, North 06' 44' 26' East, a distance of 68.4`3 feet; 55' 15" East, a distance of 21.85 feet; 50' East, a distance of 2,32.14 feet; 55' East, a distance of 60.91 feet; 57' East, a distance of 20.14 feet; 05' East, a distance of 6.3.67 feet; 58" West, a distance of 16.00 feet; 48" Ecet, o distance of 68.69 feet; 28' 05" East, a distance of 181.35 feet; 54' 06" East, a distance of 109 05 feet; `31' 24" East, a distance of 28.62 feet; 16' 06" East, a distance of 6.01 feet; 21' 55' East, a distance of 72.04 feet; of 57.65 feet; of 72.12 feet; of 107.71 feet to Reference Point of 26.5`3 feet to Point of Ending 'D"; thence, South 88' 50' 50" East, o distance of 112.00 of 34.19 feet to Point of Ending 'E"; thence. South 88' 50' 30' East. a distance of 48.07 feet; of 20.88 feet; of 9.00 feet; of 40.9`3 feet; of 84.02 feet; of 55.18 feet to Reference Point "ir'; of 27.,37 feet; of 15.90 feet to Point of Ending "F'; thence, South 50' ~,2' 42" West, o distance of 500.20 of 17.11 feet to Point of Ending 'G'; thence. South 50' 42' 42' West, a distance of 84.01 feet; of 119.52 feet to Reference Point 'H'; of 162.;3`3 feet; of 185.92 feet, of 66.50 feet; of 17.15 feet to Point of Ending "H"; thence, South 08' 28' 44' West, a distance of 120.77 `35' 15' East, a distance of 11.60 feet to Point of Ending ~aid Reference Point 'd'; thence, South 08' 28' 44' West, a distance of 2.54.90 Point 'K'; `31' 16' East, a distance of 74.91 feet to Point of Ending "K'; m31d Reference Point 'K'; thence, South OB' 28' 44" West, a distance of 81.90 feet; 5,3' 15' East, a distance of 20.79 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. PLAZA 0 DELRAY UTILITY EASEMENTS SC&[ I~T.$. ~T[ 02-15047.201-$S17 SHEET 7 OF ~ Heller- Weaver and Shereme a, inc. gngtneers ... Surveyors ... Planners ~ ~ ,,03~9 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION: 12' Sanitary Sewer Utility Easement A parcel of land, 12 feet In width, located within Replot of Delray Mall. according to the Plot thereof, os recorded in Plat Book 58 at Page 133 of the Public Records of Pelto Beach County, Florida; the side lines of which lying 6 feet on each aide of the following described centerline' Commencing. at the Southwest comer of eeid plot; thence, North 08' 23' 05" Eeet, elong the West line of said plot and the East line of Dixie Highway, o distance of 381.27 feet; Thence, South 81' 36' 55" East, o distance of 32.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence, North 05° 16' 12" East, o distance of 217.81 feet; Thence, North 08' 26' 25' East, a distance of 293.80 feet; Thence, South 85' 54' 12" East, o distance of 45.24 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. DESCRIPTION: 12' Sanitary Sewer Utility Eosement A parcel of land, 12 feet In width, located within Replot of Detroy Moll, according to the Plot thereof, os recorded in Plot Book 58 at Page 133 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; the side lines of which I~ing 6 feet on each side of the following described centeHine: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Plot; thence, North 89' 52' 49' East, o distance of 93.72 feet; Thence, North 00' 37' 35' East, o distance of 55.00 feet; Thence, North 89' $2' 49' East, o distance of 54.45 feet; The lost three (,3) cells being along the Northerly line of said Plot; Thence, South 00' 07' 11' East, a distance of 43.82 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence, South 89' 41' 46" East, o distance of 380.34 feet; Thence, South 43' 4~' 53" East, a distance of 88.84 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. The sidelines of said easements to be lengthened or ~hortened to meet at angle points and at property lines. PLAZA UTILITY SCALE KT.S, DATE 17./10/02 JOB I~ 1~047201 0 DELRAY EASEMENTS 02-15047.201-SS18 SHEET 8 OF i Heller- Weaver and Sheremeta, inc. ~.n~ineers ... Surveyors ... Planners Et Ii~ Ieo~49 EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. 20-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, VACATING AND A~ANDONING CERTAIN UTILITY EASEMENTS AS SHOWN ON A REPLAT OF DELRAY MALL, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 58 AT PAGE 133 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COIINTY, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, SUBJECT TO INSTALLATION ARD ACCEPTANCE OF REPLACEMENT FACILITIES AND EASEMENTS. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, Florida, received an application for abandonment of certain water and sewer easements as shown on A Replat of Delray Mall, as more particularly described herein, said property being located at the northwest corner of Federal Highway and Linton Boulevard; and WHEREAS, said application for abandonment of utility easements was processed pursuant to Section 2.4.6(P), "Abandonment of Public Easements", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(P) (3) (c), the City Engineer has forwarded the application to the City Commission with the recommendation that the abandonment be approved, based upon positive findings and subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(P)(5), finds that the abandonment will not result in detriment for the provision of utility services to adjacent properties or the general area, that its interest in the described property is no longer needed for the public good and deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Delray Beach to vacate and abandon said utility easements, subject to installation and acceptance of replacement facilities and easements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That pursuant to Chapter 177.101(5) and Chapter 166 of the Florida Statutes, it is hereby determined to vacate and abandon all right and interest it holds to the following real property, subject to installation and acceptance of replacement facilities and easements, more particularly described as follows: WATER AND SEWER EASEMENTS -A parcel of land in Section 21, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, 10 feet in width, lying five (5) feet on each side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the Northwest corner of A Replat of Delray Mall, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 58 at Page 133 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence, North 89 degrees 52' 49" East, a distance of 93.72 feet; thence, North 00 degrees 37' 35" East, a distance of 55.00 feet; thence, North 89 degrees 52' 49" East, a distance of 400.02 feet; the last three (3) calls being along the North line of said plat; thence, continuing North 89 degrees 52' 49" East, a distance of 28.56 feet; thence, South 00 degrees 38' 55" East, a distance of 46.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, continuing South 00 degrees 38' 55" East, a d/stance of 47.10 feet; thence, South 81 degrees 10' 20" East, a d/stance of 65.24 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. The sidelines of said parcel to be lengthened or shortened to meet at angle points. ALSO: Parcels of land in Sections 20 and 21, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, 12 feet in width, lying six (6) feet on each side of the following described centerlines: PARCEL 2: (OMITTED FROM THE APPLI CATION) Together with: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said plat; thence, North 89 degrees 52' 49" East, along the North line of said plat, a distance of 65.28 feet; thence, South 00 degrees 07' 11" East, a distance of 46.92 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, - 2 - Res. No. 20-97 South 08 degrees 23' 05" West, a distance of 163.75 feet to Reference Point "A"; thence, continuing South 08 degrees 23' 05" West, a distance of 163.80 feet to Reference Point "B"; thence, continuing South 08 degrees 23' 05" West, a d/stance of 27.74 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point "A"; thence, South 81 degrees 36' 55" East, a distance of 27.33 feet; thence, South 08 degrees 23' 05" West, a d/stance of 26.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point "B"; thence, South 81 degrees 36' 55" East, a distance of 27.33 feet; thence, South 08 degrees 23' 05" West, a d/stance of 20.00 feet; thence, South 81 degrees 36' 55" East, a distance of 10.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Together with: PARCEL 4: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said plat: thence, North 89 degrees 52' 49" East, a distance of 93.72 feet; thence, North 00 degrees 37' 35" East, a distance of 3.15 feet; the last two (2) calls being along the North line of said plat; thence, South 89 degrees 22' 25" East, a distance of 35.16 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, South 81 degrees 37' 57" East, a distance of 222.13 feet to Reference Point "A"; thence , continuing South 81 degrees 37' 57" East, a distance of 95.60 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point "A"; thence, South 08 degrees 23' 05" West, a distance of 586.85 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Together with: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said plat; thence, North 89 degrees 52' 49" East, a distance of 93.72 feet; thence, North 00 degrees 37' 35" East, a distance of 15.51 feet; the last two (2) - 3 - Res. No. 20-97 calls being along the North line of said plat; thence, South 89 degrees 22' 25" East, a distance 'of 54.01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, South 81 degrees 37' 15" East, a distance of 161.91 feet to Reference Point "B"; thence, continuing South 81 degrees 37' 15" East, a distance of 108.20 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point "B"; thence, South 08 degrees 03' 45" West, a distance of 297.70 feet; thence, South 08 degrees 35' 55" West, a distance of 275.70 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Together with: PARCEL 6 Commencing at the Southwest corner of said plat; thence, North 08 degrees 23' 05" East, along the West line of said plat, a distance of 376.82 feet; thence, South 81 degrees 36' 55" East, a distance of 33.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 15 degrees 22' 28" East, a distance of 263,43 feet; thence, North 08 degrees 33' 55" East, a distance of 256.04 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Together with: ~ARCEL ? Commencing at the Southwest corner of said plat, North 89 degrees 44' 06" East, a distance of 122.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00' 00" East a distance of 197.48 feet; the last two (2) calls being along the South line of said plat; thence, North 00 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 138.58 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 81 degrees 30' 05" West, a distance of 42.99 feet to Reference Point "A"'; thence, continuing North 81 degrees 39' 05" West, a distance of 215.90 feet; thence, North 08 degrees 20' 55" East, a distance of 100.87 feet; thence, South 81 degrees 36' 55" East, a distance - 4 - Res. No. 20-97 of 34.52 feet to Reference Point "B"; thence, North 08 degrees 23' 05" East, a distance · of 148.50 feet to Reference Point "C" thence, continuing North 08 degrees 23' 05" East, a distance of 308.29 feet to Reference Point "D"; thence, continuing North 08 degrees 23' 05" East, a distance of 140.11 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point "A", thence, South OB degrees 20' 55" West, a distance of 17.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point "B", thence, South 08 degrees 23' 05" West, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence, South 81 degrees 36' 55" East, a distance of 13.31 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point "C"; thence, North 81 degrees 36' 55" West, a distance of 55.50 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point "D"; thence, South 81 degrees 36' 55" East, a distance of 36.50 feet; thence, North 08 degrees 23' 05" East, a distance of 20.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Together with: PARCEL 8 Commencing at the Southeast corner of said plat; North 90 degrees 00' 00" West, along the South line of said plat, a d/stance of 39.24 feet; thence, North 00 degrees 00' 00" East, a distance of 185.55 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 31 degrees 41' 20" East, a distance of 201.40 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Together with: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said plat; thence, North 90 degrees 00' 00" West, along the - 5 - Res. No. 20-97 south line of said plat, a distance of 204.62 feet; thence, North 00 degrees 00' 00" West, a distance · of 394.60 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, South 81 degrees 36' 00" East, a distance of 245.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Tocjether with: Co~.encing at the Southeast corner of said plat, thence, North 90 degrees 00' 00" West, along the South line of said plat, a distance of 261.91 feet; thence, North 00 degrees 00' 00" West, a distance of 366.30 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 59 degrees 09' 05" West, a distance of 31.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. The sidelines of said parcels to be lengthened or shortened to meet at angle points. Section 2. That the abandonment of easements described in Section I above shall not become effective and this resolution shall not be recorded in the Public Records of Palm Be~ch County, Florida, until such time as replacement facilities have been installed and replacement easements accepted by the City of Delray Beach, Florida. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 18th day of March, 1997. ATTEST: ~ City Cl~rk ! - 6 - Res. No. 20-97 // SCALE 1'; DATE ,~D NO. 15047201 02-15047.201 -SS1 KEY MAP SHE:ET 1 OF 10 Heller - Weaver and Sheremeta, inc. Engineers ... S~rveyors ... Planners EXHIBIT "A" 0 ~J Heller - Weaver and Sheremeta, inc. Engineers ... Surveyors ... Planners Lt ~a ~9 PARCELS 1/11 SHEET 2 OF' 10' IEXHIBIT "a"I ~roy leech, F'krh~ 33483 S:CN..E 1°= 50' Heller - ~eaver and SheremeLa, inc. Engineers ... Surveyors ... Planners ~ m eeo3~ 02-15047.201-SS3 PARCEL 2 SHEET 3 OF 10 EXHIBIT "A" 310 ~ tst Street, S~tte 4 k~r~y Beoch, norUo 334~3 G6I) 543-8700 - Photo C~61) 243-8777 - Fox P.O.C. NORTHWEST CORNER A REPLAT OF DELRAY MALL (PB 58, PO 13,3) Ld REFERENCE' pOIN'l' "A"- (,p.B. 5B. PG. 133.)--'"'""~ RE'FF...RE'NCE. pOIN p ARCF--.L 3 ,o '3 B1'.3.6'55" E 27.33 p.O.E.~ s os.,,23'o5" ~ 26.00 p.O.E. ~:ALE I'= 50' MT[ 12/10/0~ J~ !~. 15O47201 Heller - Weaver and Sheremeta, inc. Kng~eem ... Surveyors ... Pl,nnerz r~ 1~ Jl3449 02-15047.201 -SS4 PARCEL 3 SHEET 4, OF 10 EXHIBIT "A" ,TIT.. 1st Street, ~utte ~,r~y ~eoch, RoMd~ (5(:d) ~43.-87~0 - Phone NO.'m P.O.C..~ 53.98'~gUt.- ~00_.~' ~ ~ A REpILW~ATSToFTM .t~ t,tSg'Sg'49'F-' -~ ,:REFERENCE POINT "b" o~.~,.~ /~~.B ......,.L ~.o.E, ,'. ,,, ,. , / ~s s~ ~L~\x' '-'-'\' '- ~o ~o' ~ °' °'=x' ~os 20' z~ll "1 REFERENCE I POINT "A" WEST LINE (P.B. 58, PG. 133,) ST..q.E 1°= ~,T[ 1~/10/07 Jm i~, 15047201 Heller - Weaver and Sheremeta, inc. Engineers ... ~rveyors ... Planners a ,6 ,ma9 pARCEL p ARCEL PARCEL 4 &: 5 p.O.E.'-- ~ p.o.E. / p.O s 1 p.c -I~ '"~,~ c~ ~,o,.~ "~" 13.31 /"-' ~ p.o.E. / RE. RE'CE po)Ni A . ..~,~STW / / ~P'O'B' ~.o.c~ ~~~ SOUTH~ST CORNER~ . A REPLAT OF ~ . _ lg~ -' ~ DELRAY MALL -- ~ Ng::~,,W (PB 58, PG ~33) ~BS.44'~6'E ~ 1e2.00' (p.B. ~, PG. 133,) ~ ~':~ PARCEL 6 · 7 ~l[ ~/~ ~ ~ 1~7~1 02-15047.201-SS6 SHE~ 6 OF ~0 tleller - ~eaver and Sheremeta, inc. Engineers ... Surveyor., ... Planners r~ m ~3~ EXHIBIT "A" _ PARCEL 10 P.O.E.~ N 59'09'05" w_J ,.31.00' S65'12'38"W 63.43' P.O.B. L P.O.B, Z PARCEL 9 P.O.E. P.O.B: I~ N90*00'00%/ ~'"'-- SOUTH LINE "" 204.62' 261.26' (P.B. 58, PO 133,) LINTON BLVD. N89'55'57"W 23.39' P.O.E. PARCEL 8 LINE (P.B. 58, PG 133,) .~. ~ A = 04'46'39' R = 1970.08' __L = 164,27' P.O,C. SOUTHEAST CORNER A REPLAT OF DELRAY MALL (PB 58, PG 133) SCALE I': ~ ND. 15047201 Iteller - Weaver and Sheremeta, inc. ~ineem ... PARCEL 8, 9 & 10 02-15047.201-SS7 SHEET 7 OF 10 EXHIBIT "A" 310 S~ 1st Street, Suite 4 ~,~r~y I~ch, floHd~ 33483 DESCRIPTION A porcel of Iond in Section 21, Township 46 South, Ronge 43 Eost, lO-feet in width, lying 5-feet on each side of the following described centerline: Commencing et the Northwest corner of A Replot of Delroy Moll, according to the plot thereof, os recorded in Plot Book 58, at Page 133 of the Public Records of Palm Beech County, Florida; thence, North 89' 52' 49" East, o distance of 93.72 feet; thence, North 00' 37' 35" East, o distance of 55.00 feet; thence, North 89' 52' 49" East, o distance of 400.02 feet; the lost three (3) coils being along the North line of said plot; thence, continuing North 89' 52' 49" East, o distance of 28.56 feet; thence, South 00' 38' 55" East, o distance of 46.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, continuing South 00' 38' 55" East, o distance of 47.10 feet; thence, South 81' 10' 20" Eest, o distance of 65.24 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. The sidelines of said parcel to be lengthened or shortened to meet at angle points. ALSO: Parcels of land in Sections 20 and 21, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, 12-feet in width, lying 6-feet on each side of the following described centerlines: Commencing et the Northeast corner of A Replet of Delroy Mall, according to the plot thereof, os recorded in Plot Book 58, et Page 133 of the Public Records of Palm Beech County, Florida; thence, North 89' 47' 06" West, o distance of 146.89 feet; thence, South 00' 37' 09" West, o distance of 15.00 feet; thence, South 89' 57' 54" West, o distance of 272.51 feet; the lest three (3) cells being along the North line of said plot; thence, South 00' 02' 06" Eest, o distence of 93.22 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 89' 44' 13" West, o distence of 103.04 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Together with: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said plot; thence, North 89' 52' 49" East, along the North line of said plot, o distance of 65 25 feet; thence, South 00' 07' 11" East, o distance of 47.11 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, South 08' 23' 05" West, o distance of 163.75 feet to Reference Point "A"; thence, continuing South 08' 23' 05" West, o distance of 163.80 feet to Reference Point "B". thence, continuing South 08' 23' 05" West, o distance of 27.74 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point "A"; thence. South 81' 36' 55" East, o distance of 27.33 feet; thence, South 08' 25' 05" West, o distance of 26.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point thence, South $1' 36' 55" East, o distance of 27.35 feet; thence, South 08' 23' 05" West, o distance of 20.00 feet; thence, South 81' 36' 55" East, o distance of 10.00 feet the the POINT OF ENDING. Together with: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said plot; thence, North 89' 52' 49" East, o distance of 93.72 feet; thence, North O0° 37' 35" East, o distance of 4.26 feet; the lost two (2) coils being along the North line of said plot; thence, South 89' 22' 25" East, o distance of 25.63 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, South 81' 37' 57" East, o distance of 231.73 feet to Reference Point "A"; thence, continuing South 81' 37' 57' East, o distance of 95.60 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point "A'; thence, South 08' 23' 05" West, o distance of 586.85 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. 02-15047.201 -S58 SHEET 8 OF 10 Heller- Weav remeta, inc. Kagineers ... Surveyors ... Pin.hers ct I EXHIBIT "A' · 0 SL 1st ;freer, ~+a 4 ~dr~y leach, Rerkh 33483 ~6D ~43-8700 - Ptme DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) Together with: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said plat; thence, North 89' 52' 49" East, a distance of 93.72 feet; thence, North 00' 37' 35" East, a distance of 15.52 feet; the last two (2) coils being along the North line of said plat; thence, South 89' 22' 25" East, o distance of 53.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, South 81' 57' 15" East, o distance of 190.50 feet to Reference Point "B"; thence, continuing South 81' 37' 15" East, a distance of 108.20 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point 'B"; thence, South 08' 05' 45" West, o distance of 297.70 feet; thence, South 08' 55' 55" West, o distance of 275.70 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Commencing at the Southwest comer of said plat; thence, North 08' 25' 05' East, along the West line of said plat, a distance of 370.86 feet; thence, South 81' 56' 55" East, a distance of 52.27 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 15' 22' 28" East, a distance of 269.43 feet; thence, North 08' 55' 55" East, o distance of 256.04 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Together with: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said plat; thence, North 89' 44' 06" East, a distance of 122.00 feet; thence, North 90' 00' 00" East, a distance of 198.10 feet; the lost two (2) coils being along the South line of said plat; thence, North 00' 00' 00" East, a distance of 158.51 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 81' 59' 05" West, a distance of 42.99 feet to Reference Point thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, ENDING; continuing North 81' 59' 05" West, a distance of 215.90 feet; North 08' 20' 55" East, o distance of 100.87 feet; South 81' 36' 55" East, a distance of 54.52 feet to Reference Point "B"; North 08' 25' 05" East, o distance of 148.50 feet to Reference Point "C"; continuing North 08' 25' 05" East, a distance of 85.41 feet ; North 08'1.3'05" East a distance of 224.88 feet to Reference Point"D"; continuing North 08' 15' 05" East, a distance of 140.11 feet to the POINT OF and Beginning at said Reference Point "A'; thence, South 08' 20' 55" West, o distance of 17.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point thence, South 08' 25' 05" West, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence, South 81' 36' 55" East, a distance of 15.31 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said Reference Point "C"; thence, North 81' 56' 55" West, a distance of 55.50 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; and Beginning at said thence, South 81' ~ence, North 08' Reference Point "D"; 36' 55' East, o distance of 36.50 feet; 25' 05" East, a distance of 20.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Together with: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said plat; thence, North 90' 00' 00" West, along the South line of said plot, a distance of 38.35 feet; thence, North 00' 00' 00" East, o distance of 186.87 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 51' 41' 20" East, a distcmce of 201.40 feet to the POINT OF END{NG. I I teller- eaver and Sh [emeta, ine. I  rineer~ ... Surv~yom ... Pi ~m ta ~ ~a~, 02-15047.201-S$9 EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 9 OF 10 DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) Together with: Commencing at the Southeast comer of said plat; thence, North 90' 00' 00" West, along the south line of said plot, o distance of 204.62 feet; thence, North 00' 00' 00" West, o distance of 394.60 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, South 81' 36' 00" East, a distance of 245.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Together with: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said plot, thence, North 90' 00' 00" West, along the South line of said plot, o distance of 261.26 feet; thence, North 00' 00' 00" West, o distance of 366.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 59' 09' 05" West, o distance of ,.%1.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING. Commencing at the Northwest comer of said plot; thence North 89'52'55" East 93.72 feet; thence North 00'37'41" East a distance of 55.00 feet; thence North 89'52'55" East o distance of 400.02 feet; thence North 00'41'26" East o distance of 169.28 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; The lost four (4) coils being along the North line of said plot; thence South 52'11'17" East o distance of 806.35 feet to the POINT OF ENDING; The sidelines of said parcels to be lengthened or shortened to meet at angle points. SCN.[ ET,S, ~[ 17./10/0~ J~ N~ 15047a~1 Heller - lgeaver and Sheremeta, inc. [~agineer~ ... b%trveyors ... Plaapers ~ ~ 02-15047.201-SSI0 IEXHIBIT "A"I SHEET 10 OF 10 C! ,'r ;COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION TO: THRU: FROM: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER D~I'A'I~ DOMING'~EZ, DIRECTO[~ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING'~ND ZONING SUBJECT: MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1997 **CONSENT AGENDA** ABANDONMENT OF WATER AND SEWER EASEMENTS AT PLAZA AT DELRAY ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is approval of the abandonment of certain water and sewer easements located in the Plaza at Delray shopping center. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Federal Highway and Linton Boulevard. ~IACKGROUND IIII II I TIll [ 11 I I III II I II I[ I I II II [[11 II ' ] I I [ I[ I II I[[ I II I The easements are located within the Delray Mall plat (approved 1973; amended 1974; replatted 1987) and are to be abandoned in connection with the renovation of the mall. Facilities within the easements will be relocated with development of the site per the site plan approved September 20, 1995. New easements will be dedicated for the relocated facilities and will be before the Commission for acceptance at a later time. If approved the abandoments will not be recorded until the replacement facilties have b~,~:-, 'nv'..~',;~d ;~,~d th~ City has accepted the facilities and appropriate replacement easements. ' ' ' FINDING Prior to the granting of an abandonment the following finding must be made: · That the abandonment will not result in detriment for the provision of services to adjacent properties or the general area. City Commission Documei .... Abandonment of Easements at Plaza at Delray (fka Delray Mall) Page 2 The City's Environmental Services Department has no objection to the requested abandonments, and replacement water and sewer easements are being proposed. No disruption of services to adjacent parcels is anticipated. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION Planning and Zoning Board review is not required for the abandonment of easements. =RECO~MEi~:)ED ACTION By motion, approve the abandonment of the water and sewer easements through the enactment of Resolution 20-97, subject to the following condition: · That prior to recordation of this resolution, replacement mains have been installed and replacement easements accepted. Attachments: · Location Map · Exhibit A- Easements to be abandoned SW lOTH STREET REiGLE AVE. STERLING AVE. SOU T',"tR~D GE RD L IN TON TRUSS', ONE L IN TON BLVD. t DELRA Y INDUS TRIAL PARK WILSON AVE. CENTRAL AVE, DELRAY PLACE CONDOS FLORANDA ...... TRAILER L"'SE PARK 12TH RD EXECU~VE QUARTERS L IN TON WOODS ~ANYAN LANE J HARBOUR SIDE DOMAINE ~ DELRA Y BANYAN TREE ' VILLAGE LIN TON ROYAL J SUN BA PALM NATIONS BANK LIN TON CENTER OLD HARBOUR PLAZA HARBOURS EDGE BOULEVARD Mc CLEARY STREET N ~LANNING DEPARTM[NT CITY O¢ DELRAY BEACH, FL -- DI~'ITAI. ~,45£ 1~4P $~W-- PLAZA AT DELRAY MA~ REF LbI048 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM # x(~_~_ - REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2005 CLOSEOUT/FINAL PAYMENT/DRILLING SERVICES, INC. MARCH 7, 2003 This is before the City Commission to approve final payment in the amount of $8,099.79 to Drilling Services, Inc. for the completion of the Reconstruction of Drinking Water Well #26 Project. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-61.82 (Well Rehabilitation/Replacement & Upgrade). Recommend approval of final payment in the amount of $8,099.79 to Drilling Services, Inc. for completion of the Reconstruction of Drinking Water Well #26 Project. S:\C:ty Clerk\chevelle folder\agenda memos\F,nalPayment. DnlhngSenaces 3.13.03 City Of Delray Beach Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager Victor Majtenyi, Assistant Construction Manager www delrayesd com SUBJECT: RECONSTRUCTION OF RAW WATER WELL #26 (PN 2001-002) Final Payment DATE: MARCH 4, 2003 Attached for City Commission approval is an agenda request to approve final payment to Drilling Services, Inc. in the amount of $8,099.79 for the completion of the Reconstruction of Raw Water Well #26 project, P/N 2001-002. Previously, City Commission had approved a change order to the original contract of $93,097.90. The well at the original site, south of SW 10th Street and east of 1-95, collapsed during drilling operations. On December 11, 2001, Change Order #1 was approved in the amount of $51,849.47 for drilling another well at a new location, west of Auburn Avenue across from Auburn Drive. Total contract to date is $144,947.37, see attached Schedule A. The project is complete with all closeout documentation received. A contractor's project performance report is attached for your review. Staff recommends final payment to Drilling Services, Inc. in the amount of $8,099.79. Funding is from purchase order #595624. Richard C. Hasko, P.E.; Director of Environmental Services Dan Beatty, P.E.; Deputy Director of Public Utilities Rafael Ballestero; Deputy Director of Construction C~ty Clerk Agenda File Project File, 2001-002A S'lEngAdmmlProjectsl2001 i2001-O021CONSTRCI~Ftnal Pay Drtlhng Serv memo-03 04 03 doc RECONSTRUTION OF WELL #26 Project 2001-002 ITEM ITEM Contract To date NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUAN UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT QUAN UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 6,321.71 $6,321.71 1 LS $ 6,321 71 $6,321.71 2 Abandon exist well #26 1 LS $ 11,817.50 $11,817.50 1 LS $ 11,817.50 $11,817.50 3 20" steel casing 1 LS $ 15,850.22 $15,850.22 1 LS $ 15,850.22 $15,850.22 4 12" SS screen/PVC casing 1 LS $ 21,884.55 $21,884.55 1 LS $ 21,884.55 $21,884.55 5 Development 1 LS $ 10,443.71 $10,443.71 0 LS $ 10,44371 $0.00 6 Pumptest 1 LS $ 8,060.21 $8,060.21 0 LS $ 8,060.21 $0.00 7 Demobilization I LS $ 6,321.71 $6,321.71 0 LS $ 6,321 71 $0.00 8 Reinstall pump/appertanences 1 LS $ 8,911.29 $8,911.29 0 LS $ 8,911.29 $0.00 9 Drill pilot hole 1 LS $ 3,487.00 $3,487.00 0 LS $ 3,487.00 $0.00 Total Original Contract $93,097.90 $55,873.98 Change Order # I 13 Relocate well to new site 1 LS $ 81,004.96 $81,004.96 1 LS $ 81,004 96 $ 81,004.96 4 12" SS screen/PVC casing 1 LS $ (8,434 55) ($8,434.55'~ 1 LS $ (8,434.55) ($8,434.55) 5 Development -1 LS $ 10,44371 ($10,443.71 0 LS $ 10,443.71 $0.00 6 Pump test -1 LS $ 8,060 21 ($8,060.21 0 LS $ 8,060.21 $0.00 7 Demobilization -1 LS $ 6,321 71 ($6,321.711 0 LS $ 6,321.71 $0.00 8 Reinstall pump/appertanences -1 LS $ 8,911.29 ($8,911.29 0 LS $ 8,911.29 $0 00 9 Dnll pilot hole -1 LS $ 3,487.00 ($3,487.00 0 LS $ 3,487.00 $0.00 10 Redrill newwell 1 LS $ 6,055.98 $6,055 98 1 LS $ 6,055 98 $6,055 98 11 Abandon new well 1 LS $ 5,390.00 $5,390.00 1 LS $ 5,390 00 $5,390 00 12 Intermediate Demobilization 1 LS $ 5,057.00 $5,057 00 1 LS $ 5,057.00 $5,057 00 Total Change Order #1 $51,849 47 $89,073.39 Total $144,947.37 $144,947.37 Original Contract Previously Approved Chan~es $93,097.90 $51,849.47 Changes to Date $0 00 Total Contract $144,947.37 Total Contract to Date $144,947.37 ~ DDDDD AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: ---X--Regular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Agenda Item No.~,'c~- Date: March 4, 2003 When: March 13, 2003 Attached is an Agenda Request for City Commission to approve Final Payment to Drilling Services, Inc. ~n the amount of $8,099.79 on the Reconstruction of Drinking Water Well #26 project (PN 01-02). The project ~s complete and the well operational. Funding source is available from P.O. #595624. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: Not required. Recommendation: Staff recom~ds appy, et~l of Final P~jrl~ent to Drilling Services, Inc. Department head signature: 5, - 5'- o'~ Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation if applicable): Budget Director Review (re.9~tui~l on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding availablef~ES/~O see above ,- .. ., .. altem atives-(lt"ap plica ble): . - Funding N°i & Description ~z/~ -,_5'-I'"/~-~,~ - ~ /~ ~,'~ [z)~ ~/ Account AccountBaance ~ur-:.~.~'. ~f-~' b~/~ c~ --~o/,~ ~U~'/~bl~ City Manager Review: (~- ~' Approved for agenda: O Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved S:\EngAdmin\Projects\2OOl\2OOl-OO2\CONSTRCT\Final Pay agnd req 03.04.03.doc MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM # ,o ,..., CHANGE ORDER CONTRAGTING, lNG, - REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2003 NO. 1/FINAL PAYMENT/PIONEER MARCH 7, 2003 This is before the City Commission to approve Change Order No. 1 in the net add amount of $2,282.93, and final payment in the amount of $15,002.69 to Pioneer Contracting, Inc. for completion of the Delray Shores Sidewalks and Traffic Calming Project. Funding is available from 334-6111-519-63.89 (General Construction Fund/Neighborhood Enhancements). Recommend approval of Change Order No. 1 and final payment to Pioneer Contracting, Inc. S:\C~ty Clerk\chevelle folder\agenda memos\Final Payment. PIoneetContractmg.3.13.03 City Of Delray Beach Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M www. rnydelraybeach corn TO: FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager Victor Majtenyi, Assistant Construction Manager SUBJECT: DELRAY SHORES NEIGHBORHOOD SIDEWALKS & TRAFFIC CALMING, PN 02-008 Change Order # 1/Final and Final Payment DATE: MARCH 4, 2003 Attached for City Commission approval is an agenda request for Change Order #1/Final to Pioneer Contracting, Inc. in the net add amount of $2,282.93 on the Delray Shores Neighborhood Sidewalks and Traffic Calming project, PN 02-008. Change Order #I includes plus/minus final quantity adjustments to contract items plus miscellaneous changes to the original contract. In addition, final payment in the amount of $15,002.69 is requested. A contractor's project performance report is attached for your review. Staff recommends City Commission approve Change Order #I/Final in the amount of $2,282.93 and Final Payment in the amount of $15,002.69 to Pioneer Contracting, Inc. for construction of improvements to Delray Shores Neighborhood Sidewalks and Traffic Calming project, P/N 02-008. Funding is available from 334-6111-519-63.89, General Construction Fund/Neighborhood Enhancements. ¢¢' Richard Hasko; Director of ESD Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer Rafael Ballestero, Dep. DJr of Constructmn C~ty Clerk's Office Agenda File 03/04/03 Project File 02-008(A) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH CHANGE ORDER TO ORIGINAL CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. PROJECT TITLE: TO CONTRACTOR: One (1)/Final PROJECT NO. 02-008 DATE: Delray Shores Neighborhood Sidewalks & Traffic Calmin,q on Udell Lane Pioneer Contracting, Inc. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT AND TO PERFORM THE WORK ACCORDINGLY, SUBJECT TO ALL CONTRACT STIPULATIONS AND COVENANTS JUSTIFICATION: Provide all labor, material, and equipment necessary for the construction of vadous revisions to the plans and specifications to the Delray Shores Neighborhood Sidewalks & Traffic Calming on Udell Lane as ~temized on Schedule A attached. SUMMARY OF CONTRACT AMOUNT ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES PREVIOUSLY ORDERED ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES THIS ORDER ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER PER CENT INCREASE THIS CHANGE ORDER 1 9 % TOTAL PER CENT INCREASE TO DATE 1.9 % EXTENSION OF CONTRACT TIME ALLOWED BY THIS CHANGE, ~ CALENDAR DAYS. $116,886.55 $o.oo $116,886 55 $2,282 93 $119,169.48 CERTIFIED STATEMENT: I hereby certify that the supporting cost data included is, in my considered opinion, accurate; that the prices quoted are fair and reasonable and in proper ratio to the cost of the original work contracted for under benefit of competitive bidding. CONTRACTOR (sign & seal) SIGNATURE (ARCHITECT) TO BE FILLED OUT BY DEPARTMENT INITIATING CHANGE ORDER Environmental Services Department 334-6111-519-63.89, Neighborhood Enhancements DEPARTMENT RECOMMEND: APPROVED: ENGINEER/DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FUNDS BUDGETED CODE CERTIFIED BY DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By its City Commission By: ATTEST: By: MAYOR CITY CLERK S:\EngAdmln\Projects\2002\2002-008\CONSTRCT\CO1 Final doc 03.04.03.DOC ILl Z LIJ o U.I 0~000~ 000~000 ~00~000 ~0 O, 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o ~ o ~l°= 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: X Regular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda Agenda Item No. ~-~ Date: March 4, 2003 When: March 13, 2003 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Commission approval for Change Order #1/Final in the net add amount of $2,282.93 to Pioneer Contracting, Inc., for the Delray Shores Sidewalks & Traffic Calming project, PN 2002-008. Change Order #1/Final ~ncludes plus/m~nus final quantity adjustments to contract items plus miscellaneous changes to the ong~nal contract In addition, final payment in the amount of $15,002.69 is requested. Funding is available from account 334-6111-519-63.89, General Construction Fund/Neighborhood Enhancements. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO DRAFT ATTACHED YES/NO Recommendation: Staff recommen~japprova_l/_authonzation _.,~ Department head signature ( "~~ (~,~ '~ - ~'-~ Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review~ired on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available:(,yE~'/NO Funding alternative~-" Account No. & Description see above Account Balance ~ ,~/ JR '7 ~..4 City Manager Review: Approved for agenda: Hold Until: .(if applicable) /_./, · Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved S.',EngAdm~n\Projects~2002~2002-008\CONSTRC'lACO I Fin agnd req 03 04 03 doc MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FDOT GENERAL USE AGREEMENT/OLD PALM GROVE PROJECT - REGULAR MEETING OF MAR(~H 13, 2003 PERMIT & HOLD HARMLESS MARCH 7, 2003 This is before the City Commission to authorize approval of a hold harmless agreement for work performed within the state right-of-way. New Urban/RFC Developers, L.L.C. is the owner of the Old Palm Grove Project, located on the southeast comer of Federal Highway and Royal Palm Boulevard. The developer is required to connect to an existing water main within the state right-of-way. The Florida Deparianent of Transportation requires the City to sign the permit on behalf of the developer. The proposed agreement provides that the developer will hold the City harmless for the general work to be performed under the permit. Recommend approval of the hold harmless agreement for work performed within the state right-of- way between the City and New Urban/RFC Developers, L.L.C. S:\C~ty Clerk\chevelle folder\agenda memos\Hold Harmless Agmt. NewUrban 3.13.03 City Of Delray Beach Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER WILLIAM A. GRIEVE, P.E. ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER March 3, 2003 Hold Harmless Agreement for FDOT Utility Permit Old Palm Grove Please find attached a hold harmless agreement for work performed within the state right-of-way. Old Palm Grove is proposed to be built on the southeast corner of Federal Highway and Royal Palm Boulevard. The developer is tying into an existing water main on Federal Highway. The existing water main is within the State right-of-way and the Florida Department of Transportation requires the City to act as the utility permit applicant. The attached agreement holds the City harmless for the work performed under the permit. Attached is a location map. If the attached agreement is acceptable, please place it on the March 13, 2003 meeting for commission approval. Enc Cc Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney file S. IEngAdmtntTAC~OId Palm Grovethold harmless agenda memo doc THIS HOLD HARML~S AGREEMENT FOR WORK PERFORMED WITHIN THE STATE RIGHT-OF-WAY (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") referred to as "DEVELOPER"). HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2003 by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, and New Urban/RFC Developers, L.L.C., (hereinafter WITNE S SETH: WHEREAS, DEVELOPER wishes to install/construct improvements in the right-of- way of the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, the CITY is required to sign the permit on behalf of the DEVELOPER to allow the installation/construction to take place in the State right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the CITY is required to indemnify and hold harmless the State for the work performed by DEVELOPER in the State right-of-way; and WHEREAS, this Agreement shall provide that DEVELOPER shall hold harmless and defend the CITY and the State for the work performed in the State right-of-way by the DEVELOPER, its contractor or agent. NOW, THEREFORE, for the mutual covenants and matters set forth herein, as of the date set forth above, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. The recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. DEVELOPER, in consideration of the payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the CITY and the State, their agents, officers, employees and servants fi.om any and all claims, suits, causes of action or any claim whatsoever made, and damages, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees and costs at the trial and appellate levels, which may result from any activity conducted by DEVELOPER, its contractors or agents in relation to the work performed in the State right-of-way and as more particularly shown on the engineering plans submitted for the development known as Old Palm Grove. 3. DEVELOPER warrants and guarantees to the CITY that all work on the utility improvement shall be constructed in accordance with the applicable codes of the City of Delray Beach and the State of Florida. The DEVELOPER'S warranty and guarantee shall remain in effect for one year from the date of final acceptance. Um'emedied defects identified for correction during the warranty/guarantee period but remaining after its expiration shall be considered as part of the obligations of the guarantee and warranty. Defects in the installation or construction of the utility improvement, which are remedied as a result of obligations of the warranty/guarantee shall subject the remedied portion of the work to an extended warranty/guarantee period of one year after the defect has been remedied. DEVELOPER shall deliver this agreement to its Surety. The Surety shall be bound with and for the DEVELOPER in the DEVELOPER'S faithful observance of the guarantee. 4. DEVELOPER, shall supervise and direct the installation and construction of the improvement, applying such skills and expertise as may be necessary to perform the work in accordance with the approved engineering plans. DEVELOPER shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures of the construction and installation of the improvement. 5. Any claims, lawsuits or disputes that may arise under this Agreement shall be governed by the Laws of Florida, with venue in Palm Beach County, Florida. 2 6. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties, as it pertains to the construction or installation of the utility. There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by both parties. 7. DEVELOPER or its contractor shall maintain worker's compensation insurance in an amount required by law and general liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) governing bodily injury and property damage in standard form, insuring CITY and the State as additional named insureds. DEVELOPER or its contractor shall provide this information to the CITY on a Certificate of Insurance that is acceptable to the CITY, prior to commencing installation or construction. 8. DEVELOPER shall be bound by all the terms and conditions found in the General Use Permit Application between the CITY and the State for this project and attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 9. This agreement shall not be valid unless signed by the City's Mayor and City Clerk. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this agreement the day and year first written above. ATTEST: By: City Clerk Approved as to Form: By:. City Attorney CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By:, David Schmidt, Mayor WITNESSES DEVELOPER: /~ New Urban/RFC Developerg', ,.L,,C Tim~reasurer (Print or ~,tpe Name) Address: Phone: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing ins._~ment was acknowledged before me this '7 day of [-""-~,. ,2003, by ~ let4 ~.-~ c~ (name of officer or agent, title of officer or agent) of ~,.Jt. dx/ L)g.~ (.z~n,n,,~c,,,n, '/1-et (name of corporation acknowledging), a ~:'/a~,,z-! ~,~' (At--oration) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is ~__~onally known~_.....~ me or has produced ~ ~ (type of identtt~ca/,io-n) as id'e'tKification and did (did not) take ] Signature of Notary Public- State of Florida 4 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UTILITY PERMIT FORM 710-010-85 UTILITIES OGC - 01/99 Page I of 2 PERMIT NO.: SECTION NO.:~ STATE ROAD 9 COUNTY palm Beach FDOT construction is proposed or underway. [] Yes No [] Financial Project ID: Is this work related to an approved Utility Relocation Schedule? [-]Yes [] No [] If yes, Document Number. PERMIT'TEE: ~ity of Delray Beach ADDRESS: _434 Sou. th Swinton Avenue.. . TELEPHONE NUMBER: /' $61 )_243-7300 . The above PERMITTEE requests permission from the State of Florida Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the FDOT, to construct, operate and maintain the following: Connect proposed 8" water main and 6 water services to existin.q 8" water main on the east side ,of Federal Hiqhway. No crossin~i of hi_ohwav ~rooosed. . FROM: AJ~Droxlmatelv 0.5 mile north of NE 8e Str, t (S.R. 806A, TO ~,~ / / Submitted for the PERMI'I-r'EE by: Peter W. Aquart, P.E.f Sr. prolect Manaqer, Miller, Le..~q, & Assoc.,( ""-/~~.Inc. ~/~ /~/~' ~ Name and Title ('ryped or Pdnted Legibly) Sign~bre / Date 1. The PERMITTEE declares that prior to filing this application, the location of all existing utilities that it owns or has an interest in, both aedal and underground, are accurately shown on the plans and a letter of notification was mailed on to the foliow~ng utilities known to be involved or potentially impacted in the area of the proposed installation: FPL. Florida East Coast Railroad Company, Bellsouth 2. The local Maintenance or Resident Engineer, hereafter referred to as the FDOT Engineer, shall be notified forty-eight (48) hours pdor to starting work and again immediately upon completion of work. The FDOT's Engineer is ..... located at .. . Telephone Number The PERMITI'EE's employee responsible for Maintenance of Traffic is .. , Telephone Number. (This name may be provided at the time of the 48 hour notice prior to starting work). 3. All work, materials, and equipment shall be subject to inspection and approval by the FDOT Engineer. 4. All plans and installations shall conform to the requirements of the FDOT's Utility Accommodation Manual in effect as of the date this permit is approved by FDOT, and shall be made a part of this permit. This prov,sion shall not limit the authority of the FDOT under Paragraph 8 of this Permit. 