Ord 23-98FAILED ON FIRST READING - JUNE 2, 1998
ORDINANCE NO. 23-98
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 5.3.1,
"STREETS (RIGHTS-OF-WAY)", SUBSECTION 5.3.1(D),
"RIGHT-OF-WAY DIMENSIONS", OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, TO PROVIDE
THAT REQUESTS FOR A REDUCTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH
REQUIRED FOR STREETS SHALL BE UNDER THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY ENGINEER;
PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING
CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and
Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing
on MaY 18, 1998, and forwarded the change with a unanimous
recommendation of approval; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4) (c), the
Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has
determined that the change is consistent with and furthers the
objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter Five, "Subdivision Regulations",
Article 5.3, "Dedication and Impact Requirements", Section 5.3.1,
"Streets (Rights-of-Way)", Subsection 5.3.1(D), "Right-of-Way
Dimensions", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Right-of-Way Dimensions:
(1) Right-of-way shall be provided for Principal
Arterials and Minor Arterials as shown for ultimate right-of-way
width in Table Tt~ T-1 of the T~~ Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The following right-of-way width is required for
the category of other streets as identified, except as otherwise
provided in the Table Tt~ T-,! of the T~ff~ Transportation Element:
STREET TYPE
WIDTH IN FEET
County Collector
80
City Collector
80
FAILED ON FIRST READING - JUNE 2, 1998
" t
Local Commercial /
Industrial Street
60
Local Residential Street - Without Curb & Gutter
- With Curb & Gutter
60
50
Alleys
20, or existing
dominant width
(3) Additional Width: Additional right-of-way width
may be required to promote public safety and welfare; to provide for
stormwater manaqement; to provide adequate area for street trees; and
to assure adequate access, circulation and parking in high intensity
use areas. Such a determination shall be advanced by a
recommendation from the City Engineer and may be based upon the
results of a traffic study or general knowledge of the City. The
authority for requiring such additional right-of-way shall rest with
the body having the approval authority of the associated development
application.
(4) Reduction in Width: A reduction in the required
right-of-way width established in Subsection (D) (2), above, may be
granted by the City Enqineer ~/~~/~/~~/~~/~
~/~~/~~~/~~~ pursuant to the following:
(~) That requiring full dedication would
constitute a hardship in a particular
instance and that all required improvements
will be provided in a manner which will not
endanger public safety and welfare.
(~) That acceptable, alternative provisions are
made to accommodate features which would
otherwise be accommodated within the
ri~ht-of-way (e.g. alternative drainage
systems, alternative pedestrian walkways,
alternative on-street parking, etc.).
Section 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
- 2 - Ord. No. 23-98
FAILED ON FIRST READING - JUNE 2. 1998
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 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 , 1998.
ATTEST:
MAYOR
City Clerk
First Reading
Second Reading
- 3 - Ord. No. 23-98
FAILED ON FIRST READING - JUNE 2, 1998
Paul Dorling, Principal Planner, stated the County has
raised a concern that the proposed annexation will, in their
opinion, create an enclave. The City's position is that it is
decreasing an enclave, but will meet with County staff in an
effort to address their concerns.
Mayor Alperin then asked what will happen to the two
billboards currently on the site? Mr. Dorling responded that
staff will ask for their removal and it is his understanding the
applicant does not have a problem with their removal.
Mike Covelli, Caulfield & Wheeler, representing the
property owner and the contract purchaser, stated that the
applicant agrees to remove the billboards when the project goes
to construction.
Mr. Schmidt inquired why the suffix of 8 was attached
to the initial zoning instead of just going with RM zoning? Mr.
Dorling responded that the applicant requested the suffix be
applied at this time in order to make the request more palatable.
The RM-8 zoning is consistent with the suffix that was applied to
the property south of the subject property which was annexed
about a year and a half ago and is under the same ownership. He
further clarified that 8 units/acre is the maximum and that
performance standards will have to be met in order to exceed the
base density of the RM zoning district.
