Loading...
02-21-12 Regular MeetingCity of Delray Beach Regular Commission Meeting RULES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Tuesday, February 21, 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 the order of presentation being as follows: City Staff, public comments, Commission discussion and official action. City Commission meetings are business meetings and the right to limit discussion rests with the Commission. Generally, remarks by an individual will be limited to three minutes or less. The Mayor or presiding officer has discretion to adjust the amount of time allocated. A. Public Hearings: Any citizen is entitled to speak on items under this section. B. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public: Any citizen is entitled to be heard concerning any matter within the scope of jurisdiction of the Commission under this section. The Commission may withhold comment or direct the City Manager to take action on requests or comments. C. Regular Agenda and First Reading Items: Public input on agendaed items, other than those that are specifically set for a formal public hearing, shall be allowed when agreed by consensus of the City Commission. 2. SIGN IN SHEET: Prior to the start of the Commission Meeting, individuals wishing to address public hearing or non-agendaed items should sign in on the sheet located on the right side of the dais. If you are not able to do so prior to the start of the meeting, you may still address the Commission on an appropriate item. The primary purpose of the sign-in sheet is to assist staff with record keeping. Therefore, when you come up to the podium to speak, please complete the sign-in sheet if you have not already done so. 3. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION: At the appropriate time, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. All comments must be addressed to the Commission as a body and not to individuals. Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the Commission shall be barred by the presiding officer from speaking further, unless permission to continue or again address the Commission is granted by a majority vote of the Commission members present. APPELLATE PROCEDURES Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record. 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 to afford an individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in and enjoy 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 accommondate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings 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 31, 2012 -Workshop Meeting B. February 6, 2012 -Workshop Meeting C. February 7, 2012 -Regular Meeting 6. PROCLAMATIONS: A. NONE 7. PRESENTATIONS: A. Recognizing and commending Douglas Smith, Milena Walinski and Richard Reade for participating in the Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. Economic Sustainability Speaker Series. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval A. RATIFICATION OF SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL BOARD ACTION: Approve and ratify the action of the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board at their Quarterly Meeting of January 19, 2012. B. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/302 N.E. 7TH AVENUE: Approve a Hold Harmless Agreement with Hartman House B & B, LLC. for encroachment of a sign into the right-of-way at 302 N.E. 7th Avenue. C. SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. 12-01/MATHEWS CONSULTING, INC./CONGRESS AVENUE FORCE MAIN REPLACEMENT: Approve Service Authorization No. 12-01 to Mathews Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $106,291.00 for professional engineering services in the design of the Congress Avenue Force Main Replacement project. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-68.89 (W & S Renewal & Replacement Fund: Improvements Other/Congress Avenue Force Main Replacement). D. REIMBURSEMENT TO FLORIDA EAST COAST (FEC) RAILROAD: Approve reimbursement in the amount of $55,765.40 to Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad for the reconstruction of the East Atlantic Avenue railroad crossing. Funding is available from 334-3162-541-46.90 (General Construction Fund: Repair & Maintenance Services/Other Repair/Maintenance Costs). E. APPROVAL OF POLL WORKERS FOR THE FIRST NONPARTISAN ELECTION: Approve the poll workers for the First Nonpartisan and Special Elections to be held on March 13, 2012. F. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period February 6, 2012 through February 17, 2012. G. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Contract award to MWI Pumps in the amount of $16,987.17 to rebuild storm water pump at the Seasage Drive Pump Station. Funding is available from 448-5416-538-46.90 (Storm Water Utility Fund: Repair & Maintenance Svc/Other Repair/Maintenance Cost). 2. Purchase award to Broward Motor Sports in the amount of $21,336.00 for three (3) ATVs for Ocean Rescue. Funding is available from 501-3312-591-64.20 (Garage Fund: Machinery/Equipment/Automotive). 3. Purchase award to HD Supply Waterworks in the amount of $15,225.69 for various piping materials to be installed by the City's in-house construction crew for N.W. 16th Street water main project. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-68.61 (Water/Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund: Improvements Other/N.W. 16th Street Water Main). 4. Purchase award to Intercounty Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $74,640.98 for emergency force main repair at Lowson Boulevard and Congress Avenue intersection. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-46.24 (W & S Renewal & Replacement Fund: Repair & Maintenance Service/Repair Sewer Mains). 5. Purchase award to Otto Waste Systems in the amount of $58,150.00 topurchase additional garage containers in various sizes for Barrier Island residents who will have curb-side service starting April 1, 2012. Funding is available from 433-3711-534-49.90 (Sanitation Fund: Other Current Charges). 9. REGULAR AGENDA: A. APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/OFF THE AVE: Consider the appeal of an administrative interpretation by the City Manager that a sidewalk café cannot be established in a public space which is not a sidewalkfor Off the Ave located on SE 6th Avenue, south of Starbucks Coffee. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) B. WAIVER REQUEST/THE DELRAY BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY: Consider a request to waive Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.7(F)(3)(f), “Special Event Non-Roadway Banner Signing”, to allow the Delray Beach Public Library to erect two (2) Centennial Banners (6’ x 21’) on the south elevation of the building, facing Atlantic Avenue for a period of six (6) months; the beginning date may be selected by the Library. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) C. REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST/ROBERT GOLDSTEIN: Consider a request to reimburse Robert Goldstein in the amount of $13,161.85 for Plan Review fees paid upon the submission of a permit application for a new single family home on July 19, 2005. D. AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT/WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.: Consider a proposed Amendment No. 5 to the Franchise Agreement as requested by Waste Management, Inc. E. ADDITIONAL SCOPE/RANDOLPH & DEWDNEY CONSTRUCTION INC./POMPEY PARK CONCESSION STAND: Consider approval of additional scope for the Pompey Park Concession Stand project in the amount of $2,614.50 for Randolph & Dewdney Construction, Inc. for relocation and extension of existing low voltage conduit, and modification of all flat roof areas; and approval for the amount to be paid from the Contract's Contingency Allowance. F. RESOLUTION NO. 10-12/MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT: Consider approval of Resolution No. 10-12 amending Resolution No. 42-11 adopted September 20, 2011, which made appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the City of Delray Beach for the FY 2011/2012, by setting forth the anticipated revenues and expenditures for the operating funds of the City for FY 2011/2012. G. PARKING STUDY CHARETTE RESULTS H. 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 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC HEARING): Consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (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 penalties for same; amending Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, in order to amend the definition of “Transient Residential Use". B. 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 implementation of approvals. C. 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 Section 117.03, “Approval of Application”, to provide additional requirements; amending Section 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 alternate housing is provided. D. 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. 11. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE PUBLICIMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. B. From the Public. 12. FIRST READINGS: A. NONE 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: A. City Manager B. City Attorney C. City Commission WORKSHOP MEETING JANUARY 31, 2012 A Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall at 7:00 p.m., on Tuesday, January 31, 2012. Roll call showed: Present -Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent -None Also present were -David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie called the workshop meeting to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Item. WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA 1. Fiscal 2012 Budget Adjustment Mr. David T. Harden, City Manager, stated the Commission’s vote two weeks ago to not approve the fire service fee created a $3.2 million hole in the current budget and staff has been looking at ways to fill that and what the impact will be. The first thing looked at was what we are working against and what can be reduced. He stated he is working against the number of $92,000,615 and the final budget was $93,000,356. The difference was an increase in the Capital Improvement Program. He conducted a Power Point presentation regarding the budget: outlining what could be subtracted, contractual obligations and why certain things were not suggested to be cut. Mr. Harden stated the cuts presented are on a 12 month basis. Mayor McDuffie apologized for not attending the January 17, 2012 Commission meeting. Mr. Frankel thanked everyone for coming out and stated he has received emails. He also mentioned the fire assessment fee discussion from the last meeting. He stated he has always felt it should be flat rate for a fire service fee and not a tiered rate. Mr. Frankel stated this is something everyone can learn from and he appreciates the information from Mr. Harden and feels it should be placed on the website. He stated he is still for a flat rate but as a compromise maybe a two tiered system. However, he stated some cuts can be made. Mrs. Gray stated this is difficult because Police and Fire-Rescue are needed and so is Maintenance as well. She reiterated that everything needs to be looked at and she is willing to look at a fire assessment fee again with the understanding that if the fee is not approved cuts will have to be made. Mrs. Gray stated positions at the top can be looked at as well as assistant positions. The City Manager discussed what would be done if the fee is reconsidered. 2 January 31, 2012 Mr. Carney stated he is not in favor of the fire assessment fee and cuts can be made. He stated revenues can be derived from parking meters, special events and permit fees. A fire assessment fee and cuts may be a compromise; with Police and Fire included as well. Everyone should be in this together. Dr. Alperin stated he is never in favor of letting people go to balance a budget. He stated he voted in favor of the fee. He stated Commission has a responsibility to make cuts since the fee was voted down. He is still okay with a tiered rate. Dr. Alperin discussed items that can be cut from the Capital Improvement Program, reduction of the Fire-Rescue staff from 33 to 31, and freezing the five (5) positions in the Police Department. He stated if we go back to the fee it had better be a lot less than last time. Mayor McDuffie discussed elections and transient regulations. He explained property tax revenue. He mentioned the budget and the fire assessment fee. He stated he supports the fire assessment fee. Mayor McDuffie stated he is willing to discuss a compromise with the rest of the Commission regarding a tiered rate. Mr. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, discussed the timeline regarding the fire assessment fee. Mrs. Gray asked can the cuts be made before the fire assessment fee is reconsidered. Mr. Frankel proposed having another workshop meeting on Thursday, February 2, 2012. The Commission discussed the Capital Improvement Program. Mrs. Gray stated she is in favor of the cuts on the list regarding the Capital Improvement Program with the exception of what cannot be touched. The City Manager recommended taking some monies from reserves. Mr. Frankel stated it is very important not to close public facilities. Dr. Alperin suggested freezing the 5 positions in the Police Department and reducing Fire-Rescue staffing 33 to 31. Mr. Frankel stated the Code Red and Hometown Connection cuts save the city $32,150. The City Manager stated he will let Commission know what a flat fire assessment fee of $60 will generate. Commission directed staff to make 50% cuts and 50% fire assessment fee to cover the $3.2 million gap. The City Manager stated he will provide flat rate fire assessment fee examples for the Commission to consider. The Consensus of the Commission was to have another workshop meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, February 6, 2012. Mayor McDuffie adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 8:40 p.m. ________________________________ City Clerk 3 January 31, 2012 ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Workshop Meeting of the City Commission held on Tuesday, January 31, 2012, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on February 21, 2012. ________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may involve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. WORKSHOP MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 2012 A Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., on Monday, February 6, 2012. Roll call showed: Present -Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent -None Also present were -David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie called the workshop meeting to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Item. WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA 1. Fire Assessment Fee Alternatives Mr. David T. Harden, City Manager, presented this item discussing possible budget cut options to get to a $1.6 million reduction in expense in this year’s budget and additional revenue; a combination of the two. He recommended, since we are a third of the way into the budget year, taking 1/3 of this amount ($533,000) from prior year’s surplus. He went through the list of options for budget cuts. Mr. Harden discussed three different options for a two tiered system and a flat rate option at $60.00 for the fire assessment fee. He also referenced Boynton Beach’s hardship waiver language and process regarding fire assessment fee payments. Dr. Alperin stated he does not feel there are enough budget cuts before going to a compromise. He stated he also does not see any cuts for freezing positions in Police or reduction of staffing from 33 to 31 in Fire-Rescue. Mr. Harden stated he does not recommend those and explained why. He stated everything on that was on the initial list is there for Commission to consider. Dr. Alperin stated every capital project that is not underway should be delayed until October of the next fiscal year. He stated we probably can do it all. Consequently, it will be tough. He stated he does not want to see anyone lose a job but if it happens he feels all positions top and bottom should be looked at. Dr. Alperin stated a fire assessment fee can be instituted but it needs to go in with the budget. He stated Commission made a mistake and should bite the bullet and delay things for eight or nine more months and fix it. He stated the fee should be part of the fix but the millage should be compensated with that too. He stated the fire fee should not be brought back at this point in the budget year. Mr. Carney stated he agrees with what has been said by Dr. Alperin. He stated a budget should not be approved without having all funding sources in place. Commission made a mistake in going forward with the anticipation that a fire assessment fee could be used to balance the budget. He stated Commission’s role is to set policy. 