02-07-12 Regular MeetingCity of Delray Beach
Regular Commission Meeting
RULES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Tuesday,
February 7,
2012
Regular
Meeting 6:00
p.m.
Public
Hearings 7:00
p.m.
Delray Beach
City Hall
1. PUBLIC COMMENT : The public is encouraged to offer comments with t he order
of presentation being as follows: City Staff, publi c comments, Commission discussion
and official action. City Commission meetings are b usiness meetings and the right to
limit discussion rests with the Commission. Generally, remarks by an individual will
be limited to three minutes or less . The Mayor or presiding officer has discretion to
adjust the amount of time allocated.
A.Public Hearings: Any citizen is entitled to speak o n items under this section.
B.Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public: Any citizen is
entitled to be heard concerning any matter within t he scope of jurisdiction of the
Commission under this section. The Commission may w ithhold comment or
direct the City Manager to take action on requests or comments.
C.Regular Agenda and First Reading Items: Public inpu t on agendaed items, other
than those that are specifically set for a formal p ublic hearing, shall be allowed
when agreed by consensus of the City Commission.
2. SIGN IN SHEET : Prior to the start of the Commission Meeting, ind ividuals
wishing to address public hearing or non-agendaed items should sign in on the sheet
located on the right side of the dais. If you are n ot able to do so prior to the start of the
meeting, you may still address the Commission on an appropriate item. The primary
purpose of the sign-in sheet is to assist staff with record keeping. Th erefore, when you
come up to the podium to speak, please complete the sign-in sheet if you have not
already done so.
3. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION : At the appropriate time, please step up to
the podium and state your name and address for the record. All comments must be
addressed to the Commission as a body and not to in dividuals. Any person making
impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes bo isterous while addressing the
Commission shall be barred by the presiding officer from speaking further, unless
permission to continue or again address the Commiss ion is granted by a majority vote
of the Commission members present.
APPELLATE PROCEDURES
Please be advised that if a person decides to appea l 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.
100 N.W. 1st
Avenue
Delray Beach,
FL 33444
Phone: (561)
243-7000
Fax: (561)
243-3774
The City will furnish auxiliary aids and services t o afford an individual with a
disability an opportunity to participate in and enj oy the benefits of a service,
program, or activity conducted by the City. Contact Doug Smith at 243-7010, 24
hours prior to the event in order for the City to a ccommondate your request.
Adaptive listening devices are available for meetin gs in the Commission
Chambers.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
A.NONE
4. AGENDA APPROVAL
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A.January 17, 2012 – Regular Meeting
6. PROCLAMATIONS:
A.Recognizing 2 -1 -1 Awareness Week – February 11 -17, 2012
B.Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of Family Centra l, Inc.– February 11, 2012
7. PRESENTATIONS:
A.Presentation of Danielle Connor as the Newly Appoin ted Delray Beach Fire Chief
B.S.P.I.R.I.T. (Service, Performance, Integrity, Resp onsibility, Innovation, Teamwork)
Committee Quarterly Awards Presentation.
C.CVS Caremark National League of Cities Prescription Discount Card Program
8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval
A. RESOLUTION NO. 07 -12 (TAX EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR ELIGIBLE
IMPROVEMENTS/124 NORTH SWINTON AVENUE): Approve a tax exemption
request for eligible improvements to the property l ocated at 124 North Swinton
within the Old School Square Historic District; and approve Resolution No. 07 -12.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 06 -12: ABANDONMENT OF AN ALLEY; VETERANS OF
FOREIGN WARS (VFW): Approve Resolution No. 06 -12 abandoning a 16 ’ east -west
alley located south of and adjacent to the former V eterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
building located at 5 S.E. 2nd Avenue.
C. AGREEMENT EXTENSION/DR. JOHN FLETEMEYER/SEA TURTLE
MONITORING SERVICES: Approve an agreement extension for three (3) year s
with Dr. John Fletemeyer in the amount of $38,750.0 0 for sea turtle monitoring
services. Funding is available from 332 -4164 -572 -34.90 (Beach Restoration Fund:
Other Contractual Services).
D. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/COMMUNI TY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) FOR FUNDING OF
CONSTRUCTION/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: Approve Amendment No. 2 to the
Interlocal Agreement with the Community Redevelopme nt Agency (CRA) for funding
of construction costs and professional services for certain projects as listed on Exhibit
“A ” attached to the Agreement for FY 11/12 .
E. AGREEMENTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES: Approve Agreements with
Currie Sowards Aguila Architects, Walters Zackria & Associates, Inc., David Miller
and Associates, Slattery & Associates and Bridges M arsh & Associates for
architectural services for capital improvement proj ects contained in the City ’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
F. FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE DECLARATION OF RESERVED RIGH TS AND
AGREEMENT NOT TO ENCUMBER N.E. 7 TH AVENUE RELATED TO THE
ATLANTIC PLAZA PROJECT: Approve the Fifth Amendment to the Declaration
of Reserved Rights and Agreement not to Encumber N.E. 7 th Avenue regarding the
abandonment and relocation of N.E. 7 th Avenue between N.E. 1 st Street and East
Atlantic Avenue, to extend the time frame to obtain site plan certification by 180 days.
G. FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCHANGE AGREEMENT/DEPOT INDUSTR IAL
CENTER, LLC.: Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement to Exchange Real
Property between the City and Depot Industrial Cent er, LLC. to extend the closing
date to on or before February 29, 2012.
H. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT WITH DELRAY BEACH PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS & PARAMEDICS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION: Approve a
Hold Harmless Agreement with Delray Beach Professio nal Firefighters & Paramedics
Benevolent Association to store a 1929 Ford Model A at Fire Station 4.
I. FY 2012 PROPOSED PERFORMANCE MEASURES/GOLF COURSES AND
TENNIS FACILITIES: Approve proposed performance measures for FY 2012 for the
Municipal Golf Course, Lakeview Golf Course, and Te nnis Facilities.
J. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/PALM BEACH COUNTY/OLD SCHOOL
SQUARE, INC./CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Approve an Interlocal Agreement
between Palm Beach County, Old School Square Inc. a nd the City of Delray Beach in
the amount of $100,000.00 for funding to purchase a nd install a replacement sound
system for the Old School Square Pavilion.
K. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS : Accept
the actions and decisions made by the Land Developm ent Boards for the period
January 17, 2012 through February 3, 2012.
L.AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS:
1.Purchase award to Florida Bullet in the amount of $65,635.65 to purchase
ammunition for training, on -duty -use and the S.W.A.T. team. Funding is
available from 001 -2111 -521 -52.20 (General Fund: Operating Supplies/General
Operational Supplies) and 001 -2115 -521 -52.19 (General Fund: Operating
Supplies/SWAT Expenditures).
9. REGULAR AGENDA:
A.WAIVER REQUEST/ABBEY DELRAY SOUTH: Consider a waiver request to Land
Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c )(2), “Stacking Distance ”, to
allow a reduction from 100 ’ to 80 ’ for the stacking distance requirement for the
guardhouse at the main entrance to Abbey Delray Sou th, located at 1717 Homewood
Boulevard. (Quasi -Judicial Hearing)
B.CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST/SWINTON SOCIAL: Consider a conditional use
request to permit outdoor dining to operate at nigh t at Swinton Social located at 27 -43
South Swinton Avenue, as required for properties lo cated within the Old School
Square Historic Arts District. (Quasi -Judicial Hearing)
C.REQUEST FOR IN -LIEU PARKING SPACES/GROVE RESTAURANT: Consider
a request from Grove Restaurant for the purchase of three (3) in -lieu parking spaces
in the amount of $23,400.00 located at 187 N.E. 2 nd Avenue. (Quasi -Judicial Hearing)
D.FRANCHISE AGREEMENT/WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC: Consider a
proposed extension of the Franchise Agreement as r equested by Waste Management,
Inc.
E.CONTRACT CLOSEOUT (C.O. NO. 3/FINAL)/MURRAY LOGAN
CONSTRUCTION, INC.: Consider approval of a Contract Closeout (Change Order
No. 3/Final) in the amount of a $15,229.90 decrease and final payment in the amount
of $71,535.10 to Murray Logan Construction, Inc. for completion o f the Mangrove
Park Boat Ramp Reconstruction Project. Funding is a vailable 334 -4174 -572 -63.90
(General Construction Fund/Improvements Other/Other Improvements).
F.CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 (C.O. NO. 2)/INTERCOUNTY ENGINEE RING,
INC.: Consider approval of Change Order No. 2 to Interco unty Engineering, Inc. for
a contract time extension of fourteen (14) days and approval for $10,400.00 to be paid
out of the Contract's Utility Allowance for additio nal scope, for removal of 1,300
additional linear feet of 2" water main for the Osc eola Park Water Main Phase 2
Project #2010 -082.
G.BID AWARD/ ACCURATE EVENT GROUP : Consider approval of a bid award to
Accurate Event Group in an amount not to exceed $3 4,102.07 for private security
services from February 24, 2012 through March 5, 20 12 for the Champions/World
Tour Tennis Tournament and authorize staff to negot iate a lower price. Funding is
available from 001 -4210 -575 -55.40 (General Fund: Recreational Supplies/Tennis
Tournament ).
H.SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/ASIAN TRADE, FOOD FAIR AND CU LTURAL
SHOW: Consider approval of a special event request to a llow the 19th Annual Asian
Trade, Food Fair and Cultural Show sponsored by the Bangladesh Association of
Florida, to be held on March 24 -25, 2012 from 12:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on the
grounds of Old School Square and in the Old School Square Park; to grant a
temporary use permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(F) for t he closure and use of a portion of
N.E. 1st Avenue, to authorize staff support for tra ffic control and security, site
cleanup and trash removal, EMS assistance, standard event signage and assistance
with banner hanging; use of the Old School Square G arage, City generator, four light
towers, and trash boxes; and to waive the Event Pol icies and Procedures to allow
more than two (2) major events in March; contingent upon meeting the conditions
listed in the staff report.
I.OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN SONDRA COMISAR v. CITY OF DE LRAY
BEACH: Consider an Offer of Settlement in the total amou nt of $27,500.00 in Sondra
Comisar v. City of Delray Beach. Staff recommends a pproval.
J.OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN RICHARD WEINSTEIN, PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JASON WEINSTEIN, DE CEASED v.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Consider an Offer of Settlement in the total amount of
$25,000.00 in Richard Weinstein, as Personal Repres entative of the Estate of Jason
Weinstein, Deceased v. City of Delray Beach.
K.DIRECTION ON FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE: Consider providing direction to staff
on the type of fire assessment fee, if any, to incl ude a new notice of public hearing to
property owners.
L.APPOINTMENT TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD: Appoint one (1)
alternate member to the Code Enforcement Board to s erve an unexpired term ending
January 14, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, t he appointment will be made by
Commissioner Carney (Seat #1).
M.APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC ART ADVISORY BOARD: Appoint one (1)
regular member to the Public Art Advisory Board to serve an unexpired term ending
July 31, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by
Mayor McDuffie (Seat #5).
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A.ORDINANCE NO. 03 -12 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING):
Consider a city -initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulat ions
(LDR), amending Section 4.3.3, “Specific Requirements for Specific Uses ”, by
amending Subsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Use ”, in order to clarify
prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers, and p enalties for same; amending
Appendix “A ”, “Definitions ”, in order to amend the definition of “Transient
Residential Use ”. If passed, a second public hearing will be held on February 21,
2012.
B.RESOLUTION NO. 08 -12/CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE/210 N.E. 5 TH
COURT: Consider approval of Resolution No. 08 -12, a contract for sale and
purchase, authorizing the City to sell the Neighbor hood Stabilization Program
property located at 210 N.E. 5 th Court to Paul Milne and Jennifer Hong Dubowy in
the amount of the lesser of $208,000.00 or the bank appraised value.
11. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC-
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A.City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries.
B.From the Public.
12. FIRST READINGS:
A.ORDINANCE NO. 04 -12: Consider a city -initiated amendment to the Land
Development Regulations (LDR), by amending Section 2.4.7(G), “Requests for
Accommodation ”; Subsections (1), “Purpose ”, and (8), “Request Form for
Reasonable Accommodation ”, in order to remove obsolete references, in order to
update same; enacting a new Subsection 2.4.7(G)(9), “Expiration of Approvals ” to
provide an expiration date for untimely implementat ion of approvals. If passed, a
public hearing will be held on February 21, 2012.
B.ORDINANCE NO. 06 -12: Consider a city -initiated amendment to the Land
Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.16, “Landscape Regulations ”, to provide
an updated landscape code. If passed, a public hear ing will be held on February 21,
2012.
C.ORDINANCE NO. 07 -12: Consider a city -initiated amendment to the Land
Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.9, “Off -Street Parking Regulations ”,
Subsection 4.6.9(C), “Number of Parking Spaces Required ”, Sub -subsection 4.6.9(C)
(1)(c), “Bicycle Parking ”, to establish new regulations for bicycle parking an d
amending Appendix “A ”, “Definitions ”, to provide definitions for short term, medium
term and long term parking facilities. If passed, a public hearing will be held on
February 21, 2012 .
D.ORDINANCE NO. 08 -12: Consider a city -initiated amendment to Chapter 117,
“Landlord Permits ”, of the Code of Ordinances, by amending Section 117.01, “Permit
Required ”, to clarify when a permit is required; amending Sect ion 117.03, “Approval
of Application ”, to provide additional requirements; amending Sectio n 117.04,
“Denial or Revocation of Permit Application; Appeals ”, to clarify grounds for
revocation; and amending Section 117.06, “Tenant/Occupant Eviction ”, to ensure
notice and due process rights are followed or alter nate housing is provided. If passed,
a public hearing will be held on February 21, 2012.
13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
A.City Manager
B.City Attorney
C.City Commission
01/17/12
JANUARY 17, 2012
A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Del ray Beach,
Florida, was called to order by Vice Mayor Gray in the Commis sion Chambers at City
Hall at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 17, 2012.
1. Roll call showed:
Present - Commissioner Tom Carney
Commissioner Jay Alperin
Commissioner Adam Frankel
Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray
Absent - Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie
Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager
Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
Brian Shutt, City Attorney
Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk
2. The opening prayer was delivered by Reverend Kathleen Gannon with St.
Paul’s Episcopal Church.
3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of A merica was
given.
4. AGENDA APPROVAL.
Vice Mayor Gray stated the applicant has requested that Item 9.D.,
Special Event Request/Delray Beach Twilight Festival 5K Run , be removed from the
Regular Agenda.
Mr. Carney requested that Item 8.D., Change Order No. 1/Randolph &
Dewdney Construction, Inc./Pompey Concession Stand , of the Consent Agenda be
moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 9.A.A.
Vice Mayor Gray stated there is updated information for Item 9.H.,
Discussion of the Garbage Rate Comparison . Also, Vice Mayor Gray stated there is
additional information for Item 10.A., Resolution No. 02-12 .
Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mr.
Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alp erin – Yes; Mr.
Frankel – Yes; Vice Mayor Gray – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4
to 0 vote.
2
01/17/12
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting o f
January 3, 2011, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as
follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Vice Mayor Gray – Yes; Mr. Ca rney – Yes; Dr. Alperin –
Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote.
Mr. Carney moved to approve the Minutes of the Special/Workshop
Meeting of January 10, 2012, seconded by Dr. Alperin. Upon roll call the Commission
voted as follows: Vice Mayor Gray – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr.
Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote.
6. PROCLAMATIONS:
6.A. All People’s Day ® – March 22, 2012
Vice Mayor Gray read and presented a proclamation hereby p roclaiming
March 22, 2012 as All People’s Day in the City of Delray Beach. Susan Berkowitz-
Schwarz came forward to accept the proclamation and gave a few brief c omments.
6.B. Recognizing Black History Month – February 2012
Vice Mayor Gray read and presented a proclamation hereby p roclaiming
the month of February 2012 as Black History Month to Lula Butler, Dire ctor of
Community Improvement. Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvem ent, came
forward to accept the proclamation.
7. PRESENTATIONS:
7.A. RESOLUTION NO. 04-12: Approve Resolution No. 04-12 recognizing
and commending Michael Kosick for 30 years of dedicated service to t he City of Delray
Beach.
The caption of Resolution No. 04-12 is as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, RECOGNIZING
AND COMMENDING MICHAEL L. KOSICK FOR
THIRTY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH.
(The official copy of Resolution No. 04-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s
office.)
Vice Mayor Gray read and presented Resolution No. 04-12.
3
01/17/12
Mr. Frankel moved to approve Resolution No. 04-12, seconded by Mr.
Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin
– Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Vice Mayor Gray – Yes. Said moti on passed with a 4 to 0
vote.
Mr. Kosick came forward to accept the resolution and thanked the Cit y.
Chief Strianese came forward and gave a few brief comments.
8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval.
8.A. CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT/CH2M HILL, INC. TO CH2M HILL
ENGINEERS, INC.: Approve a Consent to Assignment agreement for professional
services, from CH2M Hill, Inc. to CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc.
8.B. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA)/DOWNTOWN ROUNDABOUT SHUTTLE: Approve an
Interlocal Agreement with the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) in the amount
of $300,000.00 per year which provides funding to the City for continued shuttle b us
operational and capital costs for FY 2012 and 2013.
8.C. JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA)/FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT): Approval to execute a Joint
Participation Agreement (JPA) with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to
reimburse the City $300,000.00 for the operational and capital costs of the Downtown
Roundabout Shuttle.
8.D. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1/RANDOLPH & DEWDNEY
CONSTRUCTION, INC./POMPEY CONCESSION STAND: Approve Change
Order No. 1 with Randolph & Dewdney Construction, Inc. for a contract ti me extension
of twenty (20) days and authorize the amount of $19,426.50 to be paid out of the
Contract's Contingency Allowance, for the reconstruction of the secon d floor of the
concession stand building.
8.E. EXTENDING FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT (FMLA)
BENEFITS TO DOMESTIC PARTNERS: Amend the Family Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) Administrative Policy to extend FMLA benefits so that employees in a
registered domestic partnership could care for their domestic p artners in the same manner
as married employees can take FMLA leave to care for their spouses.
8.F. REVISED WORKFORCE HOUSING COVENANT/FLORANDA
MHP, LLC AND NEW CENTURY EXECUTIVE QUARTERS, LLC: Approve a
revised Workforce Housing Covenant, as proposed between the City and Floranda MHP,
LLC and New Century Executive Quarters, LLC.
8.G. RESOLUTION NO. 05-12/AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY
COMMITTEE: Approve Resolution No. 05-12 amending Resolution No. 12-08 to
provide for changes to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
4
01/17/12
The caption of Resolution No. 05-12 is as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 12-08 TO PROVIDE FOR
CHANGES TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Resolution No. 05-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s
office.)
8.H. INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES/PUBLIC FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT (PFM) ASSET, LLC: Approve an agreement with Public Financial
Management (PFM) Asset, LLC to provide government investment advis ory
services. The investment advisory services agreement will incorp orate the City of Lake
Worth’s RFP (10-11-102) as well as PFM’s bid response.
8.I. AGREEMENT/LANGTON ASSOCIATES, INC./LOCAL ENERGY
ASSURANCE PLAN (LEAP) & TRAINING: Approve an agreement with Langton
Associates, Inc. in the amount of $40,000.00 for providing services under the Local
Energy Assurance Plan Grant from the U.S. Department of Energy; subject to approval of
the final agreement by the City Attorney’s Office. Funding is available from 101-6354-
519-31.90 (ARRA Economic Stimulus FD: Accounting & Auditing/Audit & Ac counting
Fees).
8.J. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boa rds
for the period January 3, 2012 through January 13, 2012.
8.K. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Bid award to F2 Industries, LLC in the estimated annual cost of
$94,920.00 for the purchase and delivery of Poly Phosphate for the
Water Treatment Plant. Funding is available from 441-5122-536-
52.21 (Water and Sewer Fund: Operating Supplies/Chemicals).
2. Bid award to Rosso Paving & Drainage, Inc. in the amount of
$36,000.00 for sidewalk construction along the alley just south of
20 North Swinton Avenue (the CRA). Funding is available from
334-3162-541-63.11(General Construction Fund: Improvements
Other Than Buildings: Bikepaths/Sidewalks).
3. Bid award to Gulfstream Carpet, Inc. in the amount of $20,305.80
for approximately 1,134 yards of indoor/outdoor carpet with trim
for the Tennis Stadium. Funding is available from 334-4145-572-
46.90 (General Construction Fund: Repair & Maintenance
Services/Other Repair/Maintenance Costs).
5
01/17/12
Mr. Carney moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, seconded
by Dr. Alperin. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr.
Frankel – Yes; Vice Mayor Gray – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4
to 0 vote.
9. REGULAR AGENDA:
9.A.A. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1/RANDOLPH & DEWDNEY
CONSTRUCTION, INC./POMPEY CONCESSION STAND: Approve Change
Order No. 1 with Randolph & Dewdney Construction, Inc. for a contract ti me extension
of twenty (20) days and authorize the amount of $19,426.50 to be paid out of the
Contract's Contingency Allowance, for the reconstruction of the secon d floor of the
concession stand building.
Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer, stated this is a change order for the
Pompey Park concession stand for a contract time extension of t wenty (20) days required
to perform additional scope for the reconstruction of the second floor of the concession
stand building. The additional work will cost $19,426.50 and will be paid f rom the
Contract’s Contingency Allowance.
Mr. Carney stated any time we have a contract with a Change O rder it
should not be placed on the Consent Agenda and that it be on the Regular Age nda to give
the Commission the opportunity to understand why there is a change. Mr. Carney stated
with respect to Change Orders in generally, he feels they nee d to be looked at very
carefully because when people contract to do a job for a cer tain price that people should
hold themselves to that price. Mr. Carney asked how much of the conti ngency is left
after the $19,426.50. Mr. Krejcarek stated the contingency was around $30,000.00 a nd a
small amount was taken out for testing leaving approximately $10,000.00. Mr. Carney
expressed concern that the contingency fund is 65% depleted in the fi rst one month of the
construction.
Mr. Frankel stated he voted against this when this was previously
discussed and thought that a project coming in double of the origina l budget was
excessive. Mr. Frankel also stated that there would be a change or der or two coming
forward and he cannot support this.
Vice Mayor Gray asked where the water damage was coming f rom. Mr.
Krejcarek stated the extent of the damage was water damage that you cannot see unless
you start peeling away the side of the building. Mr. Krejca rek stated when they started
taking away the side of the building to do the expansion of the second floor is when the
water damage was discovered. Staff brought on a structural e ngineer to give advice and
the recommendation was to take it all out and start over. Vice M ayor Gray asked how far
along are we with the project and are there any other unforese en things that we may need
to look at. Mr. Krejcarek stated they are about 15% into the constr uction of this project.
At this point, Mr. Krejcarek stated staff does not foresee any thing more like this
happening and all the demolition is complete.
6
01/17/12
Mr. Carney stated he will support this because it is within t he contingency.
However, he reiterated that as staff is 15% into this project they have depleted 65% of the
contingency funds and he will look very carefully at any future requests for cha nge orders
to see whether or not staff could have anticipated that event wit hin the original pricing
bid.
Dr. Alperin moved to approve Change Order No. 1/Randolph & Dewdney
Construction, Inc./Pompey Concession Stand, seconded by Mr. Carney. Up on roll call
the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – No; Vice Mayor Gray – Yes; Mr.
Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 t o 1 vote, Commissioner
Frankel dissenting.
9.A. WAIVER REQUEST/CHASE BANK: Consider a waiver request to
Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.4.12(F)(2), “Planned Comm ercial (PC)
District”, to reduce the minimum required floor area for a free standing structure from
6,000 square feet to 4,423 square feet for Chase Bank, located on the north side of Linton
Boulevard east of Military Trail within Delray Town Center. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing)
Vice Mayor Gray read the City of Delray Beach Quasi-Judi cial rules into
the record for this item and all subsequent Quasi-Judicial items.
Chevelle D. Nubin, MMC, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who
wished to give testimony on this item.
Vice Mayor Gray asked the Commission to disclose their ex p arte
communications. The Commission had no ex parte communications to disclose.
Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered the
Planning and Zoning Department project file #2012-014 into the record.
Mr. Dorling stated this is a waiver request to LDR Section 4.4.12(F)(2) to
reduce the minimum required floor area for a free standing struc ture from 6,000 square
feet to 4,423 square feet for the new Chase Bank which will be locat ed in the Albertson’s
shopping center. There is currently an old Blockbuster video stor e and they are
proposing to tear it down and put up a new Chase Bank. The exis ting square footage on
the blockbuster video store is 6,500 and this would be a reduction to 4,423 squa re feet.
Mr. Dorling stated this shopping center was approved in 1990 for 91,000 squar e feet of
shopping center and two 5,000 square feet out parcels. In 1991, a subsequent
modification shifted 3,500 square feet which is also below the minimum freestanding
floor area required by the LDRs. However, the bank square footage of 3,500 square feet
was approved for the Palm Beach County Bank (now known as TD Bank) pr ior to the
rezoning of the property to PC zone district in October 1, 1990, whi ch now requires a
minimum of 6,000 square feet per building.
At its meeting of December 14, 2011, the Site Plan Review and
Appearance Board (SPRAB) reviewed the waiver request and recom mended approval
with a 4 to 0 vote.
7
01/17/12
The applicant was not present.
Vice Mayor Gray stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in
favor or in opposition of the waiver request, to please come forwa rd at this time. There
being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission re garding the
waiver request, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Carney stated with regard to the site plan and in analyzing the size of
the structure, credit is not really given for the drive-thru whi ch is part of the bank
structure although it is an exterior portion of the bank. Mr. Dorli ng stated Mr. Carney is
correct. Mr. Carney asked if the bank drive-thru were added woul d the applicant have
complied with the square footage. Mr. Dorling stated including the canopy area the
applicant would have complied with the square footage.
The City Attorney reviewed the Board Order with the Commission w ho
made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a co py and made an
official part of the minutes).
Dr. Alperin moved to adopt the Board Order as presented, seconded by
Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Vic e Mayor Gray – Yes;
Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to
0 vote.
9.B. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/PALM BEACH
COUNTY/FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT (FPL)/DIGITAL DIVIDE PR OJECT:
Consider approval of an Interlocal Agreement with Palm Beach Count y and FPL in the
annual amount of $8,780.31 for payment of pole attachments and electrical fees required
for the Digital Divide project in the West Atlantic Avenue area.
The City Manager stated this is for the Digital Divide pro ject the City of
Delray Beach is doing jointly with Palm Beach County and the Palm Beach County
School District. He stated under the agreement the City would pay the annual fees that
FPL has for pole attachments and electrical fees with an annua l cost estimated at
$8,780.31. Staff recommends approval of the Interlocal Agreement so that this project
can move forward. The City Manager stated the Mayor has reporte d they have raised
over $100,000.00 toward the capital cost of the project.
Dr. Alperin moved to approve Interlocal Agreement with Palm Be ach
County and Florida Power and Light (FPL) in the amount of $8,780.31, seconded by M r.
Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin
– Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Vice Mayor Gray - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0
vote.
9.C. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/1ST ANNUAL WINE AND
SEAFOOD FESTIVAL : Consider approval and endorsement of the 1st Annual Wine
and Seafood Festival, sponsored by Greater Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce
8
01/17/12
proposed to be held on November 10, 2012 from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and
November 11, 2012 from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., with alternate dates of Nove mber 3 &
4, 2012, pending dates for the Chris Evert Tennis Tournament; grant a te mporary use
permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(F) for closure and use of Atlantic Avenue from the west
side of Bronson to the east side of the Intracoastal from 3:00 p.m., Friday, November 9,
2012 through approximately 10:00 p.m. Sunday, November 11, 2012; and authorize sta ff
support for traffic control and security, EMS services and Fire inspections, barricading,
and event signage; contingent upon the conditions of approval listed in the staff repo rt.
Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated this is a request for
the Commission to approve a special event permit for a Wine and Seafood Festival
produced by the Chamber of Commerce proposed to be held November 10, 2012 from
11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and November 11, 2012 from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mr.
Barcinski stated the alternate date is no longer needed because h e was advised that the
Chris Evert event is scheduled for the last weekend in October 2012. The Commission is
also requested to approve a temporary use permit for LDR Sec tion 2.4.6(F) for the
closure of Atlantic Avenue from the west side of Bronson to the east side of the
Intracoastal from 3:00 p.m., Friday, November 9, 2012 through approximate ly 10:00 p.m.
November 11, 2012; and providing staff support for traffic control and se curity, EMS
services and Fire inspections, barricading and event signage. Mr . Barcinski stated
attached to the site plan permit application is the site pl an, budget and economic
prosperity calculator received from Nancy Stewart-Franczak. This event is being
proposed as a result of East Atlantic Avenue merchants asking for additional events on
the beach side. The applicant has indicated that they have the Beach Property Owners’
Association (BPOA) support as well as the merchants. Staff has concern with a 3:00 p.m.
closure on a Friday and staff recommends that the street cl osures to commence at 2:00
a.m. on Saturday, November 10, 2012. The estimated overtime costs is $14,215,
barricade and message and arrow board rental $1,200, and signage $250 for a total
estimated cost of $15,665. Per the Event Policies and Procedures the event producer is
required to pay 100% of City costs. Staff recommends approval with the conditions #2-9
(condition #1 no longer applies which includes that Saturday set-up a t 2:00 a.m. versus
3:00 p.m. Friday).
Mr. Frankel stated he emailed Mr. Barcinski requesting a mas ter calendar
of all the events because he is concerned that there may be too many events in November.
Dr. Alperin moved to approve the Special Event Request for the 1 st
Annual Wine and Seafood Festival subject to the conditions #2-9 (exc luding condition
#1) listed on page two of the memo, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon rol l call the
Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Vice Mayor Gr ay –
Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote.
9.D. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA.
9.E. AGREEMENTS FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES:
Approve Agreements with Corzo Castella Carballo Thompson & Salma n, Craig A. Smith
& Associates, Calvin Giordano & Associates, Kimley-Horn & Assoc iates, Mathews
9
01/17/12
Consulting, Inc. and Wantman Group for consulting engineering service s for capital
improvement projects contained in the City’s Capital Improvement Pr ogram (CIP).
Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer, stated at the request of the Commission
this item was brought back after staff received all six (6) executed agreements from the
engineering firms to be in the continuing contract agreement for the next th ree years.
Dr. Alperin stated because of the insistence of the Commission to add
Craig A. Smith and their 3-D technology he suggested that in the moti on the requirement
be that in all cases, savings to the public would be the use of this technology and that it be
utilized prior to the design so that we can know what is underneath the ground and not
discover it when it could have been detected ahead of time.
Dr. Alperin moved to approve the agreements for consulting enginee ring
services with the condition that technology is used when necessary a s determined by staff
if it is not already known what is underground, seconded by Mr. Fr ankel. Upon roll call
the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Vice Mayor G ray – Yes; Mr.
Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote.
9.F. APPOINTMENT TO THE FINANCIAL REVIEW BOARD:
Appoint one (1) regular member to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2012. Based
upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Gray (Seat #4).
Vice Mayor Gray stated she wished to appoint Brian Wood as a regular
member to the Financial Review Board (FRB) to serve an unexpi red term ending July 31,
2012. Mr. Frankel so moved, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the C ommission
voted as follows: Vice Mayor Gray – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr.
Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote.
9.G. APPOINTMENTS TO THE EDUCATION BOARD: Appoint one (1)
regular member to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2013 and one (1) regular
member to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2012 to the Education Boar d. Based
upon the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Commis sioner Carney (Seat
#1) and Commissioner Alperin (Seat #2).
Mr. Carney moved to appoint Mary Leavenworth as a regular me mber to
the Education Board to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2013, seconded by Mr.
Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Ca rney – Yes; Dr.
Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Vice Mayor Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4
to 0 vote.
Dr. Alperin moved to appoint Claudia Flores as a regular member to the
Education Board to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2012, seconded b y Mr.
Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Al perin – Yes; Mr.
Frankel – Yes; Vice Mayor Gray – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4
to 0 vote.
10
01/17/12
9.H. DISCUSSION OF THE GARBAGE RATE COMPARISON: Provide
direction to staff regarding how the City should respond to Waste Manag ement's
proposals for extension of their franchise for solid waste collection.
The City Manager stated the Commission had asked when staff hear d
Waste Management’s proposal that we survey rates around the county in particular
breech of contracts and Mrs. Butler and her staff have done that.
Dr. Alperin stated in reviewing the table the Commission re ceived it
appears that the proposed rate is very similar if not bette r than what other cities are
getting and in addition to that the City of Delray Beach gets the solar energy containers.
Dr. Alperin stated because of a number of emails the Commiss ion has received,
particularly from one individual, he feels it should be made very aw are that this was not
the City’s proposal but this was a proposal by Waste Mana gement. He stated the City
checked the information on other communities and this was not somethin g that the City
just accepted.
Mr. Carney asked if the businesses can negotiate the roll off rate. Mrs.
Butler stated Waste Management no longer has an exclusive rate w ith Delray Beach. Mr.
Carney stated from a contractual point of view we are deali ng with what the residential
rates are and the non-roll off rates (container rates). Mrs. Butler stated t his is correct.
Mr. Frankel asked if the Commission is giving direction or voting on this.
The City Manager stated staff is asking for direction and wha t the
Commission needs to vote on is there have been aspects of the curr ent franchise
agreement that are outdated and some of the language needs to be updated. The City
Manager stated if the Commission wants staff to move forward tha t would be the next
step to see if there are modifications that need to be made in the basic agreement so that
things are clarified and there are not questions that come up in the future.
Mr. Frankel concurs with comments expressed by Dr. Alperin re garding
the savings and the solar trash compactors.
The City Attorney stated Mrs. Butler made a recommendation in he r
memo on the $40,000.00 fee that it should be wrapped into this without the Ci ty having
to pay. The City Attorney stated the Commission also give s taff direction to see what
else can be worked out with Waste Management as far as possi ble increases for the future
and then bring back for the Commission’s consideration.
At this point, the time being 6:47 p.m., the Commission moved to Item
11, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Publ ic-Immediately
following Public Hearings.
11
01/17/12
11.A. City Manager’s response to prior public comments and inquiries.
The City Manager had no response to prior public comments and
inquiries.
11.B. From the Public.
None.
At this point, the time being 6:49 p.m., the Commission took a ten minute
recess.
At this point, the time being 7:00 p.m., the Commission reconvened and
moved to the duly advertised Public Hearings portion of the Agenda.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10.A. RESOLUTION NO. 02-12: Consider adopting a schedule of non-ad
valorem assessments to partially fund fire rescue operations and fir st response.
The caption of Resolution No. 02-12 is as follows:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ADOPTING A
SCHEDULE OF NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS
FOR FIRE RESCUE OPERATIONS AND FIRST
RESPONSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 AND
ANNUALLY THEREAFTER.
(The official copy of Resolution No. 02-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s
office.)
The City Manager gave a brief overview of how they came to view the fire
assessment fee and balancing the budget for the current fisca l year. The City Manager
stated the City started off with the millage rate of 7.19 mil ls and with the further decrease
in property values that the city had this year compared to las t year the 2011 millage rate
of 7.19 would produce $89 million. He stated each one tenth of a mill would equal about
$582,000.00. The City Manager stated the initial budget request prese nted by
Department Heads is total of $96,953,000 therefore the City is looking at a gap of $8
million. He stated we cut $4.2 million that left remaining expe nses of $92,742,000
leaving a balance that the City needs to fund the budget of $3,726,000. The City
Manager stated staff looked at a variety of sources to fund the budget. He stated it was
felt that in order to do it by further reductions and expenses would significantly affect
what service is provided by the City and would not allow us to maint ain the quality of
city that we have had in the last 15-18 years. The City Manager s tated the city was able
to get additional funding from grants of $313,000; increased parking fees $204,000; and
12
01/17/12
increased parks and planning fees $40,000. He stated staff looked at the fire service
assessment for $3,168,000 (or $3.2 million) or the other option would have bee n to
increase the millage by a little over half a mill to give the City a total of what was needed
to balance the budget of $3,726,000. The City Manager stated over the past five years
and in 2007 the City’s levied property tax totaled $59 million; in the current fiscal year
the City’s total property tax levy is about $45.5 million and i s about a 23% reduction in
property taxes in the last five years. The City Manager stated this i s an average and every
piece of property is affected differently because the pro perty tax laws are so convoluted;
however, on average it is a 23% reduction in the last five years . In terms of the total
General Fund budget the 2007 budget was $103 million and this year it i s $93,356,000.
The City Manager stated to cut costs the City offered early retirement for general
employees and most of the positions that have opened up in that w ay have been
eliminated or frozen; required employees to increase their contr ibution to pensions;
reduced benefits for the General Employee Pension Plan; froze n salaries and wages;
eliminated two paid holidays for Fire & Police; for Fire & Pol ice the City reduced the
contribution the City makes to their retiree health trust; reduce d energy usage throughout
the city both fuel and electricity; and reduced the use of overti me significantly. The City
Manager stated these are the major cuts although there are other things. He stated this is
how staff came to look at imposing a fire service fee and empha sized that both Boca
Raton and Boynton Beach imposed the fee. The City Manager stated if you compare
property tax rates with Delray Beach and Boynton Beach beca use of the funds that
Boynton Beach collects from their fire assessment is the re ason why Boynton Beach is
where it is. The City Manager stated the assessment that Delray Beach proposes is a little
less than Boynton Beach particularly on the commercial side. T he City Manager stated
he would like the consultants Burton & Associates to explain how the C ity developed the
fee structure that has been proposed. The City Manager st ated this was discussed
extensively during budget preparation, it was reported by the press, the City also wrote it
up in News for Neighborhoods, and was sent out with every water bi ll in the city so that
there was a lot of information out before the City got to the poi nt of actually developing
the assessment. He stated the City’s intention was to balanc e the budget this year and
approximately what the assessment might be.
Michael Burton, President of Burton & Associates, stated they provide
multiyear financial planning and rate services to local gover nment and have been in
business since 1988. Mr. Burton stated fire assessment development is one of the areas
of their practice and they have a significant portion of their pr actice where they have
done these over the past ten years. He stated some of their fi re assessment clients include
Brevard County, Lauderdale by the Sea, Deltona, Cape Coral, Orange Park, Newport
Richey, and other clients in the southeast of Florida where they per form other rate type
work is the City of Fort Lauderdale, the City of Lake Worth, C oconut Creek, Lauderdale
by the Sea, Davie, Coral Springs, and Key Biscayne. Mr. Burton st ated the scope of their
project was to develop a fire assessment program for the City and identify an assessment
structure to achieve a fair and equitable relationship between the benefit received by the
properties and the cost burden of the assessment. This is a re quirement of a non-ad
valorem assessment in State law. Mr. Burton stated they also looked at a ten year
financial management plan for the management of the Fire Dep artment and prepared the
13
01/17/12
assessment roll, a final report, and provided implementation assi stance in terms of the
mailing and resolutions. Mr. Burton stated fire assessments are an alternative revenue
source to more fairly recover the cost of fire-rescue services from those benefiting from
those services. He stated emergency medical services which are part of the Fire
Department cannot be included in a fire assessment in accordance with a Florida
Supreme Court decision. Mr. Burton stated the analysis was comprised of a cost
determination where it performed a detailed allocation of fire -rescue costs to the fire and
emergency services component. Mr. Burton stated costs associat ed with fire-rescue
include fire cost and first responder cost and the emergency me dical service cost was
excluded from the assessment. Mr. Burton stated they also had to e valuate the property
data because the basis of the assessment is the property data that is maintained by the
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. Mr. Burton stated the bui lding space on the
property is a reasonable criteria and they have a tiered a pproach where in the residential
class if you have a smaller amount of building space on your pr operty versus a larger
amount you will have a lesser assessment because you are re ceiving less benefit from the
protection of loss of your property than would a larger resident ial home. Mr. Burton
stated the database was used to calculate the assessment rat es by property class and the
specific assessments for each parcel and also prepared is a fire assessment role that will
be considered tonight. He stated exempted property classes t hat are not included in the
cost apportionment would include vacant properties, religious institut ions, public county
schools, federal buildings, rivers, lakes, and rights-of-ways. Mr. Bur ton stated other
properties were excluded but included in the cost apportionment so the cost that they
otherwise would pay is not distributed to the other property clas ses and they will be
excluded from the assessment (i.e. districts within the city, c ity property, and county
property which are common exclusions in these types of assess ments). Mr. Burton stated
if the Commission adopts this assessment they will be adopti ng it for this fiscal year
(2011-12) and for fiscal year 2012-13 and every year thereafter at the same amount and
recommends that the City periodically review this to ensure that the City is recovering the
amount of financial resources in concert with the other revenue sourc es to meet the
overall objectives, because if not, this will stay a constant assessment year after year.
The City Manager stated the Financial Review Board (FRB) reviewed this
proposed assessment this morning and made numerous recommendations. T he Board felt
that the residential fees should start at $52.00 and then go up above t hat on a per square
foot basis and the $52.00 would be up to 1,500 square feet; for commercia l/industrial .5
per square foot; that there should be a limit on any annual increa se of no more than 3%
and in the adopting resolution that it would sunset after five (5) years.
Mr. Burton stated the benefit does not necessarily increase on a per square
foot basis but it increases in order of magnitude and in the building area. He stated there
are potential issues to deal with whereas with the tiers it is fair and in an order of
magnitude differentiation and it is much easier for the City in terms of implementation
because they will not have complaints about people saying thei r square footage is wrong
which the Property Appraisers office would have to deal with. M r. Burton stated a tiered
approach is well accepted and it would be easier for the City and the public.
14
01/17/12
Vice Mayor Gray stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in
favor or in opposition of Resolution No. 02-12, the public hearing was closed.
Neil Cohen, owner of Delray Chevron, 1909 West Atlantic Avenue,
Delray Beach, stated he is a big fan of the Fire Department; however, he fe els the special
assessment is unfair. Mr. Cohen stated taxes have always be en assessed on the property
value not the size. He stated it is unfair that his business wi ll be assessed the same tax as
the Marriott or Seagate Hotel. Mr. Cohen stated it is unfair that his taxes will go up 9%
overall based on the county, state, and federal taxes and 30% compare d to the City tax
that he currently pays. Mr. Cohen urged the Commission to assess according to the
property value not the size.
Christina Morrison, 2809 Florida Boulevard #207, Delray Beach, FL
33483 (Chair of the Financial Review Board), stated the proposed structure of the
proposed tax will hinder economic growth in the city. Ms. Morrison stated her job is to
get and keep companies in this city. This past year she brought six new companies to the
city and she would like to bring more. She stated by putting more tax burden on the
companies and the residents will hurt the economic growth. Ms. M orrison stated she
appreciates the City Manager’s efforts over the last couple of years in tightening the
City’s belt but more has to be done. Ms. Morrison stated the fire fee was originally
presented as a way to collect some tax on properties not paying them r ight now and it was
supposed to be $60.00. However, now it has ballooned so that the bigger p roperties
which are already paying big taxes are paying the highe r taxes again. Ms. Morrison
stated if this tax is needed she recommends that it be for a ve ry short time and that the
city sunset it very quickly. She stated there is a new hotel and 600 apartment units under
construction adding to the tax base within the next 12-18 months. Ms. Morrison stated if
this has to be done she recommends a $60.00 flat fee on all propertie s across the city and
sunset it for three (3) years at the very most five (5) years and limit the increases to not
more than 3% a year.
Mike Malone, Chamber of Commerce, 64 S.E. 5 th Avenue, Delray
Beach, FL 33444, stated their business members expressed high concern about the
possible burden it is going to place on their businesses in the c ommunity. Mr. Malone
commended the City for cutting where they could on expenses.
Dr. Victor Kirson, D.D.S., 2050 Alta Meadows Lane #2110, Delray
Beach, FL 33444 (President of the Board of Directors of Tierra Verde at Delray
Beach and Member of the Alliance), suggested that the proposed assessment be voted
down and stated if he were a member of this Commission and was running a campaign
for election he would realize that voting against the residents is political sui cide.
Daniel Bernard Wright, 406 N.W. 10 th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL
33444, asked when the City will stop implementing fees on its res idents and stated the
City has to cut back.
15
01/17/12
Harold Ginn, represents Lake Delray Apartments, 700 Lindell
Boulevard, Delray Beach, stated Lake Delray Apartments is the largest provider of
senior affordable housing in Delray Beach. Mr. Ginn stated they are not able to raise
their rents because they are regulated by tax credit regul ations and are regulated by what
the housing authorities will pay them. He stated in the last thr ee years they have not
received a rent increase from any of the housing authorities fr om which they receive
vouchers. Mr. Ginn stated last year the City of Delray Beach m andated that they install
generators to enable their elevators and their emergency light ing. Mr. Ginn stated on his
property that amounted to $356,000.00; if you look at the tiered structure L ake Delray
Apartments will take a hit of $21,008.00 per year. He stated they a re not against paying
their fair share but this amount is a significant burden.
Timothy Boykin, 2554 Dolphin Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33445, stated
it is hard for the residents to maintain their properties wi th all these taxes and they are
cutting back on a lot of things. Mr. Boykin urged the Commission to li sten to the
residents and stated a lot of residents have lost their homes a nd could not afford
Christmas gifts this year. He stated the Commission has l ost sight of the people and he
feels they need to start caring for the people versus focusi ng on projects and
infrastructure.
Mark Hopin, 2870 Sablewood Court, Delray Beach, FL 33445 (Chief
Financial Officer for a commercial real estate company in Boc a Raton), has an
accounting degree and works with budgets of $93 million plus throughout his car eer. Mr.
Copan stated Mr. Burton showed a chart where the City saved $10 million from what
they were spending a few years ago and feels the City wa sted $10 million that year. He
stated with the budget of $93 million; $55 million goes to Police, Fire and debt. Mr.
Copan stated the other money of $38 million that the City needs to look at and in order to
save the $3.2 million the City needs to reduce the expenses 8.2%. In hi s opinion, Mr.
Copan stated raising taxes does not make this community any mor e residential or
business friendly but makes it less friendly.
Pat Archer, 380 Sherwood Forrest Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33445,
stated we cannot live without the Fire Department but they have to become more
affordable. Mrs. Archer stated everyone has seen their invest ments, salaries, and
retirement plans shrink drastically. She stated this is not a flat fee that was originally
proposed but amounts to a tax. Mrs. Archer stated the residents and businesses are
already financially strapped. She spoke to one businessman who sa id he would now have
to pay over $3,500 in additional tax for the fire and does not know if he ca n afford to stay
in Delray. Mrs. Archer stated this is a time when we are trying to attract new businesses
and jobs. She suggested in this economy that the City may need to renegotiate our
contracts.
