Loading...
Agenda Special 01-09-01 CITY COMMISSION CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA SPECIAL MEETING & WORKSHOP - JANUARY 9, 2001 6:00 P.M. - FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM The City will furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program or activity conducted by the City. Contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127 (voice) or 243-7199 (TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. Special Meeting Agenda CONTRACT AWARD/JMW CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (POMPEY PARK RENOVATIONS PHASE II): Consider approval of a contract award in the amount of $174,757.99 to JMW Construction Corporation for construction of the Pompey Park Phase II renovations and improvements project, with funding from 334-4172-572-62.03 (General Construction Fund - Pompey Park Ballfields). AWARD OF HEALTH INSURANCE BID Workshop Agenda w BFI Request for Contract Extension Proposed LDR amendments regarding parking requirements Tennis Facilities Task Force Proposal 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. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~4a~ AGENDA ITEM S/O-.~-- SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2001 CONTRACT AWARD/JMW CONSTRUCTION (POMPEY PARK PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS) JANUARY 5, 2001 This is before the City Commission to consider approval of a contract award in the mount of $174,757.99 to JMW Construction Corporauon for construction of the Pompey Park Phase II renovations and improvements project. The improvements will include fencing, irrigation and landscaping, parking enhancements, lighting and site amenities including a covered pavnthon and batting cage. JMW Construction submitted the only bid for this project, coming in with a base Nd of $243,514.16. The engineering estimate for the project was $190,620.00. Upon reviewing the bid, staff idennfied several items that could be either removed or modified somewhat to reduce the contract cost. These ~tems are detailed in the attached memorandum from Environmental Services and reduced the contract amount with JMW to $174,757.99. In addition to the construction costs, we need to add the $12,000 cost for the pavilion structure, $5,000 for architectural fees, and $26,447 for those xtems removed from the bid which will be done in-house using existing annual contracts. This brmgs the total project cost to $218,204.99. $200,000 was budgeted for this project in the FY 2001 CIP budget (334-4172-572-62.03). The balance will be transferred from the Memtt Park Restroom budget, with those funds to be restored at the mid-year budget adjustment. Recommend approval of the contract award to JMW Construction Corporatton for the Pompey Park Phase II Improvements project, as outlined above. Ref'Agmemol 1.Contract Award.JMW Construction.Pompey Park Phase II Agenda Item No.~ Request to be placed on: AGENDA REQUEST Date: December 20, 2000 X Regular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda When: January 2, 2001 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Attached is an Agenda Request for City Commission approval of award of contract to JMVV Construction Corporation, for the construcbon of Renovations to Pompey Park Recreational Facilities - Phase II. The park improvements generally consist of Fencing, Irrigabon, Landscaping, Parking Enhancements/L~ght~ng, Site Amenities, Covered Pawhon, and Batting Cage. Staff recommends City Commission approval to award a construction contract in the amount of $174,757.99 to JMVV Construction Corporation Funding is available from 334-4172-572-63 03 (Pompey Park Ballfield). ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED. Not required. Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Commission approve a construction contract with JMVV Construction Corporation, in the amount of $174,757.99 for construction of the Pompey Park Improvements PH II. ~/~~ Department head signature: Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation if applicable)[ Budget Director Review (re, g~[,ed on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: E~NO ,~/~. ~P.~. Funding alternatives (if applicable):' Account No. & Description j~z/- ,/-//'7',~ ,' / Account Balance City Manager Review: Approved for agenda:(~/NO Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved s.\..,~01010~agreq102 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: David T. Harden City Manager Howard Wight f~ Dep Dir constru~tibn December 21, 2000 AGENDA REQUEST for 1/02/01 Pompey Park Improvements- Phase II Project No. 01-01 Attached is an Agenda Request for City Commission approval of award of contract to JMW Construction Corporation, for the construction of Renovations to Pompey Park Recreational Facilities - Phase I1. The park improvements generally consist of Fencing, Irrigation, Landscaping, Parking Enhancements/Lighting, Site Amenities, Covered Pavilion, and Batting Cage. On Wednesday, December 6, 2000, the City opened bids for this project. The only bid received was from JMW Construction Corporation, with a base bid of $243,514.16. The engineers' estimate for the project was $190,620.00. JMW was the contractor for Phase I completed last year. Upon review of the bid it was determined that the City could reduce the price of the parking lot improvements by uitlizing City forces and existing annual Contracts. For this reason Bid items 3A - 3E totalling $26,447.00 (highhghted grey on the attached B~d Tab) are being removed from JMW bid. Th~s change represents a reduction of $32,808.92 from the bid prices. A review of Bid item 4 (Bollards) and subsequent reduction in the size of the footers resulted in a $3,000.00 savings on this item. Addibonally, a substitution of "or equal" light fixtures for the parking lot lighbng resulted in a $6,500.00 reduction of Bid item 9 (Parking Lot Lighting). The net result of all of these changes is a recommended Contract award to JMW for $'174,757.99. In addition to the construction costs above, the cost for the owner furnished Polygon pavillion structure ($'12,000.) and fees for the architect (5,000.00) must also be added to obtain the total project costs of $2'18,204.99. All of these are also referenced on the attached Bid Tab Staff recommends City Commission approval to award a construction contract in the amount of $174,757.99 to JMW Construction Corporation. Funding is available from 334-4172-572-63.03 (Pompey Park Ballfield). $200,000.00 was budgeted for this project in FY 00-01 CIP budget In order to fund the entire $218,204.99 project cost funds will be transferred from those budgeted for Merritt Park Restroom Replacement (PN 01-05). It is Joe Weldon's intention that the funding be restored to Merritt at the mid-year budget adjustment. Joe Weldon Joe Safford Victor Majtenyi File 01-01 (A) s\...\0101~agmem EEO To~ From: Date: Subject: David T. H~anager Joseph M. Saff'6~ce Director January 5, 2001 Award of Group Health Insurance Plan Effective March 1, 2001 The City of Delray Beach, through its Agent of Record (Gehring Group) requested bids for our group health plan effective March 1,2001 due to the projected cost increases proposed by our present carrier. Bids were submitted by: Cigna Blue Cross-Blue Shield Florida Municipal Insurance Trust Humana United Healthcare (Self-funded option only) All bids were reviewed by our Insurance Committee. Based upon this review of the Insurance Committee, we would recommend the award to Cigna for their insurance program. Several union members did not want the PPO option approved since it would include an employee charge. Several other members wanted the PPO option. We would be available at the Commission meeting of January 9th to discuss the backrup material enclosed. The total cost of the program will depend upon the enrollment of employees in either the PPO, POS, or HMO plans The City Commission would be asked to approve the CIGNA rate structure Final City rates will have to be negotiated vath the unions. Please review the attached materials for submission to the City Commission for approval at your convenience. Request to be placed on: ~ Consent Agenda When: January 9, 2001 Description of agenda item: Coverage. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: AGENDA REQUEST Date: SpecialAgenda × Workshop Agenda Recommend award to Cigna for Group January Health 5, 2001 Insurance ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES Draft Attached: YES Recommendation: NO NO City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required o~_.~s involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: Yes v/ ~ No Funding alternatives: Account Number: Account Description: Account Balance: City Manager Review: Approved for agenda:~ Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: .b-~ ~'~ ('t~ ~¢~_~.~Tc.~ (if applicable) No Received: Action: Approved Disapproved P.O.# 0 Z 0 I- T' I-- City of Delray Beach HMO BENEFIT COMPARISON Effective: March 1,2001 HMO MEDICAL INSURANCE CIGNA* CIGNA* BC/BS Schedule of Benefits HMO 1 HMO 2 HMO Plan 04 Lifetime Maximum $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Unlimited Primary Care Physician Services Office Visits $10 $10 $10 Lab and X-ray in Physician's office $0 $0 $0 Specialty Physician Services Office Visits $10 $10 $10 Allergy Testing and Treatment $10 $10 Injections - $5/visit Testing - $0 Lab and X-ray in Specialist's office $0 $0 $0 Physical Exam Benefit $10 $10 $10 PCP - $10 $10 $10 Pre and Postnatal Exams Specialist - $10 (initial visit only) (initial visit only) (lst visit only) Hospital Services Inpatient Per Admission Copay $100 per adm. $0 $0 Outpatient $75 facility charge $75 facility charge $0 Emergency Room Visit $50 $50 $50 Prescription Drug Card (30 day supply) Generic (participating pharmarcy) $10 $5 $5 $20 (preferred) $15 (preferred) $15 (preferred) Brand Name (participating pharmacy) $40 (non-preferred) $35 (non-preferred) $30 (non-preferred) Mail Order Drug Card (90 day supply) Generic $20 $10 $10 $40 (preferred) $30 (preferred) $30 (preferred) Brand Name $80 (non-preferred) $70 (non-preferred) $60 (non-preferred) Mental and Nervous - Inpatient (30 day max/CY) (30 day max/CY) (30 day max/CD Participating Hospital $50 per day $50 per day $0 (30 max/CD (30 visit max/CY) (20 vtstt max/CD Mental and Nervous - Outpatient ws~t visits 1-20 - $15 visits 1-20 - $15 Outpatient visits, including the physician's services visits 21-30 - $25 visits 21-30 - $25 $25 Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services - Inpatient (30 day max/CD (30 day max/CY) (Detox Only) Detoxification (medically necessary only) $50 per day $50 per day $0 Xi il ......... ............................. ........................... ....................... visits 1-20 - $15, visits 1-20 - $15, Outpatient visits, including the physician's services 21-40 - $25,41-60 - $30 21-40 - $25, 41-60 - $30 $15 *Member pays non-preferred copay for brand drugs ifa generic is available. Member pays brand copay plus difference in cost between generic and brand tf generic is available. Gehring Group ('1 of 1 ) City of Delray Beach Effective: March 1,2001 Matched BC&BS PPO MEDICAL INSURANCE CIGNA* CIGNA* BC/BS Schedule of Benefits PPO 1 PPO 2 Plan 702 Lifetime Maximum $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000 Deductible PPO (Individual) $250 $200 $200 (combined in or out) Non-PPO (Individual) $500 $200 PPO (Family) $750 $600 $600 (combined in or out) Non-PPO (Family) $1,500 $600 Maximum Out-of-Pocket PPO (Individual) $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 (combined in or out) Non-PPO (Individual) $3,000 $1,500 PPO (Family) $6,000 $4,500 $4,500 (combined in or out) Non-PPO (Family) $9,000 $4,500 Prescription Drug Card (30 day supply) no formulary no formulary 3-tier open formulary Generic (PPO) $10 $10 $5 $100 Ded, 70% $100 Ded, 70% Generic (Non-PPO) (non-par physician) (non-par physician) Brand Name (PPO) $20 $20 $15 (preferred) $ 100 Ded, 70% $100 Ded, 70% $30 (non-preferred) Brand Name (Non-PPO) ................................................................................................ (..n.o.n .-E a..r.. ~.h. ~,.s. [ .c.!.a...n. ). ............................. .(.n...o.n..:p...a..r .p...h), .s~. c..~..a..n..). .................................................................................. Mail Order Drug Card (90 day supply) Generic (PPO) $20 $20 $10 Generic (Non-PPO) not covered not covered not covered $30 (preferred) Brand Name (PPO) $40 $40 $60 (non-preferred) Brand Name (Non-PPO) not covered not covered not covered Physician Office Visit Copay $20 $20 $15 Non-Participating Physican Office Visit After CYD, 60% After CYD, 70% After CYD, 70% Coinsurance Percentage PPO 80% 90% 90% Non-PPO 60% 70% 70% Inpatient Hospital Services PPO After CYD + $300 then 80% After CYD then 80% After CYD, 90% Non-PPO After CYD + $400 then 60% After CYD + $500 then 70% After CYD + $300 then 70% Outpatient Hospital Services PPO $75 facility fee + CYD, 80% $75 facility fee + CYD, 90% After CYD, 90% Non-PPO After CYD, 60% Atter CYD, 70% After CYD, 70% Mental and Nervous - Inpatient (30 day max/CY) (30 day max/CD (30 day max/CY comb) Participating Hosplta: After CYD + $300 then 80% After CYD, 90% After CYD, 90% ............................... .N..o...n.?..P..a.~.Lc.!E.a..t~.n..~....H...o...s~..~.t..a.!i ......A...f.t ,e..r...C...Y...D...+...$.4.0..0..t.h..eh..6..0..°./.o. ........ ,A...f.t.e..r....C. ,Y....D...,.+....$..5..00 the. ri. 7..0..°./..o. ....... ,.A...f.t.e..r....C.,.Y..D.+. $., ,3..0...0...t...h.e.,.n....7.0..*./.o' ..... Mental and Nervous - Outpatient (20 vtsit max/CY) (20 vlstt max/CY) (20 visit max/CY) Participating Provider $20 $20 After CYD, 90% Non-Partlclpatin~ Provider After CYD, 50% After CYD, 70% After CYD, 70% Alcohol and Substance Abuse - Inpatient (L~fettme max of $2,500 tn, out (Detox. Only) (30 day max/CY) (30 day max/CY) or combination) Participating Hospital After CYD + $300 then 80% After CYD,mthen 90% After CYD, 90% ....................................... .N..o...n.:P..a.g. Lc!p.a.tl.ng Ho. sj~l.t.a.l. .. .A.f.t.e..r...C..Y....D....+....$.4..0...0..t..h...e.n...6...0..% Aft.e.r ..C.Y....D.....+....$.5...0..0....t..h...e.n....7..0..°./,.o.....A..f.t.e..r...C...Y....D...+....$..3..0...0..t..he..n....7.0..°./?. ..... (L~fettme max of $2,500 tn, out Alcohol and Substance Abuse - Outpatient (20 vtstt max/CY) (20 vtslt max/CY) or combinatton) After CYD, 90 ~ Participating Provider $20 $20 o Non-Participatin~ Provider After CYD, 50% After CYD, 70% After CYD, 70% *Member pays brand copay plus difference tn cost between generic and brand for brand name drugs t fa generic ts available Member pays brand copay plus difference tn cost between generic and brand tf generlc ts available Gehrlng Group (1 of 1 ) Memo To: From: Date: Re: David Harden, City Manager Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement January 4, 2001 City Commission Review of Up-dated BFI Performance Report and Direction on Waste Collection Contract ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION: Review of attached BFI Follow Up Performance Report and direction concerning the City's waste collection contract: rebid or extend. BACKGROUND: The City's waste collection contract with BFI expires on 9/30/01. BFI has requested that their performance be reevaluated in the light of recent changes they have made to improve customer service and field operations and that the City consider a contract extension. The Code Enforcement Administrator has prepared the attached up-dated performance report. The original report was discussed at the City Commission's workshop of July 18, 2000. At that meeting, City Commission's direction was to rebid the contract. RECOMMENDATION: If a contract extension is granted, it should be for a 2-year term. Contract provisions should be included to provide financial incentives (penalties) to encourage BFI to perform at a high service level. M E MO RAN D U M TO: Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director FROM: Richard Bauer, Code Enforcement Administrator SUBJECT: BFI FOLLOW UP PERFORMANCE REPORT DATE: January 4, 2001 Executive Summary Personnel stabilization, revised customer service procedures, and improved operational controls and communications have reduced customer complaints. Back.qround Over the last several months, BFI's performance has been changing for the better for the following reasons: Improved customer service