5. This PERMI'I-rEE shall commence actual construction in good faith within ~ days after issuance of permit, and shall be completed within_.L days after the permitted work has begun. If the beginning date is more than 60 days from the date of permit approval, the PERMITTEE must rewew the permit with the FDOT Engineer to make sure no changes have occurred to the Transportation Facility that would affect the permitted construction. The construction and maintenance of such utility shall not interfere with the property and fights of a prior PERMITTEE. It is expressly stipulated that this permit is a license for permissive use only and that the placing of utilities upon public property pursuant to this permit shall not operate to create or vest any property right in said holder, except as provided in executed subordination and Railroad Utility Agreements. Pursuant to Section 337.403(1), Florida Statues, any utility placed upon, under, over, or along any public road or publicly owned rail corridor that is found by FDOT to be unreasonably interfering in any way with the convenient, safe, or continuous use, or maintenance, improvement, extension, or expansion, of such pubhc road or publicly owned rail corndor shall, upon 30 days written notice to the utility or its agent by FDOT, be removed or relocated by such utility at its own expense except as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b), and except for reimbursement nghts set forth m previously executed subordination and Railroad Utility Agreements, end shall apply to all successors and assigns for the permitted facility. It is agreed that in the event the relocation of said utilities are scheduled to be done simultaneously with the FDOT's construction work, the PERMITTEE will coordinate with the FDOT before proceeding and shall cooperate with the FDO'r's contractor to arrange the sequence of work so as not to delay the work of the FDOT's contractor, defend any legal claims of the FDOT's contractor due to delays caused by the PERMITTEE's failure to comply with the approved schedule, and shall comply with all provisions of the law and the FDOT's current Utility Accommodation Manual. The PERMI'I-I'EE shall not be responsible for delay beyond its control. 10. In the case of non-compliance w~th the FDOT's requirements in effect as of the date this permit is approved, this permit is void and the facility will have to be brought into compliance or removed from the right of way at no cost to the FDOT, except for reimbursement fights set forth in previously executed subordination and Railroad Utility Agreements. This provision shall not lim,t the authority of the FDOT under Paragraph 8 of this Permit. It is understood and agreed that the dghts and privileges herein set out are granted only to the extent of the State's fight, title and interest in the land to be entered upon and used by the PERMITTEE, and the PERMITTEE will, at all t,mes, and to the extent permitted by law, assume all risk of and indemnify, defend, and save harmless the Slate of Florida and the FDOT from and against any and all loss, damage, cost or expense ansing in any manner on account of the exercise or attempted exercises by sa~d PERMITTEE of the aforesaid nghts and privileges. During construction, all safety regulations of the FDOT shall be observed and the PERMITTEE must take measures, including placing and the display of safety devices that may be necessary in order to safely conduct the public through the project area in accordance with the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as amended for h,ghways, the requirements of the Standard Application Package for railways, including flagging services and Railroad Protective Insurance or acceptable alternative, when applicable, and the FDOT's latest Roadway and Traffic Design Standards and Standard Specifications for Road and Bddge Construction, as amended. When a Utility deems it necessary to conduct Traff,c Control activ,fies and methods significantly d,fferent from those addressed ~n the above references, the Utihty must submit an alternative plan signed and sealed by a qualified registered Flor,da professional engineer qualihed to develop Traffic Control Planning ~n accordance with the provisions of the Ut,lity Accommodation Manual, Chapter 8. Should the PERMI'I-rEE be desirous of keeping its utilities in place and out of service, the PERMI'I-I'EE, by execution of this permit acknowledges its present and continuing ownership of its utilities located between N/A and N/A within the FDOT's fights-of-way as set forth above. Whenever the PERMI'I-r'EE removes its facilibes, it shall be at the Permittee's sole cost and expense. The PERMITTEE, at its sole expense, shall promptly remove said out of service utilities whenever the FDOT determines said removal ~s in the public interest In the event contaminated soil is encountered by the Utility or anyone w,thm the perm,tted construcbon limits, the Ut,hty shall ,mmed~ately cease work and notify the FDOT. The FDOT shall coordinate w~th the appropr,ate agencies and nobfy the PERMITTEE of any suspension or revocation 6o 11. 12. 13. 14. of the permit until contamination assessment and remediation, as appropriate under Rule Chapters 62-770 and 62-730 Florida Administrative Code, has progressed to a state that all environmental regulatory agencies having jurisdiction have approved the s~te of the contamination for resumption of work. 15. During excavation operations, an on-site representative of the PERMITTEE may be required to perform the following activities with respect to their own facilities: physically expose or direct exposure of underground facilities, provide any necessary support to facihties and/or cover aerial facilities as deemed necessary to aid construction. 16. Pursuant to Section 337.401(2), Florida Statutes, the permit shall require the permit holder to be responsible for damage resulting from the issuance of the permit The Department may initiate injunctive proceedings as provided in s.120.69 to enforce provisions of th~s subsection or any rule or order issued or entered into pursuant thereto. 17. Pursuant to Section 337.402, Florida Statutes, when any public road or pubhcly owned rail corridor is damaged or impaired in any way because of the installation, inspection, or repair of a utility located on such road or publicly owned rail corridor, the owner of the utility shall, at his or her own expense, restore the road or publicly owned rail corridor to its original condition before such damage. If the owner fails to make such restoration, the authority is authorized to do so and charge the cost thereof against the owner under the provisions of s.337.404. 18. Special FDOT instructions: 10. It is understood and agreed that commencement by the PERMI3'I'EE is acknowledgment and acceptance of the binding nature of ell the above listed permit conditions and special instructions. By the below signature, the Permittee hereby represents that no change to the FDOT's standard Utility Permit form, as incorporated by reference into Rule 14-46.001, for this Utility Permit has been made which has not been previously called to the attention of the FDOT (and signified to by checking the appropriate box below) by a separate attached written document showing all changes and the written and dated approval of the FDOT Engineer. Are there attachments reflecting change/s to the standard form? DNO D YES If Yes, pages are attached. PERMITTEE: Richard C. Hasco. P.E., Director EnvIronmental,~ervices Det~t. Name & T'~le of Authorized Permittee or Agent (Typed or Printed Legibly) SIGNATURE: .DATE: APPROVED BY: ISSUE DATE: District Maintenance Engineer or Designee UTILITY PERMIT FINAL INSPECTION CERTIFICATION DATE: DATE WORK STARTED: DATE WORK COMPLETED: INSPECTED BY: REMARKS (Brief summary of approved plans changes): (Permittee or Agent) CHANGE APPROVED BY: District Maintenance Engineer or Designee DATE: I the undersigned PERMITTEE do hereby CERTIFY that the utility construction approved by the above numbered permit was inspected and installed in accordance with the approved plans made a part of this permit and in accordance with the FDO'r's current Utility Accommodation Manual. All plan changes have been approved by the FDOT's Engineer and are attached to this permit. I also certify that the work area has been left in as good or better condition than when the work was begun. PERMITTEE: SIGNATURE: DATE: Name & Title of Authorized Permittee or Agent (Typed or Printed Legibly) CC: District Permit Office Perm~tee S"5 ,. eoub[v~ ~eE _ _ eus~ e°q~w~~/  CI~ of DELRAY BEACH OLD PALM GROVE ~/~/0~ ~~A~ ~Y~ ~A~ LOCA~ON MAP ~003-20C Date: March 3, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: X Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Workshop Agenda Special Agenda When: March 13, 2003 Description of Agenda Item (who, what, where, how much): Commission approval/authorization for Mayor to execute hold harmless agreement with New Urban/RFC Developers, L.L.C. for water main work performed within the state right-of-way. Old Palm Grove is proposed to be built on the southeast corner of Federal Highway and Royal Palm Boulevard. The developer is tying into an existing water main on Federal Highway. The existing water main is within the State right-of- way and the Florida Department of Transportation requires the City to act as the utility permit applicant. The attached agreement holds the City harmless for the work This agreement is subject to review and approval by the performed under the permit. City Attorney. Staff Recommendation: Department Head Signature: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding Available: Yes / No Initials: N.A. ~ Account Number Description Account Balance: Funding Alternatives: (if applicable) City Manager Review: Approved for Agenda:/~d~s//No Initials: Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: S:\EngAdmm\TAC\Old Palm Grove\hold harmless agenda.doc MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER % AGENDA ITEM # ~ - REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2003 INTERLO(3AL AGREEMENT/PALM BEACH COUNTY MARCH 7, 2003 This is before the Commission to approve the interlocal agreement in the mount of $450,000.00 between the City and Palm Beach County for the design and installation of landscaping, irrigation, sidewalks and curbing along NW/SW 5~ Avenue from S.W. 1st Street to N.W. 2nd Street. This project is a part of the proposed City Cultural Loop. The funding has currently been divided over a two (2) year period in the Capital Improvement Program. The CRA will provide the balance of the funding for this project. Recommend approval of the interlocal agreement with Palm Beach County for the NW/SW 5~ Avenue Project. S:\C~ty Clerk\chevelle folder\agenda memos\lnterlocalAgmt. NW/SWSthAvenue 3.13 03 City Of Delray Beach Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: David T. Harden Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E. 05 Mar 2003 NWISW 5th Avenue - SW 1st Street to NW 2nd Street Interlocal Agreement wi Palm Beach County Commission Agenda Item Project # 2003-037 The attached agenda item is for Commission authorization/approval for Mayor to execute Interlocal Agreement with Palm Beach County for the design and installation of landscaping, irrigation, sidewalks and curbing for the above referenced project. The City will receive funds from this interlocal agreement in two phases. Phase 1 funding, in the amount of $225,000.00, will be available in Fiscal Year 2002/2003. Phase 2 funding, in the amount of $225,000.00, will be available in Fiscal Year 2003/2004. This project is part of the proposed City Cultural Loop. The project is estimated to cost $1,521,000.00 and is currently split over two years ($221,000.00 in FY 2003-2004 and $1,300,000.00 in FY 2004-2005) in the Capital Improvement Program. The CRA is providing the balance of the funding for this project. The attached map shows the project location. Please place this item on the 13 Mar 2003 Commission Agenda. Thanks enc cc: Richard Hasko, P.E., Director of Env. Svcs. Joseph Safford, Finance Director D~ane Colonna, CRA file S:tEngAdmintProjectst2003~.OO3-O37~Officialt2003-03-13 agenda memo doc INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PALM BEACH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FOR DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING ALONG NWISW 5TM AVENUE THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT entered into this __ day of ~ 2003, by and between PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY", and the CITY OF DELI=AY BEACH, a municipal corporation of the STATE OF FLORIDA, hereinafter, the "CITY". WHEREAS, the CITY is undertaking certain streetscape improvements along NW/SW 5"' Avenue between NW 2"d Street and SW 2r~ Street within the CITY limits, hereinafter "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, the PROJECT will add irrigation, curbing, landscaping and sidewalk to NW/SW 5"~ Avenue between NW 2"~ Street and SW 2n(~ Street within the CITY limits; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY wishes to contribute to this Project in an amount not to exceed $225,000.00 for Phase 1 in Fiscal Year 2002/2003 and $225,000.00 for Phase 2 in Fiscal Year 2003/2004 not to exceed a total project cost for the 2 Fiscal years of $450,000.00; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare that the PROJECT be completed; and WHEREAS, the CITY and COUNTY are authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Section 163.01, Flodda Statutes, which permits local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other governmental entities on a basis of mutual advantage. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived from the PROJECT and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree to the following: Section 1. Recitals: The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. Section 2: The CITY shall be responsible for the initial funding and construction of the PROJECT including design, contract preparation, bidding, award, contract administration, and inspection pursuant to all applicable state and local laws and regulations. The City shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the PROJECT after installation. Section 3: The CITY shall obtain or provide all labor and materials necessary for the construction of the PROJECT. Section 4: The CITY shall be solely responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations required for the construction of the PROJECT from any federal, state, regional, COUNTY or CITY agency. Section 5: The CITY shall provide initial funding to accomplish the PROJECT and be responsible for all costs exceeding the funding provided by the COUNTY as addressed below in Section 6. Those costs incurred by the CITY, including design costs, subsequent to the date of said PROJECT initiation are eligible for reimbursement by the COUNTY pursuant to the terms and conditions hereof. Section 6: Invoicina and Reimbur~ement: The CITY shall be reimbursed by the COUNTY in an amount not to exceed $225,000.00 for Phase 1 of the PROJECT in Fiscal Year 2002/2003 and $225,000.00 for Phase 2 of the PROJECT in Fiscal Year 2003/2004 towards the design and construction costs under this Agreement only after it has expended its own funds and the portion of the design and construction for which it is seeking reimbursement for has been completed, inspected and certified by the CITY's Representative. The County Engineer shall have the right, but not the obligation, to inspect and approve the construction. The CITY shall submit proof of payment to the COUNTY's contract monitor or his designee in a form deemed satisfactory by the COUNTY. CITY overhead shall not be included in costs to be reimbursed by the COUNTY. In no event shall the ~3OUNTY have any obligation to any other entity or person and the COUNTY's obligation to the Cl3'Y shall not exceed $225,000.00 in Fiscal Year 2002/2003 and $225,000.00 in Fiscal Year 2003/2004 not to exceed a total PROJECT cost of $450,000.00. A Contract Payment Request Form and a Contractual Services Purchases Schedule Form, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", which are required for each and every reimbursement requested by the CITY. Said information shall list each invoice payable by the CITY and shall include the vendor invoice number; invoice date; and the amount payable by the CITY. The CITY shall attach a copy of each vendor invoice paid 2 by the CITY along with a copy of the respective check and shall make reference thereof to the applicable item listed on the Contractual Services Purchases Schedule Form. Further, The Program Administrator or the Program Financial Officer for the CITY shall certify the total funds payable by the CITY on the Project and shall also certify that each vendor invoice listed on the Contractual Services Purchases Schedule Form was paid by the CITY as indicated. Invoices received from the CITY will be reviewed and approved by the COUNTY indicating that the expenditures have been made in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement. Thereafter, they will be sent to the COUNTY's Finance Department for final approval and payment. Unless the term of this Agreement is extended, the CITY shall submit all invoices for final payment by June 30, 2005. The COUNTY shall have no obligations for any costs incurred after the above-referenced date. Section 7: The CITY shall maintain adequate records to justify all charges, expenses, and costs incurred in performing the PROJECT for at least three (3) years after its completion. The COUNTY shall have access to all books, records, and documents as required in this Section for the purpose of inspection or audit during normal business hours. Section 8. Effective Date: The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of full execution by both parties. Section 9. Compliance with Codes and Laws: Each party agrees to abide by all applicable laws, orders, rules and regulations. Section 10. Liability: The parties to the Agreement shall not be deemed to assume any liabili*ty for-the negligent or wrongful acts, or omissions of the other party. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver by either party, of the liability limits established in Section 768.28, Flodda Statutes. Section 11. Indemnity: In the event a claim or lawsuit is brought against the COUNTY, its officers, employees, servants, or agents relating to the PROJECT with regard to responsibilities of the CITY, the CITY agrees without waiver of limitation as provided for in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, and, to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officers, employees, servants or agents from and against any claims, losses, demands, damages, liabilities or causes of action of whatsoever kind or nature that the COUNTY, its officers, employees, servants or agents may or could sustain as a result of or emanating out of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement relating to any part of the PROJECT that is the responsibility of the CITY. Section 12. Notice of (~omplaints or Suits: Each party will promptly notify the other of any citizen compliant, claim, suit, or cause of action threatened or commenced against it which arises out of or relates, in any manner, to the performance of this Agreement. Section 13. Annual Ac)DroDrlation: Each party's performance and obligation under this Agreement is contingent upon an annual budgetary appropriation by its respective governing body for the purposes hereunder. The COUNTY and the CITY agree to budget and appropriate funds if available. Section 14. Repayment: The CITY shall repay the COUNTY for all unauthorized, illegal or unlawful expenditures of revenues, including those discovered after the expiration or termination of this Agreement, to the extent permitted by law. Funds which are to be repaid to the COUNTY are to be repaid by delivering to the COUNTY a certified check for the total amount due and payable to COUNTY, and delivering it to the COUNTY's contract monitor within ten (30) days of the COUNTY's demand. Nothing contained herein shall act as a limitation of the COUNTY's right to be repaid, as a waiver of any rights of the COUNTY's, or preclude the COUNTY from pursuing any other remedy which may be available to it under law or equity. Section 15. Independent Contractor: The CITY recognizes that it is an independent contractor and not an agent or servant of COUNTY. No person employed by any party*to this Agreement, shall in connection with the performance of this Agreement or any services or functions contemplated hereunder, at any time, be considered the employee of the other party, nor shall an employee claim any right in or entitlement to any pension, worker's compensation benefit, unemployment compensation, civil service, or other employee fights or privileges granted by operation of law or otherwise, except through and against the entity by whom they are employed. Section 16. Eaual Opportunity: The COUNTY and CITY agree that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, disability, religion, ancestry, martial status, or sexual orientation be excluded from the benefits of, or be subjected to any form 4 of discrimination under any activity carried out by the performance of this Agreement. The CITY will ensure that all contracts let for the PROJECT pursuant to the terms of this Agreement will contain similar non-discrimination and equal opportunity clause Section 17. Breach of OPPortunity to Cure: The parties expressly covenant and agree that in the event either party is in default of its obligations under this Agreement, the party not in default shall provide to the defaulting party thirty (30) days wdtten notice exercising any of its rights. Section 18, Enforcement Costs: Any costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) associated with the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be borne by the respective parties; provided, however, that this clause pertains only to the parties to the Agreement. ~;ectlon 19. Notice: All notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing, and deemed sufficient to each party when sent by Unites States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: As to the COUNTY: With a copy to: As to the City: Palm Beach County Engineering and Public Works Attn: George T. Webb, P.E. County Engineer 160 Australian Avenue, Suite 501 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Marlene Romano Everitt Assistant County Attorney 301 N. Olive Avenue, 6th Floor West Palm Beach, FL 33401 City of Delray Beach Mr. Randall Krejcarek, City Engineer 100 NW First Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Section 20. Modification and Amendments: Except as expressly permitted herein to the contrary, no modification, amendment or alteration in the terms or conditions contained herein shall be effective unless contained in a written document executed with the same formality and equality of dignity herewith. Section 21. Public Entitles Statement: As provided in F.S. 287.132-133, by entering into this Agreement or performing any work in furtherance hereof, the CITY certifies that its affiliates, suppliers, sub-contractors, and consultants who perform work hereunder, have not been placed on the convicted vendor list maintained by the State of Florida Department of Management Services within 36 months immediately preceding the date hereof. This notice is required by F.S. 287.133(a). Section 22. County as Additional Insured: The CITY shall require each contractor engaged by the CITY for work associated with this Agreement to maintain: a. Workers' Compensation coverage in accordance with Florida Statutes, and; b. Commercial General Liability coverage, including vehicle coverage, in combined single limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000). The County shall be included in the coverage as an additional insured. c. A payment and performance bond for the total'amount of the improvements in accordance with Florida Statute 255.05. Section 23. Remedies: This Agreement shall be construed by and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Any and all legal action necessary to enforce this Agreement shall be held in Palm Beach County. No remedy herein conferred upon any party is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy, and each and every other remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. No single or partial exercise by any party of any right, power, or remedy hereunder shall preclude any other or further exercise thereof. Section 24. Joint Preparation: The preparation of this Agreement has been a joint effort of the parties, and the resulting document shall not, solely as matter of judicial constraint, be construed more severely against one of the parties than the other. Section 25. Severability: In the event that any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, o~ provision hereof is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this Agreement and the same shall remain in full force and effect. Section 26. Entirety of Agreement: This Agreement represents the entire understanding between the parties, and supersedes all other negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral, relating to this Agreement. Section 27. CaPtions: The captions and section designations herein set forth are for convenience only and shall have no substantive meaning. 6 Section 28. Filin.q: This Agreement shall be filed with the Clerk of Courts for Palm Beach County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement and it is effective on the date first written above. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By:. By: ATTEST: Mayor Chair ATTEST: DOROTHY H. WILKEN, CLERK By: City Clerk By: Deputy Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By: Date: City Attorney By: Assistant County Attorney Date: APPROVED AS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS By: Date: Date: 04 Mar 2003 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: X Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Workshop Agenda Special Agenda When: 13 Mar 2003 Description of Agenda Item (who, what, where, how much): Request for Commission authorization/approval for Mayor to execute Interlocal Agreement with Palm Beach County for the design and installation of landscaping, irrigation, sidewalks and curbing along NW/SW 5th Avenue from SW 1st Street to NW 2nd Street. The City will receive funds from this Interlocal Agreement in two phases. Phase I funding, in the amount of $225,000.00, will be available in Fiscal Year 2002/2003. Phase 2 funding, in the amount of $225,000.00, will be available in Fiscal Year 2003/2004. Staff Recommendation: Ap~,~{ Department Head Signature: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding Available: Yes / No Initials: N.Ao Account Number Description Account Balance: Funding Alternatives: (if applicable) City Manager Review: for Agenda:~/No Initials: Approved Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: S:\EngAdmin\Projects\2003\2003-037\Official\2003-03-13 agenda doc 03/06/03 THU 13:50 FAX 561 243 3774 CITY CLERK ~001 *** TX REPORT TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 0308 CONNECTION TEL 92784755 CONNECTION ID DEL BCH CTY ATTY ST. TIME 03/06 13:44 USAGE T 05'29 PCS. SENT 8 RESULT OK FAX CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH 100 N.W. 1" Ave Delray Beach FL 33444 Tel (561) 243-7050 - Fax (561) 243-3774 D~YB~CH 1993 TO: FROM: Barbara Garito, City Clerk DIRECT PHONE LINE (561) 243-7051 OUR FAX (561) 243-3774 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover sheet) Urgent For Review Please Comment Susan Ruby, City Attorney (278-4755) X Please Reply I-1 Please Recycle COMMENTS: Susan, this interlocal between PBC & the City for NW/SW 5'n Avenue is scheduled for the March 13th agenda. Please revie, w,i,t for f~m and. sufficiency ~..nd ,contact Chevelle of it's approval. Thanks, ~X,%~ ~ ~'~,.x.~.%.,e..~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER~ AGENDA ITEM # ~ -REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13. 2003 GRANT AWARDS FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION CONTRACT MARCH 7, 2003 This is before the Commission to consider approval of the following housing rehabilitation contracts: · $23,940.00 to Preston Construction for 16680 S.W. 8~ Avenue · $12,400.50 to South Florida Construction for 218 S.E. 1" Avenue · $12,547.50 to Henry Haywood for 311 S.W. 8~ Street Funding for the total amount of $48,887.50 for these grants is available from 118-1924-554-49.19 (SHIP Housing Rehabilitation). Recommend approval of the housing rehabilitation grant\contract awards as outlined above. S:\C~ty Clerk\chevelle folder\agenda memos\CDBG Housing Rehab Award.3 13 03 City of Delray Beach Community Development Division MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: David T. Harden, City Manager Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement Kendra W. Graham, C.D. Administrator February 27, 2003 Community Development Division Housing Rehabilitation Grant Award ITEM BEFORE CITY COMMISSION Approval is requested for three (3) Housing Rehabilitation grant awards to the lowest responsive bidders. This request is in accordance with the City's Community Development Division's approved Policies and Procedures. BACKGROUND The grant awards are based on the actual cost of the rehabilitation, as determined by the low responsive bidder, plus a 5% contingency. The contingency may be used for change orders and all unused funds will remain with the Housing Rehabilitation grant program. Inspection of work is done by the Department of Community Improvement's Building Inspection and Community Development Division. Contracts are executed between the building contractor and the property owner. The City remains the agent and this office monitors all work performed by the contractor, ensuring compliance according to specifications and program guidelines. Pay request forms require both contractor and homeowner's signatures. Grant recipients have met all eligibility requirements as specified in the approved Policies and Procedures. The rehabilitation activities will bring the homes to minimum code requirements by repairing the roof, electric and plumbing systems and correcting other incipient code violations. Detailed work write-ups and individual case files are available for review in the Community Development Division Office. The Community Development Division is responsible for ensuring that the housing rehabilitation contracts are awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, as a result of a formal bid process. Therefore, an in-house policy was created to limit awards to the lowest responsible bidder as it relates to the Division's professional in-house estimate. This serves to disqualify unreasonably low bids and therefore protect against the resulting change order requests. This policy further assists the Division with its goal of completing each rehabilitation activity utilizing the estimated amount of funding required. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends awarding the bid for three (3) Housing Rehabilitation projects to the verified responsible low bidders and authorize awards in the following amounts: Case Number Address Contractor Grant Amount 00-062 HR 16680 SW 8th Ave. Preston Construction $23,940.00 00-060 HR 218 SE 1st Ave. South Florida Construction $12,400.50 00-044 SH 311 SW 8th St. Henry Haywood $12,547.50 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM BID/QUOTATION INFORMATION SHEET BID/QUOTATION #: 2003-16 SH APPLICANT: Oscar E. Garcia PROJECT ADDRESS: 16680 SW 8tb Avenue DATE OF BID LETTERS: January 23~ 2003 DATE OF BID OPENING: February 6, 2003 NAME OF CONTRACTORS ABISSET CORPORATION ALPHA SOUTH CONSTRUCTION CRAFTSMAN PLUS, INC. DANIEL MORGAN HATCHER CONSTRUCTION HENRY L. HAYWOOD PRESTON CONSTRUCTION SOUTH FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION HORIZON ROOFING PETITO ROOFING WRIGHTS WAY ROOFING AMOUNT OF BIDS $ 24~850.00 $ $ 22~800.00 $ . 27,360.00 $ IN-HOUSE ESTIMATE $ 22~253.05 CONTRACTOR AWARDED CONTRACT: Preston Construction BID/CONTRACT AMOUNT: $22~800 + 5% contingency {$1,140.00) = $23,940 FUNDING SOURCE: SHIP Rehabilitation Program Account No. 118-1924-554-49.19 COMMENTS: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM BID/QUOTATION INFORMATION SHEET BID/QUOTATION #: 2003-16 SH APPLICANT: Gray Campbell PROJECT ADDRESS: 218 S.E. 1at Avenue DATE OF BID LETTERS: Januar~ 23~ 2003 DATE OF BID OPENING: February 6~ 2003 NAME OF CONTRACTORS ABISSET CORPORATION ALPHA SOUTH CONSTRUCTION CRAFTSMAN PLUS, INC. DANIEL MORGAN HATCHER CONSTRUCTION HENRY L. HAYWOOD PRESTON CONSTRUCTION SOUTH FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION HORIZON ROOFING PETITO ROOFING WRIGHTS WAY ROOFING AMOUNT OF BIDS $ 14~025.00 $ 11,810.00 $ IN-HOUSE ESTIMATE $ 12~409.10 CONTRACTOR AWARDED CONTRACT: South Florida Construction BID/CONTRACT AMOUNT: $11~810 + 5% contingency ($590.50) = $12~400.50 FUNDING SOURCE: SHIP Rehabilitation Program Account No. 118-1924-554-49.19 COMMENTS: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM BID/QUOTATION INFORMATION SHEET BID/QUOTATION #: 2003-16 SH APPLICANT: Shirley Jacobs PROJECT ADDRESS: 311 SW8th Street DATE OF BID LETTERS: January. 23~ 2003 DATE OF BID OPENING: February 6~ 2003 NAME OF CONTRACTORS ABISSET CORPORATION ALPHA SOUTH CONSTRUCTION CRAFTSMAN PLUS, INC. DANIEL MORGAN HATCHER CONSTRUCTION HENRY L. HAYWOOD PRESTON CONSTRUCTION SOUTH FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION HORIZON ROOFING PETITO ROOFING WRIGHTS WAY ROOFING AMOUNT OF BIDS $ 15,258.00 $ $ 11,950.00 $ 12,375.00 $ 12~035.00 $ IN-HOUSE ESTIMATE $ 12~878.64 CONTRACTOR AWARDED CONTRACT: Henry Ha.ywood BID/CONTRACT AMOUNT: $11,950.00 + 5% contingency ($597.50) = $12,547.50 FUNDING SOURCE: SHIP Rehabilitation Proeram Account No. 118-1924-554-49.19 COMMENTS: AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: __ Regular Agenda ~ Special Agenda Workshop Agenda ~ Consent Agenda Date: February 27, 2003 When: March 13, 2003 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Case Number Address Contractor Grant Amount 00-062 HR 16680 SW 8th Ave. Preston Construction $23,940.00 00-060 HR 218 SE 1st Ave. South Florida Construction $12,400,50 00-044 HR 311 SW 8th St. Henry Haywood $12,547.50 ORDINANCE / RESOLUTION REQUIED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of three (3) State Housing Initiative Parmership (SHIP) Housing Rehabilitation Grants and Contract awards from Account 118-1924-554-49.19 in the amounts listed above for a total award of $48,887.50. SHIP Total: $48,887.50 Department Head Signature: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable):. Account Number: 118-1924-554-49.19 Budget Director Review (required on all itemMnvolving expenditure of funds): _Funding available' lmnding AlternatiVes: ~ (if applicab~) Account No. & DEscription: l lO Account Balance.~ fl~,Oi]L). ~ City Manager Review: Approved for agenda:~O~ Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER % AGENDA ITEM # "x 'x -REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13. 2005 DELRAY BEACH RENAISSANCE PROGRAM SUBSIDY REOUEST MARCH 7, 2003 This is before the Commission for approval of one (1) subsidy award to an eligible applicant/family under the Delray Beach Renaissance Program for the following property: · $25,000.00 for N.W. 13m Avenue This is for new construction. This subsidy brings the total to 151-homeowner assistance grants provided under the City Renaissance Program. Funding for the total amount of $25,000.00 for this subsidy award is available from 118-1924-554- 83.01 (SHIP Program). Recommend approval of the funding subsidy under Delray Beach Renaissance Program as outlined above. S:\Caty Clerk\chevelle folder\agenda memos\Renoassance Program 3.13.03 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THRU: DATE: SUBJECT: David Harden, City Manager Debra Garcia, C. D. Specialist Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director March 5, 2003 Delray Beach Renaissance Program Subsidy Requests ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION City Commission authorization and approval to issue a subsidy to one (1) eligible applicant/family under the Delray Beach Renaissance Program. This subsidy brings the total to 151 homeownership assistance grants provided under the city Renaissance Program to date. BACKGROUND The Delray Beach Renaissance Program Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the City Commission on January 23, 1996. In partnership with the Delray Beach Community Development Corporation, the TED Center, the Community Redevelopment Agency, the Community Financing Consortium, the Federai Home Loan Bank of Atlanta and the Delray Beach Housing Authority, we committed to providing homeownership opportunities to 80 homebuyers through new construction and acquisition rehab beginning October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1998. The initial agreement was extended for a term of one year in 1999 and 2000 by all partners and the City Commission. A new Memorandum of Understanding beginning October 1,2001 through September 30, 2004 was approved by all parties and the City Commission on February 19, 2002. Each potential homebuyer is required to attend a homebuyer's seminar sponsored by the Community Financing Consortium, Inc., the Renaissance Program's partner and first mortgage lender. The seminar includes training and information on financial planning, credit and borrowing, budgeting, fair housing issues, mortgage and closing costs and a comprehensive glossary of real estate terms. The Grant is secured by a Promissory Note/Second Mortgage approved by the City Attorney and requires the applicant to maintain ownership/residence for a specified period according to the amount of the Grant. Grant amounts less than $15,000 per unit are forgiven at a rate of 20% per year for a period of five (5) years and Grant amounts equal to or greater than $15,000 but less than $25,000 per unit are forgiven at a rate of 10% per year for ten (10) years. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending City Commission approval to fund subsidy for one (1) eligible applicant/family of the following property: New Construction XXX NW 13th Avenue $25,000 DELRAY BEACH RENAISSANCE PROGRAM SUBSIDY REQUEST BREAKDOWN NEW CONSTRUCTION YES CENSUS TRACT 67 NAME Monica & Bernard Rolle PROPERTY ADDRESS _xxx NW 13th Ave., Delra¥ Beach (12-43-46-17-28-001-0150) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15 Bk 1, Odmanns Sub., PB 4 Pg 53 % OF AREA MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 37% FIRST MORTGAGE RATE 5.8760% LTV 83.000% NO. IN HOUSEHOLD ~4 PROJECT/SUBSIDY BREAKDOWN COST OF CONSTRUCTION COST OF LOT COST OF EXISTING UNIT COST OF DEVELOPER'S FEE Estimated Pre-paids (Lender 1003) Estimated Closing Costs (Lender 1003) Discount TOTAL TRANSACTION: FIRST MORTGAGE TOTAL SUBSIDY Second Mortgage $ 21,500.00 Developer's Fee $ 3,500.00 THIRD MORTGAGE OTHER CREDITS Estimated Cash To/From Borrower (Lender 1003) $ 92,300.00 $ 15,ooo.oo $ N/A $ 3,500.00 $ 1,081.95 $ 5,154.10 $ 880.00 $ 117~916.05 $ 88,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ $ 4,916.o5 Repubhc Bank C~ty of Delray Beach (SHIP) File Narrative Delray Beach Renaissance Program Homebuyer: Date Drafted: Partner Agency: Developer/Builder: Location: Funding Source(s): SHIP Track Year: Subsidy Amount(s): First Mortgage: Lender: Unit Cost: Land Cost: Renaissance Partner Fee: Monica & Bernard Rolle March 3, 2003 Community Development Corporation Lot 15, Bk 1, Odmanns Sub; 12-43-46-17-28-01-0150 State SHIP 2001-2002 Acquisition Rehab. $21,500 $88,000 Bank Atlantic $117,916.05 $ 3,500 ** To Be Distributed Separately by CD Division** Narrative Monica Rolle is the mother of Jernard Rolle, age 4 and Tamera Hudgeon, age 11. Mr. Rolle is not currently employed at this time but Mrs. Rolle has an annual income of $22,880. Mr. and Mrs. Reyes would like to build a home located at xxx NW 13th Ave. The proposed house will be a three bedroom/two bath home with approximately 1,550 sq. ft. of living space. Employment Income Delray Harbor Medical $22,880.00 (Regular Wages) Assets Income Washington Mutual (checking) Washington Mutual (savings) Basis ($11.00/hr x 40hrs/weekx 52 wks year) Basis $ 123.97 $6,367.17 Asset Income Income Washington Mutual (savings) $ 31.84 Basis SHIP Imputed Income From Assets: (If assets exceed $5,000, impute income by multiplying total net family assets by the passbook rate specified by HUD, which is 2 percent.) Total Annual Household Income: $22,800.00 Conclusion Based on the Rolle's income as reported, the entire household is determined (in accordance with the 2002 FHFC Income Limits) to be at 37% of MFI for a four (4) member household. The household does not exceed the Iow income limit of $50,250 and is therefore eligible for up to $25,000 in subsidy under the current Renaissance Program Agreement. A total subsidy in the amount of $25,000 from SHIP funds is recommended (based on need as requested by the CDC). s:renaissance program/SHIP/file narrate NW NW SW SW 3RD ST POMPEY PARK ST MARTIN LUTHER 1ST KING JR ATLANTIC AVENUEJ l I ~ ~-] S D SPADY ELEMEN TAR Y SCHOOL ATLANTIC GA TEWA Y MINI PARKS IST 2ND AVENUE -- £EGEN~ -- ~ S.H.I.P. PROJECT FIRST TIME HOME BUYER PROGRAM N.W. 13TH AVENUE SUBJECT AREA SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PCN'~ 12-43-46-17-28-001-0150 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE 0 16 ABRIDGED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ODMANNS SUBLOT 15 BLK 1 ZONING R-1-A (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FLUM LD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 0-5 UNITS / ACRE) EXISTING LAND USAGE VACANT WITHIN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE #558 WITHIN CENSUS TRACT ~/68 01 PLANNING a ZONING DEPAR?MENT S ~ON~-~R ~EION -- M~CH ~0~ -- Agenda Item No.: AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: X Regular Agenda __ Special Agenda __ Workshop Agenda __ Consent Agenda Date: March 5, 2003 When: March 13, 2003 Description of item: Authorization and approval to issue subsidies to one (1) eligible applicant under the Delray Beach Renaissance Program totaling $25,000 Note: This applicant brings the total homeownership assistance grants provided under the Renaissance Program to date to 151. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the one (1) subsidy award. Funds are to be awarded from the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program. SHIP Total: $25,000 Account Number: 118-1924-554.83-01 Department Head Signature: ~ ~/~t~~ [~ City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding Available: ~/NO ~-~~ Funding Alternatives: Account No. & Description: \4- \°t'Lt[-%e'~- 8aJ.01 Account Balance: ~ ~,~. tXl (if applicable) City Manager Review: Approved for Agenda: Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~~._ AGENDA ITEM # - REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 1~, 2003 RESOLUTION NO. 15-03 (OPPOSING THE REDUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS) FEBRUARY 14, 2003 This is before the Commission for the approval of Resolution No. 15-03. The resolution opposes Governor Bush's proposed Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget that eliminates the State Housing Trust Fund and the Local Government Housing Trust Fund as dedicated sources and reduces the funds available for affordable housing programs by approximately $94.5 million. Recommend approval of Resolution No. 15-03. S.\Caty Clerk\chevelle folder\agenda memos\Res.l 5-03.Affordable Housing.3.13.03 RESOLUTION NO. ~-~_~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, OPPOSING THE PORTION OF GOVERNOR BUSH'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 BUDGET THAT ELIMINATES THE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOUSING TRUST FUND AS DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCES, AND REDUCES BY APPROXIMATELY $94.5 MILLION THE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE UPON APPROVAL. WHEREAS, The City of Delray Beach, Florida has an obligation to provide for the housing needs of ~ts current and anticipated populations and assisting lower income families is dependent upon sufficient housing asststance from federal and state programs; and WHEREAS, Governor Bush has released his proposed Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget that eliminates the State Housing Trust Fund (providing the majority of the funds for programs such as the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) and the Local Government Housing Trust Fund (prowding the majority of the funds for programs such as the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP)) as dedicated funding sources, and reduces by approximately $94.5 million the funds available for these and other affordable housing programs; and WHEREAS, appropriations for housing programs are proposed from general revenue; however, such appropriations are approximately $94.5 million less than the amount that would be available from the dedicated revenue in the trust funds; and WHEREAS, under the proposed budget SHIP would lose approximately $62.7 million and the state programs (SAIL and others) would lose approximately $31.8 million; and WHEREAS, if the Governor's proposal is approved by the Legislature, the dedicated revenue source for affordable housing will be eliminated; and WHEREAS, the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act of 1992 deliberately used the documentary stamp tax as its revenue source because of its nexus with the development of affordable housing and because the source of funding needed to be a growth vehicle to keep pace with escalating land and housing costs; and WHEREAS, without a trust fund that can rely on a dedicated revenue source, housing funding will be uncertain and will likely remain stagnant or decrease; and WHEREAS, the trust funds should not be ehminated or reduced, because they are used to stimulate the economy and to serve first time homebuyers, working families, the elderly, persons with d~sabilities, and the homeless; and WHEREAS, because over 700,000 of Florida's low income families are in immediate need of affordable housing (paying over 50% of their total household income for shelter), Florida needs more affordable housing funding, not less funds from an uncertain source; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the foregoing clauses are ratified and confirmed as being true and correct and are made a specific part of th~s Resolution. Section 2. That the City of Delray Beach, Florida opposes the portion of Governor Bush's proposed Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget that ehminates the State and Local Government Housing Trust Funds as dedicated funding sources, and reduces by approximately $94.5 million the funds available for these and other affordable housing programs. Section 3. That the City of Delray Beach urges the Governor and the State Legislators to retain the State and Local Housing Trust Funds and appropriate funding at their full current levels. Section 4. That the appropriate Clty of Delray Beach Officials are authorized to do all things necessary and expedient to carry out the provisions of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED m regular session on this 2003. day of MAYOR ATTE ST: City Clerk Housing News & Member Update January 24, 2003 Coming Up Published by the Coalition for its Members January 30, 2003 Proposal would merge Dept. of Community Affairs with Dept. of State FHFC 2002 Governor Bush is proposing the merger of the Department of Community Affairs with Homeownership Program (HAP) Loan Application the Department of State. If approved by the Legislature, the new agency would be called the Department of State and Community Partnerships. Growth Management Cycle ends. For more information call and Community Programs, such as Community Development Block Grant, would be 8504884197 moved to the new agency. Some services would be transferred to other departments: · Emergency Management to Dept. of Management Services February 13, 2003 · State Energy Program to Dept. of Environmental Protection FHC Catalyst Workshop · Florida Building Codes Commission would be privatized "Understanding the Income Qualification · The Catalyst Program to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation Process" Tallahassee · The Affordable Housing Study Commission to the Florida Housing Finance Kleman Plaza Corporation For information call If approved by the Legislature, the moves would be ~ffective after the new fiscal year 800-677-4548 begins July 2003. February 19&20, 2003 CALL TO ACTION - Sadowski Affordable Housing Trust Fund Alert Affordable Housing As reported earlier this week, Governor Bush released his proposed FY 2003-2004 Study Commission Meeting budget that eliminates the State Housing Trust Fund (SHIP), reallocates all funds to St. Petersburg Radisson General Revenue, then appropriates $83.9 million less than what would have been Hotel and Conf. Center available from the dedicated revenue in the trust funds. If the proposal is approved by To reserve a hotel room the Legislature, we will lose our dedicated revenue source for affordable housing in call (727) 572-7800 Florida. Future funding will be uncertain and will likely remain stagnant or decrease. For more information Act now - contact your legislators via phone calls, emails or in person to urge them to contact Melba Hawkins at retain the Sadowski Trust Funds and appropriate full funding levels. Legislators will 850-922-1460 be in their district offices beginning January 27~. Emphasize that the affordable housing trust funds should not be eliminated or reduced because they are used to February 26-27, 2003 serve the most needy and stimulate the economy. Remind them that the trust funds FHC Catalyst Workshop are supported by a diverse coalition of groups, including the Florida Homebuilders "Program Design, Program Results" Association, the Florida Association of Realtors, the Florida League of Cities, the Orlando City Hall Florida Association of Counties, 1000 Friends of Florida, the Florida Housing For information call Coalition, the Catholic Conference, Florida Impact, Florida Legal Services, as well as 800-677-4548 many other housing organizations. Ask others to contact their Legislators as well, such as SHIP recipient homeowners and renters, SHIP contractors and March 5, 2003 subcontractors, Realtors, and closing agents. Visit http://www.le.q.state.fl.us to obtain FHC Catalyst Workshop the contact information for your Senator and Representatives. If you have any "Flexible Funding questions or would like additional information or assistance in locating legislators, Sources -Looking 31ease contact Mark Hendrickson at zdo.q416~,aol.com or Jaimie Ross at Outside of Traditional |aimieross~,ao. I.com. Subsides" Orlando City Hall For information call New HUD Rule on Appraisers Issued 800-677-4548 On January 13, in an effort to discourage predatory lending, HUD issued a proposed rule, FR-4722, which would hold lenders accountable for appraisals on FHA-insured mortgages. The proposed rule would also make lenders who provide appraisals that do not meet FHA liable for safictions by HUD's Mortagee Review Board. Comments on the proposed rule are due on March 13, 2003. SADOWSKI ACT COALITION Florida Association of Count. es Florida Lqlnl Services, Inc. Florida Calholic Conference January 2003 Dear Legislator. In 1992, the Florida Legislature adopted landmark legislation for affordable housing known as the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act, providing funds for affordable housing to all 67 counties and an additional 48 cities. Since its inception, the Sadowski Act has assisted more than 130,000 families with affordable home ownership or rental housing through programs such as the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program, the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program, and the Florida Affordable Housing Guarantee Fund. In addition, the Sadowski Act has enabled local governments and the state to bring over $620 million in federal HOME monies to Florida by providing local match funds. Anticipating the exponential growth of Florida's population and housing costs, the Sadowski Act uses a portion of the state real estate documentary transfer fee to fund the state and local housing trust funds. The Sadowski Act was, and continues to be, supported by a broad bipartisan coalition of statewide interests including the Florida Home Builders Association, the Florida Association of Realtors, the Florida League of Cities, the Florida Association of Counties, Florida Legal Services, Inc., 1000 Friends of Florida, the Florida Housing Coalition, Florida Catholic Conference, and Florida Impact, as well as many other organizations. Sadowski Act funds enable local governments to implement local housing programs and housing partnerships. Sadowski Act funds are highly leveraged: for every dollar of Sadowski funds, the public and private sector invests at least six dollars. To date, Sadowski Act funding has brought over an estimated $9 billion in other public and private sector investments. Sadowski Act funding provides ongoing technical assistance to local governments and nonprofit organizations and is used to respond to emergencies by providing relief after natural disasters. Sadowski Act funds have also created thousands of jobs in the construction industry. Florida serves as the national model for effectively funding flexible and productive programs for affordable housing. It is in this spirit of cooperation that the Sadowski Act Coalition is pleased to maintain its role of oversight and support for the continuation of full funding for the Sadowski Act; we pledge to assist the Legislature in meeting its goal of ensuring that every Floridian has safe, decent, and affordable housing. AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: x Regular Agenda Special Agenda __ Workshop Agenda ~ Consent Agenda Date: March 3, 2003 When: March 13, 2003 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): The adoption of a resolution voicing the City's opposition to Governor Bush's proposed Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget that eliminates the State Housing Trust Fund and the Local Government Housing Trust Fund as dedicated sources and reduces by approximately $94.5 million the funds available for affordable housing programs. ORDINANCE / RESOLUTION REQUIE .