Bill Albaugh, 501 N.W. 9 th Street, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (43 year
resident of Delray Beach stated he is retired with 23 years from the Federal
Government and his highest position was Deputy Director of si ngle family housing
division (HUD), strongly objects to the non-ad valorem assessment increase. H e stated
16
01/17/12
current non-ad valorem taxes he paid this year was $411.96 for fiscal year 2011; the City
of Delray Beach taxes alone on his property were $1,420.82; the City debt was $121.19.
Mr. Albaugh stated his total taxes for 2011 was $5,224.54. Mr. Albaugh st ated he was
informed by the City that the money is for taller fire truc k ladders and maintenance of
stormwater drainage system. Mr. Albaugh stated he would have to pay $186.00 a year
because his property has 4,100 square feet of improvement. He sta ted he should not have
to pay for taller ladders and noted that he did not approve the condos along Federal
Highway or Atlantic Avenue. He asked what the City did with the i mpact fee money that
the City collected from the builders. Mr. Albaugh stated each l etter states that each
property is a benefit and noted that he is not benefiting and does not have storm dr ainage.
Brenda Thomas, 3137 Sherwood Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33445,
objects to the “AA” (Abusive Assessment) and during these troubl ed economic times as a
landlord she has had to reduce rents due to tenants becoming unemployed and
underemployed. Ms. Thomas stated with all these extra expenses passed off to the
property owners affordable housing will not be obtainable. Ms . Thomas stated this is an
abusive tax that will deter property owners from purchasing , moving into, developing and
holding onto their properties in the City of Delray Beach. She s tated property owners are
on the way to getting taxed out-of-business in the City of Delr ay Beach. Ms. Thomas
urged the City to look within for raising additional money or for cuts needed to cover
expenses or services rendered. She suggested that the City keep up-to-date software for
keeping track of water usage and the software the City has i s forty years behind state-of-
the-art. She stated that the current software allows utility customers to have bills in
excess of $2,000-$3,000 and continue to maintain their water on because the s oftware
does not check for past due amounts. Ms. Thomas stated she has complai ned about this
for in excess of 7 years and had a meeting with a City empl oyee the first week of January
who told her that the City is planning to replace this antiquated software. She stated if
you go back 10 years (as long as the software has been in op eration) there will be better
than $3.2 million and the City will not have to assess anybody.
Ron Hawk, 2626 Hampton Circle North, Delray Beach, FL 33445,
stated this tax is unfair and suggested that the City re-negoti ate the contracts. Mr. Hawk
stated the Fire and Police Department have onerous retirement p lans and the funds for
their retirement fund were fully funded by the City. Mr. Hawk s tated he read an article
about a firefighter who retired at age 43 after 23 years in South Florida who received an
$800,000 payout in cash plus $100,000 a year for the rest of his life. He st ated the
mistake was made in allowing collective bargaining for peop le that work for the
government because they do not have a vested interest as much as bus iness does. Mr.
Hawk suggested that the Commission start looking at the contract s we have made with
the people who are not only supposed to protect and serve but have turned out to protect,
serve and exploit.
Gail-Lee McDermott, 721 S.E. 3 rd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483
(past President of Osceola Park for 12 years and currently a m ember of the
Neighborhood Advisory Council (NAC), stated she is speaking for the people of Delray
Beach all of whom have taken a horrible hit in these past years and noted that many
17
01/17/12
people are on fixed and diminished incomes. She stated they are a lso in a position where
if they try to sell their homes and go someplace else no one is going to buy their homes
when the taxes keep going up. Ms. McDermott stated she rememb ers years ago there
were volunteer firemen. Ms. McDermott stated she has the great est respect for its current
Fire Department but we cannot afford them. She asked how much did the study
performed by Burton & Associates cost and has much do all the studies cost the City.
Norman Price, 217 South Seacrest Circle, Delray Beach, FL 33444
(lived in Delray Beach for 56 years), stated they have been assessed for years for a
stormwater system and for a security alarm system. Mr. Pr ice stated this is sneaky
taxation without a vote.
Robert Burns, 2578 Lake Ida Road, Delray Beach, FL 33445, stated
the elderly are on fixed incomes. He stated he is disappointed in this and has had four
different jobs in the past three years. Mr. Burns stated he ha s no more money to give the
City and the City is going to have to tighten its belt and make some tough decis ions.
Shelly Petrolia, 2002 N.W. 4 th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated
it is the wrong time for this proposed assessment and this shoul d have been done in better
times. Mrs. Petrolia stated although she understands the premise of it in making sure that
every property is paying for services, this is really a t ax. She stated she loves the Fire
Department and the money that would be coming in is not necessarily going to go to
them in addition to what they already have. Mrs. Petrolia stated the propos ed assessment
is a revenue grab without having to look at other areas to be able to cut expens es.
Victoria Thiel, 936 N.W. 23 rd Lane, Delray Beach, FL 33445 (moved
here six years ago at the height of the market, is strongly opposed to the proposed fire
assessment fee particularly since there was just a county m illage increase and the City
will have no constraints on future increases or budgetary accountabil ity. Ms. Thiel stated
the budget should have been made based on the current income not what the City can
hope to squeeze out of residents who are tied to undervalued propertie s. She stated any
unforeseen expenses should be remedied with line item cuts.
Morris Carstarphen, 619 S.W. 7 th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, is
strongly opposed to this proposed tax. Mr. Carstarphen stated h e moved into the
community 4 years ago and the City assessed him at the maximum amount two
consecutive years. He stated his taxes were almost $9,000 on his pr operty and since then
has come down. Mr. Carstarphen asked if this proposed fire asses sment fee is not
implemented what the repercussion of it for the City is. He stated where the
accountability is. Mr. Carstarphen suggested that the Commission put this on a ballot and
let the people vote for it.
Deveren Peterkin, 250 N.W. 3 rd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444,
since this does not include EMS does this take into consideration struc tures that have fire
suppression or fire sprinkler systems because there are com mercial buildings where the
owner invests the costs of a fire sprinkler system upfront. Mr. Peterkin stated if he has a
18
01/17/12
building that is the same square footage as his commercial neighbor but hi s neighbor does
not have a fire suppression system and the fire suppression syst em was not required by
code but he put one in anyway, would that be considered fair if they both have to pay the
same assessment. He stated the same would apply to homes. Mr. Peterkin stated with
regard to residential structures sometimes you may have an as sisted care facility that is
listed residential use or a home day care with five children that is listed residential and
asked if they are going to receive the same assessment as someone who does not have
those businesses operating out of their home but has the same siz e square footage. Mr.
Peterkin stated with regard to the assessment as it would be com pared to the City of Boca
Raton and Boynton Beach is this tiered assessment based on square f ootage and is it the
same exact amount for a structure that is the same square foota ge in Boynton Beach and
Boca or not. He stated those municipalities may have some conditions that are unique to
their budget that the City of Delray Beach may not have.
Susan Litchfield, 931 Gardenia Drive #369, Delray Beach, FL 33483,
stated 25 years ago she moved from New York because she was ta xed to death and lives
in Miami and then came to Delray Beach and her condo assessment ha s depreciated.
Mrs. Litchfield stated when she received the letter regarding t he fire assessment fee she
downloaded the City’s budget and knows that the City can sit down with t he budget and
find the money.
Dr. Joseph Provenzano, 1921 S.W. 36 th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL
33445, stated he went on the City’s website and reviewed Delray Be ach’s budgets for the
past 10 years. Dr. Provenzano stated the total fund revenues in 2001 wer e $58 million; in
2002 revenues were $62 million; in 2003 revenues were $93 million. He sta ted that
started the inflation of all these budgets and they spiked in 2007 to $102 million which
was at the peak of the housing madness. Dr. Provenzano stated then it dropped to $98,
$97, $96 and now $93 million. He stated we were doing fine at $62 million ten years ago
and stated his expenses have not gone up like this. Dr. Provenzano sta ted the proposed
fire assessment is a tax. Dr. Provenzano stated he has a busi ness in Boynton Beach and
the fire assessment started off 10 years ago and was supposed t o sunset in 5 or 7 years.
He initially started paying $425.00 a year and this year it was over $1,100.00.
Denise James, 4850 N.E. 5 th Avenue #105, Boca Raton, FL expressed
concern that the decision is faulty, incomplete, and regressive. She stated square footage
was used as the criteria but instead suggested that it be more revenue generating property
versus non-revenue generating. Ms. James stated in the assessment the City did not
consider past, current, and projected wealth and everything was w hat the Fire Department
needed but the citizens were not considered. She expressed concern over intellectual and
moral integrity and urged the Commission to reconsider this.
Alba Telles, 1670 N.W. 18 th Avenue #102, Delray Beach, FL, stated she
does not understand why the churches are tax exempt because they are making money
just like any other business. Ms. Telles stated she is ret ired and has to pay healthcare and
it cost $1,400 a month and asked if the Commission receives free healt hcare and free
benefits.
19
01/17/12
Alson Jacquet, 236 S.E. 3 rd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, opposes
the proposed fire tax assessment and stated families and sm all businesses have had to
tighten their belts and residents expect the same thing from t he City. Mr. Jacquet stated
this is not about the Fire Department and noted he understands what it means to protect
our essential services and they deserve it. However, Mr. Jacquet stated this is not what
we are doing here and noted this is something that is in the budget that the City wants to
pull out and call it a fee. He stated this is bad precedent. Mr. Jacquet suggested keeping
the proposed fire assessment fee as a line item in the bud get and reduce spending
elsewhere.
Alexander Christopher, 622 Davis Road, Delray Beach, FL 33445
(President of the Delray Shores Homeowners’’ Association), stated 24% of the
residents in Delray Shores have already lost their homes. Mr. Christopher stated a lot of
homes are vacant and residents have to call the Police Department every day to get the
drug dealers out of these vacant properties. He is opposed to the proposed fire
assessment fee and stated he is a small business owner. Mr. Christopher urged the
Commission to not pass the proposed fire assessment fee.
Michael Hopper, represents Security Self Storage at 189 Linton
Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL, stated Security Self Storage has been in business for over
34 years paying taxes in Delray Beach. Mr. Hopper stated they do not object to paying
their fair share but they would like to see the Commission recons ider the apportionment
method. He stated the apportionment does not take into account how many f loors are
developed, the value or the revenue of the business, the traffic or the people on the
property daily. Mr. Hopper stated not all non-residential properties are equally developed
and should not be assessed solely based on developed square feet. He stated the pr oposed
assessment should have something to do with the actual need for fire-rescue.
Stu Morris, 1295-C Highpoint Place North, Delray Beach, FL 33445,
stated he is a 40 year fire-rescue member of the Lakeland Fire Department in New
York State serving three times as EMT head of the departmen ts rescue company
and has also been a three time state elected fire commiss ioner serving 15 years with
that district answerable only to the Governor of the State wit h legislative
responsibilities including budgetary fiscal taxing functions as well as right of
condemnation of private property, served as President of the C ounty Board of Fire
Officials representing 108 fire districts with 540 elected fire commissioners, has
participated in other time studies and response studies, he and his wife volunteer
with the Delray Beach Police Department and work approximatel y 60 hours a
month for 11 years, stated he just received a 2,400 hour recognition and saved the Police
Department money. Mr. Morris suggested having volunteers in some c apacity with the
Fire Department. He stated after listening to everyone spea k this evening when the
budget was reduced it was too aggressive and now the City has to g o in through the
backdoor to make up the cuts that the Fire-Rescue and Police Dep artment were forced to
take. Mr. Morris supports the fee because he feels there is no other alternative. He stated
the fire persons are willingly risking their lives and health r esponding to the alarms and
the residents and visitors are entitled to the best service that could be pr ovided.
20
01/17/12
Viona Simon, living in Delray Shores since August 1988, stated she is
originally from Haiti but moved from New Jersey and she moved to D elray Beach
because she felt it was ideal for an American to live. Ms. Simon stated when they were
deciding for Delray Beach to become an All American City she was on the Board to help
making the decision. Ms. Simon stated she feels like a strange r in Delray Beach despite
how many years she has been living. Ms. Simon stated she lost he r job several years ago
and it is difficult for her to make her mortgage payment. She st ated every year the City
has increased the water bill and now they want to propose a fir e assessment fee. Ms.
Simon stated she spent all her 401K to pay her mortgage. Ms. Simon stated the letter she
received said “Final Notice” and she did not receive a first or second notice. She stated
she was on a Board to make Delray become what it should be and the Board decided that
Delray should not have buildings than those high-rise buildings that Delray has now. Ms.
Simon stated Delray Beach is called the All American City village-by-the-sea but now
Delray has high-rise buildings. She stated she is being force d to pay extra taxes for the
ladders to be able to reach the top of the high-rise buildings a nd make it easier for the
firefighters.
Andre Andrews, 739 South Swinton Avenue, Apt. #2, Delray Beach,
FL 33444 (lived in Delray Beach for 47 ½ years), urged the Commission to go back to
the drawing board or we are going to lose our people and state d Delray Beach was made
from the people. He stated if the people do not have a voic e in it then they are going to
go bankrupt. Mr. Andrews stated all of the focus and money is on the downtown and
feels the inner-city of Delray Beach from I-95 to the southwest and northwest sections are
being neglected. Mr. Andrews stated there is money in the City of Delray Be ach.
Randy Schatz, 935 Jasmine Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (lived in
Delray Beach for over 20 years and has had the privilege of serving on City Boards),
reiterated the previous comments about the fiscal responsibilit y and she urged the
Commission to take into consideration as they look at this particula r tax. Ms. Schatz
expressed concern over the comment by the experts that as far as the size of the
properties the Property Appraiser’s Office can deal wi th that. She asked what that is
going to cost the City if there is some kind of an issue about t he size of the property. Ms.
Schatz also expressed concern over the number of years for what appears to be an open
ended type of a tax and that it could be particular increase. Ms. Schatz stated in the
documentation sent out by the City it states that if someone does not pay this there could
be a tax certificate or a lien placed on their property . She is concerned about the cost to
the taxpayers if someone who cannot afford to pay it has a lien on their property or if the
property is already in foreclosure. Ms. Schatz stated we have a wonderful Fire and Police
Department but this is not about any of the agencies. Ms. Scha tz stated this is about
fiscal responsibility by the elected officials and not just placing an open ended tax on the
taxpayers. She stated the City needs to make sure that the pe ople understand that if they
do not pay they could lose their house over $50.00.
Henry Williams, 310 N.W. 3 rd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444
(President of the Northwest Homeowners’ Association), stated this is a crooked deal
and is not about the Fire Department. Mr. Williams stated peo ple are losing their homes
21
01/17/12
and asked when this will stop.
Nick Simeus, 1105 S.W. 4 th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (has
lived in Delray Beach for 21 years), stated some people cannot afford to pay $85.00.
Carolyn Young, 15112 Tall Oak Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33446, is
adamantly opposed to this assessment. Ms. Young stated she owns several properties in
the City of Delray Beach of which she would be assessed these additional fees. She
stated her tenants are already troubled trying to keep a pl ace for them to live and now she
has to ask for additional rents to offset those expenses. Ms. Young stated she is now
placed in an undo financial hardship because that means she has to pa y them and it is not
fair. Ms. Young expressed concern over the water assessment and stated if she has
tenants who have a legitimate lease who happen not to have come t o this city and open a
water account now she is held financially responsible for those b ills. She stated this is
another example of the undo hardships that are being placed on her a s a property owner
and noted she pays an excessive amount of tax in the City of Delra y Beach. Ms. Young
stated she is unable to retroactively balance her home budget and do es not see how the
City can do this. She stated in looking into the future the City i s going to have to reduce
some line items and tighten its belt.
John Dancy, resident of Delray Beach for 41 years, asked how long the
Commission members have lived in Delray Beach. Mr. Dancy state d this is not about the
Fire or Police Department but it is a tax and people are being taxed out of their homes.
He stated most of friends have moved to another city, town, or state b ecause they cannot
afford it. Mr. Dancy stated he lives alone and his water bill i s higher than people that
have 3-4 people in their household that is using the water. Mr. Da ncy opposes the
proposed fire assessment fee and stated he received a lette r regarding a vacant lot next to
him. He stated he recently got a job four months ago and is st ill trying to make up for
property taxes that he has not paid in the past and he cannot af ford this proposed fire
assessment fee.
Kenneth MacNamee, 1049 Del Haven Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33483,
stated when the Commission approved the budget with this fire tax in September 2011
and was effectively a 7% millage increase. In 2009, Mr. MacNa mee stated the City
increased the garbage/trash rates by 56 and 100 percent and at that time the Commission
had no idea of what the overall increase was. Mr. MacNamee distri buted a letter to the
Commission from one of his neighbors because when he did the trash st udy he found out
that there were hundreds of people in this city not paying for t rash pickup. He stated the
City is looking to put a 7% millage increase to the taxpayer s with this fire tax. Since
2009, Delray’s tax millage rate has gone up 14%; Boynton Beach has gone up 11%; Boca
Raton has gone up 6%; and Gulf Stream has gone up 2%. Mr. MacNam ee stated this is
an unfair tax and it penalizes the least able to pay in town.
Dave Armstrong, 321 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL
33444, stated his house is in foreclosure and he is paying $5,000 a year for taxes and
$300 a month for water. He stated he has a little swale that is City property that he is
22
01/17/12
paying $7 for water on as well and if he does not cut the grass he receives a fine. Mr.
Armstrong strongly opposes this fire tax and stated every ti me the Fire Department rolls
out for an accident they are bringing a fire truck, an ambulanc e, and 3-4 police cars and
feels this is everyone’s tax dollars going down the drain. He st ated he has been a pastry
chef in Delray Beach for 22 years and every summer when the snowb irds leave he has to
look for landscaping work just to survive. Mr. Armstrong briefly di scussed transient
housing on A-1-A and stated they are going to have six people in the house and plans to
turn it over 12 times a year. Mr. Armstrong stated it is a non -profit organization and the
City receives no revenue from it.
Rudolph Mirage, 575 Dolphin Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33445
(Financial Consultant and has lived in Delray Beach since Marc h 2006, stated his
family just came out from in December 2011 from foreclosure and n ow the City is
proposing a fire tax. Mr. Mirage stated in the last two yea rs he has seen over 150 people
in the Delray Beach area in foreclosure because of what is goi ng on. He stated this
should not be done unless it is conducive to the benefit of the community.
Reginald Cox, 715 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Delray Beach, FL
33444, stated this type of participation is needed when it comes time to vote. He noted
this is a time to vote. Mr. Cox discussed City positions and sugges ted to start cutting
from the top. Mr. Cox announced that the Northwest/Southwest Steering Committee is
holding a Candidate’s Forum on February 13, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at St. Matt hews’s
Episcopal Church and encouraged everyone to come out and vote.
Bob Ledbetter, 913 Iris Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated less than
7 people out of a 100 voted in the last city election. Mr. Ledbetter suggeste d that the City
of Delray Beach re-negotiate the contract with the other two muni cipalities that we
provide fire protection for. He asked how much are we paying p er household in the City
of Delray compared to how much we are collecting from the other two municip alities that
we are providing fire service for.
Francesca Mallows, 305 S.W. 7 th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444
(represents the Southwest Alliance), stated she moved from Boston, Massachusetts
three years ago and it appears to be an attempt (whether consc ious or unconscious) to
squeeze people out. She stated people will lose their homes. Ms. Mallows stated she is
an artist and has a studio on 1 st Avenue and expressed concern that the light force that
Delray calls the village-by-the-sea is the northwest and southw est neighborhoods. She
stated if the Commission wants to kill the goose that lays the golden egg for the future of
art for this town for which it is perfectly suited and amply a dequate she urged the
Commission to not kill those two neighborhoods. Ms. Mallows strongly opposes the fire
tax.
Daniel Bernard Wright, 406 N.W. 10 th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL
33444, urged the Commission to stop hiring consultants.
23
01/17/12
Leroy Temple, 1380 Bocci Court, Delray Beach, FL 33445, stated he
understands the City needs revenue to run and that cost cutting measur es have to be made
in the City as well as in our homes. Mr. Temple stated the fi re assessment tax would put
a burden on the middle class. He stated the consultant stated t hat 75% of the money
would come from the residents and that 99% of the Fire and Police Department are fixed
costs with 1% being the variable cost. Mr. Temple asked why w e do not work on the
variable cost of the budget. He stated it is better to have a job rather than not have a job
and understand that everyone has been making sacrifices but he feels the sacrifice is
being put on the residents. He stated if you do not pay the tax you can be levied, lose
your home, tax certificates issued, and people who can least af ford to pay this tax are
asked to do it. Mr. Temple asked what other alternatives have be en looked at to give the
citizens some relief.
Betty Goodman, 930 S.W.11 th Terrace, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated
this proposal is the same as the eminent domain.
Brenda Thomas, 3137 Sherwood Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33445,
stated the information presented by the consultant is flawed. M s. Thomas stated she is a
property owner in the City of Deerfield Beach and owns a 4-pl ex that is over 4,000
square feet and she is taxed by the Fire Department $52.00 for the total duplex not per
unit.
There being no one else from the public who wished to address the
Commission regarding Resolution No. 02-12, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Carney thanked everyone for attending this evening and stated
contrary to what many may thing the Commission spends a lot of ti me trying to sift
through what they can do, what we should do, and the impact of any and all of their
decisions on everyone. He stated he is one of the two votes that was part of the
opposition originally and originally voted to put it on the table f or discussion. Mr.
Carney stated at the time he did not like the way it was going to move from a flat rate to a
tiered rate and was opposed to the tiered rate approach. He st ated the Commission has a
delicate balance with trying to provide services that are e xpected and the funds to provide
those services. Mr. Carney stated part of that delicate ba lance is trying to figure out what
services are required, which are wanted, versus which can be curta iled or eliminated. Mr.
Carney applauded to Mr. Burton for the work that they need. Mr. C arney stated the City
did a great job when they had the original reduction in the revenues in doing the initial
budget cuts but he feels they can do more. He stated another on-half of one percent
would actually be more money than we need to fund this shortfall. Mr. Carney stated all
aspects should be on the table not just the 38% that is left and eve rything that the City
does in terms of its funding should be reviewed. Mr. Carney sta ted that may mean that
there is going to be some cuts in some services. Mr. Carney s tated he understands that
we have already had significant cuts and thinks there is more room t o cut. Mr. Carney
stated he is opposed to the fire assessment fee even in a fla t rate system and this has to be
a last resort and feels that City staff will need to find new cuts and some of them might
include delays of projects and contracts the City has needs to be addressed and there are
24
01/17/12
some redundancies that need to be addressed.
Dr. Alperin stated he is disappointed that so many people we re trying to
pull something evil over them. Dr. Alperin stated the Commission i s trying to keep
Delray Beach the quality city that everyone wants to live in. He stated he served on the
City Commission from 1990-2000 and in 1990 when he was elected the repres entatives
of the fire union came to him and requested to re-negotiate the sec ond two years of the
three year contract they have. At that time, they were getti ng a 9½ % increase each year
and they asked that the second two years to be 13% each year. Dr . Alperin stated the
Commission realized that in order to protect the interest of the community the City
needed to hire a labor attorney and not negotiate individually with the fire union. He
stated this was done for ten years. Dr. Alperin stated when they talked about controlling
the salaries of the fire fighters they had almost as many p eople in the Commission
Chambers as there are now claiming the City was going to deprive them of fire service.
Dr. Alperin stated the City was trying to control the cost of fire. In 1996, Dr. Alperin
stated he became Mayor and sat on the Police & Fire Pension Boar d and it was a monthly
battle that he had to sit through to continue the surplus reserv es that the City had building
and the unions wanted to redistribute that money and increase their re tirement
individually. Dr. Alperin stated he fought that for four years. D r. Alperin stated out of
the ten years in office the millage went up twice because the people voted for bond issues
that raised the millage to pay for things they wanted (Dec ade of Excellence Bond). In
2004, Dr. Alperin stated the then Mayor and one of the Commissioners had de cided what
the Commission had made was not adequate and negotiated with some union
representatives for an increase in salaries and to increase the multiplier from 3% to 3 ½%
on top of which it became retroactive. Dr. Alperin stated the City went from a surplus in
reserves to an enormous shortfall in the liability that we have to make up for as taxpayers.
He stated he is against flat taxes and supported that it be tiered and supported it because
he did not want to lose the quality of life that we have become acc ustomed to. Dr.
Alperin stated if the Commission votes fire assessment fee down that it needs to come
back from unions. Dr. Alperin stated he wants people to realize that this is going to
affect the services and the quality of life. Dr. Alperin sta ted although he is against it he is
going to vote in favor of the fee because he fears what the conseque nces are going to be.
He stated this was discussed during the budget hearings and they were going to lower the
millage and use this as a way to more fairly collect and this was an alternative to more
fairly solve the problem.
Mr. Frankel thanked everyone who commented and attended this eveni ng.
Mr. Frankel stated this was much discussion about fiscal responsi bility and since he has
been in office they have decreased the budget by over $6 milli on. He stated they have
negotiated with the Police & Fire and they gave back $1 million eac h. Mr. Frankel stated
there are approximately 600 residents in the City of Delray Be ach that pay zero dollars in
property taxes but use City services; there are approxima tely 6,000 residents that pay
$200 or less. He stated while he has been on the Commission there h as been
expenditures that he has questioned (i.e. parking study, improvements to the boat ramp,
improvements to Pompey Park and Miller Park) that he felt were excessive. Mr. Frankel
concurred with comments expressed by Dr. Alperin that everyone ex pects quality
25
01/17/12
services but they do not want to pay for it. Mr. Frankel state d the Commission took this
into consideration and during the budget process he was informed that it was going to be
a flat fee for everyone. Mr. Frankel stated there was a com ment that a fire truck and two
ambulances are not necessary for a fender bender. Mr. Frankel s tated many times it is
necessary and he does not want to be in that situation where they are not there for him.
He stated he cannot support the tiered rate structure as proposed by Burt on & Associates.
Mrs. Gray thanked the public for attending this evening and voicing their
opinion. She stated she has been speaking to a lot of residents fr om all over the city.
Mrs. Gray stated the people have spoken and we need to find other wa ys to make up the
City’s shortfall. Mrs. Gray stated when the Commission starte d looking at this issue a
couple of months ago it did start off being something other than wha t it is now. She
stated it has taken on another life and it has changed. Mrs. Gray s tated she is not in
agreement with having to risk our properties because of a tax. Mrs. Gray stated she is
opposed to this tax and would like to go back to the drawing board and look at other
alternatives to come up with additional dollars but also keeping in mind that some of the
City services will be cut and jobs will be lost.
Mr. Carney moved to adopt Resolution No. 02-12, seconded by Dr.
Alperin. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fr ankel – No; Vice
Mayor Gray – No; Mr. Carney – No; Dr. Alperin – Yes. Said m otion was DENIED with
a 3 to 1 vote, Dr. Alperin dissenting.
10.B. ORDINANCE NO. 44-11 (SECOND READING): Consider an
ordinance revising the Charter of the City of Delray Beach by a mending Article III,
“Legislative”, Section 3.02, “City Commission: Composition, Eligibi lity, Election, and
Terms”; Section 3.08, “Vacancies; Filling of Vacancies”; and Se ction 3.09, “Term
Limits”; amending Article V, “Elections”, Section 5.02, “Types of Elections”; to provide
for a change in the length of a terms from two years to three years and clarifying the
applicability of such change; providing for a referendum electi on to be held on March 13,
2012.
The caption of Ordinance No. 44-11 is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS TO THE CHARTER OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BY AMENDING
ARTICLE III, “LEGISLATIVE”, SECTION 3.02, “CITY
COMMISSION: COMPOSITION, ELIGIBILITY,
ELECTION, AND TERMS”; SECTION 3.08,
“VACANCIES; FILLING OF VACANCIES”; AND
SECTION 3.09, “TERM LIMITS”; AMENDING
ARTICLE V, “ELECTIONS”, SECTION 5.02, “TYPES
OF ELECTIONS”; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN
THE LENGTH OF A TERM FROM A TWO YEAR
26
01/17/12
TERM TO A THREE YEAR TERM AND CLARIFYING
THE APPLICABILITY OF SUCH CHANGE;
PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ELECTION TO BE
HELD ON MARCH 13, 2012; PROVIDING A GENERAL
REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Ordinance No. 44-11 is on file in the City Clerk’s
office.)
The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and state d this
proposed ordinance would allow the City to put forth a change in the Cha rter terms from
two years to three years with moving the maximum limit from s ix years to nine years and
would also clarify that any current seating Commissioners tha t vote on this ordinance
their terms that have already been served would count toward th e three term limit as well
as any appointments that may be made would not extend beyond 14 months if you fall
within a 60 day period prior to the next election. The City Attorne y a special election
would have to be held.
A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in com pliance
with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Be ach, Florida.
Vice Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open.
Mary Kilpatrick, 713 Place Chateau, Delray Beach, FL 33445, asked if
the proposed term limits are adopted does the City of Delray Beach allow for a ballot or a
recall and is there a predetermined amount of time that a Comm issioner has to be seated
prior to a recall being requested. Ms. Kilpatrick sated in other words if you are a new
Commissioner and have served for two months would that Commissioner be a vailable to
be recounted.
The City Attorney stated this is in the City Charter and once you initiate
the recall procedure it can be at any time but there are c ertain time limits on a recall itself
that need to be followed. The City Attorney stated there is not any minimum time period
and you can initiate a recall at any time.
Christina Morrison, 2809 Florida Boulevard #207, Delray Beach, FL
33483 (Chair of the Financial Review Board), stated we are dealing with an issue that
is in the City Charter without addressing the Charter in general.
Alson Jacquet, 236 S.E. 3 rd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, feels this
should be a Charter issue and suggested that the City take advice f rom the people before
deciding to put this on the ballot. Mr. Jacquet stated he refers t o this ordinance as the
“Incumbent Entrenchment Act” and feels that six years is more than enough time for a
competent and smart individual to do some good work in this city.
27
01/17/12
Andre Andrews, 739 S. Swinton Avenue, Apt. #2, Delray Beach, FL
33444, stated people should be able to vote someone out of a Commission seat.
Henry Williams, 310 N.W. 3 rd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444
(President of the Northwest Homeowners’ Association), briefly discussed the previous
Charter Review Committee and stated he was one of the individuals who fought to put
term limits in the Charter.
John Dancy, Delray Beach, resident of Delray Beach for 41 years,
concurred with comments expressed by Mr. Jacquet and clarified tha t the Commission is
not putting something in the ordinance to extend terms but the resident s have the voice to
say “yes” or “no” who they want to put in the Commission seats.
There being no one from the public who wished to address the
Commission regarding Ordinance No. 44-11, the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Alperin stated the Commission is not passing this but is only placing
this on the ballot for the public to vote.
Mr. Carney stated he has friends on both sides of this issue and not ed
when he initially looked at this issue it related to the fact tha t he did not see Delray Beach
represented in a meaningful fashion in the Palm Beach County Lea gue of Cities and the
Florida League of Cities. He stated he understood that approximat ely $45,000 every
three years could be saved. Mr. Carney stated he never bought the idea that “change for
the sake of change” was a good idea and sometimes gray hair and experience does count.
He stated we have had some legislators that we like who were termed out and others that
we wished were termed out. Mr. Carney stated in his mind you do not establish a policy
which is designed to strengthen an institution (the Commission) in orde r to do its job to
better represent the citizens because you are worried about c an you get somebody
unelected. He stated if someone were elected they would still have to face the voters
three times. Mr. Carney stated some of the residents feel that we should have a Charter
Review because this is in the Charter and therefore they are unha ppy with the process.
Mr. Carney stated it really comes down to who can control the proce ss and feels it is his
duty to put this to the citizens to vote. Mr. Carney commented about DELPAC’s (Delray
Economic Leaders Political Action Committee) letter and their position. Mr. Carney
stated when he started looking at the issue of transient housing he re quested of someone
who was on the senior position on the Palm Beach County League of Cit ies as to why the
Palm Beach County League of Cities did not take a position on trans ient housing. Mr.
Carney stated he was advised that the two biggest communities w hich are seeing this
issue are the City of Boca Raton and the City of Delray Beac h. Mr. Carney stated both
have six year terms and it takes six years to make you plac e on a committee and by the
time Delray Beach gets into a position of having any voice on a c ommittee they are
cycled off. Mr. Carney stated about ten days ago the Government Affairs Committ ee was
considering passing without comment Senate Bill 1026 (essentially a transient housing
bill) largely supported by a smaller community in Palm Be ach County and a city in
Miami/Dade. Mr. Carney stated while there were portions of t he bill that he liked
28
01/17/12
(spacing requirements) there was also a portion of the bill w hich would have permitted
on-site rehabilitative services in residential neighborhoods. Mr . Carney stated a
Commissioner from Boca Raton learned about it, called his City A ttorney who then
called our City Attorney, and because of that the City of Delr ay Beach was able to get
some comment made on that particular legislation. He stated w hile their comments have
been noted no change was made to the legislation. Mr. Carney stat ed the important thing
to do is establish a policy which strengthens the institution t hat we all need which is to
represent the interest of Delray Beach.
Mr. Frankel stated there are challenges and the Commission ma kes
difficult decisions. He stated the Commission is like a firing squad because they are
getting hit from every which way. Mr. Frankel stated in six months there will be many
people who were present tonight complaining because their se rvices are cut, etc. He
stated he first ran in 2009 and prior to his decision to run for this seat he met with as
many past elected officials and groups in the city as he coul d. Mr. Frankel stated the
common complaint he heard was this group controls. Mr. Frankel sta ted Mr. Jacquet said
you need to take the advice of the people and placing this on the ba llot is listening to the
people not hearing a group of 5, 10, or 15 people telling him what they think. Mr.
Frankel stated he can give pros and cons for 2 years, 4 years, no term limits and he
respects DELPAC’s (Delray Economic Leaders Political Act ion Committee) position.
He stated the issue is whether the Commission should put this on th e ballot for the
citizens to decide. Mr. Frankel stated if this passes future Commissioners can get the
support locally in our county and statewide, and also federally, and i t is experience that
allows this. Mr. Frankel stated if the citizens want to rota te the Commission in and out
he understands.
Dr. Alperin stated he spoke in favor of putting this out to the pub lic to
make the decision and believes that term limits deprive people of democra cy.
Vice Mayor Gray stated in 2009 when she was appointed to this s eat
immediately she started going to meetings with the Palm Bea ch County League of Cities
and when she was elected in 2010 she became one of the liaisons to the Palm Beach
County League of Cities. She stated Commissioner Isaac “Ike” Ro binson from West
Palm Beach asked her if she would consider being on some of the boards . Mrs. Gray
stated they found out because of the term limits in the City o f Delray Beach they would
not be able to do that. She stated the City Manager has been representing the City of
Delray Beach on the Commission’s behalf. Mrs. Gray stated when she attended the
National League of Cities last year in March in Washington, D.C. they ask ed people to be
on these boards the Commission could not do that. Mrs. Gray stated be cause the City
does not have lobbyist they as Commissioners and the Mayor have t o go out and lobby
the legislators. She stated the Mayor, past Commissioner Mac k Bernard and she have
gone to Washington, D.C. to lobby for the City. Mrs. Gray stated it is very important to
build those relationships and by the time you start to build up r elationships to do good for
the community you term is up. Mrs. Gray stated we do have the right to vote a person
out-of-office and noted that every three years people will be able to vote. Mrs. Gray
stated because the City does not have a lobbyist then it is ve ry important that the
29
01/17/12
Commission has time to do their jobs and they have the opportunity t o put the City’s
issues out front and have the League back the City.
Dr. Alperin moved to approve Ordinance No. 44-11 on Second and
FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commi ssion voted as
follows: Vice Mayor Gray – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alpe rin – Yes; Mr. Frankel –
Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote.
10.C. ORDINANCE NO. 02-12: Consider an amendment to Chapter 96, “Fire
Safety and Emergency Services”, by amending 96.16, “Certain Codes Adopt ed by
Reference”, to comply with the State of Florida’s updated ch anges in the Fire Prevention
Code Standards.
The caption of Ordinance No. 02-12 is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 96, “FIRE SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES”, BY AMENDING 96.16,
“CERTAIN CODES ADOPTED BY REFERENCE”, TO
COMPLY WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA’S
UPDATED CHANGES IN THE FIRE PREVENTION
CODE STANDARDS; PROVIDING A SAVING
CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Ordinance No. 02-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s
office.)
The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was
held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida
and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida.
Victor Williams, Assistant Fire Chief, stated the City of Delray Beach
adopts by reference and incorporates into Chapter 96 the Fire S afety and Emergency
Services chapter of the Code of Ordinances those specific codes a nd standards known as
the Florida Fire Prevention Code. Mr. Williams stated the Florida Fire Prevention Code
is adopted by the State Fire Marshall every three years as required by Chapter 633.0215
of Florida Statutes. Mr. Williams stated this fire code pre visions are enforced by local
fire officials within each county, municipality, or special fir e district within the state. He
stated the county, municipality, or special fire district may also have local amendments
applicable to its community. Mr. Williams stated along with the revisions and updating
of the Florida Fire Prevention Code municipalities are also requi red to adopt any local
amendments made to the Florida Fire Prevention Code as deemed ne cessary by the
authority having jurisdiction. He stated Florida Statute also sta tes any local amendment
adopted by the municipality sunset every three years keeping i n cadence with the Florida
30
01/17/12
Fire Prevention Code and require re-authorization by the City. Mr. Williams stated
Section 633.0215 Subsection (4) of the Florida Statutes identifies the p rocess that the
City of Delray Beach employs for amending the Code. He stat ed some of the previous
portions of the locally amended code in Delray Beach have been adopt ed by the state and
included in the Florida Fire Prevention code and therefore no longer requir es local
adoption. For example, NFPA 170 the fire safety symbol standard has been adopted
which identifies those structures within our jurisdiction that emplo yees light weight truss
assemblies in their construction. Mr. Williams stated this gi ves firefighters a heads up
when a fire has been burning for an unchecked amount of time it all ows them to
recognize the inherent dangers for a possible collapse of the roof structure. He stated
others that have also been adopted are NFPA 326 safe guarding ta nks and containers,
NFPA 820 fire protection and wastewater treatment and collection facilities. Mr.
Williams stated these have been adopted and no longer require the C ity to adopt those as
amendments to the Code. He stated other portions of the Code previousl y approved and
locally adopted were not adopted by the state and therefore requi res local adoption by the
City. For example, NFPA 18 wetting agents and is a wetting agent is a chemical
concentrate when added to water and it enhances the ability of t he water to fight deep
seeded fires, NFPA 408 aircraft hand portable fire extingui shers and NFPA 432
construction and protection of aircraft engine tech facilities have not been adopted. Staff
recommends that this ordinance be approved adopting the 2010 addition of the Florida
Fire Prevention Code as well as the following NFPA standards: N FPA 18 wetting agents,
NFPA 408 aircraft hand portable fire extinguishers; NFPA 423 co nstruction and
protection of aircraft engine test facilities, NFPA 496 perche d and pressurized enclosures
for electrical equipment, NFPA 720 household carbon monoxide warning equipm ent,
NFPA 1141 planned building groups, and NFPA 1961 standards on fire hose. Mr .
Williams requested that these standards be adopted as local ado ptions along with the
Florida Fire Prevention Code.
Vice Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open.
Mary Kilpatrick 713 Place Chateau, Delray Beach, FL 33445, stated
for clarification part of this that staff is asking the Ci ty Commission to adopt is a Code
about fire extinguishers because of our close proximity to t he Boca Raton Airport. Mr.
Williams stated this is correct. Ms. Kilpatrick asked what this will do for the City of
Delray Beach and asked if residents are going to have to pay a nother $25.00 for a decal
that says “we live close to Boca”. Mr. Williams stated the reason they are looking to
adopt this locally is because the City of Delray Beach and t he City of Boca Raton have a
mutual agreement to assist one another in times of emergency. For example, if the City
of Boca Raton was to respond to the airport for emergency involving aircraft we have
this Code adopted so it would identify the type of fire extinguis hers needed to be
accessible for the personnel on the scene to fight this fire p rior to their arrival to contain
it or put it out altogether. Mr. Williams stated this is not going to cost any money.
The City Manager stated the City of Delray Beach has a m utual aid
agreement with the City of Boca Raton so if we have a fire her e that requires more
resources than we have, Boca Raton will send people into Delray Beach and if they have
31
01/17/12
a need we send our firefighters there. Also, the City Manager s tated the City of Delray
Beach has a joint hazardous material response team with Boca w here the firefighters
from both cities join together that is largely funded by the Sol id Waste Authority
because they have these countywide.
John Dancy, resident of Delray Beach for 41 years, asked if this will
cost the citizens of Delray Beach any additional expenses. Mr . Williams stated there
will not be any additional cost to the citizens and staff is adopting the Code this evening.
Henry Williams, 310 N.W. 3 rd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL33444, stated
if you had to drive your truck from here to Boynton it will still cost because you have to
put gas in it and there is wear and tear on the vehicle.
There being no one from the public who wished to address the
Commission regarding Ordinance No. 02-12, the public hearing was closed.
For clarification, the City Attorney stated staff is not a dding anything to
the Code but is trying to clean it up to comply with the Florida Fire Preve ntion standards.
Dr. Alperin moved to adopt Ordinance No. 02-12 on Second and FINAL
Reading, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: M r.
Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Vice May or Gray – Yes. Said
motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote.
12. FIRST READINGS:
A. None
13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS.
13.A. City Manager
The City Manager had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items.
13.B. City Attorney
The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items.
13.C. City Commission
13.C.1. Mr. Frankel
Mr. Frankel had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items.
32
01/17/12
13.C.2. Mr. Carney
Mr. Carney stated he is glad that everyone came out tonight and loves
citizen engagement.
13.C.3. Dr. Alperin
Dr. Alperin stated he would like the public to know that the C ommission
does not take this for granted. He stated he wants to be fair and do the right thing for the
entire community because you have to take the whole city into cons ideration not just
those people that show up at the meeting.
13.C.4. Vice Mayor Gray
Vice Mayor Gray stated Mayor McDuffie was not feelin g well tonight so
he could not be here this evening.
There being no further business, Vice Mayor Gray declared the meeting
adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
_________________________________________
City Clerk
ATTEST:
____________________________________
V I C E M A Y O R
The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the
information provided herein is the Minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeti ng held
on January 17, 2012, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by t he City
Commission on ________________________.
__________________________________________________
City Clerk
33
01/17/12
NOTE TO READER:
If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they
are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They wil l become the official
Minutes only after review and approval which may involve some amendme nts, additions
or deletions as set forth above.
City Commission Meeting on January 17, 2012; Item 9.A.
City Commission Meeting on January 17, 2012; Item 9.A.
WHEREAS , many times when individuals and families need help with meet ing life’s
basic needs and they are not sure where to turn; and
WHEREAS, 2-1-1 is an easy to remember, easy to use number recognized as t he
central linkage point in providing individuals and families with the i nformation and support they
need to solve their problems or just someone to talk to; and
WHEREAS , Palm Beach County is fortunate to have a non profit agency, 211 Palm
Beach/Treasure Coast, that enables people to access informa tion about, provides assessment for
and referral to community resources, with telephone counseling for distressed callers including
suicide intervention; and
WHEREAS , 2-1-1 Helpline is a free, confidential phone call, available 24 hour s a day
7 days a week with staff and volunteers who are “here to listen, and here to help,” who last year
alone assisted 150,000 callers in need of crisis intervention, informati on, assessment and
referrals to community services.
WHEREAS , 211 Palm Beach/Treasure Coast proudly celebrated its 40th annivers ary,
and looks forward in continuing to provide quality and caring assistance to the people of our
community while heading into its fifth decade service.
NOW, THEREFORE , I, NELSON S. McDUFFIE, Mayor of the City of Delray
Beach, Florida, on behalf of the City Commission do hereby proclai m the week of February 11,
2012 – February 17, 2012 as:
2 22 2----1 11 1----1 1 1 1 AWARENESS AWARENESS AWARENESS AWARENESS WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK
in city of Delray Beach, Florida and urge all citizens to be aware of the only telephone number
they need to know to access information or referral on over 3,200 program s in our community
that provide assistance in such areas as Health Care, Insurance , Volunteering, Food, Day Care,
Mental Health Counseling, Support Groups, Financial Assistance, etc.
IN WITNESS WHEROF , I hereunto set my hand and cause the Official Seal of the
City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed this 7 th day of February, 2012
_________________________
NELSON S. McDUFFIE
MAYOR
WHEREAS, Family Central was founded in 1971 and is celebrat ing 40 years of providing
vital programs and services to South Florida; and
WHEREAS, Family Central has been recognized by the Council on Accreditation for its
outstanding commitment to children and families; and
WHEREAS, approximately 1 million children and families have been served by Family
Central since 1971; and
WHEREAS, our young children are the most valuable assets an d represent the future, hope
and inspiration of this county, state and nation; and
WHEREAS, modern societal and economic demands often cause f amilies to separate and
many young children face crises of grave proportion; and
WHEREAS, Family Central and the City of Delray Beach acknow ledge that quality family
support and early childhood education is an integral part of all young children’s development; and
WHEREAS, a commitment to improving the lives of children mu st begin at the local level,
where children and families live and work and have the potential to thrive, and where all citizens,
working together can make a difference in our children’s l ives; and
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach has a strong commitment to improvi ng the lives of
children and ensuring that all of our children have the oppo rtunity to grow up healthy, safe, educated,
and free from poverty.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, NELSON S. McDUFFIE, Mayor of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, on behalf of the City Commission do hereby proclai m February 11, 2012 as:
FAMILY CENTRAL FAMILY CENTRAL FAMILY CENTRAL FAMILY CENTRAL
4Oth YEAR ANNIVERSARY 4Oth YEAR ANNIVERSARY 4Oth YEAR ANNIVERSARY 4Oth YEAR ANNIVERSARY
in the City of Delray Beach and urge all citizens o f Delray Beach to recognize Family Central’s 40
years of providing vital programs and services to the c hildren and families of South Florida.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Offici al Seal of
the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed this 7 th day of February, 2012.
____________________________
NELSON S. MCDUFFIE
MAYOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Jennifer Buce, SPIRIT Co-Chairperson
Shakeema Gaskin, SPIRIT Co-Chairperson
DATE:January 30, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 7.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
S.P.I.R.I.T. COMMITTEE QUARTERLY AWARDS PRESENTATION
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The item before the City Commission is the recognit ion of three (3) quarterly winners chosen by the
SPIRIT Committee for their service, performance, in tegrity, responsibility, innovation, and teamwork.