Mr. Egan moved to approve Ordinance No. 22-98 on FIRST
Reading, seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Upon roll call the Commission
voted as follows: Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Egan - Yes; Mr. Elling-
sworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
12,B. ORDINANCE NO. 23-98: An ordinance amending Section
5.3.1(D), "Right-of-Way Dimensions", of the Land Development
Regulations to provide that requests for a reduction of right-
of-way width required for streets shall be under the administra-
tive authority of the City Engineer. If passed, a public hearing
will be scheduled for June 16, 1998.
The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 23-98:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 5.3.1,
"STREETS (RIGHTS-OF-WAY)", SUBSECTION 5.3.1(D),
"RIGHT-OF-WAY DIMENSIONS", OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, TO
PROVIDE THAT REQUESTS FOR A REDUCTION OF RIGHT-
OF-WAY WIDTH REQUIRED FOR STREETS SHALL BE UNDER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY ENGINEER;
PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING
CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
7 6/02/98
(The official copy of Ordinance No. 23-98 is on file in
the City Clerk's office.)
The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance.
Mr. Schmidt commented that when he was a member of the
Planning and Zoning Board, it was not uncommon for a project
applicant to request a reduction in the right-of-way width within
the project so that, basically, more units could be squeezed into
the development. He stated that he has a problem delegating the
authority to make this kind of decision to the City Engineer. He
felt that since the City Commission is the final approving body
for final plats, that the authority for granting reductions in
right-of-way width should be retained as well.
On question from Mayor Alperin, .the City Manager stated
that under the proposed ordinance the City Commission would not
have the power to appeal a reduction in right-of-way that might
come through on a final plat.
Paul Dorling, Principal Planner, stated that the text
amendment was primarily written to address those situations where
facilities can be accommodated in a smaller right-of-way in a
manner that will not endanger public safety, largely for in-fill
type projects on mostly built-out streets and projects in areas
where the street pattern is established with 50 ft. rights-of-
way. The Land Development Regulations call for 60 feet of
right-of-way while most of the streets within the already devel-
oped residential street network in the City are at 50 feet and
would require an additional dedication. Mr. Dorling further
stated that the board which acts on the site plan now has the
authority to waive those dedications if it is agreeable to the
City Engineer. The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board readily
waives 60 foot streets in favor of 50 foot streets where it is
the prevailing development pattern.
Mr. Schmidt stated he would not support taking the
authority away from the boards. The City Engineer would still
make a recommendation one way or the other. He was concerned, at
least from what he saw with the larger developments, that the
City Engineer almost always went along with the request from the
developer toward a reduction in the right-of-way width because
technically it was acceptable, but not necessarily looking at it
in terms of the density issue which is something that should be
looked at by the boards and City Commission.
Upon further discussion, it was the consensus of the
Commission to redraft the proposed ordinance to reflect that
requests for a reduction in right-of-way width associated with
the development of new and larger projects continue to be re-
viewed by the appropriate board whereas requests for a reduction
of right-of-way width for in-fill housing or where the streets
are already established could be delegated to the City Engineer.
-8- 6/02/98
Mr. Randolph moved to DENY Ordinance No. 23-98 on First
Reading, with direction to staff to redraft the ordinance to
reflect the Commission's consensus. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Schmidt. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows:
Mr. Egan o Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor
Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to
0 vote.
At this point, the Commission moved to Item 11 on the
agenda.
11. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the
Public-Immediately following Public Hearings.
11.A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and
in=uiries.
In response to the questions raised at the last meeting
about the parking~eters and the gate at the City's parking lot
adjacent to the \~arriott, the City Manager reported that the
meters have now been installed and the gate is scheduled for
installation the latter part of next week.
In response to the inquiry about the status of 1000
e Ida Road (the blue building), the City Manager stated that
On April 28, 1998, the Code Enforcement Board assessed a fine of
$1,715.00 for non-compliance with permit requirements and the
City filed a lien against the property for this amount. The
parking issue was presented to the Code Enforcement Board on May
22, 1998, for non-compliance. The Board gave the property owner
a 90 day extension to comply, held an accrued fine of $2,700 and
a daily fine in abeyance until the expiration of the 90 day
extension period. The property owner has met with Planning and
Zoning and Community Improvement several times about the parking,
but has not yet submitted a site plan modification.