[~EJ/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the resolution opposing the reduction of approximately $94.5 million in funds for affordable housing programs. 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 No. & Description: Account Balance: .(if applicable) City Manager Review: Approved for agenda:~?qO~/ Hold Until: x_,,,- t,,'- [ Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM #'~\~k~.. REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2003 GRANT ACCEPTANCE/FEDERAL COPS IN SCHOOLS MARCH 7, 2003 This is before the Commission to approve and accept the Federal COPS in Schools grant award from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, in the amount of $125,000.00 with a local cash match of $32,557.00. This grant will provide funding for the salary and approved fringe benefits of one newly hired law enforcement officer or a rehired officer for a three (3) year term. The officer will serve as a School Resource Officer for the Village Academy during FY 2003. The grant requires the City of Dekay Beach to retain the officer after the three (3) year term ends. Funding is available from 001-2119-521-Various Administrative Accounts/General Fund Police District 2. Recommend approval and acceptance of the Federal COPS in Schools grant award from the U.S. Depatunent of Justice. S'\Clty Clerk\cheveile fo}der\agenda memos\COPS m Schools.3.13 03 MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: Mr. David Harden, City Manager Joseph M. Saf~b~irector of Finance / Mary A.~oung, Accountant II DATE: March 5, 2003 SUBJECT: Agenda Item for 03/13/03 -Acceptance of Cops in School Grant Award-S125,000.00 -Authorize and identify funding source-Local Cash Match-S32,557.00 Item before City Commission: City Commission approval is needed to officially accept the Cops in School Grant Award in the amount of $125,000.00 and to authorize the local cash match funding source from General Fund Surplus in the amount of $32,557.00. Background: The City of Delray Beach Police Department submitted a federal grant application to the U.S Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services on May 17, 2002, in the amount ors 125,000.00 in anticipation of receiving a Cops in School Grant Award, before presenting this item to City Commission for prior approval. The grant requires the submitting agency to contribute a local cash match of $32,557.00 over a three year period if the grant is awarded and accepted. Since this item was not presented to City Commission, the grant application was not authorized to be submitted to the grant agency nor was the local cash match approved and the funding source identified. The Cops in School Grant is a federal grant that was written to fund the salary and approved fringe benefits for three years for one newly hired, additional sworn career law enforcement officer or rehired officer, beyond the number of officers that would be hired or employed by the grantee in the absence of the grant. The officer will serve as a School Resource Officer and will be deployed at Village Academy during fiscal year 2003. A special condition of the grant will require the City of Delray Beach to retain the officer position after the three year period is met. The COPS office will monitor the retention for one year after the three year period has ended. On September 1, 2002, the City of Delray Beach was officially awarded the Cops in School Grant in the amount of $125,000.00 to be allocated over a three year period. The grant start date commenced on September 1, 2002 and the award end date is August 31, Page 1 of 2 March 5, 2002 Subject: Agenda Item for 03/13/03-Acceptance of Cops in School Grant and to authorize Local Cash Match 2005. The approved grant revenue budget will be recorded in account number 001-0000- 331-71.00 and the approved grant budget is as follows: FY2003 $43,000.00, FY2004 $41,500.00 and FY2005 $40,500.00. As a requirement of accepting the gram award, the City of Delray Beach must provide a local cash match of $32,557.00 over the three year period to meet the provisions of the grant. The approved budget for the local cash match for the three year period is as follows: FY2003 $7,830.00, FY2004 $11,027.00 and FY2005 $13,700.00. Recommendation: I respectfully request City Commission approval to officially accept the Cops in School Grant Award in the amount of $125,000.00 and to authorize and identify the funding source for the local cash match of $32,557.00 from General Fund Surplus for the respective three year period. Funding is idemified in the below chart and will be budgeted in the General Fund Police District 2 account number 001-2119-521-various (administrative accounts). Type of Funds FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Total Grant Funds $43,000.00 $41,500.00 $40,500.00 $125,000.00 Local Cash Match $ 7,830.00 $11,027.00 $13,700.00 $ 32,557.00 Total $50,830.00 $52,527.00 $54,200.00 $157,557.00 Page 2 of 2 Delray Beach Police Department Ali-America City (561) 243-7888 Fax (561) 243-7816 1993 Joseph L. Schroeder 2001 Chief of Pohce MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Barbara Garito t~ City Clerk I~ David Junghan,~s~' Administrative Serw"c~es Director DATE: March 4, 2003 SUBJECT: AGENDA REQUEST The Police Department has been awarded a Federal COPS in Schools Grant, total grant award, $125,000.00. The grant is for one police officer's salary and benefits, and is for a three year period. The officer will function as a School Resource Officer for the Village Academy. There is a City match required of -~, this amount would also be spread over a three year period. The Department is requesting the Commission approve the acceptance of this grant. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me at once. LDJ/ Enclosure Serving with P.R. LD.E. Professionalism, Respect, Integrity, Diversity and Excellence U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office of the Dtrector 1100 Fermont .~venue, NW Igashington, DC 20530 September 11, 2002 Chief Joseph Schroeder Delray Beach, City of 300 West Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 RE: Grant for Delray Beach, City of ORI:FL05004 Grant Number: 2002SHWX0411 Dear Chief Schroeder: It is with great pleasure that I write to inform you that your department will receive a COPS in Schools grant award for 1 new, additional full-time officer(s) and 0 part-time officer(s) at an estimated cost of $125,000.00. This is an estimated amount of federal funds to be awarded to your jurisdiction for a three-year grant period. The grant award start date !ts September 1, 2002, which means that your agency can be reimbursed for salaries and benefits of additional officers hired after this date. Upon budget approval for the officer positions, your agency will be mailed the official grant award document that will provide the actual award amount for this grant. Onceyour agency receives this document, please sign the award to officially accept the grant and return it to the COPS Office within 90 days. Failure to submit the signed award document in this 90-day period could result in COPS withdrawing your agency from the grant program and de-obligating your agency's funding from this grant. We are pleased that your department has elected to participate in the COPS in Schools grant program and look forward to working with you in a productive partnership to further your community policing efforts. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the COPS Office at 1-800-421-6770. Your Grant Program Specialist will be happy to provide you with assistance. Sincerely, Carl R. Peed Director U.S. Department of Justice Office o/Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office of the Director 1100 Fermont /lvenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 September 6, 2002 Chief Joseph Schroeder Delray Beach, City of 300 West Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Re: Grant for Delray Beach, City of FL05004 - 2002SHWX0411 Dear Chief Schroeder: Congratulations on receiving a COPS in Schools grant award from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) for 1 new, additional full-time officer(s) and 0 part-time officer(s) in the amount of $125,000. The grant award start date for your COPS in Schools award is 9/1/2002, which means that your agency may be reimbursed for e.ntry-level salaries and benefits of additional officers hired on or after this date. Enclosed in this award package is your grant award document with a list of corresponding grant conditions that apply to this program. Please read and familiarize yourself with these grant conditions prior to signing the document. As a reminder, departments awarded funding under the COPS in Schools grant program are required to attend a COPS in Schools Regional Training Workshop. The COPS Office, or our designee, will be the sole provider for the training, and COPS will reimburse all reasonable costs up to $1,200 for each required participant to cover travel, lodging and per diem. In order to satisfy this condition, the specific COPS in Schools officer(s) assigned to the school(s) as a result of receiving this COPS grant, as well as one representative from the pannering school or school district, fiaust attend one of these training workshops. Your agency will receive information on the training dates and locations in the near future. Also included in this package is the COPS in Schools Grant Owner's Manual, which summarizes and explains the conditions of your agency's COPS in Schools grant award. This manual also has information relating to payment methods and procedures for receiving your grant funds. Furthermore, in an effort to assist your agency with completing the required financial reporting forms that must be regularly submitted to the COPS Office under this grant, aHelpful Hints Guide has been included in this award package. For your convenience, a set of mailing labels has been enclosed which may be used to submit correspondence to the COPS Office. To officially accept your grant, please sign the enclosed award document and return the original to the COPS Office within 90 days. Failure to submit the signed award document within this 90-day period may result in withdrawal of the grant without further notice from the COPS Office. We are pleased that your agency has elected to participate in the COPS in Schools grant program and look forward to working with you in a productive partnership to further your community policing efforts. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the COPS Office at 1-800-421-6770. Your Grant Program Specialist will be happy to provide you with assistance. Sincerely, Carl R. Peed Director U. S. Department of Justice Office of Comtnunity Oriented Policing Services COPS in Schools Award Award Start Date: Award Amount: Application Organization's Name: Grant #: ORI #: Vendor 0: Law Enforcement Executive Name: ~4ddress: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Fax: Government Executive Name: .4ddress: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Fax: September 1, 2002 $125,000 Delray Beach, City of 2002SHWX0411 FL05004 596000308 Chief Joseph L. Schroeder 300 West Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 (561) 243-7851 (561) 243-7816 City Manager David T. Harden 100 Northwest 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 (561) 243-7010 (561) 243-7166. Award End Date: Number of Officers: Full Time: Part Time: August 31, 2005 1 0 Carl R. Peed Director SEP O § 2002 Date By signing this award, the signatory officials are~greeing to abide by the Conditions of Grant Award found on the reverse side of this document: Signature of Law Enforcement Executive with the Typed Name and Title of Law Enforcement Date Executive. David T. Hard~n, City Manager Typed Name and Title of Government Executive. Date authority to accept this grant award. Signature of Government Executive with the authority to accept this grant award. Award ID: 71050 U. S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grants Administration Division 1100 Vermont,4venue, NYe' Washington, DC 20530 Memorandum To: Joseph Schroeder, Chief Delray Beach, City of From: Re'- Robert A. Phillips, Assistant Director, Grants Administration Joel SackeR, Grant Program Specialist, Grants Administration Daniel Tedla, Staff Accountant, Finance Division Approved Budget, COPS in Schools A financial analysis of budgeted costs has been completed. Costs under this award appear reasonable, allowable, and consistent with existing guidelines. ORT: FI,0.gO04 Grant Number: 2002SHWX0411 OJP Vendor Number: 596000308 Year 1 = Costs Per Changes Change Full-Time Officer: Approved Breakdown Reason ~'nnual Base Salary $36,088.00 $0.00 Fringe Benefits: $14,742.00 $-47.00 Social Security $2,237.00 $0.00 6.20% of the base salary Medicare $523.00 $0.00 1.45% of the base salary Health Insurance $4,482.00 $0.00 Life Insurance $192.00 $0.00 Vacation $0.00 $0.00 -~ Sick Leave $0.00 $0.00 Retirement $4,688.00 $0.00 Worker's Compensation $2,345.00 $0.00 Unemployment $26.00 $0.00 E.A.P. $0.00 $-47.00 Unallowable Cost Disability Insurance $249.00 $0.00 Full-Time Officer Costs: Total Changes: $-137.00 Project Costs Per Officer: Total Project Costs: Salaries and Fringe Benefits: $157,557.00 Total Officers: Salaries and Fringe Benefits: $157,557.00 Federal Share: $125,000.00 Federal Share: $125,000.00 Applicant Share: $32,557.00 09/05/2002 S-0 I Applicant Share: $32,557.00 .... ' ' ' ' ....... ' .' ..... ' -" -' ' ' ';. .... . ' ,'~": : ' Federal Sh~re' ,' . ":. ' $125,000 00 (Amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar.) :.. ~;;.',: ........ ,,. .~ .... ,. :, . ,_. ~ '," ...' . ,'" . ~; . . '. : ..... .. ,,.-,,.,, . . .. -, ~ , ...... A ~cant~l~are.- -. .. .... -$32,55700 Budget Cleared Date: 08/20/2002 Overall Comments: The total project cost was decreased by $137 due to disallowed cost for Employee Assistance -$141 and miscalculation of Social Security +$2 and Medicare +$2 in years two and three. The amount of the award reflects the maximum amount allowable ($125,000 per officer for three years or the total projects cost per officer for three years, whichever is less). David Junghans was contacted on 08/20/02. ·/r CIS Revised Budget Summary - Important Notice Dutqng the review of your COPS in Schools ?rogram budget information, the Office qf the Comptroller. Office of Justice Programs or the COPS Office amended the budget information submitted with ),our application These adjustments affect your budget summary The COPS Office modified your budget summary to reflect these changes and to meet legislative requirements Please examine the Revised Budget Summary below. COPS Office staff have changed the Federal Share, the local share or both shares, lf you have an), questions, please contact your grant advisor at the COPS Office at 1 800 421 6770 Thank yott for your attention to this mailer. ORI: FL05004 Organization: Delray Beach, City of The total three year cost for salaries and benefits per full-time officer requested is: The total amount of federal funds per full-time officer requested is: The total three year cost for salaries and benefits per part-time officer requested is: The total amount of federal funds per part-time officer requested is: $157,557.00 $125,000.00 50.00 50.00 Under the COPS in Schools, grant program, Federal funds per officer can not exceed $125,000. If your total three year project cost per officer is less than $125,000 then there is no local match. If your total three year project cost per officer is greater than $125,000 then your local match is the difference between the total project cost and $125,000. In cases where there is a local match requirement, the Federal Share of total salaries and benefits must decrease each year leading to full local funding by the fourth y~ar of an officer's employment. At the same time, your Local Share must increase each year. If these amounts do not meet your needs, please provide revised figures in the blank table below. Thank you. Full Time Federal Share (must decrease): Local Share (must increase): Total Salaries/Benefits: Federal Share (must decrease): Local Share (must increase): Total Salaries/Benefits: Part Time Federal Share (must decrease): Local Share (must increase): Total Salaries/Benefits: Federal Share (must decrease): Local Share (must increase): Total Salaries/Benefits: Year I: Year 2: Year 3: Totals: $43,000.00 $41,500.00 $40,500.00 $125,000.00 $7,830.00 $11,027.00 $t.3,700.00 $32,557.00 $50,830.00 $52,527.00 554,200.00 $157,557.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The undersigned agrees to adhere to the financial commitments outlined above. Name (typed) of Authorized Official: lffary A. Young; Title: 0 0 **OC~ ~u u Request to be placed on: X Consent Agenda When: March 13, 2003 Description of agenda item: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: L~''~ AGENDA REQUEST Date: March 4, 2003 Special Agenda Workshop Agenda This request is for the approval to accept a $125,000.00 Federal COPS in School Grant, for one police officer position to act as a School Resource Officer for the Village Academy. The grant is for a three year pedod and will fund both salary and beneffis required for that officer. There is a $32,70C.CC City match required for this grant. The City match would also be spread over the same three year pedod. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: Draft of Resolution Attached: YES NO X YES NO X Recommendation: Approval ~an Department Head Signature: __ with Determination of Consistency : N/A City Attomey Review/Recommendation (if applicable): N/A Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: Yes X No Funding alternatives (if applicable): Account Number: Account Description: Account Balance: City Manager Review: Approved for Agenda: Hold Until: N/A Salaries and benefits Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved: Disapproved: P.O. # [IT¥ DF DELRrI F AII-AmericaCity 1993 2001 FROM: 100 N.W 1st AVENUE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 David T. Harden, City Manager ~Robert A. Sarcinski, Aklsistant City Manager AGENDA ITEM # ~"CITY COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 13, 2003 SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST- DELRAY AFFAIR 561/243-7000 DATE: February 26, 2003 ACTION City Commission is requested to endorse the Delray Affair to be held April 25-27, 2003 to grant a temporary use permit per LDR's Section 2.4.6 (H) for use of City property and rights-of-way as requested, to waive LDR's Section 4.6.7 (D)(3)(j)(ii) to allow signage to be installed more than one week prior to the event by April 3rd, to provide staff support as outlined in the attached letter, to handle overtime costs per the new event policy, to allow banners within the site area, to allow all vendor permits to be assigned by the Chamber of Commerce and to allow this to be the only event held on these dates. BACKGROUND Attached is a request received from Bill Wood for this years Delray Affair. The proposal this year is to extend the event to NW/SW 1st Avenue versus Swinton. Atlantic Avenue from Swinton to NW/SW 1st Avenue as well as Swinton Avenue north of Atlantic would be used for the expanded area. Staff has reviewed the attached request from the Chamber of Commerce for the Delray Affair. We support the request except for the following: A. Approve use of parks with the stipulation that the Parks and Recreation Director has input concerning the events proposed on park property. B. Grant approval of signs per code requirements, and allow banners to be placed within confines of the event site as may be approved by the Community Improvement Director. C. Allow signage for the event to be put up by April 7th versus April 3r~. Estimated overtime total for this event is approximately $50,900. The Fire Department has proposed manning changes which reduce their overtime costs by about 20%. Last year's actual overtime costs were approximately $51,366 with the Chamber paying the City $33,366. Under the new policies the charge for overtime costs based on the estimate would be approximately $30,675. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Chamber of Commerce's request with staff recommended exceptions, contingent on receipt of a certificate of insurance and hold harmless agreement. RAB:tas File.u:sweeney/events Doc..2003 Delray Affair Prlnted on Recycled Paper THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS ~TT¢ 99 3anuary 24, 2003 Mayor and City Commission City of Delray Beach 100 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Mayor and Commissioners: , elray Affair 64-A 5.E. Fifth Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483 ~1~ (561) 278'0424 (56~..279-1380 x 22 fa~,~61) 278.0555 chambcr~delraybeach.com www.delrayaffair.com The De/ray Affair, celebrating its 41st anniversary in 2003, is scheduled for April 25, 26, & 27, 2003 and we would like to request your support once again. We are very proud of the excellent reputation the event has earned over the last 40 years and we attribute a part of the success to the great relationship we have with the City of Delray Beach. The event has a significant economic impact of more than $30 million as measured in our :[998 Economic Impact Study.* We also are thrilled to share the news of our most recent accomplishments, one of 200 Best Art Events in the United States by Sunshine Artist magazine and Top 20 Event in the Southeast by Southeast Tourism Society. It is our hope that these designations, along with others received in the past, will assist us in our effort to continue to attracting more tour groups and visitors to Delray Beach during the Affair. Please consider approval of the following Delray Affair items: 1. Endorsement by the City Commission as a City supported event; Use of City parking facilities for entertainment and exhibitor parking at Worthing Park, Veterans Park, the City lot behind Hand's, NE :[st Street, and lot adjacent to Vittorio's Restaurant on Federal Highway northbound just south of Atlantic Avenue; Use of all area within Worthing Park, Veteran's Park, CRA parking lot and the exterior grounds of Old School Square (please note that a separate request letter has been sent directly to Old School Square and the CRA); Blocking off vehicular traffic and parking from: West boundary: NW 1~t Avenue/SW 1't Avenue East boundary: Intracoastal Waterway North boundary: NE 1st Street South boundary: SE 1~t Street Additionally, blocking access to Atlantic Avenue from each side street in this area from alley to alley and suspension of parking time restrictions; continued on page 2 Delray Affair - Page 2 g Provide City staff support with representation from Police, Fire, Streets, Engineering, Fleet and Facility Maintenance, Community Improvement, Parks & Recreation, and City Managers Office for planning and operation services; Allow this to be the only Commission approved event during the Delray Affair time frame. Allow all permits to be assigned by the Chamber of Commerce only, with the exception of the Special Event Parking Lot Concessions; Permission to erect signs promoting the event from April 3rd through April 28~, Permission to erect overhead banners within the confines of the Delray Affair site; City staff overtimes costs to be handled per new event policy adopted by City Commission in December 2002. We sincerely appreciate all of the efforts of the City employees and look forward to a great Delray Affair in 2003. We hope each of you will be a part of the festivities. William .1. Wood President CC: Dave Harden, City Manager Bob Barcinski, Asst. City Manager Chief Larry Schroeder, Police Dept. Lt. Geoff Williams, Police Dept./Special Events Chief Kerry Koen, Fire Dept. .lohn Tomaszewski, Asst. Fire Chief .loe Weldon, Director of Parks & Recreation Tim Simmons, Supt. Parks Maintenance Rich Olsen, Public Works Orlando Serrano, Traffic Maintenance Supervisor Jim Schmitz, Supt. Building Maintenance Gary Buzen, Building Maintenance Lulu Butler, Director of Community Tmprovement *Regional Research Associates, 1998 02/13/2003 14:22 5~12780555 DB CHAMBER COMMERCE ~AGE 02 2003 DELRAY AFFA],R April 25, :26, & 27 Proposed Budget INCOME Entry Fees $ 198,O00 Contract Services 3,500 Sposorshlps 59,000 Me~handlse Sales (other income) 9,500 TOTALREVENUE 270,000 EXPENSE;~ Personnel- AdmlnlsLrabve Entertain menUExhlb~tor/Photocjraphy Professfon ]1 Retainer Fees Waste COrtrol & Disposal Shuttle i;]u~, Services City Servl~ es £ecurlt¥ & bcenses Equ~pmen! & Faohty Rental Sponsorship Sales/Recogmt~ons Event $~gr s & Banners Advert~sm, ! prmt/TV/Ramo 0ft~ce & A, lmlnlstrat~ve ~vent Sup01ies & Purchase Printing E) ~nses Nerchandl ;e Sales Expense TOTAL E) PENSE 21,~00 7.500 12,(~00 5,000 3,filS0 2, 145,000 TOTAL SURPLUS $12S,000' * I:vent surplus remains ~n Greater Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce Opera~i.g Budget to fund other chamber pro~. ~-ams and acbvlt~es, ~ncJudlng, but not limited to: Governmental Affmrs, Tourism. Educat~ol, and ]o~nt Venture. [ITY OF DELRI:IY BEI:IgH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755 Writer's D~rect L~ne 561/243-7091 1993 DATE: March 7, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: City Commission Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Acceptance of Easement Deed Regarding Art and Glass Environments The following easement deeds are required for this project, located at 440 SE 5th Avenue, to allow for the encroachment of a public sidewalk onto the property as well as to allow for a public access easement along the west side of the property, adjacent to an alleyway, as provided in the memo from Scott Pape, attached hereto. By copy of this memo to David Harden, our office requests that this item be placed on the March 13, 2003 City Commission agenda for acceptance. Please call if you have any questions. Attachment CCi David Harden, City Manager Barbara Garito, City Clerk Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer Scott Pape, Senior Planner [ITY OF DELAI:IY BEI:IrH CiTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755 1993 DATE: March 7, 2003 MEMORANDUM Writer's I~rect Lane' 561/243-7091 TO: FROM: City Commission Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Acceptance of Easement Deed Regarding Art and Glass Environments The following easement deeds are required for this project, located at 440 SE 5th Avenue, to allow for the encroachment of a public sidewalk onto the property as well as to allow for a public access easement along the west side of the property, adjacent to an alleyway, as provided in the memo from Scott Pape, attached hereto. By copy of this memo to David Harden, our office requests that this item be placed on the March 13, 2003 City Commission agenda for acceptance. Please call if you have any questions. Attachment CCi David Harden, City Manager Barbara Garito, City Clerk Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer Scott Pape, Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Department MEMORANDUM I I I II II I IIIII1'1 I i I III I IIIII1'III ....... IIli111111Tli111~ ....... TO: FROM: BRIAN SHUTT, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT D. PAPE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: FEBRUARY '18, 2003 RE: SIDEWALK EASEMENT, ALLEY ACCESS EASEMENT AND UNITY-OF- TITLE FOR ART AND GLASS ENVIRONMENTS AT 440 SE 5TM AVENUE (FEDERAL HIGHWAY). At its meeting of November 13, 2002, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approved the Class III site plan modification for the property mentioned above. As you are aware, the Board approved the site plan modification subject to conditions that an easement be provided for the public sidewalk that encroaches onto the subject property, a public access easement along the west side of the property, and a unity-of-title. The applicant has submitted the attached executed documents to address these conditions of approval. Please review this documents for legal sufficiency and retum any comments you may have. If these are sufficient please place them on the next available City Commission agenda or forward them to me for scheduling. cc: Department File \~carollna~pape$\wwdata~memos~memos.01\winston condos.doc RECEIVED FEB ! 9 2003 CITY ATTORNEY This instrument prepared by: Grant W. Kehres, Esq. Grant W. Kehres, P.A. 2000 Glades Road, Suite 302 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Return to: City Attorney's Office 200 N.W. 1 st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 EASEMENT DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this ~'day of February, 2003, between, DUMLUC, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, with a mailing address of 440 SE Sth Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, party of the first part, and CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, with a mailing address of 100 NW 1 st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, a municipal corporation in Palm Beach County, State of Florida, party of the second part: WITNESSETH: 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 party, its successors and assigns, a right of way and perpetual easement for the purpose of maintenance of a public sidewalk, and public ingress/egress, with full and free right, liberty and authority to enter across, through and upon, over, under or within the following described property located in Palm Beach County, Florida, to-wit: The Southerly 2.4 feet of the following described property: Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, OSCEOLA PARK, a Subdivision in the City of Delray Beach, Florida, according to the map or plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 2, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, LESS the East 5 feet of Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, and LESS a Parcel of land in Lot 5, Block 2, ali conveyed to the State of Florida for right-of-way and being more particularly described as follows: From a point on the South line of said Lot 5, located 5 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Lot 5, run Westerly along said South line for 14.88 feet; thence run Northeasterly along a curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius of 15 feet for 23.44 feet through a central angle of 89° 32' 00" to a point on a line parallel to and 5 feet West of the East line of said Lot 5; thence run South 0° 20' 50" West along said parallel line for 14.88 feet to the Point of Beginning. Concomitant and coextensive with this right is the further right in the party of the second part, 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 except for paving over the easement area as allowed by the party of the second part. 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 whosoever 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 party of the first part has hereunto set its hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sea,~and delivered in the presence of: (Signa/~l~fWitness~#1) '~ (Printed name of Wime~ ~1) ~. 0~rinted name of Wimess #2) DUMLUC, LLC ~LLIAM KLUG, ~4_anagi~vlember (Printed address of Grantor) / /' STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/? - day of February, 2003 by WILLIAM KLUG, Managing Member ofDUMLUC, LLC, who is personally known to me or has produ~license as identification and did not take an oath. (Signature &Notary Public) (Printed Name of Notary Public) Notary Public. Serial Number (if any): My commission expires: Seal: This instnunem prepared by: Grant W. Kehres, Esq. Grant W. Kehres, P.A. 2000 Glades Road, Suite 302 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Return to: City Attorney's Office 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 EASEMENT DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this 17' day of February, 2003, between, DUMLUC, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, with a mailing address of 440 SE 5th Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, party of the first part, and CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, with a mailing address of 100 NW 1 st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, a municipal corporation in Palm Beach County, State of Florida, party of the second part: WITNESSETH: 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 party, its successors and assigns, a right of way and perpetual easement for the purpose of construction and maintenance of public utilities, a public alley, and public ingress/egress, with full and fxee fight, liberty and authority to construction and maintain the public utilities, public alley and to enter across, through and upon, over, under or within the following described property located in Palm Beach County, Florida, to-wit: The Westerly two (2) feet of the following described property: Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, OSCEOLA PARK, a Subdivision in the City of Delray Beach, Florida, according to the map or plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 2, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, LESS the East 5 feet of Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, and LESS a Parcel of land in Lot 5, Block 2, all conveyed to the State of Florida for right-of-way and being more particularly described as follows: From a point on the South line of said Lot 5, located 5 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Lot 5, run Westerly along said South line for 14.88 feet; thence run Northeasterly along a curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius of 15 feet for 23.44 feet through a central angle of 89° 32' 00" to a point on a line parallel to and 5 feet West of the East line of said Lot 5; thence run South 0° 20' 50" West along said parallel line for 14.88 feet to the Point of Beginning. Concomitant and coextensive with this right is the further right in the party of the second part, 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 except for paving over the easement area as allowed by the party of the second part. 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 whosoever claimed by, through or under it, that it has good right and lawful authority to grant the above-described easemem 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 party of the first part has hereunto set its hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed~ed in the presence of: (Sign~ of Witness # 1) DUMLUC, LLC (Printed address of Grantor) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /? day of February, 2003 by WILLIAM KLUG, Managing Member ofDUMLUC, LLC, who is personally known to me or has produced~urrent driver's license as identification and did not take an oath. (Sign~e ~f-Notary Public) (Printed Name of Notary Public) Notary Public. Serial Number (if any): My commission expires: Seal: ~' ~ Gran~ W Kehr~ %~ ~'~' E.x~ May 26, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER ~ SUBJECT: t, GENDA ~tEM # ~¥, - REGULAR MEEtiNG OF MARC~ ~3, 200~ REPORt OF AVPEAXamLE LAND DEVELOPMENt BOARD ACnON$ DATE: MARCH 7, 2003 Attached is the Report of Appealable Land Use Items for the period FeBruary 18, 2003 through March 7, 2003. It informs the Commission of the various land use actions taken by the designated boards that may be appealed by the City Commission. Recommend review of the appealable actions for the period stated. Receive and file the report as appropriate. S:\City Cletk\chevelle folder\agenda memos\apagmen~3.13.03 TO: THRU' FROM: SUBJECT: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER P E NNING AND ZONING IN ALLEN, PLANNER MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2003 *CONSENT AGENDA* REPORT OF APPEALABLE LAND USE ITEMS FEBRUARY 18, 2003 THRU MARCH 7, 2003 The action requested of the City Commission is that of review of appealable actions which were made by various Boards during the period of February 18, 2003 through March 7, 2003. 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. A. Approved (6 to 0, Krall absent), a master plan modification to allow a reduction in the rear yard swimming pool and pool enclosure setbacks for Sabal Lakes Phase II, located on the east side of Barwick Road, north of L-31 Canal. No other appealable items were considered by the Board. The following items will be forwarded to the City Commission for action: Recommended approval (6 to 0), of the abandonment of a portion of the 16-foot wide north-south alleyway lying within Block 2, Atlantic Pines, located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue, between NW 10~h Avenue and NW 11th Avenue. City Commission Documentation Appealable Items Meeting of March 13, 2003 Page 2 Recommended approval (6 to 0), of the abandonment of the Sabal Lakes Road right-of-way, lying within Phase IV of the Sabal Lakes Development, which is located at the southeast corner of Barwick Road and Sabal Lakes Road. Recommended approval (6 to 0), of a combined preliminary/final plat for Sabal Lakes Phase IV, located at the southeast corner of Barwick Road and Sabal Lakes Road. Approved (5 to 0, Stewart and Dowd absent) a request for the master sign program to allow revisions to the plaza identification signs for The Plaza at Delray, located at the northwest corner of South Federal Highway and Linton Boulevard. Approved (5 to 0) of a request for a color change for BoDel Printing Inc, located on the west side of NE 5th Avenue (southbound Federal Highway), north of NE 4th Street (460 NE 5th Avenue). Approval (5 to 0) of a Class I site plan modification and architectural elevation plans associated with fa(;ade changes at 403-407 SE 1st Street, located at the northeast corner of SE 4th Avenue and SE 1st Street. Approved (5 to 0), a Class III site plan modification and architectural elevation plans associated with a 1,200 sq. ff. addition for Grand Bahamas Professional Plaza, located at Delray Park of Commerce -Tract D, located on the west side of Park of Commerce Boulevard (NW 17th Avenue), north of Lake Ida Road. Approved (4 to 0, Carter stepped down), a Class V site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan associated with the conversion of a single famil~y residence to office for Steven's Office Building, located on the east side of SW 5"' Avenue, south of West Atlantic Avenue (75 SW 5~h Avenue). Concurrently, the Board approved a waiver request to reduce the required 5' landscape strip along the south property line to 3'. U. Approved (6 to 0, Sexton absent), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the addition to the main dwelling for the Murray Residence, located on the east side of SE 7th Avenue, south of SE 1st Street (129 SE 7th Avenue). The requested demolition of the existing garage was approved on a 5 to 1 vote (Jamison dissenting). V. Approved (6 to 0), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Part I of a tax abatement application for the Vintage Rose, located at the northwest corner of NE 1st Avenue and NE 1st Street (102 NE 1st Avenue). City Commission Documentation Appealable Items Meeting of March 13, 2003 Page 3 W. Approved (6 to 0), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the installation of a sign for The Rectory, located at the southwest corner of Swinton Avenue and West Atlantic Avenue. Concurrently, the Board recommended that the City Commission approve a waiver to the sign requirement to allow more than one sign of any type or more than two signs within one lot. X. Approved (6 to 0), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with fagade changes for the mixed-use building for Atlantic Grove, located within the 300 and 400 blocks of West Atlantic Avenue. By motion, receive and file this report. Attachment: Location Map. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - City Commission Meeting- March 13, 2003 GULF STREAM BLVD J J LAKE ~ TLANTIC L-30 CANAL IDA LOW$ON BOULEVARD UNTON BOULEVARD I ! I L-3B CANAL P.&Z.' A SABAL LAKES - PHASE II S.P.R,A.B.: 1, THE PLAZA AT DELRAY 2. BODE£ PRINTING, INC, 3, 403 - 407 S.E, lST STREET 4, GRAND BAHAMAS PROFESSIONAL PLAZA 5. STEVEN'S OFFICE BUILDING H P.B.: U MURRAY RESIDENCE V VINTAGE ROSE W THE RECTORY X. ATLANTIC GROVE N W 2ND ST S W 2ND ST SW I ! I I I I I I C.15CANAL CITY LIMITS ,,,,% ~' V ONE MILE GRAPHIC SCALE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 2003 -. DiGITAl. BASE-MAPP~t~ SYSTEM. - MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER AGENDA ITEM #"~ - REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13. 2003 AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS DATE: MARCH 7, 2003 This is before the City Comrmssion to approve the award of the following bids: Bid award to Chaz Eqmpment, Inc. in the amount of $26,500.00 for the emergency repair of the force main from Lift Station 19A. Funding is available from 442-5178- 536-63.90 (Water/Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund/Other Improvements). Purchase award to Duval Ford in the amount of $22,111.00 via the Florida Sheriffs Association and Florida Association of Counties Bid Specification #19 for the purchase of a 2003 Ford F-250 crew cab pickup track for the Parks and Recreation Department. Funding is available from 119o4144-572-64.20 (Beautification Trust Fund/Automotive). Purchase award to Duval Ford in the amount of $35,539.00 vta the Florida Sheriffs Association and Florida Association of Counties Bid Specification #23 for the purchase of a 2003 Ford F-450 crew cab pickup truck for the Environmental Sermces Department. Funding is available from 441-5145o536-64.20 (Water/Sewer/Automotive). Bid award to multtple vendors at an estimated annual cost of $78,616.00 via the City of West Palm Beach Co-op Bid #02/03-20 for the purchase of liquid chlorine and calcium hypochlonte. Funding is available from 441-5122-536-52.21,441-5144-536- 52.21, 441-5123-536-52.21, and 441-5141-536-52.21 (Water/Sewer Fund/Chermcals). Contract award to Rosso Paving & Drainage, Inc. in the amount of $147,560.00 for the Sherwood Park Traffic Calming Project. Funding is available from 334-3162- 541-65.60 (General Construction Fund). Recommend approval of the above bids and purchases. S:\Caty Clerk\chevelle folder\agenda memo\Bid Memo.3 13.03 City Of Delray Beach Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: FROM: David T. Harden City Manager C. Dangers Beatty, P.E. '-'~~ Deputy Director of Public~e~''--'~ DATE: March 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Emergency Repair, Force Main/Lift Station 19A Attached is an Agenda Request and supporting documentation for an emergency repair of the force main from lift station 19A. This lift station provides sanitary sewer service for the Island Drive Area. The existing force main which is located under the Island Drive Bridge ruptured on February 14th and required immediate replacement. We solicited three emergency repair quotes with responses as follows: Johnson-Davis, Inc. Chaz Equipment Co., Inc. Molloy Bros., Inc. $24,500 $26,500 $27,750 While Johnson-Davis, Inc. submitted the lowest quote, they were unable to mobilize to the project site for one to two weeks. Chaz Equipment Company, Inc. was able to begin the emergency work on Monday, February 24th. Attached is a copy of a memo dated February 20th authorizing Chaz Equipment to proceed with the repair. Funding is available in R&R Account # 442-5178-536- 63.90. Please place the item on the March 13, 2003 Agenda for approval by City Commission. CDB/ped Attachments cc: Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental Services City Clerk Agenda File U.