BACKGROUND
The City of Delray Beach implemented the SPIRIT Qua rterly Award Program in April 2006. The main
objective of the SPIRIT Program is to award the eff orts of employees who provide outstanding quality
service to our City.
Winners for the last quarter are:
• Det. Michael DeBree; Police Department; Kevin Rummell will present the award.
• Det. James Finley, Police Department; Shakeema Gaskin or Jennifer Buce will present the award.
• Rebecca Truxell, Planning & Zoning, Amy Alvare z will present the award.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Lula Butler - Director, Community Improvement
THROUGH:David Harden - City Manager
DATE:February 1, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 7.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
CVS CAREMARK NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES PRESCRIPTION DISCOUNT CA RD
PROGRAM
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Staff requests City Commission approval to launch a free Prescription Discount Card program
sponsored by the National League of Cities (NLC).
BACKGROUND
The National League of Cities is the nation’s oldes t and largest organization devoted to strengthening
and promoting cities as centers of opportunity, lea dership and governance. The NLC is a resource and
advocate for 19,000 cities, towns and villages, rep resenting more than 218 million Americans.
The NLC prescription drug card is designed to help area residents with the high cost of prescription
medications. This program offers savings on prescri ption drugs to residents who are without health
insurance, a traditional benefits plan, or have pre scriptions that are not covered by insurance. The
Prescription Discount card is made available to res idents by the City in collaboration with the NLC an d
is made possible through the City's membership in t he NLC.
The NLC prescription discount card is administered by CVS Caremark, the largest provider of
prescriptions and related health care services in t he nation. CVS Caremark has administered
prescription discount programs since 1992.
The card is free to all Delray Beach residents, reg ardless of age, income or existing health insurance .
There is no cost to the City or the residents to us e the card. There is no enrollment fees and no
membership fees.
This is an opportunity for the City of Delray Beach to help residents save money on much-needed
prescription medications given the current economic climate.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner
Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning
THROUGH:City Manager
DATE:January 31, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
RESOLUTION NO. 07 -12 (TAX EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR ELIGIBLE
IMPROVEMENTS/124 NORTH SWINTON AVENUE)
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The item before the City Commission is approval of the tax exemption request for improvements to the
property located at 124 North Swinton Avenue, Old S chool Square Historic District.
BACKGROUND
The subject property originally consisted of a circ a 1910 frame vernacular style, two story structure,
converted from a single-family residence to retail use in 1993. The propert y is designated as
contributing to the Old School Square Historic Dist rict.
At its meeting of November 18, 2009, the HPB approv ed a Class III Site Plan Modification for the
demolition of a circa 1983 one-story, detached gara ge, and construction of a two-story accessory
structure containing approximately 1,000 square fee t for additional office space. No additional on-site
parking spaces were constructed as the City Commiss ion approved a request for four (4) in-lieu of
parking spaces at its meeting of May 19, 2009.
ANALYSIS
The improvements, both interior and exterior, are c omplete, and a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was
issued on July 15, 2011. The applicant is now apply ing for tax exemption status for those
improvements.
The HPB considered the tax exemption request at the ir January 18, 2012 meeting and recommended
approval of the Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Applicatio n. The tax exemption will apply only to the
difference in assessed value after the eligible pro perty improvements.
The applicant is now before the City Commission for final approval of Part 2 of the exemption request.
If approved, the request will be forwarded to the P alm Beach County Property Appraiser’s Office and
the Palm Beach County Planning and Zoning Departmen t for recordation and final appraisal of the
improvements. Additional background and an analysis of the request are provided in the attached HPB
Memorandum Staff Report.
The request contains qualifying improvements under LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(5)(a)(i)-(iv) and is
compliant with the City’s Land Development Regulations, the Historic Preser vation Design Guidelines,
and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for R ehabilitation.
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(10), the "Final Ap plication/ Request for Review of Completed
Work" was submitted within eighteen (18) months of the CO. The City’s Community Improvement
Department has verified that the work has been comp leted, passed the final inspection, and the
Certificate of Occupancy was issued on July 15, 201 1.
As mandated by LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(10), the Histor ic Preservation Board reviewed the Final
Application at its meeting of January 18, 2012, and determined that the completed improvements were
in compliance with the previously approved request. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(12), upon
approval of a Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work by the Historic Preservation
Board, the Final Application shall be placed by res olution on the agenda of the City Commission for
approval.
The expenditures associated with the qualifying imp rovements total approximately $380,000. The tax
exemption will be limited to the increase in assess ed value (as determined by the Palm Beach County
Property Appraiser) and result in an abatement of t axes on the City and County portions for a period o f
ten years from the date of approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the tax exemption request, “Part 2/Final Ap plication Request for Review of Completed Work ”
for site improvements to the property located at 12 4 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic
District, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(M)(5)(a)(iii) and (M)(5)(b)
and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design G uidelines.
RESOLUTION NO. 07-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING AN AD VALOREM TAX
EXEMPTION TO ISABELLA I. INVESTMENTS, LLC. FOR THE
HISTORIC REHABILITATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 124
NORTH SWINTON AVENUE, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED HEREIN;
DETERMINING THAT THE COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS ARE
CONSISTENT WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION (LDR)
SECTION 4.5.1(M)(5); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Program of the City of Delray Beach, Florida (the “City”), is
designed to preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate resources whi ch represent distinctive and significant
elements of the City’s historical, cultural, social, economic, p olitical, archaeological, and architectural
identity; and/or serve as visible reminders of the City’s culture and her itage; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Florida amended the Florida Constitution, Article VII, Section 3, to
authorize counties and municipalities to grant a partial ad val orem tax exemption to owners of historic
properties for improvements to such properties which are the result of the restoration, renovation, or
rehabilitation of the historic properties; and
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach City Commission has appr oved an ordinance providing for
an ad valorem tax exemption for the restoration, renovation, and/or impr ovement of historic properties
(Ordinance No. 50-96); and
WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax exemption is one means of offering a financial incentive to increase
interest in restoring, renovating, and improving the City’s historic struct ures; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 50-96 provides that on completion of the review of a Final
Application/Request for Review of Completed Work, the Historic Pre servation Planner shall present such
Final Application in a regularly scheduled meeting of the Hist oric Preservation Board and shall recommend
that the Historic Preservation Board grant or deny the exemption; and
WHEREAS, the property owners filed a Preconstruction Applica tion and Completed Work
Application for review by the Historic Preservation Board on Janua ry 18, 2012, of an ad valorem tax
exemption for the historic restoration, renovation, and improvement of t he property located at 124 North
Swinton Avenue, and the Historic Preservation Board determined that the completed improvements were
consistent with LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(5) and recommended approval to grant an ad valorem City tax
exemption to Isabella I. Investments, LLC. for the restoration, renovation, and improvement to the property
located at 124 North Swinton Avenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSIO N OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
2
Res No. 07-12
Section 1 . The City Commission hereby determines that the completed imp rovements to the
property located at 124 North Swinton Avenue, as described in the a pplication for ad valorem tax
exemption filed with the City, were consistent with LDR Section 4.5.1(M)(5).
Section 2 . The City Commission hereby approves an ad valorem tax exem ption to the property
owner, Isabella I. Investments, LLC., for a ten year period, comme ncing on 1/1/13, from that portion of ad
valorem taxes levied on the increase in assessed value, between the years 1/1/13 – 12/31/22, resulting from
the renovation, restoration, and rehabilitation of the property locate d at 124 North Swinton Avenue, which
property is legally described as follows and which improvement s are described in HPB Certificate of
Appropriateness No. 2009-197:
South 4.5’ of Lot 11 and the North 70.5’ of Lot 12, Block 59, Town of Delray
Section 3 . Prior to the ad valorem tax exemption described herein being e ffective, Isabella I.
Investments, LLC, shall execute and record a restrictive covenant in a form established by the State of
Florida, Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, r equiring the qualifying improvements be
maintained during the period that the tax exemption is granted. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be
provided to the City’s Historical Preservation Planner.
Section 4 . This resolution shall take effect in accordance with law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on the _____ day of _____________, 2012.
_____________________________________
ATTEST: M A Y O R
________________________________
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Ronald Hoggard, AICP, Principal Planner
Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning
THROUGH:City Manager
DATE:January 31, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
RESOLUTION NO. 06 -12: ALLEY ABANDONMENT; VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
(VFW)
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The item before the Commission is consideration of abandonment of the 16’ east-west alley located
south of and adjacent to the former VFW building at 5 SE 2nd Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6
(M), Abandonment of Rights-of-Way. A utility easeme nt is being retained over the entire area.
BACKGROUND
The subject paved alleyway was dedicated with the r ecording of the Town of Linton Plat (Plat Book 1,
Page 3) on March 25, 1910. The proposed alley aband onment area is the remaining right-of-way
following abandonment of the east portion of the al ley to accommodate the redevelopment of the Grove
Square project. The alley currently serves as a ser vice court for the adjacent properties to the north and
south. The abandonment area is a 16’ x 47.7’ rectangular shaped parcel containing approximately 763
sq. ft. (0.018 acres). The abandonment request was submitted by the owner of the adjacent property to
the north (formerly the VFW), which is being redeve loped as a new restaurant, known as “Racks”. An
application for site plan approval has been submitt ed for the new restaurant.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
Development Services Management Group (DSMG): On December 22, 2011, the DSMG reviewed the
alleyway abandonment request and recommended approv al, subject to retention of an easement to cover
existing utilities.
Environmental Services Department: The City’s Environmental Services Department (ESD) has
reviewed the request and has no issues with the aba ndonment provided a utility easement is retained
over the entire abandoned area to accommodate exist ing utilities.
Utility Providers: Florida Public Utilities, AT&T, Comcast and FP&L a ll stated that they do not object
to the abandonment, provided an easement is retaine d.
Downtown Development Authority (DDA): On January 9, 2012, the DDA reviewed the alleyway
abandonment request and unanimously recommended app roval subject to: 1) the alley is to be used as
service court ONLY; 2) continued use for utilities; and 3) no permanent structures be allowed in the
alley.
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA): On January 12, 2012, the CRA reviewed the alleyway
abandonment request and recommended approval.
Planning and Zoning Board: On January 23, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the
proposal and recommended approval (6-0) of the abandonment, by adopting the findings of fact and law
contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with th e
Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.6(M)(5) of the Land Development
Regulations. A full analysis of the proposed abando nment is provided in the attached Planning and
Zoning Board staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, approve Resolution No. 6-12 to abandon t he east-west alley right-of-way located south of
and adjacent to the former VFW building at 5 SE 2nd Avenue, within Block 85 of the Town of Linton
and dedicated by the Plat thereof, as recorded in P lat Book 1, Page 3, of the Public Records of Palm
Beach County, Florida, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.6(M)(5), of the Land Development
Regulations.
RESOLUTION NO. 6-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, VACATING AND ABANDONING AN
ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHI BIT
“A”, BUT RESERVING AND RETAINING TO THE CITY A UTIL ITY
EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES OVER THE
ENTIRE AREA THEREOF, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, Florida, receiv ed an application for abandonment of
an alley right-of-way, as more particularly describ ed in Exhibit “A”; said alley right-of-way being
located adjacent to and south of Lot 1, Block 85 of the City of Delray Beach (formerly Town of
Linton), according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 3 of the Public Records of
Palm Beach County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the application for abandonment of said r ight-of-way was processed pursuant
to Section 2.4.6(M), “Abandonment of Rights-of-Way”, of the Land Development Regulations of
the City of Delray Beach, Florida; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(M)(3)(e), t he Planning and Zoning Board, as
Local Planning Agency, formally reviewed the matter at a public hearing on January 23, 2012 and
voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the abandonmen t, based upon positive findings with respect
to LDR Section 2.4.6(M)(5), and subject to the cond ition that a utility easement be retained over the
entire area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(M), the app lication was forwarded to the City
Commission with the recommendation that the abandon ment be approved, based upon positive
findings; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, finds that it to be in
the best interest of the City of Delray Beach to va cate and abandon said alley right of way, based
upon positive findings pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(M)(5), but does not abandon and retains and
reserves unto itself a utility easement over the en tire area thereof, as more particularly described
herein in Exhibit “A”, for the purpose of emergency access and constructing and/or maintaining,
either over or under, the surface poles, wires, pip es, sewers, drainage facilities, or any other facil ities
used for various public utilities whether owned by the City o r private corporations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSI ON OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA:
Section 1 . That the foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated her ein by this reference.
2 RES. NO. 6-12
Section 2 . That pursuant to Chapter 177.101(5) and Chapter 1 66 of the Florida
Statutes, it is hereby determined by the Delray Bea ch Commission to vacate and abandon all right
and interest it holds to the following real propert y, for right-of-way purposes only, but does not
abandon and retains and reserves unto itself a util ity easement for the purpose of emergency access
and constructing and/or maintaining, either over or under, the surface poles, wires, pipes, sewers,
drainage facilities, or any other facilities used f or various public utilities whether owned by the Ci ty
or private corporations, over the entire area thereof, more particularly described as follows:
See, Exhibit “A”
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the _______ day of
________________, 2012.
_____________________________________
M A Y O R
ATTEST:
__________________________________
CITY CLERK
IV.C.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT ---
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2012
AGENDA ITEM: IV. E.
ITEM: Abandonment of the alley right-of -way located south of and adjacent to the former
VFW building at 5 SE 2nd Avenue.
GENERAL DATA:
$SSOLFDQW«« BOEJ, LLC
Owne UV««««««« BOEJ, LLC
$JHQW«««««««« Covelli Design Associates, Inc..
Location.......................... East side of SE 2 nd Avenue south of and
adjacent to the former VFW building at 5 SE 2 nd
Avenue.
Property Size.................. 0.018 acres
Future Land Use Map « Commercial Core
Current Zoning............... CBD (Central Business District)
Adjacent Zoning....North: CBD (Central Business District)
East: CBD (Central Business District)
South: CBD (Central Business District)
West: CBD (Central Business District)
Existing Land Use.......... Alley right-of -way serving as a service
court
Proposed Land Use........ Service court
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is that of making a recommend ation to the City Commission on the
proposed abandonment of the alley right-of -way located south of and adjacent to the former
VFW building at 5 SE 2 nd Avenue.
This right-of -wa y abandonment is being processed pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(M ),
Abandonment of Rights-of -Way.
BACKGROUND
The alley right-of -way was dedicated by the plat of the Town of Linton, which was recorded in
Plat Book 1, Page 3, on March 25, 1910 .
The proposed alley abandonment area is the remaining ri ght-of -way following abandonment of
the east portion of the alley to accommodate the redev elopment of the Grove Square project.
The alley currently serves as a service court for the adjacen t properties to the north and south.
ABANDONMENT DESCRIPTION
The subject alley right-of -way is 16 feet wide by 47.7 feet long and is located between the
former VFW building and the iL Bachio restaurant.
ABANDONMENT ANALYSIS
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(M)(1), public right-of -way may be abandoned (returned) to the
adjacent property to the same degree in which it was origin ally obtained (i.e. property dedicated
exclusively from a single parcel shall be returned to tha t parcel; property dedicated through
subdivision shall be divided at the center line and re turned equally to abutting parcels.)
As previously stated, the subject alley right-of way w as dedicated by the plat of the Town of
Linton and the owner of the adjacent property to the north (the Applicant) is entitled to t he north
half of the abandoned area. The south half of the ab andoned right-of -way will go to the owner of
the property to the south which contains the iL Bachio r estaurant.
The &LW\¶V(Q vironmental Services Department (ESD) has reviewed the r equest and ha s no
issues with the abandonment provided a utility easement i s retained over the entire abandoned
area to accommodate existing utilities. Likewise, Florida Public Utilities, AT&T , Comcast and
FP&L all stated that they do not object to the aband onment, provided the easement is retained.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(M)(5), prior to any right-of -way abandonment being approved,
the following findings must be made:
A) That there is not, nor will there be a need for the use of the right-of -way for any public
purpose.
The existing alley right-of -way is not the primary access for the adjacent properties t o the
north and south, which front directly on SE 2 nd Avenue. Since the east portion of the right-of -
way was abandoned earlier to accommodate the redevelopme nt of the Grove Square
project, the alley dead-ends at the edge of the adjacen t property to the east. It is currently
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Z oning
THROUGH:City Manager
DATE:February 2, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
AGREEMENT EXTENSION/DR. JOHN FLETMEYER/SEA TURTLE M ONITORING
SERVICES
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The action requested of City Commission is to autho rize a three year agreement extension with Dr. John
Fletemeyer for sea turtle monitoring through Octobe r 31, 2014 for a yearly rate of $38,750.00.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of March 1, 2005, the City Commissio n approved the authorization to proceed with an
expanded sea turtle monitoring agreement at an annu al cost of $38,750.00 through the year 2007. This
agreement included expanded tasks required by the F lorida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) including inspection and excavation of nests in the City as well as 1,000 feet north and south of
the City to determine nesting success and mortality . This increased scope of work was required to be
conducted through the year 2007. A request to exten d this agreement for 2008 - 2010 without the
expanded tasks but with added tasks to comply with new initiatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service was approved by City Commission on February 19, 2008 extending the agreement through
October 31, 2010. On February 15, 2011, the City Co mmission approved an extension of the agreement
through October 31, 2011. This was limited to one y ear rather than three years as requested by the
applicant as renourishment of the beach was planned for March of 2012 and an expanded turtle
monitoring scope of work for up to three years woul d be required from FDEP. These permit conditions
include significantly more intensive monitoring dur ing the fill event and for up to two following year s.
These conditions include the potential for hourly m onitoring tasks during the fill event and include
recording reproductive success rates which will req uire the excavation of all nests after initial hatc hing
events.
FUNDING SOURCE
The funds for this task are available in the Beach Restoration Fund (Account No. 332-4164-572-34.90)
and are partially reimbursable from Federal sources .
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the Sea Turtle Monitoring Agr eement with Dr. John Fletemeyer through the
2014 turtle nesting season not to exceed $38,750.00 annually.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this _____ day of __________________, 2012, by
and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA (the “City”) and DR. JOHN R.
FLETEMEYER (the “Investigator”).
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS , the City desires to engage Investigator’s services to monitor the
beach for sea turtle nesting activity; and
WHEREAS , Investigator will provide those services over the next three (3)
nesting seasons.
NOW, THEREFORE , based on the promises and covenants herein contained,
the parties agree as follows:
1. Term . This Agreement shall be effective for a period of t hree (3) years
from November 1, 2011 until October 31, 2014 unless te rminated as herein provided.
2. Services to be Performed . Investigator’s duties shall include, but not
be limited to the following:
a. Investigator’s duties include:
i. Obtain all necessary permits.
ii. Monitor the beach every morning between March 1 a nd
October 30 for sea turtle nesting activity and Identify all
nests with a minimum of one stake and an information sig n.
iii. All Marine Turtle Protection monitoring activi ties required
under Joint Coastal Permit 0303553-001-JC issued January
27, 2012.
iv. Submit special “take” reports involving any light ing incidents
responsible for a hatchling disorientation event.
2
v. Reports summarizing the nesting should be submitted t o the
City of Delray Beach. Data for nesting activity shoul d
include numbers of nests lost to erosion or washed out.
vi. Conduct monthly night lighting survey between Ma rch and
October and work with staff to solve lighting issues
proactively.
vii. Help City electrical personnel address City owned stre et
lighting issues.
viii. Submit monthly status reports to the City’s Planning and
Zoning Director or his/her designee.
ix. Submit a final report annually to the City’s Planning and
Zoning Director or his/her designee and the U.S. Fish a nd
Wildlife Service as well as to the State of Florida.
x. Provide all necessary materials and supplies.
xi. Provide all necessary labor.
xii. Provide all ancillary services necessary to accomplish the
services outlined herein.
3. Fees . The City shall pay the Investigator $38,750.00 per year. The
Investigator shall be paid within thirty (30) days after the fina l report is submitted,
reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning and Zon ing Director or his/her designee.
4. Indemnity; Sovereign Immunity . Investigator shall indemnify and hold
harmless and defend the City , its officers, employees and agents from any and all
claims or causes of action that may arise out of the ser vices to be performed by
Investigator , including but not limited to attorney’s fees and costs the City incurs at the
trial or appellate levels. The parties understand tha t the City does not waive its
sovereign immunity under Fla. Stat. § 768.28.
3
5. Insurance . Investigator shall provide the City with Comprehensive
General Liability Insurance in the amount of $500,000 .00, Automobile Liability Insurance
in the amount of $500,000.00 combined single limit an d Worker’s Compensation
Insurance as required by State Statutes. Investigator shall name the City as an
additional insured on the Insurance Certificate.
6. Independent Contractor . Investigator is an independent contractor.
Investigator or its employees are not employees of the City . Investigator , as an
independent contractor, is solely responsible for its insp ectors and shall be responsible
for all terms and conditions of their employment inclu ding the payment of taxes as
required by law.
7. Transportation . Investigator shall provide all transportation and pay all
costs associated therewith.
8. Termination . Either party may terminate this agreement upon th irty (30)
days written notice to the other for any or no reason, provided however the
indemnification and insurance provisions shall remain in effect after the termination of
the contract for a period of one (1) year . If a claim is made within the one-year period,
then the indemnification and hold harmless provision a nd insurance provisions shall
continue until the claim is resolved.
9. Notices . Any notice or communication under this agreement sha ll be
in writing and may be given by registered or certified mail. If given by registered or
certified mail, the notice or communication shall be dee med to have been given and
received when deposited in the United States Mail, pro perly addressed, with postage
prepaid. If given otherwise, than by registered or ce rtified mail, it should be deemed to
4
have been given when delivered to and received by th e party to whom it is addressed.
The notices and communication shall be given to the p articular parties at the following
addresses:
City : Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Investigator : Dr. John R. Fletemeyer
809 Cordova Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
10. Venue; Laws . This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of
the State of Florida with venue in Palm Beach Count y, Florida.
11. Modification . Except as expressly permitted herein to the contrary,
no modification, amendment or alteration in the ter ms or conditions contained herein
shall be effective unless contained in a written documen t executed with the same
formality and equality of dignity herewith.
12. Entire Agreement . This is the entire Agreement of parties and
modifications must be in writing and executed by the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the
day and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
By: ________________________ By: _____________________________
City Clerk Nelson s. McDuffie, Mayor
Approved as to legal sufficiency
and form:
5
By: ________________________
City Attorney
WITNESSES: Dr. John R. Fletemeyer
___________________________ By: _____________________________
Print Name: _________________
___________________________
Print Name:_________________
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me th is _____ day of
_________________, 2012, by __________________________________________,
He/She is personally known to me or has produced _______________________ (type
of identification) as identification.
______________________________
Notary Public – State of Florida
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney
DATE:February 1, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.D. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CRA FOR FUNDING
OF CONSTRUCTION/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Staff requests Commission approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Interlocal Agreement between the City
and the CRA for the funding of construction costs a nd professional services for certain projects as li sted
on Exhibit “A” attached to the Agreement.
BACKGROUND
Attached is a proposed amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for the funding of construction costs and
professional services for certain projects located in the CRA district that was approved by the City
Commission on September 20, 2011 and amended on Nov ember 1, 2011. Amendment No. 2 modifies
Item “H”, SW 12th Ave/Auburn Ave/14th Ave beautific ation to include City Item Number 2010-040 in
the amount of $10,000; reduces the amount of fundi ng for City Item Number 2010-098 from $150,000
to $140,000; and adds Item “O”, Worthing Park Pro ject and Item “P”, CRA Office Sidewalk Project to
Exhibit “A” of the Interlocal Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager
THROUGH:Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, GISP, C ity Engineer
Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Direct or
DATE:January 9, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.E. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
AGREEMENTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
This item is before the Commission for approval/aut horization for Mayor to sign Architectural Services
agreements with Currie Sowards Aguila Architects, W alters Zackria & Associates, Inc., David Miller
and Associates, Slattery & Associates and Bridges M arsh and Associates #12-056.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2011, a Request for Qualifications wa s issued for architectural firms for capital
improvement projects contained in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Eighteen firms
responded and were reviewed by the selection commit tee. On January 3, 2012, City Commission gave
staff approval to negotiate continuing contracts wi th; Currie Sowards Aguila Architects, Walters
Zackria & Associates, Inc., David Miller and Associ ates, Slattery & Associates and Bridges Marsh and
Associates. Attached are partially executed agreeme nts from all five firms.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney
DATE:January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.F. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE DECLARATION OF RESERVED RIGH TS AND AGREEMENT
NOT TO ENCUMBER N.E. 7TH AVENUE RELATED TO THE ATLA NTIC PLAZA PROJECT
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Approval of the Fifth Amendment to the Declaration of Reserved Rights and Agreement not to
Encumber N.E. 7 th Avenue regarding the abandonment and relocation of N.E. 7 th Avenue between N.E.
1 st Street and East Atlantic Avenue to extend the time frame to obtain site plan certification by a perio d
of 180 days.
BACKGROUND
The owner submitted a request for the abandonment a nd relocation of N.E. 7 th Avenue in order to
accommodate the proposed Atlantic Plaza project. Th e abandonment of N.E. 7 th Avenue has been
concluded, however, if the Developer fails to meet certain time frames the City may require the
reconveyance of N.E. 7 th Avenue.
A quick summary of the time deadlines regarding N.E. 7 th Avenue is as follows:
- provide environmental audit within 180 days of aban donment resolution approval
- must obtain SPRAB approval by 12/1/09
- must obtain site plan certification within 18 month s of SPRAB approval
- must complete construction of underground tunnel un der relocated 7 th Avenue within 3 years of
Site Plan Certification (this is the “no turn back deadline”)
- substantial completion of relocated 7 th Avenue within 2 years of the “no turn back deadline ”
The Developer has met the first two timeframes list ed above. The Developer previously obtained two 6
month extensions and two 3 month extensions to obta in site plan certification. The Developer is
requesting a 180 day extension at this time to obta in site plan certification (see attached
email). Planning and Zoning and Engineering have re viewed this request and do not have any objections
to the requested extension.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Fifth Amendment to the Declaration of Reserved Rights and
Agreement not to Encumber N.E. 7 th Avenue.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney
DATE:January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.G. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT/DEPOT INDUSTRIAL C ENTER,
LLC.
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Approval of the First Amendment to the Agreement to Exchange Real Property between the City and
Depot Industrial Center, LLC.
BACKGROUND
The City and Depot Industrial Center, LLC entered i nto an agreement on August 19, 2011 regarding the
exchange of real property related to the Historic D epot Project. The Exchange Agreement provided that
the closing would take place by December 31, 2011. The parties now wish to amend that date to provide
that the closing will take place on or before Febru ary 29, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement to Exc hange Real Property.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Danielle Connor, Fire Chief
THROUGH:David T. Harden
DATE:January 27, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.H. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/DELRAY BEACH PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS &
PARAMEDICS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
This item is before the Commission for approval of a Hold Harlmess Agreement granting permission to
store a replica 1929 Ford Model A fire vehicle owne d by the Delray Beach Professional Firefighters and
Paramedics Benevolent Fund, Inc. at one of the City 's fire stations.
BACKGROUND
Mr. and Mrs. Ira Kristel of Delray Beach have donat ed a replica 1929 Ford Model A to the Delray
Beach Professional Firefighters Benevolent Associat ion. The Association has accepted the donation and
will assume complete responsibility for the vehicle to include ownership, licensing, registration,
insurance and maintenance.
The Benevolent Association would like the City of D elray Beach Fire-Rescue Department to allow
them to store the vehicle inside the apparatus area of one of the City's fire stations, provided the s pace is
available as deemed by the Fire Chief, and would no t displace any city owned equipment.
The Association has agreed to have any markings placed on the vehicle t o signify that it belongs to the
Delray Beach Firefighters’ Benevolent Association, so that it is not to be con fused with City owned
apparatus.
The Association has agreed to make the vehicle available in such a man ner as to benefit both the City
and the Benevolent Association. Every effort will be made to include it in the Delray Beach Fire-
Rescue promoted activities such as parades, open ho uses, equipment displays, special events, etc.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Commission approve the Hold Harmless agreement allowing the Delray Beach
Professional Firefighters Benevolent Association to store a 1929 Ford Model A at Fire Station 4.
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
THIS HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT , is entered into this _____ day of
_____________, 2012 by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ,
(hereinafter referred to as “CITY ”) and _________________, (hereinafter referred to as
“OWNER ”).
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS , OWNER owns a 1929 Ford Model A “vehicle” and wishes to use CITY
facilities to store such vehicle; and
WHEREAS , OWNER allows the use of the vehicle in certain fire related events a nd
parades conducted in the City and the CITY currently has extra space in Fire Station 4 and shall
allow such storage; and
WHEREAS , the CITY shall not be responsible for any damage that may occur to the
vehicle for any reason.
NOW, THEREFORE , for the mutual covenants and matters set forth herein, as of the
date set forth above, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. The recitations set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. OWNER is the owner of the vehicle.
3. That OWNER wishes to store such vehicle in a fire station owned by the CITY .
4. OWNER acknowledges that the CITY shall assume no responsibility or
maintenance for the vehicle and that OWNER shall be responsible for the upkeep, maintenance
and appearance of the vehicle. If the CITY , in its sole discretion, determines that the vehicle is
not being maintained in a manner that is acceptable to the Fire Chief; if the vehicle is creating a
hazardous or dangerous condition, as determined by the Fire Chief; or i f the space is needed for
2
any reason by the CITY , the CITY shall attempt to give the OWNER notice of the need to
remove the vehicle, however, no notice is required prior to the CITY moving the vehicle outside
of the fire station. OWNER agrees to remove the vehicle from CITY property within 24 hours
of being requested to do so, such request may be in writing or oral. Furthermore, OWNER
understands and agrees that in the event of a natural disaster or a threatened natural disaster, the
CITY may remove the vehicle for the fire station immediately and re quest the immediate
removal of the vehicle from CITY property. The CITY shall not be responsible for any damage
caused or incurred by the vehicle while stored in the fire station or while located on CITY
property due to any reason, including the negligence of the CITY. Furthermore, the CITY shall
not be responsible for any damage sustained by the vehicle due to the movement of the vehicle
by the CITY . If the OWNER fails to remove the vehicle form CITY property within 24 hours
of being requested to do so, the CITY may have the vehicle removed from CITY property by
any means necessary and shall not be responsible for any fe es or charges incurred or any damage
incurred by the vehicle.
5. OWNER , in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, agrees to
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the CITY , its agents, officers, employees and servants
from any and all claims, suits, causes of action or any claim whatsoever made, and damages,
which may result from the storage of the vehicle on CITY property. OWNER further agrees to
hold the CITY , its agents, officers, employees and servants harmless for any damage to the
vehicle.
6. OWNER agrees that the vehicle may be used to participate in cert ain CITY Fire
Department related events, upon the mutual agreement of both parties.
3
7. All notice required or allowed by this Agreement shall be del ivered in person or
mailed to the party at the following address:
CITY: Fire-Rescue Chief
501 West Atlantic Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
OWNER: Delray Beach Firefighters and Paramedics Benevolent Fund
P.O. Box 6805
Delray Beach, FL 33482
8. This Agreement shall be binding on the Parties, their respe ctive heirs, successors,
legal representatives, and permitted assigns and shall be rec orded in the Public Records of Palm
Beach County and shall run with the land.
9. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Florida. Venue for any claim or lawsuit arisi ng out of this Agreement shall be in
Palm Beach County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into t his agreement the day
and year first written above.
ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
By:_____________________ By:________________________________
City Clerk Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
By:_____________________
City Attorney
4
WITNESSES: OWNER:
________________________
By:__________________________________
________________________
_____________________________________
(Print or Type Name) (Print or Type Name)
________________________
________________________
(Print or Type Name)
STATE OF ________________
COUNTY OF ______________
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
___________, 2012, by ___________________________________________ (name of person
acknowledging).
____________________________________
Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida
____________________________________
Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name
of Notary Public
Personally Known _______ OR Produced Identification ________
Type of Identification Produced: ___________________________
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:January 30, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.I. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
FY2012 PROPOSED PERFORMANCE MEASURES/GOLF COURSES AND TE NNIS
FACILITIES
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
City Commission is requested to review and approve performance measures proposed for FY12 for the
Municipal Golf Course, Lakeview Golf Course and the Tennis Facilities.
BACKGROUND
Attached are proposed performance measures for FY12 for the Municipal Golf Course, Lakeview Golf
Course and the Tennis Facilities. The attachment in cludes both the proposed measures and point
assignments for FY12 as compared to actual for FY11 . We have again included a bonus point provision
for tasks completed that exceed contract expectatio ns, such as clean up after a hurricane.
As indicated in the past, our bond counsel has advi sed that if we used net profit as a measure, we cou ld
lose the tax free status of the bonds.
Per our agreement dated August 15, 2008, paragraph 9, JCD Sports Group is eligible for up to a 15%
bonus of the base payment per year based on approve d performance measures.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of proposed performance m easures for FY12 for the Municipal Golf
Course, Lakeview Golf Course and the Tennis Facilit ies.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:January 30, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.J. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/PALM BEACH COUNTY/OLD SCHOOL SQUARE INC./CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Commission is requested to approve an Interlocal Ag reement between Palm Beach County, Old School
Square Inc. and the City of Delray Beach Delray Bea ch for funding to purchase and install a
replacement sound system for the Old School Square Pavilion in the amount of $100,000.
BACKGROUND
Attached is an interlocal agreement which would pro vide funding of $100,000 to Old School Square to
replace the sound system for the Old School Square Pavilion.
The existing system is no longer operational and ne eds to be replaced. The replacement of this
equipment will save Old School Square rental costs for their sponsored events including the concert
series.
The City is a party to this agreement since we are the owners of the property. The grant is a
reimbursable grant and up-front costs will be paid by Old School Square. They will also be responsible
for bids and reporting requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Interlocal Agreeme nt with Palm Beach County and Old School
Square Inc. for funding in the amount of $100,000 f or replacement of the sound system for the pavilion .
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Jasmin Allen, Planner
Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning
THROUGH:City Manager
DATE:February 2, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.K. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The action requested of the City Commission is revi ew of appealable actions which were taken by
various Boards during the period of January 17, 201 2 through February 3, 2012.
BACKGROUND
This is the method of informing the City Commission of the land use actions, taken by designated
Boards, which may be appealed to the City Commissio n. After this meeting, the appeal period shall
expire (unless the 10 day appeal period has not occ urred). Section 2.4.7(E), Appeals, of the LDRs
applies. In summary, it provides that the City Comm ission hears appeals of actions taken by an
approving Board. It also provides that the City Com mission may file an appeal. To do so:
· The item must be raised by a Commission member.
· By motion, an action must be taken to place the ite m on the next meeting of the Commission
as an appealed item.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of January 23, 20 12
No appealable items were considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. The following items which
were considered by the Board will be forwarded to t he City Commission for action:
A. Recommended approval (7 to 0), of a City-initiated amendment to the Land Development
Regulations (LDR) amending Chapter Two, “Administrative Provisions: of the Land Development
Regulations of the City of Delray Beach by amending Section 2.4.7(G) “Request for Reasonable
Accommodation”.
B. Recommended approval (7 to 0), of an amendment to the Land Development Regulations Section
4.6.9”Off-Street Parking Regulations”, Subsection 4 .6.9(C) “Number of Parking Spaces Required”,
Sub-subsection 4.6.9(C)(1)(c) “Bicycle Parking” to establish new regulations for bicycle parking
and amending Appendix “A” “Definitions” to provide definitions for short term, medium term and long
term parking facilities.
C. Recommended approval (6 to 1, Al Jacquet dissent ing), of a City-initiated amendment to the Land
Development Regulations (LDRs) by amending Section 4.6.16, “Landscape Regulations” to provide
an updated landscape code.
D. Recommended approval with conditions (6 to 0, Ca ry Glickstein left the meeting), of a conditional
use request to permit outdoor dining to operate at night at 27-43 South Swinton Avenue, Swinton
Social, as required for properties located within t he Old School Square Historic Arts District.
E. Recommended approval (6 to 0), of abandonment of a 16 foot wide alleyway that extends for 47’,
lying south of Lot 1, Block 85, Town of Delray and immediately south of the former VFW Building
at 5 SE 2 nd Avenue.
Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Meeting of Ja nuary 25, 2012
1. Approved (5 to 0 Shannon Dawson and Scott Porten ab sent), an amendment to the master sign
program established for the Fountains Commercial Pl aza, located at 14451 South Military Trail
(west side of Military Trail, north of West Atlanti c Avenue), to allow the T-Mobile flat wall tenant
sign to be changed to utilize its corporate font. T he concurrent request to utilize the corporate
colors was denied on a 3 to 2 vote.
2. Approved (4 to 1, Alice Finst dissenting), a reques t to amend the blanket sign program established
for the Astor Condominium, to allow one flat wall t enant sign for Roxy & Lulu , located at 225 NE
1 st Street (north side of NE 1 st Street, east of Pineapple Grove Way). The request involves the use
of individual brushed aluminum letters instead of t he blanket acrylic panel signs.
3. Approved with conditions (4 to 0, Rustem Kupi stepp ed down), a Class I site plan modification
and architectural elevation changes for Casuarina Road Addition , located at 1023 Casuarina
Road (north side of Casuarina Road, between Gleason Street and Venetian Drive). The proposal
involves the construction of a 533 sq. ft. building addition that includes a new bedroom, sitting
room and dining room for two existing apartment uni ts.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting of January 18, 2012
No appealable items were considered by the Historic Preservation Board. The following items which
were considered by the Board will be forwarded to t he City Commission for action:
X. Recommended approval (7 to 0), of a request for Ad Valorem Tax Exemption associated with the
new construction of an accessory structure on a con tributing property located at 124 North Swinton
Avenue.
Y. Forward a recommendation of approval (7 to 0), to t he Planning and Zoning Board for a
recommendation to the City Commission for the condi tional use request to permit outdoor dining at
night for 27-43 South Swinton Avenue, Swinton Socia l, located at the northeast corner of South
Swinton Avenue and NE 1 st Street.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting of February 1, 2012
Z. Approved (6 to 0, Annie Adkins absent), a Class III site plan modification and Certificate of
Appropriateness request to legally establish the co nversion of a garage into office space for 85 SE
6 th Avenue, The Blank House , an individually designated site. Concurrently, th e Board denied (6 to
0), a waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.9 to waive four of the six required parking spaces. The
balance of the required spaces (two) would be accom modated via the in-lieu of parking program.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, receive and file this report.
Attachment: Map Showing the Location of Only the Ap pealable Projects
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Sharon L'Herrou, Administrative Officer
Anthony W. Strianese, Chief of Police
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:February 2, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.L.1 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
PURCHASE AWARD/FLORIDA BULLET
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The Delray Beach Police Department (DBPD) seeks app roval for the purchase of ammunition from
Florida Bullet in the amount of $65,635.65. This or der includes the ammunition needs for training, on-
duty use, and the S.W.A.T. team. See attached quote for itemized list.
BACKGROUND
Standardization of ammunition is very important. It is necessary for the Department to use only one
kind of ammunition for duty use (certain kinds of a mmunition for certain kinds of weapons) and a
comparable ammunition for training. Factors that mu st be weighed include: casing, bullet weight,
propellant, toxicity (of airborne fragments subsequ ent to fire), and bonding.
Once the Department has researched and determined t he best ammunition for the price, changing to a
different ammunition would require recalling all of the ammunition currently in the field and replacin g
it with the new ammunition. This is extremely costl y and wasteful both in purchasing cost and staff
time. Therefore, although ammunition prices do fluc tuate, once ammunition is selected, it is cost
prohibitive to change unless the circumstances warr ant the expense and time required to do so.
Pricing for this order is with Florida Bullet, a So le Source vendor. This allows Florida Bullet to pa ss on
special pricing consideration to customers. Florida Bullet is a preferred vendor as they consistently
provide quality merchandise, pricing, and service. Although Florida Bullet is a Sole Source provider,
the Department has provided pricing for comparable products for reference purposes. The total cost
using Florida Bullet as a vendor is $65,635.65 com pared to two other options of Winchester for
$85,975.34 and for Remington of $83,688.89 (illustr ated in the attached table).
Ammunition is a requirement for Law Enforcement Age ncies for obvious reasons. This represents our
large, annual order. Ammunition prices were set to increase as of 2/1/12, however, Florida Bullet has
agreed to honor the current pricing through 2/20/12 to allow us time to obtain Commission approval.
Funding has been approved in the Department's budge t for this purpose.
FUNDING SOURCE
Funding is available in account #s: 001-2111-521-52 .20 and 001-2115-521-52.19.
RECOMMENDATION
The Police Department recommends approval.
DBPD 2012 AMMUNITION ORDER
QUANTITY
PART
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
(per case)AMT.PER CASE
COMPARISON
PRICE TOTAL PRICE
Sole Source Pricing and Comparison
5053885 SPEER CLEAN FIRE .45 TMJ (2011 price)$350.001000$17,500.00
Comparison products:
50 Winchester
DBPD 2012 AMMUNITION ORDER
1624448
SPEER Gold Dot Duty Ammunition .223
BONDED
DBPD 2012 AMMUNITION ORDER
5LE12200 Federal Tactical Buckshot
F L O R I D A B U L L E T, I N C
P.O. Box 7497 Clearwater, Florida 33758-7497
1220 Rogers Street Clearwater, Florida 33756-5903
Voice: 727.461.6081 Facsimile: 727.441.4477
W W W . F L O R I D A B U L L E T . N E T
********** Quotation Confidentiality Notice **********
Privileged/Confidential Information may be containe d within this document. If you are not the addressee indicated in this
document (or responsible for delivery of the document to such person), you may not copy or deliver this doc ument to
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this docum ent, and notify us immediately. If you or your employ er does not
consent to document s of this kind, please advise u s immediately. Opinions, conclusions and other info rmation contained
within this document that do not relate to the offi cial business of Florida Bullet shall be understood a s neither given nor
endorsed by it.
Quotation #FBML-0124 2012
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2012
To: Eric S. Aronowitz
Delray Beach Police Department
300 West Atlantic Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444-3695
Cc: Tom Falone, IV
From: Marcus S. Lawrence, Jr.
Law Enforcement Liaison
Item Number: Description: Price Each: Quantity: Line Total:
53885 Speer Lawman ± Cleanfire TMJ .45, 230 Grain, 1000 rd case $350.00 50 $17,500.00
53966 Speer Gold Dot - .45, 230 Grain, 1000 rd case $379 .00 5 $1,895.00
XM193F Federal Rifle ± 55 Grain FMJ Boat Tail, 500 rd case $163.00 120 $19,560.00
GM308M Federal Gold Medal, 168 Grain, Sierra Match King BTHP, 200 rd case $145.34 25 $3,633.50
53880 Speer Lawman ± Cleanfire TMJ, .40 cal, 180 Grain, 1000 rd case $24 5.00 30 $7,350.00
24448 Speer Gold Dot Soft Point - .223, 64 Grain, 500 rd case $289.00 16 $4,624.00
5372 2 Speer Gold Dot, .38, 125 Grain, 1000 rd. case $33 9.00 4 $1,356.00
54234 Speer Gold Dot, .357 Sig, 125 Grain, 1000 rd. case $398.00 1 $398.00
54232 Speer Lawman ± Cleanfire TMJ, .357 Sig, 125 Grain, 1000 rd case $3 05.00 2 $610.00
BC223NT5A Federal Ballisticlean - .223, 55 Grain, C QT (Frangible), 500 rd case $355.61 20 $7,112.20
LE132 00 Federal Tactical Buckshot ± 9 pellet OO Buck, 250 rd. case $90.19 5 $450.95
LE130 DB Federal Door Breach Load, 12 ga., 1 &3/8 o z, 250 rd. case $1,146.00 1 $1,146.00
Total: $65,635.65
Notes: Shipping to Department included in Price
Prices quoted for Delray Beach PD are valid through February 20, 2012
Prices on ly applicable for Agency/Department Sales
Terms are Net-30 from Date of Invoice
Authorized by:
/s Marcus S. Lawrence, Jr.
__________________________________________
Marcus S. Lawrence
Law Enforcement Liaison
Florida Bullet, Inc.
DELRAYBEACHPOLICEDEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Sgt.JohnCrane-Baker,TrainingSection
OfficerE.Aronowitz aJ)TrainingSection~
January24,2012
SUBJECT:AMMUNITIONORDER2012
Asyouareaware,ammunitionpricingissettoincrease8-10%onFeb.1,2012.
Ihavecompletedthe2012ammunitionorder.Attachedyouwillfindthe
requestedamounts.Ihavealsoattachedthesolesourceletterforthe SPECIFIC
ammunitiontheagencyutilizes.LastyearIwasrequestedtoobtainseveral
quotesforammunitionwedonotutilizeasacomparison.Theammunitionwas
selectedduetotheballisticresultsandthetrainingammunitionisverysimilarin
ballisticsdutyammunitiontofurtherreducethetrainingcosts.Ihaveattached
currentFLStateContractsforcomparison.Theorderincludestheammunition
forSWAT.Iamawarethatthismustgoonthecommissionagenda.Please
expediteifpossibletobenefitfromthesavings.
Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactmeatyourconvenience.
ESA
ServingwithP.R.I.D.E.
ATK
ALL/ANTTECHSYSTEMS
AlliantTechsystemsInc.
93LakeviewTrail
HiramGA30141-4405
OCTOBER8,2011
ToWhomItMayConcern:
Tel770·505·4104
FloridaBullet(andnoother)isassignedtheStateofFloridaasit'sPrimarySalesAreaandistheonlySole
SourceDistributorforthepurchaseofATKLawEnforcementRelatedProductswithinthisState.ATKisthe
manufactureoftheproductslistedbelowanddoesnotselldirectlytogovernmentagencieswithintheStateof
Florida.
FloridaBulletrepresentsandreceivesspecialpricingforthefollowingbrandsforATK:
•CCI/Speer,Blazer,Lawman,GoldDot,CleanFire,RHT(frangible)Ammunition.
•FederalAmmunitionProducts
•SpeerForce-on-ForceMarkerRounds
FloridaBulletInc.
1220RogersStreet
Clearwater,FL33756
Bus:(727)461-6081
BusFax:(727)441-4477
E-mail:tf3(a)floridabullet.net
Websitewww.floridabullet.net
Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasefeelfreetocontacttheundersigned.
Bestregards,
StevenJenkins
StevenJenkins
LawEnforcementSpecialist
Phone770-505-4104
ATKAmmunitionandRelatedProducts
FEDERAL.CCI.SPEER.RCBS.GUTERS.WEAVER'RAM-LINE·SIMMONS·ORBEX·REDFIELD
Aronowitz.Eric
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
All,
MarcusLawrence[mlawrence@floridabullet.net]
Thursday,January19,20123:49PM
mlawrence@floridabullet.net
FloridaBullet-LastCallfor2009AmmoPrices!
ATKSoleSourceLetter.pdf;FederalFloridaPrices(2009-11).pdf;SpeerFloridaPrices
(2009-11).pdf
High
Ihopethisemailfindsyoudoingwellandhavingagood2012.FloridaBulletwasattheSHOTShowthisweek
andwasinformedthatATKwillbeincreasingFederal,SpeerandCCIammopriceseffectiveFebruary1,
2012.Currentammopriceshaveremainedfixedsince2009andwehavebeenanticipatingthispriceincrease
sinceOctober2011.FloridaBulletalwaysworkstoprovideagenciesandindividualofficersanddeputiesthe
bestpricingonallofourproductsandwehavesuccessfullyavoidedanammopriceincreaseformorethan
two(2)years,butcommoditypriceincreaseshavenowmadeapriceincreaseunavoidable.Wedonot
presentlyhavethenewpricingfromATKbutareanticipatingapriceincreaseof8%-10%.
ForthisreasonIamemailingyouareminderthatourcurrentammopricesremainvalidthroughJanuary31,
2012,andIamavailabletoassistyouinwithquotesandPOsubmissiontogetyouammoordersbeforethe
increasetakeseffect.ToaidinyourorderingeffortIhaveattachedourcurrentammopricesandoursole
sourceletter.PleaseletmeknowhowIcanbeoffurtherassistance.
MarcusS.Lawrence,Jr.
LawEnforcementLiaison
FloridaBullet,Inc.
Cellular:(813)817-5268
Main:(727)461-6084
Facsimile:(727)441-4477
Email:mlawrence@floridabullet.net
WebSite:www.floridabullet.net
"ProvidingServiceAboveAllElseForOver 28 years!"
TacticalSystemsbyFloridaBullet -RetailStore
1912GulftoBayBoulevard
Clearwater,Florida33765
Main:(727)216-3655
Classification:UNCLASSIFIED
1
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Michael Vinci, Planner
Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning
THROUGH:City Manager
DATE:January 31, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
WAIVER REQUEST/ABBEY DELRAY SOUTH
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The action requested of the City Commission is cons ideration of a waiver to allow a reduction from 100
to 80 feet for the stacking distance requirement fo r the guardhouse at the main entrance of Abbey
Delray South. The project is located at 1717 Homewo od Blvd.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting on January 11, 2012, the Site Plan R eview and Appearance Board (SPRAB) approved
the Class II site plan modification and architectur al elevations associated with the installation of a
guardhouse with automated barrier arms at the main entrance.
The development proposal included a waiver to LDR (Land Development Regulation) Section 4.6.9(D)
(3)(c)(2) to allow a reduction in the length of req uired vehicle stacking distance from 100’ to 80’. The
Site Plan Review and Appearance Board recommended a pproval of the waiver.
WAIVER ANALYSIS
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(2), provisio ns must be made to provide for 100’ of clear
stacking from the first point of transition for eac h lane of a drive-through facility and in advance of all
guardhouses or security gates. The stacking distanc e from the main entrance gate does not meet the
minimum stacking distance. The proposed stacking di stance for the incoming traffic from the private
street (SW 17th Cir.) to the main entrance gate is approximately 80’.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to grant ing a waiver, the approving body shall make a
finding that the granting of the waiver:
(a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area ;
(b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities;
(c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and,
(d) Does not result in the grant of a special privi lege in that the same waiver would be granted under
similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner.
The applicant has submitted the following narrative in support of the waiver:
Abbey Delray South is a private community. The prop osed guard gate provides two inbound lanes, one
for visitors and one for residents, each having 80’ of stacking back to an internal intersection at SW
17th Circle. This distance accommodates approximate ly 6 vehicles, which insures that vehicles will not
obstruct the circulation, eliminating backup and de lay of vehicles within the development. The stackin g
distance to Homewood Blvd. is 160’ from the aforementioned SW 17th Circle internal int ersection,
which provides sufficient length to insure the safe and efficient movement between the public right-of -
way and the development. The gate is strictly for a ccess control and the site security will be similar to a
country club or gated community. There is free resi dent entry, without attendants or automatic ticket
dispensing controls. Residents will have a remote c ontrol or barcode for automated entry, and visitors
will be cleared by a security guard. We believe tha t the minor deviation from the LDR’S requirement
will not create any vehicular or pedestrian traffic hazards for the public. We take full responsibilit y for
any internal congestion or incidents that may occur on our property as a result of this requested reli ef.
Waiver Analysis:
Staff supports the requested waiver because:
* Two inbound lanes exist (as opposed to only one).
* One lane is devoted to owners (unrestricted) and their entry will be continuous (ie, remote control).
* SW 17th Circle is a loop road that serves exclusi vely this development (approximately 20 single
family dwelling units) and the anticipated traffic volume that would impact this area will be minimal.
The waiver will not adversely affect neighboring properties, create an unsafe situation nor diminish the
provision of public facilities. The waiver would al so be supported for other projects under similar
circumstances and therefore will not result in the grant of a special privilege. Consequently, a posit ive
finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) ca n be made.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(2), to allow a reduction from 100’ to 80’ of clear
stacking distance in advance of the guardhouse, bas ed on a positive finding with respect to LDR Sectio n
2.4.7(B)(5).
1
IN THE CITY COMMISSION
CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
WAIVER REQUEST FOR ABBEY DELRAY SOUTH
1. This waiver request came before the City Commission on February 7,
2012.
2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and
testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the wai ver request for Abbey Delray
South. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case. Required findings are
made in accordance with Subsection I.
I. WAIVERS: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to grantin g a waiver, the
approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver:
(a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area;
(b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of p ublic facilities;
(c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and,
(d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same
waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on ot her
property for another applicant or owner.
A. Waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(2):
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(2), provisions mu st be made to
provide for 100’ of clear stacking from the first point of transition for each
lane of a drive-through facility and in advance of al l guardhouses or
security gates. The proposed stacking distance for the incom ing traffic
from the private street (SW 17 th Cir.) to the main entrance gate is
approximately 80’.
Should the waiver to reduce the stacking distance f rom 100 feet to 80 feet
be granted?
Yes ______ No _______
2
3. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive P lan and LDR
requirements in existence at the time the original dev elopment application was
submitted and finds that its determinations set forth in this Order are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The City Commission finds there is ample and compete nt substantial
evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained
in the record including but not limited to the staff r eports, testimony of experts and other
competent witnesses supporting these findings.
5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Co mmission approves __
denies ___ the waiver request.
6. Based on the entire record before it, the City C ommission hereby adopts
this Order this 7th day of February, 2012, by a vote of ____ in favor and ____ opposed.
________________________________
ATTEST: Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor
________________________________
Chevelle Nubin, City Clerk
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Applicant: Lifespace Communities, Inc.
Project Name: Abbey Delray South
Project Location: 1717 Homewood Blvd.
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is the approval of the fol lowing aspects of a Class II site plan
modification for Abbey Delray South, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR)
Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(b):
Site Plan
Architectural Elevations
Landscape Plan
Waiver Request
BACKGROUND
Abbey Delray South is located on the south side of Linto n Boulevard, to the east of Homewood
Boulevard and to the west of the E-4 canal. Abbey Del ray South is a life care retirement
community which contains a number of different residenti al style units, including zero lot line
single family residences. Although individually platted lots exist within the community, all
residential lots remain in the ownership of the Abbey Delray South Corporation.
The action before the Board is approval of architectur al elevation changes, hardscape
improvements, and landscaping associated with the install ation of a guardhouse and automated
gates, along with a recommendation to the City Commi ssion for a waiver request to allow a
reduction in the required stacking distance.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The development proposal consists of the following:
• Addition of a guardhouse
• Additional landscaping and irrigation
• Hardscape improvements
The Class II site plan application also includes the follo wing waiver request:
• A waiver to reduce the minimum required stacking di stance of 100’ to 80’ at the main
entrance. The required stacking distance is measured fr om the first point of transition for
each lane of a drive-thru facility and in advance of a ll guardhouses and security gates
[LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (2].
SPRAB Staff Report: January 5, 2012
Abbey Delray South. – Class II Site Plan Modificati on
Page 2
R E Q U I R E D F I N D I N G S
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(a), a Class II site plan modification is a modification to a
site plan which requires no review of the Performance Standards found in LDR Section 3.1.1,
but which requires action by a Board.
LDR Section 2.4.5(G) (5) (Findings):
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G) (5), formal findings are not required for a Class I or II
modification.
S I T E P L A N M O D I F I C A T I O N A N A L Y S I S
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
Items identified in the Land Development Regulation s shall specifically be addressed by
the body taking final action on the site and develo pment application/request.
Vehicular Stacking Distance:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(2), provisions mu st be made to provide for 100’ of clear
stacking from the first point of transition for each la ne of a drive-through facility and in advance
of all guardhouses or security gates. The stacking dista nce from the main entrance gate and
callbox does not meet the minimum stacking distance. Th e proposed stacking distance for the
incoming traffic from SW17 th Circle at the main entrance gate is approximately 80’. The applicant
has requested a waiver to the minimum stacking distance .
Waiver Analysis:
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5), prior to grant ing a waiver, the approving body shall make
a finding that the granting of the waiver:
(a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area;
(b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of p ublic facilities;
(c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and
(d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be
granted under similar circumstances on other property f or another applicant or
owner.
The applicant has provided the following justificatio n with regard to the waiver request:
Abbey Delray South is a private community. The proposed gu ard gate provides two
inbound lanes, one for visitors and one for residents, ea ch having 80’ of stacking back to
an internal intersection at SW 17 th Circle. This distance accommodates approximately 6
vehicles, which insures that vehicles will not obstruct the cir culation, eliminating backup
and delay of vehicles within the development. The stacking distance to Homewood Blvd.
is 160’ from the aforementioned SW 17 th Circle internal intersection, which provides
sufficient length to insure the safe and efficient moveme nt between the public right-of-
way and the development. The gate is strictly for access cont rol and the site security will
be similar to a country club or gated community. There is free resident entry, without
attendants or automatic ticket dispensing controls. Residen ts will have a remote control
SPRAB Staff Report: January 5, 2012
Abbey Delray South. – Class II Site Plan Modificati on
Page 3
or barcode for automated entry, and visitors will be cle ared by a security guard. We
believe that the minor deviation from the LDR’S requi rement will not create any vehicular
or pedestrian traffic hazards for the public. We take f ull responsibility for any internal
congestion or incidents that may occur on our property as a result of this requested
relief.
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (2), provision s are to be made to provide for 100’ of
clear stacking from the first point of transaction for each lane of a drive-thru facility and in
advance of all guardhouses or security gates. The intersec tion of SW 26 th Terrace with SW 17 th
Circle is the first interruption to otherwise clear stacki ng, and the stacking provided back to the
point from the guardhouse measures 80’. Staff support s the requested waiver because:
• Two inbound lanes exist (as opposed to only one).
• One lane is devoted to owners (unrestricted) and their entry will be continuous (ie,
remote control).
• SW 17 th Circle is a loop road that serves exclusively this develop ment (approximately 20
single family dwelling units) and the anticipated traf fic volume that would impact this area
will be minimal.
The waiver will not adversely affect neighboring prop erties or diminish the provision of public
facilities. The waiver would also be supported under sim ilar circumstances and therefore will not
result in the grant of a special privilege. Consequentl y, a positive finding with respect to LDR
Section 2.4.7(B) (5) can be made.
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION ANALYSIS
LDR Section 4.6.18(E) Criteria for Board Action: The following criteria shall be considered, by
the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) in the review of plans for building permits.
If the following criteria are not met, the applicatio n shall be disapproved:
(1) The plan or the proposed structure is in conformity with good taste, good design, and in
general contributes to the image of the City as a place of beauty, spaciousness, harmony,
taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality.
(2) The proposed structure, or project, is in its exter ior design and appearance of quality such
as not to cause the nature of the local environment or evolving environment to materially
depreciate in appearance and value.
(3) The proposed structure, or project, is in harmony with the proposed developments in the
general area, with the Comprehensive Plan, and with the supplemental criteria which may
be set forth for the Board from time to time.
The proposed architectural elevation changes involve th e addition of a guardhouse on 26 th
Terrace which is located at the northwest corner entrance to the property. The proposed
guardhouse will be a 210 sq. ft. structure with a stucco exterior finish and cement tile roof with a
terracotta finish. The presentation of the elevation ch anges should not adversely affect the
surrounding area and should not materially depreciate the neighboring areas. Based on the
above, positive findings could be made with respect to LDR Section 4.6.18(E).
HARDSCAPE and LANDSCAPE PLAN ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing modifications to the site surr ounding the guardhouse which will
include the widening of the driveway to introduce two (2) inbound lanes, one for visitor check-in,
SPRAB Staff Report: January 5, 2012
Abbey Delray South. – Class II Site Plan Modificati on
Page 4
and a bypass lane for residents and deliveries. There wi ll be one outbound lane provided. The
inbound bypass and outbound lanes will accommodate fire service vehicle access. All lanes,
inbound and outbound, will be access controlled with dro p arm gates. A new drive connection
will be created from the inner drive to the northwest parking lot to improve internal circulation for
residents, these lanes too will have access controlled gate s. The changes to the lane
arrangement will create a landscaped island for the gua rdhouse. The areas of the existing
landscaping that are being disturbed by the reorientat ion of the lanes will be re-landscaped
consistent with the existing landscaping. Catch basins and f lumes will be relocated to maintain
storm water control. The landscaping around the propose d guardhouse will be upgraded with
Palm Trees, shrubs, and groundcover to provide an impro ved entry for the residents of Abbey
Delray South. Based on the above analysis, the landscape plan complies with LDR Section
4.6.16.
The proposed upgrade of the landscape and hardscape will enhance the development area and
aesthetically complement the surrounding area. The prop osed landscape plan complies with the
Comprehensive Plan and positive findings can be made w ith respect to LDR Section 4.6.16.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(b), a Class II site plan modification is a modification to a
site plan which requires no review of the Performance Standards found in LDR Section 3.1.1,
but requires action by a Board. Pursuant to LDR Sectio n 2.4.5(G) (5), formal findings are not
required for a Class I or II modification.
ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION
The proposed architectural elevation, hardscape and land scape changes will enhance the
development, aesthetically complementing the surroundi ng area. The project will be consistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Land D evelopment Regulations.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Move approval of the Class II site plan modification architectural elevation, landscape plan,
hardscape improvements and waiver request for Abbey Delray South , by adopting the
findings of fact and law contained in the staff report , and finding that the request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.6.16,
4.6.18(E) 2.4.5(G) (5) and Chapter 3 of the Land De velopment Regulations with conditions.
C. Move to deny the Class II site plan modification, a rchitectural elevation, landscape plan,
hardscape improvements and waiver request for Abbey Delray South , by adopting the
findings of fact and law contained in the staff report , and finding that the request is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not me et criteria set forth in Sections
4.6.16, 4.6.18(E) 2.4.5(G) (5) and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations.
SPRAB Staff Report: January 5, 2012
Abbey Delray South. – Class II Site Plan Modificati on
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
By Separate Motions:
Waiver Request:
Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commissi on of the waiver request to LDR
Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (2) for the reduction in the required stacking distance from 100’ to 80’
feet of clear stacking from the first point of transacti on for each lane of a drive-thru facility and in
advance of all guardhouses or security gates, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained
in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5).
Architectural Elevations:
Move approval of the architectural elevations for the Abbey Delray South by adopting the
findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent
with the criteria set forth in Section 4.6.18(E) of th e Land Development Regulations
Site Plan Modification:
Move approval of the request for a Class II site plan modification for Abbey Delray South by
adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteri a set forth in Section 2.4.5(G) (1)(b) of
the Land Development Regulations.
Landscape Plan:
Move approval of the landscape plan for Abbey Delray South , by adopting the findings of fact
and law contained in the staff report, and finding th at the request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Secti on 4.6.16 of the Land Development
Regulations.
Staff Report Prepared by: Michael Vinci, Planner
Attachments:
• Site Plan
• Architectural Elevations
• Landscape Plan
• Waiver request
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner
Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning
THROUGH:City Manager
DATE:January 31, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST/SWINTON SOCIAL
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The action requested of the City Commission is cons ideration of a conditional use request to permit
outdoor dining at night at 27 – 43 South Swinton Avenue, located in the OSSHAD (Old School Square
Historic Arts District) zoning district, pursuant t o LDR Section 2.4.5(E).
BACKGROUND
The subject 0.74-acre property presently contains f our one-story, frame vernacular,single-family
residences constructed between 1937 and 1950, which have been vacant for a number of years. The
properties are located within the Old School Square Historic District, and are all classified as
contributing.
On November 16, 2011, the HPB approved a Certificat e of Appropriateness and Class V Site Plan
Application for the adaptive reuse of the structure s from single-family residential to spa and restaurant
uses. Outdoor dining during daylight hours is permitted i n the OSSHAD Zoning District; however,
outdoor dining at night is permitted only as a cond itional use. Therefore, the request is for the appr oval
to provide dining at night for the sidewalk café ar ea, the open-air covered dining located interior to the
property behind the Kitchen (56 seats), below the r oof connecting the Café and Poolside Bar (12 seats),
and at the Poolside Bar (25 seats). It is noted tha t the seating interior to the property was approved
through the Site Plan Approval and accounted for in the parking calculation. Parking is not required f or
the Sidewalk Café area seating. The hours of operat ion for the development are provided in the chart
below, as they vary between the different uses and spaces:
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Spa Daytime Hours Only (Including accessory uses: Juice Bar, Jacuzzi, Swimming
Pool)
Grille 8am – 1 hour past sunset 8am – 2am
10am - 10am -
The property owners intend on applying for a Sidewa lk Café permit for the seating located between the
southernmost building and the right of way on both South Swinton Avenue and SE 1 st Street. The
number of tables and seating areas indicated in thi s area is 12 (equating to 42 seats).
Overall, the approved development will bring additi onal activity to an area of South Swinton Avenue
which has not yet benefited from redevelopment. The project has the potential to revitalize South
Swinton Avenue which could encourage the adaptive r euse of the historic structures located on the
adjacent properties, many of which are presently va cant and falling into disrepair.
The outdoor dining interior to the property was dee med not to have a detrimental effect upon the
stability of the neighborhood, as its impact was pr eviously analyzed and approved with the Class V Sit e
Plan. However, the proposed outdoor dining located at the southwest corner of the property has the
potential to create an impact on the surrounding ar ea due to added seating without the requirement of
added parking spaces. Given the sites current chall enges providing adequate parking (remote off-site
valet lots) as well as deficiencies between require d and actual restaurant parking demand (employees
and patrons), providing additional seating options during peak hours is of concern. While we believe
this venue should be allowed to avail itself of thi s option, it should be with the caveat that if the level of
intensity becomes a concern then the capacity shoul d be modified (evening outside seating
discontinued). To this end, a condition is proposed that would allow modification and or discontinuati on
of the conditional use approval should the added in tensity become an issue. It is acknowledged that th e
intent of Sidewalk Cafés, such as this one, is to capture pedestrians strolling through the vicinity of the
specific location who have parked elsewhere , while creating additional vibrancy along the stre etscape.
Further, the outdoor dining, primarily at night whe n East Atlantic Avenue is at its liveliest, and thi s request will
assist in bringing additional economic development to an area of South Swinton Avenue which has had on ly
limited benefit to date from redevelopment or adapt ive reuse.
Café 3pm 3pm
5pm - 12am 5pm – 2am
Sidewalk
Café
Same as Café (See Above)
Poolside
Bar
Same as Café (See Above), when pool is closed.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed t he request at its January 12, 2012 meeting,
and recommended approval.
The Historic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed the request at its January 18, 2012 meeting, and
recommended approval on a vote of 7-0, subject to t he following conditions:
1. That the Outdoor Dining seating not be expanded in quantity or floor area from what is indicated on
the submitted plan, which includes 56 seats behind the kitchen, 25 seats at the poolside bar, 12 seats
between the café and poolside bar, and 42 seats wit hin the Sidewalk Café area;
2. That a Sidewalk Café permit be obtained which in dicates no more than the twelve seating areas and
42 seats indicated on the submitted plans;
3. That the Valet Parking Agreement be accepted by the City Commission prior to issuance of a
Building Permit; and,
4. That if complaints are generated, pedestrian and /or vehicular incidents occur to impact the area, t he
valet fails to function, and/or undue congestion re sults, the Sidewalk Café permit will be reconsidere d
and possibly rescinded.
The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the request at its January 23, 2012 meeting, and
recommended approval on a vote of 7-0, subject to t he following conditions:
1. That the Outdoor Dining seating not be expanded in quantity or floor area from what is indicated on
the submitted plan;
2. That a Sidewalk Café permit be obtained which in dicates no more than the twelve seating areas and
42 seats indicated on the submitted plans;
3. That the Valet Parking Agreement be accepted by the City Commission prior to issuance of a
Building Permit;
4. That a Parking Management Plan be submitted whic h indicates all travel routes for the valet service s
to and from the subject location;
5. That all outside seating areas subject to this a pproval shall have hours of operation not exceeding
12am, Sunday through Thursday, and 2am, Friday and Saturday; and,
6. That if the conditional use for outdoor dining a t night results in pedestrian or vehicular congesti on for
which more than three (3) Code Enforcement violatio ns and/or civil violations are issued, the
conditional use for outdoor dining at night shall b e reconsidered and possibly rescinded.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for a Cond itional Use associated with outdoor dining at night
for Swinton Social located at 27 – 43 South Swinton Avenue, Old School Square His toric District,
based upon positive findings with respect to Sectio n 2.4.5(E)(5), Conditional Use Findings, Chapter 3,
Performance Standards, and consistency with the Fut ure Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,
subject to the following:
1. That the Outdoor Dining seating not be expanded in quantity or floor area from what is indicated on
the submitted plan;
2. That a Sidewalk Café permit be obtained which in dicates no more than the twelve seating areas and
42 seats indicated on the submitted plans;
3. That the Valet Parking Agreement be accepted by the City Commission prior to issuance of a
Building Permit;
4. That a Parking Management Plan be submitted whic h indicates all travel routes for the valet service s
to and from the subject location;
5. That all outside seating areas subject to this a pproval shall have hours of operation not exceeding
12am, Sunday through Thursday, and 2am, Friday and Saturday; and,
6. That if the conditional use for outdoor dining a t night results in pedestrian or vehicular congesti on for
which more than three (3) Code Enforcement violatio ns and/or civil violations are issued, the
conditional use for outdoor dining at night shall b e reconsidered and possibly rescinded.
1
IN THE CITY COMMISSION
CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST TO PERMIT OUTDOOR DINING AT NIGHT
AT 27-43 SOUTH SWINTON AVENUE, SWINTON SOCIAL
ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
1. This conditional use request has come before the Ci ty Commission on
February 7, 2011. The conditional use request is to p ermit outdoor dining at night for
Swinton Social located at 27-43 South Swinton Avenue .
2. The City staff, applicant, and other persons have presented documentary
evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertainin g to the conditional use
request of Swinton Social. All of the evidence is a pa rt of the record in this case.
Required findings are made in Sections I and II below.
I. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The use or structures must be allowed in the
zoning district and the zoning district must be consistent with the land use designation.
The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designati on of OMU (Other Mixed
Use) and a zoning designation of OSSSHAD. The OSSHAD zoning district is
consistent with the OMU Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section
4.4.24(D)(1), Outdoor Dining at night is permitted a s a conditional use within the
OSSHAD zoning district.
Are the requirements of the Future Land Use Map met ?
Yes ________ No_________
B. Concurrency : Facilities which are provided by, or through, the C ity shall
be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established
within the Comprehensive Plan.
Are the concurrency requirements met with respect t o water, sewer,
drainage, streets and traffic, parks, open space, s olid waste and
schools?
2
Yes ________ No_________
C. Consistency : Compliance with performance standards set forth in Ch apter
3 and required findings in LDR Section 2.4.5(E) (5) for the Conditional Use request shall
be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency i s to be made. Other objectives
and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan m ay be used in making a finding
of overall consistency.
Are the consistency requirements met such that the proposed
project is complementary to and compatible with adj acent land uses
and the beneficial aspects of the project outweigh the negative
impact of identified points of conflict?
Yes ________ No_________
D. Future Land Use Element Objective A-1 : Property shall be developed or
redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and in tensity is appropriate and
complies in terms of soil, topographic, and other appl icable physical considerations, is
complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remain ing land use needs.
The redevelopment of the subject properties from singl e-family to spa and
restaurant and from a vacant parcel to a valet parking lot are proposed to be consistent
with the subject Objective. With respect to the adjac ent land uses, the South Swinton
Avenue properties are surrounded by a mix of office (north), valet parking lot (south),
Assisted Living Facility (east), vacant land (east), and r esidential (west). The uses
adjacent to the proposed valet parking lot on SE 1 st Avenue include vacant land (east),
abandoned residential (north), residential (west), and multi-family (south). The
properties are in the downtown area within a mixed-u se zone which permits single-
family residential and a variety of commercial uses. Th e valet parking lot abuts the CBD
zoning district, which permits more intense uses.
Are the requirements of the Future Land Use Element Objective A-1
met?
Yes ________ No________
E. Future Land Use Objective A-4 : The redevelopment of land and buildings
shall provide for the preservation of historic resources. The objective shall be met
through continued adherence to the City’s Historic Prese rvation Ordinance and, where
applicable, to architectural design guidelines through t he following policies:
The approved redevelopment provides for the preservat ion for historically
significant structures in the City’s downtown which have been vacant and left to
demolition by neglect for a number of years.
3
Are the requirements of the Future Land Use Element Objective A-4
met?
Yes ________ No________
F. Future Land Use Objective C-3 : The Central Business District (CBD) and
surrounding neighborhoods, including A-1-A, Seacrest and Swinton Avenue represents
the essence of what is Delray Beach i.e. a “village by the sea”. The continued
revitalization of the CBD is essential to achieving the overall theme of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan by managing growth and preserving the charm. The following
policies and activities shall be pursued in the achieveme nt of this objective.
Are the requirements of the Future Land Use Element Objective C-3
met?
Yes ________ No________
II. LDR REQUIREMENTS
A. Section 2.4.5(E)(5) requires certain findings : The conditional use will
not:
1. Have a significantly detrimental effect upon the st ability of the
neighborhood within which it will be located;
2. Hinder development or redevelopment of nearby properties.
Will Section 2.4.5(E)(5) be met?
Yes ________ No_________
3. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Pl an and LDR
requirements in existence at the time the conditional use application was submitted.
4. The City Commission finds there is ample and compete nt substantial
evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained
in the record including but not limited to the staff r eports and testimony of witnesses
supporting these findings.
5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Co mmission approves ___
denies ___ the conditional use application subject to t he conditions provided in Exhibit
4
“A” attached hereto and hereby adopts this Order this 7 h day of February, 2012, by a
vote of _____ in favor and ____ opposed.
________________________________
Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Chevelle Nubin
City Clerk
1
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions Related to the
Request for Conditional Use at Swinton Social
1. That the Outdoor Dining seating not be expanded in quantity or floor area from
what is indicated on the submitted plan;
2. That a Sidewalk Café permit be obtained which indic ates no more than the twelve
seating areas and 42 seats indicated on the submitt ed plans;
3. That the Valet Parking Agreement be accepted by the City Commission prior to
issuance of a Building Permit;
4. That a Parking Management Plan be submitted which i ndicates all travel routes
for the valet services to and from the subject locati on;
5. That all outside seating areas subject to this appr oval shall have hours of
operation not exceeding 12 a.m., Sunday through Thurs day, and 2 a.m., Friday
and Saturday; and,
6. That if the property receives more than three (3) Cod e Enforcement Violations or
Civil Violations in a twelve month period including complaints generated from
pedestrian and/or vehicular incidents resulting from the increased impact of this
request, the valet fails to function, and/or undue c ongestion results, the
conditional use (outdoor dining at night) including the Sidewalk Café will be
reconsidered and possibly rescinded.
I T E M B E F O R E T H E B O A R D
The action before the Board is that of making a recom mendation to the City Commission on a request
for Conditional Use approval to permit outdoor dinin g to operate at night at 27-43 South Swinton
Avenue, Swinton Social, pursuant to Section 2.4.5(E).
B A C K G R O U N D & P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
The subject properties, which are zoned Old School Squa re Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), consist
of Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 69, Town of De lray Beach, The 0.74-acre property presently
contains four one-story, frame vernacular, single-famil y residences constructed between 1937 and
1950, which have been vacant for a number of years. On e accessory structure (garage) remains on
the southernmost property. The properties are located within the Old School Square Historic District,
and are all classified as contributing.
On November 16, 2011, the HPB approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class V Site Plan
Application for the adaptive reuse of the structures f rom single-family residential to spa and restaurant
uses. The development primarily consists of the followin g:
• 27 South Swinton Avenue: Conversion of single-family residence to spa with the following
accessory uses:
o Raised “Smoothie/Juice Bar”
o Jacuzzi
o Swimming Pool: Measures 100’ x 15’, and is 5’ deep, w ith a stepped entry area at each
end, and two centrally located “shallow swimouts”;
• 31 South Swinton Avenue: Conversion of single family residence to restaurant; referred to as
“Grille” on the plans;
• 35 South Swinton Avenue: Conversion of single-family residential to restaurant; referred to as
“Kitchen” on the plans;
• 43 South Swinton Avenue: Conversion of single-family residence to restaurant; referred to as
“Café” on the plans;
• Additions between each of the structures will provid e both open-air covered dining and
enclosed dining spaces along the rear of the café and kit chen;
• Addition of a connected “poolside bar” at the rear o f #43,
• Provision of a one-way drive aisle with 7 parking spa ces parallel to South Swinton Avenue with
the ingress located in front of 43 South Swinton Aven ue, and the egress located in front of 27
South Swinton Avenue;
• Additional site improvements such as smaller accessory struct ures, fountain, 6’ high stucco-
finished, masonry wall and a significant amount of land scaping throughout the site.
The hours of operation for the development are provi ded in the chart below, as they vary between the
different uses and spaces:
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Spa Daytime Hours Only (Including accessory uses: Juic e Bar, Jacuzzi, Swimming Pool)
Grille 8am – 1 hour past sunset 8am – 2am
Café 10am - 3pm 10am- 3pm
5pm - 12am 5pm – 2am
Sidewalk Café Same as Café (See Above)
Poolside Bar Same as Café (See Above), when pool is closed.
Swinton Social, 27-43 South Swinton Avenue; Conditi onal Use – Outdoor Dining at Night
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting January 23, 2012; P age 2 of 7
The required amount of parking for the development was calculated at 53 spaces. In addition to the 7
spaces provided on-site, 26 were provided on a property located at 104 SE 1 st Avenue to be
developed as a valet parking lot and tied to the subj ect properties via Unity of Title. The remaining
spaces (20) will be accommodated through additional off-site valet services permitted through a
required agreement with the City.
The property owners intend on applying for a Sidewalk Café permit for the seating located between
the southernmost building and the right of way on bo th South Swinton Avenue and SE 1 st Street. The
number of tables and seating areas indicated in this are a is 12 (equating to 42 seats), which consists
of the following configurations:
• Table with four seats: 4 = 16 seats
• Table with two seats: 2 = 4 seats
• Table with six seats: 2 = 12 seats
• Table with two accent “club” style chairs: 3 = 6 seats
• Table with four accent “club” style chairs: 1 = 4 seats
Outdoor dining during daylight hours is permitted in the OSSHAD Zoning District; however, outdoor
dining at night is permitted only as a conditional use. Therefore, the request is for the approval to
provide dining at night for the sidewalk café area, t he open-air covered dining located interior to the
property behind the Kitchen (56 seats), below the roo f connecting the Café and Poolside Bar (12
seats), and at the Poolside Bar (25 seats). It is noted that the seating interior to the property, which
was approved through the Site Plan Approval and accoun ted for in the parking calculation. Parking is
not required for the Sidewalk Café area seating.
The conditional use request for the establishment of out door dining at night is now before the Board
for consideration.
C O N D I T I O N A L U S E A N A L Y S I S
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(D)(1), OSSHAD: Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed ,
outdoor dining which operates at night or which is the principal use or purpose of the associated
restaurant is allowed as a conditional use within the OS SHAD.
The subject request is for outdoor dining at night fo r the sidewalk café area, the open-air covered
dining located interior to the property behind the K itchen, below the roof connecting the Café and
Poolside Bar, and at the Poolside Bar. All other dini ng at night located within an enclosed space does
not require inclusion with this request as it is not ou tdoor dining.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(E)(5), Conditional Use Findings, in addition to provisions of Chapter
Three (see below), the City Commission and City Commission must make findings that establishing
the conditional use will not: (a) have a significantly de trimental effect upon the stability of the
neighborhood within which it will be located; nor (b) hinder development or redevelopment of nearby
properties.
In consideration of criterion (a) above, the following zoning designations and uses are located
immediately adjacent to the property:
Zoning: Use:
North OSSHAD Office
South OSSHAD Parking Lot
East OSSHAD Parking Lot, Vacant Lot, Adult Living F acility
West OSSHAD Single-Family Residential
Swinton Social, 27-43 South Swinton Avenue; Conditi onal Use – Outdoor Dining at Night
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting January 23, 2012; P age 3 of 7
Overall, the approved development will bring additi onal activity to a significant area of South Swinton
Avenue which has not yet benefited from redevelopment . The project has the potential to revitalize
South Swinton Avenue which could encourage the adaptiv e reuse of the historic structures located on
the adjacent properties, many of which are presently va cant and falling into disrepair.
The outdoor dining interior to the property was deem ed not to have a detrimental effect upon the
stability of the neighborhood, as its impact was previo usly analyzed and approved with the Class V
Site Plan. However, the proposed outdoor dining locat ed at the southwest corner of the property has
the potential to create an impact on the surrounding area due to added seating without the
requirement of added parking spaces. Given the sites cur rent challenges providing adequate parking
(remote off-site valet lots) as well as deficiencies betwe en required and actual restaurant parking
demand (employees and patrons), providing additional seating options during peak hours is of
concern. While we believe this venue should be allowed to avail itself of this option, it should be with
the caveat that if the level of intensity becomes a conce rn then the capacity should be modified
(evening outside seating discontinued). To this end, a co ndition is proposed that would allow
modification and or discontinuation of the conditional use approval should the added intensity become
an issue. It is acknowledged that the intent of Sidewalk Cafés, such as this one, is to capture
pedestrians strolling through the vicinity of the specific location who have parked elsewhere , while
creating additional vibrancy along the streetscape. Furt her, the outdoor dining, primarily at night when
East Atlantic Avenue is at its liveliest, and this reque st will assist in bringing additional economic
development to an area of South Swinton Avenue which has had only limited benefit to date from
redevelopment or adaptive reuse.
Pursuant to LDR Section 3.1.1, Required Findings , prior to the approval of development
applications, certain findings must be made in a form wh ich is a part of the official record. This may be
achieved through information on the application, writt en materials submitted by the applicant, the staff
report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny
the development application.
(A) FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The resulting use of land or structures must be allowed in the zoning
district within which the land is situated and said zonin g must be consistent with the applicable land
use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map.
The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designat ion of OMU (Other Mixed Use) and a
zoning designation of OSSHAD. The OSSHAD zoning distri ct is consistent with the OMU Future Land
Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(D)(1), Outdoor Dining at night is permitted as a
conditional use within the OSSHAD zoning district. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a
positive finding with respect to LDR Section 3.1.1(A), Future Land Use Map Consistency.
(B) CONCURRENCY: Concurrency must be met and a determination made that t he public facility
needs, including public schools, of the requested land use and/or development application will not
exceed the ability of the City and The School District of Palm Beach County to fund and provide, or to
require the provision of, needed capital improvements i n order to maintain the Levels of Service
Standards established in Table CI-GOP-1 of the Compre hensive Plan.
Positive findings with respect to concurrency as it relate s to traffic, parks and recreation, solid waste,
drainage or schools were made with the Site Plan appro val of the subject development. However,
further discussion regarding traffic is necessary in that ad ditional impact on traffic and streets is likely
to occur on the site as a result of the additional seat ing (and potential increased demand for parking)
provided with this request.
As previously noted, the added exposure of the outdoor dining, particularly at night, will create
additional impact on adjacent traffic and streets, part icularly given that all parking for the development
Swinton Social, 27-43 South Swinton Avenue; Conditi onal Use – Outdoor Dining at Night
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting January 23, 2012; P age 4 of 7
is provided via valet services. The valet parking will o ccur off-site either at 104 SE 1 st Avenue, or
another site to be utilized at night located at the so uthwest corner of SE 1 st Street and SE 2 nd Avenue.
Given the likely impact, a Parking Management Plan should be submitted which indicates all travel
routes for the valet services to and from the subject lo cation. This has been added as a recommended
condition of approval.
(C) CONSISTENCY: A finding of overall consistency may be made even though t he action will be in
conflict with some individual performance standards contain ed within Article 3.2, provided that the
approving body specifically finds that the beneficial aspe cts of the proposed project (hence
compliance with some standards) outweighs the negative im pacts of identified points of conflict.
A review of the goals, objectives, and policies of the a dopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted
and the applicable Goals, Policies, and Objectives are noted:
Future Land Use Objective A-1 Property shall be developed or redeveloped, in a manner so that the
future use, intensity and density are appropriate in ter ms of soil, topographic, and other applicable
physical considerations; encourage affordable goods and servi ces; are complementary to and
compatible with adjacent land uses; and fulfill remain ing land use needs.
The redevelopment of the subject properties from single -family to spa and restaurant and from a
vacant parcel to a valet parking lot are proposed to be consisted with the subject Objective. With
respect to the adjacent land uses, the South Swinton Ave nue properties are surrounded by a mix of
office (north), valet parking lot (south), Assisted Liv ing Facility (east), vacant land (east), and
residential (west). The uses adjacent to the proposed val et parking lot on SE 1 st Avenue include
vacant land (east), abandoned residential (north), resi dential (west), and multi-family (south). The
properties are in the downtown area within a mixed-u se zone which permits single-family residential
and a variety of commercial uses. The valet parking lot abuts the CBD zoning district, which permits
more intense uses. Due to the mix of uses (both existing and permitted) in conjunction with the
downtown location, the proposal can be deemed compatibl e. Intensity issues have been raised and
appropriate safe guards are proposed as conditions of ap proval.
Future Land Use Objective A-4 The redevelopment of land and buildings shall provide f or the
preservation of historic resources. The objective shall be met through continued adherence to the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and, where applicab le, to architectural design guidelines
through the following policies:
The approved redevelopment provides for the preservat ion four historically significant structures in the
city’s downtown which have been vacant and left to demo lition by neglect for a number of years. The
proposal to provide outdoor dining during night time hours will assist in providing additional activity
and exposure to an area which has not yet fully benefi tted to the success of the city’s downtown.
Future Land Use Objective C-3 The Central Business District (CBD) and surrounding
neighborhoods, including A-1-A, Seacrest and Swinton A venue represents the essence of what is
Delray Beach i.e. a "village by the sea". The continued r evitalization of the CBD is essential to
achieving the overall theme of the City's Comprehensive P lan by managing growth and preserving the
charm. The following policies and activities shall be pur sued in the achievement of this objective.
The approved project will provide a significant opport unity for economic development within the South
Swinton Avenue area. The redevelopment and adaptive reuse will positively impact this area, moreso
than complete new development in this area, which is not as attractive as a project such as this.
Further, the potential for continued revitalization of this area will increase and provide additional
opportunities for other properties which have sat vacan t for a number of years.
Swinton Social, 27-43 South Swinton Avenue; Conditi onal Use – Outdoor Dining at Night
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting January 23, 2012; P age 5 of 7
(D) Compliance with LDRs : Whenever an item is identified elsewhere in these Land Development
Regulations (LDRs), it shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on a land
development application/request. Such items are found in Section 2.4.5 and in special regulation
portions of individual zoning district regulations.
4.6.9(F)(3), Special Provisions, Valet Parking, a parking facility with a valet service or operator
which allows for attendants to receive, park and deliver t he automobiles of occupants, tenants,
customers, invitees, and visitors, including tandem parking may be utilized in lieu of the requirements
of this Section provided the following requirements ar e complied with:
(a) Any required valet or tandem parking utilized in l ieu of the parking requirements set forth in this
section shall be governed by an agreement with the City (in such form as may be approved by
the City Attorney), and recorded in the public records o f Palm Beach County. The agreement
shall constitute a covenant running with the land bindin g upon the owners, heirs, administrators,
successors, and assigns. The agreement may be released by the City Commission at such time
that site plan approval is obtained for an alternative parking arrangement which satisfies the
parking requirements for said use.
While valet parking services were approved with the Cl ass V Site Plan for the subject development,
the subject Section is added for further assurance that th e required agreement with the City is
completed, particularly due to the potential impact of the additional seating accommodated through
the Sidewalk Care area, and subsequent demand on park ing. Therefore, acceptance of the Valet
Parking Agreement by the City Commission prior to issua nce of a Building Permit is added as a
recommended condition of approval.
Pursuant to LDR Section 6.3.3, Sidewalk Café, a sidewalk cafe is a group of tables with chairs and
associated articles approved by the City situated and mainta ined outside whether on public or private
property (excluding interior courtyard seating which is sub ject to parking requirements) and used for
the consumption of food and beverages sold to the public from an adjoining business. All tables and
chairs and associated articles must be located within the sid ewalk café permit area. Sidewalk cafes
allowed only when in compliance with this Section.
Pursuant to LDR Section 6.3.3(A), Sidewalk Café: Permit and Fee s , it shall be unlawful for any
person to establish a sidewalk cafe at any site unless a valid permit to operate a sidewalk cafe has
been obtained for that site, from the City pursuant t o this Section. The permit shall be issued on a
form provided by the City of Delray Beach. No permit sh all be issued until all the requirements of this
Section have been met. Permits shall not be transferab le.
The aforenoted Sections are provided to clarify that the outdoor dining area at the southwest corner of
the property is not permitted per this application, ra ther, a Sidewalk Café permit is needed, which
requires annual renewal. Further, the Sidewalk Café permit shall not indicate additional seating than
that which is depicted on the submitted site plan (42 sea ts) for the subject Conditional Use request.
Additional seating will require a modification of the Conditional Use.
R E V I E W B Y O T H E R S
The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the request at its January 12, 2012
meeting, and recommended approval.
Swinton Social, 27-43 South Swinton Avenue; Conditi onal Use – Outdoor Dining at Night
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting January 23, 2012; P age 6 of 7
The Historic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed the request at its January 18, 2012 meeting , and
recommended approval on a vote of 7-0, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Outdoor Dining seating not be expanded i n quantity or floor area from what is
indicated on the submitted plan, which includes 56 seats b ehind the kitchen, 25 seats at the
poolside bar, 12 seats between the café and poolside bar , and 42 seats within the Sidewalk
Café area;
2. That a Sidewalk Café permit be obtained which ind icates no more than the twelve seating
areas and 42 seats indicated on the submitted plans;
3. That the Valet Parking Agreement for be accepted b y the City Commission prior to issuance of
a Building Permit; and,
4. That if complaints are generated, pedestrian and/or vehicular incidents occur to impact the
area, the valet fails to function, and/or undue conges tion results, the Sidewalk Café permit will
be reconsidered and possibly rescinded.
A S S E S S M E N T A N D C O N C L U S I O N
The approved project is a welcome addition to the exist ing conditions and deterioration on the subject
properties. As noted in the report, the subject project will likely assist in the economic redevelopment
of the South Swinton Avenue area, and perhaps inspire or provide additional opportunities for other
properties to be further improved or reused.
The proposed night time Sidewalk Café dining is like ly to impact the area with respect to streets and
traffic due to additional intensity on an already pot entially impacting development. However, the
Sidewalk Café area is limited to the seating configura tion noted on the plan and consisting of no more
than 42 seats. This amount is likely sufficient to prov ide the right amount of vibrant atmosphere on the
corner, while enticing patrons, both vehicular and ped estrian, from East Atlantic Avenue. Overall, the
use is appropriate to the area, neighborhood, and pro perty, and positive findings with respect to the
LDRs and Comprehensive Plan have been made. Further, the proposal will not have a detrimental
effect upon the stability of the neighborhood as it w ill not hinder, rather it will encourage, the
development or redevelopment of nearby properties.
A L T E R N A T I V E A C T I O N S
A. Recommend postponement for the request of a Condit ional Use associated with outdoor dining at
night at 27-43 South Swinton Avenue, Swinton Social .
B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Com mission for the request of a Conditional Use
associated with outdoor dining at night at 27-43 South Swinton Avenue, Swinton Social, based
upon positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(E)(5), Conditional Use Findings, Chapter 3,
Performance Standards, and consistency with the Future La nd Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commi ssion for the request of a Conditional Use
associated with outdoor dining at night at 27-43 South Swinton Avenue, Swinton Social, based
upon a failure to make positive findings with respect t o Section 2.4.5(E)(5), Conditional Use
Findings, Chapter 3, Performance Standards, inconsistency with the Future Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Swinton Social, 27-43 South Swinton Avenue; Conditi onal Use – Outdoor Dining at Night
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting January 23, 2012; P age 7 of 7
R E C O M M E N D E D A C T I O N
Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commissi on for the request of a Conditional Use
associated with outdoor dining at night at 27-43 South Swinton Avenue, Swinton Social, based
upon positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(E)(5), Conditional Use Findings, Chapter 3,
Performance Standards, and consistency with the Future L and Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, subject to the following:
1. That the Outdoor Dining seating not be expanded i n quantity or floor area from what is indicated
on the submitted plan;
2. That a Sidewalk Café permit be obtained which ind icates no more than the twelve seating areas
and 42 seats indicated on the submitted plans;
3. That the Valet Parking Agreement for be accepted b y the City Commission prior to issuance of a
Building Permit;
4. That a Parking Management Plan be submitted which indicates all travel routes for the valet
services to and from the subject location;
5. That all outside seating areas subject to this appro val shall have hours of operation not
exceeding 12am, Sunday through Thursday, and 2am, Fri day and Saturday; and,
6. That if the property receives more than three (3) Code Enforcement Violations or Civil Violations
in a twelve month period including complaints generate d from pedestrian and/or vehicular
incidents resulting from the increased impact of this req uest, the valet fails to function, and/or
undue congestion results, the conditional use (outdoor d ining at night) including the Sidewalk
Café will be reconsidered and possibly rescinded.