functions were implemented. Customer service in the past consisted mainly of taking complaints and removing what was causing the complaint (uncollected materials.) We found little evidence that the customer service function was being utilized to solve and to help prevent reoccurrences of problems. BFI has assigned additional personnel to investigate customer complaints, to determine causes of reported problems, and to prevent reocurrences of those problems. Invalid complaints are now being reported back to our office by BFI so that more accurate statistics can be maintained. Personnel stabilization has occurred. Recently, the only significant personnel change has been in the field supervisor position. BFI did consult with me prior to changing the aforementioned position, a first dudng our 4 year relationship. The new supervisor has a positive customer service attitude and is responsive to our inquires and requests. Lula Butler January 4, 2001 Page 2 Our confidence level in BFI's ability to deliver services has risen. Better customer service and personnel stabilization fueled this increased confidence. Positive confidence increased our expectations of BFI, which provides impetus for increased BFI performance levels. In effect, by doing a better job, BFI has increased our confidence, which increased our expectations, which forces BFI to continue to do a better job - or lose our confidence. Complaint Statistics Customer complaint statistics paint only a partial picture. Many citizens simply do not complain about service lapses. Other citizens complain but are incorrect for one reason or another. Service could be terrible but no complaints make it look good. Service could be excellent but invalid complaints make it look bad. However, barring some unusual circumstances, I would not expect customer complaints to increase 4 years into an existing contract. Complaints will be high at first, then reduce, and then level off. Below, complaint levels for June thru November, 2000 are enumerated. For October and November, I included both total complaints and those determined valid by BFI customer service personnel. Total Complaints Date Received Valid Complaints 6/00 74 (information not available) 7/00 119 ( " " 8/00 90 ( " " 9/00 83 ( .... 10/00 75 44 11/00 54 38 ,, ) The trend is favorable (down.) Lula Butler Janua~ 4,2001 Page 3 Field Testing During the week ending December 23, 2000, we conducted tests in three collection areas around the City. We randomly selected 87 trash piles ranging from small to large to test for collection purposes. BFI was not informed that we were conducting a test - and we did not mark or "spray" paint the materials during the test. Of the 87 trash piles tested, 9 (about 10.4%) were not collected on the scheduled collection day. Trash pile misses were of the small variety and probably should have been collected by the regular garbage collection crew, not the bulk collection vehicle. In fact, most of the misses involved palm fronds set at curbside for collection. Conclusions Customer complaints, be they valid or invalid, are on a downward trend due to implementation a true customer service function and personnel stabilization. This is a positive sign. We have become more confident that BFI can perform at acceptable levels. Communications from BFI and better field operational controls have resulted in few, major unreported service lapses. This, too, is positive. There have been incidents of missed service, the last of which occurred on Thursday (December 28, 2000) of Christmas week. On the aforementioned Thursday, the bulk collection was not completed and BFI trucks were on the streets until around 8:30 P.M. Late collections have been annoying to residents in the past. We also received a "strong" complaint on November 28, 2000 from a local restaurant concerning a missed pick up, resulting in an accumulation of garbage on the ground, and a delayed response by BFI. BFI attributed the situation to a new driver on the route, which we all need to understand is not an acceptable explanation. In the future, we will be able to more closely monitor commercial service since a Sanitation Officer is being hired. Lula Butler January 4, 2001 Page 4 Some trash piles and palm fronds continue to be missed, as noted above. Realistically, a "zero" miss level may never be reached. Out testing indicated that no major (in terms of size) trash piles were missed. Certainly, BFI has extended efforts, dedicated resources and revised field level operational controls to improve services. Providing these efforts (including personnel stabilization) and resources continue to be utilized in and for the City, continued service improvements should be realized. If it is decided to extend the collection contract, a two year extension with financial incentives (penalty provisions) should be considered. RB:ib Planning & Zoning Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: David T. Harden orling (~) Director of Plan~ing and Zoning DATE: January 5, 2001 RE: Proposed LDR parking requirement changes Attached are two maps that depict the areas that will be affected by the proposed changes. Map 1 relates to the area where the requirements for restaurant uses will increase from the current 1 space per 300 sq. ft. to 6 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. This increase still represents a reduction from the 12 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. required outside the CBD, OSSHAD, and West Atlantic Overlay district. The change will also apply to conversions of uses i.e. from retail to restaurant, which would be required to provide the difference. Map 2 depicts the area were the one-time, one space reduction will be eliminated. Further analysis of the request is attached in the Planning and Zoning staff report and City Commission documentation of December 12, 2000. WA i'[RWA Y COMMERCIAl_ CONDO AVENUE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL - MAP I - AREA WHERE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTAURANTS IS PROPOSED TO INCREASE TO 6-SPACES PER 1,000 SQ. FT. -- DIGITAL BASE' MAP SY'~TEM -- CASON ME 7HODI$ T ATLANTIC WA ~RWA Y ~AST AVENUE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL -- DIGITAL ~ASE MAP SYSTEM -- - MAP 2 - PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE ONE-TIME ONE-SPACE PARKING SPACE REDUCTION WILL BE ELIMINATED TO: THRU: ,,~, ,' :.~-., CiTY:,COMMiSS!ON-DOCUMENTATION?/, ,~ D~. HAR~iEN,~I~ MANAGER FROM: RONALD R. HOGGARD, JR., SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2000 AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRs) MODIFYING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTAURANTS IN THE ORIGINAL DDA AREA AND DELETING THE ONE TIME ONE SPACE PARKING REDUCTION IN THE CBD AND OSSHAD DISTRICTS. The parking requirement for restaurants in the original DDA area is only 1 space per 300 square feet regardless of use. Therefore, conversions of existing floor area to more intensive uses do not require additional parking. Restaurants also enjoy a reduced standard in the remaining portions of the CBD with a requirement of only 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area. This is one-half the City's normal requirement. These liberal parking requirements have helped to fuel the revitalization of the downtown area. However, the success of the downtown as an entertainment district with restaurants and clubs has also significantly increased the demand for off-street parking and few new spaces have become available to meet this new demand. A recommendation was made by the Parking Management Advisory Board in 1999, to increase the parking requirement for restaurants in the original DDA area to 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.. The amendment was denied by the City Commission on July 6, 1999. Downtown development activity has remained strong over the last year. New office and residential projects have been approved and several new restaurants have opened on the Avenue. At its meeting of August 22, 2000, the Parking Management Advisory Board reviewed the restaurant parking issue again and requested that staff prepare draft changes to the Land Development Regulations to increase the parking requirements