\wwdata~Clemo\C~ty Manager\082002-Emergency Repatr LS 19A.doc City Of Delray Beach Department of Enviromnental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M I I www. mydelraybeach com TO: FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director SUBJECT: EMERGENCY REPAIR/LIFT STATION 19A DATE: February 20, 2003 Lift station 19A which provides sanitary sewer service for Island Drive on the barrier island has been out of service for the past week due to a break in the discharge force main. We have been able to avoid a sewage spill event by regular pumping down of the wet well with our Vac-con, however, the force main does require replacement. We have solicited three emergency repair quotes with responses as follows: Johnson- Davis, Inc. $24,500 Chaz Equipment Co., In~.~--- $26,500 Molloy Bros., Inc, $27,750 While Johnson-Davis submitted the lowest quote, they cannot mobilize to the project site for one to two weeks. Chaz Equipment can begin the emergency work on Monday, February 24. We are, therefore, requesting approval to authorize Chaz Equipment to proceed with the repair. Funding is available in R&R Account 442-5178-536-63.90 with a transfer fi.om 442-5178-536-62.10. Please indicate your approval of this expense by signature below so we may proceed with the emergency repair. As always, we will place this item on the next available agenda for Commission action. Approved: ~ David T. Harden /rch C: Dan Beatty, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Utilities Scott Solomon, Water & Sewer Network Manager JOHNSON-DAVIS ~C. t.A~TA~A, IrkO~llD~ ~448-1#4 0U UNC~R~qOUNO UTILtllSl KE: Jelsmt ]:)rive Bddgo Crolftng Dcer Scott: W.* re.~eet~l~ eubati~ ~he ~llewtM Prope~! h' your ravfew. Our price is breed oa e=' field F~rutr~ 12, 20(33 ~ the above refermcM site. Mobihzi6on & D~bilintion $ 2,GO0.00 Mat~riab S labor & F, quipme, m S13,200.00 ~O.T. S 4" DIP CL :51 S" Fig t~ipe CL 5~ A~t Sod ?leasc advise us if you would h'~e to proceed with this In~ject Vice President PROPOSAL PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO 434 $ Mdntofl A~ ,STATE FI 33444 I~ No of 1 We heft:by suhmk specdicatim~ and eslimatc for We hereby propus¢ to I'umi~ labor a~l materials - complete in accordance with the above Specifications, fo~ thc ~ of TW~nly-lar I~.~mnd end n~lO0 cloUm~J dollars ($ 2e50o O0 ) wi~ phyment to bc made as l~llows. ACCi~P'IrANCE OF PROPOSAL *1?l¢ above pno:.~. ~'k-~Jfications ~d ~ilimu ire h~hy n~c~ You a~ auth~ve(I ~o ~ thc wo~ ~ q~lli~l Pl~lcnt will S,gnnt,~ M~ BROS., INC. IrNGINEF-RING CONTRACTORS 800 NW 27th Ave. IFt. I. auderdlll, FL 333~ ! TJ~B~ You No. ReqUest to be placed on: X Regular Agenda Special Agenda ~ Workshop Agenda AGENDA REQUEST Agenda Item ~7~. I Date: March 04, 2003 When: March 13, 2002 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Staff requests Commission Approval of a quote from Chaz Equipment Company, Inc. for emergency repair of the force main from Lift Station 19A. Total amount of the quote is $26,500.00 with funding from R&R Account # 442-5178-536-63.90 ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO DRAFT ATTACHED YES/NO Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the quote to Chaz Equipment Company, Inc. Department head signature: ~(~~ ~-~4- 92, Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (re~ired on all items jnyolvina~eaoellditure of funds): Funding available:~/NO ~ c Funding alternatives t/e "-" - (if applicable) Account No. & Description Account Balance ~ '~- ~'t City Manager Review: Approved for agenda:/~/E.~O Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved U:\wwdataWorms~Agenda RequestskAgendaReq - LS 19A 030403 doc MEMORANDUM TO: David T. Harden, City Manager FROM: Richard C. Olson, Interim Director Public Works DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Aeenda Item City Commission Meeting March 13~ 2003 Bid Award - Park and Recreation Maintenance Vehicle Action City Commission is requested to approve a bid award to Duval Ford under the Sheriffs Association and Florida Association of Counties bid specification # 19 for a 2003 Ford F- 250 Crew Cab Pick - Up Truck in the amount of $22,111.00. Funding is available through the Beautification Capital Account 119-4144-572-64.20. Background Staff is proposing the purchase of a 2003 Ford F-250 crew cab pick-up. This vehicle will be an addition to the City's Fleet. The vehicle will be used to transport employees to their designated areas for general maintenance of beautification areas. The purchase price includes extended warranty, tow package, and strobe lights. Recommendation Staff recommends the purchase of a 2003 Ford F-250 crew cab pick-up from Duval Ford under the Florida Sheriff's Association and Florida Association of County bid specification # 19 in the amount of $22,111.00 with funding to come from account number 119-4144-572-64.20. Cc: Bill Darty Joe Weldon Tim Simmons Fleet/b~dawardrecvehmle doc Date: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: X Consent Agenda __ Regular Agenda When: March 13, 2003 Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much): Purchase of a F-250 crew cab pick-up truck. __ Workshop Agenda_ __ Specml Agenda Signature: ~'k L~ (..~.~.~ J Ix'%A/ City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicStble): Budget Director Review (re~ on all items involving expenditure of Mnds): ~/~ Fun~g Available: ~ / No Imnals: Y ~ Account Number Descnpuon Account Balance: Funding Altemauves: City Manager Review: Approved for Agenda: ~ / Hold Unul: Agenda Coordinator Review: Recmved: 119-4144-572-64.20 No Iniuals: Of applicable) MEMORANDUM TO: David T. Harden, City Manager FROM: Richard C. Olson, Interim Director Public Works DATE: March 3, 2003 SUBJECT: Aeenda Item City Commission Meeting March 13~ 2003 Bid Award - Environmental Services Construction Vehicle Action City Commission is requested to approve a bid award to Duval Ford under the Sheriff's Association and Florida Association of Counties bid specification # 23 for a 2003 Ford F- 450 Crew Cab Pick - Up Truck in the amount of $35,539.00. Funding is available through the Water and Sewer Construction Automotive account 441-5145-536-64.20. Background Staff is proposing the purchase of a 2003 Ford F-450 crew cab pick-up. This vehicle will be an addition to the City's Fleet. The Water and Sewer Construction Division has been experiencing failures of the trailer that is used to haul their equipment. Upon investigation it was determined that the trailer exceeds its gross vehicle weight and the 1 ton pick-up was under sized to pull the trailer. To make this equipment safe and to meet D.O.T. standards a heavier duty truck and trailer is needed. The existing vehicles will be utilized by Environmental Services in different capacities. The accompanying trailer will be approved administratively. The purchase price includes extended warranty, service body, tow package, and strobe lights. Recommendation Staff recommends the purchase of a 2003 Ford F-450 crew cab pick-up from Duval Ford under the Florida Sheriff's Association and Florida Association of County bid specification # 23 in the amount of $35,539.00 with funding to come from account number 441-5145-536-64.20. Cc: Bill Darty Richard Hasko Dan Beatty Rafael Ballestero FleetYesdconstveh doc Date: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: X Consent Agenda ~ Regular Agenda When: l~areh ] ~1: ~0flq Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much): Ford F-450 crew cab pick up for Environmental Services. including extended warranty $35,539.00. __ Workshop Agenda_ Special Agenda Total purchase price Head ~ie[naa;tu~ee.'nt ~ City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding Available: Y~/No Inluals: Account Number Description Account Balance: Funding Altemanves: City Manager Review: Approved for Agenda~/ Hold Unul: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: 441-5145-536-64.20 No Initials: (if applicable) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager Jacklyn Rooney, Purchasing Manager Joseph Safford, Finance Director ~ DATE: March 06, 2003 SUBJECT: DOCUMENTATION - CITY COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 13, 2003 -BID AWARD BID #02/03-20 - CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH CO-OP BID FOR LIQUID CHLORINE AND CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE Item Before Commission: The City Commission is requested to approve multiple awards for the purchase of liquid chlorine and calcium hypochlorite at an estimated annual cost of $78,616 for the City of Delray Beach. Background: The City of West Palm Beach is the lead agency for this cooperative bid. Bids were received on February 05, 2003 from four (4) bidders. A copy of the tabulation of bids is attached for your review. City of West Palm Beach, on February 14, 2003, awarded this contract to Jones Chemical for the purchase of liquid chlorine and to Allied Universal for the purchase of calcium hypochlorite per attached memo dated 02/14/03 to the Palm Beach County Co-op Members. The Manager of the Water Treatment Plant recommends approval for the award to Jones Chemical for the purchase of liquid chlorine at estimated annual usage of $73,370 and to Allied Universal for the purchase of calcium hypochlorite at an estimated annual usage of $5,246 for a total of $78,616 for the City of Delray Beach via City of West Palm Beach Co-op Bid #02/03-20. Recommendation: Staff recommends award to Jones Chemical for purchase of liquid chlorine and to Allied Universal for the purchase of calcium hypochlorite for the total estimated annual cost of $78,616. Funding from account code 441-5122-536-52.21 for $74,746.00, 441-5144-536-52.21 for $3,440, 441-5123-536-52.21 for $215.00 and 441-5141-536-52.21 for $215.00. Attachments: Memo from City of West Palm Beach Tabulation of Bids Memo from Manager Water Treatment Plant MEMO [ITY I]F I]ELRRY PURCHASING DIVISION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: John Bullard, Manager Water Treatment Plant Jackie Rooney, Purchasing Manager Liquid Chlorine and Calcium Hypochlorite Co-op Bid #02-03/20 DATE: February 27, 2003 The City of West Palm Beach, as lead entity for the above bid, has awarded the contract to Jones Chemical for the purchase of liquid chlorine and to Allied Universal for the purchase of calcium hypochlorite in 100 lb. drum per attached memo to the Co-op Members dated 02/14/03. I have attached the tabulation of bids and the award letters to vendors. Based on the usage for the City of Delray Beach the award amount to Jones Chemical for liquid chlorine is 230 tons @ $319.00 per ton for a total of $73,370 and to Allied Universal for 6,100 lbs. of calcium hypochlorite @ $86.00 per 100 lb. drum for a total of $5,246 (qty. of 61 drums). The breakdown for the total for calcium hypochlorite is: Water Treatment Plant (1,600 lbs.), Utility Maintenance (4,000 lbs.) and Water/Sewer (500 lbs.). Term of contract will be from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004. If you agree with above, please sign below and return to Purchasing and I will proceed with the Commission Agenda package. If have any questions, you may contact me at 561-243-7163. Approval: 3ohn Bullard, Manager Water Treatment Plant Cc: Joe SaffoYd-,~ance Director Richard Ha~ko, Director Environmental Services Dan Beatty, Deputy Director Public Utilities Date .Oest CPalm C each "The Capital City of the Pdm Beaches" PROCUREMENT DIVISION 1045 Charlotte Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Office: 561-659~8036 Fax: 561-835~0028 February 14, 2003 Members of the Palm Beach County Cooperative Purchasing Council RE: Bid #02/03-20 - Co-op Bid for Liquid Chlorine & Calcium Hypochlorite Dear Members: The City of West Palm Beach, as the lead entity for the subject Co-op Bid, has awarded the following bid items: Bid Item Description Liquid Chlorine, 1 ton cylinder Awarded Supplier, Jones Chemicals, Inc. Liquid Chlorine, 150 lb cyl. Jones Chemicals, Inc. Calcium Hypochlorite, Allied Universal Corp. Cost per Unit of Measure. $319.00 / 1 ton cylinder $ 49.00 / 150 lb. cylinder $ 86.00 / 100 lb. drum The bid award is based on best value, which included an evaluation of the Iow bid per chemical (chlorine was evaluated orr the basis of the total price for each type cylinder), experience, past performance, capacity to perform, and to the responsible, responsive bidder who bid per the required specifications. The term of the initial contract shall be for one year beginning on April 1,2003. Attached is a copy of the bid tabulation sheet and bid proposals from Jones Chemical, Inc. and Allied Universal Corporation. If you require additional information or have any questions please contact Jaime Chorvas, Contracts Officer at 561-659-8036, extension 2061. Thank you. With Re/~ards, . /Nora V~. Laudermilk, CPPB ?.~ment Official cc: File AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: March 13, 2003 Date: March 06, 2003 XX Consent Agenda __ Special Agenda Workshop Agenda Description of agenda item: Approval for bid award to multiple vendors for the purchase of liquid chlorine and calcium hypochlorite via the City of West Palm Beach Co-op Bid #02/03-20 at an estimated annual cost of $78,616.00 for the City of Delray Beach. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES Draft Attached: YES NO NO Recommendation: Approve award to Jones Chemical for the purchase of liquid chlorine at an estimated annual cost of $73,370 and to Allied Universal for the purchase of calcium hypochlorite at an estimated annual cost of $5,246.00 via the City of West Palm Beach Co-op Bid #02-03-20. Funding from account code(s) 441-5122-536-52.21 for $74,746.00, 441-5144-536-52.21 for $3,440.00, 441-512.~-536-52.21 for $215.00 and 441-5141-536-52.21 for $215.00 Department Head Signature: Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: Yes Funding alternatives: Account Number: (if applicable) Account Description: Account Balance: City Manager Review: Approved for agenda:~) Hold Until: No Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved Disapproved City Of Delray Beach Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER www delrayesd corn FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. GRIEVE, P.E. ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER [k~6 SHERWOOD PARK TRAFFIC CALMING, Project #2000-017 AGENDA REQUEST DATE: MARCH 6, 2003 Please find enclosed the agenda request for Commission to award Sherwood Park Traffic Calming project contract. The construction of four divided roadway medians, two speed tables and two speed humps, this construction includes roadway reconstruction, utility conduits, paver brick, curbing, sodded swales, driveway apron replacement, pavement markings and traffic signage. Attached is the bid tabulation and location map for the referenced project. The lowest responsible, responsive bidder for this project was Rosso Paving and Drainage, Inc. with a bid of $147,560.00, Funding Source General Construction Fund Account Number 334-3162-541-65.60 Balance Contract $147,560.00 $147,560.00 *After Transfers If acceptable, please place this item on the March 13, 2003 commission meeting for Commission approval. Attachment CC: Richard Hasko, P.E., Director of Env. Svcs. Joseph Safford, Finance Director file: 2000-017 (A) S:\EngAdmin\Projects~000~000-017~CONTRAC'r~GENMEMO.doc 0 ~ ~ ~ 0000~ 000~ 000000000000 0 , ~o~oo~~ ~ ~0~~000~ ~ 000~00000 ~~o~~ooo~ 000000000000 0 000000000000 0 ~g~ooooo~oo~ 000000000000 00000~000000 ~~o~oo~ -- 00000~ 000~ ~ m~ooo ~oo~ ~ °°o o ~~>~=~ ~' ~ .--.-~ ~ .- - 12. 0 0 ~~~000~ ~ 0 00~~0000 g ~ ~~~000~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~00~ 000000000000 0 ~ooo~oo~~ 00000000000~ ~ ~ 0000 O00 O00 O0 ,~ 00000~ 000~ ~2wwwww2~2~2 ~ > · _ .-.- ~ : :i: :q :~'-'-i ~ ~  .... ~ ClW of DELRAY BEACH SHERWOOD PARK ~1~1o~ ~E~ ~~ DEP~ ~ ~ ~ A~ ~ ~ ~A ~ LOCA~ ON MAP ~000-017 ~ Cl~ of DELRAY BEACH SHERWOOD PARK E~ME~ ~8 DEP~ ~~,~~y~~,~ .... LOCATION MAP 2000-01~ AGENDA REQUEST Agenda Item No.: Request to be placed on Date: March 3, 2003 Regular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda When: March 13, 2003 Description of item (who, what, where, how much) Award of the contract to Rosso Paving and Drainage, Inc. in the amount of $147,560.00 for the Sherwood Park Traffic Calming, Project #2000-017. The funding for this project will be provided from the following account: Funding Source AccOunt Number Balance Contract General Construction Fund 334-3162-541-65.60 $147,560.00 $147,560.00 *After Transfers This agenda item is subject to the review and approval, by City Attorney. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO DRAFT ATTACHED YES/NO Recommendation' Staff recommends award of Project No 2000-017, the Sherwood Park Traffic Calming Project to Rosso Pavjp~ and Drainage, Inc with a bid in the amount of $147,560.00. DepartmentHead/~///r~/_~//~ ~~ Signature' ~ ~ ~._ ~-~ ~3, Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Rev~ew/Recom mendation (if applicable) Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available Y~/NO Funding alternatives (if applicable) Account No. & Description see table above Account Balance See above table City Manager Review: Approved for agenda:(~NO Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received' Placed on Agenda Action: Approved/Disapproved file 2003-009(A) S :\E ngAdmin',Projects~2000~2000-017\CONTRACT~,G E N DA.doc MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS BARBARA GARITO, CITY CLERK AGENDA ITEM # ~ ~ - REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2003 MUNICIPAL ELECTION JULY 12, 2002 Information regarding Item 9.A, "Municipal Election" will be sent to you on Wednesday for your review. MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ CITY CLERK ~)~ ' RESULTS OF FIRST NONPARTISAN ELECTION MARCH 11, 2003 MARCH 13, 2003 Presented for your review are the official cumulative totals for the regular, absentee and provisional ballots as certified by the Supervisor of Elections for Palm Beach County, indicating the results of the First Nonpartisan Election held on Tuesday, March 11, 2003. FIRST NONPARTISAN ELECTION COMMISSION MEMBER - SEAT #3 JOHN BENNETT JON LEVINSON - TWO YEAR TERM 1,501 2,440 MOTION Approve the cumulative totals for each candidate for Commission Member/Seat #3, including all of the regular, absentee and provisional votes as presented, and that it is hereby declared, based upon the above and foregoing results, that Jon Levinson is elected as Commission Member/Seat #3 for a two year term commencing on the 27m day of March, 2003, and ending in accordance with the City Charter. S/CC/Elecatons/2003 Electaon Results Cc: C~ty Attorney Department Heads 1.1AE'-I_~-200_~ 1~:18 SUPEPJ~ISOR OF ELECTIOIIS .~61 BS6 628? P.02 OFFICIAL RESULTS CITY OF DELRAY 8E~CH MARCH 11,2003 SEAT 3 2 Y--~.AR '- DELRAY 04012 Pr~nc~ 04014 P~'ecinc~ 04011 Preonc~ 040~ Pre~ Pm=nc= ~eonc~ ~nc~ ~068 Predfl~ ~070 Pre~n~ ~07S ~080 P~n~ RegiMered Turnout Percent 1 2,f94 533 18.42~ 1Q2 533 18.42% 102 699 174 2A. eg~ 26 174 24.89% 26 I O O.O~ 0 O 0,~% 0 ~ f3 9.22% 38 83 g.~% 38 168 12.45% 113 39 3 7.~ 2 3 7.69% 2 ~6 23 5.1~% 4 23 5.15% 4 241 9.53% 2,~ 324 f4.~% 173 324 14 ~% 173 f, Sa7 2~ 13.22~ ~2 55 1 f.~% 14 1~ 20.51% 33 6~3 ~ 7.03% 20 I J13 112 S. 18~ 26 1, ~5 59 5.M% 59 5.~% 17 f27 4~ 5.93% 29 49 5.93% 1,746 80 4.~% 37 2,~0 ~ 9.~J% 72 2O3 9,~% 72 2 428 428 142 142 0 45 53 I 1 19 19 104 104 157 157 144 144 2e 28 40 4n 17 17 42 42 130 March 13. 2'003 11.43 AM 1.1~F.'-13-2003 16,: 18 SI_IPER~ qSOP. OF ELE,:TIOI IS 656 628? P. 03 OFFICIAL. RESULTS CITY OF DEL.RAY BEACH MARCH 11,2003 Registered Turnout 0S062 Pce~nc~ 07142 Pfec~nc~ 07144 ~7146 07~48 Pre~n~ Q71S0 07152 Preanc~ B71 ~ 071~6 07~ 07160 e71~ 071~ Pre¢in~ 071T2 Pre~n~ 07174 07176 0717~ 1,S73 18~ 11.70% 18~ 11.70% 20~ 5 2.a3% 5 2.43~ ~2 ~5 11.~ 65 11,01% ~80 17 9.~ 17 g.~% S76 ~ fO.~ 63 10.~% 65 2 3.0~ 1~7 7.81% ~,247 143 1~.4~ M ~ 1.8S~ I 1 ~22 4 3.Z8~ 4 3.26% 30 f 3. I 3.33% 0 0 0.0~ 0 0 7~ 35 35 4 86 S.91% I,~01 127 7.05~ 127 7.~% 3 6 8.00% 562 24 4.27% 24 4.27% 3~ I 2.~% 1 lO2 102 80 I 4 I 4 &2 43 23 39 23 39 I 1 72 45 0 2 0 2 42 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 20 15 20 15 18 18 68 33 92 33 92 I 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 6 0 ~ 0 ? 17 7 17 1 0 I 0 13.2003 11'43 AM HAP,-13-2003 16:19 SUPER~mISOR OF ELECTIOIIS =-_,bl 656 628? P,04 OFFICIAL RESULTS CiTY OF DELRAY BEACH MARCH 11. 2003 Regi$~orod Turnout Pr~vi~iortm! 0 ~ 105 ~sentee Walk-in I ~o~n BENNETT 2 Jm LEVIN$ON O.0(~ o 0.00% 0 0.00~ 31 74 0.00% 31 74 0.00% I 0 11.0e% 1.S01 2.440 ~ NOTE: THE TURNOUT TOTA~ REPRESENTS THE T~ OF VOTERS WHO VOTED IN OFFICE ECECTRONICAI.LY IH ALL 16 MUNICI~AUTIES STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH I, THERESA LeJ:)ORE, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS TRUE AND cORRECT COPY OF THE RECORDS ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE. . WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, THIS 13~ DAY OF _MARCH , 20 03 . ., THERESA LePORE, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS ,- PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA TOTAL P.04 1,1AR-15-200~ i6:18 SUPER~ISOR OF ELECTIO[I$ 561 656 628? P,02 OFFICIAL RESULTS CITY OF DELRAY ElF. ACH MARCH 11, 2003 C_OMM MEMBER. SEAT 3,2 YEM_-_DELR,A.Y B~E ,A~CH Registere~ Tm'hour Percent 2,$94 533 18.42~ 533 18 42% 699 17,4 174 24,89% 0 0.001,;. 0 0,00% a3 9.22,~ 83 9,22% 168 168 12.45% 173 31.S7'~ 173 31,57% 152 I2. }3% 152 12.73% 3 3 23 23 241 7.69% 5.16% 9.$3% 324 14,44% 324 14.44% 223 13.22'4 2.23 't 3.22% 88 9.64% .55 11,9~% 184 20 51% 4~ 112 112 59 59 49 49 203 203 7.03% 7.03% 6.18% 6.16% 5.44% 5.4,4% S 93'~ 5.93% 4.58% 9,85% 1 2 102 426 102 428 26 142 26 142 0 0 0 · 38 45 38 45 113 53 113 53 ~ 82 65 ~9 104 173 150 173 157 157 14 38 14 38 33 33 144 20 20 86 17 40 17 4G 29 29 17 37 42 37 42 72 130 72 130 March 13, 2003 11.43 AM OFFICIAL RESULTS CITY OF DELRAY BEACH MARCH 11, 2003 .C..OMM MEMEIER - SEAT 3 2 YE~ ' DEL.I~Y-B, EA, CH Reglst~r~cl Turnout Pre~c~ 1~ ~1.70% Pge~nc~ 5 2.~ 07142 CHURCH o~ ~AL~ ~2 85 11.01% P~n~ 85 ~71~ ~.~,~- 1~0 17 9.~ Pre~nc~ 17 07146 ~ ~ VIE ~ ~76 ~ Prec~nc~ 63 10.~% 0~4e ~HU~CH ~F ~ 65 2 3.0a~ Preon~ 2 3.~ Pm~n~ 117 7.81% Preo~c~ 2 5.71~ P~a~nc~ 143 11,47% 07156 O'~'~ ~ f P~n~ I 1 ~eonc~ 4 3.26% 071&0 V~TE ~AH6 30 f 3.33~ Pra~n~ 1 3,~% 071~ ~P~ ~/~AI 0 0 0.00% P~cmc~ 0 0.00% 071~ ~p~ ~A ( 7~ 35 4.63% P~on~ 35 4.63% Precin~ 86 S.91% Pre~ 127 7.~% 07170 0 .~.~ 7 f 14,2~ Pre~nc~ I 14,29% 01112 ~TG~A ~ 25 3 12,~% Pre~n~ 3 12.00% 07174 ~P~ ~/~AI 75 6 8.0~ ~ClnC~ 6 B.O~ 07~76 ~T. ~Ag~ ~ ~62 24 4,27% P~clnc~ 24 4.27% P~ 1 2,~% I 2 102 102 80 I 4 1 4 42 43 42 43 9 9 23 39 23 39 1 1 72 45 0 2 0 2 42 0 D 1 3 3 0 D 1 0 0 0 0 20 15 18 66 18 66 33 92 33 92 1 0 I 0 0 3 0 3 6 0 6 0 7 17 I 0 I 0 13. 2003 11:43 AM HAR-13-2003 16:i9 SUPER~ISOR OF ELEETIOII$ 561 656 628? P.04 OFFICIAL RESULTS CITY OF DELRAY BEACH MARCH tl, 2003 COMM MEMBER - SEAT 3 2 YF_J~ - DELF~A.~ Percent O. O0% o 0.0O% 0 0.00~ 31 ?4 0.00% 31 74 0.~0~ 1 0 0.00% I 0 11 08% 1,S01 2,440 Candicl~l~ John BENNETT Jo~ LEVIN$ON <- NOTE: THE TURNOUT TOTAL ~F.J~ESEWI'S THE ~ OF VOTEaS wac) VOTED m OFF~E ELECTRONICAU,,Y IN ALL 16 MUNiC,~ALrrlES STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH I, THERESA LePORE, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE RECORDS ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, THIS 13u' DAY OF _MARCH , 20 03 . - BY: .~ ' THERESA LePORE, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS .- PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA TOTRL P. O4 TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MAN~~ ~ PAUL DORLING, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ~N)D ZONING MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2003. APPEAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A CLASS V SITE PLAN FOR PARK PLACE TOWNHOMES. The item before the City Commission is that of consideration of an appeal of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's (SPRAB) approval of a Class V site plan application for Park Place Townhomes. The subject property is located on the south side of SE 10th Street, approximately 300' west of SE 5th Avenue (310 SE 10th Street). The appeal is being processed pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(E). At its meeting of February 12, 2003, SPRAB approved the Class V site plan, landscape plan, building elevations for a proposed 57 unit townhouse development on the 4.79 acre parcel (12 dwelling units per acre). The proposed development consists of 21 two-story townhouse units in five buildings along the east and west sides of the property and 36 two and three story units in three buildings located in the interior of the property. The proposal included four waivers and internal adjustments that consists of front and side street setbacks, building separations, road width, and elimination of certain sidewalks. At its meeting of February 18, 2003, the City Commission appealed the action by SPRAB. The City Commission expressed a concern with the intensity of the project with a particular emphasis on the internal adjustment request to reduce the separation between buildings. A complete analysis of the proposal is found in the attached Site Plan Review and Appearance Board staff report. As noted above, the City Commission expressed a general concern with the intensity of the proposed development. The Commission's discussion focused primarily on the internal adjustment to reduce the building separation from 25' to 15'. The proposed development incorporates elements associated with the "New Urbanism" movement. The two and three story building are located interior and adjacent to the loop road with the garages on the rear of the buildings. The garages of the two story units are located further back from the loop road and the living area of the units are located closer to the loop road. Additionally, the subject property contains a Hurricane Pine environmental ecosystem and is designated as a native ecosystem by the Comprehensive Plan. In order to accommodate the proposed neo traditional concept and maximize the preservation of the three environmentally significant groupings of Hurricane Pines on the property, the applicant proposes several internal adjustments and waivers to reduce setbacks and building separation to allow clustering of the development on site. Without the requested waivers the applicant would be required to reduce the number of units, redesign the project, and/or reduce the environmental preservation areas. City Commission Documentation Meeting of March 13, 2003 Appeal of SPRAB Action - Park Place Townhomes Page 2 The following is the analysis that was provided to SPRAB regarding the reduction to the building separation requirement. Building Separations: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3(O)(3)(c), setbacks interior to the project with respect to side and rear lot lines shall not be observed; but in-lieu thereof structures (dwelling unit groups) shall not be located closer than 25' for a two-story structure. The proposed separation between Buildings #1 and #2 and between Buildings #7 and #6 is 15'. A request for an internal adjustment has been submitted to reduce the required building separation 25' to 15'. In addition to the above, an internal adjustment has been submitted to LDR Section 4.6.2, which requires a minimum distance between the two-story units of 24' and 15' is proposed. Internal Adjustment Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5), concurrent with granting relief from a development standard or regulation, the granting body must find that such relief does not diminish the practical application of the affected regulation (requirement) and that by granting such relief a superior development product will result. The applicant has submitted a letter that requests the internal adjustments that states: "...Although there is enough space within the site to comply with this section of the LDR, we have allocated those portions of the site to be nature preserves. These nature preserves considerably reduce the buildable area of the project. We have designed the two-story units that make up Buildings #1, #2, #6, and #7 to have a one-story section. Where these buildings are located 15' away from each other, only the one-story sections of the buildings face each other. The two-story portions are located 34' away from each other. We respectfully request a waiver to the referenced LDR section for this project.' "...These nature preserves, with additional landscape, will have an important overall impact to the project as they will provide dense pockets of native Florida landscape mixed in- between the buildings. The location of the existing pines is fixed, and we can not compromise their health by moving our buildings closer to them..." The reduced separations allow the increased preservation of the Hurricane Pine native habitat on the property. While the units are two-story, that portion of the subject units that abut are one-story and contain the garage area. The separation between the two-story portions of these buildings is 34'. Therefore, the massing between these buildings is reduced and complies with the intent of this requirement. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5), Internal Adjustment Findings can be made to reduce the building separation. Commission's discretion. Attachment: SPR^B Staff Report SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: ITEM: February 12, 2003 V.A. Park Place Townhomes (310 SE 10th Street) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Associated with a New 57 Townhouse Development. GENERAL DATA: Owner ......................................... Transwofld Associates, Inc. Applicant ..................................... Mr. David Biggs Agent .......................................... Michael S. Wiener Location ...................................... South side of Southeast 10th Street, approximately 300' west of Southeast 5th Avenue (Southbound Federal Highway / U.S. Route #1 ) Property Size .............................. 4.79 Acres Future Land Use Map ................ TRN (Transitional) Current Zoning ............................ RM (Multiple Family Residential- Medium Density) Adjacent Zoning ................ North: R-1-A (Single Family Residential) East: PC (Planned Commercial) & POC (Planned Office Center) South: R-1-A (Single Family Residential) & MH (Mobile Home) West: RM (Multiple Family Residential- Medium Density) Existing Land Use ...................... Vacant Proposed Land Use .................... Construction of a new 57 townhouse development. Water Service ............................. Available connection via extension of a 36" sewer main, located within S.E. 10rn Street. Sewer Service ............................. Available connection via a 6" water main, located within S.E. 10th Street. II COMMONS LINTON NAT/ONS SANK $3' ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is approval of a Class V site plan request pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F). The request involves the following elements as they pertain to Park Place Townhomes, a 57 unit townhouse development: 0 0 0 Site Plan; Landscape Plan; and, Architectural Elevations The subject property is located on the south side of SE 10~h Street, 331' west of South Federal Highway. BACKGROUND The property consists of a portion of Lot 5, Block 1 of the Model Land Company Subdivision, is commonly known as the Hurricane Pines site and contains 4.79 acres. The property was rezoned from RH (Medium High to High Density) to RM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium Density 6-12 du/ac) with the citywide rezoning associated with the approval of the Land Development Regulations in 1990. The subject property was designated as an environmentally sensitive area as part of the Comprehensive Plan adopted on November 28, 1989 by Ordinance 82-89 and is one of four designated native ecosystems within the City. The property is currently vacant and contains a significant number of Hurricane Pine trees. A site and development plan application has been submitted to construct 57 townhouse units (fee simple) which is the request now before the Board. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves the construction of a 57 unit townhomes development on 4.79 acres. The development proposal incorporates the following: Construction of 21 two-story townhouse units in five buildings along the east and west sides of the property and 36 units two to three story buildings in three buildings located in the interior of the property. The unit mix consists of 14 two-bedroom units (1,752 sq.ft.), 37 three-bedroom units (minimum of 1,824 sq.ft.); and 6 four bedroom units (2,518 sq.fl.), all of which contain 2 car garages; Vehicular access consisting of a combination of a loop road and interior motor courtyards; SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 2 Construction of 175 parking spaces, 114 of which will be located within the two car garages. The remainder will be provided tandem style (42 spaces) in front of the garages and 19 parallel spaces along the loop road; Construction of recreational facilities consisting of a sport court adjacent to SE 10th Street; a tot lot between Buildings 3 and 4; and a pool and cabana between Buildings 4 and 5; Installation of a six-foot high decorative aluminum picket fence with concrete entry walls along SE 10th Street, and six-foot high vinyl coated chain link fence along the east and south property lines; Preservation of the three primary stands of Hurricane Pine trees along the east, central and west portions of the property; Construction of a sidewalk system along the interior edge of the loop road with connections to the recreational facilities. The sidewalk system includes a connection via a gate to a proposed bus stop and shelter at the northwest corner of the property; and, Installation of landscaping throughout the site. The site plan application includes internal adjustment and waiver requests to the following sections of the City's Land Development Regulations: Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 4.3.3(O)(3)(b), which requires a front and side street setback of 25' for one and two story structures and 30' for three story structures. The proposed front setback for the two-story units and the one story cabana is 9'; and 12' 3" for the three story units. The proposed side street setback for the two and three story units is 13'. LDR Section 4.3.3(O)(3)(c), which requires a building separation of 25' for a two- story structure and 30' for a three story structure. In addition, LDR Section 4.6.2, which requires a minimum distance between buildings of 24'. The request is to reduce the distance between buildings to 15' between Buildings I and 2 and Buildings 6 and 7. 3. LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(d), which requires a standard aisle width of 24' for roads, while 20' is proposed. 4. LDR Section 6.1.3, which requires a five-foot wide sidewalk along both sides of the loop road. SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 3 COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development applicationlreq uest. LDR Section 4.3.3(0) (Townhouses and Townhouse Type of Development): Setbacks: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3(O)(3)(b), setbacks interior to the project shall be measured from the platted street system. The required front and side street setbacks from the private street is 25' for one and two story structures and 30' for three story structures. The proposed front setback for the two story units and the one story cabana is approximately nine-feet, while the proposed setback for the three story structure is 12' 3". The proposed side street setback for the two story townhouses is nine-feet and 33' 6" for the three story townhomes. A request for an internal adjustment has been submitted to reduce the required front and side street setbacks. Internal Adjustment Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5), concurrent with granting relief from a development standard or regulation, the granting body must find that such relief does not diminish the practical application of the affected regulation (requirement) and that by granting such relief a superior development product will result. The applicant has submitted a letter that requests the internal adjustment that states: "...Although these set backs are appropriate for a suburban development, the design intent of Park Place Townhomes is to create a New Urbanism type community. According to the neo-urbanism standards, buildings closer to the street emphasize a sense of space, and help create streets where the pedestrians feel comfortable and safe. Additional design features reinforce the pedestrian nature of our development. The addition of parallel parking along the internal loop street buffer the pedestrians from the moving cars. Our right-of-way details create an environment that encourages the pedestrian confident movement. The narrower street makes it easier for pedestrians to get across. The network of pathways along, through, and around the buildings make it easy for the pedestrians to move around the neighborhood. All of these factors, together with the location of the building closer to the street, reinforce the Neo- traditional aspects of our community. We hereby request a waiver to the above referenced LDR Section." The proposed development includes aspects that are associated with the new urbanism and neo-traditional design concepts. The garages for the two-story units are set back 20' and the residential portions of the units are prominent along the internal loop road. Therefore, the community is not dominated by the garage. The three-story units located SPRAB Staff Report ~ Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 4 in the interior of the loop road are located adjacent to the street with access to the parking garages from a parking "court" on the rear of the buildings. The new urbanism design concepts are typically more appropriate for an urban environment. The proposed reductions will not create a safety hazard as a 25' visibility triangle is maintained and 20' is required for accessways. The proposed setback reductions will allow for a development proposal that is a superior product without creating a safety hazard. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5), (Internal Adjustment Findings) can be made to reduce the front and side street building setbacks. Building Separations: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3(O)(3)(c), setbacks interior to the project with respect to side and rear lot lines shall not be observed; but in-lieu thereof structures (dwelling unit groups) shall not be located closer than 25' for a two-story structure. The proposed separation between Buildings #1 and #2 and between Buildings #7 and ~6 is 15'. A request for an internal adjustment has been submitted to reduce the required building separation 25'to 15'. In addition to the above, an internal adjustment has been submitted to LDR Section 4.6.2, which requires a minimum distance between the two-story units of 24' and 15' is proposed. Internal Adjustment Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5), concurrent with granting relief from a development standard or regulation, the granting body must find that such relief does not diminish the practical application of the affected regulation (requirement) and that by granting such relief a superior development product will result. The applicant has submitted a letter that requests the internal adjustments that states: "...Although there is enough space within the site to comply with this section of the LDR, we have allocated those portions of the site to be nature preserves. These nature preserves considerably reduce the buildable area of the project. We have designed the two-story units that make up Buildings #1, #2, #6, and #7 to have a one-story section. Where these buildings are located 15' away from each other, only the one-story sections of the buildings face each other. The two-story portions are located 34' away from each other. We respectfully request a waiver to the referenced LDR section for this project.' "...These nature preserves, with additional landscape, will have an important overall impact to the project as they will provide dense pockets of native Florida landscape mixed in-between the buildings. The location of the existing pines is fixed, and we can not compromise their health by moving our buildings closer to them...' The reduced separations allow the increased preservation of the Hurricane Pine native habitat on the property. While the units are two-story, that portion of the subject units that abut are one-story and contain the garage area. Therefore, the massing between [ SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 5 these buildings is reduced and complies with the intent of this requirement. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5), Internal Adjustment Findings can be made to reduce the building separation. Subdivision Plat: Pursuant to Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 4.3.3(0)(2), each townhouse, or townhouse type, development shall be platted with a minimum designation of the interior street system as a tract. When the dwelling units are to be sold (as with this development), each unit must be shown on the plat. Therefore, a condition of approval is attached that prior to issuance of a building permit a subdivision plat must be approved and recorded. Desic;n Standards: (a) No more than two townhouses may be constructed without providing a front setback of no less than 4' offset front to rear. The proposed buildings exceed the minimum four-foot offset. (b) No townhouse row shall consist of more than 8 units or a length of 200'. The project meets this Design Standard. (c) Service features, garages, parking areas, and entrances to dwelling units shall, whenever possible, be located on a side of the individual lot having access to the interior street. Walkways should be designed to connect dwelling units with each other and connect each dwelling unit with common open space. The project meets this Design Standard. (d) Not less than 25% of the total area, less water bodies, shall be usable open space, either for recreational or some other suitable purpose, public or private. The project meets this Design Standard. LDR Section 4.4.6 RM Zone District: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.6 (A) Purpose and Intent: The Medium Density Residential (RM) District provides a residential zoning district with flexible densities having a base of six (6) units per acre and a maximum of twelve (12) units per acre. The actual density of a particular RM development is based upon its ability to achieve certain performance standards which are intended to mitigate the impacts of the increased density and ensure that the project is compatible with surrounding land uses. Further, the Medium Density Residential District provides for implementation of those objectives and policies contained within the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan which call for accommodating a variety of housing types. SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 6 The proposed development consists of 57 units on the 4.79 acre property. This equates to 11.90 or 12 dwelling units per acre, thereby exceeding the base density of six dwelling units in the RM zoning district. Therefore, a finding must be made that the development substantially complies with the performance standards noted below in order to achieve a density greater than the base density. LDR Section 4.4.6(I) Performance Standards: In order to increase a project density beyond six (6) units per acre, the approving body must make a finding that the development substantially complies with the performance standards listed in this section. The intent of the standards is to mitigate the impacts of the additional density both internal and external to the site. The extent to which a project meets the standards will determine the number of units per acre that will be permitted. For example, if a project meets or exceeds all of the standards, and is otherwise consistent with applicable standards and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, the maximum density is permitted. Projects which only partially achieve these standards will be permitted a correspondingly lower density. The performance standards are as follows: (a) The traffic circulation system is designed to control speed and reduce volumes on the interior and exterior street network. This can be accomplished through the use of traffic calming devices; street networks consisting of loops and short segments; multiple entrances and exits into the development; and similar measures that are intended to minimize through traffic and keep speeds within the development at or below 20 m.p.h. The street network consists of a loop road which has back-out parking from the units along the perimeter of the property. The loop road serves as a connection to motor courts for the units to the interior of the property. The development has one access point to the public road system via a driveway along SE 10th Street. The loop road is only 20' wide, contains four speed humps and one raised crosswalk that will assist in reducing vehicular speeds through the development 20 miles per hour or less. The loop road also contains traffic control signage near the intersection of SE 10th Street, which will improve the traffic safety. There is no concern with respect to traffic speeds within the motor courts. Given the above, a finding that the project substantially complies with this performance standard can be made. (b) Buildings are placed throughout the development in a manner that reduces the overall massing, and provides a feeling of open space. As noted previously, the site design attempts to incorporate elements of the neo- traditional style. The one-story garages of the two-story units along the east and west sides of the property are set back 10' from the front fa(~ade of the living area. This reduces the dominance of the garage as an architectural feature of the structure and lessens the massing of the buildings. This will give a better feeling of "community" rather than a garage as a principal structure with attached living quarters. The units in the interior front on the loop road with no direct , SPRAB Staff Report . Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 7 access to the garages, which are accessed from the intedor motor court. The result of these design elements will be a resident oriented community rather than vehicle dominated. The development proposal has been designed in such a manner that the existing native plant communities and other open space areas of the development will provide a tangible open space. The preservation areas along the west side of the property and in the interior create a separation between the buildings that will reduce the massing. Based on the above, this standard has been substantially met. Where immediately adjacent to residential zoning districts having a lower density, building setbacks and landscape materials along those adjacent property lines are increased beyond the required minimums in order to provide a meaningful buffer to those lower density areas. Building setbacks are increased by at least 25% of the required minimum; at least one tree per 30 linear feet (or fraction thereof) is provided; trees exceed the required height at time of planting by 25% or more; and a hedge, wall or fence is provided as a visual buffer between the properties. The property is partially bordered on the south by R-1-A zoned property, which is a zoning designation that has a lower density. Therefore, the required building setback along the western portion of the south side of the property must be a minimum of 31' 3" and 31' 11" is provided. The minimum height of trees is 12' plus the 25% increase requires 15'-high trees in this area. The landscape plan provides for Live Oak trees, Silver Buttonwood trees, and Geiger trees that all will have a minimum height of 15' and are planted at a maximum of 30' on center. The applicant proposes to install a six-foot high Ficus hedge along the south property together with a black vinyl coated chain link fence, which exceeds the minimum buffer requirements. Based on the above, this standard has been substantially met. (d) The development offers a varied streetscape and building design. For example, setbacks are staggered and offset, with varying roof heights (for multi-family buildings, the planes of the facades are offset to add interest and distinguish individual units). Building elevations incorporate diversity in window and door shapes and locations; features such as balconies, arches, porches, courtyards; and design elements such as shutters, window mullions, quoins, decorative tiles, etc. There are two basic building designs: the two-story units with one-story garages along the east and west sides of the property and the two-three story units within the interior of the loop road. The two-story units are a unique design with the garages set back significantly from the front facades of the units. A roof-top patio is provided over the garages. The rooflines are varied with a combination of hip and opposing gable roofs. The windows are single hung with muntins and shutters. Balconettes are provided on the front and rear elevations. The side elevations include a balcony, French doors, and include the same window treatment as the front and rear elevations. The two-story units are a unique design and will enhance the development and the housing opportunities within the City. While the units are aesthetically pleasing, the units are repetitive with , SPRAB Staff Report . Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 8 no changes in architectural appurtenances except for changes in color scheme for each unit. The two-three story townhouse structures are more typical for an urban townhouse development. The roof lines include a primary hip roof with opposing gables. The windows include single hung windows with changes in window treatments and shutters. The two story end units include a porch and balcony. The front and rear elevations include balconettes. The elevations include material changes such as horizontal and block stucco reveals. The side elevations include a bay tower windows, balconettes, and balconies. The Board may want to consider providing additional architectural features on the north ends of the buildings (three stories) that face SE 10th Street. These elevations will be partially obscured by the aluminum picket fence and landscaping along the north side of the property. However, a more appealing elevation with additional architectural elements should be provided for these units which are visible from the public right-of-way. Overall this standard has been substantially met subject to some embellishments to the elevations and architectural elements for those units that face SE 10u~ Street. (e) A number of different unit types, sizes and floor plans are available within the development in order to accommodate households of various ages and sizes. Multi-family housing will at a minimum have a mix of one, two and three bedroom units with varying floor plans. Single family housing (attached and detached) will at a minimum offer a mix of three and four bedroom units with varying floor plans. The project provides for two, three and four bedroom units with a variety of floor plans. The following table describes the details of the proposed floor plans: Proposed Living Area Required Living Area Unit "Al" 3 BR/3.5 BA 1,994 sq. ft. 1,250 sq. ft. Unit "A2" 2 BP,/2.5 BA 1,752 sq. ft. 900 sq. ft. Unit "A3" 3 BR/3.5 BA 2,008 sq. ft. 1,250 sq. ft. Unit "B" 4 BR/3.5 BA 2,518 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. Unit "C1" 3 BR/2.5 BA 1,831 sq. ft. 1,250 sq. ft. Unit "C2" 3 BR/2.5 BA 1,824 sq. ft. 1,250 sq. ft. Unit "C3" 3 BR/2.5 BA 1,824 sq. ff. 1,250 sq. ft. (f) Each townhouse includes two-car garages and decks, As noted above, the development will provide a variety of units with varying floor plans and bedroom/bathroom combinations. Based on the above, this standard has been substantially met. The development is designed to preserve and enhance existing natural areas and/or water bodies. Where no such areas exist, new areas, which provide open space and native habitat, are created and incorporated into the project. As noted in the background section of this report, the property is known as the Hurricane Pines site. This property is designated as one of the four native ecosystems within the City of Delray Beach. The proposed development will preserve the three significant groupings of Hurricane Pines on the property. The SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 9 majority of the scattered remaining Hurricane Pines will be removed due to the proposed development. In order to mitigate the loss of these trees, pursuant to Conservation Element B-1.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan the applicant will be required to remit $47,032 prior to issuance of a site clearing permit and is attached as a condition of approval. These funds will be utilized to enhance the Hurricane Pines at the Leon Weekes preserve. A condition of approval is attached that the applicant submits an implementation plan for the use of this contribution at the preserve. The action plan shall include a written plan and graphic plans, as necessary, proportionate to the remittance. Compliance with this standard has been substantially met, subject to the above conditions. (g) The project provides a convenient and extensive bicycle/pedestrian network, and access to available transit. A bicycle and pedestrian network is provided throughout the site via internal sidewalks that connect the buildings to the recreational areas and to the public right-of-way. As discussed later in this report, a waiver has been supported to provide a sidewalk on one side of the Iccp road. Furthermore, the applicant is providing a bus shelter easement at the northwest corner of the property and will provide one-half the cost of the shelter. A pedestrian connection has been provided internal to the site to the bus stop. A condition of approval is attached that a gate is provided in the perimeter fence and that the applicant provided one-half of the full cost of a bus shelter for this stop. Compliance with this standard has been substantially met. As noted above, the project has substantially met all seven of the performance standard subject to conditions. Therefore, the development should be granted the full density bonus as requested (12 dwelling units per acre). Pursuant to LDR section 4.4.6(I), the project must also substantially comply with applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDR's). LDR Section 4.4.6 (H) Special Regulations: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.6(H)(3) Special Regulations, Recreational areas shall be required for all new rental apartment developments, and of owner occupied developments which have homeowner associations that must care for retention areas, private streets or common areas. New developments must include recreational features that are designed to accommodate activities for children and youth of all age ranges. Tot lots are appropriate for toddlers; features such as a basketball court, volleyball court, and open playfields are appropriate for older children. A pool and clubhouse, unless specifically designed for children, is not considered to meet this requirement. The development proposal includes a pool with cabana, sport court and tot lot. Additionally, the Hurricane Pine preservation areas will provide a passive recreational amenity. These recreational facilities provide opportunities from toddlers to adults. The proposed development fully complies with this requirement. , SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 10 LDR Section 4.3.4(H){6)(c) Combination Building and Landscape Setbacks: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4 (H)(6)(c), a 30' special combination building and landscape setback is required along SE l0th Street and Lowson Boulevard. Within this setback no structures shall be altered, erected, or reconstructed. Further, within the first 10' thereof there shall be no paving except for driveways and sidewalks which lead to structures on or provide access to, the site and then only when generally perpendicular to the frontage. The proposed development has exceeded the required building setback and provided the 10'-wide landscape area along SE 10th Street, thereby meeting this requirement. LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix: Building Height Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), the maximum height within the RM zoning distdct is 35'. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(1), the height of a building is the vertical distance from grade to the highest finished roof surface of a fiat roof or to the mean level between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, or gambrel roofs. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(2)(a), for buildings adjoining one street, the grade is established from the mean elevation of the crown of the street along the lot frontage. In order to accurately establish the building height, the grade of the buildings must be based on the mean elevation of the crown of the private street. The height of the buildings may be 35'-high measured from this established grade, which will be the crown of the proposed road. This information must be provided on the building elevations. Based on the building elevation information submitted, the proposed three story buildings are 34' 9" from bottom of the building to the mean elevation of the roof. When measured from the crown of the proposed road and taking into account the finished floor elevation, the 35' height limit will be exceeded. A condition of approval is attached that the height be measured from the crown of the proposed road and noted on the building elevations and that the height of the building be revised accordingly to not exceed a maximum height of 35'. Perimeter Building Setbacks Within the RM zone district three story multiple family buildings require a front and side interior setback of 30', and a rear setback of 25'. Two story multiple family buildings require a front and rear setback of 25' and a side setback of 15'. All the buildings either meet or exceed this requirement. Maximum Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage in the RM zoning district is 40%. The proposed building coverage of 66,557 square feet results in a coverage of 32% lot coverage. Therefore, the proposed development complies with the maximum lot coverage requirement. SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 11 Minimum Floor Areas: The RM district requires a minimum floor area of 900 square feet for 2-bedroom units, and 1,250 square feet for 3-bedroom units 1,500 square feet for 4-bedroom units under air. As mentioned earlier in this report all of the units exceed the minimum requirements. Open Space: A minimum of 25% of the site must be non-vehicular open space. The proposed plan provides for 33% open space, thereby exceeding this code requirement. LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: LDR Section 4.6.9 Parking Requirements: Vehicle Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(c) multiple family developments containing two or more bedroom units are to provide 2 spaces/unit. In addition, guest parking shall be provided cumulatively as follows: for the first 20 units 0.5 spaces are required; for units 21-50 units 0.3 spaces are required; and for units 51 and above, 0.2 spaces are required. A total of 57 units are proposed consisting of all 2 or more bedrooms. Based on the above formula, 135 spaces are required by code (114/unit + 21 guest) and 175 spaces are provided. The site plan provides for 114 parking spaces within two-car garages for each unit, 42 tandem/guest spaces in front of the garages, and 19 parallel spaces. Bicycle Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(c), at private recreation facilities, bicycle parking areas shall be provided in a designated area and by a fixed or stationary bike rack. The proposal includes a bike rack at the pool area. Lighting: A photometric plan is required in order to determine compliance with LDR Section 4.6.8. At the present time, no such plan has been provided. It is noted that light poles and fixtures cannot exceed 25' height. Cut-sheet details of wall fixtures and light poles/fixtures must be submitted and be residential in character. Therefore, a condition of approval has been attached that a photometric plan in compliance with LDR Section 4.6.8 is provided and that decorative light fixtures are provided. Other Items: Sidewalks: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B)(1), a five-foot wide sidewalk is required along SE 10~ Street. The applicant will be responsible for removing the existing 4.5' wide sidewalk SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 12 and replacing it with a five-foot sidewalk along the ultimate right-of-way line mentioned above. The site plan indicates the removal of the existing sidewalk and replacement with a five-foot sidewalk along SE 10th Street. Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B)(2) sidewalks must be constructed within the street right-of-way (or easement or tract) and must be constructed adjacent to the right-of-way (easement or tract) line. The proposed site plan provides a sidewalk along the intedor of the loop road and not along the exterior of this road. The applicant has submitted a request to eliminate the requirement to provide a sidewalk along the exterior perimeter of the loop road. Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or, (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. A sidewalk is proposed along the interior of the loop road. This sidewalk provides a pedestrian connection to the recreational facilities for all of the units and to SE 10~ Street. The residents of the two-story units will have to cross the loop road to access this sidewalk. While sidewalks can be provided, they would reduce the proposed 9' of landscaping in front of the units. In order to accommodate rear loaded garages for the three-story townhouses required the buildings to be shifted a front yard was reduced. Access to the community facilities along the outside of the loop road can be adequately provided by the proposed sidewalk system. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), Waiver Findings can be made. Paving Width: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.2(C)(3)(a), the minimum paving width for the internal roads is 24' and 20' is proposed. The applicant has requested an internal adjustment to reduce the minimum width. This can only be supported if a prohibition of street parking throughout the community is enforced. The prohibition is to be addressed in the homeowners' documents. SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 13 Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or, (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. The applicant has submitted a letter that requests the waiver that states: "... The width of the proposed loop road is 20' with 2' gutters on each side. We believe the 20' wide road is not only appropriate but necessary, as the road is expected to have reduced amounts of traffic at Iow speeds. It is a fact within the standards of neo- traditional communities, that a narrower road encourages lower speeds. In addition, the narrower road makes it easier for pedestrians to get across. In general, narrower streets p/ace more importance on the pedestrian while de-emphasizing the importance of the automobile. We hereby request a waiver to the above referenced LDR section." The City has previously granted reductions in the standard aisle width for other townhouse projects such as Atlantic Grove and Legacy at Sherwood Forest. The City Engineer supports the reduction. Based on the maneuvering template submitted with the site plan application, there will be sufficient maneuvering area for the City's largest fire truck. Therefore, the Fire Department supports the proposed reduction. In this particular request, the two-foot valley gutter on either side of the road will provide sufficient area for larger vehicle to navigate the loop road. The reduction can be supported subject to the condition that the HOA documents contain a prohibition on parking of vehicles within the street access tracts. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), Waiver Findings can be made. Right-of-Way Dedication: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(2) and Transportation Element Table T-1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the required right-of-way for SE 10th Street is 80' and 66' exists. The applicant is responsible for providing one-half of the required right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is required to dedicate 7' to this right-of-way. This will be addressed with the required subdivision plat. The site plan provides for the dedication of the required right-of-way and is also attached as a condition of approval. Site Plan Technical Items: The following are items that do not require specific action of the Board, however, the items must be addressed with the submittal of the building permit application. SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 14 1. That the water meters and cleanouts are relocated in accordance with direction by the City Horticulturalist. 2. That an easement is provided for the utility pole anchor that encroaches onto the subject property along SE 10th Street. 3. That the transformer locations and screening method be noted on the site plan and landscape plan. 4. That a six-inch deep sodded swale is provided adjacent to all roadway pavement within the public right-of-ways. That a 12'-wide utility easement is provided over water and sewer mains. That the water main is extended along SE 10th Street from the west to the east side of the property unless the main has been extended by the Washington Mutual development. That the water main from Delray Place Condominium is extended and "looped" with to the water main within Park Place Townhomes development. That the water main is "stubbed-out" on the south side of the property adjacent to the Floranda Mobile Park. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS A landscape plan has been submitted and evaluated by the City Horticulturalist. The landscape plans provide for perimeter and intedor landscape areas in addition to building foundation landscape areas. The landscape areas include a variety of landscape material while the street trees will consist primarily of Live Oak trees. As noted previously, the property is designated as a native ecosystem. The property contains Hurricane Pine trees in addition to Live Oak trees and Sabal Palms. The plans retain the three significant stands of Hurricane Pine trees. The development plan also includes the preservation 10 Sabal Palms, nine Live Oak trees, one Red Bay, two Saw Palmettos, two Mango trees, and two Hurricane Pine trees. The preservation of the Hurricane Pine trees and the other existing trees will be a significant enhancement to the residential development. As previously stated, per Conservation Element B-1.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan the applicant/developer will be responsible for the contribution of $47,032 for the mitigation of the loss of the remainder of the Hurricane Pine trees located on the property. These funds will be utilized at the Leon Weekes nature preserve to enhance the existing Hurricane Pine ecosystem. A condition of approval is attached that the applicant submit an implementation plan for the improvements at the Leon Weekes nature preserve. The implementation plan must include the appropriate graphic and narrative documentation necessary for the enhancement of the Leon Weekes nature preserve equal to the cost of the contribution. The cost associated with the creation of the implementation plan will be incurred by the applicant. The implementation plan must be approved in accordance with direction by the City Horticulturalist. There are several technical items that need to be addressed. · SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 15 The City Horticulturalist found that the proposed landscape plan substantially complies with the City's Land Development Regulations (Section 4.6.16), provided the technical items are addressed. In addition to the technical items, more substantial vertical elements should be planted in the parking courtyard/"alley" of the three-story structures to provide greater vertical relief. The wall mounted light fixtures should be relocated above the garage doors in order to provide sufficient area for these vertical elements and is attached as a condition of approval. Landscape Technical Items: The following Landscape Plan items remain outstanding, and will need to be addressed prior to building permit submission. 1. The conflicts between proposed landscaping, site lighting and utilities must be resolved in accordance with direction by the City Horticulturalist. 2. That the site visibility triangles are measured at the property/ultimate right-of-way lines and not the street. Within the site visibility triangle, no plant material can be installed or maintained at a height that exceeds 36". ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.18(B)(14), the following criteria shall be considered, by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board, in the review of plans for building permits. If the following criteria are not met, the application shall be disapproved. a) The plan or the proposed structure is in conformity with good taste, good design, and in general, contributes to the image of the City as a place of beauty, spaciousness, harmony, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality. b) The proposed structure, or project, is in its extedor design and appearance of quality such as not to cause the nature of the local environment or evolving environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. c) The proposed structure, or project, is in harmony with the proposed developments in the general area, with the Comprehensive Plan, and with the supplemental criteria which may be set forth for the Board from time to time. The architectural style of the development is vernacular. The two-story townhomes include a design where the garages are set back from the front facade, thereby, making the house the prominent feature of the units. The roof lines contain a mix of hip roofs and opposing gables and will have grey fiat concrete tile. The windows include muntins, aluminum shutters and minor changes in sizes. The front elevations include a balcony on the second floor with French doors. The exterior walls will have two stucco textures. The front elevations contain a six-panel door with the same framing treatment. The Board may want to consider a condition to provide a variety in the door and window treatments in order to provide a differentiation between units and add interest. The units will be painted with an alternating color scheme of blue, red and beige. Each unit · SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 16 will have a dark beige base. A condition of approval is attached that a color scheme can not be repeated for two consecutive units. The three story townhouse structures also contain mixture of hip and opposing gable roofs with grey fiat tile. These buildings are very similar to the two-story townhouses. The units contain a variety of balconettes, balconies, and wrapped balconies all with French doom. Also, these townhouses contain a greater variety of window styles and treatments. They include "nine over one" single hung sash windows and splayed keystones. Some windows also include an arch. The doom include a variety of treatments including straight pediments and fan-window pediments. The wall treatments contain a variety as well. These include the use of horizontal scoring, block scoring and quoins. These townhouses include a variety of six color schemes including cr~me, light beige, brown, red, blue, and dark beige. The rear and sides of the units contain the same architectural detailing as the front elevations. However, as noted in the Performance Standards section of this staff report, the Board may want to consider additional architectural treatments for those side elevations that will be visible from SE 10th Street, which have minimal details. The pool cabana contains the same vernacular style of architecture. The cabana contains a hip roof with fiat grey concrete tile. The cabana contains horizontal scoring and quoins. The east and west sides of the cabana will have circular windows and vertical aluminum picket gates. Based on the above positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.18(B)(14) can be made, subject to the provision of additional architectural treatments for the side elevations that are visible from SE 10th Street and the introduction of a variety of the front doors for the two-story units. REQUIRED FINDINGS 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. These findings relate to the following areas: Section 3.1.1 (A) - Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of TRN (Transitional), and is zoned RM (Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density). Furthermore, the property is designated as an environmentally sensitive area on the Future Land Use Map. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.6(B)(3), within the RM zoning district multiple family structures of six to 12 units per acre are allowed as a permitted use subject to the performance standards of LDR Section 4.4.6(I). As stated previously, the performance standards will be substantially complied with, provided the conditions of approval are addressed, to allow a density of 12 units per acre. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map designation. SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 17 Section 3.1.1 (B) - Concurrency: As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and solid waste. Section 3.1.1 (C) - Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Section 3.1.1 (D) - Compliance With the Land Development Re;ulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDR's can be made, when all outstanding items attached as conditions of approval are addressed. Comprehensive Plan Policies: A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies were noted. 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. Physical Considerations As noted previously, the property is designated as an environmentally sensitive area due to the Hurricane Pine trees. The development has been designed to preserve the majority of these trees, which results in the justification to provide certain internal adjustments. There are no other known physical conditions that would prevent development of the property. Complementary With Adjacent Land Uses The development proposal is to function as a stand-alone multiple family townhouse development. The subject property is bordered on the north across SE 10th Street by single family homes, on the south by a mobile home park and single family homes, on the east by existing office and future general commercial uses, and on the west by multiple family residential. The project has a density of 11.90 dwelling units per acre, which is similar to the apartments to the west and the mobile home park to the south. The proposed development will be an enhancement to the surrounding residential uses. The building setbacks, design and perimeter buffering will enable the development to be complimentary to the adjacent land uses and will mitigate potential impacts the project may have on adjacent properties. SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 18 Fulfills Remaining Land Use Needs: This development proposal will provide two, three and four bedroom fee-simple townhouses, which will help further the City's goal for moderately priced housing in the City, which can be occupied by families. Housing Element 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. The proposed townhouse development should have a stabilizing effect by providing a quality residential development with a variety of housing opportunities in an urban environment. Nuisances such as noise, odors, and dust will not be a factor to the adjacent residential uses. The proposed buffering will mitigate any impact on these properties. The traffic volumes can be accommodated by the surrounding road network. Thus, the proposal will not result in a degradation of, but will enhance adjacent neighborhoods. 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. The subject property is located outside of the TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area). The applicant has provided bicycle racks at the pool area. 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. As noted previously, the development provides a pool, tot lot and sport court. Therefore, this policy has been met. Housing Element Objective 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: Housing 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 · SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 19 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. The project provides a mix of two, three and four bedroom units together with recreational facilities that are designed for a range of ages. It is reasonable to conclude that the project will be attractive to persons of all ages and to families. Housin.q 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 individual ownership near the downtown area. Conservation Element Policy B-1.2: Any development proposal for the Hurricane Pines site along SE 10th Street shall be accompanied by a complete, independent assessment of the environmentally sensitive portions of the site. The assessment shall define the exact area of environmentally sensitive flora, and address the potential for the preservation of the area. If it is determined by the City that preservation is not feasible, a condition of the development order will be for the developer to enter into a mitigation agreement with the City whereby the developer will donate land with a similar habitat to be preserved, or funds to be used for the purchase of similar habitat within the City or the management of existing conservation lands. The amount of the donation will be based on the appraised value of Hurricane Pines, and equal the value of the environmentally sensitive area which will be lost through development. As noted in the Landscape Analysis section of this report, the applicant will be responsible for the remittance of $47,032 for the mitigation due to the loss of Hurricane Pines on the property. A condition of approval is attached that the applicant submits an implementation plan for these funds at the Leon Weekes nature preserve. Section 2.4.5 (F)(5) - Compatibility (Site Plan Findings): The approving body must make a finding that development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is bordered on the north by R-1-A (Single Family Residential), on the south by R-1-A and MH (Mobile Home), on the east by PC (Planned Commercial) and POC (Planned Office Center), and on the west by RM (Multiple Family Residential- Medium Density). The surrounding land uses are single family to the north, single family and the Floranda Trailer Park to the south, the Executive Quarters office complex and vacant land (proposed Washington Mutual Bank) to the east, and the Delray Place Condominium apartments to the west. Given the proposed perimeter landscape buffer treatments and project design, the proposed development will be compatible and harmonious with the surrounding developments. SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 20 REVIEW BY OTHERS The development proposal is not located in an area, which requires review, by the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) and the DDA (Downtown Development Authority). Courtesy Notices: Courtesy Notices have been provided to the following homeowner's and civic associations: · Domaine Delray · Rio Delray Shores · Osceola Park · Delray Harbor Club · PROD · Presidents Council · Roger Boos Letters of objection or support, if any, will be presented at the SPRAB meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal is to construct a 57-unit townhouse residential complex. As described throughout this report, the development proposal is consistent with objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan in that it is consistent with and complimentary to adjacent developments, and is designed to accommodate households having a range of ages, and preserves to the best extent possible the environmentally sensitive Hurricane Pines located on the site. The proposal is consistent with LDR Section 2.4.5(F)(5)(Site Plan Findings) as it is compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and should not cause any substantial depreciation of nearby property values. The proposed density of 12 units per acre can be supported as the development will comply with all of the performance standards provided the conditions of approval are addressed, and is consistent with applicable standards of the LDRs and Comprehensive Plan. The development proposal includes elements of the new urbanism design concepts. In order to accommodate this development concept and preserve the optimum number of Hurricane Pine trees, the internal adjustments and associated waiver are necessary and supportable. A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the Class V site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations for Park Place Townhomes based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3, Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions. SPRAB Staff Report ' Class V Site Plan, Elevations, ano ,.andscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 21 Co Deny the Class V site plan, landscape plan, and architectural elevations for Park Place Townhomes, based on a failure to make a positive finding with respect to the Conservation Element Policy B-1.2, LDR Section 4.4.6(I)(Performance Standards), and LDR Section 2.4.5(F)(5). By Separate Motions: Internal Adjustments: Approve an internal adjustment to LDR Section 4.3.3(O)(3)(b), to reduce the required 25' front setback for one and two story townhouses and cabana, and reduce the 30' front and side street setback for the three story townhouses as noted herein, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5). Bo Approve an internal adjustment to LDR Section 4.3.3(O)(3)(c), to reduce the building separation requirement of 25' for the two-story townhouses and the 30' requirement for the three story townhouses as noted herein based on positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5). Co Approve an internal adjustment to LDR Section 4.6.2, to reduce the 24' minimum distance required between buildings as noted herein based on positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5). Waiver: ko Recommend to the City Commission approval of the waiver to LDR Section 6.1.2(C) to reduce the pavement width of the streets from 24' to 20' based on a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), subject to the provision of a restriction in the HOA documents that restricts parking within this area Bo Recommend to the City Commission approval of the waiver to LDR Section 6.1.3, which requires a five-foot wide sidewalk along both sides of the loop road, based on a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Site Plan: Approve the Class V site plan for Park Place Townhomes, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Site Plan and Engineering Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans; 2. That a plat be approved and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit; SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 22 3. That applicant is required to remit $47,032 for mitigation purposes prior to issuance of a site clearing permit; That the applicant submit an implementation plan for the use of the mitigation funds at the Leon Weekes nature preserve. (The action plan must include a written plan and graphic plans, as necessary that is equal in amount to the remittance); That a gate is provided in the perimeter fence adjacent to the bus stop at the northwest comer of the property and that the applicant provided one-half of the full cost of a bus shelter for this stop; o That the building elevations are revised to include the mean elevation of the crown of the proposed loop road and finished floor elevation, that the height of the building is revised accordingly, and that the buildings are a maximum height of 35'; 7. That a photometric plan in compliance with LDR Section 4.6.8 is provided and that the light fixtures and poles are residential in character; 8. That a 7' right-of-way dedication is provided for SE 10th Street; and, 9. That the wall mounted light fixtures be relocated above the garage doors in order to eliminate the conflict with the vertical landscape elements. Landscape Plan: Approve the landscape plan for Park Place Townhomes based on positive findings with respect to Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1. Address all Landscape Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. That larger vertical elements be planted between the garage doom for the three- story townhouses to provide greater vertical relief in accordance with direction with the City Horticulturalist. Elevations: Approve the proposed elevations for Park Place Townhomes based on positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.18, subject to the following conditions: That additional architectural elements are provided on the north elevations of the three-story townhouses facing SE 10t~ Street in accordance with direction by SPRAB; 2. That the same color scheme can not be repeated for two consecutive units; and, 3. That a variety of door styles and window treatments be provided for the two-story units. · SPRAB Staff Report { Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 23 Attachments: · Appendix A · Appendix B · Site Plan, Engineering Plans, Landscape Plan, Floor Plans, and Building Elevations · SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 24 APPENDIX A CONCURRENCY FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1(B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: The applicant will be responsible for the extension of an 8" main along the south side of SE 10th Street and an 8" main within the loop road. Connection to the stub-out on the east side of the adjacent multiple family development to the west will be required. The development will also need to provide a stub-out at the southeast corner of the property for future connection to the trailer park property. These items are attached as Technical Items in the site plan analysis section of this report. Sewer service will be provided to the site via lateral connections to an existing 36" sewer main along SE 10th Street. Adequate fire protection will be provided via the installation of four fire hydrants along the loop road. The Comprehensive Plan states that adequate water and sewer treatment capacity exists to meet the adopted LOS at the City's build-out population based on the current FLUM. The 57 multiple family residential units will have an insignificant impact on all public services and was anticipated for this property and was factored into the plan. Thus, a positive finding with respect to this level of service standard can be made. Streets and Traffic: The applicant provided a traffic study for the subject property, which indicates that the 57 unit townhouse project will generate a total of 399 average daily tdps onto the surrounding road network. A copy of the traffic study was submitted to the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering Division for review with respect to concurrency. It is noted that the property is located in the Coastal Residential Exception Area, which exempts residential projects from the County Traffic Performance Standards (concurrency). The County has responded with a finding of concurrency. Based upon the above, a positive finding with respect to this level-of-service standard can be made. Parks and Recreation Facilities: Park demands generated by the construction of new housing units were factored into the 1989 Comprehensive Plan Parks and Recreation Element. Thus, the proposed development will not have a negative impact with respect to this level of service standard. The applicant will be required to pay the City's Parks and Recreation Impact Fee of $500.00 per unit at the time of building permit issuance ($28,500 total). Solid Waste: The proposed development will generate 113.43 tons (57 units x 1.99 tons) of solid waste per year. The multiple family development and its associated solid waste generation was · SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 25 anticipated by the City and County Comprehensive Plans, LOS for solid waste disposal will not be affected by the proposed development. The Solid Waste Authority has indicated capacity to accommodate the trash generated by the proposal. Dralna_~e: Drainage will be accommodated by sheet flow to catch basins along the loop road to exfiltration trenches. There are no problems anticipated with the ability of development to retain drainage on-site. Permits for the drainage system must be obtained from South Florida Water Management district prior to recordation of the plat. School Concurrency: The Palm Beach County School Board has provided a finding of concurrency for the project. · SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 26 APPENDIX B ~ ........ STANDARDS FOR sI'TE'pL~h'"A*CTi'O~N$ ........ ~ ~ ' J Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X Bo Appropriate separation of travelways is made for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians in a manner consistent with objective D-1 of the Traffic Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X Open Space enhancements described in Open Space and Recreation Objective B-l, are appropriately addressed. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X D. That any street widening associated with the development shall not be detrimental upon desired character and cohesiveness of affected residential areas. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X Fo Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and Intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable · SPRAB Staff Report Class V Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscaping for Park Place Townhomes Page 27 Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X G. In order to provide for more balance demographic mix, the development of "large scale adult oriented communities" on the remaining vacant land is discouraged. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X H. 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. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location, without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler 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. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X 1 ~11111 ;I h mol 3 S '- --. __"-- -- Ilr'--: -- i0 Ell mo ~09J 'H3¥3B A¥~930 XVII'I~O dO S~IIOflN&O.I. ~)V'ld XlIVd ~lOV*'ld IMVd [ _, Ii! l:lll: Il.ltl [!JJl ~OVld )lllVd JOgJ 'HD¥3{] ,4V~930 A¥1I'I~O :lO ~mOflN/~OJ. TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: DAVID T. HARDEN, ~C~~~~/~, SCOTT PAPE, SENIOR PLANNER~ ~-~o~,,~._~-' ~-----~ ~ MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2003 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE PAVEMENT WIDTH FROM 24' TO 20' FOR THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS LOCATED WITHIN THE PARK PLACE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO LDR SECTION 6.1.2(C) AND WAIVER FROM PROVIDING SIDEWALKS ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE LOOP ROAD PURSUANT TO LDR SECTION 6.1.3. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOUTHEAST 10TM STREET~ APPROXIMATELY 300' WEST OF SE 5TM AVENUE (SOUTHBOUND FEDERAL HIGHWAY) The property consists of a portion of Lot 5, Block 1 of the Model Land Company Subdivision, is commonly known as the Hurricane Pines site and contains 4.79 acres. The internal street system consists of a loop network with driveway connections to internal motor courts for the 57 two and three story units. The applicant has requested a reduction in pavement width from 24' to 20' for the loop road and to provide sidewalks on only one side of the exterior of the loop road adjacent to the two-story townhomes. Reduction in Pavement Width Analysis: The development proposal provides a 20' wide street with 2' of valley curb and gutter on both sides of the pavement. Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.2(C), upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, and with the approval of the Fire Marshal, the City Commission may authorize a reduction in the minimum required width of paving if it is determined that the requirements of this subsection would not be feasible or would constitute a hardship in a particular instance and provided this reduction would not endanger public safety and welfare. The City Engineer has reviewed the request to reduce the pavement width from 24' to 20' and is in support of the reduction. The reduced pavement width will provide for 20' of pervious surface which is bordered by a 2' valley curb on each side. Consequently, the 24' of pavement will be provided. While the city standard does not provide for the reduced pavement width when using a valley curb, this is an acceptable standard for many other municipalities and Palm Beach County and is often recommended as a traffic calming measures. The City has supported similar reductions such as the Legacy at Sherwood Forest, Parkside Townhomes and The Estuary developments. Complying with the 24' requirement could impact the site layout and potentially the unit count, which could create a hardship. The Fire Marshal is in support of the request. This proposed reduction will not affect the neighboring area and will provide sufficient area for access and is adequate for public facilities. City Commission Documentation Park Place Townhomes - Special Action Page 2 Sidewalks: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B)(2) sidewalks must be constructed within the street right-of-way (easement or tract) and must be constructed adjacent to the right-of-way (easement or tract) line. The proposed site plan provides a sidewalk along the interior of the loop road and not along the exterior of this road. This sidewalk provides a pedestrian connection to the recreational facilities for all of the units and to SE 10th Street. The residents of the two-story units will have to cross the loop road to access this sidewalk. While sidewalks can be provided, they would reduce the proposed 9' of landscaping in front of the units. In order to accommodate rear loaded garages for the three-story townhouses the buildings needed to be shifted and the front yard reduced. Access to the community facilities along the outside of the loop road can be adequately provided by the proposed sidewalk system. At its meeting of February 12, 2003, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board considered the waiver requests for Park Place Townhomes and unanimously approved the following recommendations: Recommend to the City Commission approval of the waiver to LDR Section 6.1.2(C) to reduce the pavement width of the streets from 24' to 20' based on a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), subject to the provision of a restriction in the HOA documents that restricts parking in the street. Recommend to the City Commission approval of the waiver to LDR Section 6.1.3, which requires a five-foot wide sidewalk along both sides of the loop road, based on a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Approve the request to reduce the pavement width of the internal loop road from 24' to 20' and eliminate the street sidewalk along the exterior of this loop road as indicated on the site plan for Park Place Townhomes. Attachment: Site Plan ~V'ld ~l~d mol 3 S , !.* mch a 45 kea can gree side- ~like , by sing safer But, mch ~no ~llost s are rain- sim- ~d to is for Nos- .