Prepared by: Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Pla nner
Attachment:
Site Plan
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Scott Aronson, Parking Specialist
Richard C. Hasko, PE, Director of Environmental Ser vices
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:February 1, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
REQUEST FOR IN -LIEU OF PARKING SPACES / GROVE RESTAURANT
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The item before the City Commission is that of appr oving a request from Grove Restaurant for the
purchase of three (3) in-lieu of parking spaces.
BACKGROUND
The Grove Restaurant has submitted a Class III site plan modification for the conversion of use from
retail to restaurant at 187 NE 2nd Avenue (Pineappl e Grove Way). Land Development Regulation
(LDR), Section 4.4.13(G) requires the provision of parking for the expansion of existing uses
or changes of use requiring a higher parking demand , derived by calculating the difference between
retail parking requirements at 1 per 300 sq. ft of floor area and Restaurants at 6 spaces per 1,000 sq .
ft. The proposed 967 sq. ft. conversion of use requ ires 3 spaces, (967 / 300 = 3.22 retail; .967 x 6 = 5.8
restaurant; 5.8 - 3.22 = 2.58; which rounds up to 3 ).
LDR Section 4.6.9(E) allows for the payment of a fe e in-lieu of providing required parking if approved
by City Commission by finding that adequate public parking is available and the request is consistent
with the LDR, Comprehensive Plan and all currently adopted city policies and/or studies. The subject
property is located in Area 3 of the in-lieu of parking program, requiring a fee of $7,800 per space,
resulting in a total fee of $23,400, to be paid in full upon issuance of a building permit.
Staff's review of the proposal finds concurrency wi th the LDR Section 4.6.9(E) allowing the approval o f
in-lieu of parking, Comprehensive Plan Policy C-4.1 of the Future Land Use Element through the
accommodation of parking needs through innovative actions and other plans and studies advocating
redevelopment of the Pineapple Grove district. It i s noted the property is within one (1) Block of the
Old School Square Garage in addition to the recentl y approved valet next door. In consideration of th e
aforementioned, staff supports the applicant's requ est.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
The Pineapple Grove Main Street Board, Community Re development Agency, Downtown
Development Authority, and Parking Management Advis ory Board, at their respective meetings, all
recommended approval of the applicant's request.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, approve the request from the Grove Resta urant for the purchase of three (3) in-lieu parking
spaces, at a cost of $23,400 to be paid in full, by adopting findings of fact and law contained in the staff
report, and finding that the request and approval t hereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan an d
meets criteria set forth in Section 4.6.9(E)(3) of the Land Development Regulations.
1
IN THE CITY COMMISSION
CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
IN LIEU PARKING FEE REQUEST FOR THE GROVE RESTAURAN T
ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
1. This in lieu parking fee request for the purchase of 3 parking spaces in-
lieu has come before the City Commission on February 7 , 2012.
2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and
testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the in lieu parking fee request for the
Grove Restaurant. All of the evidence is a part of th e record in this case. Required
findings are made in accordance with Subsection I.
I. IN LIEU PARKING FEE:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(3), when additional parking is required due to a
change of use to an existing building and adequate pub lic parking options are available
and the request is consistent with the LDRs, City Compreh ensive Plan, and all currently
adopted City policies and/or studies, the City Commissio n may approve the payment of
an in lieu fee.
Does the In Lieu Parking Fee request for the purchase of 3 parking spaces in-lieu meet
the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(3) and the co nditions, if any, listed below?
Total fee of $23,400 to be paid in full upon issuance of a building permit.
Yes_____ No_______
3. The City Commission hereby finds that the In Lieu Parking Fee Request
meets the requirements of 4.6.9(E)(3) of the Land Dev elopment Regulations, with the
conditions listed above, if any, and the City Commission has applied the
Comprehensive Plan and finds that its determinations set forth in this Order are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Land Developmen t Regulations and all
currently adopted City policies and/or studies .
2
4. The City Commission finds there is ample and compete nt substantial
evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained
in the record including but not limited to the staff r eports, testimony of experts and other
competent witnesses supporting these findings.
5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Co mmission approves ___
denies ____ the in lieu parking fee request as set forth above.
6. Based on the entire record before it, the City Co mmission hereby adopts
this Order this 7th day of February, 2012, by a vote of ___ in favor and ___ opposed.
________________________________
ATTEST: Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor
________________________________
Chevelle Nubin, City Clerk
Subject
Property
N
Va
l
e
t
/
3
s
p
a
c
e
s
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Lula Butler - Director, Community Improvement
THROUGH:David Harden - City Manager
DATE:February 1, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.D. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT/WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
City Commission decision on the proposed extension of the Franchise Agreement as requested by
Waste Management.
BACKGROUND
Waste Management has presented a proposal to Commis sion to renew the existing Franchise Agreement
with options of a 5-, 8- or 10-year contract. Staff completed an analysis of ten (10) Municipal Franchise
Agreements within Palm Beach and Broward Counties, varying in size and population having Franchise
Agreements that have either been awarded or renewed within the past two (2) years, (attached). This
information was presented to the Commission at the January 18 th meeting. Commission directed staff to
negotiate the amendments and bring the same back fo r their consideration.
Attached is the negotiated amended Franchise Agreem ent providing for renewal for a new eight (8)-year
period, with five (5)-year renewal options, for the Commission's consider ation. The changes in the
Agreement are:
1.1. The term of the Agreement is extended for eight (8) years and expires September 30, 2021. The
Agreement is renewable for five (5)-year terms, upo n approval of both parties.
2.2. Waste Management will provide to the City one hundr ed and twenty-five (125) single station Big
Belly Solar-powered compactors. Fifty (50) by Augus t 1, 2012, forty-five (45) by June, 2013 and
thirty (30) by June 1, 2014. Also, Waste Management will be responsible for the maintenance of
the solar powered compactors during the life of thi s Franchise Agreement or any extension. They
are also responsible for replacing units that fail to perform within 30 days of notice.
3.3. Effective March 1, 2012, Waste Management will begi n servicing all bus shelters without charge
to the City. The City will be billed for disposal c osts at the same rate currently charged for
Pelican cans along Atlantic Avenue and Pineapple Gr ove. The cost and details are specified
within the Franchise Agreement.
4.4. Provides that if Waste Management decides to change -out its fleet and use trucks that are
powered by Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), the Fuel S urcharge Table and DOE Diesel Fuel
Price will be replaced with the CNG Fuel Surcharge Table that exist at that time.
5.5. Indemnification Statement
The City Attorney is not in agreement with the curr ent indemnification statement. The City Attorney's
Office is in contact with Waste Management regardin g further revisions to the contract.
RECOMMENDATION
City Commission discretion.
AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT DATED SPETEMBER 20, 2001
THIS AMENDMENT NO.5 to the Solid Waste and Recycling Collec tion
Franchise Agreement dated September 20, 2001 is made this day of February,
2012 by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH (“the City”) and WASTE
MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA (“WMIF” or “Waste Management”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement dated September 20, 2001, and as f urther
amended, provides for the collection of solid waste and recycling mat erials within the
City (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to extend t he term,
provide for the grant of BigBelly Solar powered compactors and provide for the
clarification of the terms.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained herein and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. The recitations set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. All capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement as
amended unless the context requires otherwise.
3. Section 1 TERM is amended to read as follows:
The term of this Agreement is hereby extended for eight (8) ye ars and
expires September 30, 2021. This Agreement is renewable for f ive-year
terms upon approval of both parties.
4. Section 14 is amended by adding the following to the end of the Section:
2
All equipment shall have an average age of seven (7) years or less.
5. WMIF shall provide to the City one hundred twenty-five (125) singl e
station BigBelly Solar powered compactors. WMIF shall provide fifty (50) solar
compactors to the City by August 1, 2012. WMIF shall provide forty-five (45) solar
compactors to the City by June 1, 2013. WMIF shall provide thirty (30) solar compact ors
to the City by June 1, 2014. WMIF shall be responsible for the maintenance of the
BigBelly Solar powered compactors during the term of this Fra nchise Agreement and
will pay the costs associated with the electronic monitoring se rvices for the compactors
during the term of this Franchise Agreement, or any extension t hereof. If any compactor
fails to perform, due to any issue, other than vandalism or interveni ng acts of third
parties, WMIF shall repair such compactor, free of charge, wit hin 30 calendar days of
receiving notice from the City or of WMIF becoming aware of the problem. WMIF shall
collect, as needed up to and including on a daily basis, the garbage a t this location until
the compactor is repaired or replaced. Ownership of the BigBelly Solar C ompactors shall
transfer to the City at the end of the initial eight-year term.
6. WMIF is authorized to utilize Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00)
annually of the in kind services dollars provided under this Agreement towards the
electronic monitoring services for the solar compactors.
7. Exhibit 1 to the Franchise Agreement is amended by adding the following:
SIDEWALK CANS: Waste Management currently picks up individual 30-gallon
cans along Atlantic Avenue, the beach area and Pineapple Grove. Out of a total of 104
containers, 84 do not have property control numbers and, therefore, the C ity is not
charged for disposal costs by the Solid Waste Authority. Waste Management, by
3
contract, does not charge the City for collection costs but should be paid for t heir disposal
costs. Since the Solid Waste Authority does not reimburse Waste Management for these
disposal costs, it shall be the responsibility of the City to reimburse t hem.
The City will be billed $11,046.67 annually or $920.56 per month in arrears,
which will be computed as follows:
(84) 30-gallon containers picked up 6 times per week
$42 per ton disposal rate charge by SWA = $2.81 per cubic yard
30 gallon container = .15 cubic yards
35-gallon compactor container = .9 cubic yards
84 containers X .15 cubic yards X 6 pickups per week X 52 weeks X $2.81 = 11,046.67
BUS SHELTERS : Effective March 1, 2012, Waste Management will no longer
charge the City for the collection of the garbage cans at the B us Shelters. Waste
Management shall continue to collect from the current 47 municipal b us shelters and
begin to collect from an additional 23 municipal bus shelters at no charge, plus any
additional bus shelters, not to exceed 10, that may be constructed b y the City during the
term, or any extensions thereof, of the Franchise Agreement. Was te Management shall
be compensated for the disposal of the debris to be calculated i n the same manner as the
sidewalk cans. For the shelters that have compactors, the capacity shall be .9 cubic yards.
The list of the 73 Bus Shelter locations is attached.
4
The City will be billed $2,191.80 annually or $182.65 per month in arrears, which
will be computed as follows:
(64) 30-gallon containers picked up once per week
(6) 35-gallon compactor containers picked up once per week
$42 per ton disposal rate charge by SWA = $2.81 per cubic yard
30-gallon container = .15 cubic yards
35-gallon compactor container = .9 cubic yards
64 containers X .15 cubic yards X 1 pickup per week X 52 weeks X $2.81 plus
6 containers X .9 cubic yards X 1 pickup per week X 52 weeks X $2.81 = $2191.80
The payment for the disposal component of the Sidewalk Cans and Bus S helters shall be
recalculated whenever the number of sites or collection days c hange, or when the type of
container changes (30-gallon cans/solar compactors), or when the disposal c ost changes.
8. If WMIF decides to change out its fleet and use trucks that ar e powered by
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) engines, WMIF agrees to repla ce the Fuel Surcharge
Table and the Department of Energy Diesel Fuel Price Index with a CNG Surcharge
Table and a CNG Price Index that reflect then current pric es. WMIF also agrees to
negotiate the baseline costs. It is understood between the part ies that such a fleet change
will take time and money to accomplish and is not immediately planned, but is in the
talking stage within the Company.
9. WMIF agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, with
regard to any claim, lawsuit or other cause of action that may be filed against the City as
a result of the City extending the term of the Franchise Agree ment, including, but not
5
limited to the payment of attorney fees and costs at the tria l and appellate levels. WMIF
shall pay compensatory damages awarded against City (but not punit ive, special or
incidental damages) and City’s attorney fees and costs that may be awarded to a plaintiff
or claimant; provided, however, WMIF’s obligation hereunder to pay damages shall not
exceed Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000.00) Dollars. In the event that WMIF is
obligated to defend or indemnify the City pursuant to this Agre ement, WMIF shall be
entitled to assume the defense of such proceeding with counsel of its choice. WMIF will
not be liable to City under this Agreement for any fees of counsel if City elects to retain
additional counsel other than the counsel retained by WMIF as provided above. WMIF
shall not be obligated to defend and hold harmless the City with re spect to proceedings
and claims brought voluntarily by City or instituted by City to enforce or interpret this
Agreement. WMIF further agrees that if any court of law shoul d determine that the
franchise agreement between the parties concerning the extensi on of the Franchise
Agreement violates any statute, constitution or law, then WMIF sha ll voluntarily agree to
amend any portion of the franchise agreement, as necessary to comply with the Court
order. WMIF’s agreement to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City shall be
limited to any claims, lawsuit or other causes of action that m ay be filed against City
within two (2) years after the date that this Agreement has been executed by all parties.
10. This Amendment No. 5 together with the original Agreement and any
written amendments hereto, constitute the entire Agreement betwee n the parties relating
to the subject matter hereof. It is the final expression of a greement between the parties,
thus, neither party shall be entitled to rely upon any conflic ting oral representations,
6
assurances, claims or disclaimers, made either prior to or sim ultaneous with the execution
of this Agreement.
11. Except as expressly modified in writing herein or as modifi ed by
subsequent written amendments, all other terms and conditions of the or iginal Agreement
and any amendments thereto survive this Agreement and are deemed to be incorporated
herein and are binding on the parties.
This Space Intentionally left Blank
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendme nt of the Solid Waste
and Recycling Collection Franchise Agreement on the day and year first hereinabove
written.
ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
__________________________ By: ____________________________
City Clerk Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor
Approved as to legal form
and sufficiency:
__________________________ .
City Attorney
WITNESSES: WASTE MANAGEMENT INC.
OF FLORIDA
_________________________ By: _________________________
Timothy B. Hawkins, Vice President
_________________________
(name printed or typed) (Corporate Seal)
_________________________
__________________________
(name printed or typed)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALMBEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before m e this day of
, 2012 by ___________________, as _________________(name of
officer or agent, title of officer or agent), of Wa ste Management Inc. of Florida,
a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation . He is personally known to
me or has produced _________________(type of identi fication) as identification.
_________________________
Notary Public, State of Florida
PALM TRAN GRANT
Shelter
#
Palm
Tran
Route
Bus
Stop Address /IntersectionNotesFacing DIRPLAN SHEET#
1 Yes1112Military Trail @ Atlantic Ave.Grammercy Square(Easement )SW1
2 Yes 7429West Atlantic Ave @ Whatley Road Colony Palms /Existing Pad(Only Shelter )SE2
3 Yes 287Federal Hwy @Mangrove Park Harbourside Rd/Existing Pad (Only Shelter )NE3
4 Yes 7703Atlantic Ave @ Congress Square SW4
5 Yes 7618NE 1st Street @ NE 2nd Ave.(PGW)Existing Pad (Only Shelter)SW5
6 Yes 7352Old Germantown Rd @ San Bernadino Dr.Existing Pad (Only Shelter)NW6
7 Yes 7351Old Germantown Rd @ SW 36Th Ave.Existing Pad (Only Shelter)NW7
8 Yes 7349Old Germantown Rd @Via Verona Existing Pad (Only Shelter)NW8
9 Yes 7428SW 22nd Ave.@ Germantown SW9
10 Yes 7346SW 22nd Ave.@ Germantown SE10
11 Yes 220Federal Hwy @Delray PlazaFDOT VarianceSW11
12 Yes 7409SW 29th St @SW20TH Terr NE12
13 Yes 7362SW 10th Ave In front of TargetSW13
14 Yes 6427Linton Blvd@ Linton Squares Oaks Existing Pad (Only Shelter)SE14
15 Yes222SR
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Rafael Ballestero, Deptuy Director of Construc tion
Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental S ervices
THROUGH:Davit T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:January 30, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.E. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
CONTRACT CLOSEOUT (C.O. NO. 3/FINAL)/MURRAY LOGAN CONSTRUCT ION, INC.
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
This item is before the Commission to approve a Con tract Closeout (Change Order No. 3/Final) in the
net deduct amount of ($15,229.90) and final payment amount of $71,535.10 to Murray Logan
Construction, Inc. for the completion of the Mangro ve Boat Ramp Reconstruction Project #10-106.
BACKGROUND
On August 16, 2011, Commission approved a bid award to Murray Logan Construction, Inc.
for modifications to the Mangrove Park boat ramp to include: removal of the existing boat ramps and
floating dock; re-grading to a lesser slope, with an arced break poin t between high and low tide levels;
reconstruction of the existing floating dock to a l ower profile; and lowering the staging dock at the east
of the ramp. The improvements will make it easier to launch and retrieve vessels.
On August 16, 2011, Commission also approved Change Order No. 1 to reduce the undefined
conditions allowance by ($6,270) to $13,730, there by reducing the contract amount to $188,240 for the
bid awarded to Murray Logan Construction, Inc. Fun ding for the construction project is provided by
grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Spo rt Fish Restoration-Boat Access Program
($102,500) and Florida Inland Navigation District ($85,740) in the total amount of $188,240.
On December 13, 2011, Commission approved Change Or der #2 for a contract time extension of thirty
(30) days. During construction the contractor enco untered stiff rock formations; which required twent y-
one (21) days to excavate the top layer and break u p the lower layer. In addition, seven (7) addition al
days were required to install the temporary sheet pile cofferdam.
Change Order No. 3 includes plus and minus quantity adjustments and liquidates the residual from
contingency allowances. All changes for the projec t are itemized on the attached Schedule "A". The
project is complete and all closeout documentation has been received.
FUNDING SOURCE
Residual funds to be liquidated from PO #677695 to funding account 334-4174-572-63.90 (General
Construction Fund/Improvements Other/Other Improvem ents).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a Contract Closeout (Change Order No. 3/Final) in the net deduct
amount of ($15,229.90) and final payment amount of $71,535.10 to Murray Logan Construction, Inc.
for the completion of the Mangrove Boat Ramp Recons truction Project.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construc tion
Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Dire ctor
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:January 23, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.F. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2/INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC.
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
This item is before the Commission to approve Chang e Order No. 2 (CO#2) to Intercounty Engineering,
Inc. for a contract time extension of fourteen days (14) days and approval for the amount of
$10,400.00 to be paid out of the Contract's Utility Allowance for additional scope, for removal of an
additional 1,300 linear feet (LF) of 2" water main for the Osceola Park Water Main, Phase 2 Project
#2010-082.
BACKGROUND
On June 7, 2011, the Commission approved a Contract Award to Intercounty Engineering, Inc. for a
project generally consisting installing approximate ly 5,340 LF of 8 inch Ductile Iron Pipe water main,
connection of water services, and installation of f ire hydrants. This project also includes clearing a nd
grubbing, sodded swale, asphalt trench repair, driv eway apron replacement, drainage, and maintenance
of traffic.
On October 4, 2011, Commission approved Change Orde r No. 1 for a total amount of $18,321.82 to be
paid out of the contract's Utility Allowance Line I tem.
On December 13, 2011, Commission approved additiona l scope for the removal of 2,000 LF of 2"
water main in the amount of $16,000.00. This was r equested in lieu of abandonment in place to prevent
conflicts with potential future capital project des ign and construction activities.
Change Order No. 2 is for a contract time extension of fourteen (14) days to complete the work for th e
removal of an additional 1,300 LF of 2" water main at $8.00/LF for an amount of $10,400.00; to be
paid out of the Contract's Utility Allowance. The additional water main was identified within the
project limits, but not shown on the plans; and is in addition to the 2,000 LF above. This is request ed in
lieu of abandonment in place to prevent conflicts w ith potential future capital project design and
construction activities.
Attached please find Exhibit "A", a Location Map an d copy of the Contract's Allowance Spreadsheet.
FUNDING SOURCE
Cost to be funded out of the contract's Utility All owance; available balance is $15,678.18.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 2 to Intercounty Engineering, Inc. for a contract time
extension of fourteen days (14) days, and approval for the amount of $10,400.00 to be paid out of the
Contract's Utility Allowance for additional scope, for the removal of an additional 1,300 LF of 2" wat er
main; for the Osceola Park Water Main Phase 2 Proje ct.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:January 30, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.G. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
BID AWARD / ACCURATE EVENT GROUP
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
City Commission is requested to approve a bid award to Accurate Event Group in the amount not to
exceed $34,102.07 for private security services fro m February 24, 2012 through March 5, 2012 for the
Champions/World Tour Tennis Tournament and authoriz e staff to negotiate a lower price.
BACKGROUND
Per the terms of our agreement with Match Point Inc ., the City of Delray Beach is responsible for
providing private security for the Champions/World Tour. In addition to cost, other requirements of th e
agreement are but not limited to: that the guards b e dressed in “hard guard” uniforms, the selected
vendor must supply their own radio communications, 24/7 contact must be available and that they have
experience in providing this service for similar ty pe events.
Responses to a request for quotations were received from three (3) firms on January 19, 2012. Bid
summary is attached.
Staff is recommending rejection of the lowest bidde r, Allied Barton, due to lack of experience with
similar type events and we do not think they have t he capacity to perform. See attached emails. We als o
are not recommending award to A & A Associates due to problems we experienced last year.
FUNDING SOURCE
Funding is available from 001-4210-575-55.40 (General Fund/Recreational Supplies/Tennis
Tournament).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends award for private security for the Champions/World Tour Tennis Tournament to
Accurate Events Group in the amount not to exceed $34,102.07 and authorize staff to negotiate a lower
price.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:January 30, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.H. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST / ASIAN TRADE, FOOD FAIR AND CULTU RAL SHOW
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
City Commission is requested to consider approval o f the 19 th Asian Trade, Food Fair and Cultural
Show being held in Delray Beach sponsored by the Ba ngladesh Association of Florida, which is
proposed to be held on March 24 and 25, 2012 on the grounds at Old School Square and in the Old
School Square Park from noon to 10:00 p.m. Commissi on is also requested to grant a temporary use
permit per LDR’s section 2.4.6(F) for the closure a nd use of a portion of NE 1 st Avenue, to authorize
staff support for traffic control and security, sit e cleanup and trash removal, EMS assistance, regula r
event signage and assistance with banner hanging. T he event sponsor has also requested per the event
permit the use of the CRA Parking lot, Old School S quare Garage, County Garage, North City Hall lot,
175 reserved parking spaces in the Old School Squar e Garage for vendors, VIP’s and sponsors, City
generator, four (4) light towers, and trash boxes. Staff is requesting a waiver to the Event Policies and
Procedures to allow more than two (2) major events in March.
BACKGROUND
Attached is an event permit request from Mr. Rahan Zabir, on behalf of the Bangladesh Association of
Florida, for this event proposed to be held March 2 4 and 25, 2012 on the grounds of Old School Square
and in the Old School Square Park. Also attached ar e the site plan, budget, economic calculator,
Certificate of Insurance and Hold Harmless Agreemen t.
The purpose of this festival is to celebrate Asian and Pacific American Heritage and promote cultural
diversity.
The site would be fenced and there will be an admis sion charge of $10 for adults, children under 6 yea rs
old are free. No alcoholic beverages will be sold. Mr. Zabir is requesting City staff support for secu rity
and traffic control, EMS services, cleanup and tras h removal, event signage, 175 reserved parking
spaces in the Old School Square Garage, event site signage, use of the City generator, four (4) light
towers and trash boxes. I-95 signage has been requested in the past; if it re quested for this year's event,
staff will forward the request to FDOT.
The City will man the Old School Square garage and charge $5 for parking. This event producer has
also requested 175 reserved spaces in the Old Schoo l Square garage for staff and vendors. We are
recommending 70 spaces.
The event producer will have to enter into an agree ment with the CRA for use of their lot and we are n ot
recommending use of the South County Court House ga rage and North City Hall lot since in the years
past very few people use these parking areas.
Per Special Event Policies and Procedures, Section III (D), only two (2) major events are allowed in a
month; therefore, this provision needs to be waived . Staff supports this waiver. Applications for the St.
Patrick’s Day Parade and Twilight Criterium Bicycle Race we re received and approved prior to receipt
of this permit application.
The estimated staff overtime for this even this $11 ,207, trash boxes $245, signage $250, and light
towers $1,000 for a total of $12,702. Per Event Pol icies and Procedures, the event producer will be
required to pay 75% of overtime and 100% of other c osts for an estimated total of $9,900.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends consideration of approval of the e vent permit, the temporary use permit, staff suppor t
as requested, standard 4’ x 4’ signage, use of City generator, four (4) generator light towers, forwarding
the I-95 signage request to FDOT, reserved parking in the Old School Square Garage and waiver of
Section III (D) of the Special Event Policies and P rocedures with the following conditions:
1. Site plan be approved as amended by staff.
2. The City is to be provided with a Certificate of Li ability Insurance from the amusement ride
operator one week prior to the event.
3. The City is to be provided with a copy of the State Inspection Certificate for amusement rides
prior to operating any such rides.
4. Reserved parking in the Old School Square Garage is limited to 70 spaces.
5. Tents cannot be staked in the ground, except the la rge pavilion tent. Barrels or concrete blocks
to be used.
6. The event producer must provide City staff an elect rical and water location plan at least two (2)
weeks prior to the event (March 9, 2012).
7. No vehicles will be allowed to drive on the grass a rea of the Old School Square Park
site. Walkways only to be used for this purpose.
8. Event sponsor to provide onsite dumpster and grease disposal equipment.
9. Signage and banners to be installed no earlier than March 10, 2012.
10. The City is to be provided with a copy of an ex ecuted rental agreement for the Old School
Square Park no later than March 2, 2012.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney
DATE:January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.I. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
OFFER OF SETTLEMENT OF SONDRA COMISAR VS. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Offer to settle the case of Sondra Comisar v. City of Delray Beach .
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a trip and fall incident by a 67 year old woman who tripped on a rut in the as phalt
walkway just east of the FEC railway tracks on the south side of Atlantic Avenue on November 29,
2008. Ms. Comisar broke her elbow, bruised her hip and had scratches on her face. Her elbow required
surgery to repair, and since the initial surgery, M s. Comisar has had two additional surgeries on that
elbow. Her medical costs to date are approximately $28,000.00.
Mediation was held in this case and the Plaintiff o ffered to settle this case in the amount of $27,500 .00.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Attorney’s Office recommends approval of t his settlement.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Terrill Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney
THROUGH:Brian Shutt, City Attorney
DATE:January 27, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.J. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN THE CASE OF RICHARD WEINSTEIN, AS P ERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JASON WEINSTEIN, DECEASED V. THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Offer to settle a complaint filed by Plaintiff, Ric hard Weinstein, as Personal Representative of the E state
of Jason Weinstein.
BACKGROUND
This is an offer by Plaintiff to settle a case pend ing against the City. The case involves a complaint of
wrongful death for a drowning that occurred on Sept ember 5, 2008 at Atlantic Dunes Park, which
resulted in Jason Weinstein’s death. The case was filed August 2, 2010 and it alleged that the City was
negligent in its rescue efforts.
Pursuant to Section 380.276(6), Fla. Stat. (2011), “the state, state agencies, local and regional
government entities or authorities, and their indiv idual employees and agents, shall not be held liabl e for
any injury or loss of life caused by changing surf and other naturally occurring conditions along coas tal
areas…”
In this case, there was no evidence that Jason Wein stein was alive when he reached the shore, therefor e
we do not believe we have any liability as result o f the statute referenced above. In order to prove t his
fact definitively, however, we will likely have to hire an expert. Additionally, we hired Fred Gelston ,
Esq. to assist with handling this case at your dire ction in April, 2011 due to the serious nature of t he
allegations involved. Therefore, proceeding to tria l will likely cost us additional monies for attorne y’s
fees and costs.
At this time, the Plaintiff has offered to settle t he case in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000.00) with each party to be responsible for their own fees and costs to date. Pursuant to the
damages portion of the wrongful death statute § 768 .21 and the case of State Department of Corrections
v. Parker , 553 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), if the City is unable to prove definitively that Jason
Weinstein was deceased before he reached the shore line, then the City could be found liable for up to
Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), which i s the sovereign immunity cap for multiple estate
beneficiaries in a wrongful death case. (In this ca se, Richard Weinstein and his wife Ilonka Weinstein ).
Conversely, if the City proceeds to trial, the cost s of experts and outside counsel is expected to exc eed
Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00). Further, in t he event of a verdict against the City, there may b e
additional costs incurred to appeal the matter.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Attorney's Office recommends City Commissi on discretion.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:February 3, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.K. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
DIRECTION ON FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
This item is before the Commission for direction a possible reconsideration of a fire assessment fee.
BACKGROUND
Alternatives for a fire assessment fee will be disc ussed at the Monday, February 6 Commission
Workshop Meeting. If the Commission decides to mov e forward with reconsideration of a fire
assessment fee, a vote will be needed regarding wha t type of fee to include in the new public hearing
notice that will need to be sent to property owners .
RECOMMENDATION
Commission discretion.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:January 30, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.L. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
APPOINTMENT TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
This item is before the City Commission for an appo intment to the Code Enforcement Board.
BACKGROUND
There is a vacancy on the Code Enforcement Board du e to Ms. Stephanie Sugar being appointed for
regular membership at the City Commission meeting o n January 3, 2012. The term is unexpired ending
January 14, 2013. Appointment is needed for one (1) alternate member.
All members of the Code Enforcement Board must be r esidents of the City. Appointments to both
regular and alternate member positions shall be on the basis of experience or interest in the fields o f
zoning and building control. The regular and altern ate membership of the Board shall, whenever
possible , include an architect, a business person, an engin eer, a general contractor, a subcontractor and a
realtor.
The following individuals have submitted applicatio ns and would like to be considered for
appointment:
Name Background
Mark Behar Self Employed – Investor
Jason Whiteman Attorney
A check for code violations and/or municipal liens was conducted. None were found. Voter registration
verification was completed and all are registered.
Based on the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Carney (Seat #1) for one
(1) alternate member to serve an unexpired term end ing January 14, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend appointment of one (1) alternate member t o serve on the Code Enforcement Board for an
unexpired term ending January 14, 2013.
01/12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
TERM EXPIRES REGULAR MEMBERS OCCUPATION POSITION
FILLING
01/14/2013
Unexp Appt 4/21/11
Jason Dollard
Attorney Layperson
01/14/2013
unexp Appt 09/05/06
Reappt 01/02/07 Reg
Reappt 01/05/10
Stanley Brodka, Vice Chair
Financial Services Layperson
01/14/2014
Appt 01/03/08 reg
Unexp Appt 10/2/07 alt
Reappt 01/04/11
Kelli Freeman
Staffing Manager
Business
Person
01/14/2013
Unexp Appt 09/06/11
Ronald Gilinsky
Sales/Marketing Layperson
01/14/2015
Appt 01/03/12
Stephanie Sugar
Regional Director Business
Person
01/14/2015
Unexp Appt 07/05/11
Unexp Appt 05/17/11 alt
Reappt 01/03/12
Kurt Lehmann
Realtor Realtor
01/14/2015
Unexp Appt 03/01/11
Reappt 01/03/12
David Boone
Attorney/Educator Layperson
ALTERNATES
01/14/2013
Unexp Appt 08/02/11
Robert Wells
Retired Layperson
01/14/2013
Unexp Appt
Vacant
Contact: Danise Cleckley 243-7213
S/City Clerk/Board 12/Code Enforcement Board
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:January 30, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.M. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC ART ADVISORY BOARD
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
This item is before the City Commission for an appo intment to the Public Art Advisory Board.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Ora Sorensen, regular member on the Public Art Advisory Board, submitted her resignation
effective immediately. The term is unexpired ending July 31, 2013. An appointment is needed for one
regular member.
On February 1, 2005, the Delray Beach City Commissi on adopted Ordinance No. 77-04 establishing the
Public Art Advisory Board for the purpose of advisi ng and making recommendations to the City
Commission with respect to public art policy and re lated issues including, but not limited to, the
selection, construction and placement of public art in/on City right-of-way and City owned property.
The Public Art Advisory Board shall consist of seve n (7) members. Three (3) seats on the Board must
be filled with either an artist, architect, landsca pe architect or engineer. Laypersons of knowledge,
experience and judgment who have an interest in pub lic art shall make up the balance of the Board.
The following individuals have submitted applicatio ns and would like to be considered for
appointment:
(See Exhibit A attached)
A check for code violations and/or municipal liens was conducted. None were found. Voter registration
verification was completed and all are registered.
Based on the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Mayor McDuffie (Seat #5) for one (1)
regular member to serve an unexpired term ending Ju ly 31, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend appointment of one (1) regular member to serve on the Public Art Advisory Board for an
unexpired term ending July 31, 2013.
PUBLIC ART ADVISORY BOARD
08/11
TERM EXPIRES REGULAR MEMBERS OCCUPATION
07/31/13
Unexp Appt
Vacant
07/31/12
Appt 07/15/08
Reappt 07/20/10
Dana Donaty, Chair
Artist
07/31/13
Appt 08/02/11
Jonathan Jonas
Project Manager
07/31/12
Appt 07/20/10
Sandi Franciosa
Administrative
Asst/Retired
07/31/12
Appt 07/15/08
Reappt 07/20/10
Michiko Kurisu
Artist/Photographer
07/31/12
Appt 07/15/08
Reappt 07/20/10
Richard McGloin, Vice Chair
Electrical Engineer
07/31/13
Appt 07/21/09
Reappt 07/05/11
Mary Minieka
Administration
Contact: Alberta Gaum X7136
S/City Clerk/Board 11/Public Art Advisory Board
Commission Liaison:
PUBLIC ART ADVISORY BOARD
EXHIBIT A
Applicants interested in serving as lay persons:
Applicant Occupation
Daniel Bellante Business Owner
Alexia Rouquette Real Estate/Marketing/Public Relations
Kera Trowbridge Interviewer-Panelist
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Z oning
THROUGH:City Manager
DATE:February 1, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 03 -12 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING)
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Approval of a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulat ions (LDRs) that will amend
prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers and pe nalties for transient residential uses; and will am end
the definition of “transient residential uses”.
BACKGROUND
Concerns have been raised that allowing the use of single family residential dwelling units for transi ent
residential use elevates the use to one that has ch aracteristics of a non-residential activity and is not
considered incidental and subordinate to the primar y purpose of a “single family dwelling”.
Transient residential uses have caused the followin g impacts and concerns:
* Transient residential uses often maximize occupan cy causing increased pressure on infrastructure.
* Rapid turnover in occupancy associated with trans ient residential uses can be a disruptive influence on
the peaceful use and enjoyment of single family res idential areas.
* Transient residential uses can displace permanent single family residential dwellings and thus reduc e
the number of permanent residents in the City and c ause a reduction in state revenue sharing funds
necessary to support the services that influence th e quality of life for residents, commercial interes ts,
and visitors.
In July of 2009, an Ordinance was passed (Ordinance No. 29-09), which included a new definition for
Transient Residential Use, defining it as a dwellin g unit that is operated or used in such a way that it has
a turnover in occupancy of more than 6 times in any one year. While a consensus was ultimately
reached by the City Commission that a turnover rate of six times a year would be adequate to retain
neighborhood stability within the Single Family and PRD districts, two and a half years after
implementation of the Ordinance No. 29-09, reconsideration of this threshold is now being considered.
Further, additional clarification is being provided as to how the turnover rates apply to multiple lea ses
or multiple tenants within a single dwelling unit.
The existing Transient Residential Use definition i ncludes those dwelling units in both single family and
multi-family zoning districts which have a turnover rate of more than six (6) times per year. This
definition is being modified to include dwelling un its that turn over in occupancy more than three (3)
times a year in single family and PRD zoning distri cts. The definition is being further modified to
clarify that the turnover rate refers to the entire dwelling unit or any part thereof, regardless of h ow it is
segmented.
Those Transient Residential Uses that may exist by virtue of the definition change in Single Family an d
PRD zoning districts are allowed to continue for tw elve (12) months after the effective date of the
Ordinance.
Any property owner that leases, rents, licenses, or subleases a single family residential dwelling uni t
within a single family zoning district more than th ree (3) times in any given year or a dwelling unit in
the RM zoning district more than six (6) times in a ny given year will be in violation of this ordinanc e.
The attached ordinance clarifies prohibitions, exem ptions/exceptions, and waivers and penalties for
transient residential uses along with modifying the existing definition of transient residential uses to
limit occupancy turnover to no more than three (3) times per year for any dwelling or any part thereof .
REVIEW BY OTHERS
The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the item at their December 19, 2011 meeting and
recommended approval subject to conditions on a 7-0 vote. These conditions included changing
references in the whereas clauses to the “2010 Cens us” and clarifying that the ordinance applied to a
dwelling unit or any part thereof. The Board also r ecommended lowering the allowed turnover rate from
three times a year to two times a year. The first t wo conditions have been incorporated into the
Ordinance before the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, approve Ordinance No. 3-12 of the amendment to Land Development Regulations ,
modifying Subsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residen tial Uses”, in order to clarify prohibitions,
exemptions/exceptions, waivers, and penalties for s ame; and amending Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, in
order to amend the definition of “Transient Residential Uses, by adopting the finding s of fact and law
contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set f orth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
ORDINANCE NO. 03-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4.3.3, “SPE CIFIC
REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES”, BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION 4.3.3(ZZZ), “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE”, IN
ORDER TO CLARIFY PROHIBITIONS, EXEMPTIONS/
EXCEPTIONS, WAIVERS, AND PENALTIES FOR SAME; AMENDI NG
APPENDIX “A”, “DEFINITIONS”, IN ORDER TO AMEND THE
DEFINITION OF “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE”; PROVIDIN G A
SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission hereby finds and decl ares that the leasing, renting, licensing,
subleasing or otherwise allowing in any manner or f orm the use of single-family residential dwelling u nits for
periods of less than twelve (12) months with a turn over in occupancy more often than three (3) times p er year
to any person, entity or family, is a non-residenti al activity and is not considered an accessory use customarily
accessory and incidental and subordinate to the pri mary intended purpose of dwellings, See, Schwarz v. City of
Treasure Island , 21 Fla.L.Weekly Fed. C11541 (11th Cir. 2008); and
WHEREAS, the Census Data collected by the U.S. Cen sus Bureau in 2010 provides that the average
family size is 2.87 people; and
WHEREAS, transient residential uses often maximize occupancy causing increased pressure on
infrastructure, including: garbage, sewer, water, r oadways, and utilities; code enforcement, law enfor cement, fire
protection and inspection services; and
WHEREAS, transient residential uses can result in increased noise and traffic in single-family reside ntial
communities; and
WHEREAS, unless regulations are placed on the amou nt and location of transient uses, such uses could
overwhelm the non-transient related single-family r esidential community making the City of Delray Beac h a less
attractive place to reside; and
WHEREAS, transient residential uses can be incompa tible with permanent and seasonal residential uses
if not properly planned, controlled and regulated; and
WHEREAS, the rapid turnover in occupancy associate d with transient residential uses can be a
disruptive influence on the peaceful use and enjoyment of si ngle family residential areas; and
WHEREAS, reserving land for single family residenc es preserves the character of neighborhoods,
securing “zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the
2 ORD. NO. 03-12
area a sanctuary for people.” See, City of Edmonds v. Oxford House , 514 U.S. 725, 733 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed. 2d
801 (1995); and
WHEREAS, Congress intended the FHA to “prohibit th e use of zoning regulations to limit the ability
of the handicapped to live in the residence of thei r choice in the community; however, the FHA does no t pre-
empt or abolish a municipality’s power to regulate land use and pass zoning laws.” See, Jeffrey O. v. City of Boca
Raton , 511 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2007); and
WHEREAS, transient residential uses can displace p ermanent single family residential dwellings and
thus reduce the number of permanent residents in th e City and cause a reduction in state revenue shari ng funds
necessary to support the services that influence the qual ity of life for residents, commercial interests, and visito rs
to the City of Delray Beach; and
WHEREAS, uncontrolled and unregulated transient re sidential uses is found to have a negative impact
on the City of Delray Beach’s economy, property val ues, law enforcement, traffic, safety, and the gene ral health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens of Delray Beach; and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida has recognized that leases, rentals, licenses, subleases, and assignmen ts
or otherwise allowing in any manner the use of a re sidential dwelling unit for under twelve (12) month s in
duration is a transient use and is therefore taxed by the State of Florida at a rate of six (6) percen t of the total
rental amount charged; and
WHEREAS, the Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Boar d has reviewed this ordinance and a duly
noticed public hearing was held before the Planning and Zoning Board on December 19, 2011, and said Bo ard
has recommended adoption of the changes to the City ’s Land Development Regulations regarding the
regulation of transient rental units by a vote of 6 to 0 ; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission and the Planning and Zoning Board both find that the ordinance is
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISS ION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . That the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, Section
4.3.3, “Specific Requirements for Specific Uses”, S ubsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”, shall
hereby be amended to read as follows:
(ZZZ) TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE shall mean a The entire dwelling unit or any part
thereof, which is located in Single Family or Planned Reside ntial Development Zoning Districts that and
is operated or used in such a way that it has a any part of the dwelling unit turns over in occupancy of
more often than six (6) three (3) times in any one (1) year shall be presumed to be a Transient
Residential Use and therefore prohibited. An entire dwelli ng unit or any part thereof, which is located in
Medium Density Residential (RM) Zoning Districts an d is operated or used in such a way that any part
3 ORD. NO. 03-12
of the entire dwelling unit turns over occupancy mo re often than six (6) times in any one (1) year sha ll
be presumed to be a Transient Residential Use and therefore p rohibited.
(1 ) Transient Residential Uses are Prohibited in Single Family and Planned
Residential D evelopment Zoning Districts: A ll transient residential uses are prohibited in S ingle -
F amily and Planned Residential Development zoning districts in order to preserve the residenti al
character of single -family neighborhoods and minimize the impact of tra ns ient uses on permanent
single -family land uses. Transient Residential Uses are p ermitted uses in Medium Density Residential
(RM) Districts.
(2 ) (1) Exceptions/Exemptions:
(a) Existing transient residential uses with a turnover mo re often than three (3) times
per year but not exceeding six (6) times per year in single-family and planned
residential development zoning districts may contin ue until the expiration of the
current lease agreement between an existing occupant and the real property
owner or twelve (12) months after the effective date of thi s ordinance, whichever
occurs first .
(b) The leasing, renting, licensing, subleasing or otherwise allowing in any manner or
form the use of a single-family dwelling unit for C ommunity Residential and
Group Homes which are licensed by the state are exempt.
(c) The real property owners of the dwelling unit a nd their family are exempt
regardless of how much time the owners and family spend at the dwelling unit
on a yearly basis.
(3 ) (2) Waiver for Undue Economic Hardship : In all instances where there is a claim of
undue economic hardship, the property owner may be granted a waiver from Section 4.3.3(ZZZ) after
submission of waiver request to the City’s Communit y Improvement Director or his/her designee
including the following documentation:
(a) The amount paid for the property, the date of p urchase, and the party from
whom purchased;
(b) The assessed value of the land and improvements thereon, according to the two
most recent assessments;
(c) Real estate taxes for the previous two years;
(d) Annual debt service or mortgage payments, if any, for th e previous two years;
4 ORD. NO. 03-12
(e) All appraisals, if any, obtained within the pre vious two years by the owner or
applicant in connection with the purchase, financin g, or ownership of the
property;
(f) Any listing of the property for sale or rent, p rice asked, and offers received, if
any;
(g) The annual gross income from the property for the previo us two years, if any;
(h) The annual cash flow, if any, for the previous two years;
(i) An applicant may submit and the Community Impro vement Director of the
Neighborhood Services Department or his/her designee may require that an
applicant furnish additional information relevant t o the determination of any
alleged undue economic hardship; and
(j) In the event that any of the required informati on is not reasonably available to
the property owner and cannot be obtained by the pr operty owner, the property
owner shall file statement of the information which cannot be obtained and the
reasons why such information cannot be reasonably o btained. Where such
unobtainable information concerns required financia l information, the property
owner will submit a statement describing estimates which will be as accurate as
are feasible.
(4) (3) Reasonable Accommodation : Reasonable Accommodations from this section may be
obtained pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(G).
(5 ) (4) Penalties for Violations : The City adopts all enforcement methods, which i nclude, but
are not limited to, the issuance of a citation, sum mons, notice to appear in county court, arrest for
violation of municipal ordinances, civil citations, injunction or any other enforcement method
authorized by law including penalties as set forth in Section 10.99 of the City’s Code of Ordinances.
Any property owner that leases, rents, licenses, su bleases, or otherwise allows in any manner or form t he
use of a single -family residential an entire dwelling unit within a single-family zoning or planned
residential development zoning district for a period of less than twelve (12) mon ths with a turnover in
occupancy of any part of the dwelling unit more often than six (6) three (3) times in any one (1) per year
shall be in violation of this section as well as those entire dwelling units that are lo cated within Medium
Density Residential (RM) Zoning Districts with a tu rnover in occupancy of any part of the dwelling uni t
more often than six (6) times in any one (1) year shall be in vio lation of this section .
(6) (5) Severability :
(a) Generally . If any part, section, subsection, paragraph, sub paragraph, sentence,
phrase, clause, term, or word of Section 4.3.3(ZZZ) is declared unconstitutional
5 ORD. NO. 03-12
by the valid judgment or decree of any court of com petent jurisdiction, the
declaration of such unconstitutionality shall not a ffect the remainder of Section
4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”.
(b) If the entire Section 4.3.3(ZZZ) is declared un constitutional by the valid
judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisd iction, the earlier version of
this section adopted by the City Commission on July 7, 2009 as Ordinance 29-09
shall be substituted herein and shall be deemed to be in full f orce and effect.
Section 2 . That Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, of the Land Dev elopment Regulations of the City
of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended to read as follows:
TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE shall mean a the entire dwelling unit or any part thereof, that i s
which is located in Single Family or Planned Reside ntial Development Zoning Districts and is operated
or used in such a way that any part of the dwelling u nit turns over turnover in occupancy of more often
than six (6) three (3) times in any one (1) year and the entire dwelling unit or any part thereof, which is
located in Medium Density Residential (RM) Zoning D istricts and is operated or used in such a way
that any part thereof turns over occupancy more often than si x (6) times in any one (1) year .
Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordi nance or any portion thereof, any
paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such deci sion shall
not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declare d to be
invalid.
Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in con flict herewith be, and the same are
hereby repealed.