2 February 6, 2012 He discussed the city’s reserves and stated we have a strong tax base and feels we should look at taking a million or so out of reserves to look at this, a million or so from capital improvement projects and a million of cuts internally through staff furloughs, curbing hiring, etc. Mr. Carney stated he does not support a fire assessment fee at this time because we have enough internally within our own current city budget, capital improvement projects and reserves to meet this immediate budget crisis. He stated he is bothered by the fact that there are 4,000 homes in Delray that pay nothing for their fire services and this does need to be addressed. Mrs. Gray stated she is not in agreement with the fire assessment fee because it is a tax. She is glad the City Manager and staff have looked at other things that can be cut and feels the capital improvement projects can be put on hold for a year. She stated other things can be cut as well. Mr. Frankel is in agreement with comments that mistakes have been made but feels others are being made tonight. He stated he was prepared to come to some compromise tonight but does not see any willingness. He stated he is ready to go through the list since the majority of the Commission feels we should cut. Mayor McDuffie stated all of five of them voted on the budget that included the fire fee. He stated we also bargained with the Police, Fire and the SEIU to give us money. He stated the Commission has a responsibility to the community and to the people who elected them. However, the city cannot be run without the people who work for the city. He stated everyone who works for the city takes a risk; and they should be rewarded based on the risk they take. He discussed having trust in the Mayor and Commission. He stated the budget was set four (4) months ago and the fire fee was a part of the budget and it was not a surprise. He stated no one came to the microphone to speak on this during the budget hearings. Mayor McDuffie stated he agrees that there are other ways to get from where we are now to an approved budget. The City Manager asked to take up to $1.5 million out of the prior year’s surplus and get the balance from other places. Dr. Alperin stated he feels it can be done with up to $1 million and discussed cuts as well as delaying capital projects. Mrs. Gray stated she agrees with Mr. Carney and Dr. Alperin. Mr. Frankel stated he was looking for some sort of compromise and feels he has not seen that tonight. He stated he agrees with Mayor McDuffie. He stated he does not blame Mr. Harden for this speaking in regards to some internet postings he has seen. He stated he blames the Commission. Mr. Frankel stated he supports taking up to $1.5 million out of reserves. Mrs. Gray stated she too supports taking up to $1.5 million out of reserves. Mr. Carney stated he supports taking up to $1.5 million out of reserves. Dr. Alperin stated this can be done with up to $1 million out of reserves and stated he hates touching reserves. Mayor McDuffie stated let staff do their job and agrees with taking up to $1.5 million out of reserves. Mrs. Gray asked is there something else that Dr. Alperin suggests. Dr. Alperin reiterated that there are things that can be cut without touching personnel. The Consensus of the Commission was to allow the City Manager to take up to $1.5 million out of reserves and make other cuts as he sees fit. 3 February 6, 2012 Mr. Harden stated staff will bring the budget amendment back to Commission on February 21, 2012. Mayor McDuffie adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 6:50 p.m. ________________________ ________ City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Workshop Meeting of the City Commission held on Monday, February 6, 2012, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on February 21, 2012. ________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may involve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. 02/07/12 FEBRUARY 7, 2012 A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 7, 2012. 1. Roll call showed: Present -Commissioner Tom Carney Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent -None 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 Rabbi Kanter with Temple Sinai. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. 4. AGENDA APPROVAL. Mayor McDuffie stated Item 9.D., Franchise Agreement/Waste Management, Inc. of the Regular Agenda has been postponed to the next regular meeting of February 21, 2012. Also, Mayor McDuffie stated Item 9.K., Direction on Fire Assessment Fee, has been removed from the Agenda. There is revised information on the dais for Item 12.A., Ordinance No. 04-12 and Item 12. D., Ordinance No. 08-12. Dr. Alperin moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 2 02/07/12 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 17, 2012, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 6. PROCLAMATIONS: 6.A. Recognizing 2-1-1 Awareness Week – February 11-17, 2012 Mayor McDuffie read and presented a proclamation hereby proclaiming the week of February 11, 2012-February 17, 2012 as 2-1-1 Awareness Week in the City of Delray Beach. Patricia Schroeder came forward to accept the proclamation and gave a few brief comments. 6.B. Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of Family Central, Inc. – February 11, 2012 Mayor McDuffie read a proclamation hereby proclaiming February 11, 2012 as Family Central 40th Year Anniversary in the City of Delray Beach and noted that it will be mailed. 7. PRESENTATIONS: 7.A. Presentation of Danielle Connor as the Newly Appointed Delray Beach Fire Chief Kerry Koen stated for 16 years he had the honor to be Fire Chief in Delray Beach and is honored to recognize Danielle Connor as the Newly Appointed 16th Fire Chief for the City of Delray Beach. Chief Connor came forward and gave a few brief comments. 7.B. S.P.I.R.I.T. (Service, Performance, Integrity, Responsibility, Innovation, Teamwork) Committee Quarterly Awards Presentation Jennifer Buce, SPIRIT Co-Chairperson, stated the S.P.I.R.I.T. Committee recognizes its employees for their exemplary actions in the following City core beliefs: providing exceptional service through performance by acting with integrity, being responsible, taking innovative action and practicing teamwork. Ms. Buce stated this is an opportunity for employees to recognize their fellow employees who work above and beyond the call of duty. The winners for the last quarter are: · Kevin Rummell presented the award to Detective Michael DeBree/Police Department 3 02/07/12 · Jennifer Buce presented the award to Detective James Finley/Police Department · Amy Alvarez presented the award to Rebecca Truxell/Planning & Zoning 7.C. CVS Caremark National League of Cities Prescription Discount Card Program Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated staff requests City Commission approval to launch a free Prescription Discount Card Program sponsored by the National League of Cities (NLC). Mrs. Butler stated the NLC Prescription Discount Card is designed to help residents with high cost of medications, the program offers savings on prescription drugs to residents who are without health insurance, a traditional benefits plan, or have prescriptions that are not covered by insurance. She stated the Prescription Discount Card is made available by two residents by the City in collaboration with the National League of Cities and is made possible through the partnership and membership that we have with the National League of Cities. Mrs. Butler stated the program is administered by CVS Caremark, the largest provider of prescriptions and related health care services in the nation and have been doing this program since 1992. The card is free to all Delray Beach residents regardless of age, income or existing health insurance. There is no cost to the City or residents to use the card. There are no enrollment fees and no membership fees. Mrs. Butler stated this program was brought to staff by Commissioner Gray when she went to the National Conference. Mrs. Butler stated Jennifer Costello is the coordinator for this program and the City is joining 45 other cities using this program. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. 8.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 located at 124 North Swinton within the Old School Square Historic District; and approve Resolution No. 07-12. The caption of Resolution No. 07-12 is as follows: 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) 4 02/07/12 SECTION 4.5.1(M)(5); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Resolution No. 07-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) 8.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 Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) building located at 5 S.E. 2nd Avenue. The caption of Resolution No. 06-12 is as follows: 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 EXHIBIT “A”, BUT RESERVING AND RETAINING TO THE CITY A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES OVER THE ENTIRE AREA THEREOF, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN. (The official copy of Resolution No. 06-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) 8.C. AGREEMENT EXTENSION/DR. JOHN FLETEMEYER/SEA TURTLE MONITORING SERVICES: Approve an agreement extension for three (3) years with Dr. John Fletemeyer in the amount of $38,750.00 for sea turtle monitoring services. Funding is available from 332-4164-572-34.90 (Beach Restoration Fund: Other Contractual Services). 8.D. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) FOR FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Interlocal Agreement with the Community Redevelopment 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. 8.E. AGREEMENTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES: Approve Agreements with Currie Sowards Aguila Architects, Walters Zackria & Associates, Inc., David Miller and Associates, Slattery & Associates and Bridges Marsh & Associates for architectural services for capital improvement projects contained in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 5 02/07/12 8.F. FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE DECLARATION OF RESERVED RIGHTS AND AGREEMENT NOT TO ENCUMBER N.E. 7TH AVENUE RELATED TO THE ATLANTIC PLAZA PROJECT: Approve the Fifth Amendment to the Declaration of Reserved Rights and Agreement not to Encumber N.E. 7th Avenue regarding the abandonment and relocation of N.E. 7th Avenue between N.E. 1st Street and East Atlantic Avenue, to extend the time frame to obtain site plan certification by 180 days. 8.G. FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCHANGE AGREEMENT/DEPOT INDUSTRIAL CENTER, LLC.: Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement to Exchange Real Property between the City and Depot Industrial Center, LLC. to extend the closing date to on or before February 29, 2012. 8.H. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT WITH DELRAY BEACH PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS & PARAMEDICS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION: Approve a Hold Harmless Agreement with Delray Beach Professional Firefighters & Paramedics Benevolent Association to store a 1929 Ford Model A at Fire Station 4. 8.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 Tennis Facilities. 8.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. and the City of Delray Beach in the amount of $100,000.00 for funding to purchase and install a replacement sound system for the Old School Square Pavilion. 8.K. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period January 17, 2012 through February 3, 2012. 8.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). Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 6 02/07/12 9. REGULAR AGENDA: 9.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 South, located at 1717 Homewood Boulevard. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) Mayor McDuffie read the City of Delray Beach Quasi-Judicial Hearing rules into the record for this item and all subsequent Quasi-Judicial items. Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mayor McDuffie asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte 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 #2011-212 into the record. Mr. Dorling stated this item is for consideration of a waiver to allow a reduction from 100 feet to 80 feet for the stacking distance and this requirement is associated with the location of a new guardhouse at Abbey Delray. He stated there is about 80 feet before you hit the internal street that requires the waiver from the 100 foot requirement. The required findings that are necessary to approve this are made in the staff report LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Staff is recommending approval of this waiver because two inbound lanes exist (as opposed to only one); one lane is devoted to owners (unrestricted) and their entry will be continuous (i.e., remote control); S.W. 17th Circle is a loop road that serves exclusively to this development (approximately 20 single family dwelling units) and the anticipated traffic volume that would impact this area will be minimal. Mr. Dorling stated 17th Circle is a private road to the public road at Homewood Boulevard and there is more than 160 foot stacking and in this case staff believes the waiver should be granted. Jim Ballinger, Architect, stated they are developing the design of the guardhouse as well as other additions to Abbey Delray and is present for any questions the Commission may have. Mayor McDuffie asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the waiver request, to please come forward at this time. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding the waiver request, to please come forward. There was no rebuttal or cross-examination. 7 02/07/12 The City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the Commission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the minutes). Mr. Carney moved to adopt the Board Order as presented, seconded by Dr. Alperin. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.B. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST/SWINTON SOCIAL: Consider a conditional use request to permit outdoor dining to operate at night at Swinton Social located at 27-43 South Swinton Avenue, as required for properties located within the Old School Square Historic Arts District. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mayor McDuffie asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte communications. Mr. Frankel stated he met with the applicant and received maps and other artists renderings about this project. Mrs. Gray stated she had no ex parte communications to disclose. Mayor McDuffie stated he met with the Principles for this project and went over the site plan and was given a set of site plans to take home. Mr. Carney stated he had no meetings but remembers seeing a site plan. Dr. Alperin stated he had a discussion with Bob Currie a while back. Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered the Planning and Zoning Department project file #2012-038 into the record. Mr. Dorling stated this is for consideration of a conditional use request to permit outdoor dining at night for 27-43 South Swinton Avenue located in the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) zoning district. Currently, there are four onestory frame vernacular homes built between 1937 and 1950. On November 7, 2011, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class V Site Plan for the adaptive reuse of the structures from single-family residential to spa and restaurant uses. Mr. Dorling stated the outdoor dining during daylight hours is permitted in the OSSHAD; however, if you request outdoor dining at night it is only permitted as a conditional use and is hence the application before the Commission. He stated this request would provide dining at night for the sidewalk café area and some outdoor areas behind the structures. The outside seating will be 25 seats at the poolside bar, 12 seats between the roof connecting the café and poolside bar and 56 seats behind the kitchen. The outdoor dining for this project has been deemed not to have a detrimental effect upon the stability of the neighborhood. However, it does have the potential to create an impact on the surrounding area due to the added seats particularly with the sidewalk café without providing additional parking spaces. Mr. Dorling stated there are some challenges with providing adequate parking. He stated this site has 7 parking spaces on-site and has an off-site parking valet lot of 26 spaces and an off-site 8 02/07/12 parking lot on a yearly lease for an additional 40 at this location. He stated the parking is not ideal and the intensification of this outside dining creates some concerns from staff. Mr. Dorling stated staff has added a condition (#6) that if the conditional use for outdoor dining at night results in pedestrian or vehicular congestion for which more than three (3) Code Enforcement violations and/or civil violations are issued, the conditional use for outdoor dining at night shall be reconsidered and possibly rescinded. He stated staff will stand by their concerns that if in fact they do not create and undo impact then they should be able to continue and if not because it is a conditional use it is a valid condition. At its meeting of January 18, 2012, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) considered this item and included that as a condition; at its meeting of January 23, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board also considered this item and recommended approval subject to the six (6) conditions which includes this condition; at its meeting of January 12, 2012, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) recommended approval. Staff recommends approval subject to the six (6) conditions listed on page three of the City Commission backup. Robert Currie, Architect with Currie Sowards Aguila Architects, 134 N.E. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated they have been before many Boards with approvals unanimously up until this conditional use. Mr. Currie expressed concern over condition #6 because this leaves his client in limbo and he cannot get financing. He stated what if the traffic conditions are such that the City is having an event and asked what traffic we are talking about. Mr. Currie stated in terms of pedestrian access they are not even on the public sidewalk. He stated they are not going to be driving with their valet on Atlantic Avenue because they have it all contained to the south. Mr. Currie stated it appears to him that Code violations have their own remedy with penalties involved and asked why they should have another penalty on top of another penalty. Mr. Currie urged the Commission to rescind condition #6 because they will save historic buildings, get rid of a blighted area, and will help the redevelopment to the south. Mayor McDuffie stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the conditional use request, to please come forward at this time. No one from the public came forward to address the Commission regarding the conditional use request. There was no rebuttal or cross-examination. Mr. Frankel commented about condition #6 and asked if there is any other business or restaurant that presently has that condition in the city. Mr. Dorling stated there was a conditional use approved for a restaurant out on Military Trail and the City did exercise that option. Mr. Dorling stated it was a nightclub venue that got out of hand and there were some shootings in the parking lot, etc. Mr. Currie stated the condition was because of fighting and some dangerous shooting, etc. Mr. Currie stated he hopes to clean up this area. 9 02/07/12 Mr. Frankel stated he is okay with conditions #1-5. Dr. Alperin asked if the Commission waived some parking requirements on the initial approval. Mr. Dorling stated there was a waiver to provide the parking onsite and the waiver requested was for 20 spaces not to be waived outright rather that they be allowed to be accommodated by an alternative means via valet parking. Mr. Dorling stated there was also a requirement that a valet parking agreement be provided for the balance of the spaces. He stated there were 27 spaces that were allowed to be off-site and there was an additional 20 that was required. Mr. Dorling reiterated that it was a waiver to on-site parking but not to the waiver of the parking overall. Dr. Alperin asked how many spaces would have been required. Mr. Dorling stated 53 spaces would accommodate these two areas. Mr. Carney concurs with comments expressed by Commissioner Frankel and asked what the source of condition #6 was. Mr. Dorling stated staff has concern with the functionality of the parking that has been provided. He stated technical they have provided the number of parking they are required to have but a lot in this remote location functionally and staff believes will not work. Mr. Dorling stated there were some other locations that they had offered that were 2-3 blocks remote. Mr. Carney asked what the congestion is that staff is worried about. Mr. Dorling stated the language in condition #6 was crafted out of the language which exists for sidewalk cafés and the concern is that if in fact you have a very remote parking lot and the valet system does not work because you are running two blocks back and forth with each car and even though there are seven spots on-site but it is very easy for that to be backed up into Swinton Avenue and if you intensify that during peak hours in the evening with additional outside dining he wanted an avenue for the City should it become a problem to say we need to relook at this. Mr. Carney asked if financial penalties should be as effective in curving abuse. Dr. Alperin stated on the conditions #6 says “violations in a 12 month period”. With regard to the rescission language, Mr. Carney stated he understands why staff wants the authority but he expressed concern over others bringing complaints that may not be bonafide. Brief discussion between staff, Mr. Currie and the Commission followed. Mr. Currie stated they received site plan approval prior to the conditional use request. Mrs. Gray asked if there is a barrier wall where the outside dining is or does it abut to the sidewalk. Mr. Currie stated since the character of the buildings are historic so they maintain that with entrances and a picket fence around the dining with landscaping. Mr. Currie stated the dining internal is under a roof; however, it is considered outside dining because there is no permanent wall there. Mrs. Gray commented about the public parking on the outside and asked how many spaces are there. Mr. Currie stated there are 10 spaces but they are not counting any of that and in terms of the valet there are only 7 spaces there (22 feet long) but you can fit 22 cars there. Mr. Frankel asked how outdoor dining is related to any pedestrian or 10 02/07/12 vehicle traffic and has only been applied once to a restaurant with shootings he has never heard of on Military Trail it does not seem fair. Dr. Alperin asked if we can rescind the approval if they violate the condition. The City Attorney stated this would be a Code Enforcement process unless we specifically put it into the condition that this could be subject to rescission. Dr. Alperin asked what would happen if they continue to violate it. The City Attorney stated if it is not a condition of the conditional use then it would be a Code Enforcement process and that is the way it would be handled. Mayor McDuffie stated Code Enforcement comes in something has happened, they are cited and they are fined. He stated there was discussion about people downtown that would rather pay the fine and at that point Mayor McDuffie stated then our fines are too low. Mayor McDuffie stated if that is the case we need to elevate the fines to the point where we get somebody’s attention and they stop doing things like that. Mayor McDuffie stated this is a major stumbling block to a project that is otherwise a tremendous asset to South Swinton Avenue and this community. The City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the Commission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the minutes). The City Attorney stated it is the Commission’s direction that staff removes condition #6. Mr. Frankel moved to adopt the Board Order subject to the conditions provided on Exhibit “A” (conditions #1-5), seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. At this point, the time being 7:11 p.m., the Commission moved to the duly advertised Public Hearings portion of the Agenda. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.A. ORDINANCE NO. 03-12 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): Consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (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 penalties 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. The caption of Ordinance No. 03-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4.3.3, “SPECIFIC 11 02/07/12 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; AMENDING APPENDIX “A”, “DEFINITIONS”, IN ORDER TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE”; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 03-12 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. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is a cityinitiated amendment to the LDRs which will amend the prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers and penalties for transient residential uses; and will amend the definition of transient residential uses. The existing transient residential use definition includes those dwelling units in both single-family and multi-family zoning districts which have a turnover rate of more than six times per year. He stated this is being modified to include dwelling units that turn over in occupancy more than three times a year in single family and PRD (Planned Residential Development) zone districts. Mr. Dorling stated the definition is further being modified to clarify that the turnover rate refers to the entire dwelling unit or any part thereof regardless of how it is segmented. The transient residential uses that would exist and become non-conforming by virtue of this new definition change would be allowed to continue for 12 months after the effective date of the ordinance. At its meeting of December 19, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the item and recommended approval with a 7 to 0 vote subject to three conditions. These conditions including changing references to whereas clauses in the ordinance to reference the 2010 census, clarify that the ordinance applied to dwelling units and any part thereof. The Board also recommended lowering the allowed turnover rate from three times a year to two times a year. Mr. Dorling stated the first two conditions have been incorporated in the ordinance and reducing the allowed turnover rate from three times a year to two times a year has not been changed. Staff recommends approval. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Christina Morrison, 2809 Florida Boulevard Apt. #207, Delray Beach, FL 33483, supports preserving the R1 zoning for single-family use only. Ms. Morrison stated the City should do everything possible to legally preserve single-family 12 02/07/12 neighborhoods. Bob Ganger, President of the Florida Coalition for Preservation, supports the proposed amendments. Mr. Ganger thanked the Commission and staff for taking the issue of transient housing very seriously and for listening to both sides. He read a brief statement into the record. McCall Credle Rosenthal, 817 Lake Avenue North, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (President of La Hacienda Neighborhood), stated if the Commission passes this ordinance she hopes they will factor in the need for more support for the City such as more Code Enforcement especially at night. Ms. Rosenthal stated we need Police, Fire and Code Enforcement to handle this. Al Jacquet, 236 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, thanked the Commission for their hard work on this issue and stated this is about transient homes. Mr. Jacquet stated these are people who come here temporarily so we have to protect our neighborhoods from that. He stated he lives in Osceola Park and when the kids are coming and going to school there are people speeding down the road, loud music, late nights and it is not a safe place for people to raise their families. Mr. Jacquet stated the transient housing affects the neighborhoods in a negative way. Pat Archer, 580 Sherwood Forest Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33445, stated by definition transient housing is a business that provides homes to unrelated individuals and the high turnover is not a normal living situation. She stated this type of business is exceptionally disruptive to a single-family neighborhood. Mrs. Archer stated transient housing does not belong in a single-family neighborhood. Lanie Lewis, President of the Lake Ida Property Homeowners’ Association (lived in Lake Ida for 34 years), urged the Commission to pass this ordinance to keep the transient housing out of the single-family neighborhoods. Ms. Lewis stated she has seen a lot of good and a lot of bad in Delray and these transient houses are not the good. She stated she supported the fire assessment tax and wished the Commission voted for it. Richard & Carmen Sasso, 1042 Seaspray Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated at some point we need to encourage the enforcement of this ordinance. Mr. Sasso stated he has reviewed Section 10.99 of the Code of Ordinances and it appears very limited in terms of the penalty ($500) that could be provided to someone for violating the ordinances that the City is trying to amend. Mr. Sasso suggested that staff come up with a three strike rule that if residents are looking around the neighborhood and see that there are violations and call for enforcement and a penalty is imposed of $500, that after three strikes that they have to be taken out of the neighborhood. Cary Glickstein, 1118 Waterway Lane, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated as a rental homeowner in this city he fully supports the reductions approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board was unanimous in 13 02/07/12 supporting the proposed rental turnover reductions to two and six for single-family and multi-family zoned properties. Mr. Glickstein stated as a developer that has built over 10,000 homes not one of those homes was ever sold without leasing restrictions at least as restrictive as what Planning and Zoning approved because it preserves neighborhood integrity and both design and tenancy restrictions improve property values. Mr. Glickstein urged the Commission to support the restrictions approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Kristine Dehaseth, Executive Director of the Florida Coalition for Preservation, stated they represent people from Manalapan through Delray Beach and their main goal is to educate the general population and citizenry of compelling issues that affect us all. She applauded the Commission for tackling this issue and encouraged the Commission to approve these amendments as the first step in trying to regain control of the single-family neighborhoods. Mary Renault, President of the Property Owners’ Association (BPOA), stated the BPOA represents 1,800 homes on the barrier island and they are also a member of a larger group that has formed recently to represent all of Delray Beach homeowners. Ms. Renault thanked the Commission for addressing this issue of transient housing in single-family neighborhoods with such expediency and thanked the City Attorney’s office. She stated the BPOA strongly supports for the proposal before the Commission that reasonably limit the turnover rate of rentals in the single-family neighborhoods. Ms. Renault stated a rapid rental turnover of unrelated residents in their neighborhoods reduces the quality and safety they long to have for their families and children. She stated the citizens of each neighborhood would be eager to do whatever it takes to help the city control this out-of-control issue. Andy Katz, 220 South Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33483, speaking on behalf of the BPOA, urged the Commission and other City departments to apply the reasonable limits being considered for protecting single-family neighborhoods to also apply to clusters of single-family homes that are located in residential neighborhoods that are zoned RM (Medium Density Residential). Mr. Katz stated transient residential use housing is designated for large number of unrelated residents living in single family homes with those residents. He stated they are considering all group type homes such as executive retreats, college fraternities, church groups, groups of all types of unrelated adults. Mr. Katz stated certain business organizations are operating what are “boarding houses” in single family neighborhoods throughout the city by selective use of interpretations of various federal acts. He urged the Commission evaluate everything with transient residential use in light of the boarding house definition. Steven Alport, 1149 Beach Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (for 8 years and stated he is part of a grass root coalition of approximately 100 single family homeowners in the beach area), thanked the Commission and staff for clarifying the 14 02/07/12 original ordinance and for working so diligently in 2008 and 2009 on this ordinance. Mr. Alport stated he opposes any commercial encroachment into their single family residence area with a continuous turnover of people and services. He supports this ordinance as a first step in protecting our homes but also in protecting the entire community. Rosalind Cross, 414 Andrews Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (a resident of Delray Beach since 1971 and has owned her home since 1990 and plans to her Delray home and currently resides in New Jersey), objects to the adoption of the ordinance as it is written restricting leasing to single families in single family neighborhoods. Ms. Cross stated historically Delray has welcomed these visitors and allowed single family leases in single family neighborhoods whether for a week, two weeks, a month or a season. She stated several of her guests have purchased multimillion dollar homes in her neighborhood and her neighbors fighting for this ordinance have leased her house when they have renovated their own homes. She expressed concern about the growing non-taxpaying and non-involved transient community created by single family homes leased to multiple unrelated individuals at the same time. Ms. Cross stated the proposed mixes two dissimilar activities and unfairly discriminates against the long standing use of her home which she feels has only benefited Delray Beach. Ms. Cross entered into the record booklets containing her written remarks tonight, her December 30, 2011 email to the Commission, and pictures of her home on Andrews Avenue. Gary Eliopoulos, 314 N.W. 7th Street, Delray Beach, FL 33444, thanked the Commission for making this a priority and the City Attorney’s office for looking at every possible way we can try and protect our citizens and the property values in Delray Beach along with the single family zoning. Mr. Eliopoulos expressed concern over the reasonable accommodation process and how it is being approved. He feels we should not only look at protecting the residents but protecting those types of uses. Mr. Eliopoulos stated transient lodging should be in RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning or something else. He stated when you go to a community where they have vacation homes they apply life safety issues. Mr. Eliopoulos stated no one is monitoring or checking fire codes of these transient houses. He stated this would also protect the single family homes next to them in case of a fire, etc. that occurs in these homes. Mr. Eliopoulos urged the Commission to look at those type of things to reassure not only we can minimize the reasonable accommodations coming into the neighborhood or have a limit per year. Jim Zengage, 1223 Sandoway Lane, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (property owner for over 25 years and has had several rental house in the area), stated he has never leased or rented one of his properties for less than a year. Mr. Zengage stated he wholeheartedly supports this ordinance. There being one else from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding Ordinance No. 03-12, the public hearing was closed. 15 02/07/12 Mr. Carney moved to approve Ordinance No. 03-12 on First Reading/First Public Hearing, seconded by Dr. Alperin. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.B. RESOLUTION NO. 08-12/CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE/210 N.E. 5TH COURT: Consider approval of Resolution No. 08-12, a contract for sale and purchase, authorizing the City to sell the Neighborhood Stabilization Program property located at 210 N.E. 5th Court to Paul Milne and Jennifer Hong Dubowy in the amount of the lesser of $208,000.00 or the bank appraised value. The caption of Resolution No. 08-12 is as follows: 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 ACCEPTING THE CONTRACT STATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA. (The official copy of Resolution No. 08-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) 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. Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated this request is to sell one of the homes purchased under the City’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) located at 210 N.E. 5th Court to eligible homebuyers Paul Milne and Jennifer Hong Dubowy for the purchase of the price of the lesser of $208,000 or the bank appraised value. Mrs. Butler stated the NSP property is designed to purchase foreclosed property or abandoned homes. The City will take them and resell them to other homebuyers. Mrs. Butler stated the program is designed to benefit low, moderate, and middle income households. She stated the income limit cannot exceed 120% of the area median income (AMI). Staff recommends the sale of this home to eligible homebuyers Paul Milne and Jennifer Hong Dubowy in the amount of $208,000 or the bank appraised value. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding Resolution No. 08-12, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Frankel moved to approve Resolution No. 08-12, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray 16 02/07/12 – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. At this point, the Commission moved to Item 11, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public-Immediately following Public Hearings. 11.A. City Manager’s response to prior public comments and inquiries. The City Manager had no response to prior public comments and inquiries. 11.B. From the Public. 11.B.1. Patrice Lieb, 5280 Las Verdes Circle Apt. #223, Delray Beach, FL, stated she has taken great advantage of the two pools that the City has and it has been the major source of her health. Ms. Lieb stated since retiring she has had several operations and it is the services that she has received from the wonderful staff at these pools that keeps her going. Ms. Lieb has heard that the City may close the pools because of budget cuts and urged the Commission to not close the pools. 11.B.2. Yvonne Odom, 3905 Lowson Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33445, stated the alternative to the fact that the City is losing revenue and the programs that the City would have to cut she does not wish to compromise the safety, welfare, or the recreational life they have come to expect from Delray Beach. Ms. Odom stated the alternative is unacceptable. She stated the Straghn Center is on the list of potential cuts and her children called it the “Tuck Center” after Mr. Tucker who was there for so long and that is where they played and grew up. She stated special events such as the parades define Delray Beach. Ms. Odom stated the City has to find more revenue and as a resident she is willing to pay the cost to support these programs. Ms. Odom stated she travels with her husband’s baseball team traveling in cities throughout the south area and in Florida. She stated Delray Beach by far exceeds any of those cities that they have ever played in especially what is traditionally historically has been an African-American community. Ms. Odom stated the residents who come here applaud our facilities. Ms. Odom urged the Commission to do a bare minimal tax in such that will make a maximum benefit to the employees and the citizens. 11.B.3. Ingrid Botero, 1353 Gallinule Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated she lives by the swim center and her sons have been taking swim lessons for two years. Ms. Botero stated she gave her children very expensive swim lessons prior to that and her children do not remember anything. However, Ms. Botero stated the care and the desire to teach that the lifeguards at the Delray Swim and Tennis Center have has no price. She stated it is valuable and her children look forward to it. She stated many residents in her neighborhood do not have pools and the ones that do cannot use them in the winter because they are not heated. Ms. Botero urged the Commission to keep the pool open. 11.B.4. Herman Goodman, 238 S.W. 14th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated he needs help with his neighborhood because there is everything from shootings, 17 02/07/12 drug dealing, and fighting etc. Mr. Goodman stated he has called the Police Department about 11 times in the last year to report shots being fired. He urged the Commission to help him on that street he would appreciate it. 11.B.5. Darryl Jones, 302 N.W. 10th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (employed by the City of Delray Beach working at Delray Swim and Tennis Center), stated he just started working at the main pool at Pompey Park and stated that pool does make money and many people frequent the pool because of the area that it is in. Mr. Jones stated for a long time the City did not have any signs for people to know where that pool is but through time and word of mouth they got a lot of people to find that location. He stated many elderly utilize the pool for the water aerobics, etc. and being able to use the pool makes them happy. Mr. Jones stated a couple of years ago they had a petition circulating because the pool was closed for one day. He stated the revenue from that pool helps Pompey Park and noted that the pool at one time made more money in swim lessons alone than the main pool. Mr. Jones asked Commission to give it a chance to work before the pool is shut down. 11.B.6. Gerard Smith, Aquatics Supervisor for the City of Delray Beach, speaking on behalf of staff, stated hopefully the City can find a way to shift the money around to make sure that they can keep their current staff. Mr. Smith stated they are working hard to increase the programming and being innovative to the community with the jobs they have to do. He invited the Commission to come to some of the programs so they can see the impact that they are doing on the community. At this point, the time being 8:01 p.m. the Commission moved back to Item 9.C. of the Regular Agenda. 9.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. 2nd Avenue. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mayor McDuffie asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte communications. The Commission had no ex parte communications to disclose. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this item is a request from the Grove Restaurant for the purchase of three (3) in-lieu parking spaces. The Grove Restaurant submitted a Class III site plan modification for conversion of use from retail to restaurant at 187 N.E. 2nd Avenue (Pineapple Grove Way). The conversion would require the difference to be provided between retail and restaurant and would require three (3) parking spaces. Mr. Dorling stated the LDRs allow you to entertain payment of in-lieu fee upon a finding that adequate public parking is available and that the request is consistent with the LDRs, the Comprehensive Plan and other City policies 18 02/07/12 and/or studies. He stated this property is located within Area 3 of the in-lieu fee program and requires a fee of $7,800 per space for a total of $23,400 which needs to be paid in full upon the issuance of a building permit. This property is within one block of the Old School Square Garage and is next to a recently approved valet located next door. Mr. Dorling stated the required findings can be made in this case. The Pineapple Grove Main Street Board, Community Redevelopment Agency, Downtown Development Authority, and the Parking Management Advisory Board recommended approval at their respective meetings. Staff recommends approval for the purchase of three (3) in-lieu parking spaces at a cost of $23,400 to be paid in full prior to the issuance of a building permit. There was no applicant present. Mayor McDuffie stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the request, to please come forward at this time. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding the request for inlieu parking spaces, the public hearing was closed. The City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the Commission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the minutes). Dr. Alperin moved to adopt the Board Order as presented, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.D. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. 9.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 of the Mangrove Park Boat Ramp Reconstruction Project. Funding is available 334-4174-572-63.90 (General Construction Fund/Improvements Other/Other Improvements). Richard Hasko, Director of Environmental Services, stated this is a contract closeout (Change Order No. 3/Final) for Murray Logan Construction, Inc. for the Mangrove Park Boat Ramps. Mr. Hasko stated the Reconstruction Project was funded entirely by grant money from Florida Inland Navigational District (F.I.N.D.) and the Fishing Wildlife Commission. Mr. Hasko stated the project actually came in $15,229.90 under budget. He stated the ramps are complete and are open. Mr. Hasko stated staff is confident that anyone who has had any experience with launching a boat really should not have a problem with these ramps now. 19 02/07/12 Mr. Carney stated this is a very good start and encouraged staff to come in with decreases every time they come in with contracts. Dr. Alperin moved to approve the Contract Closeout (C.O. No. 3/Final)/Murray Logan Construction, Inc., seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.F. CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 (C.O. NO. 2)/INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC.: Consider approval of Change Order No. 2 to Intercounty 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 additional scope, for removal of 1,300 additional linear feet of 2" water main for the Osceola Park Water Main Phase 2 Project #2010-082. Richard Hasko, Director of Environmental Services, stated this is a request for Commission approval to spend $10,400.00 out of the contracts utility allowance for removal of additional two inch water main. Mr. Hasko stated the water main is out of service and this project was in the Osceola Park neighborhood done in two phases and this is one of the types of scope additions for which staff puts utility allowances in the contract. He stated staff knew that there was old two inch abandoned water main particularly in the alleys in this neighborhood that had been abandoned in place years ago. Mr. Hasko stated whenever they run across that they want to pull it out for the benefit of future planning purposes and maintenance, etc. He stated it is not cost effective to locate where it is because it is not really important where it is but when staff runs across it they want to remove it. Mr. Hasko stated staff puts the utility allowances in the contract to accommodate those kinds of costs. Mr. Carney moved to approve Change Order No. 2 to Intercounty Engineering, Inc. for a contract time extension of 14 days and approval for the amount of $10,400.00, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.G. BID AWARD/ACCURATE EVENT GROUP: Consider approval of a bid award to Accurate Event Group in an amount not to exceed $34,102.07 for private security services from February 24, 2012 through March 5, 2012 for the Champions/World Tour Tennis Tournament and authorize staff to negotiate a lower price. Funding is available from 001-4210-575-55.40 (General Fund: Recreational Supplies/Tennis Tournament). Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated this is a request for Commission to approve a bid award to Accurate Event Group in the amount not to exceed $34,102.07 for private security services from February 24, 2012 through March 5, 2012 for the Champions/World Tour Tennis Tournament and authorize staff to negotiate a lower price. Mr. Barcinski stated per the terms of the agreement the City is required to 20 02/07/12 provide the City police staff as well as security as well as private security. He stated the low bidder staff thoroughly researched and do not feel that they have the sufficient experience to do an event of this size. The second low bidder who performed last year had less than a good performance and therefore staff recommends Accurate. Dr. Alperin moved to approve the bid award to Accurate Event Group not to exceed the amount of $34,102.07 and authorize staff to negotiate a lower price, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.H. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/ASIAN TRADE, FOOD FAIR AND CULTURAL SHOW: Consider approval of a special event request to allow 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 the closure and use of a portion of N.E. 1st Avenue, to authorize staff support for traffic control and security, site cleanup and trash removal, EMS assistance, standard event signage and assistance with banner hanging; use of the Old School Square Garage, City generator, four light towers, and trash boxes; and to waive the Event Policies and Procedures to allow more than two (2) major events in March; contingent upon meeting the conditions listed in the staff report. Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated this is a request to consider approval of the 19th Asian Trade Food Fair and Cultural Show being held on March 24 and 25, 2012 on the grounds of Old School Square from noon to 10:00 p.m. on the grounds of Old School Square and in the Old School Square Park. Mr. Barcinski stated the Commission is requested to grant a temporary use permit for the closure and use of a portion of N.E. 1st Avenue, to authorize staff support for traffic control and security, site cleanup and trash removal, EMS assistance, regular event signage and assistance with banner hanging. The event sponsor has also requested the use of the CRA parking lot, Old School Square Garage for vendors, VIP’s and sponsors, City generator, four (4) light towers, and trash boxes. Mr. Barcinski stated per the City’s event policies and procedures this would be the third major event in a month and per the City’s event policies and procedures states that the City is allowed two plus a tennis tournament. Therefore, the Commission would have to waive that provision. Mr. Barcinski stated there will be an admission charge of $10.00. Staff objects to the 175 spaces and recommends 70 spaces. The estimated staff overtime for the event is $11,207, trash boxes $245, signage $250, and light towers $1,000 for a total of $12,702. The event producer will be required to pay 75% of overtime and 100% of other costs for an estimated total of $9,900. Mr. Frankel stated he recognizes that this is a great festival. However, going forward especially after the discussions over the last couple of weeks due to the 21 02/07/12 fact that everyone wants to come to Delray and this is the third major event including the tennis tournament in March, he feels these groups need to start paying 100%. Mrs. Gray asked how many more festivals does the City have left for this year. Mr. Barcinski stated the City has the Garlic Festival this weekend, the tennis tournament starting the last weekend in February through the first weekend in March., the weekend after that is the Twilight Criterium Bicycle Race, the weekend after that is St. Patrick’s Day Parade, the next weekend would be the Asian Trade, Food Fair and Cultural Show, there would be a two week break then would be the Delray Affair (April), then in May is Cinco de Mayo, then the 4th of July would be the next big event, September the City now has the Hispanic Festival, the EVP (Extreme Volleyball Professional) Tour, and he received another application for a Music Festival for one day in September. Mrs. Gray asked which festivals have been approved. Mr. Barcinski stated the events that have been approved at the 75% level are the Garlic Festival, the Delray Affair, and St. Patrick’s Day but the rest of them are 100% payment to the City. Mr. Carney concurs with comments expressed by Commissioner Frankel that on a going forward basis that the City needs to address the policy and everyone should be paying 100% of the overtime costs. Dr. Alperin concurred with comments expressed by Commissioner Carney. After brief discussion, it as the consensus of the Commission to give staff direction to bring the policy back in order to reflect the change that all the events pay 100% of the costs. Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Special Event Request to allow the 19th Annual Asian Trade, Food Fair and Cultural Show to be held on March 24-25, 2012, subject to the conditions listed on page two of the staff report, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to revise the City’s Special Events Policy to require that all future events pay 100% of the overtime costs and bring back to the City Commission for approval. 9.I. OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN SONDRA COMISAR v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Consider an Offer of Settlement in the total amount of $27,500.00 in Sondra Comisar v. City of Delray Beach. Staff recommends approval. The City Attorney stated this is a trip and fall that occurred on Atlantic 22 02/07/12 Avenue. The Plaintiff has had surgeries on her elbow and incurred a medical cost to date of approximately $28,000.00. The City Attorney stated they have offered to settle the case for $27,500.00. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Carney moved to approve the Offer of Settlement in the amount of $27,500.00 in Sondra Comisar v. City of Delray Beach, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.J. OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN RICHARD WEINSTEIN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JASON WEINSTEIN, DECEASED v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Consider an Offer of Settlement in the total amount of $25,000.00 in Richard Weinstein, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jason Weinstein, Deceased v. City of Delray Beach. The City Attorney stated this is a drowning that occurred north of Atlantic Dunes Park in 2008. The City Attorney stated the City has outside counsel for this and Risk Management and their third party adjuster was recommends approval. The City Attorney stated they have offered to settle for $25,000.00 and the City would incur costs to defend it in excess of $30,000.00. Mrs. Gray moved to approve the Offer of Settlement in the total amount of $25,000.00 in Richard Weinstein, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jason Weinstein, Deceased v. City of Delray Beach, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the City Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.K. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. 9.L. APPOINTMENT TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD: Appoint one (1) alternate member to the Code Enforcement Board to serve an unexpired term ending January 14, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Carney (Seat #1). Mr. Carney moved to appoint Jason Whiteman as an alternate member to the Code Enforcement Board to serve an unexpired term ending January 14, 2013, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.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). Mayor McDuffie stated he would like to defer his appointment to the next 23 02/07/12 regular meeting of February 21, 2012. At this point, the time being 8:21 p.m., the Commission moved to Item 12, First Readings. 12. FIRST READINGS: 12.