01-24-86SpMtg JANUARY 21, 1986
A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Delray
Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Doak S. Campbell in the
Council Chambers at City Hall at 6:40 P.M., Tuesday, January 21, 1986.
Roll call showed:
Present - Council Member Malcolm T. Bird (Arrived 6:50
P.M.)
Council Member Marie Horenburger
Council Member Arthur Jackel
Council Member Jimmy Weatherspoon
Mayor Doak S. Campbell
Absent - None
Also present were - City Manager James L. Pennington and
City Attorney Herbert W.A. Thiele.
Mayor Campbell called the meeting to order and announced that
this meeting has been called for the purpose of (1) considering appeal
from decision of Community Appearance Board regarding Linton Oaks Square
sign item; (2) considering expansion of Downtown Development Authority;
(3) considering Forcemain 60 Barile contract; (4) considering Swinton
Avenue road repairs and improvements; and (5) considering Resident
Project Services - N.W. 2nd Street Water Transmission Main.
1. Seth Gadinsky, representing Linton Oaks Square, outlined the
history of this item stating that on July 10, 1985 he went before the
CAB with his signage package, at which time they voted 4 to 1 to approve
the sign. The only stipulation was the drawing did not accurately
reflect the colors of the shopping center and they requested that the
applicant come back with color samples. He came in November 25th to get
the final approval on the colors and at this time there were new members
seated on the Board who voted to reduce the height of the sign, which
was not the issue, from 25 feet to 18.6 feet.
Mr. Gadinsky presented Council with a copy of the CAB minutes
of July 10th which reflected the sign was approved in concept. He also
presented a rendering of the subject sign. He advised that by lowering
the sign six feet it is bringing the sign to eye level which will make
it appear more massive than if it were higher up.
Mayor Campbell stated the issue is that if Council feels that
the action of the CAB was binding and the applicant relied upon it, then
he believed Council should allow him to proceed; however, if Council
feels it is not binding, that is, that it was not a final decision and
they had full right to change their mind later, then Council should
uphold the CAB decision.
The City Attorney advised that he did not feel this is the only
issue. In essence, Council would have to construe the appeal by (1)
that the applicant believes that the first action of the Board was
binding, and in any event (2) he does not believe that the second Board
action is proper under the considerations for CAB approval.
Mrs. Horenburger stated she has a concern about seeing all of
these signs coming to Council; lately they are seeing every sign for
every large major shopping center coming from the CAB to Council to
appeal the decision. Perhaps there is a problem with the composition of
that Board or problems with alternates serving on the Board giving
another viewpoint, a different one from a previous sitting. She be-
lieves the process shows us clearly that in this particular instance on
July 10th the vote which was taken was a preliminary vote. Until the
final vote is taken, it is her view that all of the business of the sign
is up for review, whether it be the height or the color.
The City Attorney advised that to a certain extent we may have
led people to believe that they might rely upon those suggestions at
preliminary review in expending additional funds. Mrs. Horenburger
stated then we are at the point where we begin to question the process
and perhaps need to look at the alternate positions on the CAB if there
are going to be such varying opinions each time an applicant attends a
Board meeting.
Mr. Jackel concurred, stating he believes it is time to address
the matter of the CAB, its composition and its purpose.
Mrs. Horenburger moved to uphold the decision of the CAB
regarding the Linton Oaks Square sign. The motion failed for lack of a
second.
Mr. Weatherspoon moved to not uphold the decision of the CAB in
regard to Linton Oaks Square sign as submitted, and approve it at the 24
foot level, seconded by Mr. Jackel. Upon roll call Council voted as
follows: Mr. Bird - Yes; Mrs. Horenburger - No; Mr. Jackel - Yes; Mr.
Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - No. Said motion passed with a 3 to
2 vote.
2. Mayor Campbell reported that at the last Council meeting there
was not a clear indication of the boundaries that the DDA wanted to
expand and Council did not want to go into any residential areas wherein
homesteads would be taxed; also, Council did not have a clear indication
that the extensions were going to be only commercial properties, and if
within those commercial properties, the DDA had a general consensus of
opinion that they would like to join the DDA.