for restaurants in the original DDA area to 6 spaces per 1000 sq. ft.. This represents an increase of 2.67 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. This requirement would also apply to future restaurant conversions. For example, if a 1,500 square foot retail space is converted to a restaurant, the difference between the two requirements would have to be provided to meet the increased parking demand. In this case, an additional 4 parking spaces would be required. Under the current codes, that additional parking is not required since the requirement for all non-residential uses is the same (1 space/300 sq. ft.). The PMAB also recommended that the one time reduction of one space be eliminated from all areas. The Board felt that this redevelopment incentive is no longer needed and the required parking should be provided. Additional background and an analysis of the proposed amendments are included in the attached Planning and Zoning Board staff report. Downtown Development Authority (DDA): The DDA Board reviewed the proposed amendment at its meeting on October 18, 2000. The Board recommended approval of the amendment. City Commission Documentation Meeting of December 12, 2000 - Parking Requirements Page 2 West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC): The West Atlantic Avenue Redevelopment Area includes 2 blocks within the OSSHAD district which would be affected by the elimination of the one-time one space parking reduction. The Board reviewed the proposal at its meeting on November 8, 2000. The Board did not support the proposal to eliminate the one-time, one space reduction since it would negatively affect small redevelopment projects. Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA): The CRA reviewed the proposed amendment at its meeting of November 9, 2000. The Board recommended approval of the increase in parking requirements for restaurants in the original DDA portion of the CBD. The Board felt that this would level the playing field and encourage restaurants to locate in other locations in the CBD and OSSHAD, such as Pineapple Grove. The Board did not support the elimination of the one-time, one space parking reduction, since this would negatively affect small redevelopment projects. Pineapple Grove Main Street: To proposed amendment was submitted to Pineapple Grove Main Street for review and comment. The Committee did not formally review the proposal. Planning & Zoning Board: The Planning and Zoning Board held a publi(~ hearing on the proposed amendments at its meeting of November 20, 2000. Bruce Gimmy and Bernie Dahlem (Parking Management Advisory Board) spoke in favor of the proposed amendments stating that the current parking requirements for restaurants is too Iow. They also emphasized that additional retail is needed downtown and that restaurants should be encouraged to locate in other redevelopment areas. Bruce Gimmy stated that the one time one space reduction is no longer needed to encourage redevelopment and should be eliminated. After discussion, the Board recommended approval of the proposed amendment to increase the parking requirement for restaurants in the original DDA area to 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet by a vote of 5 to 1 (Bird absent and Morris dissenting). The Board made a second motion to deny the proposed amendment to eliminate the one time one space parking reduction. The motion failed on a vote of 3 to 3. By motion, approve on first reading a text amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Section 4.4.13(G)(1)(a) Parking, Supplemental District Regulations for the Central Business District increasing the parking requirements for restaurants in the original DDA area to 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet, based upon the findings and recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Board. By motion, deny on first reading a text amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Sections 4.4.13(G)(1)(b) Parking, Supplemental Regulations for the Central Business District and Section 4.4.24(G)(6) Supplemental District Regulations for the Old School Square Historic Arts District, eliminating the one-time one space parking reduction. Attachments: · Proposed Ordinances · Planning & Zoning Staff Report s:\planning & zoning\boards\city commission\ldr restaurant parking in cbd.doc printed 12/7/00 MEETING OF: NOVEMBER 20, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: IIi.C AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRs) MODIFYING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTAURANTS IN THE ORIGINAL DDA AREA AND DELETING THE ONE TIME ONE SPACE PARKING REDUCTION IN THE CBD AND OSSHAD DISTRICTS. The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the City Commission on an amendment to LDR Section 4.4.13(G) Supplemental District Requlations, for the CBD (Central Business District) and Section 4.4.24(G) Supplemental District Regulations for the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District), pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5 (M). Pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, amendments to the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. The parking requirement for restaurants in the ~)riginal DDA area is only I space per 300 square feet regardless of use. Therefore, conversions of existing floor area to more intensive uses do not require additional parking. Restaurants also enjoy a reduced standard in the remaining portions of the CBD with a requirement of only 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area. This is one-half the City's normal requirement. These liberal parking requirements have helped to fuel the revitalization of the downtown area. However, the success of the downtown as an entertainment district with restaurants and clubs has also significantly increased the demand for off-street parking and few new spaces have become available to meet this new demand. A recommendation was made by the Parking Management Advisory Board in 1998, to increase the parking requirement for restaurants in the original DDA area to 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.. The proposed change was incorporated into an ordinance which also dealt with increasing in-lieu parking fees. However, it was deleted from the in-lieu fee ordinance so that the issues could be dealt with separately. The in-lieu fee ordinance was passed in 1999 and fees were increased for the majority of the downtown area. At its February 23, 1999 meeting, the Parking Management Advisory Board affirmed its original recommendation and voted 7/0 to amend the regulations for the original DDA area to increase the parking requirements from 1 space per 300 sq. ft. to 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. The amendment was denied by the City Commission on July 6, 1999. Planning & Zoning Memorandum Staff Report Text Amendment for Restaurant Parking in CBD & One Time One Space Parking Reduction Page 2 Downtown development activity has remained strong over the last year. New office and residential projects have been approved and several new restaurants have opened on the Avenue. At its meeting of August 22, 2000, the Parking Management Advisory Board reviewed the restaurant parking issue again and requested that staff prepare draft changes to the Land Development Regulations to increase the parking requirements for restaurants in the original DDA area to 6 spaces per 1000 sq. ft.. This represents an increase of 2.67 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. This requirement would also apply, to future restaurant conversions. For example, if a 1,500 square foot retail space is converted to a restaurant, the difference between the two requirements would have to be provided to meet the increased parking demand. In this case, an additional 4 parking spaces would be required. Under the current codes, that additional parking is not required since the requirement for all non-residential uses is the same (1 space/300 sq. ft.). The Board also recommended that the one time reduction of one space be eliminated from all areas. The Board felt that this redevelopment incentive is no longer needed and the required parking should be