Section 5 . That this ordinance shall become effective immed iately upon its passage on second and
final reading.
6 ORD. NO. 03-12
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the _____ day of
___________________, 2012.
____________________________________
ATTEST M A Y O R
_______________________________
City Clerk
First Reading__________________
Second Reading________________
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2011
AGENDA NO: V. A.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED AME NDMENT TO THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR), AMENDING SUBSECTION
4.3.3(ZZZ), “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USES”, IN ORDER TO CLARIFY
PROHIBITIONS, EXEMPTIONS/EXCEPTIONS, WAIVERS, AND
PENALTIES FOR SAME: AMENDING APPENDIX “A”, “DEFINITIO NS”, IN
ORDER TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF “TRANSIENT RESIDEN TIAL
USES”.
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a city-
initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will amend prohibitions,
exemptions/exceptions, waivers and penalties for transien t residential uses; and will amend the
definition of ‘transient residential uses.’
Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may
not be made until a recommendation is obtained from t he Planning and Zoning Board.
BACKGROUND
Concerns have been raised that allowing use of single fa mily residential dwelling units for transient
residential use elevates the use to one that has character istics of a non-residential activity and is
not considered incidental and subordinate to the primar y purpose of a ‘single family dwelling.’
Transient residential uses have caused the following impa cts and concerns:
Transient residential uses often maximize occupancy causin g increased pressure on
infrastructure.
Transient residential uses can be incompatible with per manent and seasonal residential
uses if not properly planned, controlled and regulated .
Rapid turnover in occupancy associated with transient resi dential uses can be a disruptive
influence on the peaceful use and enjoyment of single f amily residential areas.
Transient residential uses can displace permanent single f amily residential dwellings and
thus reduce the number of permanent residents in the Ci ty and cause a reduction in state
revenue sharing funds necessary to support the services tha t influence the quality of life for
residents, commercial interests, and visitors.
In July of 2009 an Ordinance was passed (Ordinance 29-09) which included a new definition for
Transient Residential Use defining it as a dwelling un it that is operated or used in such a way that it
has a turnover in occupancy of more than 6 times in any one year. While a consensus was
ultimately reached by City Commission that a turnover rate of six times a year would be adequate
to retain neighborhood stability within the Single Family and PRD districts, one and a half years
after implementation of the Ordinance 29-09, reconside ration of this threshold is now being
considered. Further, additional clarification is being provided as to how the turnover rates apply to
multiple leases or multiple tenants within a single dwe lling unit.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2011
LDR Amendment – Transient Residential Uses
2
The attached ordinance clarifies prohibitions, exemptio ns/exceptions, and waivers and penalties
for transient residential uses along with modifying the existing definition of transient residential
uses to limit occupancy turn over to no more than three (3) times per year for any dwelling or any
part thereof.
ANALYSIS
Transient Residential Uses are prohibited in Single Fa mily and Planned Residential Development
(PRD) zoning districts, but are allowed as a permitted use in the Medium Density Residential (RM)
districts between three (3) and six (6) times per year an d prohibited thereafter. The existing
Transient Residential Use definition includes those dwel ling units in both single family and multi-
family which have a turnover rate of more than six (6 ) times per year. This definition is being
modified to dwelling units that turn over in occupancy more than three (3) times a year in single
family and PRD zoning districts. The definition is fu rther modified to clarify that the turnover rate
refers to the entire dwelling unit or any part there of, regardless of how it is segmented.
Those Transient Residential Uses that may exist by virtue of the definition change in Single Family
and PRD zoning districts are allowed to continue until either the expiration of the current lease or
twelve (12) months after the effective date of the O rdinance.
Exemptions continue to be provided for Group and Comm unity Residential Homes which are
licensed by the State and subject to State standards.
If the ordinance creates an undue economic hardship it can be addressed through a waiver
provision pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) with proper documentation or by requesting reasonable
accommodations through LDR Section 2.4.7(G).
Any property owner that leases, rents, licenses, sublease s a single family residential dwelling unit
within a single family zoning district more than thre e (3) times in any given year or a dwelling unit in
RM more than six (6) times in any given year will be in violation of this ordinance.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Comprehensive Plan Conformance
LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings) requires that the C ity Commission make a finding that the text
amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Obj ectives and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Comprehensive Pl an identified the following applicable
objectives/policies:
Housing Element Objective A-4
For those areas identified as “needing stabilization” o n the Residential Neighborhood
Categorization Map”, the City shall take measures to p revent further decline (i.e. environmental
impact, police activity, traffic, building height and density), and to help move the neighborhood
toward a classification of “stable” residential,” without displacement of existing resident s.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2011
LDR Amendment – Transient Residential Uses
3
Housing Element Objective A-11
To assist residents of the City in maintaining and enha ncing their neighborhood, the City, through
public input and notification, shall take steps to ensur e that modifications in and around the
neighborhood do not lead to its decline, such as those d escribed in the following policies.
The proposed ordinance is consistent with the above-stated objectives.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
Courtesy Notices
Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeo wner and civic associations:
Neighborhood Advisory Council
Letters of objection and support, if any, will be pro vided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Com mission of the amendment to Land
Development Regulations, modifying Subsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”, in
order to clarify prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, w aivers, and penalties for same;
amending Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, in order to am end the definition of “Transient Residential
Uses, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the
text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M)
C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commissi on of the amendment to Land
Development Regulations, modifying Subsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”, in
order to clarify prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, w aivers, and penalties for same;
amending Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, in order to am end the definition of “Transient Residential
Uses, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the
text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative).
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommend approval to the City Commission of the amend ment to Land Development
Regulations, modifying Subsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”, in o rder to clarify
prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers, and penal ties for same; amending Appendix “A”,
“Definitions”, in order to amend the definition of “Transient Residential Uses, by adopting the
findings of fact and law contained in the staff report , and finding that the text amendment and
approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Pl an and meets the criteria set forth in LDR
Section 2.4.5(M).
Attachment:
Proposed Ordinance
Rosalind Cross
Presentation to the
Delray Beach City Commission
February 2, 2012
414 Andrews Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33483
4-AAA ��% - akg'- \% - �' - 3'\-Aa'O\ a
Rosalind M. Cross
414 Andrews Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33483
908 273 2403
RosalindMCross(a aoLc(az --a
Good evening Commissioners,
fi/Ily name is Rosalind Cross. My Delray Beach address is 414 Andrews Avenue. My
family and I have been property owners and residents of Delray Beach since 1971. I have
owned my home here since 1990. I plan to retire to my Delray home when my husband and
I are able. I am here to object to the adoption of the Ordinance unduly restricting leasing
to single families in our single family neighborhoods.
Historically, Delray has welcomed these visitors and allowed single family leases in
single family neighborhoods whether for a week, two weeks, a month or the season. These
guests appreciate all that Delray has to offer as a city with beautiful neighborhoods.
Several of my guests have bought homes in my neighborhood. Even my neighbors fighting
for this Ordinance have leased my house when they renovated their own homes.
I, too, am concerned about the growing non taxpaying and non involved transient
community created by single family homes leased to multiple unrelated individuals at the
same time. This type of use SHOULD NOT be confused and mixed in with our single
family visiting guests who eat out in our restaurants most nights, frequent the stores on
Atlantic Avenue and generally spend and recirculate money in our City.
I do not believe that the findings presented by the Planning and Zoning December
19 Staff report apply to the single family vacation guest rental market. Those reasons are
presented to you in my email to the Commission dated December 30, 2011.
-My leasing does not displace permanent residents. We bring them in.
- Our occupancy doesn't increase pressure on infrastructure, our guests help pay to
maintain and improve it, and the owners pay taxes for services 100% of the year.
I question and ask for the basis of the impacts and concerns reported in the item
before the hoard. What study over time has established these facts?
Have you considered the Financial Hardship and economic consequences for the
property owners who will have their historic right to lease substantially reduced if this
Ordinance is adopted? Many, including myself, depend on the rental income of these
guests to maintain our properties in accordance with the standards of the neighborhood.
My most recent new expenses were treating for white fly and building a privacy wall so
that my neighbors and I can enjoy the green landscaping and maintain privacy. between
taxes, insurance, property maintenance, repairs and maintenance reserves, my house costs
in excess of $63,000e00 a year and that does not include capital improvements such pinning
the house due to settling, hurricane shutters and windows. f am only able to pay these
expenses by bringing in responsible, repeat single family visitors, existing residents and
future residents.
This Commission can address the proliferation of sober houses in Delray. There is a
solution to be fashioned to address multiple, unrelated adults living in a single family home
apart from crippling the historical rental of single family homes to single families. The
proposed Ordinance mixes two dissimilar activities and unfairly discriminates against a
long - standing use of my home which has only benefitted Delray Beach. For the record, N
would life to introduce booklets containing my written remarks, my December 30, 2011
email to the Commission, and pictures of my home on Andrews Avenue. Thank you.
2
Rosalind M. Cross
Cell: 973 903 9 889
25 Essex Road
Summit, NJ 07901
RosalindWross(d,aol.com
December 30, 2011
To The Delray Beach Mayor and City Commissioners:
Mayor Woodie McDuffie, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Carney, Commissioner Frankel and
Commissioner Alperin
This letter expresses my concern against the proposed modification of "transient residential uses" and the
definition of Transient Residential Uses. I understand the Planning and Zoning objectives but feel the currently
proposed language is wide sweeping and will have unintended hardship consequences on many Property and
Business Owners.
I am a second homeowner on Andrews Avenue. I have owned the house with my family or as a current single
owner for twenty years. When my father moved to Delray in 1971, we started on Vista Del Mar. Later in 1991
my mother and I bought our house on Andrews. She used it as seasonal residence with some short-term leases
when her husband had not retired yet. Many of our neighbors rented our house during construction renovations
in their own homes in close proximity. Two guests purchased homes in the neighborhood. It was my residence
in 1998 for a short time. Both of my parents actively supported preservation of Delray (and Gulf Stream) and by
example I note their involvement at Old School Square speaker series and preserving the Casaurinas on AIA. I
share this background so that you are aware of the longtime family commitment to the integrity of the Delray
Beach community. My husband and I look forward to retiring to my family home as soon as we are able. As for
many, the current economic times have been a big setback to our plans.
During a recent visit to my home on Andrews, I was made aware of the pending Amendment to the Land
Development Regulations recommended unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Board on December 19"',
2011. I have understood from friends that there is a big push to pass this City Ordinance as soon as possible and
even by the end of January 2012.
In the Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report, the "Background" considerations are vague, not always true and
rely on the word "can" rather than the affirmative "do."
For example, in the first bullet the report says "often maximize occupancy" whereas in the case of
Single Family vacation guest leases, the guests are limited to Single Family use and therefore DO NOT
put any increased pressure on infrastructure. Since the number of leases is limited by transient turnover
ordinances, single family homes that are leased less the 100% of the time to single family guests
REDUCE the overall pressure on the infrastructure. In addition, these guests contribute to the tax
support base in the community thru the guest tax and spending in the community. If the Commissioner's
vote is to be influenced by this "background," I ask the Commissioners to request to quantify the
economic effect. Consider a) the non- homestead real - estate tax difference; b) the guest tax paid on short
term leases; c) the tourist business brought to local vendors whether shops, restaurants, marketing or
services. The first numbers should be easily available thru the tax offices and c) may be more difficult to
quantify. However ask the business owners how they would feel if hundreds of homes are removed from
the short-term vacation rental market.
In the last bullet, it says that "Transient residential uses CAN displace permanent residents....." In the
current real estate markets, there is not proof that single family homeowners are displaced out of the
neighborhoods affected by the proposed change in the Land Development Regulations. There are plenty
of Single Family homes for sale that are not being bought. Current owners, renting to Single Family
Vacation Guests if forced to sell because they cannot lease their homes in the vacation market could also
suffer financially. Limiting the number of leases also causes financial harm to those owners. Very few
home owners are making profits from their Single Family Vacation Guest leases. The funds earned pay
for real estate taxes, homeowners insurance, maintenance (lawn and whitefly) and property
improvement. Single family vacation rental guests BRING revenue to the State supporting the services
that influence the quality of life in these neighborhoods.
In the Review by Others, I note that the Courtesy Notices were not sent to all those currently filing guest tax
returns or holding residential rental permits. I note that VRBO, Cyber Rentals, Home Away and Vacation
Rentals have hundreds of listings for Vacation Rentals in the Delray Beach RI and RM zones. To my
knowledge, none of these owners have been made aware of the pending legislation and they are the taxpayers
most affected by the proposed ordinance. In addition, many of the owners were not made aware of the 2009
changes to the Ordinance. The State collects the Guest Taxes on Single Family residential vacation leases so
these names and addresses are easily accessible. It appears that the Ordinance is only enforced if a neighbor
complains.
In the preamble "Whereas" clauses and conclusions, many clauses are based on presuppositions, assuming
"maximum occupancies" and the resultant assumed effects of that maximum occupancy. The language is all
encompassing and does not distinguish the different types of Transient use such as Single Family, Multiple
Individual Occupants, Vacation Rental Guests (tourists who spend money in the community).
If it is the City's intent to limit the number of individual leases within one residence, the proposed
language has the unintended consequence of removing the week or two week Single Family guest visitor
from renting a home in Delray Beach. The proper planning, control and regulation needs to focus on the
number of non - single family occupants in a Single Family dwelling and the staggered individual
turnovers within a single residence with that type of occupancy. The Single Family Guest Visitors
should not be systematically categorized with "transient visitors" who "maximize occupancy."
• Many of the current owners of Vacation rental properties are simply trying to cover the costs of owning
homes in Delray Beach. Nothing has changed in their Real Estate markets since 2007. For the vacation
market rentals, each owner has a different purpose. I emailed dozens of owners and managers and spoke
with some when I learned of the 2009 ordinance and the new proposals. Most were not aware of the
original 2009 Ordinance. If these owners can no longer lease their properties to the Single Family
vacation guest market, they will lose the ability to properly maintain their properties. In addition, these
residences will stand mainly vacant, and maybe go into foreclosure. These Single Family vacation
rental owners will have to consider the new economic hardship imposed with either an attempt to sell or
decreased maintenance. Some may even consider offering their homes into the market for individuals
with disabilities as those leases are currently exempted.
These Vacation Rental Properties pay real estate taxes, pay guest taxes and employ many in the local
population. I fear that a speedy push through of the Ordinance as currently worded will have unintended
hardship consequences to many home and business owners. Enforcement cannot be selective as it has
been in the past and will therefore be expensive to the City.
The term transient as defined in the proposed ordinance includes the vibrant Delray Beach Tourist community
and Single Family vacation guest leases. This type of occupant should not be associated with multiple transient
occupants in single family dwellings. Different situations require different definitions and different ordinances.
I would hope that the Commissioners will request more specific language and enforcement as not to cause
unintended punitive consequences for those property owners whose vacation guests ARE NOT disrupting
neighborhoods and putting pressure on the infrastructure.
I believe that the Commissioners have an obligation to inform all owners of property affected by the pending
legislation. The town must enforce its laws across the board and not selectively. The Commissioners should
take the time to examine how many property owners and constituents will be affected. Simply go to any
vacation rental site and do the math. As an example, I was completely unaware of the 2009 Ordinance. I pay
guest taxes to the State and have been doing so for all vacation guest rentals since I participated in that market
off and on since 2004. I have owned this property for twenty years and my use is being further and further
constrained with new regulations. Shouldn't at a minimum, the ordinances be grand- fathered for current owners
who have not had any records of neighborhood disruption or non - compliance and that have relied on the Single
Family Vacation guest rental market to maintain and support their properties?
It is in the interest of the financial welfare of Delray and the ongoing tourist market to reject the proposed
ordinance as worded. In addition, The Commissioners should modify the 2009 language to exclude Single
Family Vacation rentals with minimum one week contracts. Definitions should be clarified as to Seasonal (one
month or more), short-term, and long term (over six months ?). Definitions as to Single Family or Multiple
Individual leases should be clarified. I had thought that the City was encouraging Single Family vacation
tourists to come to Delray. If enforced across the board, this market will be dramatically curtailed. The Single
Family Vacation guest market should be encouraged thru planning, controlling lease language when Residential
Rental permits are issued and monitoring enforcement, rather than eliminating the Single Family Tourist market
altogether because of neighborhood concerns for one type of Residential Rental market. The Single Family
Vacation Guest leasing Single Family homes are a valuable asset to all aspects of the Delray Beach
constituency.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Rosalind M. Cross
v
J'
4
}
..F
t ..
a d1b
>
!f t
'
_
. _Q 0'•
=;... _ -
k �:
. IN*.
Mr-al
imp
mt,
. IN*.
Mr-al
IF
7--'
mi-,,
i
-40
IT
kk ph
f i JAk���1
r' �• t S
f
K �
1 .41
.V
1`
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Lula Butler - Director, Community Improvement
THROUGH:David Harden - City Manager
DATE:January 30, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -12/CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE/210 N.E. 5TH COURT
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Staff requests City Commission approval to sell Nei ghborhood Stabilization Program property located
at 210 NE 5 th Court, Delray Beach, Florida to Paul Milne and Jen nifer Hong Dubowy, for the purchase
price of the lesser of Two Hundred Eight Thousand D ollars and 00/100 cents ($208,000.00) or bank
appraised value.
BACKGROUND
The City of Delray Beach has received $1,905,005 under the Neighborhood Stabilization Pro gram
(NSP) award through the Florida Department of Commu nity Affairs by the U. S. Department of
Housing (HUD) and $400,000 from the Delray Beach Co mmunity Redevelopment Agency (CRA) as a
result of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (H.R. 3221). The NSP funding is for the
purpose of purchasing foreclosed or abandoned homes for rehabilitation, resale, or redevelopment in
order to stabilize neighborhoods and stem the decli ne of home values. NSP funds are to benefit Low,
Moderate and Middle Income Households (LMMI). LMMI households are defined as those with
incomes less than one-hundred twenty percent (120%) of Area Median Income (AMI) as determined by
HUD.
The City of Delray Beach desires to sell to Paul Mi lne and Jennifer Hong Dubowy, as Buyer(s), for the
purchase price of the lesser of Two Hundred Eight T housand Dollars and 00/100 cents ($208,000.00) or
bank appraised value, said property being described as follows:
Del Ida Park W 1/2 of Lot 18 & Lot 19 Block 8 (Del-Ida Park Historic District) according to the Plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 23866, Page 1838, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County,
Florida.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Commission approval to sell N SP property located at 210 NE 5 th Court, Delray
Beach, Florida to Paul Milne and Jennifer Hong Dubo wy, as Buyer(s), for the purchase price of the
lesser of Two Hundred Eight Thousand Dollars and 00 /100 cents ($208,000.00) or bank appraised
value.
RESOLUTION NO. 08-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO SELL
REAL PROPERTY IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS
DESCRIBED HEREIN, HEREBY INCORPORATING AND ACCEPTIN G
THE CONTRACT STATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR
THE SALE AND PURCHASE BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE CIT Y
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, Florida, wishes to se ll property located at 210 NE 5 th Court; and
WHEREAS, the Buyer hereinafter named desires to bu y the property hereinafter described from the
City of Delray Beach, Florida; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to sell said property to be
used for single family homeownership.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISS ION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . That the City Commission of the City of Delray B each, Florida, as Seller, hereby agrees to
sell to Paul Milne and Jennifer Hong Dubowy, as Buy er(s), for the purchase price of the lesser of Two
Hundred Eight Thousand Dollars and 00/100 cents ($2 08,000.00) or bank appraised value, said property b eing
described as follows:
Del Ida Park W 1/2 of Lot 18 & Lot 19 Block 8 (Del-Ida Park Historic
District) according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 23866, Page
1838, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida.
Section 2 . That the terms and conditions contained in the c ontract for sale and purchase and addenda
thereto between the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the Buyer as hereinabove named are incorporated
herein as Exhibit “A”.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on the _____ day of ______________, 2012.
__________________________________
ATTEST: M A Y O R
________________________________
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONI NG
THROUGH:CITY MANAGER
DATE:February 1, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 12.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 04 -12
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Approval of a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulat ions (LDRs) that will provide
clarification with respect to current information r equested on the “Request Form for Reasonable
Accommodation.”
BACKGROUND
This amendment identifies additional information th at is to be provided with a reasonable
accommodation request. This information is necessar y to appropriately consider reasonable
accommodation requests. A copy of the resulting mod ified Request Form is attached.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval at their January 23, 2012 meeting on a 7-0
vote.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, approve Ordinance No. 04-12 on first rea ding for a city-initiated amendment to the Land
Development Regulations Section 2.4.7(G) “Requests for Reasonable Accommodation”, by adopting
the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consisten t
with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development
Regulations.
ORDINANCE NO. 04-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING SECTION
2.4.7(G), “REQUESTS FOR ACCOMMODATION”; SUBSECTIONS
(1), “PURPOSE”, AND (8), “REQUEST FORM FOR REASONAB LE
ACCOMMODATION”, IN ORDER TO REMOVE OBSOLETE
REFERENCES, IN ORDER TO UPDATE SAME; ENACTING A
NEW SUBSECTION 2.4.7(G)(9), “ EXPIRATION OF APPROVA LS”
TO PROVIDE AN EXPIRATION DATE FOR UNTIMELY
IMPLEMENTATION OF APPROVALS ; PROVIDING A SAVING
CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER 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 held on January 23, 2012, and voted 7 to 0 to recommend
that the changes be approved; 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 consi stent with and furthers the goals,
objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach ado pts the findings in the Planning
and Zoning Staff Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach fi nds the ordinance is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein.
Section 2. That Section 2.4.7(G), “Requests for Accommodation”, Subsections (1), “Purpose”,
and (8), “Request Form for Reasonable Accommodation”, of the Land Development Regulations of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be a mended to read as follows:
(G) Requests for Accommodation:
(1) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to implement a pro cedure for processing
requests for reasonable accommodation to the City’s Code of Ordinances, Land Development
2 ORD. NO. 04-12
Regulations, Rules, Policies, and Procedures for pe rsons with disabilities as provided by the federal
Fair Housing Amendments Act (42 U.S.C. 3601, et. seq.) (“FHA A”) and Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Amendments Act (42 U.S.C. Section 12131, et. seq.) (“ADA A”). For purposes of this
section, a “disabled” person is an individual that qualifies as disabled and/or handicapped under the
FHA and/or ADA. Any person who is disabled (or qual ifying entities) may request a reasonable
accommodation with respect to the City’s Land Development R egulations, Code of Ordinances, rules,
policies, practices and/or procedures as provided b y the FHAA and the ADA A pursuant to the
procedures set out in this section.
(8) Request Form for Reasonable Accommodation.
(a) Contents of Reasonable Accommodation Request Form:
1. Name of Applicant , and contact information of the applicant;
2. Telephone Number, Information concerning the dwelling where
reasonable accommodation is requested;
3. Address of applicant, A statement concerning whether individuals who
will live in the dwelling are persons with disabili ties; (unless you are
governed by 42 U.S.C. §290d.d., in which case you a re not required to
provide an address but you may be requested to prov ide
documentation to substantiate your claim that you ar e governed by this
section),
4. Address of housing or other location at which accommodation is
requested, A description of the accommodation needed; (unless you
are governed by 42 U.S.C. §290d.d., in which case y ou are not required
to provide an address but you may be requested to p rovide
document ation to substantiate your claim that you are govern ed by this
section),
5. Describe qualifying disability or handicap, An explanation for why the
accommodation is necessary;
6. Describe the accommodation and the specific regu lation(s) and/or
procedure(s) from which accommodation is sought, Additional
information for requests for accommodation in order to house more
than three (3) unrelated people in a single-family dwelling, including
but not limited to the number of residents and staff who wil l live in the
dwelling, information concerning automobiles and pa rking,
information concerning bedroom space and window acc ess, and
statements concerning the financial or therapeutic necessity of said
accommodation;
7. Reasons the reasonable accommodation may be nec essary for the
individual with disabilities to use and enjoy the h ousing or other
3 ORD. NO. 04-12
service, An affirmation under penalty of perjury if anyone knowingly
submits false information in the request;
8. Name, address and telephone number of representative, if ap p licable,
9. Other relevant information pertaining to the disability or property,
10. 8. Signature of applicant; Disabled Individual or Representative, if
applicable, or Qualifying Entity,
11. 9. Date of A a pplication;
10. Verification of Disability Status form (if applicable).
Section 3. That Section 2.4.7(G), “Requests for Accommodation”, Subsection (9),
“Expiration of Approvals”, of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach
shall hereby be enacted to read as follows:
(9) Expiration of Approvals. Approvals of requests for reasonable
accommodation shall expire within one hundred eighty (180) days if not implemented.
Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion t hereof, 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 whol e or part thereof other than the part declared
to be invalid.
Section 5 . That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be , and the same are
hereby repealed.
Section 6 . That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon it s passage on second
and final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the _____ day of
___________________, 2012.
____________________________________
ATTEST M A Y O R
_______________________________
City Clerk
First Reading__________________
Second Reading________________
City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department
Application Form to Request a Reasonable Accommodat ion
A reasonable accommodation is any modification of a zoning rule, p olicy, or practice if
that modification is reasonably necessary in order to give a p erson with disabilities an
equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling in the City of Delra y Beach. It is the
policy of the City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Depart ment, pursuant to State
and federal law, to provide individuals with disabilities reasonabl e accommodation in
rules, policies, practices and procedures to ensure equal access to housing and facilitate
the development of housing for individuals with disabilities.
If you believe that you need a reasonable accommodation to live i n a dwelling, or so that
persons with disabilities may live in a dwelling that you own or operate, please complete
this application form and return it to the City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning
Department at 100 NW 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444. Please att ach additional
pages if necessary. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the C ity of Delray
Beach Planning and Zoning Department.
Name and Contact Information of the Applicant :
Name: ______________________________________________
Address: ______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Telephone: ______________________________________________
Alternative Telephone: __________________________________
Dwelling Where Reasonable Accommodation is Requested:
Address: ______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Is Applicant the owner of the property at which Reasonable Ac commodation is
requested? Yes □ No □
If “No”, provide the name and contact information of the owner of the p roperty at
which Reasonable Accommodation is requested:
Name: ______________________________________________
Address: ______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Telephone: ______________________________________________
Is the dwelling licensed or certified by the State of Flori da? If so, please provide
the type of license or certificate, the number, and attach a copy of it:
______________________________________________
Is the dwelling a vacation rental under the laws of the State of Florida?
Yes □ No □
Are the people who will live at the dwelling persons with disabilit ies?
___ Yes. ___ No. If you answered Yes, you must submit the Verif ication of Disability
Status form below.
Yes □ No □
If “No”, provide the name and contact information of the individual(s) for whom
Reasonable Accommodation is requested:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Please describe the accommodation you need. What rules or policies would you like
the City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department to waive for the dwell ing
(please provide the specific regulation)?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Why do you need the accommodation? In other words, why is the re quested
accommodation necessary in order for persons with disabilitie s to live in the
dwelling:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Please provide the following information if you are requesting an accommodation in
order to house more than 3 unrelated people in a single-family dwelling:
Number of residents that will live in the dwelling: ________________
Number of staff who will serve the dwelling: ________________
Anticipated number of vehicles used by residents and staff: __________
Number of off-street parking spaces available: ________________
Square footage of the dwelling: ________________
Number of bedrooms in the dwelling: ________________
For each bedroom, please state the square footage of the room and the number
and size of each window:
Bedroom 1: ___________________________________________
Bedroom 2: ___________________________________________
Bedroom 3: ___________________________________________
Bedroom 4: ___________________________________________
[Attach additional sheets if necessary.]
Is the number of residents necessary in order for the dwelling to be financial ly
viable ? If so, please explain why:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Is the number of residents necessary in order for the dwelling to be therapeut ically
beneficial for the residents? If so, please explain why:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
I AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMAT ION
PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. I UNDERSTAND
THAT IF I KNOWINGLY PROVIDE FALSE INFORMATION ON TH IS
APPLICATION THAT MY APPLICATION MAY BECOME NULL AND VOID.
Signature: _____________________
Name: _____________________
Date: _____________________
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Reasonable Accommodation Request Number: _________________
Expiration:
Approvals for Reasonable Accommodations shall expire within one hundred eighty (180)
days if not implemented.
Verification of Disability Status
This form must be completed by someone who knows about the individuals’ disabiliti es.
The City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department respec ts individuals’ privacy.
We will verify disability status, but will not inquire into the nature or severity of a
disability. Nor will wee ask to see a person’s medical rec ords. We will limit our
disability inquiry to requiring the Applicant to verify the dis ability status of individuals
for purposes of State and federal law.
Definitions:
Federal law provides that “persons with disabilities” are p ersons who: (1) have any
“physical or mental impairment” that substantially limit s one or more “major life
activities”; (2) have a record of having the impairment; or (3) are regarded by others as
having the impairment.
A “major life activity” is any task central to most peop le’s daily lives, such as caring for
oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning,
and working.
A “physical or mental impairment” includes, but is not limi ted to, orthopedic, visual,
speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple
sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardati on, emotional illness, learning
disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptom atic), tuberculosis, drug
addition, and alcoholism. Anyone with a history of an impairment that limits a major life
activity is also a person with disabilities.
Verification:
To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the person(s) who oc cupy (or who
will occupy) the dwelling that is subject to the above request for reasonable
accommodation ___ do _____ do not meet the definition of “persons wi th
disabilities.” I am in a position to know about the person(s)’ disabilitie s because:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________ .
(For example, are you a medical or social services profess ional, part of a peer support
group that serves the person(s), or someone who resides with the person(s)?)
Note: Do NOT reveal the nature or severity of the persons’ disabilit ies.
I affirm under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this ap plication is true
and accurate:
Signature: _____________________________
Name: _____________________________
Date: _____________________________
Address: _____________________________
Telephone: _____________________________
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 23, 2012
AGENDA NO: IV. A.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED AME NDMENT TO THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR), AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ,
“ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS” OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDIN G
SECTION 2.4.7(G), “REQUESTS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODA TION”
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a city-
initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulat ions (LDRs) that will provide clarification
with respect to current information requested on the “Request Form for Reasonable
Accommodation.”
Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may
not be made until a recommendation is obtained from t he Planning and Zoning Board.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Comprehensive Plan Conformance
LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings) requires that the C ity Commission make a finding that the text
amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Obj ectives and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
A review of the Comprehensive Plan was performed, and while there are no specific Goals,
Objectives or Policies that are relevant, it is noted th at the proposed amendment is not inconsistent
with them.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
Courtesy Notices
A courtesy notice was provided to the Neighborhood Advi sory Council.
Letters of objection and support, if any, will be pro vided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, January 23, 2012
LDR Amendment – Reasonable Accommodation
2
B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Com mission of the amendment to Land
Development Regulations, Section 2.4.7(G), “Requests for Reasonable Accommoda tion”,
by adopting the findings of fact and law contained i n the staff report, and finding that the text
amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the C omprehensive Plan and meets the
criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commi ssion of the amendment to Land by
Development Regulations, Section 2.4.7(G), “Requests for Reasonable Accommoda tion”,
adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text
amendment and approval thereof is inconsistent with th e Comprehensive Plan and does not
meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative).
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommend approval of the amendment to Land Developm ent Regulations, Section 2.4.7(G),
“Requests for Reasonable Accommodation”, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained
in the staff report, and finding that the text amen dment and approval thereof is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
Attachment:
Proposed Ordinance
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:PETER ANUAR, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER
PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING
THROUGH:CITY MANAGER
DATE:February 1, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 12.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 06 -12
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Approval of a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulat ions (LDRs) to modify the
requirements of the landscape code.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to revise the current landscape code to enhance the beauty
of the City using creative landscape design princip les, create the foundation for a successful sustain able
urban landscape, incorporate Florida-Friendly and Best Management Practice principles, a nd to adopt
requirements set forth by the South Florida Water M anagement District (SFWMD) relating to the
renewal of the City’s water use permit. The proposed ordinance was co nsidered by the Planning and
Zoning Board on November 21, 2011. After significan t discussion the Board tabled the ordinance on a 7
- 0 vote. The Board directed staff to further upgrade the regulations within the landscape code
particularly in the downtown core area. The ordinan ce was revised to reflect the Board’s direction by
increasing the size of trees in the CBD, requiring understory plants in every landscape island, hedges in
landscape strips between parking tiers, and on-stre et landscape islands in locations where on-street
parking exists. The ordinance was before the Planni ng and Zoning Board on January 23, 2012 at which
time they recommended approval on a 6-1 vote (Al Ja cquet dissenting).
REVIEW BY OTHERS
The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) o n October 12, 2011 recommended approval of
the proposed amendment.
The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) on October 13, 2011 recommended approval of the
proposed text amendment. The Board and the CRA Assi stant Director had some concerns. These
included concerns with regulations dealing with the following:
-Expansion of landscape islands from five (5) feet t o nine (9) feet within the limits of the Central
Business District; Removal of compacted rock within the landscape islands and its effect on the
integrity of the curbing and asphalt;
-Requirement for upgrading tree height commensurate with building height; Cap on the percentage of
required trees that will be allowed in the form of palm trees;
-Requirement for the installation of street trees w ithin residential developments.
The landscape code was revised to reflect those CRA suggestions that were not in conflict with the
direction given by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) on November 2, 2 011 recommended approval of the proposed
amendment.
The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) on Novembe r 15, 2011 recommended approval of the
proposed amendment. The Board chose to adopt the sa me concerns as the CRA. One additional
suggestion was to increase the maximum maintained h eight of hedges for residential properties.
The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) on November 15, 2011 recommended approval
of the proposed amendment. The only suggestion made was to add a provision to review the landscape
code every five years for updating purposes.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, approve Ordinance No. 06-12 on first rea ding for a city-initiated amendment to the Land
Development Regulations Section 4.6.16 “Landscape R egulations”, by adopting the findings of fact and
law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations.
ORDINANCE NO. 06-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.6.16, “LANDSCAPE
REGULATIONS”, TO PROVIDE AN UPDATED LANDSCAPE CODE;
PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUS E,
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Plannin g and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed
text amendment at a public hearing held on January 23, 2012 and voted 6 to 1 to recommend that the cha nges
be approved; 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 chan ge is consistent with and furthers the goals, objec tives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach adopts the findings in the Planning and
Zoning Staff Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds the ordinance is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSI ON OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . That the recitations set forth above are incorporated he rein.
Section 2 . That Section 4.6.16, “Landscape Regulations”, of the Land Development Regulations of the
City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amend ed to read as follows:
Section 4.6.16 Landscape Regulations
(A) Purpose : The objective of this article is to improve the appearance of setback and
yard areas in conjunction with the development of c ommercial, industrial, and residential properties,
including off-street vehicular parking and open-lot sales and service areas in the City, and to protect and
preserve the appearance, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods and thereby promote
the general welfare by providing minimum standards for the installation and maintenance of
landscaping.
2 ORD. NO.06-12
This Section also provides minimum standards for nonconfor ming sites and requires the upgrad ing of
the landscaping on these properties, to the extent physica lly possible, within three (3) years.
This Section is further intended to fulfill objecti ves as contained within Conservation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, by providing for: the conservat ion of potable and non-potable water; the
implementation of xeriscape Florida-friendly landscape principles; proper tree selection adjace nt to or
within utilities to mitigate damages which may be c aused by trees; encouraging the creation or
preservation of open space ; maintaining permeable land areas essential to sur face water management
and aquifer recharge; encouraging the preservation of existing plant communities; encouraging the
planting of site specific, native and drought toler ant plant materials; establishing guidelines for th e
installation and maintenance of landscape materials and irrigation systems; reducing air, noise, heat, and
chemical pollution through the biological filtering capacities of trees; reducing the temperature of t he
microclimate through the process of evapotranspirat ion; and promoting energy conservation through
the creation of shade.
The provisions of this Section are minimum standard s which may be increased in accordance with the
guidelines contained herein as well as aesthetic cr iteria established by the Site Plan Review and
Appearance Board and the Historic Preservation Boar d when applicable. Additional landscape
requirements may be required for certain zoning dis tricts and roadways as provided for elsewhere in
these regulations.
(B) Applicability : The provisions of this Section shall apply as follows:
(1) To the construction of single family homes, for whic h a building permit is
applied for on or after October 1, 1990. Such properties shal l comply with minimum standards set
forth in Section 4.6.16(H)(1) and other applicable section s of 4.6.16;
(2) To existing development of all types, includi ng, but not limited to, commercial,
industrial and multi-family development including d uplexes, but excluding single family detached
dwellings on a single lot. Such development shall comply with the minimum standards set forth within
Sections 4.6.16(C)(1) and 4.6.16(H)(6) and other applicable Sections of 4.6.16, in additi on to all
requirements set forth in the approved landscape plan of re cord.
(3) To any new development, or any modification of existing development. That
portion of the site which is being newly developed or modified must comply with the requirements
contained herein;
(4) To any modification to existing development w hich results in an increase of
25% in the gross floor area of the structure, or st ructures, situated on the site. In such cases the entire
site shall be upgraded to present landscape standards;
(C) Compliance, Review, Appeal, and Relief :
3 ORD. NO.06-12
(1) Compliance :
(a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a st ructure or a paving
permit, compliance with the requirements of Section 4.6.16 shall be
assured through the review and approval of a landsc ape plan submitted
pursuant to Section 2.4.3(C), including the following, if a pplicable:
1. A landscape permit, which shall be required for all work whose
landscape improvement valuation is greater than $1,000 .
(b) Prior to upgrading landscaping on an existing s ite, a landscape plan shall
be submitted which shall:
1. Be drawn to scale consistent with the site plan with crowded
areas provided in a larger scale presentation.
2. Clearly delineate the existing and proposed park ing spaces or
other vehicular use areas, access aisles, sidewalks , building
locations and similar features.
3. Clearly show property lines and all Right-of-Ways adjacent to
existing property to be improved .
3 . 4. Contain a Statement of Intent as to the method and coverage of
irrigation (irrigation systems require a separate p ermit; See
Section 4.6.16(F) for additional irrigation regulations).
4 . 5. Designate by name and location the plant material to be installed
or preserved.
5 . 6. Show location of overhead lines and utility easements.
6 . 7. Show proposed or existing locations of refuse area s and methods
of screening.
7 . 8. Show proposed or existing locations of free standing signs .
9. Provide an Existing Tree Survey documenting all trees with a
caliper equal to or greater than four (4) inches. All trees shall
have a number or symbol that is referenced in a tab le. This table
shall be shown on the Existing Tree Survey and shal l document
the botanical and common name, caliper, height and spread and
overall condition for each tree.
4 ORD. NO.06-12
10. Show landscape calculations in a legible tabula r format. The type
of calculations used will be determined by the prop erty use.
Single family dwellings shall utilize the Single fa mily dwelling
calculations. Duplexes shall utilize the Duplex cal culations.
Multi-family, Industrial and Commercial use propert ies shall
utilize the Multi-family/Industrial/Commercial calcula tions.
11. Show proposed plant material in a tabular form. Include
botanical and common names, specifications, quantit y and
symbol (if applicable).
12. Be accompanied by a Landscape Cost Estimate whe n proposed
landscape improvements are valued at $1,000 or more .
Landscape improvements include the cost of material , labor and
profit.
13. Label all plant material to be of Florida #1 gr ade or better as
illustrated in the Grades and Standards for Nursery Plants, Part 1
(current edition) by the Florida Department of Agri culture. All
material that is graded lower than Florida #1 quali ty shall be
rejected.
14. Show all sight triangles in their proper locati ons. See Section
4.6.14.
15. Be prepared, signed and sealed by a Registered Landscape
Architect. Exceptions include Single Family and Dup lex
Dwellings located in Single Family Zoning Districts that are not
within an Overlay District that requires them to be prepared by a
Registered Landscape Architect.
(c) The final completion of landscaping prior to is suance of the Certificate
of Occupancy. All landscaping and related items sha ll be installed in
accordance with this section before the Certificate of Occupancy is
issued.
(2) Review : The Landscape Compliance Review Committee is here by created.
Landscape plans for the upgrading of existing prope rties shall be reviewed by the Landscape
Compliance Review Committee. The Committee will be comprised of two people from the Pl anning
and Zoning Department, two people from the Communit y Improvement Department and the City
Engineer. The City Manager will appoint the staff members to the Committee. Landscape plans of
existing properties shall be reviewed by City Staff as appointed by the Chief Building Official . The
purpose of the Committee will be to review of landscape plans for existing duplex, ind ustrial,
5 ORD. NO.06-12
commercial and multi-family properties is to determ ine if the plans meet the minimum required
standards.
(3) Appeals : Appeal from City Staff the Landscape Compliance Review
Committee shall be to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Bo ard or the Historic Preservation Board
as applicable. Appeal from the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board or the Historic Preservation
Board shall be to the City Commission.
(4) Relief : Relief from the provisions of this Section shall only be granted through
the waiver process [Section 2.4.7(B)] by the City C ommission, Site Plan Review and Appearance Board
or Historic Preservation Board as applicable.
(D) Site Planning and Design Requirements : The following site design standards,
concepts, and practices shall be adhered to in the preparati on of landscape plans.
(1) Concepts for Water Conservation : Creative site development concepts shall
be used in order to promote water conservation. Water requi rements may be reduced by providing for:
(a) The preservation of existing native plant communitie s;
(b) The re-establishment of native plant communities;
(c) The use of site specific plant materials;
(d) The use of shade trees to reduce transpiration rates of lower story plant
materials;
(e) Limited amounts of lawn grass areas;
(f) Site development that retains storm runoff on site;
(g) The use of pervious materials for non-landscaped and pa rking areas.
(2) Preservation and Promotion of Existing Plant Communi ties : All existing
native plant communities on sites proposed for devel opment shall be preserved where possible through
their incorporation into the required open space. Existing plant communities that are specified to
remain shall be preserved to the greatest extent po ssible with trees, understory, and ground covers le ft
intact and undisturbed, except for the eradication of prohi bited plant species.
(a) Tree Protection : Trees which are to be preserved on a site shall be
protected from damage during the construction proce ss according to
appropriate tree protection techniques. The "Tree Protection Manual
for Builders and Developers" published by the Divis ion of Forestry of
the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service,
shall be the standard for determining the appropria teness of proposed
techniques. All trees which are to be preserved and do not survive shall
6 ORD. NO.06-12
be replaced by a tree of equal size or an equivalen t number of trees
based on trunk diameter. [See Section 3.4.6(G) re T ree Removal
Permits]
(b) Portion of Native Communities to Remain : When natural plant
communities occur on a parcel of land which is to b e developed, at least
twenty-five percent (25%) of the required open spac e must be in the
form of preserved natural plant communities.
(c) Native Species Required : A portion of all plant materials required to
be planted shall be native species. The percentage of native plant
materials required shall be as follows:
(i) Effective October 1, 1990, twenty-five (25) per cent of required
trees and twenty-five (25) percent of all other req uired plant
materials shall be native;
(ii) Effective October 1, 1991, thirty-five (35) pe rcent of the
required trees and twenty-five (25) percent of all other required
plant materials shall be native;
(iii) Effective October 1, 1992, fifty (50) percent of the required trees
and twenty-five (25) percent of all other required plant materials
shall be native.
(d) Substitution of Mature, Exceptional Tree Specimens f or Required
Parking : The intent of this section is to preserve those selected mature
trees that are not able to be located in required l andscape areas while
maintaining a reasonable level of off-street parkin g for new or
expanding multi-family, commercial, and industrial developments or
redevelopments, as the preservation of these trees, in most instances, is
of higher order than providing the exact amount of required off-street
parking.
The City may require or the applicant may request t he substitution of existing, mature,
healthy, exceptional tree specimens for required pa rking spaces in instances where the
following conditions are met:
1. Such trees are of a hardwood and/or deciduous varie ty and a minimum of twelve inches
(12”) in diameter measured one foot (1’) above grade.
2. Such trees are free of disease and insects.
7 ORD. NO.06-12
3. Every effort has been made in planning and design o f parking areas to accommodate
such trees in the landscape islands required in Section 4.6.16(H)(3).
4. Such trees are protected during construction as prescribed in Section 4.6.16(D)(2)(a).
The applicant shall indicate on the site plan the l ocation of all required parking spaces and
indicate those spaces that will be eliminated in or der to preserve trees. The amount of
parking spaces permitted to be eliminated for any p roject shall be determined on a case by
case basis.
The Historic Preservation Board (HPB) or Site Plan Review and Appearance Board
(SPRAB), as appropriate, may approve such requests or require such preservation provided
the conditions of this subsection are met.
A decision of HPB or SPRAB disapproving a request f or or requiring tree preservation may
be appealed to the City Commission pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(E).
All tree(s) which are to be preserved under this se ction and do not survive shall be replaced
by a tree a minimum of 18 feet in height with a 10 foot spread of canopy. The City
Horticulturist shall approve such replacements.
(3) Site Specific Planting Materials : Trees and other vegetation used in the
landscape design should be appropriate to the condi tions in which they are planted, to the greatest
extent, they shall be:
(a) Salt tolerant relative to the area in which they are planted;
(b) Able to withstand reduced water conditions if planted in san dy soils;
(c) Able to withstand wet conditions when planted a round retention/
detention ponds or in swales;
(d) Deleted .
(4) Tree Selection Adjacent to or Within Utility Easeme nts : Required
perimeter landscape buffers often coincide with uti lity easements. Careful selection of tree species is
essential to minimize conflicts as trees mature. T rees planted subsequent to the effective date of th is
ordinance shall meet the following criteria:
(a) The ultimate mature height and width of a tree to b e planted should not
exceed the available overhead growing space. Tree species shall be
consistent with the recommendation in the most rece nt publication of
Florida Power and Light Company’s “Plant The Right Tree In The
8 ORD. NO.06-12
Right Place” (copies available from the Community I mprovement
Department), which provides recommendations for tree sel ections.
(b) Trees shall not be planted within ten (10) feet of any underground
utilities.
(c) Trees shall have non-invasive growth habits which wil l not interfere with
adjacent above/underground utilities.
(E) Landscape Design Standards : The following shall be considered the minimum
standards for the design and installation of all plant mat erials within the City of Delray Beach.
(1) Design : Xe riscape Florida-friendly landscape principles shall be utilized in
landscape designs and installations. Copies of Sou th Florida Water Management District's "Xeriscape -
Plant Guide II" and "How To Xeriscape" are availabl e from the Building Department. Principles of
xeriscape Florida-friendly landscaping include planting the right tree in the right place, efficient
watering, appropriate fertilization, mulching, attr action of wildlife, responsible management of yard
pests, recycling yard waste, reduction of stormwate r runoff, and waterfront protection. Other
important considerations include:
(a) Appropriate planning and design to include considerat ion of the size and
shape of lot, soil type, topography, intended use o f area site specific
planting to minimize irrigation waste.