Lonnie Cook, representing the Downtown Development Authority,
advised with reference to the beach side, they plan to take the corner
of the map and bring the New Monmouth Condominium out of the boundaries.
Mayor Campbell clarified that what the DDA is asking for is
that the DDA be expanded to include all the commercial properties
fronting Atlantic Avenue, commercial properties whether or not they
might have attached to them some residential properties, and those
residential properties would, in fact, be the voters.
Mr. Bird pointed out that an expansion of the DDA does not in
and of itself carry an expansion of the Central Business District, so
some of those things which are permitted in the CBD, i.e., buying out of
parking requirements, etc., may or may not ever cross the Intracoastal.
Mr. Jackel asked if the DDA had a consensus of opinion of those
businesses east of the Intracoastal in favor of this, in particular the
Holiday Inn Camino Real. Mr. Cook replied they have a list from four
years ago.
Barbara Smith, President of the Chamber of Commerce, advised
she was in charge of the polling several years ago and the consensus at
this point is yes; however, she cannot say it is 99% as it was before.
Upon question by Mr. Jackel, she stated she had not contacted them as
she was waiting for direction from Council. She questioned what the
requirement is, a majority or a percentage.
The City Attorney advised the Legislature will need a map and a
new metes and bounds description if the lines are different from the
last time. he also advised he has to draft a ten page House Bill and
have it in Mary Baruch's hands by noon tomorrow or it does not go on the
delegation agenda; the deadline is three weeks before the last meeting,
which is February 12th.
Mrs. Horenburger moved that if the DDA can get the material to
the City Attorney by noon tomorrow that Council consider supporting the
expansion of the DDA, to include all commercial properties as they face
Atlantic Avenue, but not any independent residential properties, from
the Intracoastal to the Ocean, seconded by Mr. Jackel. Upon roll call
Council voted as follows: Mr. Bird - Yes; Mrs. Horenburger - Yes; Mr.
Jackel - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion
passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
-2- 01/21/86
Before roll call, Mr. Jackel stated he would be willing to
approve of this provided they get the necessary material to the City
Attorney and this includes a list of all the businesses in the area who
approve and disapprove it; in particular, the Holiday Inn.
At this point the roll was called to the motion.
Mr. Bird clarified that in order for this to be accomplished
there must be a local bill passed no matter what procedure they select.
3. The City Manager reported this item was discussed a number of
weeks ago and Mr. Pontek has gone out and revisited the situation.
Robert Pontek, Utilities Director, furnished material to
Council containing two options. He outlined the problems of relocating
the line and the encroachment into the roadway trying to preserve the
trees; the difficulty comes with the amount of road work which is
necessary. He reported the one option is to increase the scope of work
which Council previously authorized at a not-to-exceed value of approxi-
mately $27,000. Russell and Axon has come back with a proposal which
seems to get the pipe in by a pipe person and the road in by road
people. This is Option B which allows Barile Excavating and Pipeline to
receive a notice to proceed from Council and have the City forces then
negotiate with Pavex, the contractor for Lowson Boulevard, to add the
additional rock and compaction and do the road work. Mr. Pontek stated
this is his recommendation; it is only a 2.2% increase in the contract
amount which was originally bid, rather than the $27,000 not-to-exceed
value discussed at the last meeting.
Upon question by Mr. Jackel with regard to the charges for the
road work, Mr. Pontek advised this work would be something they would
attempt to negotiate through Public Works and through the contractor; it
should be in the range of below $55,000. Council has already awarded a
contract to Pavex for several pavement restorations, Lowson being one of
the streets. Mr. Pontek explained that what we have here is an under-
ground contractor who, at this point in time, is asking for $216,000 to
do his work of the pipeline plus the roadway improvements which are
necessary. We are suggesting that the pipeline contractor do his
pipeline work ($166,000) and allow staff to negotiate a price less than
$55,000 with the road contractor.