11.B.
From the Public.
.11.B.1. Jerry Marshall, resident of The Environment, stated he
is presently a member on the City's Education Board and his term
will be expiring in the near future. He will be out of town at
the time the appointments will be made and asked that he be
considered for reappointment.
Shirley Johnson, 701 N.W. 4th Street and President of
adise Heights Homeowners Association, stated that back at
the Town Hall meeting in February she indicated she was going to
work with the City in order to form a homeowners association in
her neighborhood. Ms. Johnson proudly announced that the Para-
dise Heights Homeowners Association has been formed, and thanked
Jennifer Hofmeister for her assistance. She stated that the
homeowners association has a long list of items to be worked on,
foremost of which is paving and improving the City streets. She
hoped that the City's work program for improving the streets in
-9- 6/02/98
TO:
FROM:
DAVID T. HARDEN
C(~~NAGER ·
PAUL DORLING, P II~,N~IPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
SUBJECT:
MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1998
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS SECTION 5.3.1(D), RIGHT-OF-WAY DIMENSIONS
Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4), the required right-of-way for local residential streets,
whether public or private, is 60' for a street without curb and gutter (swale section), and 50' for a
street with curb and gutter.
Reductions in the required right-of-way width are allowed by the Land Development Regulations
(LDR), where facilities can be accommodated in a smaller right-of-way in a manner that will not
endanger public safety. Each of these reductions in width requires a Board action and the
payment of a fee by the applicant. Reductions in the required right-of-way are commonly granted,
such that the normal width for a street with swale section is 50'. For infill type projects, those on
mostly built-out streets, and projects in areas where the street pattern is established with 50'
rights-of-way, additional right-of-way is required as needed to achieve a 50' width. Additional right-
of-way width may also be required, for safety roasons, by the City Engineer.
As the decision whether the required right-of-way should be reduced is a technical one, it is
appropriate that the decision be under the administrative authority of the City Engineer. Therefore,
the proposed amendment changes the granting of a reduction from one needing Board approval
to an administrative process under the control of the City Engineer. The amendment further
strengthens the option to require additional right-of-way to assure provision of sufficient right-of-
way in areas with poor drainage that may require additional swale capacity, or in areas where
street trees are likely to be placed in the right-of-way. In addition, corrections are proposed which
update the LDR's cross references to the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning and Zoning Board considered the text amendment at a public hearing on May 18,
1998. No one from the public spoke on this item and the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously
recommended approval on a 6-0 vote (Young absent).
By motion, approve the attached amendment to LDR Section 5.3.1(D) [Right-of-Way Dimensions]
based on positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5).
Attachments: ,~l~) ~
· P&Z Staff Repod ~
MEETING OF:
AGENDA ITEM:
May 18, 1998
IV. E. AMENDMENT' TO
REGULATIONS SECTION
DIMENSIONS
LAND DEVELOPMENT
5.3.1 (D),RIGHT-OF-WAY
The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the City
Commission regarding a change in the administration of requests for reduction of
the right-of-way width required for streets.
Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4), the required right-of-way for local
residential streets, whether public or private, is 60' for a street without curb and
gutter (swale section), and 50' for a street with curb and gutter. Reductions in
the required width may be granted by the Board having approval authority.
Existing local street rights-of-way in the City commonly range between 40' and
60'. The majodty of streets in new subdivisions, and in most existing
neighborhoods, have swales for drainage. Curb and gutter sections are mostly
confined to the downtown area.
In the older parts of the City, east of 1-95, local street rights-of-way are usually
50', although a significant number of streets are 40' wide or less. Exceptions
exist in Tropic Palms, and in the northern portion of the Lake Ida neighborhood,
where streets are 60'. Other 60' rights-of-way appear to have been intended to
be main streets within a development, such as Venetian Drive, and SE 9th Street
west of Federal Highway.