(b) Use of soil analysis and appropriate amendments to provide better
absorption of water and to provide beneficial plant nutrie nts.
(c) Efficient irrigation systems which permit turf and other less drought
tolerant plantings to be watered separately from mo re drought tolerant
plantings, consideration of low volume drip, spray or bubbler emitters
for trees, shrubs and ground covers.
(d) Reduction of turf areas, utilizing less water d emanding materials such as
low water demand shrubs and living ground covers in conjunction with
organic mulches.
(e) Utilization of drought tolerant plant materials and the grouping of plants
with similar water requirements.
(f) Utilization of mulches to increase moisture ret ention, reduce weed
growth and erosion and increase the organic content of soil upon
degradation. Mulch should be initially applied at a three inch depth, but
9 ORD. NO.06-12
pulled away from direct contact with stems and trun ks to avoid rotting.
Mulched planting beds are an ideal replacement for turf area s.
(g) Appropriate maintenance to preserve the intende d beauty of the
landscape and conserve water.
(2) Installation : All landscaping shall be installed in a sound, w orkmanlike manner
and according to sound horticultural and planting p rocedures with the quality of plant materials herei n
described. All elements of landscaping shall be in stalled so as to meet all other applicable ordinanc es
and code requirements.
(3) Vehicular Encroachment : There shall be no vehicular encroachment over or into
any required landscape area. In order to prevent e ncroachment and maintain a neat and orderly
appearance of all planting areas adjacent to parkin g spaces, accessways, and/or traffic, all landscape
areas shall be separated from vehicular use areas b y carstops or non-mountable, reinforced concrete
curbing of the type characterized as "Type D" in th e current edition of the "Roadway and Traffic
Design Standards" Manual prepared by the State of F lorida Department of Transportation, or curbing
of comparable durability. In the case of curbing a round required landscaped islands, the width of the
curbing shall be excluded from the calculation of t he minimum dimensions of the required island.
Landscape islands are required to be a minimum of 5 9 feet in width exclusive of the curb width.
The exception to this is that in paved parking lots , that portion of the parking space extending beyon d
the car stop may be sodded, and therefore, a vehicle would enc roach into this specific landscaped area.
(4) Quality : All plant materials used in conformance with pro visions of this
ordinance shall conform to the Standards for Florid a No. 1 or better as given in "Grades and Standards
for Nursery Plants" Part I, 1963 and Part II, State of Florida Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee, or
the most current revised edition.
(5) Trees : Shall be a species having an average mature spre ad of crown greater
than twenty (20) feet and having trunks which can b e maintained in a clean condition with over six (6)
feet of clear mature wood. Trees having an average mature spread of crown less than twenty (20) feet
may be substituted by grouping the same so as to cr eate the equivalent of a twenty (20) foot spread of
crown. Tree species shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in overall height a t the time of planting,
with a minimum of four (4) feet of single straight trunk wit h six (6) feet of clear trunk, and a six (6) foot
spread of canopy. Tree species shall be a minimum of sixteen (16) feet in overall height at the time of
planting, with a minimum of six (6) feet of single straight trunk with eight (8) feet of clear trunk, and a
seven (7) foot spread of canopy. Tree species required for single family homes and duplexes shall be a
minimum of twelve (12) feet in overall height at th e time of planting, with a minimum of four (4) feet
of single straight trunk with six (6) feet of clear trunk, and a six (6) foot spread of canopy. Native tree
species shall be permitted to be ten (10) feet in h eight at the time of planting, with a minimum of fo ur
10 ORD. NO.06-12
(4 ) feet of straight single trunk, and a four (4) foo t spread of canopy when it can be demonstrated that
trees twelve (12) feet in height are not available.
When more than ten (10) trees are required to be pl anted to meet the requirements of this section, a
mix of species shall be provided. The number of sp ecies to be planted shall vary according to the
overall number of trees required to be planted. Thi s species mix requirement shall not apply to areas of
vegetation required to be preserved by law. The mi nimum number of species to be planted is as
follows:
REQUIRED NUMBER
OF TREES
MINIMUM NUMBER
OF SPECIES
11 - 20
2
21 - 30
3
31 - 40
4
41 +
5
(6) Palms : Shall be considered trees. Palms considered sus ceptible to lethal
yellowing by the Florida Department of Agriculture shall not be used to fulfill the requirements of th is
article. Palm species which do not have a mature s pread of crown of at least fifteen (15) feet shall be
grouped in threes, and three (3) palms shall equal one (1) shade tree. Palms must have an overall heig ht
of a minimum of sixteen (16) feet and a minimum of eight (8) f eet of clear trunk at the time of planting.
Palms used for single family homes and duplexes mus t have an overall height of a minimum of twelve
(12) feet and a minimum of six (6) feet of clear tr unk at the time of planting. Minimum overall palm
height may be increased if palms are of a nature th at the fronds hang below an eight (8) foot clearanc e,
and are further, located in an area where pedestria ns may be adversely affected by the fronds. No more
than fifty (50) percent of the required trees shall be Palms .
Coconut Palms and Royal Palms may be credited on a one for one basis with shade trees. Coconut
Palms are permitted to have a minimum of two (2) fe et of grey wood at the time of planting, providing
they are located so that the fronds are not hazardous.
(7) Shrubs and Hedges : Shall be a minimum of two (2) feet in height whe n
measured immediately after planting. Hedges where required shall be planted and maintained so as to
form a continuous, unbroken, solid, visual screen w ithin a maximum of one year after planting. To thi s
end, shrubs shall be spaced a maximum of two (2) fe et, center to center, unless plants are exceptional ly
11 ORD. NO.06-12
full, in which case the shrubs shall be permitted t o be planted up to a maximum of thirty (30) inches,
center to center, provided the branches are touching at the t ime of planting.
Hedges must be allowed to attain height of thirty-s ix (36) inches except where providing adequate and
safe sight distance requires them to be maintained at a thirt y (30) inch height.
Hedges that are required for screening purposes sha ll have their height specified as follows: Hedges
shall fully screen equipment that is five (5) feet above grade or less. Equipment five (5) to sixteen (16)
feet above grade shall be screened with hedges that are half of the height of the item to be screened. In
such instances, the required hedge shall not be any less than five (5) feet in height. Anything higher than
sixteen (16) feet shall be screened with shrubbery that is a m inimum of eight (8) feet in height.
(8) Lawn Grass : (Turf or Sod) A major portion of water demand u sed for
landscape purposes is required for the irrigation o f lawn areas. Portions of landscaped areas that ha ve
been customarily designed as lawns shall be:
(a) Preserved as natural plant communities;
(b) Planted as redeveloped native areas; or
(c) Planted in traditional mixes of trees, shrubs, and ground covers.
Property managed non-grass landscape developments o f site specific
plantings will typically be able to survive on redu ced water requirement
and survive drought conditions better than lawn areas.
For commercial, industrial and multi-family develop ments, no more
than seventy (70%) percent of the combination of the required interior
greenspace and the required perimeter landscape buf fers, shall be
planted in lawn grass. The balance shall be plante d in a mix of shrubs
and ground covers.
For the development of single family and duplex res idences, no more
than eighty (80%) percent of the pervious lot area shall be planted in
lawn grass. A minimum of twenty (20%) percent of the pervious lot
area shall be planted in shrubs and ground covers.
When used, lawn grass shall be clean and reasonably free of weeds and
noxious pests or diseases. When grass areas are to be seeded, sprigged
or plugged, specifications must be submitted to and approved by the
City Horticulturist. One hundred percent (100%) co verage must be
achieved within ninety (90) days. Nurse grass must be sown for
12 ORD. NO.06-12
immediate effect and protection against soil erosio n until coverage is
otherwise achieved.
Solid sod must be used in swales, canal banks, righ ts-of-way and other
areas subject to erosion.
(9) Ground Covers : Ground covers used in lieu of grass, in whole or part, shall be
planted at such spacing to present a finished appea rance and reasonably complete coverage within six
(6) months after planting. All ground cover areas must be kep t free from weeds.
(10) Vines : Shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in heig ht immediately after
planting and may be used in conjunction with fences , screens, or walls to meet physical barrier
requirements as specified.
(11) Organic Mulches : Organic mulches may be used in combination with living
plants as part of a landscape design as provided in this section. However, organic mulches shall not by
themselves constitute landscaping. No more than tw enty-five (25) percent (25%) of a front or side
street setback may be comprised of mulch independent of livi ng plant materials.
(F) Irrigation Requirements : All landscaped areas shall be provided with a sp rinkler
system, automatically operated, to a fully automated sprinkler system that will provide complete
coverage of all plant materials and grass to be maintained. S ystems shall be designed to permit all zones
to be completed between the hours of 5:00 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. to avoid daylight watering as
established in the South Florida Water Manageme nt District Guidelines. Exceptions to the requirement
to provide irrigation are noted below: All systems shall be designed to allow for head-to-head coverage
(one hundred (100) percent coverage with one hundre d (100) percent overlap). Low-volume irrigation
systems, such as drip or micro-irrigation systems, are stro ngly encouraged.
(1) Watering Restrictions: The Landscape Irrigation Restrictions set forth by the
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), as amended, are hereby adopted and
incorporated as if set forth.
(1 ) (2) Irrigation of Existing Plant Communities : Existing plant communities and
ecosystems, maintained in a natural state, do not r equire and shall not have any additional irrigation
water added in any form.
(2 ) (3) Reestablished Native Plant Areas : Native plant areas that are supplements to
an existing plant community or newly installed by t he developer may initially require additional water to
become established. The water required during the establishment period shall be applied from a
temporary irrigation system, a water truck or by hand wateri ng from a standard hose bib source.
13 ORD. NO.06-12
(3 ) (4) Irrigation Design Standards and Practices : The following standards shall be
considered the minimum requirements for landscape irrigat ion design:
(a) All landscaped areas shall be provided with an irri gation system,
automatically operated, to provide complete coverag e of all plant
materials and grass to be maintained. All landscaped areas shall be
provided with a fully automated sprinkler system th at will provide
complete coverage of all plant materials and grass to be main tained. The
source of water shall be pursuant to Section 6.1.10(B)(5).
(b) All new installations of landscape irrigation s ystems and substantial
modifications of existing irrigation systems which use well water,
excluding single family residences, shall install, operate and maintain rust
inhibitor equipment to prevent staining of structures and p avements.
(c) Wherever feasible, sprinkler heads irrigating l awns or other high water
demand landscape areas shall be circuited so they a re on a separate zone
or zones from those irrigating trees, shrubbery or other reduced water
requirement areas.
(d) Automatically controlled irrigation systems shall b e operated by an
irrigation controller that is capable of watering h igh water requirement
areas on a different schedule from law water requirement are as.
(e) Sprinkler heads shall be installed and maintained s o as to minimize spray
upon any public access, sidewalk, street or other non-pervi ous area.
(f) The use of low trajectory spray nozzles is enco uraged in order to reduce
the effect of wind velocity on the spray system.
(g) The use of low volume or drip systems is encouraged.
(h) All new installations of landscape irrigation s ystems, and modifications
of existing irrigation systems, shall be equipped w ith a rain sensing
device which will override the irrigation cycle of the system when
adequate rainfall has occurred. Further, these rai n sensing devices must
be operated and maintained for the life of the irrigation sys tem.
(i) The use of pop-up sprinkler heads is required in th e swale area between
the property line and the edge of pavement of the a djacent right-of-way
to minimize pedestrian hazard.
14 ORD. NO.06-12
(j) The plant palette and irrigation system shall be ap propriate for site
conditions, taking into account that, in some cases , soil improvement
can enhance water use efficiency.
(k) Plants shall be grouped together by irrigation demand.
(l) The percentage of landscaped area in irrigated high water use
hydrozones should be minimized. Landscape plans sha ll depict the
different hydrozones and irrigate according to demand.
(m) All irrigation systems shall meet current Best Mana gement Practices as
established by the most current version of the Flor ida Green Industries
Best Management Practices Handbook, including the u niform
distribution of water throughout all zones.
(n) Irrigation plan shall meet the following requirements :
(1) Scale of drawing shall be consistent with Site and Landscape
Plans.
(2) Show location of existing and proposed buildings, pav ing, and
site improvements .
(3) Show locations of Water Meter, Point of Connect ion (POC),
Backflow Preventer, Controller, Pump, Zone Valves, Rain shut-
off device, Rust-inhibiting device (if applicable), Main and
Lateral Lines, Sprinkler Heads and Sleeves.
(o) An irrigation legend shall be shown on irrigation p lan. The irrigation
legend will have the following elements: Separate symbols for all
irrigation equipment with different spray patterns and precipitation rates
and pressure compensating devices; general descript ion of equipment;
manufacturer’s name and model number for all specif ied equipment;
recommended operating pressure per nozzle and bubbl er and low-flow
emitter; manufacturer’s recommended overhead and bu bbler irrigation
nozzle rating in gallons per minute or gallons per hour for low flow
point applicators; minimum (no less than seventy-fi ve (75) percent of
maximum spray radius) and maximum spray radius per nozzle; and
manufacturer’s rated precipitation rate per nozzle at specified per square
inch.
15 ORD. NO.06-12
(G) Prohibited and Controlled Species :
(1) Prohibited Plant Species : All prohibited plant species shall be eradicated from
the development site and reestablishment of prohibi ted species shall not be permitted. The following
plant species shall not be planted in the City of Delray Beac h:
(a) Melalecua quinquenervia (commonly known as Punk tree, paper bark,
Cajeput, Melaleuca); or
(b) Schinus terebinthifolius (commonly known as Bra zilian Pepper or
Florida Holly); or
(c) Casuarina Species (commonly known as Australian Pine ); or
(d) Acacia auriculiformis (commonly known as Earleaf Acac ia): or
(e) Cupianopsis anacardioides (commonly known as Carrotw ood); or
(f) Schefflera actinophylla (commonly known as Sche fflera or Umbrella
tree); or
(g) Bischofia javanica (commonly known as Bischoffia).
(2) Controlled Plant Species : Ficus species can be planted as individual trees
provided they are no closer than twelve (12) feet f rom any public improvement. Ficus species may be
planted within twelve (12) feet of any public impro vements only if they are maintained as a hedge
which is constantly cultivated and does not exceed six (6) feet in height if located within a setback area.
Height may be permitted to reach eight (8) feet whe n planted on a residential project and used to
separate the residential use from an arterial or collector r oad right-of-way.
Ficus hedges located on private property are allowe d to exceed the eight (8) foot maximum height limit
so long as the respective property owner shows docu mentation that these hedges were taller than eight
(8) feet on or before January 31, 2012.
(H) Minimum Landscape Requirements :
(1) New Single Family Detached Residences : For single family residences for
which a building permit has not been applied for pr ior to October 1, 1990, the following minimum
standards for landscaping shall apply:
16 ORD. NO.06-12
(a) One shade tree shall be planted for every two t housand five hundred
(2,500) square feet of lot area. Shade trees for single f amily residences
shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in height wi th a five (5) foot
spread may be a minimum of eight (8) feet in height with a three (3) foot
spread at the time of installation. Existing trees prese rved on the site,
with the same specifications as above , may be credited toward this tree
requirement.
(b) Shrubs shall be installed along the foundation of the side of the
residence that faces any street.
(c) Air-conditioning units whose height is five (5) feet or less shall be
screened with shrubbery or wood fencing that is tal l enough to fully
screen the units from view. Units higher than five (5) feet above grade
shall be screened with hedges that are half of the height of the item to
be screened. In such instances, the required hedge shall not be any less
than five (5) feet in height.
(d) All other lot areas not covered by driveways or str uctures shall be
planted with lawn grass, ground cover or other appr oved landscape
materials.
(e) The area between the property line and the edge of pavement of the
abutting right-of-way shall be sodded or landscaped with ground cover
acceptable to the City Engineering Department. Roc k or gravel is
expressly prohibited from being used in the right-o f-way, unless
approved by City Engineering.
(f) All refuse container storage areas visible from an adjacent street must be
screened with vision obscuring fencing or hedging. A vision obscuring
gate must be used in conjunction with hedging.
(g) All landscaped areas shall be provided with an irrigation system,
automatically operated, to provide complete coverag e of all plant
materials and grass to be maintained. The source o f water may be either
from City water or non-potable water. The use of r ecycled water is
encouraged.
(2) Duplex Residential Development :
17 ORD. NO.06-12
(a) One (1) tree shall be planted for every two thousan d (2,000) square feet
of lot area or fraction thereof. Existing trees pr eserved on the site may
be credited toward this tree requirement.
(b) In addition, in consideration of the fact that some duplex units have
back-out parking, and no direct screening can be ac hieved between the
parking and street area, hedging and a shade tree w ill be required to be
installed on both sides of the back-out parking area.
(c) A strip of land a minimum of five (5) feet in width shall be provided
around the foundation of the building where it face s the right-of-way
and along the side of the building that provides en try for the units and
shall be landscaped with shrubs and ground covers. All other lot areas
not covered by buildings or paving will be landscap ed with sod, shrubs
or ground covers.
(d) In addition the area between the property line and the edge of pavement
of the abutting right-of-way shall be provided with sod, irrigation and
maintenance.
(e) All air-conditioning units and other mechanical equipment and refuse
areas whose height is five (5) feet or less shall b e screened with
shrubbery that is tall enough to fully screen the u nits from view.
Equipment five (5) feet to sixteen (16) feet above grade shall be
screened with hedges that are half of the height of the item to be
screened. In such instances, the required hedge sh all not be any less
than five (5) feet in height. Anything higher than sixteen (16) feet shall
be screened with shrubbery that is a minimum of eight (8) feet in height.
(f) For duplexes that have a parking lot that does not require back-out
parking, the screening specified for new multi-fami ly units provided
below shall be required.
(3) New Multiple Family, Commercial, and Industrial Dev elopment : Multi-
family, commercial, industrial and all other uses are requi red to comply with the minimum requirements
for off-street parking. On the site of a building or open-lot use providing an off-street parking, st orage
or other vehicular use area, where such an area will not be screened visually by an intervening bui lding
or structure from an abutting right-of-way or dedic ated alley, there shall be provided landscaping as
follows:
Perimeter requirements adjacent to public and private rig hts-of-way:
18 ORD. NO.06-12
(a) A strip of land at least five (5) feet in depth loc ated between the off-
street parking area or other vehicular use area and the right-of-way shall
be landscaped, provided, however, that should the z oning code of the
Delray Code of Ordinances require additional perime ter depths, that the
provisions of the zoning code shall prevail. This landscape strip shall be
free of any vehicular encroachment, including car o verhang . The
landscaping shall consist of at least one tree for each thirty (30) linear
feet or fraction thereof. The trees shall be locat ed between the right-of-
way line and the off-street parking or vehicular us e area. Where the
depth of the perimeter landscape strip adjacent to the right-of-way
exceeds fifteen (15) feet, shade trees may be plant ed in clusters, but the
maximum spacing shall not exceed fifty (50) feet. The remainder of the
landscape area shall be landscaped with grass, grou nd cover, or other
landscape treatment excluding pavement.
Additionally, a hedge, wall or other durable landsc ape area shall be
placed along the interior perimeter of the landscap e strip. If a hedge is
used, it must be a minimum of two (2) feet in heigh t at the time of
planting and attain a minimum height of three (3) feet above t he finished
grade of the adjacent vehicular use or off-street p arking area within one
year of planting.
Multiple tier plantings are strongly encouraged for all properties,
regardless of the depth of the landscape buffer. Th ose properties that
have a landscape buffer depth of ten (10) feet or m ore shall be required
to provide an additional layer of groundcover. The groundcover shall be
located directly in front of the required hedge, so as to be visible from
the adjacent right-of-way. This groundcover shall b e installed at one-half
(1/2) of the height of the required perimeter hedge.
If a nonliving barrier is used, it shall be a minim um of three (3) feet
above the finished grade of the adjacent vehicular use. Nonliving
barriers shall require additional landscaping to so ften them and enhance
their appearance. For each ten (10) feet of nonliv ing barrier, a shrub or
vine shall be planted along the street side of the barrier, in addition to
tree requirements.
Earth berms may be used only when installed in conj unction with
sufficient plant materials to satisfy the screening requirements. The
slope of the berm shall not exceed a 3:1 ratio.
19 ORD. NO.06-12
Hedges for multi-family projects which are used to separate a residential
use from an adjacent arterial or collector road rig ht-of-way may attain a
height of eight (8) feet to mitigate the impact of the adjace nt roadway
Perimeter hedging installed to effect screening of storage areas must be a
minimum of seventy-five (75) percent of the height of the storage
structure four (4) feet in height at the time of installation and be
permitted to grow to a height to conceal the materi als being stored.
Perimeter shade trees are required to be planted ev ery thirty (30) feet
and are not permitted to be clustered.
(b) The unpaved portion of the right-of-way adjacen t to the property line
shall be landscaped with sod and provided with irri gation and
maintenance.
(c) The width of accessways which provide access to a site or vehicular use
areas may be subtracted from the linear dimensions used to determine
the number of trees required.
Perimeter landscaping requirements relating to abutting p roperties:
(d) A landscaped barrier shall be provided between the off-street parking
area or other vehicular use area and abutting prope rties. The landscape
barrier may be two (2) feet at the time of planting and achieve and be
maintained at not less than three (3) nor greater t han six (6) feet in
height to form a continuous screen between the off-street parking area
or vehicular use area and such abutting property. This landscape barrier
shall be located between the common lot line and th e off-street parking
area or other vehicular use area in a planting stri p of not less than five
(5) feet in width that is free of any vehicular encroa chment, including car
overhang. Duplexes may be permitted to reduce the perimeter planting
strip to two and one-half (2 1/2) feet in width in cases where lot
frontage is less than fifty-five (55) feet. In add ition, one (1) tree shall be
provided for every thirty (30) linear feet of such landscaped barrier or
fraction thereof.
(e) Where any commercial or industrial areas abut a residential zoning
district or properties in residential use, in addit ion to requirements
established for district boundary line separators i n the zoning code, one
(1) tree shall be planted every twenty-five (25) fe et to form a solid tree
line.
20 ORD. NO.06-12
(f) The provisions for perimeter landscape requirem ents relating to abutting
properties shall not be applicable where a proposed parking area or
other vehicular use area abuts an existing hedge or established tree line,
the existing hedge and trees may be used to satisfy the landscape
requirements provided the existing material meets a ll applicable
standards. The landscape strip, a minimum of five (5) feet in depth,
however, is still required, and must be landscaped with sod or ground
cover and be free of any vehicular encroachment, in cluding car
overhang. If the existing landscaping does not meet the sta ndards of
this article, additional landscaping shall be requi red as necessary to meet
the standards. In the event that the landscaping p rovided by the
adjacent property which has been used to satisfy th e landscaping
requirements for the property making application is ever removed, the
property heretofore using the existing vegetation t o satisfy landscaping
requirements, must then install landscaping as requ ired to comply with
the provisions of this code. Interior landscape re quirements for parking
and other vehicular use areas :
(g) The amount of interior landscaping within off-s treet parking areas shall
amount to no less than ten percent (10%) of the tot al area used for
parking and accessways.
(h) There shall be a group of palms or a shade tree for every one hundred
twenty-five (125) square feet of required interior landscaping. No more
than twenty-five percent (25%) of these required trees shal l be palms.
(i) Landscape islands which contain a minimum of sevent y -five (75) one
hundred thirty-five (135) square feet of plantable planting area, with a
minimum dimension of five (5) nine (9) feet , exclusive of the required
curb, shall be placed at intervals of no less than one landscaped island
for every ten (10) thirteen (13) standard parking spaces. One shade tree
or equivalent number of palm trees shall be planted in every interior
island with a minimum of seventy-five (75) square f eet of shrubs and
groundcovers . Tree specifications shall adhere to those listed in Section
4.6.16(E)(5) and 4.6.16(E)(6). Where approval for the use of compact
parking has been approved, islands may be placed at intervals of no less
than one (1) island for every fifteen (15) compact parking sp aces.
(1) The distance between parking islands can be increas ed up to
fifteen (15) standard or seventeen (17) compact par king spaces
but the width of the parking island must be increas ed by one (1)
foot for each additional space (i.e. if the distanc e between
21 ORD. NO.06-12
parking islands is fifteen (15) standard parking sp aces the
parking island would have to be eleven (11) feet wide).
i. Properties within the Central Business District (CBD)
shall adhere to the same landscape island width sta ted
above, unless documentation of site constraints pro vide
that such island width is not feasible. In such ca ses, the
City will accept landscape islands with a minimum w idth
of seven (7) feet, exclusive of curb, with one hund red an
five (105) square feet of planting area. Under no
circumstances shall any landscape island have a wid th
smaller than seven (7) feet, exclusive of curb. Tre e
specifications shall adhere to those listed in Sect ion
4.6.16(E)(5) and 4.6.16(E)(6). Minimum tree height shall
be increased to eighteen feet (18’) in overall heig ht with
an eight foot (8’) spread if the option to increase the
number of parking spaces between landscape islands is
chosen.
(2) Unobstructed cross-visibility shall be maintained a t all terminal
landscape islands where it intersects a right-of-wa y. Clear
visibility shall be maintained between three (3) fe et to six (6) feet
above ground. Proper plant selection shall be utili zed that fully
accounts for the mature height and spread of that p lant. The
proper design shall have low groundcovers within th e nose of
the island with small shrubs located at the back end of the isl and.
(j) Each row of parking spaces shall be terminated by l andscape islands
with dimensions as indicated above. An exception to this requirement is
when a landscaped area, with dimensions above, exists at the end of the
parking row.
(k) Whenever parking tiers abut, they shall be sepa rated by a minimum five
(5) foot wide landscape strip. This strip shall be in addition to the
parking stall and be free of any vehicular encroach ment, including car
overhang. In addition, a two foot (2’) hedge shall be installed within this
landscape strip and run the entire length of the st rip. Pedestrian
walkways are permitted to allow passage through the hedge. Non-
mountable curbs are not required for these landscap ing strips, providing
carstops are provided.
22 ORD. NO.06-12
(l) Perimeter landscape strips which are required t o be created by this code
or requirements of the zoning code shall not be cre dited to satisfy any
interior landscaping requirements, however, the gro ss area of perimeter
landscape strips which exceed minimum requirements may be credited
to satisfy the interior landscape requirements of this sect ion.
(m) Interior landscaping in both parking areas and othe r vehicular use areas
shall, insofar as possible, be used to delineate an d guide major traffic
movement within the parking area so as to prevent c ross-space driving
wherever possible. A portion of the landscaping for interior parking
spaces, not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total
requirement, may be relocated so as to emphasize co rridors or special
landscape areas within the general parking area or adjacent to buildings
located on the site, if helpful in achieving greate r overall aesthetic effect.
Such relocated landscaping shall be in addition to the perimeter
landscaping requirements.
(n) Existing native soil within all landscape islands, interior landscape strips
and perimeter landscape strips, adjacent to vehicul ar use areas, shall be
excavated down to a depth of thirty (30) inches bel ow existing grade,
except for a 12” buffer from the inside of curb or pavement (see
diagram below). A suitable planting soil mixture of fifty/fifty (50/50),
sixty/forty (60/40) (sand/topsoil) or as otherwise indicated by the
Registered Landscape Architect, shall either be bac kfilled in place of the
native soil or efficiently mixed with the native so il to create an optimum
environment for successful root development. If nat ive soil is to be
mixed, it shall first be screened to remove rocks a nd debris larger than
one-half (1/2) inch in diameter prior to mixing. Al l properties under this
section shall be required to have an open landscape bed inspection prior
to backfilling to insure the thirty (30) inch depth has been m et.
23 ORD. NO.06-12
(n) (o) All air-conditioning units and other mechanical eq uipment and refuse
areas whose height is five (5) feet or less shall b e screened with
shrubbery that is tall enough to fully screen the u nits from view.
Equipment five (5) feet to sixteen (16) feet above grade shall be
screened with hedges that are half of the height of the item to be
screened. In such instances, the required hedge sh all not be any less
than five (5) feet in height. Anything higher than sixteen (16) shall be
screened with shrubbery that is a minimum of eight (8) in heig ht.
(o) (p) Landscaping may be permitted in easements only wit h the written
permission of the easement holder. Written permiss ion shall be
submitted as part of the site plan or landscape plan review.
(4) Foundation Landscaping Requirements
(a) Foundation landscaping shall be required. This shall incorporate trees,
shrubs and groundcovers with the minimum required s pecifications as
set forth in 4.6.16(E). Multiple tiers of plant ma terial should be utilized
and thoughtfully designed to accomplish the goal of softening the
building mass while adding vibrant color and textures.
(b) New multi-story structures or landscape improve ments to existing multi-
structures shall adhere to the landscape requiremen ts set forth in this
section. The purpose of these requirements is to ae sthetically and
visually buffer larger structures and to maintain a n appropriately scaled
24 ORD. NO.06-12
relationship between the height of the structure an d its surrounding
landscape. Foundation trees with specifications lis ted in Table 1 shall be
planted along the building façade that faces a Righ t-of-Way. The
spacing of these trees shall be determined based on the average canopy
width of the proposed tree. These trees shall be s paced appropriately so
that the canopies shall be touching at average matu rity. Typical
Foundation trees and spacing requirements are liste d in Table 2. All
trees listed in Table 2 are examples. Other specie s may be used so long
as the spacing meets the intent of this section.
Table 1. Foundation Tree Specifications
Mean Structure
Height (feet)
Minimum Tree
Height (feet)
Minimum Tree
Spread (feet)
Minimum Overall
Palm Height (feet)
To 15 12 to 14 (code) 5 12 (code)
15 to 25 14 to 16 6 16
26 to 35 16 to 18 7 20
36 and greater 16 to 18 7 25
Table 2. Typical Foundation Trees and Spacing Requirements
Tree Species Typical Spacing
Quercus virginiana (Live Oak) 30'
Bursera simaruba (Gumbo Limbo) 30'
Swietenia mahagoni (Mahogany Tree) 30'
Cocos nucifera (Coconut Palm) 20'
Wodyetia bifurcata (Foxtail Palm) 20'
Veitchia montgomeriana (Montgomery Palm) 15'
Bismarckia nobilis (Bismarck Palm) 25'
Phoenix dactylifera (Date Palm) 25'
25 ORD. NO.06-12
(5) Special Landscape Regulations for Properties within the Central Business
District (CBD)
(a) Landscape Islands shall be installed within designa ted On-Street Parking
locations. Properties submitting for Site Plan Modi fications that are designated
as Class IV or higher are required to install on-st reet landscape islands. Site Plan
Modifications that are classified as Class III or l ower that are proposing on-
street landscape islands shall adhere to the requir ements outlined in this section.
All islands are to be curbed with Type ‘F’ curbing to protect plant material.
There are three types of landscape islands found wi thin designated on-street
parking sites. They are Intersection Islands, Drive way Islands and Parallel
Parking Islands.
1. Intersection Islands are required at the corners of intersecting streets. These
islands shall be a minimum of ten feet (10’) in len gth. One (1) palm tree and
associated understory plantings shall be located in each island and shall not
pose a hazard to site visibility. If applicable, ea ch palm shall be located
behind traffic signs. Species and size to be consis tent with those existing
within adjacent on-street parking islands.
2. Driveway Islands are required on each side of th e driveway apron leading
into the property. These islands shall be a minimum of eight feet (8’) in
length. One (1) accent tree or palm and associated understory plantings shall
be located in each island and shall not pose a haza rd to site visibility. Species
and size to be consistent with those existing withi n adjacent on-street
parking islands.
3. Parallel Parking Islands shall be used to break up large expanses of
pavement utilizing shade-producing canopy trees and associated understory
plantings. No more than six (6) parallel parking sp aces are allowed between
the nearest parallel parking island and the subject property submitting for a
Site Plan Modification. Spaces will be counted from the nearest street
intersection. Each island shall be a minimum of twe nty-two feet (22’) in
length and contain at least one (1) canopy tree and associated understory
plantings. Species and size to be consistent with t hose existing within
adjacent on-street parking islands.
Properties abutting Atlantic Avenue are exempt from the requirement of
constructing on-street landscape islands. The maint enance and irrigating of
islands shall be the sole responsibility of the pro perty owner who is located
adjacent to these islands. Construction of landscap e islands shall not create
traffic safety hazards. The utilization of root bar riers will be required in
instances where underground utilities are present. All compacted soil, rock
and other debris shall be removed to a depth of thi rty inches (30”) below
26 ORD. NO.06-12
top of curb and replaced with a sixty-forty (60/40) mixture of sand to
topsoil.
Existing site conditions will be examined during th e plan review process.
Flexibility for location and size of islands will b e considered in achieving the
overall goal of creating a consistent and unified streetsc ape.
(6) Street Trees for New Residential Developments
A themed landscape is very important for creating u nity and common character within residential
developments. Street trees are an integral componen t of creating a themed landscape and shall be
required as per this section. All trees shall be in accordance with Section 4.6.16(E)(5). Tree selecti on
shall be approved by City Staff. One (1) street tre e shall be required for every forty (40) linear fee t of
street frontage with a minimum of one (1) tree per property. Street trees shall be located between the
inside edge of sidewalk and edge of road pavement. Typical spacing for some commonly used street
trees are listed in the below chart.
27 ORD. NO.06-12
Tree Species Typical Spacing (feet)
Quercus virginiana (Live Oak) 40'
Bursera simaruba (Gumbo Limbo) 35'
Swietenia mahagoni (Mahogany Tree) 40'
Peltophorum sp. (Yellow Poinciana) 40'
(4) (7) Existing Multiple Family, Duplex, Commercial, and Ind ustrial
Development : All existing multi-family units, duplexes, and c ommercial and industrial uses shall
comply with the minimum standards for landscaping as follows:
(a) Provide for perimeter landscaping adjacent to publi c rights-of-way to
screen vehicular parking, open-lot sales, service a nd storage areas to the
extent physically possible and deemed feasible by t he Landscape
Compliance Review Committee. Elimination of parkin g spaces required
by code will not be permitted to upgrade landscapin g, however, the
deletion of parking spaces in excess of code requir ements will be
required if they are in areas that will facilitate the required
implementation of the minimum landscape requirement s for existing
development contained herein.
(b) Provide sod and irrigation within the right-of-way between the property
line and the edge of pavement of the adjacent trave l lane. The removal
of existing asphalt may be required within the area between the property
line and the edge of pavement of the adjacent travel lane.
(c) Provide screening for all dumpsters and refuse areas and all ground level
air-conditioning units and mechanical equipment. A dequacy of
screening shall be determined by the Landscape Comp liance Review
Committee.
(d) Foundation landscaping shall be provided for bu ilding elevations that
are visible from adjacent rights-of-way.
(5) (8) Sight Distance : Sight distance for landscaping adjacent to right s-of-way and
points of access shall be provided pursuant to Section 4.6.1 4.
(I) Minimum Maintenance Requirements :
(1) General : The owner or his agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of all
landscaping required by ordinance or made a conditi on for approval for a building permit.
28 ORD. NO.06-12
Landscaping shall be maintained in a good condition so as to present a healthy, neat, and orderly
appearance at least equal to that which was require d for the original installation, and shall be kept free
from refuse and debris. Maintenance is to include mowing, edging, weeding, shrub pruning,
fertilization and inspection and repair of irrigation syst ems to ensure their proper functioning.
(2) Yard Waste Management, Composting and Use of Mulches:
(a) Yard wastes shall not be disposed of or stored by s horelines, in ditches
or swales, or near storm drains.
(b) Composting of yard wastes provides many benefits an d is strongly
encouraged. The resulting materials are excellent s oil amendments and
conditioners. Other recycled solid wastes products are also available and
should be used when appropriate.
(c) Grass clippings are a natural benefit to lawns, rep lenishing nutrients
drawn up from the soil and as an organic mulch that helps to retain
moisture, lessening the need to irrigate. Grass cli ppings should be left on
your lawn. All discharged clippings are to be kept fa r away from adjacent
shorelines.
(d) Mulches applied and maintained at appropriate depth s in planting beds
assist soils in retaining moisture, reducing weed g rowth, and preventing
erosion. Mulch, applied at a layer of two (2) inche s thick, shall be
specified on landscape plans. Mulches shall be kept six (6) inches away
from trunk. Mulch from invasive trees such as Melaleuca and Eucalyptus
are highly recommended as a suitable mulching resource.
(3) Fertilizer Management:
(a) Spreader deflector shields are required when fertil izing via rotary
spreaders. Deflectors must be positioned such that fertilizer granules are
deflected away from all impervious surfaces, fertil izer-free zones and
water bodies, including wetlands.
(b) Fertilizers shall not be applied, spilled or otherw ise deposited on any
impervious surfaces. Any fertilizers that are spill ed, whether intentionally
or accidentally, shall be immediately and completely rem oved.
(c) In no case shall fertilizer be washed, swept or blo wn off impervious
surfaces into stormwater drains, ditches conveyances or wa ter bodies.
29 ORD. NO.06-12
(4) Pesticide Management
(a) All landscape applications of pesticides, including Weed and Feed
products, should be made in accordance with State a nd Federal Law and
with the most current version of the Florida-friend ly Best Management
Practices for Protection of Water Resources by the Green In dustries.
(b) Property owners and landscape management companies performing
pesticide control within the City are strongly enco uraged to use
Integrated Pest Control (IPC). Biological control i s a natural and
effective means of eradicating unwanted pests withi n a landscape. It has
relatively little impact on the environment and pre vents the unnecessary
use of chemicals.
(c) When using pesticides, all label instructions are s tate and federal law and
must be adhered to.
(2) (5) Pruning of Trees : Maintenance pruning of trees is to allow for uni form
healthy growth. Trees shall be allowed to attain t heir normal size, and at a minimum attain a twenty
(20) foot spread of canopy, prior to any pruning ex cept in conjunction with the removal of diseased
limbs, or to remove limbs or foliage that present a hazard to power lines or structures. Lower branch es
and suckers must be selectively removed to provide a minimum of six (6) feet of clear trunk. Severely
cutting back lateral branches and canopy, or "hatra cking" is expressly prohibited. Trees may be
periodically thinned in order to reduce the leaf ma ss in preparation for tropical storms. All pruning
shall be accomplished in accordance with the Nation al Arborist's Standards. A tree's habit of growth
must be considered before planting to prevent confl icts with view or signage and such a conflict shall
not of itself necessarily permit the pruning or removal of a t ree.
Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordi nance or any portion thereof, any
paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such deci sion shall
not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declare d to be
invalid.
Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in con flict herewith be, and the same are
hereby repealed.
Section 5 . That this ordinance shall become effective immed iately upon its passage on second and
final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second an d final reading on this the _____ day of
___________________, 2012.
30 ORD. NO.06-12
____________________________________
ATTEST M A Y O R
_______________________________
City Clerk
First Reading__________________
Second Reading________________
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 23, 2012
AGENDA NO: IV. C.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED AME NDMENT TO THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR) SECTION 4.6.16, “LANDS CAPE
REGULATIONS”
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a
City-initiated amendment to Land Development Regula tions (LDRs) to modify the requirements
of the landscape code.
Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text o f the Land Development Regulations may
not be made until a recommendation is obtained from t he Planning and Zoning Board.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to revise the current landscape code to enhance
the beauty of the City using creative landscape design principles, create the foundation for a
successful sustainable urban landscape, incorporate Florida-Friendly and Best Management
Practice principles, and to adopt requirements set forth by the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) relating to the renewal of the City’s water use permit.
The proposed ordinance was considered by the Board on Nov ember 21, 2011. After significant
discussion the Board tabled the ordinance on a 7 - 0 vot e. The Board directed staff to be more
creative in an effort to further upgrade the regulat ions within the landscape code particularly in
the downtown core area.
The Board meeting recommended the following:
• Increase the size specifications for plant material, especi ally within the Central Business
District (CBD);
• Push the landscape envelope out into the street with th e use of on-street landscape islands
(specifically addressing properties located within CBD);
• Add additional requirements for plant material loca ted within parking lots.
In response to these recommendations the following modi fications are proposed:
• Revision to the required tree height specifications wi thin CBD from 12’ to 16’ in overall
height. Adds requirement of increasing size further, to 18’, if option to increase the number
of parking spaces between islands is chosen;
• Adds language to require understory plants in every landscape island;
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, January 23, 2012
LDR Amendment – Landscape Regulations
2
• Adds language to require a 2’ hedge in landscape strip s between parking tiers;
• Adds language to require on-street landscape islands i n locations where on-street parking
exists.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Comprehensive Plan Conformance
LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings) requires that the City Commission make a finding that the
text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals , Objectives and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. The following were relevant to t his amendment:
Open Space and Recreation Element
Goal Area “B”
An open space creation, retention and enhancement s ystem consisting of, but not
limited to, links and loops throughout the City, sh all be pursued in order to enrich the
quality of life in Delray Beach as well as enhancin g property value, the community
aesthetic and environmental sustainability.
Objective B-1
The retention and creation of visual open space areas is vital to meeting the overall goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. Part of the image of open space is that of vistas and streetscapes. The
maintenance of vistas, enhancement of the streetscapes, an d additional open space are
objectives which shall be accomplished through the followi ng:
Policy B-1.2 The City shall continue its on-going street beautificati on efforts, including
programs such as Adopt-A-Tree, landscaping upgrades as part of street construction projects,
and an emphasis on providing sufficient funds to maintai n existing landscaping at a high level.
Policy B-1.3 New developments shall provide central focal points at e ntries and landscape
buffers along the external (arterial, collector) street s which service them. Back-lotting of
individual homes along such streets should be allowed on ly when special landscape buffers are
provided between the rear yard walls or fences and the right-of-way.
This amendment is supported by Objective B-1, policies B -1.2 and B-1.3 relating to the element
of Open Space and Recreation. New developments will be providing central focal points at
entries and landscape buffers through the proposed foun dation landscape principles and
multiple-tier landscaping along rights-of-way. The enh ancement of streetscapes as described
under this objective will be satisfied through the p rinciples of sustainable landscaping by
creating a larger urban canopy on both public and priv ate properties through the requirements
set forth in this section.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, January 23, 2012
LDR Amendment – Landscape Regulations
3
REVIEW BY OTHERS
The following advisory boards reviewed the proposed am endment and made the following
recommendations to the City Commission:
The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) on October 12, 2011 recommended
approval of the proposed text amendment.
The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) on October 13, 2011 recommended approval
of the proposed text amendment. The Board and the CR A Assistant Director had some
concerns. These included the proposed:
• Landscape island expansion from five (5) feet to nine (9) feet within the limits of the
Central Business District;
• Removal of compacted rock within the landscape islands an d its effect on the integrity of
the curbing and asphalt;
• Requirement for upgrading tree height as it relates to structure height for all required
trees;
• Cap on the percentage of required trees that will b e allowed in the form of palm trees;
• Requirement for the installation of street trees wi thin residential developments.
The landscape code has been modified to address these com ments.
Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) on November 2, 2011 recommended approval of the
proposed text amendment.
The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) on November 15, 2011 recommended
approval of the proposed text amendment. The Board ch ose to adopt the same concerns as the
CRA. One additional suggestion was to increase the maxi mum maintained height of hedges for
residential properties.
The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) on November 15, 2011 recommended
approval of the proposed text amendment. The only sug gestion made was to add a provision to
review the landscape code every five years for updating purposes.
Courtesy Notices
Courtesy notices were not provided.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Com mission of the amendment to Land
Development Regulations Section 4.6.16 “Landscape Regulations”, to modify the
requirements of the landscape code , by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, January 23, 2012
LDR Amendment – Landscape Regulations
4
the staff report, and finding that the text amendmen t and approval thereof is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set fo rth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commi ssion of the amendment to Land
Development Regulations Section 4.6.16, “Landscape Regulations”, to modify the
requirements of the landscape code, by adopting the fin dings of fact and law contained in
the staff report, and finding that the text amendmen t and approval thereof is not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the cri teria set forth in LDR Section
2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative).
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommend approval of the amendment to Land Developm ent Regulations Section 4.6.16,
“Landscape Regulations”, to modify the requirements o f the landscape code , by adopting the
findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and
approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive P lan and meets the criteria set forth in
LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
Attachment:
Proposed Ordinance
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2011
AGENDA NO: IV.D.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED AME NDMENT TO THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR) SECTION 4.6.16, “LANDS CAPE
REGULATIONS”
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a
City-initiated amendment to Land Development Regula tions (LDRs) to modify the requirements
of the landscape code.
Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text o f the Land Development Regulations may
not be made until a recommendation is obtained from t he Planning and Zoning Board.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to revise the current landscape code to enhance
the beauty of the City using creative landscape design principles, create the foundation for a
successful sustainable urban landscape, incorporate Florida-Friendly and Best Management
Practice principles, and to adopt requirements set forth by the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) relating to the renewal of the City’s water use permit.
Following are highlights of the proposed ordinance:
Clarifies submittal requirements and inclusion of part icular items associated with landscape
plan preparation. The following items have always b een requested during submittal but will
now be codified in the landscape regulations: submission o f landscape permit, existing tree
survey (if applicable), landscape calculations, cost estimat e for improvements over $1,000,
minimum of FL#1 plant material, sight visibility tria ngles, details the RLA requirements, and
requires landscape completion prior to C/O;
Adds language pertaining to Florida-Friendly landscap e principles;
Revises tree minimum height requirements to 12’ in ov erall height for all properties with no
exceptions;
Adds language to reduce conflict between tree canopy and vehicular traffic along rights-of-
way by imposing a minimum branch clearance height for t hose trees adjacent to a public
travel lane;
Revises language to allow flexibility to install more palm trees on site;
Revises language pertaining to the screening of above -ground equipment. The required
height at time of installation of hedges shall now dep end on height of equipment to be
screened;
Adds language that references irrigation regulations a nd proper irrigation system design
standards that have been adopted by SFWMD;
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, November 21, 201 1
LDR Amendment – Landscape Regulations
2
Revises language pertaining to prohibited species that will now be consistent with the list
that is found in the City’s tree ordinance;
Adds language pertaining to the required height of Ficus hedges;
Adds language that will require multiple-tier plant ings for new commercial, multi-family and
industrial properties;
Revises language pertaining to landscape island width a nd the amount of parking spaces
between required landscape islands;
Adds language pertaining to the selection of plant ma terial within terminal landscape islands
that abut an intersection within a parking lot;
Adds language to remove compacted rock within landscape islands in exchange for the
installation of loose, nutrient-rich planting soil that will reduce the likelihood of tree blow-
overs;
Adds language to relate the height and amount of fo undation trees to the height and length
of the adjacent structure;
Adds language to require the installation of street trees within residential developments; and
Adds language to discourage poor horticultural practices relating to yard waste, fertilizer and
pesticide management.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Comprehensive Plan Conformance
LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings) requires that the City Commission make a finding that the
text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals , Objectives and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. The following were relevant to t his amendment:
Open Space and Recreation Element
Goal Area “B”
An open space creation, retention and enhancement s ystem consisting of, but not
limited to, links and loops throughout the City, sh all be pursued in order to enrich the
quality of life in Delray Beach as well as enhancin g property value, the community
aesthetic and environmental sustainability.