~e he lesign m~ o~1 FEATURE Rethinking Residential Streets ~ommunities across the coui~ry, planners, engineers, developers, and local officials are trying to create more livable neighborhoods by taking a new look at design requirements for residential streets. Streets define the character of our communities and contribute to our sense of place -- whether a quiet vil- lage, comfortable neighborhood, or bustling city street. While interstate highways and ar- terial highways properly assign fore- most priority to traffic needs, the residential environment must respond to many other concerns Residential streets are more than just conduits for traffic; they form the setting for our homes and are where neighbors meet and talk and children play. In some ways, residential streets should be con- sidered as extenszons of our front yards, rather than as transportation facilities. Unfortunately, outdated regula- tions in many communities require residential streets td be designed to standards that are suitable for major roadways. When the automobile began to dominate our landscape zn the 1950s, transportation planners and engineers developed techniques for handling large volumes of traffic at higher speeds. This work, combined with substantial public funding, produced the modern, efficient highway network this nation enjoys today. But many of the design standards developed for highways were incorpo- rated into local subdivision regulations and inappropriately applied to residen- tial streets. Too often, the result has been residential areas designed with streets that violate the sense of neigh- by Joseph R. Molinaro, AICP borhood and that encourage high-speed travel through our communities. Inappropriate street standards also make our neighborhoods less attractive by requiring the paving of overly wide street surfaces. In addition to its unappealing aesthetic consequences, excessive pavement causes environ- mental problems -- more stormwater runoff and heat buildup -- and in- creases construction costs for the de- veloper and maintenance costs for the community. STREET~ DESIGN PRINCIPLES Street Hierarchy: Blanket stan- dards for all streets ignore community needs and fail to recognize that differ- ent traffic characteristics demand dif- ferent street design standards. For example, a cul-de-sac with 10 houses does not experience the volume and type of traffic carried by collector or arterial roads. Designing each street to match its function is at the heart of better street design standards. [,,~ ] While major roadways (arterials and collectors) are designed primarily for the smooth flow of traffic, local streets should be designed for much slower speeds. Traffic must be "kept in its place" xf residential areas are to offer much-desired safety and low noise lev- els. The Boone County (Kentucky) Comprehenszve Plan, for example, states that local streets should "[PI rov~de the greatest degree of access to abutting property. Service of through traffic is clearly subordinate and even discouraged by low posted speeds and street design." Street Width: Perhaps the most ~mportant design feature of any resi- dential street is its width. Contrary to the common wisdom of earlier decades, engineers and planners now realize that in residential nexghborhoods, wider streets are more dangerous than nar- row streets because they encourage drivers to speed. Subcollector streets function well at 26-foot widths. Access streets, such as short lanes or cul-de- sacs, reqmre widths of only 20 to 24 feet. The narrower widths assume that most resident parking is accommodated in garages or driveways. Right-of-Way Width: The right of way need only be as v, qde as necessary to accommodate the street pavement, sidewalks, grass strip and street trees, and utilities. For a 26-foot wide subcollector street with sidewalks, a 42 to 46 foot right-of-way should be suffi- cient. A 22-foot wide cul-de-sac with- out sidewalks may ne~ed a right-of-way of only 24 feet. 'Requiring excessive rights-of-way wastes land and places unnecessary restrictions on the layout of lots. Also, while rights-of-way for arterial roads may need to accommodate future wzdening, those for residential subdi- vision streets do not. Street Geometry: Geometry is the PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME 39 NUMBER1 NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 1991 Streets serving only a few homes need only be twenty feet w~de term used by civil engineers to describe aspects of road design such as sharp- ness of curves and steepness of slopes. Obviously, the geometry required for a superhighway with a 65 m.p.h, speed limit is different than that needed for a residential street with a speed limit of 20 m.p.h. At high speeds, for example, safety requires more gradual curves; at low speeds, cars can easily negotiate the sharpest of curves. Residential streets should be de- signed with tighter turns than major roads. These tighter turns force drivers to go slower, while also adding to the visual interest of the street. At inter- sections, the turn radius can be kept smaller, forcing cars to come to a full stop before turning rather than making a "rolling stop." In determining geometry and street width, the need for providing emergency vehicle access must be ad- dressed. But this does not mean that residential streets have to be oversized. Today's modem fire fighting vehicles are more maneuverable than earlier equipment, and oversized trucks such as hook and ladder typically do not respond to hre calls in single-family residential areas. If fire truck accessi- bility is a special concern in a commu- nity, it would be more economical to purchase trucks that ht local streets, rather than build all streets to meet the needs of the largest size fire trucks. WORKING FOR CHANGE In Albuquerque, New Mexico, Larry Collins, the development direc- tor of Sivage Thomas Homes, suggested Co the planning commission that the city amend its street standards in con- junction with its ongoing revision of Albuquerque's Development Process continued on next page PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL VOLUME I NUMBER 1 4O stri~ets that::~fnduct t~aific : towns anct ficti~ity'~ntezs nect communities den~es hri'nbi :/ · Collector stree=~a}e. pai uaffic arteries ~th~ or commer~iabar~s~ ~ela~vely h~gh tram~ should be designed tS~romote ~ee flow o[ uaffic, inchding publ~ transit buse9. ~access ~some, (access) streets,' ~oi~me itree~s.~ and higher-order streets;.,lhey usual- elude ' the~n-~le ~orm'ed 'ingstreets at the ~corner. R~hinking Residential Streets.. continued frora previous page Manual (DPM). With the commission's encouragement, Collins convened a commigtee of private sector engineers and design professionals, which re- viewed various published recommen- dations of national engineering and planning organizations. The planning commission was impressed with the committee's effort and decided to establish a task force chaired by the former city traffic engi- neer. The task force included Collins, two planning commissioners, the city traffic engineer, and representatives of the fire chief and several other depart- ments. It spent several months meeting w~th interested parties, dtscussing al- ternauves, and developing new stan- dards. While existing standards reqmre all streets to be 32 feet wide, the task force recognized different types of streets. Its recommendations call for street widths ranging from 22 to 32 feet, with most failing between 24 to 28 feet. The recommendations would also reduce right-of way widths, and scale back on reqmred horizontal curvatures. Further, they would reduce the inter- section radius and the radius of cul-de- sac turnarounds. In Livingston County, Michigan, a fast-growing county north of Ann Arbor, the county road com- mission's existing regulations do not differenti- ate subdlviszon streets from arte- rial roads. Rather~ all streets must be designed to the county's standards for rural highways. This has resulted in excessive pavement and right-of-way widths for neighborhood streets. For example, all streets must have a right-of- way of 66 feet. Recently, however, many commissioners, planners, and builders have worked to evaluate these street stan- dards and develop alternatives. VOLUME I NUMBER1 41 One alternative to meeting county road standards is for townships to adopt their own standards. But townships in Livingston County are not willing to accept dedicauon of streets. "Liability and maintenance are the two issues the townships are concerned about," says George Bacalis, president of Artisan Builders and chairperson of the County HomeBuilders' Public Policy Commit- tee To develop more reasonable stan~ dards, the home builders are working with townships to develop mutually acceptable specifications for private streets, as well as legal language that will ensure that homeowners assocla- tions will assume responsibility for maintenance and liability. In addiuon, the county road commission has agreed to consider changes in its roadway specifications. An Interdisciplinary committee formed by the county plan- ning director will make recommenda- tions to the road commission. SUMMING UP: Several decades of experience have demonstrated that residential street standards based on highway engineer- lng concepts intended to move high- speed traffic do not produce the lnumate scale, tranquility, and safety neighbor- hood residents want. Planning for more livable streets has many constituencies. Cluzen groups, environmentalists, home builders, and planning and design pro- fessionals. As a result, an increasing number of communities have begun to rethink their street standards. Joseph R. Molinaro, AICP, Is Direc- tor of Land Development Services for the National Association of Home Builders in Washington, D.C., and is a coauthor of Residential Streets. He holds a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 1991 £1T¥ NI-AmedcaCity 1993 2001 TO: too N W lstAVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 MFA IO DUM FROM: David T. Harden City Manager Aobert A. Barcinski ssistant City Manager DATE: March 6, 2003 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM CITY COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 13~ 2003 SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST - SCHOOL SHOWCASE OF THE ARTS - SOUTH FLORIDA PARENTING BLOCK PARTY ACTION City Commission is requested to endorse the School Showcase of the Arts - South Florida Parenting Block Party, sponsored by the Delray Beach Education Board and South Florida Parenting to be held on the grounds of Old School Square on March 29 and 30 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Commission is requested to waive the LDR's Section 4.6.7(D)(3)0)(ii) to allow event signage to be put up more than one week prior to the event and to authorize staff support for security and traffic control, trash removal, and EMS services if needed. BACKGROUND Attached is a memorandum I received from Ms. Butler for this event with a budget and site plan. The event was held last year; however, City services were not requested or provided. The event sponsors as well as staff feel that based on last years experience and the estimated crowd size that City staff support is needed as requested. The estimated overtime for this event with EMS service is about $5,500 and about $3,500 without on site EMS service. We will make a final determination if a need for EMS service prior to the event. Based on the estimated crowd size spread out over two (2) days on site EMS presence may not be needed. Since the City is a sponsor overtime costs would be waived. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the event, the request for staff assistance, and authorization to make and put up event signage on March 18th. Since the City is a co-sponsor a hold harmless agreement will not be needed and the City would cover liability through our insurance. RAB/tas Cc: Lula Butler Robin Cox Peggy Murphy Ftle'u sweeney/agenda Doc. School Showcase of the Arts 561/243-7000 Pnnted on Recycled Paper THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS TO: THRU: FROM: BOB BARCINSKI, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT JANET MEEKS, EDUCATION COORDINATOR SUBJECT: SCHOOL SHOWCASE OF THE ARTS The Delray Beach Education Board in conjunction with the Delray Beach Youth Council is hosting its 5th annual School Showcase of the Arts program on March 29~ and 30th, at Old School Square. The School Showcase of the Arts promotes our public and private schools by inviting them to showcas~ their school and talents to the general public. The students perform at the entertainment pavilion and each school sponsors a booth which may display their educational programs, school spirit, fine arts, and summer camp programs. This is a wonderful opportunity for families to learn about our Delray Beach Schools and their unique programs. The Delray Beach Youth Council sells sodas, water, pizza, and hot dogs at the event, and it has proven to be one of their biggest fund raisers for the year. This year, the School Showcase of the Arts is being combined with the South Florida Parenting Magazine (a subsidiary of Sun-Sentinel) Family Block Party to give the School Showcase of the Arts more exposure as approximately 5,000 people are anticipated to attend the event each day. The combination of the events will also provide many more activities for the students including family entertainment and booths offering local products and services, arts and crafts, games, rides and much more. It is a natural fit to combine the two events. Twelve of our schools have already signed-up to participate in the event and at least two more are anticipated. The Delray Beach Youth Council will be providing the volunteers for the event (approx. 40-50 students) along with selling refreshments for their fund raiser. The City will be providing most of the costs for the rental (stage, grounds and maintenance) of Old School Square on Saturday along with the rental costs associated with the booths for the schools (tent, table and chairs). As this is a City sponsored partnership event, in-kind services are being requested including trash containers, trash removal and clean-up for both days, EMS (if necessary), and police presence for the two day event. Attached is a combined budget of the event and a map. CATHY 8, SHELLY ~IL FAX NO. 561 496 3867 P, 02 Delray Family Block Party and School Showcase of the Arts South Florida Parenting Expenses 3,200 4300 1000 1200 2000 3000 400 faciliity rental tents, tables rides rock wall ponies bricks, cars, SS cafE, crafts, misc. activities fencing signage 17,048 hard costs Trade and inkind value 250,000 3000 2000 600 1000 257,600 media schedule bounce houses trade BF! dumpster and event boxes Otter John booth trade pony trade in kind value Delray Board of Education Expenses 250 910 $450 $700 ' 14 tables and chairs (~ $20 each 14 10'x 10' tents (~ S65 each stage and cost of mainl=nance on Saturday secuuity deposit OSS Delray Board of Education inkind value Delray police department EMS 2,340 hard cost j B£TH£SD~L~ SIA6E AREA SUN-SENTINEl CAFE SCHOOl SHOWCASE - MINI CAMP FAIR - SUNDAY ~ J-~ Isle I~1 EVENT OFFICE JSAND ART J ~ STAGE CHECK-IN FIRE TRUCK iON COASTER Old School Square, ~ ~ ,~os~ FIRAIES (OV~ ~, ~ lOam-SFm, Saturday and Sunday, [[ATU~E~ liE~/Ufl [ ~ ~ PIEATE SHIPRIDE ' ~ ~~- -~ ~ ~, ...... , ~ ..... ~ Swmton BIvd. and Atlant,c Blvd.) :_ ~~IKA~~: ~:~ ~ ~J :~[~ ..... BO R MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM #~"~"~ - REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2003 REJECTION OF BID/RESURFACING PROJECT MARCH 7, 2003 This is before the City Commission for authorization to reject all bids received for the 2003 Resurfacing Project and authorize staff to re-bid this contract later this year. The bids received were substantially above estimate due to sharp increases in oil over the past few months. Therefore, staff is requesting the rejection of these bids. Recommend approval of the request to reject all bids received for the 2003 Resurfacing Project and authorize staff to re-bid this contract later this year. S\C~ty Clerk\chevelle folder\agenda memos\Relect~onofBads.3 13.03 www. My Delray Bea ch. com City Of Delray Beach Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: David T. Harden Randal L Krejcarek, P.E. 06 Mar 2003 2003 Resurfacing Contract Rejection of Bids Project #2003-023 The attached agenda request is for Commission approval to reject all bids for the above referenced project. Bids received were substantially above the estimate, mainly due to the sharp increase in oil over the past few months. Also, the Iow bidder has submitted a request to renegotiate his bid because of the latest increases in oil. For these reasons staff recommends that all bids be rejected and this contract be re-bid later this year. Please place this item on the 13 Mar 2003 Commission Agenda. Thanks! Enc cc: file S:~EngAdmintProjectst2003~2003-O23tOFFIClAL t13 mar 2003 agenda memo. doc CITY OF DELRAY BEACH SOUTH CONGRESS AV~"NUE Attachment No. 1 February 13, 2003 STREET~ il GRADrN~ II __5J2 P02 FEB 18 '03 15:04 ROCK · F~LL il CONCRETE WORK PHONE ~-27~-Q~ City of Delray Beach - Attn: Joseph Safford, Finance Director Project Name: 2003 Resurfacing ProJect No, 2003-023 Bid No. 2003-0t I We wish to thank you for this opportunity to work with your city. You may not be aware, but we are involved in a liquid asphalt crisis. The continued uncertainty of securing a load of liquid at any port from Ft. Lauderdale to Savannah makes the spiraling cost pale in comparison. Most of our price quotations are based on the date of sale, if available. Our proposal is based on material prices received on this date, We cannot guarantee these prices and it may be necessary to edjust this proposal accon:iingly at the time of invoicing reflecting any changes in current material prices or additional freight charges. These adjustments will be shown as a separate item on all invoices. Again, we wish to thank you for this opportunity to serve you and apologize for any inconvenience which this problem has caused. Sincerely, Ken Gruska Project Manager 0 0 0 Date: 06 Mar 2003 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:~ Request to be placed on: X Consent Agenda When: 13 Mar 2003 AGENDA REQUEST Regular Agenda Workshop Agenda .... Special Agenda Description of Agenda Item (who, what, where, how much): The attached agenda request is for Commission approval to reject all bids for the above referenced project. Bids received were substantially above estimate, mainly due to the sharp increase in oil over the past few months. This project will be re-bid later Department Head Signature: ' ~ ' (~ ~' o:) City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding Available: Yes / No Initials: Account Number Description Account Balance: Funding Alternatives: City Manager Review: Approved for Agenda: ~/No Initials: Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: (if applicable) S:\EngAdmin\Projects\2003\2003-023\OFFICIAL\13 mar 2003 agenda.doc £1T¥ OF DELRrlV BEI:I£H CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1993 FROM: 200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755 Writer's Direct L~ne: 561/243-7091 MEMORANDUM March 7, 2003 City Commission Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney SUBJECT: Authorization to Challenge a Rule Regarding Rate making Authority of Water Management Districts The Department of Environmental Protection has proposed certain changes to their administrative rules. One proposed change is to Administrative Rule 62-40 which contains language that appears to give authority to Water Management Districts to establish conservation rates. The language in 62-40.4124 is as follows: The use of conservation rate structures, including drought rate and seasonal rate structures, wherever practical. The District review shall determine whether the rate structure is sufficient to send a price siqnal which encouraqes water conservation and shall not include rate setting authority. Such rates may be phased in over time (emphasis added). The language introduces an ambiguity and appears to conflict with its stated objective of not setting rates. Dick Hasko has brought this matter forward. We are seeking authorization to challenge the rule. We have commenced the process because there is a March 13, 2003 deadline to file the challenge to the rule. The Tallahassee office of the Law Firm of Lewis, Longman and Walker has agreed to file the challenge on the City's behalf. Their houdy rate is $195-$205 per hour. Please place this request to engage Lewis, Longman & Walker to challenge the above rule on the March 13, 2003 City Commission agenda. CC; David T. Harden, City Manager Barbara Garito, City Clerk Dick Hasko, Director of Environmental Services James W. Linn, Esq. John W, Forehand, Esq. Ed A. Steinmeyer, Esq. Page 1 of 3 Ed Steinmeyer From: J~m Linn Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 3:50 PM To: John Forehand, Ed Steinmeyer Subject: FW: Chapter 62-40 Challenge ..... Original Message ..... From: Hasko, Richard [mailto:Hasko@ci.delray-beach.fl.us] $ent: Friday, February 28, 2003 2:35 PM To; .Jim Linn Cc: Ruby, Susan; Shutt, Brian Subject: Chapter 62-40 Challenge 3'ira: The following is excerpted from an e-mail that I sent to Rebecca O'hara at the Florida League of Cities earlier this week explaining the problems we have with the cited language currently proposed by FDEP in Ch. 6;>-40. lq/Rebecca: zjust wanted to drop you a line to express a concern (one of many £'m sure) with the latest round of Ch. 62-40 revisions proposed by FDEP and see what the League's position is. A final rule rev/sion was posted that includes language regarding Water A4anagement Districts' input into conservation rate structures that is very disturb/nE to say the/east. To wit: "The D/strict review shaft determine whether the rate structure/5 sufficient to send a pr/ce s/gna/which encourages water conservatioa and shall not include rate setting authority. Such rates may be phased in over time.. This is a problem on various/eve/s: I. To my know/edge, Water hfanagement Districts (WA4Ds) have never been in the utility bum'ness, so the statement c/ted begs the quest/on, on what basis is a H/MD expected to have the bac/cground and expert/se to ma/ce the stated determination? 2. The entire sentence/$ a mode/of self contradiction. £f requires 3/4/2003 Page 2 of 3 the narrowest conceivable definition of "raPe making" to even bej7in to make sense. Rate makinj7 is more than simply the assijTnment of dollar values to commodity volumes. Rate maR/nj7 is a process involvinjT, amonj7 other acHvities, determinations of customer class distinction, cost oF service analysis and, in the case of conservation rates, sePPin~ of the threshoM intervals for differenHal commodity costs based on 9go~aphic and customer specific consumption poPPe~ns. ~ere is no quesHon PhoP Phe curren~ p~oposed Ionguag~ 9iws WoP~r ~onogemenP bis?ricps som~ [,w/ at rape moRin9 ou~hori~. What basis is to be used by the WI~D in making the determination of the effecHveness of the conservation rate structures? FD~P has yet to present any study based material that supports the claim that conservaHon rates are e££ect/ve conservation tools. Yo~ may recall the art/de £ sent to you tcrom October's issue otc the ~ WW/~ ~ournal report/ha on a study in Colorado t~at concluded just the opposite: increased rates were not s/an/~/cant/y e~ect/ve in reduc/na consumpHon. ~e obvious ~ear /s that these determ/naHons will be based on subjecHve parameters biased by the ~MD paroc~/a/ aaenda. Our position is not to restrict the ability of WMbs to require conservation rate structures as a conservation tool. I believe that they already have that authority in the current rule. The problem arises when they are granted the authority over a rate making activity such as determining break points for increasing block rate structures. Conservation is only one of several objectives that are considered in the preparation of a water utility rate structure. It is not appropriate for a 5tare agency to exercise selective control over elements of a public water utility's revenue source to accomplish it's own goals. The mission of the WMbs should be to determine and quantify on a regional basis what the conservation goals are. Once those goals are established, it is the utility's responsibility to meet them as they apply locally and are regulated through the consumptive use permitting process. In other words, tell us what level of conservation we need to achieve and let us determine which conservation tools and techniques will be most effective in meeting those goals. I spoke with Brian Shutt of our City Attorney's office today and we agreed that it will be most expedient if you and I communicate directly regarding the challenge process while keeping him and ,Susan informed. Please feel free to contact me at any time if 3/4/2003 additional information is required. Page 3 of 3 Richard C. Hasko, p.~c. Environmental Services/3/rector Voice: (561) 243-7336 FAX: (§61) 243-7060 e-mail: hask° '@ ci.delra¥-beach.f l.us 3/4/2003 NOTICE OF CHANGE AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COSTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Water Resource Management Docket No.: 02-31R RULE CHAPTER NO.: 62-40 RULE NO.: 62-40.310 62-40.410 62-40.412 62-40.416 62-40.430 62-40.474 62-40.520 62-40.531 RULE CHAPTER TITLE: Water Resource Implementation Rule RULE TITLE: General Policies Water Supply Protection and Management Water Conservation Water Reuse and Recycling Water Quality Reservations District Water Management Plans Regional Water Supply Plans NOTICE OF CHANGE Notice is hereby given that the following changes have been made to the proposed rule in accordance with subparagraph 120.54(3)(d)1., F.S., published, pursuant to Sec. 120.551, F.S., in the Department's official notice Internet site at www.dep.state fi.us and a summary published in Volume 28, No. 51 (December 20, 2002) issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly: 62-40.310 General Policies. (1)(a) Promote the availability of sufficient water for natural systems, and sufficient and affordable water for all existing and future reasonable-beneficial uses~ and ,"~*,.~..., .... ,..,' ..~ .... .....,*'~'"'~, ,.,. Uses of water authorized by a permit shall be limited to reasonable- beneficial uses. (b) through (k) No change. (2) through (5) No change. 62-40.410 Water Supply Protection and Management (1) through (3) No change. (4) If water withdrawals are causing, or are projected to cause within 20 years, a water body to fall below its minimum flow or level established pursuant to sections 373.042 and 373.0421, F.S., a recovery or prevention strategy shall be expeditiously implemented to achieve or maintain the established minimum flow or level consistent with section 373.042(2). For water bodies that are below their established minimum flow or level, renewals of existing consumptive use permits, increased allocations, or new withdrawals shall be allowed only if consistent with ..applicable tq~,e District ........ *~ ........... ~* rules, including those implementing the recovery or p entio ateqy ~,"'! ~.'-* ..... '~"'"'*~"~ by -' '~' rev n str '~'-'~ '~,, .... '*;,',., ,"~ *~'" rcccv ...... ~ .~....~. ........ (5) through (6) No change. (7) In implementing consumptive use permitting programs, the Department and Districts shall strive to prevent harm to natural systems without the need for artificial maintenance~ of natural systems by pumped groundwater augmentation. (8) through (9) No change. 2 62-40.412 Water Conservation. (1) No change. (2) The Districts shall seek to accomplish this goal by: (2)(a) through (c)3. No change. 4. The use of conservation rate structures, including drought rate and seasonal rate structures, wherever practical. The District review shall determine whether the rate structure is sufficient to send a price siqnal which encoura.qes water conservation h.~ ~;,.,.;+..,~ +., +r.,~ ~+ .... * ..... ~ tho ..+.~ o..~,,-,~, ,~,~ and shall ~ not include rate setting authority. time; Such rates may be phased in over (2)(c)5. through 7. No change. 8. Goal-based water conservation plans proposed by water users programs, in ';':"' ct or in ,',""'-~';"~*;'"'- ;",';t~' '"*~"-- ,~m,.; .......... ; ..... *o that allow permittees flexibility in choosing water conservation measures to be implemented. ~ The plan must provide equivalent or .qreater water conservation than that expected under the water conservation requirements that would otherwise be applied The plan ~,,,''F' ,-,,,.,, ~,,o,,,~ .... , .......... ,; .........., may ~-,~ · ~,~"' *h....~ ..... --.~..~.* ......... .~.~.... ~...~."; may include any of the measures in subparagraphs 62- 40.412(2)(c)1 through 7 above, educational or incentive programs, or other effective measures proposed by a water user. Pro,qress toward goals must be measurable. (2)(d) through (h) No change. 62-40.416 Water Reuse and Recycling. (1) The reuse of reclaimed water, the recycling of stormwater for irrigation and other beneficial uses, and the recycling of industrial wastewater, shall be promoted. In implementing consumptive use permitting programs, the reuse or recycling of water shall be required of water users unless objective evidence demonstrates that such reuse or recycling is not economically, environmentally, or technically feasible. In determininq economic feasibility, the districts shall consider costs and benefits (2) through (6) No change. 62-40.430 Water Quality. (1) through (2)(b) No change. (c) In the development of a basin management action plan, the Department shall consider regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives to reduce basin-specific nonpoint source loadings, including programs developed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services pursuant to section 403.067, F.S., and the need for the adoption of basin-specific criteria for stormwater management systems. When determined by the Department, in consultation with the Districts, to be necessary to achieve a TMDL, tq:he Department and Districts shall adopt such criteria for permittinq stormwater management systems: when (2)(d) through (g) No change. 4 62-40.474 Reservations. (1) Water may be reserved, by rule, from use by permit applicants, pursuant to section 373.223(4), F.S., in such locations and quantities, and for such seasons of the year, as in the iudgment of the District or Department, may be required for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety, including reserving water to: (a) Achieve the restoration of natural systems; (b) Protect flows or levels which support natural systems before demands for water increase; (c) Protect water resources within an Outstanding Florida Water, an Aquatic Preserve, a state park, or other publicly owned conservation land; (d) Aid in a recovery or prevention strategy for a water resource with an established minimum flow or level; (e) Manage water for public works projects such as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (Section 601, Title VI, of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000), Pub. L. No. 106-541, section 601,114 Stat. 2572; or (f) Achieve other purposes consistent with section 373.223(4), F.S. ,,~.~ ,~ ,~1,~,~..~.~ ,v, ~.~,~.., t..~v~..,~,.,.,.~,, v~ ,,~.~,, .,.4~,~.~ ~,,~,a~ v, ~,,~ ,,~,~,, ~,~ ~. (2) through (4) No change. 5 62-40.520 District Water Management Plans. (1) through (2) No change. (3) Based on economic, environmental, and technical analyses, a course of remedial or preventive action shall be specified for each current and anticipated future water resource problem that is identified in the District Plan. (4) through (8) No change. (9) Plan development shall include adequate opportunity for participation by the public and governments. Districts shall be deemed to have afforded adequate opportunity for participation to the public and governments, by holding public workshops with advance notice by publication as required by law m-the ,~ ~a ........... Districts shall hold public kshop least 90 days ........................ wor s at before Plan acceptance or amendment by the Governing Board. At the workshops, a prelimina~ list of schedules to be included in the Plan shall be presented. 62-40.531 Regional Water Supply Plans. (1) through (4) No change. (5) Each plan shall provide a list of water resource development projects as defined in Subsection 373.019 (19), F.S. Water resource development projects include those intended to provide regional benefits as opposed to user-specific ~ benefits. Examples include the following types of projects when they provide regional benefits: aquifer recharge, aquifer storage and recove~ systems, water storage rese~oirs, reuse of reclaimed water projects, and water conse~ation 6 programs to improve water use efficiency. Water resource development may also include studies that match reclaimed water generators with users, feasibility studies, pilot projects, demonstration projects, and mobile irrigation labs. (6) through (7) No change. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COSTS. In accordance with Section 120.541, F.S., the Department announces the availability of a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs to persons who request it. A copy of the Statement may be obtained by contacting David Trimble in the Office of Water Policy at 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399; 850-245-8680; david.trimble~dep.state.fl.us. 8 Official Notice of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection-- 71 uthorized Under Section 120.551, F.S. Publication Date December 20, 2002 (f) Landscape irrigation, which is the outdoor irrigation of .grass1 trees and other plants in places such as residences, businesses, .qolf courses, parks, recreational areas, cemeteries, and public buildinqs; and (.q) Other uses such as aesthetic ponds, fountains and water features, environmental restoration or enhancement, cooling and air conditioninq, and navigation. (51 The District may expand upon or further subdivide the use classifications in (a) through (.q) above for purposes of issuing restrictions on specific uses. Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 403.036(1)(d), 373.171, FS. Law Implemented 373.023, 373.026,373.103, 373.171,373.175,373.1961,373.223,373.246, 373.250, 373.418, 403.064, FS. History - New 62-40.412 Water Conservation. (1) The overall water conservation goal of the state shall be to prevent and reduce wasteful, uneconomical, impractical, or unreasonable use of water resources. Conservation of water shall be required unless not economically, e¢ environmentally, or technically feasible. (2) The Districts shall ~'"" "~ accomplish this goal by: ~o*~'-'-' "-'"~ (a) Assisting local governments, utilities, re.qional water supply authorities, and other parties in designing and implementing formu!at!ng add!t!cnal plans and 22 Official Notice of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection-- 2t uthorized Under Section 120.551, F.S. Publication Dato December 20, 2002 programs to conserve water. Such programs may include analyzing the effectiveness of particular water conservation measures and the collaborative development of a water conservation guidance manual for utilities to use in desiqnin,q comprehensive water conservation programs. (b) Coordinatinq with the Florida Department of Aqriculture and Consumer Services in the development of aqricultural water conservation programs and best manaqement practices pursuant to section 570.085, F.S. (c) RequirinR efficient use of water. In determininq e~ciency requirements, the Districts shall consider the effectiveness of e~ciency measures already beinR implemented and the need for and feasibility of additional measures. E~ciency measures that shall be considered, but not necessarily required of each water user, include the followinR: 1. ProRrams and measures that promote or require e~cient ~ ~;~* ~ irrigation practices; 2. Imposition of ~mpo~ng year-round restrictions, which may include variances or exemptions, on pa~icular irrigation activities or irrigation sources~ If time 23 Official Notice of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection-- ~4uthorized Under Section 120.551, F.S. Publication Dato December 20, 2002 of day waterinq restrictions are implemented, watering shall be restricted from ar, d ,,,~-!c~, s~,a'' ........ :~'-'-'~' t!'"'c "'"":'"~ ''~ 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. to the extent practical; 3. Minimization of m!r.!m!---!r.G unaccounted-for water losses; 4. The use of conservation D,,-,r,-,,*; ...... * ......... ;"'" rate structures. including drought rate and seasonal rate structures, wherever practical. The District review shall be limited to the structure of the rate schedule and does not include rate setting authority. Such rates may be phased in over time; ar, d 5. The use of informative billinq practices for utilities. Such practices may be phased in over time; 6. Accurate measurement and reporting of water use, including meterinq; 7. ,:%. Promotion of water-conservinq ~^~'-* ......... ~"'- plumbing fixtures and appliances, water-efficient landscaping x-ecisr:,a~, and automatic rain sensors or soil moisture sensors; and ~ 8. Goal-based water conservation programs, in lieu of or in combination with other efficiency requirements, that allow permittees flexibility in choosin.q water conservation measures to meet District water use efficiency goals. Progress toward efficiency goals must be measurable. Such goabbased water conservation programs may be based upon water conservation guidance manuals or water conservation plans developed by the water user, and may include any of the measures in subparagraphs 62-40.412(2)('c)1 through 7 above, educational programs, or other effective measures proposed by a water user. 24 Official Notice of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection-- Authorized Under Section 120.551, F.S. Publication Dato December 20, 2002 (d) Considerinq incentives, such as longer term permits or greater certainty of supply during water shortaqes, for permittees that implement conservation measures significantly beyond those required in the permittinq process; (e) Striving to achieve consistent water conservation requirements for water users in cities, counties or other political jurisdictions that fall within more than one District; ~ (-b-) Maintaining public information and education programs for long- and short-term water conservation goals; (g) Includinq water conservation in reqional water supply plannin.q; and (h) Promotinq the efficient and effective reuse of reclaimed water and recycling of stormwater and industrial wastewater throuqh measures includinq regulation, incentives, public education, and technical assistance. I,-~ r"v,~,., ,~-;,~,,-, · · Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 373.036(1)(d), 373.171, FS. Law Implemented 373 ...... 023 373 026 ,~7,~ n,~,~ 373 036(1)(d) 373 0391 '~7-~ n'~a~ -~7-~ -~7'~ na~ 373.103, '~7'~ `ln~ 373.171 373.175, '~7'~ `l~c 373.1961 373.223, 373.246, 373.250,v,q7qv..3'lq,,~ v,q7q~,~'4 `l q g,.~, ~,~7q....~/!`14,7, ~,q7qv.~/I `l t::t ,,~ 373.418, 373.621,373.423,373.429, · ..,, v. ~ ,,'9'7~/l~,`l v, ~.~q7q '~3, ~-'--.---' '--t,-/,'~n'~ n~`l ~/q~ 403.064, 403.0891 , FS., Ch. 2002-296, s. 38, Laws of Fla. History -- New 7-20-95, Amended 1-7-97, 25 V. 9, p. 99 WATER RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION RULE ¢~. 6/OO) 62-40.422 373.453, 403.0615(3), 403 064, 403 0891 FS. Htstory--New 7-20-95 6240.412 Water Conservation. (1) The overall water conservatmn goal of the state shall be to prevent and reduce wasteful, uneconomical, impractical, or unreasonable use of water resources. Conservation of water shall be required unless not econormcally or envtronmentatly feasible. The Districts should accomphsh this goal by assisting local and regqonal governments and other pames, m add~tmn to the assistance required under sectmn 373.0391 of the Florida Statutes, "m the development and future revision of local government comprehensive plan elements or public faciht~es report as requn-ed by s. 189.415," m designing and formulating add~ttonal plans and programs to conserve water to meet then' long-term needs, including incentives such as longer term or more flexible permits, econormc incentives, and greater certainty of supply dunng water shortages. (2) Dismcts shall further accomplish this water conservation goal by: (a) Estabbsbang efficiency standards for urban, industrial, and agricultural demand management, wluch standards may include the following' 1. Restrictions against inefficient wngation pracuces; 2. Imposing year-round restrictions, wtuch may include variances or exemptions, on particular ~mgataon actaVlties or n-ngation sources, and wluch shall use a uniform time period of 10:00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.; 3. Mmixmzmg unaccounted-for water losses; 4. Promoting water-conserving rate structures; and 5. Water-conserving plumbing fixtures, xenscape, and ram sensors. (b) Mamtmning public mformat~on and education programs for long- and short-term water conservalaon goals. (c) Executing provisions to tmplement the above criteria and to consistently apply water shortage resmcttons between those Districts whose boundaries contain pohttcal jurisdictions located m more than one District. Spectfic Authority 373 026(7), 373 043, 373 036(1)(d), 373 171 FS Law Implemented 373 023, 373 026, 373 033, 373 036(1)(d), 373.0391, 373 0395, 373 042, 373 046, 373 086, 373 103, 373 106, 373.171, 373 175, 373 185, 373 1961, 373223, 373246, 373413, 373.4135, 373 414, 373 416, 373 418, 373 423, 373 429, 373 451, 373.453, 403 0615(3), 403.064, 403 0891 FS. Htsto~ew 7-20-95, Amended 1-7-97. 62-40.416 Water Reuse. (1) Sectaon 373.0391(2)(e), F.S., requires that the Districts shall designate areas that have water supply problems wMch have become cnucal or are anucipated to become cnucal within the next 20 years. The Districts shall ldenufy such water resource cauuon areas during preparation of a District Plan pursuant to Rule 62-40.520, F.A.C., and shall adopt and amend these designations periodically as set forth m this secuon and as reqmred under secnon 120.54 of the Florida Statutes. (2) In implementing consumptive use permitting programs, a reasonable amount of reuse of reclaimed water shall be reqmred within designated water resource caution areas, unless objective evidence demonstrates that such reuse is not econon'ucally, envn'onmentally, or technically feasible. (3) The Districts shall penodically update theLr designataons of water resource caution areas. Such updates shall occur w~thm one year after updates of the District Plan prepared pursuant to Rule 62-40.520, EA.C. After completion of the D~stnct Plan or updates pursuant to Rule 62-40.520, EA.C., the Districts may hnut areas where reuse shall be required to areas where reuse is specified as a remedial or preventive action pursuant to Rule 62-40.520, EA.C. (4) In implementing consumplave use pernuttmg programs, a reasonable amount of reuse of reclauned water from domestic wastewater treatment facilities may be requn'ed outside of areas designated pursuant to Rule 62-40.416( I ), F.A.C, as subject to water supply problems, provided' (a) Reclmmed water is readily available; (b) Objective evidence demonstrates that such reuse is econormcally, envn-onmentally, and techmcally feasible; and (c) The D~strict has adopted rules for reuse m these areas. (5) The Department encourages local governments to unplement programs for reuse of reclauned water. The Districts are encouraged to establish mcenuves for local governments and other interested parties to implement programs for reuse of reclauned water. These rules shall not be deemed to pre-empt any such local reuse programs. Spectfic Authortty 373 026(7), 373.043, 373 036(1)(d), 373 171 FS Law Implemented 373 023, 373 026, 373 033, 373 036(1)(d), 373 0391, 373 0395, 373 042, 373046, 373 086, 373.103, 373 106, 373 171, 373 175, 373 185, 373.1961, 373223, 373.246, 373413, 3734135, 3734]4, 373416, 3734]8, 373423, 373.429, 373451, 373 453, 403.0615(3), 403.064, 403.0891 FS Htstory--New 7-20-95, Amended 1-7-97 62-40.422 Interdistrict Transfer. The following shall apply to the transfers of surface and ground water where such transfers axe regulated pursuant to Part li of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes: (1) The transfer or use of surface water across District boundaries shall reqmre approval of each revolved D~strict. The transfer or use of ground water across Dismct boundaries shall requn-e approval of the District where the withdrawal of ground water occurs. (2) In deciding whether the transfer and use of surface water across District boundaries is consistent with the pubhc interest pursuant to Sectaon 373.223, Florida Statutes, the D~stncts should consider the extent to wi'ach: (a) Comprehensive water conservation and reuse programs are implemented and enforced m the area of need; (b) The major costs, benefits, and envuronmental impacts have been adequately determined mcludmg the impact on both the supplying and receiving areas; (c) The transfer is an envn-onmentally and economically acceptable method to supply water for the given purpose, (d) The present and projected water needs of the supplying area are reasonably deterrmned and can be satisfied even ff the transfer takes place, (e) The transfer plan incorporates a regional approach to water supply and d~stnbutmn mcludmg, where appropriate, plans for eventual mterconnectlon of water supply sources, and (f) The transfer is otherwise consistent with the public interest based upon evidence presented. (3) The interdistnct transfer and use of ground water must meet the requirements of Section 373.2295, Florida Statutes. Spectfic Authortty 373 026(7), 373.043, 373 036(1)(d), 373 171 FS. Law Implemented 373 023, 373 026, 373 033, 373 036(1)(d), 373 039l, 373.0395, 373 042, 373 046, 373 086, 373 103, 373 106, 373171, 373175, 373185, 3731961, 373223, 373246, 373413, 373 4135, 373 414, 373 416, 373 418, 373 423, 373 429, 373 451, 373 453, 403 0615(3), 403 064, 403 0891 FS Htsto~ew 5-5-81, Formerly 1740 05, 1740 050, 1740 402, Amended 7-20-95 Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost For Proposed Revisions to Chapter 62-40 Florida Administrative Code Water Resource Implementation Rule Florida Department of Environmental Protection February, 2003 I. Introduction The Water Resource Implementation Rule (Chapter 62-40, F.A.C) implements Chapter 373, F.S. (the Florida Water Resources Act), which directs the Department of Environmental Protection to adopt a rule to set forth "goals, objectives, and guidance for the development and review of programs, rules, and plans relating to water resources, based on statutory policies and directives." The rule is statutorily included within the Florida Water Plan and thereby helps guide the activities of the Department of Environmental Protection and water management districts. It is also a primary basis for supervision of the water management districts, due to the Department's authority to review rules of the districts to ensure consistency with the Water Resource Implementation Rule (sections 373.019(20), 373.036(1)(d), and 373.114(2), F.S.). Importantly, as stated in the rule itself, it "shall not constitute regulatory standards or criteria for decisions on individual permits" (section 62-40.110(4)). The proposed rule will substantively amend most sections of Chapter 62-40 to incorporate statutory changes enacted in 1997, 1998 and 1999 relating to watershed management, "local sources first," minimum flows and levels, and regional water supply planning. New sections are proposed to address water shortages (62-40.411), watershed management (62-40.425), reservations of water (62-40.474), and regional water supply plans (62-40.531). Additional amendments are proposed to address topics including water conservation, reuse of reclaimed water, water supply, the Florida Water Plan, and District Water Management Plans. The proposed amendments are anticipated to affect water management districts, local governments, water suppliers, and water users in all sectors (commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential, etc.) throughout the state. However, the degree to which any of these entities will be affected is difficult to estimate because the rule, in and of itself, is not regulatory. Rather, it provides "goals, objectives and guidance" to the water management districts. Costs can vary significantly depending upon the degree to which the districts modify their programs, rules and plans based upon the guidance in the rule. The rule recognizes the need for regional differences in ~ts application in section 62- 40.610(5), which states: "District water policies may be adopted which are consistent with this Chapter, but which take into account differing regional water resource characteristics and needs." Along with the anticipated costs associated with the rule amendments, there are expected to be