provided. The proposed increase to the parking requirements applies only to restaurants in the downtown area bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west, N.E. 1st Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east and SE 1st Street on the south. The success of the downtown as an entertainment distdct with restaurants and clubs has significantly increased the demand for off-street parking. Based on the current success of the downtown, it appears that a reduced parking requirement is no longer needed as a redevelopment incentive. The proposed change requires restaurants in this area to meet the same parking requirements as the rest of the CBD, OSSHAD and the West Atlantic Avenue Redevelopment Area. The applicable rate is (6) spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. This is still one-half the normal code requirement for the rest of the City. The requirement will be applied to changes in use as well as the construction of new floor area. Under the proposed regulations, restaurants will have to provide an additional 2.67 spaces per 1,000 sq. ff. than required under the current code. East Atlantic Avenue, between Swinton Avenue and intracoastal Waterway, has a considerable advantage over other areas of the City with respect to parking requirements for restaurants. With the same standard for all nonresidential uses in this area, a retail or office building with a minimal parking demand can be converted to a night club or restaurant with a considerable parking demand and not provide any additional parking. Conversions of this type have an obvious impact on the availability of parking for other uses downtown. This was not an issue in 1990 when the downtown was deserted at night and public parking was plentiful. However, ten years later, public parking lots are full, restaurant owners are leasing private spaces and using a valet service to meet demand and the number of restaurants is still increasing. When the public lots are full, vehicles are parked illegally in private lots and those who provide parking are impacted by those who do not. The question is why do we still have the incentive in this area while other areas targeted for redevelopment, such as Pineapple Grove and West Atlantic Avenue, are at a significant disadvantage. For example, a Planning & Zoning Memorandum Staff Report Text Amendment for Restaurant Parking in CBD & One Time One Space Parking Reduction Page 3 2,000 square feet retail to restaurant conversion in Pineapple Grove would have to provide an additional 3 parking spaces or pay an in-lieu fee of $18,000. The PMAB also requested that the one time reduction of one parking space be deleted from the Land Development Regulations. This code provision was originally enacted to help the small owner or developer who wishes to change use or add additional floor area. However, there is no limit on the size of the project or on the number of new spaces required. Staff feels that this reduction is still needed for small redevelopment projects where additional parking is not possible and in-lieu fees would be prohibitive. Pineapple Grove would be particularly affected since redevelopment is just getting underway with a number of small projects. REQUIRED FINDINGS LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), Amendment to the Land Devel~)pment Requlations, Findings: In addition to the provisions of Section 1.1.6(A), the City Commission must make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is not being;initiated to fulfill any specific Comprehensive Plan policy. While the amendment does not specifically further the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, it is not inconsistent with them. Downtown Development Authority (DDA): The DDA Board reviewed the proposed amendment at its meeting on October 18, 2000. The Board recommended approval of the amendment. West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC): The West Atlantic Avenue Redevelopment Area includes 2 blocks within the OSSHAD district which would be affected by the elimination of the one-time one space parking reduction. The Board reviewed the proposal at its meeting on November 8, 2000. The Board did not support the proposal to eliminate the one-time, one space reduction since it would negatively affect small redevelopment projects. Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA): The CRA reviewed the proposed amendment at its meeting of November 9, 2000. The Board recommended approval of the increase in parking requirements for restaurants in the original DDA portion of the CBD. The Board felt that this would level the playing field and encourage restaurants to locate in other locations in the CBD and OSSHAD, such as Pineapple Grove. The Board did not support the elimination of the one-time, one space parking of reduction, since this would negatively affect small redevelopment projects. Pineapple Grove Main Street: To proposed amendment was submitted to Pineapple Grove Main Street for review and comment. The Committee's comments, if any, will be presented at the meeting. Planning & Zoning Memorandum Staff Report Text Amendment for Restaurant Parking in CBD & One Time One Space Parking Reduction Page 4 Continue with direction. Recommend approval based upon a finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with and further the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommend denial, in whole or in part, in that the proposed amendment is'not appropriate with reason stated. I I 1. Recommend that the City Commission adopt amendments to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Section 4.4.13(G) Supplemental District Requlations for the Central Business District dealing with the parking requirements for restaurants in the original DDA area, based upon positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Recommend that the City Commission deny the amendments to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Section 4.4.13(G) Supplemental District Requlations for the Central Business District and Section 4.4.24(G) Supplemental District Requlations for the Old School Square Historic Arts District deleting the one time one space parking reduction. s:\planning & zoning\boards\p&z board\text amendment for restaurant parking.doc Planning & Zoning Memorandum Staff Report Text Amendment for Restaurant Parking in CBD & One Time One Space Parking Reduction Page 5 Section 4.4.13 Central Business (CBD) District: (G) Supplemental District Regulations: In addition to the supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6, except as modified below, the following shall also apply. (1) Parking: (a) Within that portion of the CBD bounded by Swinton Avenue on.the west, N.E. 1st Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east and S.E. 1st Street on the south, parking requirements shall apply to new floor area and restaurants only. Except for restaurants, chanqes ~ in use (both residential and non-residential) shall not be required to pr(~vide additional on-site parking: The parking required for the creation of new non-residential floor area, except restaurants shall be at the rate of one space for each 300 square feet, or fraction thereof, of floor area in addition to the replacement of any previously required parking which may be eliminated. Within all other geographic areas of the CBD Zone District, the provisions of Section 4.6.9(C) shall apply, as further modified within this Subsection (G)(1). (b) (~_b) If it is impossible or inappropriate to provide required parking on-site or off-site, pursuant to Subsection 4.6.9(E)(4), the in-lieu fee option provided in Section 4.6.9(E)(3) may be applied. (dc)The parking requirement for restaurants is established at six (6) spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. (ed_)The parking requirements for residential units in multi-family structures and mixed-use buildings shall be as follows: · Efficiency dwelling unit I 1.0 space/unit · One bedroom dwelling unit I 1.25 spaces/unit · Two or more bedroom dwelling unit ] 1.75 spaces/unit · Guest parking shall be provided cumulatively as follows: - for the first 20 units I 0.50 spaces/unit - for units 21-50 0.30 spaces/unit - for units 51 and above 