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 implementation of approvals. If passed, a public hearing will be held on February 21, 2012. The caption of Ordinance No. 04-12 is as follows: 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 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 IMPLEMENTATION OF APPROVALS ; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 04-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is an LDR amendment that will provide clarification with respect to the current information requested on the “Request Form for Reasonable Accommodation”. Mr. Dorling stated it will provide a reasonable accommodation request and this information is necessary to appropriately consider reasonable accommodation requests. He stated while the ordinance is general in scope the form is very specific. Mr. Dorling stated there has been a slight change in the ordinance since the Planning and Zoning Board considered it and the revised copy is before the Commission this evening. Mr. Dorling stated the form has 24 02/07/12 been simplified after consultation with outside counsel and the form now more closely mirrors the form contained on the Department of Justice website. At its meeting of January 23, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval with a 7 to 0 vote. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Frankel moved to approve Ordinance No. 04-12 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 12.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 hearing will be held on February 21, 2012. The caption of Ordinance No. 06-12 is as follows: 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 CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 06-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Peter Anuar, Senior Landscape Planner gave a brief PowerPoint presentation regarding the changes to the landscape code. Mr. Anuar stated staff held a roundtable discussion with local landscape architects, architects, engineers to discuss the deficiencies and the possible changes to the landscape code in January 2011. Staff presented those proposed changes to the following boards: Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB), the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), the Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS), the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC). All boards recommended approval and any comments that were made by the boards were incorporated into the landscape code. Staff presented those revised changes to the Planning and Zoning Board on November 21, 2011, and after significant discussion the Board tabled the ordinance with comments and revisions that they want to see in the landscape code. The ordinance was before the Planning and Zoning Board on January 23, 2012 at which time they recommended approval with a 6 to 1 vote (Al Jacquet dissenting). 25 02/07/12 Dr. Alperin moved to approve Ordinance No. 06-12 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 12.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 and 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. The caption of Ordinance No. 07-12 is as follows: 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”, SUBSUBSECTION 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. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 07-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this modifies LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(c), “Bicycle Parking” and enact new definitions for short, medium, and long term parking facilities. Mr. Dorling stated the City of Delray Beach Parking Management Plan, dated August 2010, recommends that modifications be made to the City’s bicycle parking requirements. These modifications include expanding on the current bicycle parking requirements to a citywide basis as well as expanding the requirement to include more land uses than are currently listed (currently limited to shopping centers, fast food restaurants, government offices, community centers, private recreation facilities and non-residential uses with the City’s TCEA (Transportation Concurrency Area. This LDR amendment expands the bicycle parking requirements citywide and assigns requirements that correspond with 5% (residential) and 10% 26 02/07/12 (commercial, office and industrial) of the vehicular parking requirement for any particular use. At its meeting of January 9, 2012, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed the item and tabled it. The DDA expressed concerns that no parking would be provided if the use required less than 10 (commercial, office and industrial) or 20 (residential) vehicle parking spaces. This is not the case and additional clarifying has been added to require a minimum of one space under both 10 and 20 vehicle spaces. At its meeting of January 10, 2012, the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed the item and recommended approval subject to conditions. These include recommendations that incentives be offered for existing businesses to participate. A recommendation was also made that the City be proactive with the placement of bike racks at public facilities. At its meeting of January 12, 2012, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the item and recommended denial. The CRA felt that the current regulations were adequate and they also had concerns that long-term facilities would be unduly required of all employers. The regulations have been modified to limit mandatory long-term facilities to schools, transit station and public parking facilities. At its meeting of January 23, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval with a 7 to 0 vote subject to two conditions. These included increasing the bicycle parking requirement from 5% to 10% of the vehicular parking requirements for commercial, office and industrial uses as recommended in the Parking Management Plan. Staff recommends approval. Dr. Alperin stated under Section 3 the definition of short-term parking is under 6 hours and the medium term parking is under 6 hours. Mr. Dorling stated staff recommended 2-4 hours and you are required with all uses to provide short, medium or long-term parking (exceeding 6 hours). Dr. Alperin expressed concern that the long-term parking requirements are excessive. Mrs. Gray stated with any new businesses they have to put in at least one bicycle rack. Mr. Dorling stated one bicycle space which can be a simple loop that is placed in front of a business that people can chain their bike up to because currently people chain their bikes to signs or trees. Mrs. Gray asked what would happen if there is nowhere on the premises to put that loop. Mr. Dorling stated you can always seek waivers to the codes. Dr. Alperin expressed concern over Section 2(c)(1) of the ordinance and does not feel the bicycle parking should be closer than a handicap space. Mr. Dorling stated it should be in proximity to where the people are going to enter the building and not in the middle of the parking lot. Mr. Dorling stated in looking in what most communities have is the language that is in the ordinance. Dr. Alperin stated he will not support the ordinance as written. Mr. Carney stated he encourages bicycle riding but he does not know the overall impact to all the businesses and other facilities. Mr. Frankel stated it is good to encourage it but to mandate it takes it too 27 02/07/12 far. Dr. Alperin moved to approve Ordinance No. 07-12 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – No; Mayor McDuffie – No; Mr. Carney – No; Dr. Alperin – No; Mr. Frankel – No. Said motion was DENIED with a 5 to 0 vote. 12.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 Section 117.03, “Approval of Application”, to provide additional requirements; amending Section 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 alternate housing is provided. If passed, a public hearing will be held on February 21, 2012. The caption of Ordinance No. 08-12 is as follows: 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 117.01, “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 FOR 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. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 08-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated the amendments to Chapter 117 are designed to strengthen our permit and approval process and enforcement of properties receiving permits under the Landlord Permit Program. The changes proposed are designed to improve the quality of life for all residents. Mrs. Butler stated permit applicants will be required to submit copies of all leases, subleases 28 02/07/12 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. She stated leased residential units will be limited to four (4) vehicles, for which residential parking stickers must be obtained from the City. Mrs. Butler stated additional parking stickers may be issued when certain conditions are met. She stated applicants will be required to follow Chapter 83, Florida Statutes governing evictions. Residential units within the City’s Residential Zoning District that are otherwise not required to follow the State Statute then they must provide proof of availability of an alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction from their property. Mrs. Butler stated the amendments under this ordinance clarify reasons a landlord permit may be revoked. She stated the update the Commission received quotes a loophole with a minor change that addresses verbal lease agreements. Mrs. Butler stated part of this ordinance also amends the application so that it corresponds with the ordinance and gives staff the information they need from the applicant. Staff recommends approval. Dr. Alperin moved to approve Ordinance No. 08-12 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 13.A. City Manager The City Manager stated May 25, 2012 is the Palm Beach County League of Cities Gala which will be held at the Airport Hilton. Secondly, the City Manager stated the Palm Beach County Cities were given a seat on the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and Clarice Lejeune from Boynton Beach was appointed to fill that spot. 13.B. City Attorney The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C. City Commission 13.C.1. Dr. Alperin Dr. Alperin had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C.2. Mr. Carney Mr. Carney had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C.3. Mrs. Gray 29 02/07/12 Mrs. Gray stated there has been a lot of telephone calls and complaints from some of the restaurants in the downtown regarding the noise ordinance. She asked if it is possible to get some of these restaurant owners together to review the Code with staff and try to work some of this out. Mayor McDuffie stated this is a great idea. Secondly, Mrs. Gray stated the Netball Tournament at Pompey Park this weekend was fabulous. 13.C.4. Mr. Frankel Mr. Frankel recognized the Delray Citizens for Delray Police in particular Dan Burns, Dr. Andre Fladell and Perry DonFrancisco for their donation and help with the Mobile Command Center. Mr. Frankel stated he and Commissioner Gray attended and it was a very nice ceremony. Secondly, Mr. Frankel recognized Suzanne Boyd for the emcee job she did at “Laugh with the Library”. Lastly, Mr. Frankel recognized the new Mayor of Boynton Beach Woodrow Hay. 13.C.5. Mayor McDuffie Mayor McDuffie stated he will not be present for the meeting on February 14, 2012 because he will be in Miyazu, Japan. Mayor McDuffie stated he is very excited about this trip and very excited about how excited the Japanese Consulate, Japanese Ambassador’s office, and the Mayor of Miyazu and the Governor of Kyoto who have asked to meet with us are about the trip. Mayor McDuffie stated this is a great step for the City of Delray Beach. Mayor McDuffie reiterated that he is very excited to see the excitement on behalf of the Consul General here in South Florida on their trip and the number of things he did to increase our access to public officials in Japan. He stated one of the topics will be economic exchange and they are interested in commerce in the United States preferably in the State of Florida. Mayor McDuffie stated even though we think things are expensive here we are cheap compared to Japan. There being no further business, Mayor McDuffie declared the meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m. ________________________________________________ City Clerk ATTEST: 30 02/07/12 ____________________________________ 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 Meeting held on February 7, 2012, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on ________________________. _________________________________ ________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval which may involve some amendments, additions or deletions as set forth above. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.A. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.A. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.B. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.B. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.B. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.B. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.B. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.C. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.C. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 13, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 7.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PALM BEACH COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC. ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY SPEAKER SERIES PRESENTATION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Recognizing and commending Douglas Smith, Milena WalinskiandRichard Reade for participating in the Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. Economic Sustainability Speaker Series. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 RATIFICATION OF SCRWTDB ACTIONS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This is before the City Commission to ratify the action of the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board at their Quarerly Meeting of January 19, 2012. BACKGROUND By a vote of 8 to 0, the SCRWTD Board approved the following: 1. Authorization to maintain our reclaim user rate for Hunters Run, Country Club of Florida, Quail Ridge, Delray Dunes and Pine Tree for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 at $0.2000/1,000 gallons. RECOMMENDATION Recommend ratification of the action approved by the SCRWTD Board on January 19, 2012. 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: February 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/302 N.E. 7TH AVENUE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is acceptance of a Hold Harmless Agreement for encroachment of a sign into the right of way at 302 NE 7th Avenue, Hartman House Bed and Breakfast. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the northwest corner of NE 7th Avenue and NE 3rd Street and is individually listed on the Local Register of Historic Places as The Hartman House. At its meeting of December 13, 2011, the City Commission approved a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(7), to permit a business sign within the 10’ front setback. Due to the limited space in front of the landscaping along the front property line, the post will be installed on the property line, while the sign will encroach no more than 18” into the right of way (swale) located between the property and the sidewalk. Therefore, a Hold Harmless Agreement is required.The attached agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office for legal form and sufficiency and is now before the City Commission for approval. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Hold Harmless Agreement for the placement of a business sign within the City right of way for the property located 302 NE 7th Avenue, Hartman House Bed and Breakfast. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Victor Majtenyi; Deputy Director of Public Utilities Richard C. Hasko, P.E.; Director of Environmental Services Department THROUGH: David Harden; City Manager DATE: February 7, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. 12-01/MATHEWS CONSULTING, INC./CONGRESS AVENUE FORCE MAIN REPLACEMENT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request to approve Service Authorization #12-01 to Mathews Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $106,291.00 for professional engineering services in the design of the Congress Avenue Force Main Replacement project, P/N 2012-067. BACKGROUND Last month, the City experienced a failure of a 10" sanitary sewer force main at the intersection of Congress Avenue and Lowson Blvd. Performance of the emergency pipe repair at this intersection revealed segments of deteriorated pipe. The deteriorated segments exhibited longitudinal failure at the pipe’s top cross section; deteriorated to the point where no pipe material remained. This condition was observed at intermittent and random locations. The force main conveys sanitary sewage from southwestern communities along Germantown Road to Lift Station #50 (located at Lowson Blvd and the E-4 Canal) where it is then re-pumped to the wastewater treatment plant. The route of this pipeline is along the eastern side of the Congress Avenue right-of-way, from Lowson Blvd south to Germantown Road, where it then crosses Congress Avenue and continues along Germantown Road to the west. Staff found record drawings dating back to early/mid 1980's, suggesting the age of this pipeline to be close to 30 years. Due to the uncertainty of this pipeline, staff recommends its complete replacement along Congress Avenue (which is Palm Beach County right-of-way), from the intersection of Lowson Blvd south to Germantown Road, approximately 4,000 linear feet, utilizing directional drill methods. Please refer to Exhibit 1. This service authorization is for professional services in the design of a replacement force main. Services under this authorization include engineering design, surveying, geotechnical investigations, field verification of existing utilities, permitting, and bidding services required in preparing a bid package for the project. Additional services arising from uncertainties discovered during surveying, field verifications, soils investigations, or for acquiring potential property/easement acquisitions, will require another written authorization from the City. Total cost under this Service Authorization (#12-01) is $106,291.00. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from account #442-5178-536-68.89, Congress Avenue Force Main Replacement, after a budget transfer. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Service Authorization #12-01 to Mathews Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $106,291.00 for professional engineering services related to the design of the Congress Avenue Force Main Replacement project, P/N 2012-067. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, GISP Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 2, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 REIMBURSEMENT TO FLORIDA EAST (FEC) RAILROAD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Requesting approval to reimburse Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC) an amount of $55,765.40 for reconstruction of the E Atlantic Avenue railroad crossing. Project #12-048. BACKGROUND In 1988 the City entered into a Transfer Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for transfer of the control of E Atlantic Avenue between Swinton Avenue and southbound US1 from FDOT to the City. This transfer included the City assuming all maintenance obligations for this section of E Atlantic Avenue, include the FEC crossing. In October of 2011 FEC completed routine track maintenance at the E Atlantic Avenue crossing. This type of routine maintenance typically occurs about every five to six years. The last time this crossing was maintained was in 2003. The attached invoice lists this crossing as Atlantic Blvd, which appears to be a typo on FEC’s part. The reason this is believed to be a typo is because the Railroad Transfer Agreement between FEC, FDOT and the City, which was executed in 1991, references this crossing as DOT # 272492-H and the attached invoice references this same FDOT crossing number. Funding for this work was budgeted in the current capital plan. The invoice and a map of the crossing location are attached. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available in 334-3162-541-46.90. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 17, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 APPROVAL OF POLL WORKERS FOR THE FIRST NONPARTISAN ELECTION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This is before the City Commission to approve the list of poll workers for the First Nonpartisan and Special elections to be held on March 13, 2012, and to direct the City Clerk to select a sufficient number of Clerks, Assistant Clerks, Inspectors and Precinct Advisors from the list to work during the election, pursuant to Section 34.02 of the City Code. BACKGROUND The list is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the poll workers list with direction to the City Clerk to select a sufficient number of workers for the municipal election to be held on March 13, 2012. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Jasmin Allen, Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: February 16, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is review of appealable actions which were taken by various Boards during the period of February 6, 2012 through February 17, 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 Commission. After this meeting, the appeal period shall expire (unless the 10 day appeal period has not occurred). Section 2.4.7(E), Appeals, of the LDRs applies. In summary, it provides that the City Commission hears appeals of actions taken by an approving Board. It also provides that the City Commission may file an appeal. To do so: · The item must be raised by a Commission member. · By motion, an action must be taken to place the item on the next meeting agenda of the Commission as an appealed item. REVIEW BY OTHERS Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Meeting of February 8, 2012 A. Approved (4 to 1, Rustem Kupi dissenting and Shannon Dawson and Nick Sadowsky absent), a master sign program for ABC Carpet and Home, located on the east side of Congress Avenue, south of West Atlantic Avenue (777 South Congress Avenue). B. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a twenty-four month extension (expiring March 22, 2014) for the Class IV site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan for the Courtyards at Martel Arms, located on the west side of NE 8th Avenue, north of George Bush Boulevard (1010 NE 8th Avenue). C. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a twenty-four month extension (expiring February 22, 2014), a Class V site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan for Georgia Lime Commerce Center, located at the northwest corner of Georgia Street and Lime Lane. D. Approved with conditions (3 to 2, Rustem Kupi and Alice Finst dissenting), a Class I site plan modification associated with architectural elevation changes for Verizon Wireless, located on the west side of South Federal Highway, south of Linton Boulevard (1900 South Federal Highway). E. Tabled (5 to 0), a Class I site plan modification, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan associated with the addition of four parking garages for Lakeside Condominiums, located on the east side of SW 10th Avenue, south of Linton Boulevard. F. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a Class I site plan modification associated with building elevation changes to the approved townhomes at Latitude Delray, located at the northwest corner of Lindell Boulevard and South Federal Highway. G. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a Class V site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan associated with the construction of a one-story building with 12,980 sq. ft. for the Spodak Dental Office Building, located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue, west of Homewood Boulevard and immediately west of the Delray Garden Center. Historic Preservation Board Meeting of February 15, 2012 1. Approved (7 to 0), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations and additions to a contributing structure, located at 415 North Swinton Avenue, within the Old School Square Historic District. 2. Approved (7 to 0), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a single family dwelling and detached single-car garage on an existing vacant lot located at 218 NE 5th Street within the Del Ida Park Historic District. RECOMMENDATION By motion, receive and file this report. Attachment: Location Map MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Victor Majtenyi; Deputy Director of Public Utilities Richard C. Hasko, P.E.; Director of Environmental Services Department THROUGH: David Harden; City Manager DATE: February 7, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.G.1 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 CONTRACT AWARD/MWI PUMPS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request to approve an award to MWI Pumps in the amount of $16,987.17 for the rebuild of storm water pump at the Sea Sage Drive storm water pump station. BACKGROUND During the early part of January 2012, Utilities Maintenance Division responded to several inquiries regarding a malfunction at the Sea Sage Drive Pump Station. The pump assembly is a 16” pump/impeller, remanufactured by MWI Pumps. Staff removed the pump assembly and contacted MWI to pick up the unit and take it to their facility in Vero Beach for evaluation. Investigation at the shop revealed failure of the bearings and motor shaft assembly. MWI provided a quote in the amount of $16,987.17 for the complete rebuild of the unit. With parts in stock, the rebuild would take two to three weeks. Staff recommends, award to MWI Pumps in the amount of $16,987.17 for the rebuild of this pump unit. The rebuilt unit will have a standard one year warranty. Staff has experienced good performance with MWI Pumps; throughout the past three years they have rebuilt the pumps at the Thomas Street, Bay Street, and Atlantic Ave Pump Stations. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from account #448-5416-538-46.90, Storm Water Utility Fund/Other Repair and Maintenance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends an award to MWI Pumps in the amount of $16,987.17 for the rebuild of a storm water pump for the Sea Sage Drive storm water pump station. February 6, 2012 City of Delray Milton Willingham 434 S Swinton Delray Beach FL 33444 REF: Seesage Storm Water Pump Repair Dear Milton, As per your request I’m submitting the following for your review. Repair Cascade 16” Pump Replace impeller Replace complete stainless steel shaft Replace bowl and flanges Replace complete intake Replace 6 ft. of pump barrel Replace distributer. Replace entire enclosing tube including bearing carriers. Replace complete packing gland. Replace thrust bearings. Replace bronze bearings Replace cutlass bearings Replace gaskets and hardware Re weld cracks throughout pump and intake. Replace all lubricants Replace seals Sandblast and epoxy coat pump inside and out. TOTAL PRICE: $16,987.17 plus any applicable taxes. Sincerely, Tom Hyde MWI/Couch Repair MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Kevin Rumell, Fleet Superintendent Richard Hasko, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 8, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.G.2 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/BROWARD MOTOR SPORTS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a Purchase Award to Broward Motorsports in the total amount of $21,336.00 for the purchase of three (3) ATV's to be utilized by Ocean Rescue. BACKGROUND Three (3) ATV's operated by Ocean Rescue are in need of Replacement. Three quotes were obtained for the ATV's. All quotes are attached for your reference. Quotes received were as follows: ATV'S Broward Motor Sports $7,112.00 each Florida Sport Cycle $7,264.00 each Riva Motorsports $7,659.00 each FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from account code 501-3312-591-64.20 (Machinery, Equipment Automotive). RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending purchase of three (3) replacement ATV's for Ocean Rescue due to age and condition of existing ATV's. Recommending purchase awarded to Broward Motorsports of Palm Beach who submitted the lowest quote. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construction Richard Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 10, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.G.3 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a purchase award in the amount of $15,225.69 to HD Supply Waterworks for various piping materials to be installed by the City's in-house construction crew for the NW 16th St. Water Main Project #2010-070. BACKGROUND This project is to replace an undersized, existing 2 inch water main. The scope of work consists of the construction of 720 linear feet of 8 inch PVC water main, 20 linear feet of 6 inch PVC water main, 3 valves, 1 fire hydrant and water service connections to the new water main. The project also includes sodded swales, asphalt trench repair, concrete, asphalt, paver brick apron replacement and maintenance of traffic. Staff received quotes from three (3) vendors: MSC Waterworks in the amount of $17,641.29; Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $17,187.11; and HD Supply Waterworks in the amount of $15,225.69. The quotes are attached, for your reference. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from 442-5178-536-68.61 (Water/Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund/Improvements Other/NW 16th St WM); after Fiscal Year Rollover. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a purchase award in the amount of $15,225.69 to HD Supply Waterworks for various piping materials to be installed by the City's in-house construction crew for the NW 16th St. Water Main Project. WORKSHOP MEETING JANUARY 31, 2012 A Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the Ci ty of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall at 7:00 p.m., on Tuesday, January 31, 2012. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent - None Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie called the workshop meeting to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Item. WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA 1. Fiscal 2012 Budget Adjustment Mr. David T. Harden, City Manager, stated the Commission’s vote two weeks ago to not approve the fire service fee crea ted a $3.2 million hole in the current budget and staff has been looking at ways to fill that and what the impact will be. The first thing looked at was what we are working against and what can be reduced. He stated he is working against the number of $92,000,615 and the final budget wa s $93,000,356. The difference was an increase in the Capital Improvement Program. He conducted a Powe r Point presentation regarding the budget: outlining what could be subtracted, contractual obligations and why certain things were not suggested to be cut. Mr. Harden stated the cuts presented are on a 12 month basis. Mayor McDuffie apologized for not attending the January 17, 2012 Commission meeting. Mr. Frankel thanked everyone for coming out an d stated he has received emails. He also mentioned the fire assessment fee discussion from the last meeting. He stated he has always felt it should be flat rate for a fire service fee and not a tiered rate. Mr. Frankel stated this is something everyone can learn from and he appr eciates the information from Mr. Harden and feels it should be placed on the website. He sta ted he is still for a flat rate but as a compromise maybe a two tiered system. However, he stated some cuts can be made. Mrs. Gray stated this is difficult because Police and Fire-Rescue are needed and so is Maintenance as well. She reiterated that everythin g needs to be looked at and she is willing to look at a fire assessment fee agai n with the understanding that if the fee is not approved cuts will have to be made. Mrs. Gray sta ted positions at the top can be looked at as well as assistant positions. The City Manager discussed what would be done if the fee is reconsidered. 2 January 31, 2012 Mr. Carney stated he is not in favor of the fire assessment fee and cuts ca n be made. He stated revenues can be derived from parking meters, speci al events and permit fees. A fire assessment fee and cuts may be a compromise; with Police and Fi re included as well. Everyone should be in this together. Dr. Alperin stated he is never in favor of letting people go to balance a budget. He stated he voted in favor of the fee. He stated Commission has a responsibility to make cuts since the fee was voted down. He is still okay with a tiered rate. Dr. Alperin discussed items that can be cut from the Capital Improvement Program, reduction of the Fire-Rescue staff from 33 to 31, and freezing the five (5) positions in the Police Depart ment. He stated if we go back to the fee it had better be a lot less than last time. Mayor McDuffie discussed elections and transient regulations. He explained property tax revenue. He mentioned the budget and the fire a ssessment fee. He stated he supports the fire assessment fee. Mayor McDuffie stated he is wi lling to discuss a compromise with the rest of the Commission regarding a tiered rate. Mr. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, discussed the timeline regarding the fire assessment fee. Mrs. Gray asked can the cuts be made before the fire assessment fee is reconsidered. Mr. Frankel proposed having another works hop meeting on Thursday, February 2, 2012. The Commission discussed the Capital Improvement Program. Mrs. Gray stated she is in favor of the cuts on the list regarding the Capital Improvement Program with the exception of what cannot be touched. The City Manager recommended taking some monies from reserves. Mr. Frankel stated it is very importa nt not to close public facilities. Dr. Alperin suggested freezing the 5 positions in the Police Department and reducing Fire- Rescue staffing 33 to 31. Mr. Frankel stated the Code Red and Hom etown Connection cuts save the city $32,150. The City Manager stated he will let Commission know what a flat fire assessment fee of $60 will generate. Commission directed staff to make 50% cuts and 50% fire assessment fee to cover the $3.2 million gap. The City Manager stated he will provide flat rate fire assessment fee examples for the Commission to consider. The Consensus of the Commission was to have another workshop meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, February 6, 2012. Mayor McDuffie adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 8:40 p.m. ________________________________ City Clerk 3 January 31, 2012 ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Works hop Meeting of the City Com mission held on Tuesday, January 31, 2012, which Minutes were formally a pproved and adopted by the City Commission on February 21, 2012. ________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are no t completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Co mmission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may involve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. WORKSHOP MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 2012 A Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the Ci ty of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., on Monday, February 6, 2012. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent - None Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie called the workshop meeting to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Item. WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA 1. Fire Assessment Fee Alternatives Mr. David T. Harden, City Manager, presented th is item discussing possible budget cut options to get to a $1.6 million reduction in expense in this year’s budget and additional revenue; a combination of the two. He recommended, since we are a third of the way into the budget year, taking 1/3 of this amount ($533,000) from pr ior year’s surplus. He went through the list of options for budget cuts. Mr. Harden discussed thr ee different options for a two tiered system and a flat rate option at $60.00 for the fire a ssessment fee. He also referenced Boynton Beach’s hardship waiver language and process regarding fire assessment fee payments. Dr. Alperin stated he does not feel there are e nough budget cuts before going to a compromise. He stated he also does not see any cuts for fr eezing positions in Police or reduction of staffing from 33 to 31 in Fire-Rescue. Mr. Harden sta ted he does not recommend those and explained why. He stated everything on that was on the initial list is there for Commission to consider. Dr. Alperin stated every capital project that is not un derway should be delayed until October of the next fiscal year. He stated we probably can do it all. Consequently, it will be tough. He stated he does not want to see anyone lo se a job but if it happens he feels all positions top and bottom should be looked at. Dr. Alperin stated a fire assessment fee can be instituted but it needs to go in with the budget. He stated Commission made a mistake and should bite the bullet and delay things for eight or nine more months and fix it. He stated the fee should be part of the fix but the millage should be compensated with that too. He stated the fire fee should not be brought back at this point in the budget year. Mr. Carney stated he agrees with what has been said by Dr. Alperin. He stated a budget should not be approved without having all funding sources in place. Commission made a mistake in going forward with the anticipation that a fire assessment fee could be used to balance the budget. He stated Commission’s role is to set policy. 