benefits in the areas of water supply, water quality, natural systems protection, water conservation, reuse of reclaimed water, and other areas of water management. This will ultimately result in more cost-effective use of available water resources and reduced harm (and attendant restoration costs) to natural systems. II. Summary of Proposed Revisions: Section 62-40.110--Declaration of Intent: Amendments to this section are to more closely reflect existing statutory language and are not expected to impose costs on any party. Section 62-40.210--Definitions: New definitions are added for basin management action plan, conservation rate structure, designated use, drought rate structure, informative billing, impaired water, potable quality water offset, recharge fraction, regional water supply plan, seasonal rate structure, stormwater recycling, and total maximum daily load. These definitions are either taken from statute or are terms of art in the field of water management. The definitions are for clarification of later amendments and are not anticipated, by themselves, to impose regulatory costs on any party. In fact, there are anticipated benefits from avoidance of costly misinterpretation of the rule. Also in this section, some obsolete definitions have been deleted and others have been modified either for clarification or to more closely reflect statutory language These amendments are not anticipated to impose regulatory costs on any party and are expected to provide the same benefits as stated above for the new definitions. Section 62-40.310--General Provisions: This section revised the general policies for water supply. The amendment to section (1)(a) is based on statutory change and is not expected to adversely impact any party. The amendment to (1)(b) clarifies statutory intent relative to water resource and water supply development and is not expected to adversely impact any party. The amendment to (1)(c) aligns this provision more closely with the statute and is not expected to adversely impact any party. The amendment to (1)(f) encourages uses of reclaimed water that are effective and efficient. This amendment is not expected to adversely impact any party, and is expected to result in more efficient use of both reclaimed and potable water supplies. The amendment to (1)(i) reiterates statutory intent to encourage the use of water from sources nearest the area of need. The amendment is not expected to adversely impact any party. The amendment to (1)(j) clarifies a term of art and is not expected to adversely impact any party. The amendment to (1)(k) clarifies existing policies relative to protection of aquifers and surface waters from depletion and is not expected to adversely impact any party. Section 62-40.410--Water Supply Protection and Manaclement: Amendments to this section are not anticipated to impose regulatory costs on any party, except to the degree that impacts may occur as a result of implementation rules developed by the water management districts. The amendment to section (4) is expected to provide greater certainty of supply by stating the conditions under which renewals of consumptive use permits, increases in allocations, and new withdrawals are allowed in areas where withdrawals are causing, or expected to cause within 20 years, a water body to fall below its minimum flow or level. Greater certainty of supply is anticipated to translate into a beneficial economic impact for water users whose use is consistent with the districts' recovery or prevention strategy. There is a possibility that some water users could be adversely affected if their use is inconsistent with the recovery or prevention strategy developed by the water management district. The degree of impact cannot be anticipated because the number of water bodies affected is unknown and will change over time as more minimum flows and levels are established. Also, the recovery and prevention strategies will vary from water body to water body, as will the number of affected water users. The amendment creating section (7) discourages the use of pumped groundwater to prevent harm to natural systems as a result of consumptive use of water. In recognition that such action may sometimes be appropriate, the section lists factors that the districts must consider prior to using pumped groundwater to artificially maintain a natural system being damaged by withdrawals of water for consumptive use. It is possible that this section could result in higher costs to local governments and utilities if the districts' implementing rules require them to use a more expensive source of supply to avoid harming a natural system which, in the absence of this provision, they could simply augment with less expensive pumped groundwater. On the other hand, the provision is beneficial to both the affected aquifer and the natural system, and avoids an unsustainable cycle of pumping a larger amount of groundwater than is needed for supply in order to use a portion of it to mitigate damage to natural systems caused by the withdrawal. The provision also helps avoid potential adverse impacts to natural systems from altered water quality or hydroperiod due to augmentation with groundwater. Another provision in the section encourages the use of reclaimed water and recycled stormwater when augmentation of wetlands is determined to be practical and consistent with water quality protection. This is an encouragement, not a requirement, to use reclaimed water or recycled stormwater to augment wetlands when such augmentation has been determined to be practical. Section 62-40.411--Water ShortaRe: This is an entirely new section to the rule. It encourages the water management districts to seek a consistent approach to water shortage phases and related restrictions, particularly where political jurisdictions fall within more than one district. Because the water management district boundaries are based on watershed rather than political considerations, many political jurisdictions are located within more than one district. The Department and the districts have been aware for some time that the public becomes frustrated and confused when the districts impose water restrictions differently within the same geographic area. The amendment seeks to reduce confusion and frustration by bringing more overall consistency to the way water restrictions are imposed. Primarily, the amendment requires a consistent approach to phasing, and provides a list of factors the districts must consider when imposing restrictions. It also provides a basic list of water use classifications to promote consistency in terminology among the districts. This amendment was proposed, in part, because of citizen complaints that inconsistency ~n the application of water use restrictions creates an unfair playing field in which some citizens and businesses in a community are restricted in the amount of water they can use and others are not. One example of this can be that some get to water their landscapes twice a week while others are allowed to irrigate on one day per week and may suffer damage to their landscape vegetation. The result of the amendment, if successfully implemented by the districts, should be that any economic burden of water shortage is more equitably shared among water users. Section 62-40.412MWater Conservation: This section was amended significantly to further the goal of encouraging water conservation. One amendment encourages the districts to work collaboratively with utilities to develop water conservation guidance manuals. This could have a positive economic effect if the districts and the utilities are able to develop more cost- effective conservation programs that also result in improved efficiency and effectiveness of water conservation practices. The exact amount of economic benefit is uncertain because the scope and nature of the guidance manuals, and the extent of their future application, is unknown. The amendment creating section (2)(b) recognizes the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' (DACS) water conservation programs and Best Management Practices developed by DACS. It directs the water management districts to coordinate with DACS on water conservation issues. The amendment is expected to benefit agricultural water uses. The amendments to section (2)(c) were discussed extensively during the public workshops on the rule. There is still a mistaken impression among some parties that the measures listed in sections (2)(c)1. through (2)(c)8. are mandated conservation measures that will cause economic hardship on utilities and other water users. In fact, those sections only contain a list of conservation practices the water management districts must consider when requiring water conservation measures. Section (c) specifically states: "In determining efficiency requirements, the Districts shall consider the effectiveness of efficiency measures already being implemented and the need for additional measures. Efficiency measures that shall be considered, but not necessarily required of each water user, include the following:" A list of eight measures follows that statement. The districts already have the statutory authority to require any of the measures in (2)(c)1 through (2)(c)7 and, in fact, to varying degrees, already do so. The amendments are intended simply to clarify that this authority exists. Section (2)(c)8, which provides for consideration of a more flexible goal-based water conservation program, was added at the request of regulated interests as a potentially more cost-effective means of meeting water conservation goals. Another amendment requires the districts to consider incentives, such as longer term permits, for permittees who have exemplary conservation programs. This could have a beneficial impact on permittees who qualify. Another amendment encourages consistency in the application of water conservation requirements for water users in political jurisdictions that fall within more than one water management district. Like the similar amendment in section 62-40.411, this amendment is intended to promote equity among water users in the same communities relative to requirements imposed by effect could be positive or negative depending on holding less restricted users to a higher standard, the districts. The economic whether equity is achieved by or by lowering the standard for more restricted users. The last two amendments in this section are restatements of statute and are expected to impose no regulatory costs. Section 62-40.416mWater Reuse and Recycling: A significant amendment in this section provides that, in implementing the consumptive use permitting program, the districts shall require the use of reclaimed water and the recycling of stormwater or industrial wastewater, where feasible, both inside and outside water resource caution areas. The rule previously required reuse only within water resource caution areas. The amendment is intended to require reuse and recycling as long as it is economically, environmentally and technically feasible. This is anticipated to make more efficient use of limited potable water resources by reducing the use of potable water for activities that can be accomplished with water of lesser quality. Further, by not waiting until there is a water shortage problem, the high costs of retrofitting to accommodate reuse are avoided. In one of the Lower Cost Regulatory Alternatives received by the Department, as well as in comments received on the rule, a concern was raised about the need to weigh the costs and benefits of reuse when determining economic feasibility under this section of the rule. The Department agreed that such an analysis would be beneficial and amended the section as noted later in this document. Another amendment in this section encourages metering of reclaimed water and the imposition of volume based charges. Both of these measures help promote the efficient use of water. Where these measures are implemented, there will be costs associated with metering as well as higher costs for the reclaimed water. However, there is no requirement that the districts uniformly implement these measures, and thus, no empirical basis for estimating the costs of implementation. Further, the districts already have authority to require these measures. The amendment is a clarification that this authority exists and should be exercised where appropriate. The amendment creating section (4) articulates a policy with regard to reuse of reclaimed water. It states a preference for uses of reclaimed water that are efficient and effective and that will increase potable quality water offset or recharge. This recognizes that reclaimed water is a limited resource that has value and should be used efficiently and effectively. The amendment does not require that only effective and efficient reuse is to be allowed, but it encourages those uses over other uses that are less effective and efficient. Since this amendment is only a statement of preference and not a new requirement, the regulatory costs on affected parties cannot be calculated. However, depending on how the policy is implemented by the districts or water suppliers, it could have both positive and negative impacts. For example, a case could arise where two users both want to use reclaimed water because of it's cheaper cost, but there is only enough water to supply one of the users. If the water is allocated to the user with the more efficient and effective use, that user receives an economic benefit, while the less efficient user may have to pay a higher cost for non-reclaimed water. Some utilities and local governments have expressed concerns that this provision of the rule could allow the districts to force suppliers of reclaimed water to cut off the supply of reclaimed water to less efficient users and find more efficient users to send it to. If the districts did follow such a policy, it could result in significant costs to the water suppliers to find new users and construct the systems to deliver the reclaimed water to them. It could also have an adverse effect on those losing their supply of reclaimed water if they have to change over to a more expensive source of supply. The last two amendments to this section clarify existing policy or restate statutory language and are not anticipated to impose any regulatory costs. 62-40.425--Watershed Manac~ement: The entire section is essentially a statement of goals for promoting the concept of watershed management. Also, it restates portions of the former 62-40.475, which is repealed. It imposes no requirements on the districts, local governments, or the regulated public and is not anticipated to impose any regulatory costs. 62-40.430--Water Quality: This section describes the department's responsibilities to enforce water quality standards pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S., and its responsibilities to implement the Total Maximum Daily Load Program for impaired waters under the Watershed Restoration Act of 1999. It describes the department's existing five-phase, rotating basin approach to watershed management. It describes factors the department must consider in the development of basin management action plans. It directs the districts to 7 establish pollutant load reduction goals for SWIM (Surface Water Improvement and Management) and other water bodies. It encourages the districts and local governments to give priority to the development of watershed management plans for waters on the impaired waters list. It requires the Department and districts to consider economic, environmental, and technical factors in implementing programs to achieve total maximum daily loads or pollutant load reduction goals. It requires federal and state agencies and water management districts to give priority consideration in restoration programs to waters on the impaired waters list, and encourages local governments to do the same. The above amendments reflect current programs already being implemented under Chapter 373 and the Watershed Restoration Act. In some cases, the amendments restate statutory language. In others, they restate language from the former Surface Water Protection and Management Goals section of 62-40, which was stricken in its entirety, with portions restated as amendments to other sections of the rule. Other language is simply descriptive of ongoing programs. As such, none of the amendments to this section represent a change in policy and none are expected to result in regulatory costs to any affected party. It is anticipated that economic costs, as well as benefits, will accrue during implementation of activities authorized under the Watershed Restoration Act, but there is no connection between those costs and benefits and the amendments to this section of 62-40. Section (2)(c) states that the department and districts shall adopt basin-specific stormwater criteria for stormwater management systems when determined to be necessary to achieve a TMDL. There are anticipated to be potentially significant costs in adopting basin-specific criteria, both to the districts for rulemaking and the regulated public in complying with the new criteria, but the effects of such criteria will be analyzed in the TMDL and basin management action plan process. 62-40.431--Stormwater Manaqement Program: The amendments to this section are primarily a reiteration of sections of the former Surface Water Protection and Management Goals section of the rule that was stricken in its entirety and restated as amendments to other sections of the rule. None of the amendments to this section represent a change in policy and none are expected to result in regulatory costs to any affected party. 62-40.432--Surface Water Management Requlation: The comments on section 62-40.431 apply to this section as well. 62-40.473~Minimum Flows and Levels: This section has been amended to provide additional guidance to the water management districts on how a minimum flow or level should be expressed "to the extent practical and necessary to prevent harm." Meeting this requirement will require additional study costs for some water bodies. An estimate of that cost is not possible because the districts will decide what is necessary and practical to prevent harm on a case-by-case basis over many years. Also, the type and geographic extent of the water body being studied will affect the cost. Another amendment to this section requires the districts to "consider" simultaneously developing a recovery or prevention strategy if a water body is below, or projected to go below, its minimum flow or level at the time of establishment. Since the districts are required to develop the recovery or prevention strategy anyway, and this section merely suggests it be done concurrently with the MFL adoption, there is no additional cost associated with the amendment. Section 62-40.474--Reservations: This section interprets statutory language in Chapter 373, F.S., provides examples of the purposes for which water can be reserved, describes how reservations are to be expressed, and clarifies that they can be established prospectively. It does not require the reservation of water by any party under any circumstance, and therefore has no direct associated costs. Sections 62-40.510 and 62-40.520--Florida Water Plan and District Water Management Plans: These sections have been amended to reflect 1997 statutory changes relating to the water management plans developed by the department and the districts. These are existing requirements and there are no anticipated additional costs associated with the rule amendments. Section 62-40.531--Regional Water Supply Plans: The majority of these amendments are intended to conform the rule to 1997 statutory changes requiring the districts to develop Regional Water Supply Plans. The rule is for clarification of the content of the plans now being updated by the districts, and is not expected to result in significant costs to the districts because it only affirms the current practice of developing the statutorily mandated Regional Water Supply Plans. Section 62-40.540--Water Data: An amendment to this section requires that all water use over 100,000 gallons a day be measured by a cost-effective method and periodically reported to the districts. Water users who use more than 100,000 gallons per day and who do not currently measure their use will incur costs associated with measuring and reporting their water use. However, since the amendment requires only that the water be measured by a "cost-effective" method, it is not anticipated that water users will incur excessive costs. In addition, measuring water use promotes the efficient use of water and can prevent costly overuse. III. Florida Statutes, Regulations, and Regulatory Cost Section 120.54(3)(b) 1. of the Florida Statutes encourages state regulatory agencies to prepare a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost (SERC), as described in Section 120.541, F.S. According to the statute, a rule that imposes regulatory costs on the regulated person, county or city which could be reduced by the adoption of less costly alternatives that substantially accomplish the statutory objectives may be grounds for invalidating a rule. The statute also provides that anyone potentially affected by the proposed rule or revision may, within 21 days of public announcement and notification of rule development in the Florida Administrative Weekly, submit a lower cost regulatory alternative to the proposed rule. The Department must then either adopt the lower cost proposal, or be able to show why it should not be adopted Section 120.541 of the Florida Statutes sets out the information requirements to be included in the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost, presented in section IV of this Statement. IV. Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost In section 120.541(2), sections (A)through (f), of the Florida Statutes, the Legislature has mandated that the following information should be provided in any SERC. The information requirements as they appear in the statute are cited below, with an explanation pertinent to the proposed revisions: a. A good faith estimate of the number of individuals and entities likely to be required to comply with the rule, together with a general description of the types of individuals likely to be affected by the rule. Chapter 62-40, the Water Resource Implementation Rule, provides water resource implementation goals, objectives and guidance for the review of programs, rules, and plans relating to water resources. It affects the Department's and the water management districts' programs related to water resource management. The rule itself does not require the compliance of individuals or entities outside these agencies. However, since it articulates state policy and affects the programs, rules and plans of these agencies, it has an indirect affect on individuals and entities subject to the rules and regulations that implement state water policy. Individuals and entities so affected include water suppliers, wastewater treatment facilities, local governments, businesses of all types, agricultural growers, and individual water users. b. A good faith estimate of the cost to the agency, and to any other state and local government entities, of implementing and enforcing the proposed rule, and any anticipated effect on state and local revenues. The proposed revisions are primarily aimed at improving consistency and efficiency in carrying out existing department and district responsibilities as expressed in Chapters 187, 373 and 403, F.S. Adoption of the rule could result in significant costs to some water management districts in the form of rulemaking costs to conform their rules to Chapter 62-40. This will vary from district to district. Also, to the degree that district programs may change to effect implementation of this rule, there will be both costs and benefits to the districts and entities regulated by the districts. ]0 However, irrespective of the proposed revisions, improvements in existing programs to cope with increasing demands on water resources and associated natural systems could result in increased costs associated with the need for more sophisticated technical capabilities and increased staff. Those costs are not possible to calculate because they depend on how the districts will implement the rule, and their current staffing levels and technical capabilities compared to what might be needed to implement specific sections of the rule. There is no anticipated effect on state revenues. To the extent that the districts implementing rules require modification of local government programs, there may be both positive and negative effects on revenues. c. A good faith estimate of the transactional costs likely to be incurred by individuals and entities, including local government entities, required to comply with the requirements of the rule. As used in this paragraph, "transactional costs" are direct costs that are readily ascertainable based on standard business practices, and including filing fees, the cost of obtaining a license, the cost of equipment required to be installed or used or procedures required to be employed in complying with the rule, additional operating costs incurred, and the cost of monitoring and reporting. There are no transactional costs associated with the rule since its purpose is to provide goals, objectives and guidance for the development and review of programs, rules and plans of the department and water management districts. The rule itself does not require the compliance of individuals or entities. However, as previously stated, implementation via the regulatory rules of the water management districts will impose transactional costs on a variety of entities. Some of those costs could be significant, but cannot be determined until rules are adopted by the water management districts. It is anticipated that when the districts, through their regulatory rules, implement the provisions of this section 62-40.412, there will be regulatory costs imposed upon some water users. This impact could range from a high-demand water user who pays more for water as a result of conservation rate structures, to a utility that has to modify its computer billing system to implement informative billing. Other costs could involve installing meters to measure water use, installation of more water efficient plumbing fixtures, or repairs to leaking water systems. These impacts will be offset to some degree by savings realized through water conservation. The extent of the cost cannot be determined because the number of affected parties, the extent to which specific restrictions will be applied, and the relative impact on different classes of water users is unknown. ]! There are costs associated with Section 62-40.416, regarding water use and recycling, but they cannot be estimated because the required feasibility test is done on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, feasibility is obvious and requires no detailed analysis. In others, the analysis will be more complex and costly. Also, there is no way to determine, in advance, the number of instances where reuse would be determined to be feasible. There will be costs associated with the infrastructure necessary to provide reclaimed water to the user. This could involve moderate costs for existing systems in the form of pipes, pumps, and other equipment to route the reclaimed water to more users. In other cases, it could involve the significant costs of building wastewater treatment facilities to treat the water to reclaimed water standards and deliver it to users. However, this will vary greatly and cannot be estimated except on a case-by-case basis at the time the feasibility analysis is conducted. Another amendment in Section 62-40.416 encourages metering of reclaimed water and the imposition of volume based charges. Both of these measures help promote the efficient use of water. Where these measures are implemented, there will be costs associated with metering as well as higher costs for the reclaimed water. However, there is no requirement that the districts uniformly implement these measures. Further, the districts already have authority to require these measures. As noted earlier in this Statement, Section 62-40.416(4) sets forth policy regarding allocation of reclaimed water. If reclaimed water is allocated to more efficient uses, less efficient users may have to pay a higher cost for non- reclaimed water. d. An analysis of the impact on small business as defined by s.288.703, and an analysis of the impact on small counties and small cities as defined by s.120.52. The rule does not regulate small businesses or counties, or small cities; however, as stated above, regulations imposed by the districts to implement the goals and objectives of the rule will result in varying degrees of cost to those entities. e. Any additional information that the agency determines may be useful. N/A f. In the statement or revised statement, whichever applies, a description of any good faith written proposal submitted under paragraph (1)(a) and either a statement adopting the alternative or a statement of the reasons for rejecting the alternative in favor of the proposed rule. ]2 The Department received a Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative (LCRA) and request for a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost from Pinellas County. An analysis and response to each section of the County's LCRA follows. Section 62-40.416mWater Reuse and Recycling: The County proposes eliminating any reference to "requiring" reuse of reclaimed water, and adding a statement that the rule's "encouragement" of metering and volume-based rates for reclaimed water is not to be used by the districts as a basis for requiring metering and volume-based rates. The County suggests emphasizing cooperative efforts in increasing reuse of reclaimed water. The stated reason for these changes is that the rule, as written, would impose significant cost on the County to comply, and that cooperative efforts are the preferred approach. The Department does not accept the County's proposal to eliminate the language requiring reuse. Section 373.250, F.S., declares that promoting the reuse of reclaimed water is an objective of the state and that the water management districts are to adopt rules to further the state's objective, including but not limited to, through their consumptive use permitting programs. The County's proposal does not substantially accomplish the objective of the statute. Further, the language requiring reuse is in the currently adopted rule, and the district rules implementing that language have been in place for some time. The Department does not accept the County's proposal to add language specifying that language "encouraging" metering and volume-based rates for reclaimed water is not to be used by the districts as a basis for requiring metering and volume-based rates. "Encouraging" involves a range of measures, which may include "requiring" certain activities through the districts' permitting programs. The districts do not have authority to set rate structures, but they do have the authority to require metering of water use and to evaluate and recommend changes to rate structures if they are determined to be necessary to promote conservation of water resources. The County's proposal would put the rule in conflict with the existing authority of the districts and, therefore, does not substantially accomplish the objective of the statute. Section 62-40.412--Water Conservation: The County proposes eliminating the language that addresses the possibility of year-round irrigation restrictions, and adding language that would allow such restrictions only through consumptive use permitting. The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that the language only requires consideration of this measure. In, addition, the County's proposal does not object to the imposition of these irrigation restrictions through a consumptive use permit. Regardless of the regulatory mechanism used, the restrictions could be imposed and, therefore, the County's proposal to change the mechanism is not a lower cost regulatory alternative. 13 The County proposes that "requirements for water conserving rate structures and informative billing" be replaced with cooperative funding between the County and the districts. The Department does not accept this proposal on the grounds that it does not substantially accomplish the objectives of the statute. Additionally, the County has not shown how this proposal would be a lower cost alternative. Also, the rule does not "require" conservation rate structures or informative billing; it simply requires the district to consider whether these measures are warranted. Finally, the districts have the statutory authority to impose these measures and the rule is simply recognizing that authority and encouraging its application where appropriate. The County states that the goal-based alternative should be equitably applied by all water management districts. The Department believes the rule adequately addresses this concern, and since no additional language was provided by the County, the Department does not accept the proposal. Section 62-40.411--Water Shortacle: The County proposes to add language to this section requiring the districts to determine that imposition of a water use restrictions during a water shortage will result in a significant benefit to the hydrologic system and that the economic cost of the restriction is warranted by the hydrologic gain The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that it is unnecessary and often would not be possible during the time-sensitive crisis presented by a severe water shortage. The Department's proposal already provides for an analysis of, among other things, the economic impacts on water users and the effectiveness of the restrictions in protecting the water supply source experiencing the shortage. The County proposes that the water shortage section define "serious harm" in order to avoid inconsistent implementation of water shortage rules by the districts. Section 373.246, F.S. cites the prevention of serious harm to water resources as the basis for declaring a water shortage and for imposing restrictions on water use. Neither the statute, nor the rule, defines serious harm. The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that the proposed rule, as written, directs the districts to seek to achieve a consistent approach to water shortage phases and restrictions. Further, it provides an implementation framework to guide the districts toward a consistent approach. Additionally, the request to define the term does not qualify as a lower cost regulatory alternative. Depending upon how the Department defined the term, it could actually significantly increase the cost to citizens and regulated entities. The County proposed that the Department define "moderate," "severe," "extreme," and "critical" as used in the section, in order to avoid inconsistent implementation of water shortage rules by the districts. The Department does not accept the County's proposal for the same reasons given in response to the proposal above to define "serious harm." The County asserts that certain items relating to reuse of reclaimed water and conservation have no basis in statute and should be eliminated from the ru~e. The Department does not accept the petitioner's assertion and believes that there is sufficient statutory authority in Chapters 187, 373 and 403 to support the rule amendments. The County asserts that the rule fails to mention activities authorized under sections 373.1961 and 373.016(4)(b), F.S., and that these activities should be included in the rule. The first citation authorizes the districts to construct and operate water supply facilities. The Department does not accept the County's claim that including a reference to this statutory provision would result in a lower regulatory cost than not referencing it. Further, there is nothing in the rule that 'prevents the districts from engaging in this activity if so desired. Additionally, there are a great number of specific authorities granted to the districts that are not specifically addressed in the rule. Amending the rule to address every aspect of Chapters 373 and 403 relating to water management would increase the cost to the department of publishing the rule without providing any benefit to the agencies or the public. The second citation is from the Legislative declaration of policy in Chapter 373, F.S. The Department does not accept the County's claim that the long-distance transfer of water is not addressed in the rule. An entire section of the rule, section 62-40.422, is devoted specifically to the inter-district transfer of water. Other sections also address that topic. The Department received a Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative and request for a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost from the American Water Works Association Utility Council. An analysis and response to each section of the LCRA follows. Section 62-40.412: The petitioner proposed to eliminate subsections 62- 40.412(2)(c)4. and 5., and relocate the concepts of conservation rate structures and informative billing into subsection 62-40.412(2)(c)8. The petitioner asserts that, as written, the rule imposes unnecessary costs because consideration of the need for conservation rate structures and informative billing for all utilities is not necessary and, further, that those measures are inappropriate for many utilities. The petitioner proposes that it is more cost-effective to put conservation rate structures and informative billing within a menu of choices a utility can select as part of a goal-based regulatory program. The Department does not accept the petitioner's proposal on the grounds that the rule already provides for a goal-based program to be considered by the districts in lieu of requirements that would otherwise be applied. If a utility does not propose such a program, or proposes a program that does not provide a level of effectiveness equivalent to or greater than the usual requirements, the districts ]5 need to retain their existing statutory authority to consider the need for conservation rate structures and informative billing to ensure that the objectives of the statute are met. Sections 62-40.210 and 62-40.520: The petitioner proposes to revise the definition of "water resource caution area" in subsection 62-40.210(39) to be an area where serious water resource problems can be expected to occur with a very high level of certainty within two to four years. Further the petitioner asserts that there is no basis for coinciding water resource caution areas with water supply planning regions and, therefore, no basis for requiring the districts to designate water supply planning regions as water resource caution areas. The Department does not accept the first part of the petitioner's proposal on the grounds that the petitioner's proposal does not substantially accomplish the objective of the statute to protect the state's water resources. The definition, as written in the proposed rule, provides greater protection for water resources that are determined to be threatened than does the petitioner's proposal. It does this by allowing problems to be identified early enough to develop and implement measures to avoid harm to the water resources. The petitioner's proposal would not require that the reuse feasibility study required under section 403.064, F.S. be conducted until a resource was almost certain to be severely damaged within two to four years. To wait until a resource is on the brink of collapse to even determine whether reuse is feasible is inconsistent with the intent of section 403.064 which states that "The Legislature finds that the reuse of reclaimed water is a critical component of meeting the state's existing and future water supply needs while sustaining natural systems." Also, the Department does not accept the petitioner's assertion that the Legislature has not provided a basis for coinciding regional water supply planning areas with water resource caution areas. In 1997, when the Legislature created section 373.0361. F.S., the term water resource caution area was already defined as an area experiencing water resource problems or in which water resource problems are projected to develop within 20 years. This is substantially the same language used by the legislature in 373.0361 to describe a water supply planning region. Therefore, the Department does not accept the petitioner's proposal to delete the language in 62-40.520(2) that requires the districts to designate water supply planning regions as water resource caution areas. Section 62-40.410(7): The petitioner asserts that the language proposed for adoption discourages the water management districts from allowing augmentation of natural systems to prevent harm resulting from implementing the consumptive use program. The petitioner provided language declaring that under appropriate circumstances, maintaining water levels of natural systems by supplemental means is beneficial. The Department does not accept the petitioner's proposal on the grounds that the Department's proposed amendments to this section already contain adequate provision for the augmentation of natural systems when such augmentation is determined to be the preferred alternative. Further, it is the intent of the section to clarify the Department's position that augmentation of natural systems using pumped ground water should be discouraged under most circumstances. The petitioner's alternative represents an undesirable weakening of that position, with no evidence that it could be implemented at a lower cost than the Department's proposed amendment. Further, the Department believes it does not achieve the statutory objective of protecting natural systems as well as the Department's proposal, nor is it evident that it would result in cost savings over the Department's proposal. Section 62-40.416(1): The petitioner asserts that this section creates a presumption, not supported by statute, that reuse of reclaimed water is feasible (the Department's language says that reuse shall be required unless it is determined not to be feasible). The petitioner provided alternative language that says reuse shall be required if it is feasible. The language in the proposed rule is consistent with the fact that an applicant has the burden to show that the proposed withdrawal will meet the criteria for issuance of a permit. Therefore, if reuse is not being implemented, it is appropriate for the applicant to make the demonstration that it is not feasible. The Department, therefore, does not accept the petitioner's assertion or proposed amendment. The petitioner also requests the addition of language requiring a weighing of the costs and benefits of reuse The Department agrees that further clarification may be helpful. Therefore, it will amend the last sentence of section 62-40.416(1) to read: "When determining economic feasibility, the districts shall consider costs and benefits." The Department received a Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative and request for a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost from Palm Beach County. An analysis and response to each section of the County's LCRA follows. Section 62-40.110($): The County submitted language to amend this section to say that the goal specified in the section is "to coordinate the management of water and related land resources on a local and regional basis. (amendment underlined). The County also proposes language requiring the water management districts to consider Chapter 62-40 in their regional water supply plans. The stated purpose of the amendments is to implement statutory directives requiring coordination between regional water supply plans and local government comprehensive plans. The Department does not accept these amendments on the grounds that they are unnecessary. There is an entire section of the rule devoted specifically to providing guidance to the water management districts in the development of the regional water supply plans, ]7 including requiring coordination with local governments. Also, since the County's amendment would have little effect on how regional water supply plans are developed or implemented, it is not a lower cost regulatory alternative. Section 62-40.210(3): The County asserts that the definition of"Conservation Rate Structure" should be stricken on the grounds that Chapter 373, F.S. doesn't require the Department or water management districts "to mandate rate structures." The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that it is immaterial. Neither the definition, nor the rule itself, mandates conservation rate structures. Further, the elimination of the definition would not reduce regulatory costs and, therefore, the amendment is not a lower cost regulatory alternative. As an alternative to striking the definition, the County proposes rewording the definition to ehminate the word "efficient" on the grounds that it is subject to more than one meaning. The Department does not accept the County's proposed modification on the grounds that it is unnecessary. The definition provides sufficient clarity. Further, the County's amendment would not reduce regulatory costs and, therefore, is not a lower cost regulatory alternative. 62-40.210(9): The County proposes modifying the statutory citation in the definition of "District Water Management Plan" to specify the specific statutory subparagraph that directs the water management districts to prepare a District Water Management Plan. The Department does not accept the County's amendment on the grounds that it is not a lower cost regulatory alternative, and that such specificity is unnecessary. 