0.20 spaces/unit Planning & Zoning Memorandum Staff Report Text Amendment for Restaurant Parking in CBD & One Time One Space Parking Reduction Page 6 Section 4.4.24 Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD): (G) Supplemental District Requlations: Supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6, except as modified herein, apply: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: PAUL DORLING, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING ALISON M. HARTY, CITY CLERK PARKING ORDINANCES JANUARY 4, 2001 Attached are copies of the parking ordinances as I have separated them. Ord. 4-01 pertains to the increased parking requirement for restaurants in the original DDA area, while Ord. 5-01 deletes the one time one space parking reduction in the CBD and OSSHAD. Please review them and let me know if you have any suggestions or comments. Thanks! AMH/m Attachments ORDINANCE NO. 4-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4.4.13, "CENTRAL BUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT", OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 4.4.13(G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", TO INCREASE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR RESTAURANTS IN THE ORIGINAL DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DDA) AREA; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on August 22, 2000, the Parking Management Advisory Board recommended that the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach be amended to increase the parking requirement for restaurants in the, original Downtown Development Authority area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on November 20, 2000, and voted 5 to 1 to recommend approval of the amendment to increase the parking requirement for restaurants in the original Downtown Development Authority area to 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter Four, "Zoning Regulations", Section 4.4.13, "Central Business (CBD) District", Subsection 4.4.13(G), "Supplemental District Regulations", Subparagraph 4.4.13(G)(1), "Parking", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.13 Central Business (CBD) District (G) Supplemental District Regulations: In addition to the supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6, except as modified below, the following shall also apply. (1) Parking: (a) Within that portion of the CBD bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west, N.E. 1st Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east, and S.E. 1 st Street on the south, parking requirements shall apply to new floor area and restaurants only. Except for restaurants~ changes Changes in use (both residential and non- residential) shall not be required to provide additional on-site parking. The parking required for the creation of new non- residential floor area, except restaurants~ shall be at the rate of one space for each 300 square feet, or fraction thereof, of floor area in addition to the replacement of any previously required parking which may be eliminated. Within all other geographic areas of the CBD Zone District, the provisions of Section 4.6.9(C) shall apply, as further modified within this subsection (G)(1). (b) After January 1, 1994, when the parking requirements are applied to either new development or a change in use, said parking requirements shall be reduced by one parking space. This reduction may only occur once. (c) If it is impossible or inappropriate to provide required parking on- site or off-site, pursuant to Subsection 4.6.9(E)(4), the in-lieu fee option provided in Section 4.6.9(E)(3) may be applied. (d) The parking requirement for restaurants is established at six (6) spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. (e) The parking requirements for residential units in multi-family structures and mixed use buildings shall be as follows: · Efficiency dwelling unit · One bedroom dwelling unit · Two or more bedroom dwelling unit · Guest parking shall be provided cumulatively as follows: 1.0 space/unit 1.25 spaces/unit 1.75 spaces/unit -for the first 20 units -for units 21-50 -for units 51 and above 0.50 spaces/unit 0.30 spaces/unit 0.20 spaces/unit 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. Section 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. 2 Ord. No. 4-01 on this the PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading day of ., 2001. ATTEST: MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading 3 Ord. No. 4-01 ORDINANCE NO. 5-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4.4.13, "CENTRAL BUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT", SUBSECTION 4.4.13(G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", AND SECTION 4.4.24, "OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT (OSSHAD)", SUBSECTION 4.4.24(G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY DELETING THE ONE TIME ONE SPACE PARKING REDUCTION; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on A~gust 22, 2000, the Parking Management Advisory Board recommended that the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach be amended by eliminating the provision for a one time reduction of one parking space in the CBD and OSSHAD zoning districts; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on November 20, 2000, at which meeting a motion was made to deny the proposed amendment to eliminate the one time one space parking reduction, and said motion failed on a vote of 3 to 3; and WHEREAS, the City Cormnission of the City of Delray Beach finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter Four, "Zoning Regulations", Section 4.4.13, "Central Business (CBD) District", Subsection 4.4.13(G), "Supplemental District Regulations", Subparagraph 4.4.13(G)(1), "Parking", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.13 Central Business (CBD) District (G) Supplemental District Regulations: In addition to the supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6, except as modified below, the following shall also apply. (1) Parking: (a) Within that portion of the CBD bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west, N.E. 1 st Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east, and S.E. 1 st Street on the south, parking requirements shall apply to new floor area only. Changes in use (both residential and non-residential) shall not be required to provide on-site parking. The parking required for the creation of new non-residential floor area shall be at the rate of one space for each 300 square feet, or fraction thereof, of floor area in addition to the replacement of any previously required parking which may be eliminated. Within all other geographic areas of the CBD Zone District, the provisions of Section 4.6.9(C) shall apply, as further modified within this subsection (G)(1). (e b_) If it is impossible or inappropriate to provide required parking on- site or off-site, pursuant to Subsection 4.6.9(E)(4), the in-lieu fee option provided in Section 4.6.9(E)(3) may be applied. (d c) The parking requirement for restaurants is established at six (6) spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. (e d) The parking requirements for residential units in multi-family structures and mixed use buildings shall be as follows: · Efficiency dwelling unit · One bedroom dwelling unit · Two or more bedroom dwelling unit · Guest parking shall be provided cumulatively as follows: 1.0 space/unit 1.25 spaces/unit 1.75 spaces/unit -for the first 20 units -for units 21-50 -for units 51 and above 0.50 spaces/unit 0.30 spaces/unit 0.20 spaces/unit Section 2. That Chapter Four, "Zoning Regulations", Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)", Subsection 4.4.24(G), "Supplemental District Regulations", Subparagraph 4.4.24(G)(6), of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, be and the same is hereby deleted in its entirety, as follows: Section 4.4.24 Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) (G) Supplemental District Regulations: Supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6, except as modified herein, apply: 2 Ord. No. 5-01 Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. .Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final rea~ling. on this the PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading day of ,2001. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading 3 Ord. No. 5-01 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Commission David T. Harden, City Manager January 5,2001 Vision for Tennis Facilities In the Fall when we had our last general discussion of the operation of our Tennis Facilities, it was mentioned that perhaps we needed to have a task force to develop a new vision for what the community wanted and expected from the operation of our Tennis Facilities. I believe such a vision would be very helpful to City staff and our management firm, since we are often caught in the tension between Tennis Center members who would like to see fewer events at the Center and some members of the community at-large which would like to see more events at the Tennis Center. In addition, there have been on-going debates about whether the Tennis Center can or should operate on a break even basis, or whether it should operate like most of our other recreational facilities, other than our golf courses which do not cover their operating costs through fees. Furthermore, if you take the position that we do not expect to break even on the operation of the Tennis Center then what parts, or what portion, of the costs should be an expense to the General Fund? Before the Atlantic Avenue Tennis Center was constructed, the CRA retained a consultant to conduct a "Delray Tennis Facility Study." Then on June 13, 1992, there was a Visioning Workshop for the Tennis Center. A copy of the report from the Visioning Workshop is attached for background information. I recommend that we proceed with developing a new vision for our Tennis Facilities. If we are to do that we need direction from the Commission. Do you wish to appoint a task force to develop this vision, or would you prefer to do another Visioning Workshop similar to what was done in 1992, where a broad segment of the community was invited to attend and over 60 participants were at the workshop? DTH:kwg Attachment File'u'graham/ccomm Doc Tennis Center Visioning Workshop Visioning Workshop Moderator Ron Hoggard, Staff Planner Community Redevelopment Agency Introduction Christopher Brown, Director Community Redevelopment Agency Comparative Study City Tennis Centers Consumer Study Jo-Ann Landon Market Research Elliott Lewis R/UDAT/VISIONING FACILITATOR Charles B. Zucker, Senior Director Community Assistance Initiative The American Institute of Architects Washington, D.C. William B. Renner, Jr. Dir. of Project Development Edward D. Stone, Jr. and Associates Planners and Landscape Architects Ft. Lauderdale, Florida TEAM CAPTAINS Robert Currie Currie Schneider Associates AIA, PA Architects, Planners & Interior Designers Delray Beach, Florida Kenneth J. Hirsch AIA President Hirsch Architects, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida © Landon Consulting Visioning Workshop The Community Redevelopment Agency stressed from the onset of this study, the importance of citizen input and involvement. On Saturday, June 13, 1992, an all day Community Workshop was held at the Delray Beach Community Center to produce a vision for the future of the Tennis Center and to help guide its development and public policy. This visioning workshop, based on The American Institute of Architects Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) Program, helps communities identify specific areas of concern, studies individual recommendations and, with the assistance of local volunteer design professionals, creates design suggestions. The team then helps develop strategies for implementation of the final design. Post cards were sent out to interested citizens, community leaders, business professionals and city staff inviting them to participate in an all day workshop concerning the downtown tennis facility. Over sixty participants were welcomed to the workshop by Community Redevelopment Agency Staff Plan- ner, Ron Hoggard; Christopher Brown, Director of the CRA introduced the facilitator, Charles Zucker. Mr. Zucker, Senior Director, Community Assistance Initiative for The American Institute of Archi- tects, Washington, D.C. who had first visited the Tennis Center site on his preliminary visit to Delray Beach several weeks before, explained that the participation of each person in a prescribed process would produce a vision for the future to guide development and public policy. He also explained that with these procedures, design suggestions and ways to implement them would be completed by the end of the workshop. Ron Hoggard presented slides to show the condition of the Tennis Center and its relationship to the surrounding areas. He also covered proposed development in the area and presented an adaptive re-use design plan for the existing fire station. Jo-Ann Landon followed with a summary of the Comparative Tennis Center Study and the Con- sumer Study which substantiated local support for reconstruction of the Tennis Center at its original location on West Atlantic Avenue. These studies were contained in informational binders given to all participants. Elliot Lewis gave his report on market research for the Tennis Center site. He concluded that it would be unlikely to find a developer for this site due to the present high vacancy rate in retail and commercial space. He suggested that a unique product could be considered such as a total health and fitness complex using the tennis facility as the linchpin. Mr. Zucker then divided the participants into two groups each with a leader. During this Break Out Session, one group moved into a different room while the second remained in the original room. On large sheets of paper with headings of Likes and Dislikes, the leaders listed five to ten things that the group said were important. © Landon Consulting Returning to General Session in the original room, each leader presented the groups Likes and Dis- likes on wall charts. Each person was then given three red paste-on dots to place beside the things they felt were most important. A master Likes and Dislikes list was produced by this method. Mr. Zucker went over the Likes and Dislikes List and showed the group how they had come up with the basis for their design criteria. The participants then broke for a buffet lunch. During Session Three, the group was polled to determine if there was any interest in building the tennis facility at another location and using the present site for other development. No one in the group wanted to relocate the tennis facility. The group was then divided into three development teams, each assisted by an architect. Group #1, led by Bill Renner and assisted by Digby Bridges, was to produce a graphic sketch of a tennis facility with a stadium on site. Group #2, led by Robert Currie, was to sketch a tennis facility with a stadium off site. Group #3, led by Ken Hirsch, was to sketch a tennis facility only. Participants showered their architect with ideas as he quickly sketched the suggestions on large sheets of paper. Each development team placed its design on the walls so everyone could follow the leaders narration as to the reason behind each design. Open discussion determined areas of consensus and priorities for phasing development over the next several years. There was a great deal of excitement over the results and amazement that so much had been accom- plished. Delray Beach Parks Director, Joe Weldon thanked the participants for their interest, time and input and also thanked the Community Redevelopment Agency for putting on an interesting and productive workshop. He then summed up the consensus of the group in two sentences: I) The Tennis Center should be redeveloped at its existing location. 