West of 1-95, right-of-way widths are more variable, although 50' is the most
common width. Right-of-way widths in this area of newer development reflect
road function within the development and, to some extent, the time period of
development. DeI-Aire Golf Club was built under County regulations with 60'
rights-of-way and later annexed in into the City. Sherwood Park is a large lot
single family subdivision with 60' rights-of-way. In Andover, Windy Creek, and
Sherwood Forest, the rights-of-way are 40'. .In many of the planned
P&Z Board Staff Report
Amendment to Land Development Regulations - Section 5.3.1(D), Right-of-Way Dimensions
Page 2
communities, such as Rainberry Bay and Sabal Lakes, the main loop road in the
subdivision is 60' wide, while other local streets are 50' wide. A common theme
in these western developments is size - they are usually much larger than
developments east of !-95, with space for storm drainage facilities, pedestrian
paths, and landscaping outside the street right-of-way. This allows designers
more flexibility in placing components that would normally be found in the right-
of-way, and can result in a reduced width.
Reductions in the required right-of-way width are allowed by the Land
Development Regulations (LDR), where facilities can be accommodated in a
smaller right-of-way in a manner that will not endanger public safety. Additional
right-of-way width may also be required, for safety reasons, by the City Engineer.
Reductions in the required right-of-way are commonly granted, such that the
normal width for a street with swale section is 50'. For infill type projects, those
on mostly built-out streets, and projects in areas where the street pattern is
established with 50' rights-of-way, additional right-of-way is required as needed
to achieve a 50' width. Each of these reductions in width requires a Board action
and the payment of a fee by the applicant. Recommendations have been made
by staff that the process for granting a reduction in the required right-of-way
width be changed from one needing Board approval to an administrative process
under the control of the City Engineer.
Traditional street rights-of-way are designed to contain more than the travelway.
They also contain drainage facilities (either swales or curbs and gutters, and
storm drainage pipes and structures), water and sewer facilities, sidewalks,
street lights, street trees, and furniture such as benches. Each of these facilities
require space to allow installation (at appropriate clearances) and maintenance.
A typical local street with swales contains at least the following facilities:
Travelway (2 lanes)
Sidewalks (2)
Offsets (2) between r/w and sidewalks
Swales (2), which include utility strips
24'
10'
2'
24'
Total 60'
The hard surface (streets and sidewalks) in this typical section requires only
about 34' of right-of-way. The additional public area is the swale area, which is a
shallow, sodded ditch for drainage. Swales have two storm water management
functions: to contain and convey runoff to a storm sewer facility; and to clean
runoff of pollutants through percolation (pre-treatment). The permeable swale
P&Z Board Staff Report
Amendment to Land Development Regulations - Section 5.3.1(D), Right-of-Way Dimensions
Page 3
allows runoff to be detained, with some stormwater returned to the groundwater
(recharge). In a curb and gutter street section, runoff is carried in the concrete
gutter, without detention, to storm sewer facilities. Pre-treatment and recharge
functions must be carried out in separate facilities outside the right-of-way.
In addition, if trees are planted between the property line and the sidewalk, or
between the sidewalk and the street, they must be well separated from utility
installations to prevent damage to utilities caused by roots.
As alluded 'to earlier, newer development design often places some of the
traditional street components outside the right-of-way. Stormwater retention
areas such as lakes and large green areas are centrally located, street trees are
located adjacent to but outside the right-of-way, pedestrian circulation systems
can be completely separated from the street system. This allows significant
design flexibility, and reduces the need for a wide right-of-way.
Recognition of this design flexibility allows reconsideration of the City's process
for considering reductions in the standard width for local residential streets.