62-40.210(10): The County proposes eliminating the definition of "Drought Rate Structure" on the grounds that Chapter 373, F.S. does not direct the Department or water management districts "to mandate rate structures." The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that it is immaterial. Neither the definition, nor the rule itself, mandates rate structures. Further, the elimination of the definition would not reduce regulatory costs and, therefore, is not a lower cost regulatory alternative. As an alternative to deleting the definition, the County proposed adding a definition of "drought" so that all water management districts will operate under the same definition. The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that it is unnecessary. A definition of "drought" is not needed in order for the water management districts to determine when a source of water supply is being harmed to the point that a water shortage needs to be declared. Further, neither the definition, nor the rule itself, requires the water management districts to impose a drought rate structure. Lastly, the County does not propose a definition of drought. Depending upon how the Department chose to define the term, it could result in higher or lower regulatory costs. Therefore, the County's proposal is not a lower cost regulatory alternative. Section 62-40.210(12): The County proposes modifying the statutory citation in the definition of "Florida Water Plan" to specify the specific statutory subparagraph that directs the Department to prepare the plan. The Department does not accept the County's amendment on the grounds that it is not a lower cost regulatory alternative, and that such specificity is unnecessary. Section 62-40.210(17): The County proposes some minor changes to the definition of "Informative Billing." The Department does not accept the County's amendments on the grounds that they would have no effect on how informative billing is actually carried out and, therefore, are not a lower cost regulatory alternative. Specifically, the County's proposal to change "previous month" to "previous billing cycle" is immaterial since it would only refine a list of examples of the types of information that a utility might include on a customer's bill. Neither the definition, nor the rule, mandates utilities to provide people with any particular combination of information listed in the definition. Also, the County proposes adding the words "as part of the billing process" so that it's clear that "informative billing" would occur as part of the regular billing process. The Department believes that it is sufficiently clear that "informative billing" means putting information into the hands of consumers via their utility's billing process. The County proposes adding a new definition for "potable quality water" so there is no confusion when the term is used in the context of determining "potable quality water offset." The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that the definition of "Potable Quality Water Offset" in 62-40.210(21) already defines what potable quality water means. Section 62-40.210(24): The County proposes to amend the definition of "Recharge Fraction" by removing the qualifying clause "that is used for potable supply." The Department does not accept the County's amendment on the grounds that the qualifying clause is necessary to the definition which establishes preferences for using reclaimed water. As it is used in the rule, the definition helps implement a policy preference that using reclaimed water to recharge a source of potable quality ground water that is actually being used for potable water supply is preferred over recharging a potable aquifer that is only potentially available for potable supply. Neither the definition, nor the rule, mandates choosing one over the other. The rule simply aims to encourage reuse of reclaimed water that is efficient and effective. Because the County's proposal weakens the encouragement of efficient and effective reuse, it is not a lower cost regulatory alternative that substantially achieves the statutory objectives. Section 62-40.210(29): The County proposes eliminating the definition of "Seasonal Rate Structure" on the grounds that Chapter 373, F.S. does not require the Department or water management Districts to mandate rate structures. The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that it is immaterial. Neither the definition, nor the rule itself, mandates any particular rate structure. Further, the elimination of the definition could result in varying interpretations that might actually add to regulatory costs. The County proposed a new section 62-40.210(40) to define "Water Resource Development." The County asserts that this is needed because the rule, as proposed by the Department, "fails to mention the responsibilities of the water management districts in the area of water development." The Department does not accept the County's assertion on the grounds that it is factually in error. The proposed rule contains a new section (62-40.531) devoted to regional water supply planning. Among other things, this section specifically addresses water resource and water supply development and specifically cites the statutory reference noted by the County. Further, it provides important clarification on the types of projects that constitute water resource development and water supply development. Additionally, the County's proposal to add a definition that simply restates statutory language already cited in the Department's proposed rule is duplicative and does not constitute a lower cost regulatory alternative. The County proposed creating a new section (62-40.210(41) to define "Water Supply Development." The Department does not accept the County's proposal for the same reasons as stated for the preceding amendment. Section 62-40.310(1){e): Note: the County's comments erroneously refer to subparagraph (d), but the language proposed for amendment is actually subparagraph (e). The County proposes to amend existing rule language not proposed for amendment by the Department on the grounds that it is inconsistent with case law in Southwest Florida Water Management District v. Charlotte County. The County asserts that the language "Advocate and direct the reuse of reclaimed water" is inconsistent with the court's ruling that water management districts cannot directly mandate the use of reclaimed water. The Department does not accept the County's proposed amendment on the grounds that it would not substantially achieve statutory objectives. Further, the County's amendment is not a lower cost regulatory alternative. The rule does not state that the districts are always to require reuse of reclaimed water. Section (e) is part of a list of general policy goals prefaced with the phrase "Water management programs, rules, and plans, where economically and environmentally feasible, not contrary to the public interest, and consistent with Florida law, shall seek to:" This requires that, to the degree the department or districts "advocate and direct reuse of reclaimed water," they must do it consistent with Florida law. The County also proposes to strike the words "and wastewater" from the same section. The Department does not accept the County's amendment on the grounds that language proposed for deletion provides guidance for the development of programs relating to water resources and, therefore, ~s appropriately within the scope of the rule. Further, the deletion of the language 20 from the rule would not affect how wastewater facilities are regulated and, therefore, the County's proposal is not a lower cost regulatory alternative. Section 62-40.310(f): The County proposes to strike the phrase "consistent with water quality protection" from the section on the grounds that the phrase is not consistent with Section 373.250(1). The Department does not accept the County's amendment on the grounds that striking the language would have no effect on how reuse programs are administered. Therefore, the County's proposal is not a lower cost regulatory alternative. Further, there is no inconsistency with the statute which states that "The Legislature finds that the use of reclaimed water provided by domestic wastewater treatment plants permitted and operated under a reuse program approved by the Department is environmentally acceptable and not a threat to public health and safety." The rule is only recognizing that the Department considers the protection of water quality when approving a reuse program. Section 62-40.310(1)(,q): The County proposes amending existing rule language not being proposed for amendment by the Department. The County asserts that the language requires utilities to use the lowest quality water for potable use. It further asserts that this will result in additional costs for utilities and will increase the risk that water supplies will fail to meet state and federal drinking water standards and threaten public health and safety. The Department does not accept the County's assertion on the grounds that it has no basis in fact. The language in question provides general policy guidance to "Encourage the use of water of the lowest acceptable quality for the purpose intended." This in no way requires the use of the lowest quality water for potable water supply purposes. Section 62-40.310(1)(i): The County proposes an amendment to this section, which encourages the use of water from sources nearest the area of use or application, based on the County's assertion that there is no statutory basis for the rule language. The Department does not accept the County's assertion on the grounds that it is factually incorrect. The language in question is strongly supported by Sections 373.016(4)(a) and (b), created by the Legislature in 1998. The County's proposed amendment is not accepted on the grounds that it does not substantially accomplish the objectives of Sections 373.016(4)(a) and (b), and that there is no evidence that the amendment would result in a lower regulatory cost. Section 62-40.410: The County proposes an amendment to the general policy statement regarding the reservation of water. The amendment would include an excerpt from the federal Water Resource Development Act of 2000 (WRDA), which provides for the protection of existing legal sources of water. The Department does not accept the County's amendment based on the fact that the statutory authority for this rule language is 373.223(4), F.S., and that federal law does not serve as a basis for the rule. In addition, the rule language in question 2] already states that existing legal uses will be protected. Further, Section 62- 40.474 (the reservations section) specifically references WRDA, recognizing that reservations established as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan will need to be set in compliance with federal as well as state law. Lastly, the County's amendment would have no effect on how reservations of water are carried out by the water management districts and, therefore, is not a lower cost regulatory alternative. Section 62-40.410(7): The County proposes striking the section on the grounds that there is no statutory directive to "prohibit" the use of pumped groundwater to augment natural systems that would otherwise be harmed by withdrawals of water for public supply. The Department does not accept the County's assertion that the rule, as proposed by the Department, will prohibit the use of pumped groundwater to augment natural systems. The rule states: "In implementing consumptive use permitting programs, the Department and Districts shall strive to prevent harm to natural systems without the need for artificial maintenance of natural systems by pumped ground water augmentation." The section is merely an encouragement to prevent harm to natural systems without having to resort to artificial maintenance. The section then goes on to list several factors the districts must consider prior to authorizing pumped ground water augmentation. This is well within the statutory authority granted to the Department and the districts under Chapter 373, F.S. The County further asserts that the rule is based on a legal interpretation of Chapter 373, F.S. that was developed by the Department more than 10 years ago, and that has been rejected by all five water management districts. In fact, the Department's position is based on a February 2000 opinion by the Department's Office of General Counsel recognizing that mitigation is authorized under Part II of Chapter 373, F.S. The legal opinion was accompanied by a policy statement by the Secretary of the Department providing that this authority should be used cautiously. This is the policy direction included in the rule. The County also asserts that implementation of this rule (based on its premise that artificial maintenance of natural systems with pumped groundwater is prohibited) will result in significant costs. As has been explained, the rule does not prohibit ground water augmentation of natural systems. The Department, therefore, does not accept the County's assertion of significant cost, or its proposal to strike the section from the rule. The County proposes to add a new section to the rule allowing the prospecbve reservabon of water for consumptive use The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter 373, F.S. Paragraph 373.223 (4) provides that water may be "reserved from use by permit applicants" (emphasis added), not reserved for future use by applicants. 22 In addition, Section 373.223, F.S. provides that in order to receive a permit, a water user must demonstrate that the proposed use is reasonable-beneficial, not contrary to the public interest, and will not adversely impact existing legal users. An applicant would not be able to successfully make this demonstration for a proposed water use to take place some time in the future. In addition, competing applications for the water may exist when the water becomes available. In that situation, the Districts must be able to determine which use best serves the public ~nterest. That determination cannot be made prospectively. The Department, therefore, does not accept the County's proposal. Section 62-40.411 (2): The County proposes deleting the introductory clause "Except when an emergency order is issued under sections 373.175 and 373.246, F.S.," because the County believes it is confusing and unnecessary. The clause was added at the request of a water management district to clarify that emergency orders can be issued, in times of crisis, outside the scope of usual phased water shortages. The Department does not accept the County's proposal because deleting the clause would not have any economic effect on the regulated public, would prevent adequate response to a water crisis, and is not a lower cost regulatory alternative. Section 62.40.412(2)~c)4: The County proposes deleting the section relating to water conservation rate structures because the County asserts that there is no statutory basis for mandating conservation rates. The Department does not accept the County's proposal. The rule does not mandate conservation rate structures; it only requires the districts to consider such rate structures as a tool to promote water conservation. Section 62-40.416(1): The County proposes deleting or amending this section on the grounds that Chapter 373, F.S. does not specifically mandate reuse of reclaimed water and the rule represents a granting of new authority. The Department does not accept the County's assertion that the language represents new authority. The amendment to section (1) provides guidance to reflect the Department's policy that reuse should be promoted outside water resource caution areas as well as within them. The County specifically requests that the Department estimate the increased cost to utilities and ratepayers that will result from implementing this section of the rule. As stated in previous parts of this document, Chapter 62-40, F.A.C. is not a regulatory rule. It provides goals, objectives and guidance. Therefore, it does not, in and of itself, increase costs to anyone. However, there are anticipated to be costs associated with implementation via the regulatory rules of the water management districts. Since the costs will vary widely depending upon a variety of factors specific to each district, the appropriate time to estimate those costs is when the districts promulgate their implementation rules. Until then, no reasonable estimation of costs can be made. Further, the County's proposal would not substantially achieve the objectives of the statute, and is, therefore, not accepted by the Department. Section 62-40.422: The County proposes deleting the first sentence or amending it so that an inter-district transfer of surface water requires the approval of only the district where the water is withdrawn. The County asserts that there is no statutory authority to require the approval of both districts. The Department does not accept the County's assertion. Section 373.223(2) authorizes governing boards to authorize the transfer of surface water. It does not limit the approval of such transfers to a single district. Further, the County's amendment, by eliminating the approval of the district receiving the water, could result in inefficient use of water resources. The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that it does not substantially achieve the objectives of the statute. Section 62-40.431(3): The County proposes eliminating all references to local governments from the rule on the grounds that the Department has no oversight authority for local government stormwater programs. The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that it is based on a misreading of the rule. The section in question does not say that the department has oversight over local governments. It says that local government stormwater programs shall be developed pursuant to section 403.0891, F.S. Section 403.0891, F.S. states that the department, the water management districts, and local governments shall have the responsibility for the development of mutually compatible stormwater management programs. It further states in section (1) that the Department shall include goals in the water resource implementation rule for the proper management of stormwater. Section (3) states that local governments shall consider the water resource ~mplementation rule in the development of their stormwater management programs. The County also proposes alternative language if the Department is unwilling to eliminate the references to local governments. The Department does not accept the amendments on the grounds that they will impair the implementation of stormwater programs and, therefore, do not represent a lower cost regulatory alternative. Section 62-40.473(5): The County proposes an amendment requiring the water management districts to adopt a recovery or prevention strategy at the time a minimum flow or level (MFL) is established for a water body if, at the time the MFL is established, the water body is below, or projected to fall below the MFL within 20 years. The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that it exceeds the requirements of the statute. The Department does not accept the County's assertion that the statute requires simultaneous adoption of the recovery or prevention strategy under the aforementioned conditions. 24 Section 373.0421(2) only requires expeditious implementation of a recovery or prevention strategy. Section 62-40.474(1): The County proposes to amend the section on reservations of water to include reservations "to meet future reasonable- beneficial uses of water." The Department does not accept the County's proposal on the grounds that it is contrary to statute, as discussed above in relation to 62-40.410. Section 62-40.474(3): The County proposes adding language from the federal Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This is the same amendment proposed for Section 62-40.410 and the Department does not accept it for the same reasons. Section 62-40.520(2): The County proposes striking language relating to the Department's regulation of wastewater facilities within water resource caution areas. The Department does not accept the County's amendment on the grounds that language proposed for deletion provides guidance for the development of programs relating to water resources and, therefore, is appropriately within the scope of the rule. Further, the deletion of the language from the rule would not affect how wastewater facilities are regulated and, therefore, the County's proposal is not a lower cost regulatory alternative The County proposes a new rule section to be codified as 62-40.550 to address water development, which the County asserts the Department "completely failed to mention" in its proposed rule. The County's proposed amendment is taken almost in its entirety directly from Section 373.0831. The Department does not accept the County's assertion that water supply development was not addressed in the rule. In fact, there are numerous references in the rule, including an entirely new section on Regional Water Supply Planning. Further, the County's amendment is submitted to correct what it asserts is an omission. It is not submitted as a lower cost regulatory alternative. Therefore, it need not be addressed as such. 25 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM # '~k~ REGULAR mETING OF MARCH 13, 2003 DATE: RATIFICATION OF APPOIN'I3AENT TO THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MARCH 7, 2003 Ms. Evelyn Dobson, representative of the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition for the Parking Management Advisory Board has submitted her resignation. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition Committee has elected Mr. Norbert Poll as Ms. Dobson's replacement effective immediately for a term ending September 30, 2004. The Parking Management Advisory Board was established by Resolution No. 88-97 on December 9, 1997. The purpose of the Board is to advise and provide recommendations to the City Commission regarding parking management policy and related issues including but not limited to, the planning, financing, development, construction and operation of parking facilities within the boundaries of the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) as well as all public parking areas located along State Road AIA within the corporate limits of the City. Recommend City Commission approve and ratify the appointment of Mr. Poli, represemative for the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition for a term ending September 30, 2004. S/City Clerk/Boards/Board commission memo/PMAB 03-03-13 WEST ATLANTIC REDEVELOPMENT COALITION 104 WEST ATLANTIC AVE. DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 March 3, 2003 Mr. Scott Aronson, Parking Specialist City of Delray Beach 100 NW 1 s~ St. Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Scott, At the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) meeting, Wednesday, February 12, 2003, Norbert Poli was unanimously recommended to be seated as the WARC representative to the Parking Management Advisory Board. WARC members understand the importance of the board and are dedicated in keeping a watchful eye as parking progresses in the City. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 276-8640. Mr. Poll should be an enthusiastic and committed member. Sincerely, CC: Karen Schnell, City Clerk's Office WEST ATLANTIC REDEVELOPMENT COALITION (WARC) REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2003 5:30 PM Members Present: Lamar Shuler Craig Hartmann Norbert Poli Jimmy Weatherspoon George Maso Zack Straghn Staff Present: Rosalind Murray Thuy Shutt Guests: Carmen Anderson Scott Meyer - Arch. 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lamar Shuler. Everyone was introduced to a guest, Carmen Anderson from Bank United. The Chamber of Commerce asked that she be a liaison from the Chamber to the W^RC Board. 2. Mr. Straghn provided the prayer. 3. An item under New Business was added to the agenda, Item 8a. Flat Wall Sign for Saint Nativite Restaurant. Mr. Maso provided a motion, and seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon to accept the agenda as presented. 4. The minutes of the January 2003 meeting were approved with a motion by Mr. Maso, and seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. 5. Public Comments - Pat Walton, representing the Black Pages was at the meeting requesting support for the publication. PLANNING & ZONING:+ The South County Courthouse Parking Garage site plan was presented for review. The proposal involves the construction of a three-level parking structure that will accommodate the future expansion of the courthouse and the library parking requirements. The City, CRA, County and Library have entered into an agreement. Phase I of the project is currently outlined before you. It was recommended that a) the library, garage & courthouse have a coordinated design, b) The structure should be more pedestrian friendly c) the library provide more frontage to the avenue. In general, although members felt the library design was unattractive, they were in favor of the parking structure and its general design. NEW BUSINESS: The Parking Management Advisory Board is seeking a representative from the WARC Board. Evelyn Dobson has served on the Board for nearly two years. We are seeking a new representative. Mr. Norbert Poll has graciously agreed to accept nomination. In a motion made by Mr. Maso, and seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon, Mr. Poli has been recommended to serve in this capacity on behalf of WARC. WARC Retreat - several months ago members commented that a retreat was needed to discuss the future of W^RC. It has been suggested that in March the W^RC meeting be substituted for this retreat. Anita Jenkins of LISC has graciously agreed to facilitate. The location will be the Duncan Center in Delray Beach and the time is 4:30 p.m. This meeting will include dinner. 8^. The recommendation of the flat wall sign for Saint Nativite Restaurant is approved. Staff recommends this and although we generally do not support flat wall signs, we believe that the new design guidelines will resolve this matter. The sign does meet sign code requirements. OLD BUSINESS: 9. Staff provided a verbal update for West Settler's Project. OTHER BUSINESS: 10. Chairman Shuler commented on the eminent domain item that is on the agenda for the CRA meeting tomorrow. He is concerned about using this method to take land. The sites are the Clear View Lounge and the vacant property in front of Straghn and Sons Funeral Home. Mr. Straghn stated that the Clearview Lounge is not causing anyone any trouble. Many locations along W. Atlantic Ave. have sentimental value to the community. We should always get property with the consent of the owners. Members stated if the CRA takes land from these owners, would they be next? There was a concern that using eminent domain may set us back as a board 0NARC/CRA) by many years. The Board came to the consensus that other methods should be tried before eminent domain is used. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned when the streetscape would continue down W. Atlantic Ave.? Ms. Murray commented that she would find out. Mr. Shuler stated that he would request information at tomorrows CRA Meeting. Mrs. Weatherspoon stated that he does not like the new library design. It looks like a glorified horse stable. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. ....... 0: ~e, 5~,J. 27~7885 .L I_/.~..HyHOUSE V CITY OF DELI[AY BE ACH . BOARD MEMBER APP[ICATION Plcue ~-r)e or ptmt the 6:!1o~g '~. ,-,~,~,:"~>--.. ..... t~'~,, ~'^,,k.~.~- !"'"-r- I 1, __ _ _ i ....... r~ . RECEIVED JAN, 2 7 2003 OITY CLERK Date Page Memomndurn To: From: Date: Re: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH/KAREN ROSALIND MURRAY EVELYN S. DOBSON 1/27/03 PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD PLEASE ACCEPT THIS MEMO AS NOTICE OF MY RESIGNATION FROM THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD. DUE TO TIME RESTRAINTS, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND REQUIRED MEETINGS. IT HAS BEEN A PRIVILEDGE AND HONOR TO BE ON THIS BOARD. Memo To~ From: Re: Date: David Harden -Clty Manager Lula Butler - Director of Community Improvemen~ Request for a Waiver to Section 4.6.7(G(7) of the Land Development Regulations Governin~ Signs March 7, 2003 Item Before the Commision: City Commission consideration of a request from the owner of the Mamott Residence Inn located at 1111 E. Atlantic Avenue, for a waiver to Section 4.6.7(G)(7) of the LDR's governing with the requirement that they must face a dedicated street. Baci~round: The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board on January 8, 2003, considered a request from the agent representing the Marriott Residence Inn to approve a flat wall sign to be located on the 1 lth floor facing east. This building is the former home of the Spanish River Resort, and has been renovated into a hotel. The Board determined that the proposed sign location on the 1 lth floor will assist traffic traveling east on Atlantic Avenue from A1A. The Board's position ~s that the heavy traffic flow along East Atlantm Avenue creates a hardship and unanimously supports a waiver to Section 4.6.7(G)(7) to allow the flat wall s~gn to be placed on an elevation that does not face a dedicated street. A copy o f t he minutes a nd building elevation ~ dentifying t he s lgns a nd 1 ocations i s attached for y our reference. Section 2.4.7(B) of the Land Development Regulations allows the City Commission to grant waivers to this Section of the code governing signs after making a finding of fact based on one of the following: · Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area · Shall not significantly diminish the provision ofpubhc facilities · Shall not create an unsafe s~tuatlon; and · Does not result In the granting of a special privilege in that the same waiver would not be granted under s~milar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the waiver request to Section 4.6.7(G)(7) based on the finding and recommendation of the Site Plan Rewew and Appearance Board. LB 'as Attachments MINUTES OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH~ FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING MEETING DATE: LOCATION: JANUARY 8, 2003 FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM I. CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Nancy Stewart called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gary Eliopoulos (arrived 6:10), Nancy Stewart, Deborah Dowd, Roger Cope, Mayer Abbo, Dan Carter, Mark Gregory MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Archer, George Diaz, Andrea Strohmer, Scott Pape, Loretta Heussi Vice-Chairperson Nancy Stewart inquired if there were any changes to the Agenda. Mr. Scott Pape stated no. Ms. Loretta Heussi, Board Clerk swore in all Witnesses collectively that planned to speak at the hearing. II. SIGNS A. Marriott Residence Inn; 1111 East Atlantic Avenue; Flat Wall Siqn Waiver; Sumner Gotib, Authorized Agent. Vice-Chairperson Nancy Stewart inquired if any Board member wished to disclose any Ex Parte Communications on this item. There were none. Ms. Andrea Strohmer, Plan Review Technician entered the file into the record and presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff report. The applicant is requesting a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(7) of the Sign Code that specifies that flat wall signs must face dedicated street frontage. The Marriott Residence Inn is an 11-story hotel located at 1111 East Atlantic Avenue, on the corner of East Atlantic & Seabreeze Avenue. The applicant has received two sign permits, one for a freestanding monument sign on East Atlantic Avenue and the other a fiat wall sign facing west onto Seabreeze Avenue. The hotel has the option to place a second flat wall sign on the south elevation (Atlantic Avenue), which faces a dedicated street. The proposed flat wall sign is 9'3" by 15'1¼" for a total of 139.5-sq ft, on the top floor of the building facing east. The sign will be illuminated channel letters with a burgundy face & returns, white interior & neon, and underscore in burgundy, on a raceway that will match the color of the building. The copy will read, "Marriott Residence Inn", with the "Residence Inn" section a day/night plex face. A logo of a stylistic "M" will be located above the copy. The Board needs to make a determination on the finding of just cause or hardship for the sign to be brought before the City Commission for final approval. Vice-Chairperson Nancy Stewart asked if anyone wished to cross-examine staff. There were none. Ms. Denise Williams of Sign Craft, Inc., explained that they are allowed by code to place a second flat wall sign on the south elevation, which faces Atlantic Avenue a dedicated street. However, this sign would not be visible, and the proposed sign location actually faces the drop that goes into the parking garage and it would be visible for walking traffic and for traffic coming towards the building in that direction. The hardship actually is the second sign that is allowed on the south elevation is not visible. Ms. Williams stated that she was available to answer any questions. Vice-Chairperson Nancy Stewart asked if anyone wished to cross-examine the applicant. There were none. Vice-Chairperson Nancy Stewart inquired if there were any party status that wished to speak. Ms. Strohmer stated no. Vice-Chairperson Nancy Stewart inquired if anyone from the Public wanted to speak for or against the project. Mr. Kevin Warner representing the Beach Property Owners Association despite liking most of the improvements that have been done, we oppose approval of this waiver request. We would like to remind the Board that in the Downtown Master Plan, which is a formal part of Delray Beach's Comprehensive Plan talks about all the goals along Atlantic Avenue corridor, including the beach district to create a charming upscale community. In our view, a 9' x 11' plus neon sign will be clearly visible by a number of condominiums and other residential buildings north and south of Atlantic and that is not creating a charming upscale community. The people that live in condominiums north of the Marriott Hotel on A-1-A have a clear, unobtrusive view of the proposed sign location. The residents that abut the western portion of this building are concerned about neon lights, God knows what hour in the moming, 2 SPRAB Minutes 1/8/03 God knows how bright, and etc. I find it odd that Ms. Williams says the hardship is we can't put the sign on the south elevation. All I can imagine is that just cause and hardship language used in the LDR's, and what it is that they need and can't get by the big monument sign on the corner of Seabreeze and Atlantic and the flat wall sign facing west onto Seabreeze Avenue and the proposed flat wall sign facing east. At this point on the Agenda Mr. Eliopoulos arrived. Mr. Warner continued with what is the just cause and what would justify a hardship classification because they can't place a sign on the east elevation. Someone looking for a hotel doesn't need a sign and the Chamber of Commerce will tell visitors where the hotel is located. If you go out there, the way I did today and go directly east of the Marriott Residence Inn, you have to be God knows how far out in the ocean to see the sign. What marketing reason do they have for this sign? We are against the proposed sign and what does the community get back by granting this waiver?. Vice-Chairperson Nancy Stewart asked if there were any rebuttals from the City staff or applicant. Ms. Williams stated that her number one concern was the comment made that the sign is a bright neon sign and that it is not an exposed neon sign. The proposed sign is a channel letter sign and you don't see exposed neon. As far as being bright, yes you will be able to see it. The Marriott Residence inn can't count on everybody to actually come to a designated place in the City and request the location of the hotel. They are allowed an additional 16 sq. ft. sign and we are requesting a 139.5 sq. ft., therefore it is not as big as it could be according to code. Mr. Eliopoulos stated that he was stepping down for this item, and the Board Clerk swore him in. Mr. Eliopoulos stated that this has been done before in our City. With a waiver the community doesn't necessary get anything back; it is a give and take situation. Town Square is a good example because they have signage that doesn't face the right-of-way. The proposed sign would be seen from the ocean and A-l-A, and I think it is very appropriate to have this sign facing the east as proposed. Vice-Chairperson Nancy Stewart closed the public hearing and the Board commenced deliberations on the proposal. Mr. Cope inquired if the sign on the east is not approved, how it affects the sign on the south elevation. Mr. George Diaz, Building Official stated that it doesn't affect that sign at all; they could come back tomorrow and request the sign on the south elevation, which would be allowed. 3 SPRAB Minutes 1/8/03 Mr. Cope felt that the proposed sign on the east was very much relevant to the entire project. Mr. Gregory agreed that the proposed sign on the east was needed. Ms. Dowd stated that as a resident of Delray Beach for the past thirty years, that it is a great improvement to the Marriott Residence Inn after the unsightly building we have had there so many, many years. Ms. Dowd stated that the height of the sign would not be an obstacle for the neighborhood. I support this sign. Mr. Carter inquired if the Board was setting a precedent. Mr. Diaz stated no that it is a case-by-case basis. Mr. Carter commented what is the just cause or hardship that is a tough one. They have a sign permitted on the south elevation, in-lieu of the sign on the west elevation. I don't have a problem with this sign, but the Board does have to have a finding of justification of hardship. I would have a problem approving this sign with their ability to come in with another sign on another elevation. If we approve this sign it would be in-lieu of the other sign that they are allowed to have. Mr. E_liopoulos stated that there would not be any sign placed on the south side of this building, if in fact the Board can support the sign facing east. Mr. Abbo was supportive of the proposed sign. It was moved by Mr. Gregory, seconded by Mr. Cope and passed 6-0 to support the request for a waiver to the Sign Code, LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(7), for the fiat wall sign on the east elevation, with a recommendation to the City Commission, subject to the following conditions for the Marriott Residence Inn: That no secondary optional wall sign is allowed on the south elevation (The approved sign on the east elevation is in-lieu of the allowed sign on the west elevation.) 2. That bronze plexi glass is installed for the section of the sign "day/night". Mr. Eliopoulos stepped back to the dais. III. MISCELLANEOUS A. Frances Brewster; 1100 East Atlantic Avenue; Color Chanqe; David Ross, Authorized Aqent. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos inquired if any Board member wished to disclose any Ex Parte Communications on this item. There were none. SPRAB Minutes 1/8/03 Mr. Scott Pape, Senior Planner entered the project file into the record, and presented the item to the Board. The proposal is to change the color of the existing building to manila walls, vanilla doors, railing, window and doorframes, and Pickled Monterey green shutters. Staff recommended approval. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos asked if anyone wished to cross-examine staff. There were none. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos asked if anyone wished to cross-examine the applicant. There were none. Mr. David Ross, Applicant stated that he had no comments. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos inquired if there were any party status that wished to speak. Mr. Pape stated no. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos inquired if anyone from the Public wanted to speak for or against the project. There were none. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos asked if there were any rebuttals from the City staff or applicant. There were none. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos closed the public hearing and the Board commenced deliberations on the proposal. It was moved by Ms. Dowd, seconded by Mr. Gregory and passed 7-0 to approve the color change as submitted for Frances Brewster. IV. PROJECT PLANS Congress Commerce Center (Reconsideration from November 13, 2002 meeting); Southeast Corner of Conqress Avenue and Lake Ida Road; Architectural Elevations; Ken Carlson, Authorized Aqent. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos inquired if any Board member wished to disclose any Ex Parte Communications on this item. There were none. Mr. Scott Pape, Senior Planner entered the project file into the record, and presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff report. At its meeting of November 13, 2002, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) approved the site plan and landscape plan with conditions. The Board tabled the building elevations and directed the applicant to meet with staff to address the Board's concerns. The applicant has revised the plans, which address the concerns of the Board. Mr. Pape highlighted the changes made to the building elevations as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommended approval, subject to the condition stipulated in the staff report. 5 SPRAB Minutes 1/8/03 Chairman Gary Eliopoulos asked if anyone wished to cross-examine staff. There were none. Mr. Ken Carlson, Architect presented renderings of the different buildings and explained the added architectural elements and the modifications that have been made. Mr. Carson was available to answer any questions. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos asked if anyone wished to cross-examine the applicant. There were none. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos inquired if there were any party status that wished to speak. Mr. Pape stated no. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos inquired if anyone from the Public wanted to speak for or against the project. Ms. Alice Finst, 707 Travant Place, inquired if there was going to be a berm installed along Congress Avenue. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos explained that was a stipulated condition of approval of the landscape plan at the previous meeting. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos asked if there were any rebuttals from the City staff or applicant. There were none. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos closed the public hearing and the Board commenced deliberations on the proposal. The Board was very pleased with all the changes and felt it was a job well done. It was moved by Mr. Cope, seconded by Ms. Dowd and passed 7-0 to approve the Class V Architectural Elevations for Congress Commerce Center, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.6.18(B)(14) of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1. That the overall building elevations match the elevation details. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Review of Aqenda Items for the Meeting of January 22, 2003. The Board was informed of the items that would be before them at their January 22, 2003 meeting. B. Administrative Matters. 6 SPRAB Minutes 1/8/03 Board Comments: Mr. Cope commented that the front door, transom windows and other architectural elements of Antique Experience is not even close to what the Board had approved. He inquired if Staff would check on this approved project. Mr. Pape stated that Antique Experience hasn't revised their plans and they don't have building permit approval to make those changes. Mr. Pape stated that an e-mail would be sent to Code Enforcement that Antique Experience is not in compliance with their site plan approval. Chairman Gary Eliopoulos inquired if the CRA's guidelines for the Downtown Development Master Plan would be presented to the City Commission only, or if every Board would have a presentation for input. He wanted to make sure that every Board member had input on what the City wants. Mr. Carter stated that he had attended a meeting the other day regarding the issues of landscaping, parking, setbacks, and etc. for the downtown area. They decided to put together comments and then discuss with Staff their concerns/issues. Mr. Carter commented that he has been hearing a lot of talk around town that people are not happy with what is going on. Mr. Carter continued that we really need to sit down as professionals in our town and brainstorm the design guidelines so that we don't loose the character of Delray before it is lost. Ms. Dowd commented that as a layperson that the neighborhoods have the same concerns. Further comments were made and the Board felt that they needed to be included in the design guidelines. Mr. Scott Pape stated the development regulations that we are creating are directed by the Master Plan. Mr. Pape continued that he would contact Ms. Thuy Shutt with the CRA and find out what her next step is with the development regulations. He would find out, as a group to see if we can get involved in this again. Commissioner Archer commented that during the review of the original project the City Commission had given them direction to review the issues/concerns and change the original proposal. However, it has not come back yet to the City Commission. Further comments ensued and the Board requested that the status of the development regulations is brought before the Board for discussion and input. 7 SPRAB Minutes 1/8/03 Staff Comments: None. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Dowd moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 P.M., seconded by Mr. Abbo and passed 7-0. The undersigned is the Secretary of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for January 8, 2003, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on February 12, 2003. Loretta Heussi If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 8 SPRAB Mmutes 1/8/03 Date: March 6, 2003 Agenda Item No. ~5~ AGENDA REQUEST Agenda request to be placed on: X Regular __ Special __ Workshop __ Consent When: March 13, 2003 Description of Agenda Item: Request for a Waiver to Section 4.6.7.(G)(7) of the Land Development Regulations Governing Signs - Marriott Residence Inn - 1111 E. Atlantic Avenue Ordinance/Resolution Required: Yes / No Draft Attached: Yes / No Recommendation: Approval Department Head Signature:~~-A ~_ _~A, / ex 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: Approved for agenda:/~es~ No Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved / Disapproved MSN Hotmail - Page 1 of 1 Hotmail® mayordave56@hotmail.com Inbox I Previous Page From -' "Robert Sparvero" <rpsl@earthhnk. net> Reply-To: <bob@sparvem.com> To: ".]on Levinson" <jonlevinson@compuserve.com>,"Patnc~a Archer" <lang6141@bellsouth.net>,".]eff Perlman" <delcomm~sh@hotmail.com>,"Dawd W. Schmidt" <mayordave56@hotmail.com>,"Alberta Perry McCarthy" <delraycommlsh@aol.com> CC: "3ohn Bennett" <cibzenofdelray@aol.com>,"Dorothy Brockmdler" <pat@bar-harbour.com>,"Bernie Dahlem" <bernie@dahlem.com>,"Pat Duane" <pduanedb@bellsouth.net>,"Cary Glickstem" <cglickstein@imnwoodproperties.com>,"Viwan Hill" <webbfoot14@aol.com>,"Susan Hurlburt" <shilarie@aol.com>,"Hary Renaud" <mprenaud@bellsouth.net>,"Bob V~ctorin" <bjwc@mac.com>/'Kevmn Warner" <seabreeze@attglobal.net> Subject -' Marriott Residence [nn Sign Waiver Request Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:34:03 -0500 The Board of the Beach Property Owners' Association supports the City Staff recommendation to approve the request of the Marriott Residence Inn for a waiver to Section 4.6.7. (G) (7)of the LDR's governing signs based on the finding and recommendation of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Beard. Importantly, SPRAB's recommendation to approve the waiver request was based on the condition "that no secondary optional wall sign is allowed on the south elevation" of the Marriott Residence Inn. At the SPRAB meeting the representative of the Marriott accepted th~s condition and our support of the waiver request is based on this agreement. Regards, Bob Bob Sparvero bob@sparvero.com http://~w8fd.~aw8.h~tmai~.msn.c~m/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmb~x=F~~~~~~~~~&a=3~b33~dfc~e 3/13/2003 2002 Ttumk you for your re~pon~e & concer~ After ~g the gutdel~ you haw ~pplt~d for us to qualify for neighborhood trqO~c calming ~olut~on~, w~ reallte our cause ~ justtfled a~ we meet all the requirements. After consulting with the poltce regarding thit B~u~, we f~el as though a roundabout or an itland ~ the Intersection of Palm Trail & Bond Way wmdd be the most senMble solution to e~ctlve~ cut down on the ~s~ sp~ed & ~a~t~c we are encountering. We ha~ also taken Into consideration the impact which arterial streets would s~er as a result of a single diversion at the east end of Bond Way, therefore 2 additional diversions should also be considered at the lntersec_~ g streets along Bond Way. A similar tra.~ calming rn~thod was applted recently along Northeast 3~ Ave. west of ut & has already proven to be successful. ~ you are aware from r~cent studies, non. stop, non-local, cut-through tra~¢ from George Bush Bled. to Northbound Federal Htghw~ty has caused our predicament. Most of us have been subjected to safety tuzawds. A neighbor has had vehicles drive through her yard at 915 Bond Way, while they attempt to rnal~ the non-stop turn onto Bond FFay from Palm Trail at excessive speeds. All of the data being collected on the tra. O~c counting devices Is being performed du~ng the off-seaso~ when many people are our of tow~ These machines also don't consider that although 280 vehicles per day rrm,el North on Bond Way from George Bush Bled, probably 9096 af them are doing so between 7:00 & 10:00 AM then again between 5:00 & 8:00 PM, when we are walking our vhtMren &pets and are trying to oat or enter o~r dr~eways. According to the project manager at the Estuary development, tt it only 40°~ completed w/ appro~ely lO families currently restdlng there, so the 340 ~ehicles traveling to and from there per day shouid not be co~ a realistic figure. The proposed bike path along the easement outside the south wall of the F~uary ts a d~ lss~, although Ii it also a safety concenz There it no tra~¢ calming measure plamw~ to provide for a s~e Ingress & egress from the path onto Palm Trail. There are no ~tdewalks to continue the path safely. We will be kapt~ to supply the Mgnat~e$ required to l~n the process of engineering a tr~c deterrent & are willing to contribute to any landscaping that it pan of the plaa Thank you for your consideration concerning our eJfort to protect our n~tghborhood safely & O~ly, Bond Way & Palm Trail Hom~mmo~ ~Snatures on fottowing page)