2) The stadium court should be included within the redevelopment plan at the existing facility. Following the workshop, a site plan design requirement list was developed and two preliminary designs were prepared by Edward D. Stone, Jr. and Associates incorporating many of the design ideas identified by the visioning participants. They were presented to The City Commission on June 23, 1992, to help support the concept that the Tennis Center should remain at its downtown location. The Community Redevelopment Agency with the support of the citizens continued to lobby the City Commission for the downtown Tennis Center; on July 7, 1992, the Delray Beach City Commission voted to build the tennis facility, with a stadium for the Virginia Slims tournament, at the original down- town location. © Landon Consulting You are cordially invited to participate at a one-day Community Workshop. The purpose of this workshop will be to reach a consensus concerning use of the City's Tennis Center property. Location: Date: Time: Note: R.S.V.P.: Delray Beach Community Center $0 NW 1st Avenue Saturday, June 13, 1992 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Lunch will be provided 276-8640, Jacquie by June 8th Please plan to attend. We need your input. _~.~ ~ TENNIS CENTER STUDY ~?~"'~ ONE-DAY COMMUNITY WORKSHOP -'~,'~---7 ] DELRAY COMMUNITY CENTER ~ ~ SATURDAY, JUNE 13, 1992, 9:00 AM to ~:00 PM 9:00 am 'INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION Ao Welcome, (Ron Hoggard) Why we are here, (Chris Brown) The community workshop process, (Charles Zucker) 2. 3. 4. Produce a "VISION" for the future to guide development and public policy Role of participants Expected results/product from meeting by 5:00 pm How results will be used D. Background information/presentations 3. 4. 5. Site conditions, (Bill Rennet & Ron Hoggard) a. Relationship to surrounding area. b. Other proposed development in the area Adaptive re-use of existing fire station, (Ron Hoggard) Comparative study of city tennis centers, (Jo-Ann Landon) Consumer study, (Jo-Ann Landon) Market research, (Elliot Lewis) 10:00 am VISIONING Ao Break-out session #1: Warm-up exercise: Divide into small groups. Each group pick a leader, list 5 to 10 things that are LIKED and 5 - 10 things are DISLIKED about the existing tennis facility. General session: Each group leader presents likes and dislikes which are put on wall charts. Each person puts 1 paste-on dot on each of three things which are liked and disliked. A master list of likes and dislikes will be produced. Break-out session #2: Each group lists 5 to 10 activities it would like to see on the tennis site and surrounding blocks IN THE FUTURE and 5 to 10 activities it would not like to see. 12:00 noon 1:30 pm 3:30 pm 4:00 pm General session: Each group leader presents activities that people want to see and don't want to see in the future. Each person puts 1 paste-on dot on each of three things which they want to see and don't want to see. A master list of likes and dislikes will be produced. BREAK FOR LUNCH & VISIT SITE ' FORM FOUR DEVELOPMENT TEAMS FROM PARTICIPANTS go Break-out session #3: Each development team produces graphic representations of ideas for the future of the tennis site and surrounding blocks. AFTERNOON BREAK General session/critique: Each development team presents their f'mdings to the group at large. Each participant uses paste-on dots to identify features of each scheme that are liked and disliked. Open discussion: Determine areas of consensus and priorities for phasing development over the next several years. 5:00 pm CLOSING il Delray Beach Tennis Center Community Visioning Workshop Tennis Center southwest view West view © London Consulting Delray Beach Tennis Center Community Visioning Workshop Northwest view North view © Landon Consulting Delray Beach Tennis Center Community Visioning Workshop Workshop sign-in table Facilitator exploring likes and dislikes Making choices © Landon Consulting Delray Beach Tennis Center Community Visioning WorkshoP Design development team at work Discussing a design plan Thanking participants for productive day and design ideas © Landon Consulting TENNIS CENTER STUDY ~atnrdayts One-Day Tennis Center Workshop was a great success and we gained some real Insight Into what the community really wants to see happen here with respect to the existing tennis center. If you were able to attend, thank you very much. If you were not able to attend, we still need your Input and support. The next step in the process is to present our findings to the City Commission at its regular meeting of June 23, 1992 at 6:00 PM. The CRA and the Parks & Recreation Department will be hosting a preview meeting to discuss our plans and findings. Ldh":ation: Date: Time: Delray Beach Community Center S0 NW 1st Avenue Tuesday, June ?.3, 1992 4:00 PM Please plan to attend. We need your support DELRAY BEACH MUNICIPAL TENNIS CENTER "ADVANTAGE....DOWNTOWN" With the stadium court incorporated into the downtown tennis center, a comprehensive complex is rcdeveloped simultaneously with control of the Slims Tournament left in thc City's hands. There is no need to depend upon a third party or an outside facility to provide for the four additional tournament on-site hard courts. The downtown tennis center is a continuation of the redevelopment of Atlantic Avenue and will enhance opportunities for redevelopment in the blocks east, west and south of the center. The downtown tennis center enlarges and enhances the government campus. A focal point for entry to our City Hall will be realized. o Delray merchants will reap significant economic benefits from tournament traffic on Atlantic Avenue and in the downtown area. The name "Delray Beach" is associated with the downtown area. Downtown tournaments will have great tourist impact. Visitors from all over the world will experience our City. Downtown Delray Beach provides greater parking for major events. A trolley system to transport tennis tournament consumers will provide an exciting experience and view of our historic downtown. Downtown tournaments will greatly benefit the existing hotels and may encourage additional demand for hotel space, support facilities and employment. o The downtown tennis center will be able to host other tournaments including Sunshine, Continental, Gulfstream, and state high school regional tournaments. The downtown tennis center will bring our State Champion high school tennis players back to Delray Beach. 10. The downtown tennis center will be accessible to the youth in the immediate area and could be the focus of a major junior tennis program. 11. Increased activity on Atlantic Avenue will enhance safety and will encourage neighborhood revitalization. DELRAY BEACH MUNICIPAL TENNIS CENTER SITE PLAN DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 6-23-92 VIRGINIA SLIMS TOURNAMENT REQUIREMENTS 1200-2200 PERMANENT SEAT STADIUM COURT INCLUDING 300 BOXES OF FOUR SEATS EACH. TEMPORARY SEATING AT TI-IE STADIUM FOR A TOTAL OF 8200 SEATS INCLUDING BOX SEATS. NOTE: THIS NUMBER OF PERMANENT SEATS AT THE STADIUM IS ADEQUATE FOR OTI-IER TOURNAMENTS INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: CONTINENTAL CUP SUNSHINE CUP GULFSTREAM STATE JUNIOR CHAMPIONSHIPS JUNIOR DEVELOPMENTAL CHAMPIONSHIPS STATE OPEN FOUR ON-SITE HARD COURTS. (NOTE: AN ADDITIONAL 4 HARD COURTS ARE ALSO REQUIRED, BUT MAY BE OFF-SITE) Co TEMPORARY SEATING FOR 500 ADJACENT TO ONE OF THE ABOVE HARD COURTS. 3000 PARKING SPACES WITHIN 10 MINUTES SHUTTLE RIDE OF THE SITE, INCLUDING 750 SPACES WITHIN 1500 FEET OF THE SITE. SUPPORT FACILITIES (E.G. LOCKER ROOMS, REST ROOMS, HOSPITALITY SUITES, CONCESSION TENTS, ETC.) MUNICIPAL TENNIS CENTER FACILITIES A. 10 TO 16 HAR-TRU COURTS; ALL LIGHTED 5 TO 6 LIGHTED HARD COURTS (NOTE: 4 COURTS REQUIRED FOR VIRGINIA SLIMS ARE INCLUDED) C. PRO-SHOP WITH STAFF OFFICES D. SUPPORT FACILITIES INCLUDING MAINTENANCE BLDG. E. ON-SITE PARKING FOR 100 TO 120 SPACES HI. F. PRACTICE BACKBOARD (DOUBLE SIDED AND FENCED) COMPLEMENTARY ISSUES Ao CONSIDER THE FUTURE PROVISION OF A DIVIDED BOULEVARD ON NW 1ST AVENUE FOR BETTER CONNECTION AND AESTHETIC ENTRY TO THE TENNIS COMPLEX AND CITY HALL CONSIDER FUTURE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THROUGH ADJACENT BLOCKS CONNECTING TO OLD SCHOOL SQUARE AND THE DOWNTOWN AT OCEAN CITY LUMBER REDEVELOPMENT SITE Co STRENGTHEN THE VISUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN W. ATLANTIC AVENUE AND THE TENNIS COMPLEX CONSIDER PROVISION OF LANDSCAPE/URBAN DESIGN FEATURES ON ATLANTIC AVENUE BEGINNING AT WEST 3RD AVENUE TO DENOTE ENTRY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL CAMPUS AND RECREATIONAL COMPLEX E. DIRECTIONAL AND FACILITY SIGNING