Objective B-1
The retention and creation of visual open space areas is vital to meeting the overall goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. Part of the image of open space is that of vistas and streetscapes. The
maintenance of vistas, enhancement of the streetscapes, an d additional open space are
objectives which shall be accomplished through the followi ng:
Policy B-1.2 The City shall continue its on-going street beautificati on efforts, including
programs such as Adopt-A-Tree, landscaping upgrades as part of street construction projects,
and an emphasis on providing sufficient funds to maintai n existing landscaping at a high level.
Policy B-1.3 New developments shall provide central focal points at e ntries and landscape
buffers along the external (arterial, collector) street s which service them. Back-lotting of
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, November 21, 201 1
LDR Amendment – Landscape Regulations
3
individual homes along such streets should be allowed on ly when special landscape buffers are
provided between the rear yard walls or fences and the right-of-way.
This amendment is supported by Objective B-1, policies B -1.2 and B-1.3 relating to the element
of Open Space and Recreation. New developments will be providing central focal points at
entries and landscape buffers through the proposed foun dation landscape principles and
multiple-tier landscaping along rights-of-way. The enh ancement of streetscapes as described
under this objective will be satisfied through the p rinciples of sustainable landscaping by
creating a larger urban canopy on both public and priv ate properties through the requirements
set forth in this section.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
The following advisory boards reviewed the proposed am endment and made the following
recommendations to the City Commission:
The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) on October 12, 2011 recommended
approval of the proposed text amendment.
The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) on October 13, 2011 recommended approval
of the proposed text amendment. The Board and the CR A Assistant Director had some
concerns. These included the proposed:
Landscape island expansion from five (5) feet to nine (9) feet within the limits of the
Central Business District
Removal of compacted rock within the landscape islands an d its effect on the integrity of
the curbing and asphalt
Requirement for upgrading tree height as it relates to structure height for all required
trees
Cap on the percentage of required trees that will b e allowed in the form of palm trees
Requirement for the installation of street trees wi thin residential developments
The landscape code has been modified based on these comme nts.
The Pineapple Grove Main Street on November 2, 2011 recommended approval of the
proposed text amendment.
The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) on November 15, 2011 recommended
approval of the proposed text amendment. The Board ch ose to adopt the same concerns as the
CRA. One additional suggestion was to increase the maxi mum maintained height of hedges for
residential properties.
The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) on November 15, 2011 recommended
approval of the proposed text amendment. The only sug gestion made was to add a provision to
review the landscape code every five years for updating purposes.
Courtesy Notices
Courtesy notices were not provided.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, November 21, 201 1
LDR Amendment – Landscape Regulations
4
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Com mission of the amendment to Land
Development Regulations Section 4.6.16 “Landscape Regulations”, to modify the
requirements of the landscape code , by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in
the staff report, and finding that the text amendmen t and approval thereof is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set fo rth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commi ssion of the amendment to Land
Development Regulations Section 4.6.16, “Landscape Regulations”, to modify the
requirements of the landscape code, by adopting the fin dings of fact and law contained in
the staff report, and finding that the text amendmen t and approval thereof is not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the cri teria set forth in LDR Section
2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative).
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommend approval of the amendment to Land Developm ent Regulations Section 4.6.16,
“Landscape Regulations”, to modify the requirements o f the landscape code , by adopting the
findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and
approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive P lan and meets the criteria set forth in
LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
Attachment:
Proposed ordinance
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Z oning
THROUGH:City Manager
DATE:February 1, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 12.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 07 -12
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Approval of a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulat ions (LDRs) that will modify
LDR Section 4.6.9 (C)(1)(c), “Bicycle Parking” and enact new definitions for short, medium, and lo ng
term parking facilities.
Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may not be
made until a recommendation is obtained from the Pl anning and Zoning Board.
BACKGROUND
The City of Delray Beach Parking Management Plan, d ated August, 2010, recommends that
modifications be made to the City’s bicycle parking requirements. These modifications include
expanding the current bicycle parking requirements to a citywide basis as well as expanding the
requirement to include more land uses than are curr ently listed (currently limited to shopping centers ,
fast food restaurants, government offices, communit y centers, private recreation facilities and non-
residential uses with the City’s TCEA [Transportation Concurrency Area]). The reco mmendations also
suggest adopting regulations regarding the placemen t of bicycle parking facilities, including lighting ,
security and location within the site, and the type of bicycle facilities (short or long term faciliti es). This
LDR amendment expands the bicycle parking requireme nts city wide and assigns requirements that
correspond with 5% (residential) and 10% (commercia l, office and industrial) of the vehicular parking
requirement for any particular use. Regulations ref erencing locational requirements and the appropriat e
type of facilities (short, medium and long term) ar e also included. The definition section of the LDR’s is
also being modified to include definitions for shor t, medium and long term parking facilities. It is n oted
that these changes are consistent with the recommen dations in the Parking Management Plan.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed t he item at their January 9, 2012 and tabled
the item. Their main concerns were that no parking would be provided if the use required less than 10
(commercial, office, and industrial) or 20 (residen tial) vehicle parking spaces. This is not the case and
additional clarifying language has been added to re quire a minimum of one space under both 10 and 20
vehicle spaces. Further language has been provided to address rounding up all fractions.
The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) re viewed the item at their January 10, 2012
meeting and recommended approval subject to conditi ons. These include recommendations that
incentives be offered for existing businesses to pa rticipate. Further, a recommendation was made that
the City be proactive with the placement of bike ra cks at public facilities.
The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed t he item at their January 12, 2012 meeting
and recommended denial. They felt the current requi rements were adequate and they were also
concerned that long term facilities would be unduly required of all employers. The regulations have
been modified to limit mandatory long term faciliti es to schools, transit station and public parking
facilities.
The Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) reviewed the it em at their January 23, 2012 meeting and made a
recommendation of approval on a 7-0 vote subject to two conditions. These included in creasing the
bicycle parking requirement from 5% to 10% of the v ehicular parking requirements for commercial,
office and industrial uses as recommended in the Pa rking Management Plan, and modifying the time
frames associated with short and medium term facili ties categories. These changes have been
incorporated in the ordinance before the City Commi ssion.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, approve Ordinance No. 7-12 on first read ing for a city-initiated amendment to Section 4.6.9,
“Number of Parking Spaces Required”; Subsection 4.6 .9(C)(1)(c), “Bicycle Parking”, and Amending
Appendix “A” to enact new definitions for Short, Medium, and Lon g Term Parking Facilities, by
adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendme nt
and approval thereof is consistent with the Compreh ensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR
Section 2.4.5(M).
ORDINANCE NO. 7-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.6.9, “OFF-STREET
PARKING REGULATIONS”, SUBSECTION 4.6.9(C), “NUMBER OF
PARKING SPACES REQUIRED”, SUB-SUBSECTION 4.6.9(C)(1 ),
“GENERAL PROVISIONS”, BY AMENDING PARAGRAPH (c),
“BICYCLE PARKING”, TO SET FORTH STANDARDS FOR
BICYCLE PARKING; AND BY AMENDING APPENDIX “A”,
“DEFINITIONS”, TO ENACT A NEW DEFINITION FOR
“BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES”; PROVIDING A SAVING
CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Plannin g and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed
text amendment at a public hearing held on January 23 , 2012 and voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the change s
be approved; 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 chan ge is consistent with and furthers the goals, objec tives
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach ad opts the findings in the Planning and
Zoning Staff Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds the ordinance is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSI ON OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . That the recitations set forth above are incorporated he rein.
Section 2 . That Section 4.6.9, “Off-Street Parking”, Subsec tion “4.6.9(C), “Number of Parking
Spaces Required”, Sub-Subsection 4.6.9(C)(1), “Gene ral Provisions”, Paragraph (c), “Bicycle Parking”, of the
Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinan ces of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and th e
same is hereby amended to read as follows:
(c) Bicycle Parking : Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in a designated area and by a
fixed or stationary bike rack for the following uses:
2 ORD. NO. 7-12
(1) In shopping centers at the rate of five (5) spaces per 100,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area;
(2) At fast food restaurants, government offices and co mmunity centers, and commercial
and private recreation facilities at the rate of five (5) spaces per facility.
(3) Any non -residential use within the City’s TCEA which, throu gh the development
review process, is determined to generate a demand.
Bicycle Parking shall be provided at a minimum rati o of one (1) bicycle space for every
twenty (20) (residential) and ten (10) (commercial, office or industrial) required motor
vehicle parking spaces. A minimum of one bicycle space shall be provided. When a fraction
exists, it shall be rounded up.
(1) All bicycle parking facilities provided to satisfy the requirements shall be located on
the same lot or building site as the uses they serv e. Bicycle parking shall be located
as close as is practical to the entrance to the use being served, but situated so as not
to obstruct the flow of pedestrians using the entrance or sid ewalk.
(2) While a minimum of Short and Medium Term Parking fa cilities are required for
most uses, Long Term Parking facilities should be c onsidered for uses like schools,
transit stations and public parking facilities. (Se e Appendix “A” for definition of
“Bicycle Parking Facilities”).
Section 3. That Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, of the Land Deve lopment Regulations of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Flo rida, be and the same is hereby amended by enacting a
new definition of “Bicycle Parking Facilities”, to read as f ollows:
Bicycle Parking Facilities
Short Term Parking– Bicycle parking facility intende d for short-term parking (under 6 hours),
consisting of a stationery object to which the user can lock the frame and both wheels with a user-
provided 6 foot cable (or chain) and lock.
Medium Term Parking– Bicycle parking facility intend ed for medium-term parking (under 6 hours)
and consisting of a stationery object in which the user can lock the frame and both wheels with a
user-provided lock.
Long Term Parking– Bicycle parking facility intended for long-term parking (6 or more hours) which
provides protection against theft of the entire bic ycle and its components and accessories. Three
common ways of providing long term bicycle parking are:
a. fully enclosed lockers accessible only by the user;
3 ORD. NO. 7-12
b. a continuously monitored facility that provides a s tationery object in which the user can lock the
frame and both wheels with a user-provided lock .
c. a restricted access facility that provides a statio nery object in which the user can lock the frame
and both wheels with a user-provided lock are provided and ac cess is restricted only to the owners
of the bicycles stored therein.
Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordi nance or any portion thereof, any
paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such deci sion
shall not affect the validity of the remainder here of as a whole or part thereof other than the part d eclared to
be invalid.
Section 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in con flict herewith be, and the same are
hereby repealed.
Section 6 . That this ordinance shall become effective immed iately upon its passage on second and
final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second an d final reading on this the _____ day of
___________________, 2012.
____________________________________
ATTEST M A Y O R
_______________________________
City Clerk
First Reading__________________
Second Reading________________
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Lula Butler - Director, Community Improvement
THROUGH:David Harden - City Manager
DATE:February 3, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 12.D. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 08 -12
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
City Commission consideration of approving Ordinanc e No. 8-12, amending Chapter 117, “Landlord
Permits”, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, by amending Section 117.01, “Permit
Required”, to clarify when a permit is required; am ending Section 117.03, “Approval of Application”,
to provide additional requirements; amending Sectio n 117.04, “Denial or Revocation of permit
application; appeals”, to clarify grounds for revocation; and amending Sec tion 117.06,
“Tenant/Occupant Eviction”, to ensure notice and due process rights are followe d or alternate housing is
provided.
BACKGROUND
City Commission directed staff to strengthen the pe rmit approval and enforcement process of properties
receiving permits under the Landlord Permit program . The changes proposed are designed to improve
the quality of life for all residents. Permit app licants will be required to provide copies of all l eases,
subleases and/or agreements to occupy the building or unit and are responsible for providing updated
copies of the same within 30 days of any changes.
Leased residential units will be limited to four (4 ) vehicles, for which residential parking stickers must
be obtained from the City. Additional parking stick ers may be issued when certain conditions are met
and are documented.
Additionally, applicants will be required to follow Chapter 83, Florida Statutes governing evictions.
Residential units within the City’s Residential Zoning District that are otherwise no t required to follow
the State Statue, must provide proof of availabilit y of an alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event
of an eviction, in compliance with Section 117.06 o f the Code of Ordinance. Further, the amendments
under this Ordinance clarify reasons a Landlord per mit may be revoked.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 8-12 upo n first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 8-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 117,
“LANDLORD PERMITS”, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 117.0 1,
“PERMIT REQUIRED”, TO CLARIFY WHEN A PERMIT IS
REQUIRED; AMENDING SECTION 117.03, “APPROVAL OF
APPLICATION”, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS;
AMENDING SECTION 117.04, “DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF
PERMIT APPLICATION; APPEALS”, TO CLARIFY GROUNDS FO R
REVOCATION; AND AMENDING SECTION 117.06,
“TENANT/OCCUPANT EVICTION”, TO ENSURE NOTICE AND
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE FOLLOWED OR ALTERNATE
HOUSING IS PROVIDED; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A
GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, has determined that
enforcement of various City ordinances can be impro ved by greater involvement by the owners of propert y;
and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, desires to improve the quality
of life for its residents; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, has developed a point system
whereby landlord permits may be revoked for repeate d instances of warning, temporary compliance and
repeated violation of nuisance ordinances in order to more effectively address violations that affect the rights
of residents adjacent to residential rental property withi n the City of Delray Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, seeks to update and revise the
permit process to reflect the ongoing development o f public policy as it regards to interests of the r esidents of
the City, including congestion to street parking, i n residential neighborhoods, and other issues of pu blic health
and safety concern; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, desires to ensure that proper
eviction proceedings are followed by all landlords within the City of Delray Beach in accordance with Chapter
83, Florida Statutes , or other methods of due process afforded to reduc e homelessness and crime in the City of
Delray Beach; and
WHEREAS, the courts have stated that houses for rec overing addicts are subject to Residential
Landlord Tenant Act requirements pertaining to evic tions. See, Burke v. Oxford House of Oregon Chapter V , 341
Or. 82, 137 P.3d 1278 (Or. 2006); and
WHEREAS, hotels/motels are licensed by the Departme nt of Business and Professional Regulation
2 ORD. NO. 8-12
and are not regulated by landlord/tenant laws; and
WHEREAS, all residential tenancies that are located in residential zoning districts and are not classi fied
as hotel/motel uses shall be regulated by this sect ion regardless of the length of the lease or occupa nt contract
unless such tenancies are licensed as Group Homes o r Community Residential Homes per § 419.001, Fla. Stat .;
and
WHEREAS, the Census Data collected by the U.S. Cens us Bureau in 2010 provides that the average
family size is 2.87 people; and
WHEREAS, the United States District Court for the S outhern District of Florida held in Jeffrey O. v.
City of Boca Raton , 511 F.Supp. 2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2007), that there is, “nothing wrong with the number three
that the city has chosen.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSI ON OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . That Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, Section 117 .01, “Permit Required”, shall be
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 117.01. PERMIT REQUIRED.
(A) No person, company or other entity may offer t o or lease, sublease, rent, license,
sublicense or have any other arrangement allowing o ccupancy of any residential units unless a landlord
permit is obtained or in existence for the units. All oral rental arrangements shall be included with in
the scope of this Section, but the operation of a h otel shall not be included in this Section (any buildin g
which fits the definition of hotel but also fits th e definition of another use which requires a landlo rd
permit shall be interpreted to require a landlord p ermit), nor shall any facility licensed by the Stat e as a
Group Home or Community Residential Home or Assiste d Living Facility. Whenever Chapter 117
refers to “lease(s)”, “leased”, “rent(s)”, or “rent ed”, it shall hereinafter include leases, subleases , rentals,
licenses, sublicenses and all other arrangements for the oc cupancy of property.
(B) A separate permit shall be required for each l eased unit. However, where a building
contains a number of leased units under the same owner, or w here a number of different owners in one
building authorize the same person or company to ac t as their agent for the purposes of applying for a
permit, a single permit may be obtained for all qua lifying units within a single building which are un der
the same owner or agent, provided that the permit fee is paid for each individual unit. Any such permit
issued by the City for residential unit(s) being le ased for the first time shall be conditioned upon t he
applicant providing the City’s Director of Community Improvement or his/her designee a current copy
of all leases, subleases, and/or agreements to occu py the building or unit(s) therein and providing
updated copies of all leases, subleases, and/or agr eements to occupy the building or unit(s) therein
within thirty (30) days of any changes. Any such perm it being renewed by the City shall be conditioned
upon the applicant providing to the City’s Director of Community Improvement or his/her designee
3 ORD. NO. 8-12
all required information with the application. Nothing in this Section shall require a permit for any uni t
enrolled in Federal housing programs or under Feder al [Department of] Housing and Urban
Development general supervision.
(C) Leased residential units seeking such permits shall be limited to four (4) vehicles, for
which residential parking stickers may be obtained, provided that, upon good cause shown, specifically
including availability of garage space, additional parking stickers may be issued by the Community
Improvement Director, if the additional stickers will not a ffect the quality of the neighborhoods.
Section 2 . That Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, Section 117.03, “A pproval of
Application”, shall be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 117.03 APPROVAL OF APPLICATION.
(A) The Community Improvement Director or his/her designee, shall grant approval for
the lease of units within the City for residential purposes upon the filing of an application on forms
designated by the City and a determination:
(1) That the applicant has an interest in the prope rty or is the agent or acting under
the permission of one with a sufficient interest in the property to obtain a
landlord permit;
(2) That the units comply with the requirements of the Housing Code as set forth
in Section 7.4.1 of the Land Development Regulation s of the City of Delray
Beach with regard to those facilities necessary to make the rental unit habitable
specifically including, but not limited to, numbers of bedrooms and bathrooms
required for the number of persons who will occupy the dwelli ng ;
(3) That the rental of the units is in compliance w ith applicable zoning code
regulations as enumerated in Chapter 4 of the Land Developme nt Regulations;
(4) That no more than three (3) unrelated persons s hall reside in any unit as further
defined in the definition of “family” as provided i n Appendix “A” of the Land
Development Regulations;
(5) That an annual permit fee in accordance with Section 117 .02 is paid;
(6) That the applicant and applicant’s property are not in v iolation of this article;
(7) That proof of payment of state sales tax is pro vided on an annual basis at
renewal for all leases that are less than six (6) m onths in duration in accordance
with Section 212.03, Fla. Stat.;
4 ORD. NO. 8-12
(8) That a local business tax receipt ha s been obtained for all leases that are rented
more often than six (6) times in any one (1) year ; and
(9 ) (8) That the applicant has certified that they will provide eac h tenant with a copy of:
a. Chapter 83, Florida Statutes , Part II, entitled “Residential Tenancies”;
b. Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances, entitled “Landlord Permits”;
and
c. A pamphlet provided by the City containing guidelines fo r rentals.
(9) If the applicant is not otherwise required to f ollow Chapter 83, Florida Statutes ,
then the applicant shall provide proof of availabil ity of an alternative temporary
dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in compl iance with Section 117.06 of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach; and
(10) All tenants shall be in compliance with Chapte r 136 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Delray Beach regarding Sexual Offenders and Se xual Predators.
(B) Any permit shall be conditioned upon receipt of the documents required by Section
117.01(B).
Section 3 . That Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, Section 117 .04, “Appeals”, shall be amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 117.04 DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION; APPEALS.
(A) A P p ermit application may be denied for the following reasons:
(1) The application for permit is not fully complet ed and executed, with the
Landlord Permit Affidavit ;
(2) The applicant has not tendered the required applicatio n fee with the application;
(3) The application for permit contains a material falseho od or misrepresentation;
(4) The use is not allowed in the zoning district;
(5) The applicant had their landlord permit revoked within the last twelve (12)
months as set forth in Section 117.04(B) below.
(B) Permits may be revoked for the following reasons:
5 ORD. NO. 8-12
(1) Violations of the City’s Ordinances or state la ws where the violation takes place
at a unit regulated by this Section Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Delray Beach shall be grounds for applicable fines and the
commencement of permit revocation proceedings as follows:
(a) For each civil citation for a violation of a Ci ty ordinance, one (1) point
will be assessed on the landlord permit for that individual u nit.
(b) After two (2) points are assessed on a landlord permit for an individual
unit, the City Manager or his/her designee will sen d a written warning to
the permittee or agent. The warning will specify wh ich ordinance or
ordinances have been violated and will state that f urther citations or
violations could lead to a revocation of the permit.
(c) Accumulation of three (3) or more points on a l andlord permit for an
individual unit during a 12-month period from the d ate of the first
citation shall constitute a violation of Chapter 11 7 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach. this section and the
certifications of the applicant described above, su bjecting the permittee
to revocation of the permit for the individua l unit .
(2) The representations made in the permit applicat ion are no longer true and
correct.
(3) The lease, sublease, and/or agreement to occupy the dwelling or unit(s) therein
is not updated within thirty (30) days of any changes.
(C) Appeals of a denial or revocation of a landlord permit shall be made to the Permit
Review Committee which shall consist of the City Ma nager, the Community Improvement Director
and the Planning and Zoning Director or their respe ctive designees. The City Attorney’s Office shall
act as counsel to the Permit Review Committee. Req uests for appeal must be made in writing and
received by the Community Improvement Director with in thirty (30) days of formal notice of denial or
revocation with the date of the notice of denial be ing the first day. Decisions of the Permit Review
Committee may be appealed to the City Commission, w hose decision shall be final subject to any
appeal of such decision to the Circuit Court of Palm Beach Cou nty.
Section 4 . That Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, Section 117 .06, “Tenant Eviction”, of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall be e nacted to read as follows:
6 ORD. NO. 8-12
Sec. 117.06. TENANT/OCCUPANT EVICTION.
(A) All applicants granted a landlord permit to le ase residential units within the City’s
Residential Zoning Districts must provide notice pr ior to evicting a tenant or occupant in accordance
with Chapter 83 of the Florida Statutes .
(B) All residential uses requiring a landlord perm it that are not otherwise required to follow
Chapter 83, Florida Statutes, shall provide either forty-eight (48) hours notice of eviction in writin g to
the tenant/occupant or provide an alternative tempo rary dwelling unit for the tenant/occupant for at
least forty-eight (48) hours to avoid increased hom elessness and crime and to ensure that
tenant/occupant’s due process rights are not violated.
(C) All applicants granted a landlord permit to le ase residential units within the City’s
Residential Zoning Districts that are otherwise not required to follow Chapter 83, Florida Statutes , must
provide proof of available alternative temporary dw elling unit(s) to the Community Improvement
Director when submitting an application for landlor d permit under Section 117.03 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach.
Section 5. That should any section or provision of this ordin ance or any portion thereof, any
paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such deci sion shall
not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declare d to be
invalid.
Section 6. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conf lict herewith be, and the same are
hereby repealed.
Section 7 . That this ordinance shall become effective immedi ately upon its passage on second and
final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the _____ day of
___________________, 2012.
____________________________________
ATTEST M A Y O R
_______________________________
City Clerk
First Reading__________________
Second Reading________________
Community Improvement
100 NW 1 st Avenue
Delray Beach, Fl 33444
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT FOR
LANDLORD PERMIT
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
(561) 243-7243
1. Applicants are hereby advised that any leases, subleases, and/or agreements to occupy the building
for which a permit is sought should provide that such agreement does not become effective until
receipt of the approval by the City’s Director of Community Improvement or his/her designee of this
application.
1. 2. Please complete all applicable information on the Applicatio n for Landlord Permit and the Landlord
Permit Affidavit.
Note: Please complete the Permit Application for each rent al unit. Attach additional sheets as
necessary. A Landlord Permit is NOT required for a hotel, for any unit enrolled in a feder al housing
program, or under Housing and Urban Development general super vision.
2. 3. A Landlord Permit Affidavit must be notarized and submitted with each application . A permit
cannot be issued without the affidavit. Be sure to r ead the information on the reverse side of the
affidavit. (A Notary Public is available in the Code Enforcement Di vision.)
3. 4. Landlord Permits are issued for the 12-month period o f November 1, through October 31, at a fee of
$60.00 per rental unit . Each separate lease, sublease, and/or agreement constitut es a rental unit.
Please do not send cash. Checks must be made payable to the City of Delray Beach. The fee will not
be prorated. Landlord Permits not renewed within 60 days of the annual rene wal date will be
subject to triple permit fees.
4. 5. Please return your completed application, notarized affi davit, supplemental sheets (if any), and
payment to Landlord Permit Section, Code Enforcement D ivision, City of Delray Beach, 100 NW 1st
Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444.
6. If approved, applicants shall be required to provide a copy of the lease, sublease, and/or agreement
for each rental unit at the time of the application and/or renewal .
If you have any questions or need further information, please call the Code Enforcement Division
at (561) 243-7243, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday .
Landlord Permit # ______________
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
APPLICATION FOR LANDLORD PERMIT
IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE RENTAL UNIT AND IF YOU RE CEIVE A SEPARATE PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR
EACH UNIT, YOU MUST COMPLETE A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR EACH UNIT.
PLEASE PRINT
Property Control No. __ __-__ __-__ __-__ __- __ __- __ __ __-__ __ __ __
Rental Address _________________________________________________________________________
Property Owner _____________________________________________Phone ______________________
Mailing Address _______________________________________________________________________
City _______________________________ State __________________ Zip ______________
Type of Building _____ Single Family
_____ Duplex
_____ Multi Family
Are you under the HUD Program?
Yes ________ No ________
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS OR SEPARATE LEASES IN BUILDIN G ____
NUMBER OF RENTAL UNITS FOR THIS PERMIT ____
PLEASE COMPLETE THIS RENTAL INFORMATION:
Unit No. _____
No. of Bedrooms _____
No. of Bed Bath rooms ____
Total No. of Occupants _____
Unit No. _____ No. of Bedrooms _____ No. of Bed Bath rooms ____ Total No. of Occupants _____
Unit No. _____ No. of Bedrooms _____ No. of Bed Bath rooms ____ Total No. of Occupants _____
Unit No. _____ No. of Bedrooms _____ No. of Bed Bath rooms ____ Total No. of Occupants _____
Unit No. _____ No. of Bedrooms _____ No. of Bed Bath rooms ____ Total No. of Occupants _____
A notarized Landlord Permit Affidavit (attached) MUST accompany this application before a permit will be
issued.
Signature of Owner or Authorized Agent _____________________________________________________
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: _______________ AMOUNT PAID:_____________
SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR APPLICATION FOR LANDLOR D PERMIT
DESIGNATE UNIT NUMBERS BELOW:
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
Unit No. ________
No. of Bedrooms ________
No. of Bathrooms ________
Total No. of Occupants ________
LAN
RE
I , ______________________________
landlord permit for the following re
because:
I am the actual owner of the uni
I have the legal authority to rep
authorization from the property ow
I have read and understand the re
and 305.4 of the Delray Beach Cod
Housing Code , ] as printed on th
described residential unit(s) compl
residential unit(s) is in sound stru
devices are properly installed and i
has at least one window or skylig
capable of being easily opened and
scr eens (if there is no central a/c) an
New or Renewing Landlord Permi
I am applying for a Landlord Per
I am enclosing a copy of the curren
this Affidavit.
I am applying to renew an existi
I am enclosing a copy of the curre
Affidavit.
Compliance with Chapter 117, “La
I certify that I am in compliance
Permits, including specifically the fo
1. I will provide each ten
a. Chapter 83, Flor
b. Chapter 117 of
c. A pamphlet pro
LANDLORD PERMIT AFFIDAVIT
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
_____, being duly sworn affirm that I am auth
residential unit(s) located at _______________
nit(s) OR
represent the actual owner of the unit(s). [Su
owner.]
requirements of Sections [302.1, 302.3, 302.5.
ode of Ordinances and Land Development R
the reverse side of this document, and af
plies with those requirements. I further af
tructural condition, has electrical service an
d in good working order. I also affirm that e
ylight facing directly to the outdoors and th
and secured in position by existing window
) and unbroken glazing.
mit Application
Permit for the above described residential uni
rent lease for eac h of the above described res
isting Landlord Permit for the above describe
rrent lease for each above described residen
Landlord Permits”
ce with all applicable requirements of Cha
e following:
tenant with a copy of:
lorida Statutes , Part II, entitled “Residential Te
of the Code of Ordinances, entitled “Landlord
provided by the City containing guidelines fo
thorized to apply for a
____________________
Submit a copy of your
.5.1, 302.6, 302.7, 302.9
t Regulations Standard
affirm that the above
affirm that the above
and that all electrical
t every habitable room
that all windows are
w hardware and have
nit(s) for the first time.
residential unit(s) with
ibed residential unit(s).
ential unit(s) w ith this
hapter 117, Landlord
Tenancies”;
ord Permits”; and
for rentals.
2. I am am not [yo
Chapter 83, Florida Statutes , r
For those applicants that are
am providing with my Land
alternative temporary dwelli
117.06 of the Code of Or
__________________________
[describe type of proof and a
3. All of my tenants shal
of the City of Delray Beach re
I will inform the City of Delray Bea
Application for Landlord Permit
owner's mailing address for perm
Federal programs or HUD supervis
within thirty (30) days of each suc
will only be rented to occ upants wh
which definition is printed on the r
and which I acknowledge as readin
Owner or Authorized Agent : ________
STATE OF _________________________
COUNTY OF ______________________
The foregoing instrument was acknow
by ________________________________
(NAME)
_________________________________ a
(TYPE OF ID)
_________________________________
Signature
_________________________________
Type, Print, or Stamp Name
[you must check one of the boxes] otherwis
, regarding evictions.
re not otherwise required to follow Chapter 8
ndlord Permit Af fidavit the following proof
elling unit in the event of an eviction, in com
Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach:
_________________________________________
d attach proof to Affidavit].
hall be in compliance with Chapter 136 of the
h regarding Sexual Offenders and Sexua l Pred
each Code Enforcement Division of any chang
it and supplemental sheets (if utilized) con
rmits and renewals, nu mber of unit(s), num
vision, number of bedrooms or number of oc
uch change . I affirm that the individual uni
whose relationship does not violate the City's
e reverse side of the Instructions for Landlord
ing and understanding.
____________________________________________
(Signature)
_____
______
owledged before me this __________ day of ______
_______ who is personally known to me or who h
_ as identification and who did take an oath.
_______________ __________________________
Title
_______________ __________________________
Serial Number
ise required to follow
r 83, Florida Statutes —I
of of availability of an
mpliance with Section
ch:__________________
____________________
he Code of Ordinances
edators.
anges from the original
concerning ownership,
umber of units under
occupants in each unit
nit(s) described above
y's definition of family,
ord Permit Application
_________________
_____________, 2 0____,
has produced
_____________________
_____________________
FAMILY DEFINITION:
“Family” shall mean two (2) or more persons living together and in terrelated by bonds of consanguinity,
marriage or legal adoption, and/or a group of persons not more than three (3) in number who are not so
interrelated, occupying the whole or part of a dwelling as a separate housekeeping unit with a single set of
culinary facilities. Any person under the age of 18 years whose legal custody has been awarded to the State
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or to a child-placing agency licensed by the Department,
or who is otherwise considered to be a foster child under the laws of the state, and who is placed in fost er
care with a family, shall be deemed to be related to and a member of the family for the purposes of this
definition. Occupancies in excess of the number allow ed herein shall have twelve (12) months from the
date of the enactment of this definition or the termi nation of the current lease agreement to come into
compliance, whichever occurs first.
You are responsible for knowing all applicable laws. Sections of the Standard Housing Code are
provided here for reference only and are not intended to be exhaustive.
302.1 Sanitary Facilities
Every dwelling unit shall contain not less than a ki tchen sink, lavatory, tub or shower and a water closet all
in good working condition and properly connected to an approved water and sewer system. Every
plumbing fixture and water and waste pipe shall be prop erly installed and maintained in good sanitary
working condition free from defects, leaks and obstructions.
302.3 Hot and Cold Water Supply
Every dwelling unit shall have an adequate supply of b oth cold and hot water connected to the kitchen
sink, lavatory, tub or shower. All water shall be suppli ed through an approved distrib ution system
connected to a potable water supply.
302.5.1 Heating Facilities
Every dwelling unit shall have heating facilities whi ch are properly installed, are maintained in safe and
good working conditions and are capable of safely and ade quately heati ng all habitable rooms and
bathrooms.
302.6 Kitchen Facilities
Every dwelling unit shall contain a kitchen equipped with the following minimum facilities:
1. Food preparation surfaces impervious to water and free of defects which could trap food or
liquid.
2. Shelving, cabinets or drawers for the storage of food, c ooking and eating utensils, all of which
shall be maintained in good repair.
3. Freestanding or permanently installed cook stove . Portable electric cooking equipment shall not
fulfill this requirement. Portable cooking equipment employing flame shall be prohib ited.
4. Mechanical refrigeration equipment for the storage of perishable foodstuffs. EXCEPTION:
Nothing herein shall preclude a written agreement betw een an owner and tenant that the tenant
will f urnish mechanical refrigeration equipment and/or a cook stove as required in this section.
It shall be an affirmative defense available to an owner charged with a violation of this section if
such an agreement exists.
302.7 Garbage Disposal Facilities
Every d welling unit shall have adequate garbage disposal facilitie s or garbage storage containers, or a type
and location approved by the applicable governing body.
302.9 Smoke Detector Systems
Every dwelling unit shall be provided with an approve d listed smoke detector, installed in accordance with
the manufacturer’s recommendations and listing. When activated, the detector shall provide an audible
alarm. The detector shall be tested in accordance with an d meet the requirements of UL 217 (1989), Single
and Mul tiple Station Smoke Detectors.
305.4 Means of Egress
Every dwelling unit shall have safe, unobstructed mean s of egress with minimum ceiling height of 7 ft
(2134 mm) leading to a safe and open space at ground level. Stairs shall have a minimum head room of 6 ft
8 inches (2032 mm).
Sec. 117.03 APPROVAL OF APPLICATION
A. The Community Improvement Director or the assigned designee , shall grant a professional approval
landlord permit for the lease, sublease, and/or agreement for each renta l of units within the City for
residential purposes upon the filing of an application on forms designated by the City and a
determination that:;
1) That the applicant has an interest in the property or is th e agent or acting under the
permission of one with a sufficient interest in the proper ty to obtain a landlord permit;
2) That the units comply with the requirements of the Hous ing Code as set forth in Section 7.4.1
of the Land Development Regulations of the City of De lray Beach with regard to those
facilities necessary to make the rental unit habitable specifically including, but not limited to,
numbers of bedrooms and bathrooms required for the n umber of persons who will occupy
the dwelling ;
3) That the of the units is in compliance with applicable zon ing code regulations as enumerated
in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Regulations;
4) That no more than three unrelated persons shall reside in any unit as further defined in the
definition of “family” as provided in Appendix “A” of the Land Development Regulations;
5) That an annual permit fee in accordance with Section 117.02 is paid;
6) That the applicant and applicant’s property are not in violation of th is article;
New Requirements:
7) That proof of payment of state sales tax is provided on a annual basis at ren ewal for all leases
that are less than six (6) months in duration in accordance wi th Section 212.03, Fla. Stat.;
8) That a local business tax receipt has been obtained for all leases th at are rented more often
than six (6) times in any one (1) year ;
9) That the applicant has certified that they will provide each tenant w ith a copy of:
a. Chapter 83, Florida Statutes, Part II, entitled “Residential Tenancies ”;
b. Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances, entitled “Landlord Permits ”; and
c. A pamphlet provided by the City containing guidelines for ren tals.
10) if the applicant is not otherwise required to foll ow Chapter 83 or other regulations and laws
concerning eviction proceedings, the applicant provides pro of of availability of an alternative
temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in complia nce with Section 117.06; and
11) the applicant has certified that their tenants will be in compliance with Chapter 136, Code of
Ordinances and all other applicable regulations and laws concerning Sexual Offenders and
Sexual Predators.
Section 3. That Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, Section 117.04, “Ap peals”, shall be to read as
follows:
Sec. 117.04 DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION: APPEALS
A. A P p ermit application may be denied for the following reasons:
1) The application for permit is not fully completed and executed, with the Landlord Permit
Affidavit;
2) The applicant has not tendered the required application fee with the application;
3) The application for permit contains a material falsehood or misrep resentation;
4) The use is not allowed in the zoning district;
5) The applicant had their landlord permit revoked within the last twelve (12) months as set
forth in Section 117.04(B) below.
B. Permits may be revoked for the following reasons:
1) Violations of the City’s Ordinances or state laws where the violation takes place at a unit
regulated by this Section Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of De lray Beach
shall be grounds for applicable fines and the commencem ent of permit revocation
proceedings as follows:
a. For each civil citation for a violation of a City ordinan ce, one (1) point will be
assessed on the landlord permit for that individual unit.
b. After two (2) points are assessed on a landlord permit for an individual unit the
City Manager or his/her designee will send a written warning to the permittee or
agent. The warning will specify which ordinance of ordinances have been violated
and will state that further citations or violations coul d lead to a revocation of the
permit.
c. Accumulation of three (3) or more points on a landlord permit for an individual
unit during a 12-month period from the date of the fir st citation shall constitute a
violation of Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances of th e City of Delray Beach. this
section and the certifications of the applicant descr ibed above, subjecting the
permittee to revocation of the permit for the individual unit.
2) The representations made in the application are no longer tru e and correct.
3) The lease, sublease, and/or agreement to occupy the bui lding or unit(s) therein is not
updated within thirty (30) days of any changes.
ORDINANCE NO. 03-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4.3.3, “SPE CIFIC
REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES”, BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION 4.3.3(ZZZ), “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE”, IN
ORDER TO CLARIFY PROHIBITIONS, EXEMPTIONS/ EXCEPTIO NS,
WAIVERS, AND PENALTIES FOR SAME; AMENDING APPENDIX “A”,
“DEFINITIONS”, IN ORDER TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF
“TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE”; PROVIDING A SAVING CLA USE,
A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission hereby finds and decla res that the leasing, renting, licensing, subleasin g
or otherwise allowing in any manner or form the use of single-family residential dwelling units for pe riods of less
than twelve (12) months with a turnover in occupanc y more often than three (3) times per year to any p erson,
entity or family, is a non-residential activity and is not considered an accessory use customarily acc essory and
incidental and subordinate to the primary intended purpose of dwellings, See, Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island , 21
Fla.L.Weekly Fed. C11541 (11th Cir. 2008); and
WHEREAS, the Census Data collected by the U.S. Cen sus Bureau in 2010 provides that the average
family size is 2.87 people; and
WHEREAS, transient residential uses often maximize occupancy causing increased pressure on
infrastructure, including: garbage, sewer, water, r oadways, and utilities; code enforcement, law enfor cement, fire
protection and inspection services; and
WHEREAS, transient residential uses can result in increased noise and traffic in single-family reside ntial
communities; and
WHEREAS, unless regulations are placed on the amou nt and location of transient uses, such uses could
overwhelm the non-transient related single-family r esidential community making the City of Delray Beac h a less
attractive place to reside; and
WHEREAS, transient residential uses can be incompa tible with permanent and seasonal residential uses i f
not properly planned, controlled and regulated; and
WHEREAS, the rapid turnover in occupancy associate d with transient residential uses can be a disrupti ve
influence on the peaceful use and enjoyment of single famil y residential areas; and
WHEREAS, reserving land for single family residenc es preserves the character of neighborhoods,
securing “zones where family values, youth values, and the b lessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area
a sanctuary for people.” See, City of Edmonds v. Oxford House , 514 U.S. 725, 733 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed. 2d 80 1
(1995); and
WHEREAS, Congress intended the FHA to “prohibit th e use of zoning regulations to limit the ability of
the handicapped to live in the residence of their c hoice in the community; however, the FHA does not p re-empt
or abolish a municipality’s power to regulate land use and pa ss zoning laws.” See, Jeffrey O. v. City of Boca Raton , 511
F. Supp. 2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2007); and
WHEREAS, transient residential uses can displace p ermanent single family residential dwellings and th us
reduce the number of permanent residents in the Cit y and cause a reduction in state revenue sharing fu nds
necessary to support the services that influence th e quality of life for residents, commercial interes ts, and visitors
to the City of Delray Beach; and
WHEREAS, uncontrolled and unregulated transient residen tial uses is found to have a negative impact on
the City of Delray Beach’s economy, property values , law enforcement, traffic, safety, and the general health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens of Delray Beach; and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida has recognized that leases, rentals, licenses, subleases, and assignmen ts
or otherwise allowing in any manner the use of a re sidential dwelling unit for under twelve (12) month s in
duration is a transient use and is therefore taxed by the State of Florida at a rate of six (6) percen t of the total
rental amount charged; and
WHEREAS, the Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Boar d has reviewed this ordinance and a duly
noticed public hearing was held before the Planning and Zoning Board on December 19, 2011, and said Bo ard
has recommended adoption of the changes to the City ’s Land Development Regulations regarding the regul ation
of transient rental units by a vote of 6 to 0 ; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission and the Planning and Zoning Board both find that the ordinance is
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISS ION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . That the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, Section
4.3.3, “Specific Requirements for Specific Uses”, S ubsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”, shall
hereby be amended to read as follows:
(ZZZ) TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE The entire dwelling unit o r any part thereof, which is
located in Single Family or Planned Residential Dev elopment Zoning Districts and is operated or used i n
such a way that any part of the dwelling unit turns over occupancy more often than three (3) times in any
one (1) year shall be presumed to be a Transient Re sidential Use and therefore prohibited. An entire
dwelling unit or any part thereof, which is located in Medium Density Residential (RM) Zoning District s
and is operated or used in such a way that any part of the entire dwelling unit turns over occupancy m ore
often than six (6) times in any one (1) year shall be presumed to be a Transient Residential Use and
therefore prohibited.
(1) Exceptions/Exemptions:
(a) Existing transient residential uses with a turn over more often than three (3) times
per year but not exceeding six (6) times per year i n single-family and planned
residential development zoning districts may contin ue until twelve (12) months
after the effective date of this ordinance.
(b) The leasing, renting, licensing, subleasing or otherwise allowing in any manner or
form the use of a single-family dwelling unit for C ommunity Residential and
Group Homes which are licensed by the state are exempt.
(c) The real property owners of the dwelling unit a nd their family are exempt
regardless of how much time the owners and family spend at the dwelling unit on
a yearly basis.
(2) Waiver for Undue Economic Hardship : In all instances where there is a claim of
undue economic hardship, the property owner may be granted a waiver from Section 4.3.3(ZZZ) after
submission of waiver request to the City’s Communit y Improvement Director or his/her designee
including the following documentation:
(a) The amount paid for the property, the date of p urchase, and the party from whom
purchased;
(b) The assessed value of the land and improvements thereon, according to the two
most recent assessments;
(c) Real estate taxes for the previous two years;
(d) Annual debt service or mortgage payments, if any, for th e previous two years;
(e) All appraisals, if any, obtained within the pre vious two years by the owner or
applicant in connection with the purchase, financin g, or ownership of the
property;
(f) Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked , and offers received, if any;
(g) The annual gross income from the property for the previo us two years, if any;
(h) The annual cash flow, if any, for the previous two years;
(i) An applicant may submit and the Community Impro vement Director or his/her
designee may require that an applicant furnish addi tional information relevant to
the determination of any alleged undue economic hardship; and
(j) In the event that any of the required informati on is not reasonably available to the
property owner and cannot be obtained by the proper ty owner, the property
owner shall file statement of the information which cannot be obtained and the
reasons why such information cannot be reasonably o btained. Where such
unobtainable information concerns required financia l information, the property
owner will submit a statement describing estimates which will be as accurate as are
feasible.
(3) Reasonable Accommodation : Reasonable Accommodations from this section may be
obtained pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(G).
(4) Penalties for Violations : The City adopts all enforcement methods, which i nclude, but
are not limited to, the issuance of a citation, sum mons, notice to appear in county court, arrest for
violation of municipal ordinances, civil citations, injunction or any other enforcement method authori zed
by law including penalties as set forth in Section 10.99 of the City’s Code of Ordinances. Any proper ty
owner that leases, rents, licenses, subleases, or o therwise allows in any manner or form the use of an
entire dwelling unit within a single-family or plan ned residential development zoning district for a p eriod
of less than twelve (12) months with a turnover in occupancy of any part of the dwelling unit more oft en
than three (3) times in any one (1) year as well as those entire dwelling units that are located withi n
Medium Density Residential (RM) Zoning Districts wi th a turnover in occupancy of any part of the
dwelling unit more often than six (6) times in any one (1) year shall be in violation of this section.
(5) Severability :
(a) Generally . If any part, section, subsection, paragraph, sub paragraph, sentence,
phrase, clause, term, or word of Section 4.3.3(ZZZ) is declared unconstitutional by
the valid judgment or decree of any court of compet ent jurisdiction, the
declaration of such unconstitutionality shall not a ffect the remainder of Section
4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”.
(b) If the entire Section 4.3.3(ZZZ) is declared un constitutional by the valid judgment
or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, t he earlier version of this section
adopted by the City Commission on July 7, 2009 as O rdinance 29-09 shall be
substituted herein and shall be deemed to be in full force and effect.
Section 2 . That Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, of the Land Dev elopment Regulations of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended to read as fo llows:
TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE shall mean the entire dwe lling unit or any part thereof, which is
located in Single Family or Planned Residential Dev elopment Zoning Districts and is operated or used i n
such a way that any part of the dwelling unit turns over occupa ncy more often than three (3) times in any
one (1) year and the entire dwelling unit or any pa rt thereof, which is located in Medium Density
Residential (RM) Zoning Districts and is operated o r used in such a way that any part thereof turns ov er
occupancy more often than six (6) times in any one (1) year.
Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordi nance or any portion thereof, any
paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such deci sion shall
not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declare d to be
invalid.
Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in con flict herewith be, and the same are hereby
repealed.
Section 5 . That this ordinance shall become effective immed iately upon its passage on second and
final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the _____ day of
___________________, 2012.
____________________________________
ATTEST M A Y O R
_______________________________
City Clerk
First Reading__________________
Second Reading________________