Mr. Bird moved to approve Option B for the forcemain and the
repaying required, keeping in place the same not-to-exceed figure unless
it is modified subsequently, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll
call Council voted as follows: Mr. Bird - Yes; Mrs. Horenburger - Yes;
Mr. Jackel - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
4. The City Manager reported this is an item Council had discussed
with regard to whether or not to rebase the waterline or to relocate it.
Mr. Pontek and the engineers were requested to go back and review this
situation.
Mr. Pontek advised the last recommendation from the contractor,
Golden Eagle, was delivered this afternoon. He furnished Council with
informational material with the cost for the particular watermain
installation. Mr. Pontek presented a rendering of the subject line and
the problem with its position in the subgrade. One of the options is to
change the stabilized subgrade; in discussions with the contractor and
the County Engineer's Office, it was decided to change it around so that
the asphalt would be put in but there would be three placements of
limerock atop the pipe to try and clear the distance from the watermain.
The difficulty is the watermain is still only about 16 to 18 inches
below grade and the main which is 30 years old is going to be lost in
different locations due to vibrations upon compaction. To put the
additional limerock in they are faced with +$26,000 to keep the main in
place and pay the contractor for the additional rock.
The next option was to replace the old cast iron main and try
to get the new main deeper and out of as much pavement as possible.
They have looked at a price to put a new main under the proposed side-
walk on the east side of Swinton Avenue. The conflict is the contractor
-3- 01/21/86
is on site, has been doing work and has the area torn up; they have
asked him for the cost of the delay which is running approximately $150
to $200 a day. Mr. Pontek stated he is recommending relocation of the
pipe.
Mayor Campbell clarified that just stabilizing the limerock is
$26,000. The option of relocating the main involves the cost of re-
locating the main (roughly $46,000) and the delay figure of approx-
imately $200 a day for a period of probably 10 to 15 days.
Upon question by Mrs. Horenburger, Mr. Pontek advised that
December 27th was the first field meeting they had on conflict; the
correspondence is dated January 16th and 21st and it is as timely as he
could provide it. The City Manager stated the County changed the plan
at the last moment and the City did not know they were going to widen
Swinton Avenue; also, there were no records to tell how deep the pipe
was.
Mr. Bird moved to approve the relocation of the 10" main,
seconded by Mr. Jackel. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr.
Bird - Yes; Mrs. Horenburger - Yes; Mr. Jackel - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon -
Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
Mrs. Horenburger left the Council Chambers at this time.
5. Mr. Pontek reported this item concerns the large $586,000 water
transmission line that is being placed on N.W. 2nd Street going from the
Utilities building out to underneath 1-95 and then going over to the new
ground storage tank. They were notified by the former inspector they
were utilizing on the ground tank that they would no longer be able to
provide inspection services on this particular water line. The contrac-
tor has now had approximately 30 days so far to move ahead on his
contract and there have been roughly six days of inspection, so what has
been brought before Council is a separate authorization for the design
Engineer, Barker, Osha and Anderson, to inspect his work along the
progress of the contractor.
Mr. Pontek advised he comes up with figures for inspection
anywhere from $32,000 to $58,000.
Mr. Jackel moved to hire Barker, Osha and Anderson at the price
of $42,650 to provide inspection services on this project, seconded by
Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Bird -
Yes; Mr. Jackel - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes.
Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote.
Mayor Campbell declared the meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M.
~Clerk
ATTEST:
The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach
and that the information provided herein is the minutes of the meeting
of said City Council of January 21, 1986, which minutes were formally
approved and adopted by the City Council on ~. ////~p~ .
Cl%rk
-4- 01/21/86
NOTE TO READER:
If the minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated
above, then this means that these are not the official minutes of City
Council. They will become the official minutes only after they have
been reviewed and approved which may involve some amendments, additions,
or deletions to the minutes as set forth above.
-5- 01/21/86