Since a decision whether the required fight-of-way should be reduced is a
technical one, it is appropriate that the decision be under the administatrative
authority of the City Engineer. The option to require additional right-of-way
should be strengthened, to assure provision of sufficient right-of-way in areas
with poor drainage that may require additional swale capacity, or in areas where
street trees are likely to be placed in the right-of-way.
in addition to the change in the standard right-of-way width, corrections are
recommended to update the cross references to the Comprehensive Plan.
By motion, recommend that the City Commission amend LDR Section 5.3.1(D)-
[Right-of-Way Dimensions] as follows:
(D) Right-of-Way Dimensions:
(1) Right-Of-way shall be provided for Principal Arterials and
Minor Arterials as shown for ultimate right-of-way width in Table -T--4 T-1 of the
Trc~c Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The following right-of-way width is required for the category
of other streets as identified, except as otherwise provided in Table :¥--4. T-1 of
the Trc~c Transportation Element:
P&Z Board Staff Report
Amendment to Land Development Regulations - Section 5.3.1(D), Right-of-Way Dimensions
Page 4
8O
8O
Local Commercial / Industrial Street 60
Local Residential Street
· Without Curb and Gutter
· With Curb and Gutter
Alleys
60
50
20, Or Existing Dominant Width
(3) Additional Width: Additional right-of-way width may be
required to promote' public safety and welfare; to provide for storm water
management; to provide adequate area for street trees; and, to assure adequate
access, circulation, and parking in high intensity use areas. Such a
determination shall be advanced by a recommendation from the City Engineer
and may be based upon the results of a traffic study or general knowledge of the
City. The authority for requiring such additional right-of-way shall rest with the
body having the approval authority of the associated development application.
(4) Reduction in Width: A reduction in the required right-of-
way width established in Subsection (D)(2), above, may be granted by the Ci_ty
Enqineer bcdy h3v~ng *~' .........' ""*~'"'~*" "~ *~' ...... ;"~"'~ '" .... ' .... n~
~.~.~.,,.....,..,---"-'"'-*;'--', pursuant to the following:
That requiring full dedication would constitute a
hardship in a particular instance and that all required
improvements will be provided in a manner which will
not endanger public safety and welfare
That acceptable, alternative provisions are made to
accommodate features which would otherwise be
accommodated within the right-of-way e.g. alternative
drainage systems, alternative pedestrian walkways,
alternative on-street parking, etc.
S:\row8
5.3.1 (D) Ri_oht-of-Way Dimensions:
(1) Right-of-way shall be provided for Principal Arterials and Minor Arterials
as shown for ultimate right-of-way width in Table T-'I, T-1 of the Tr=~c Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The following right-of-way width is required for the category of other
streets as identified, except as otherwise provided in Table -T-4 T-1 of the Tr=~c Transportation
Element:
County Collector 80
City Collector 80
Local Commercial / Industrial Street 60
Local Residential Street
· Without Curb and Gutter
· With Curb and Gutter
60
5O
Alleys 20, Or Existing Dominant Width
(3) Additional Width: Additional right-of-way width may be required to
promote public safety and welfare; to provide for storm water management: to provide ade(~uate
area for street trees: and, to assure adequate access, circulation, and parking in high intensity use
areas. Such a determination shall be advanced by a recommendation from the City Engineer and
may be based upon the results of a traffic study or general knowledge of the City. The authority
for requiring such additional right-of-way shall rest with the body having the approval authority of
the associated development application.
(4) Reduction in Width: A reduction in the required right-of-way width
established in Subsection (D)(2), above, may be granted by the City Engineer bedy-.ha~P~e
........ ' -',,*~"--~*,' '-~ *~"- ~=scci3t~d d~v~!cpm~nt ~"-";-"~*~'-" pursuant to the following:
~P'I~'v'~' ~"'~'"7 v ..... ~l"t''''v~''v''
That requiring full dedication would constitute a hardship in a
particular instance and that all required improvements will be
provided in a manner which will not endanger public safety and
welfare
That acceptable, alternative provisions are made to
accommodate features which would otherwise be
accommodated within the right-of-way e.g. alternative drainage
systems, alternative pedestrian walkways, alternative on-street
parking, etc.
S:\row8