2 February 6, 2012 He discussed the city’s reserves and stated we have a strong tax base and feels we should look at taking a million or so out of reserves to look at this, a million or so from capital improvement projects and a million of cuts internally through st aff furloughs, curbing hiring, etc. Mr. Carney stated he does not support a fire assessment fee at this time because we have enough internally within our own current city budget, capital im provement projects and reserves to meet this immediate budget crisis. He stated he is bothe red by the fact that th ere are 4,000 homes in Delray that pay nothing for their fire services and this does need to be addressed. Mrs. Gray stated she is not in agreement with the fire assessment fee because it is a tax. She is glad the City Manager and staff have looked at other things that can be cut and feels the capital improvement projects can be put on hold for a year. She stated other things can be cut as well. Mr. Frankel is in agreement with comments that mistakes have been made but feels others are being made tonight. He stated he was prepared to come to some compromise tonight but does not see any willingness. He stated he is ready to go through the list since the majority of the Commission feels we should cut. Mayor McDuffie stated all of five of them voted on the budget that included the fire fee. He stated we also bargained with the Police, Fire an d the SEIU to give us money. He stated the Commission has a responsibility to the community and to the people who elected them. However, the city cannot be run without the people who work for the city. He stated everyone who works for the city takes a risk; and they shou ld be rewarded based on the risk they take. He discussed having trust in the Mayor and Commission. He stated the budget was set four (4) months ago and the fire fee was a part of the budget and it was not a surprise. He stated no one came to the microphone to speak on this during the budget hearings. Mayor McDuffie stated he agrees that there are other ways to get fr om where we are now to an approved budget. The City Manager asked to take up to $1.5 million out of the prior year’s surplus and get the balance from other places. Dr. Alperin stated he feels it can be done with up to $1 million and discussed cuts as well as delaying capital projects. Mrs. Gray stated she agrees with Mr. Carney and Dr. Alperin. Mr. Frankel stated he was looking for some sort of compromise and feels he has not seen that tonight. He stated he agrees with Mayor McDuffi e. He stated he does not blame Mr. Harden for this speaking in regards to some internet pos tings he has seen. He stated he blames the Commission. Mr. Frankel stated he supports ta king up to $1.5 million out of reserves. Mrs. Gray stated she too supports taking up to $1.5 million out of reserves. Mr. Carney stated he supports taking up to $1.5 million out of reserves. Dr. Alperin stated this can be done with up to $1 million out of reserves and stated he hates touching reserves. Mayor McDuffie stated let staff do their job and agrees with taking up to $1.5 million out of reserves. Mrs. Gray asked is there something else that Dr. Alperin suggests. Dr. Alperin reiterated that there are things that can be cut without touching personnel. The Consensus of the Commission was to allow the Ci ty Manager to take up to $1.5 million out of reserves and make other cuts as he sees fit. 3 February 6, 2012 Mr. Harden stated staff will bring the budget amendment back to Commission on February 21, 2012. Mayor McDuffie adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 6:50 p.m. ________________________________ City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Works hop Meeting of the City Commission held on Monday, February 6, 2012, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on February 21, 2012. ________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are no t completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Co mmission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may involve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. 02/07/12 FEBRUARY 7, 2012 A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Del ray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the C ommission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 7, 2012. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Tom Carney Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent - None 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 Rabbi Kanter with Temple Sinai. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of A merica was given. 4. AGENDA APPROVAL. Mayor McDuffie stated Item 9.D., Franchise Agreement/Waste Management, Inc. of the Regular Agenda has been postponed to the next regular meeting of February 21, 2012. Also, Mayor McDuffie stated Item 9.K., Direction on Fire Assessment Fee , has been removed from the Agenda. There is revised information on the dais for Item 12.A., Ordinance No. 04-12 and Item 12. D., Ordinance No. 08-12 . Dr. Alperin moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Ca rney – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Dr. A lperin – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 2 02/07/12 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting o f January 17, 2012, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission vot ed as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 6. PROCLAMATIONS: 6.A. Recognizing 2-1-1 Awareness Week – February 11-17, 2012 Mayor McDuffie read and presented a proclamation hereby procl aiming the week of February 11, 2012-February 17, 2012 as 2-1-1 Awareness Week in the City of Delray Beach. Patricia Schroeder came forward to acce pt the proclamation and gave a few brief comments. 6.B. Commemorating the 40 th Anniversary of Family Central, Inc. – February 11, 2012 Mayor McDuffie read a proclamation hereby proclaiming Fe bruary 11, 2012 as Family Central 40 th Year Anniversary in the City of Delray Beach and noted that it will be mailed. 7. PRESENTATIONS: 7.A. Presentation of Danielle Connor as the Newly Appointed Delr ay Beach Fire Chief Kerry Koen stated for 16 years he had the honor to be Fire Chi ef in Delray Beach and is honored to recognize Danielle Connor as the Newly Ap pointed 16 th Fire Chief for the City of Delray Beach. Chief Connor came forward a nd gave a few brief comments. 7.B. S.P.I.R.I.T. (Service, Performance, Integrity, Responsibility, Innovation, Teamwork) Committee Quarterly Awards Presentation Jennifer Buce, SPIRIT Co-Chairperson, stated the S.P.I.R.I.T. Commit tee recognizes its employees for their exemplary actions in t he following City core beliefs: providing exceptional service through performance by acting with integrity, being responsible, taking innovative action and practicing teamwork. Ms. Buce stated this is an opportunity for employees to recognize their fellow employee s who work above and beyond the call of duty. The winners for the last quarter are: · Kevin Rummell presented the award to Detective Michael DeBree /Police Department 3 02/07/12 · Jennifer Buce presented the award to Detective James Finley/P olice Department · Amy Alvarez presented the award to Rebecca Truxell/Planning & Zoning 7.C. CVS Caremark National League of Cities Prescription Discount Card Program Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated staff r equests City Commission approval to launch a free Prescription Discount Ca rd Program sponsored by the National League of Cities (NLC). Mrs. But ler stated the NLC Prescription Discount Card is designed to help residents with high cost of medications, the program offers savings on prescription drugs to residents w ho are without health insurance, a traditional benefits plan, or have prescriptions tha t are not covered by insurance. She stated the Prescription Discount Card is made avai lable by two residents by the City in collaboration with the National League of Citie s and is made possible through the partnership and membership that we have with the Nat ional League of Cities. Mrs. Butler stated the program is administered by CVS Carem ark, the largest provider of prescriptions and related health care services in the nation and have been doing this program since 1992. The card is free to all Delray Beach reside nts regardless of age, income or existing health insurance. There is no cost to the Cit y or residents to use the card. There are no enrollment fees and no membership fees. Mrs . Butler stated this program was brought to staff by Commissioner Gray when she we nt to the National Conference. Mrs. Butler stated Jennifer Costello is the coordinat or for this program and the City is joining 45 other cities using this program. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. 8.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 R esolution No. 07- 12. The caption of Resolution No. 07-12 is as follows: 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) 4 02/07/12 SECTION 4.5.1(M)(5); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Resolution No. 07-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) 8.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 t o the former Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) building located at 5 S.E. 2nd Avenue. The caption of Resolution No. 06-12 is as follows: 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 EXHIBIT “A”, BUT RESERVING AND RETAINING TO THE CITY A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES OVER THE ENTIRE AREA THEREOF, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN. (The official copy of Resolution No. 06-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) 8.C. AGREEMENT EXTENSION/DR. JOHN FLETEMEYER/SEA TURTLE MONITORING SERVICES: Approve an agreement extension for three (3) years with Dr. John Fletemeyer in the amount of $38,750.00 for sea turtl e monitoring services. Funding is available from 332-4164-572-34.90 (Beach Restoration F und: Other Contractual Services). 8.D. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) FOR FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Interlocal Agreement with the Community Redeve lopment Agency (CRA) for funding of construction costs and professional servic es for certain projects as listed on Exhibit “A” attached to the Agreement for FY 11/12. 8.E. AGREEMENTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES: Approve Agreements with Currie Sowards Aguila Architects, Walters Zac kria & Associates, Inc., David Miller and Associates, Slattery & Associates and Bridge s Marsh & Associates for architectural services for capital improvement projects c ontained in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 5 02/07/12 8.F. FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE DECLARATION OF RESERVED RIGHTS AND AGREEMENT NOT TO ENCUMBER N.E. 7TH AVENUE RELATED TO THE ATLANTIC PLAZA PROJECT: Approve the Fifth Amendment to the Declaration of Reserved Rights and Agreement not to Encumber N.E. 7th Avenue regarding the abandonment and relocation of N.E. 7th Avenue betw een N.E. 1st Street and East Atlantic Avenue, to extend the time frame to obtain site plan certification by 180 days. 8.G. FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCHANGE AGREEMENT/DEPOT INDUSTRIAL CENTER, LLC.: Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement to Exchange Real Property between the City and Depot Industrial Center, LLC. to extend the closing date to on or before February 29, 2012. 8.H. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT WITH DELRAY BEACH PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS & PARAMEDICS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION: Approve a Hold Harmless Agreement with Delray Beach Professi onal Firefighters & Paramedics Benevolent Association to store a 1929 Ford Model A at Fire Station 4. 8.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 Tennis Facilitie s. 8.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. and the Ci ty of Delray Beach in the amount of $100,000.00 for funding to purchase and install a replacement sound system for the Old School Square Pavilion. 8.K. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boa rds for the period January 17, 2012 through February 3, 2012. 8.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). Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Fra nkel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 6 02/07/12 9. REGULAR AGENDA: 9.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 South, located at 1717 Homewood Boulevard. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) Mayor McDuffie read the City of Delray Beach Quasi-Judici al Hearing rules into the record for this item and all subsequent Quasi-Judicial items. Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mayor McDuffie asked the Commission to disclose their ex par te 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 #2011-212 into the record. Mr. Dorling stated this item is for consideration of a waiver to allow a reduction from 100 feet to 80 feet for the stacking distance and this requirement is associated with the location of a new guardhouse at Abbey Delra y. He stated there is about 80 feet before you hit the internal street that requires t he waiver from the 100 foot requirement. The required findings that are necessary to approve this are made in the staff report LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Staff is recommending appr oval of this waiver because two inbound lanes exist (as opposed to only one); one lane is devoted to owners (unrestricted) and their entry will be continuous (i.e., remote contr ol); S.W. 17 th Circle is a loop road that serves exclusively to this development (approxi mately 20 single family dwelling units) and the anticipated traffic volume that would impac t this area will be minimal. Mr. Dorling stated 17 th Circle is a private road to the public road at Homewood Boulevard and there is more than 160 foot stacking and in this case staf f believes the waiver should be granted. Jim Ballinger, Architect, stated they are developing the de sign of the guardhouse as well as other additions to Abbey Delray and is prese nt for any questions the Commission may have. Mayor McDuffie asked 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, to please come forward. There was no rebuttal or cross-examination. 7 02/07/12 The City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the C ommission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the minutes). Mr. Carney moved to adopt the Board Order as presented, seconded by Dr. Alperin. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: May or McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. G ray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.B. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST/SWINTON SOCIAL: Consider a conditional use request to permit outdoor dining to operate at night at Swinton Social located at 27-43 South Swinton Avenue, as required for properties locat ed within the Old School Square Historic Arts District. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mayor McDuffie asked the Commission to disclose their ex par te communications. Mr. Frankel stated he met with the applicant and re ceived maps and other artists renderings about this project. Mrs. Gray stat ed she had no ex parte communications to disclose. Mayor McDuffie stated he met with t he Principles for this project and went over the site plan and was given a set of sit e plans to take home. Mr. Carney stated he had no meetings but remembers seeing a site plan. Dr . Alperin stated he had a discussion with Bob Currie a while back. Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered the Planning and Zoning Department project file #2012-038 into the record. Mr. Dorling stated this is for consideration of a conditional use request to permit outdoor dining at night for 27-43 South Swinton Avenue located in the O SSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) zoning district. Cur rently, there are four one- story frame vernacular homes built between 1937 and 1950. On November 7, 2011, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class V Site Plan for the adaptive reuse of the structures from singl e-family residential to spa and restaurant uses. Mr. Dorling stated the outdoor dining during daylight hours is permitted in the OSSHAD; however, if you request outdoor dining at night it is only permitted as a conditional use and is hence the application before the Commission. He stated this request would provide dining at night for the sidewalk caf é area and some outdoor areas behind the structures. The outside seating will be 25 seats at the poolside bar, 12 seats between the roof connecting the café and poolside ba r and 56 seats behind the kitchen. The outdoor dining for this project has been deemed not t o have a detrimental effect upon the stability of the neighborhood. However , it does have the potential to create an impact on the surrounding area due to the adde d seats particularly with the sidewalk café without providing additional parking spaces . Mr. Dorling stated there are some challenges with providing adequate parking. He s tated this site has 7 parking spaces on-site and has an off-site parking valet lot of 26 spaces and an off-site 8 02/07/12 parking lot on a yearly lease for an additional 40 at this locati on. He stated the parking is not ideal and the intensification of this outside dining creates some concerns from staff. Mr. Dorling stated staff has added a condition (#6) that if the conditional use for outdoor dining at night results in pedestrian or vehicular congestion for whic h more than three (3) Code Enforcement violations and/or civil violations are issued, the condi tional use for outdoor dining at night shall be reconsidered and possibly rescinded. H e stated staff will stand by their concerns that if in fact they do not create and undo impact then they should be able to continue and if not because it is a conditional use it is a valid condition. At its meeting of January 18, 2012, the Historic Preservation Board (H PB) considered this item and included that as a condition; at its meeti ng of January 23, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board also considered this item and recommende d approval subject to the six (6) conditions which includes this condition; at its meeting of January 12, 2012, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) recommended approval. Staff recommends approval subject to the six (6) conditions listed on page three of the City Commission backup. Robert Currie, Architect with Currie Sowards Aguila Arch itects, 134 N.E. 1 st Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated they have been before many Boards with approvals unanimously up until this conditional use. Mr. Currie ex pressed concern over condition #6 because this leaves his client in limbo and he cannot g et financing. He stated what if the traffic conditions are such that the City is having an event and asked what traffic we are talking about. Mr. Currie stated in ter ms of pedestrian access they are not even on the public sidewalk. He stated they are not going to b e driving with their valet on Atlantic Avenue because they have it all contained to t he south. Mr. Currie stated it appears to him that Code violations have their own remedy with penalties involved and asked why they should have another penalty on top of another penalty. Mr. Currie urged the Commission to rescind condition #6 because they will save historic buildings, get rid of a blighted area, and will help the redevelopment to the sout h. Mayor McDuffie stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the conditional use request, to please come f orward at this time. No one from the public came forward to address the Commission re garding the conditional use request. There was no rebuttal or cross-examination. Mr. Frankel commented about condition #6 and asked if there is any oth er business or restaurant that presently has that condition in the c ity. Mr. Dorling stated there was a conditional use approved for a restaurant out on Milita ry Trail and the City did exercise that option. Mr. Dorling stated it was a nightc lub venue that got out of hand and there were some shootings in the parking lot, etc. Mr. Currie stated the condition was because of fighting and some dangerous shooting, etc. Mr. Currie stated he hopes to clean up this area. 9 02/07/12 Mr. Frankel stated he is okay with conditions #1-5. Dr. Alperin asked if the Commission waived some parking require ments on the initial approval. Mr. Dorling stated there was a waiver t o provide the parking on- site and the waiver requested was for 20 spaces not to be waived outright rather that they be allowed to be accommodated by an alternative means via vale t parking. Mr. Dorling stated there was also a requirement that a valet parking agree ment be provided for the balance of the spaces. He stated there were 27 spaces that were allowe d to be off-site and there was an additional 20 that was required. Mr. Dorling reiterat ed that it was a waiver to on-site parking but not to the waiver of the parking overall. Dr. Alperin asked how many spaces would have been required. Mr. Dorling stated 53 space s would accommodate these two areas. Mr. Carney concurs with comments expressed by Commissioner Fra nkel and asked what the source of condition #6 was. Mr. Dorling stated staff has concern with the functionality of the parking that has been provided. He state d technical they have provided the number of parking they are required to have but a lot in t his remote location functionally and staff believes will not work. Mr. Dorling state d there were some other locations that they had offered that were 2-3 blocks remote. Mr. C arney asked what the congestion is that staff is worried about. Mr. Dorling stated the language in condition #6 was crafted out of the language which exists for sidewalk cafés and the concern is that if in fact you have a very remote parking lot and the valet syste m does not work because you are running two blocks back and forth with each car and even thoug h there are seven spots on-site but it is very easy for that to be backed up int o Swinton Avenue and if you intensify that during peak hours in the evening with additional outside dining he wanted an avenue for the City should it become a problem to say we need to relook at this. Mr. Carney asked if financial penalties should be as effective in curving abuse. Dr. Alperin stated on the conditions #6 says “violations in a 12 month period”. With r egard to the rescission language, Mr. Carney stated he understands why staf f wants the authority but he expressed concern over others bringing complaints that may not be bona fide. Brief discussion between staff, Mr. Currie and the Commission followed. Mr. Currie stated they received site plan approval prior to the conditional use request. Mrs. Gray asked if there is a barrier wall where the outsi de dining is or does it abut to the sidewalk. Mr. Currie stated since the chara cter of the buildings are historic so they maintain that with entrances and a picket fence around the dining with landscaping. Mr. Currie stated the dining internal is under a roof; however, it is considered outside dining because there is no permanent wall there. Mrs. Gray commented about the public parking on the outside and asked how many spaces are there. Mr. Currie stated there are 10 spaces but they are not counting any of that and in terms of the valet there are only 7 spaces there (22 feet long) but you can fi t 22 cars there. Mr. Frankel asked how outdoor dining is related to any pedestrian or 10 02/07/12 vehicle traffic and has only been applied once to a restaura nt with shootings he has never heard of on Military Trail it does not seem fair. Dr. Alperin asked if we can rescind the approval if they violate the condition. The City Attorney stated this would be a Code Enforcement process unless we specifically put it into the condition that this could be subject to rescission. Dr. Alperin asked what would happen if they continue to violate it. The City Att orney stated if it is not a condition of the conditional use then it would be a Code Enforcement process and that is the way it would be handled. Mayor McDuffie stated Code Enforcement comes in something has happened, they are cited and they are fined. He stated there was discussion about people downtown that would rather pay the fine and at that point Mayor McDuf fie stated then our fines are too low. Mayor McDuffie stated if that is the c ase we need to elevate the fines to the point where we get somebody’s attention and they st op doing things like that. Mayor McDuffie stated this is a major stumbling block to a project that is otherwise a tremendous asset to South Swinton Avenue and this community. The City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the C ommission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the minutes). The City Attorney stated it is the Commission’s direction that staff removes condition #6. Mr. Frankel moved to adopt the Board Order subject to the conditions provided on Exhibit “A” (conditions #1-5), seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon rol l call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Ye s; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. At this point, the time being 7:11 p.m., the Commission moved to the du ly advertised Public Hearings portion of the Agenda. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.A. ORDINANCE NO. 03-12 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): Consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Re gulations (LDR), amending Section 4.3.3, “Specific Requirements for Specific Uses”, by amending Subsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Use”, in order to cl arify prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers, and penalties for same; amendin g Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, in order to amend the definition of “Transient Res idential Use”. If passed, a second public hearing will be held on February 21, 2012. The caption of Ordinance No. 03-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4.3.3, “SPECIFIC 11 02/07/12 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; AMENDING APPENDIX “A”, “DEFINITIONS”, IN ORDER TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE”; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 03-12 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. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is a city- initiated amendment to the LDRs which will amend the prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers and penalties for transient res idential uses; and will amend the definition of transient residential uses. The existing tr ansient residential use definition includes those dwelling units in both single-family and mult i-family zoning districts which have a turnover rate of more than six times p er year. He stated this is being modified to include dwelling units that turn over in occupancy mor e than three times a year in single family and PRD (Planned Residential D evelopment) zone districts. Mr. Dorling stated the definition is further being modified to cla rify that the turnover rate refers to the entire dwelling unit or any part thereof regardle ss of how it is segmented. The transient residential uses that would exist and become non-confor ming by virtue of this new definition change would be allowed to continue for 12 months af ter the effective date of the ordinance. At its meeting of December 19, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the item and recommended approval with a 7 to 0 vote subject to three conditions. These conditions including changing references to wherea s clauses in the ordinance to reference the 2010 census, clarify that the ordinance appl ied to dwelling units and any part thereof. The Board also recommended lowering t he allowed turnover rate from three times a year to two times a year. Mr. Dor ling stated the first two conditions have been incorporated in the ordinance and reducing the allowed turnover rate from three times a year to two times a year has not been changed. Staff recommends approval. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Christina Morrison, 2809 Florida Boulevard Apt. #207, Delray Beach, FL 33483, supports preserving the R1 zoning for single-family use only. M s. Morrison stated the City should do everything possible to legally preser ve single-family 12 02/07/12 neighborhoods. Bob Ganger, President of the Florida Coalition for Preservation, supports the proposed amendments. Mr. Ganger thanked the Commission and staff for taking the issue of transient housing very seriously and for listeni ng to both sides. He read a brief statement into the record. McCall Credle Rosenthal, 817 Lake Avenue North, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (President of La Hacienda Neighborhood), stated if the Commission passes this ordinance she hopes they will factor in the need for more support for the City such as more Code Enforcement especially at night. Ms. Rosenthal stated we need Police, Fire and Code Enforcement to handle this. Al Jacquet, 236 S.E. 3 rd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, thanked the Commission for their hard work on this issue and stated this is ab out transient homes. Mr. Jacquet stated these are people who come here temporarily so we have to protect our neighborhoods from that. He stated he lives in Osceola Park and when the kids are coming and going to school there are people speeding down the road, loud music, late nights and it is not a safe place for people to raise their families. Mr. Jacquet stated the transient housing affects the neighborhoods in a negative way. Pat Archer, 580 Sherwood Forest Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33445, stated by definition transient housing is a business that provides hom es to unrelated individuals and the high turnover is not a normal living situation. She sta ted this type of business is exceptionally disruptive to a single-family neig hborhood. Mrs. Archer stated transient housing does not belong in a single-family neighborhood. Lanie Lewis, President of the Lake Ida Property Homeowners’ Association (lived in Lake Ida for 34 years), urged the Commission to pass this ordinance to keep the transient housing out of the single-family neig hborhoods. Ms. Lewis stated she has seen a lot of good and a lot of bad in Delray and these transient houses are not the good. She stated she supported the fire assessme nt tax and wished the Commission voted for it. Richard & Carmen Sasso, 1042 Seaspray Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483 , stated at some point we need to encourage the enforcement of this ordinance. Mr. Sasso stated he has reviewed Section 10.99 of the Code of Ordinances and it appears very limited in terms of the penalty ($500) that could be provided to someone for violating the ordinances that the City is trying to amend. Mr. Sasso suggested that staff come up with a three strike rule that if residents are looking around the neigh borhood and see that there are violations and call for enforcement and a penalty is impose d of $500, that after three strikes that they have to be taken out of the neighborhood. Cary Glickstein, 1118 Waterway Lane, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated as a rental homeowner in this city he fully supports the reductions approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board was unanimous in 13 02/07/12 supporting the proposed rental turnover reductions to two and six for single-family and multi-family zoned properties. Mr. Glickstein stated as a d eveloper that has built over 10,000 homes not one of those homes was ever sold without leasing restrictions at least as restrictive as what Planning and Zoning approved because it pr eserves neighborhood integrity and both design and tenancy restrictions improve proper ty values. Mr. Glickstein urged the Commission to support the restrictions approved b y the Planning and Zoning Board. Kristine Dehaseth, Executive Director of the Florida Coalition for Preservation, stated they represent people from Manalapan through Delray Beach and their main goal is to educate the general population and citize nry of compelling issues that affect us all. She applauded the Commission for tackling thi s issue and encouraged the Commission to approve these amendments as the first step in trying to regain control of the single-family neighborhoods. Mary Renault, President of the Property Owners’ Association (BPOA), stated the BPOA represents 1,800 homes on the barrier island and t hey are also a member of a larger group that has formed recently to rep resent all of Delray Beach homeowners. Ms. Renault thanked the Commission for addressing this is sue of transient housing in single-family neighborhoods with such expediency and thanked the City Attorney’s office. She stated the BPOA strongly supports for t he proposal before the Commission that reasonably limit the turnover rate of rentals i n the single-family neighborhoods. Ms. Renault stated a rapid rental turnover of unrelat ed residents in their neighborhoods reduces the quality and safety they long to have for their families and children. She stated the citizens of each neighborhood would be eage r to do whatever it takes to help the city control this out-of-control issue. Andy Katz, 220 South Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33483, speaking on behalf of the BPOA, urged the Commission and other City departments to apply the reasonable limits being considered for protecting sin gle-family neighborhoods to also apply to clusters of single-family homes that are loc ated in residential neighborhoods that are zoned RM (Medium Density Residential). Mr. K atz stated transient residential use housing is designated for large number of unrelated residents living in single family homes with those residents. He state d they are considering all group type homes such as executive retreats, college fraterni ties, church groups, groups of all types of unrelated adults. Mr. Katz stated certain busi ness organizations are operating what are “boarding houses” in single family neigh borhoods throughout the city by selective use of interpretations of various federal acts. H e urged the Commission evaluate everything with transient residential use in light of the boarding house definition. Steven Alport, 1149 Beach Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (for 8 years and stated he is part of a grass root coalition of approximately 100 sin gle family homeowners in the beach area), thanked the Commission and staff for clarifying the 14 02/07/12 original ordinance and for working so diligently in 2008 and 2009 on this ordinance. Mr. Alport stated he opposes any commercial encroachment into their single family residence area with a continuous turnover of people and services. He support s this ordinance as a first step in protecting our homes but also in protecting the entire comm unity. Rosalind Cross, 414 Andrews Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (a resident of Delray Beach since 1971 and has owned her home sin ce 1990 and plans to her Delray home and currently resides in New Jersey), objects to the adoption of the ordinance as it is written restricting leasing to singl e families in single family neighborhoods. Ms. Cross stated historically Delray has welcom ed these visitors and allowed single family leases in single family neighborhoods w hether for a week, two weeks, a month or a season. She stated several of her guests have p urchased multi- million dollar homes in her neighborhood and her neighbors fighting for this ordinance have leased her house when they have renovated their own homes. She ex pressed concern about the growing non-taxpaying and non-involved transient community created by single family homes leased to multiple unrelated individuals at the same time. Ms. Cross stated the proposed mixes two dissimilar activities a nd unfairly discriminates against the long standing use of her home which she feels has only b enefited Delray Beach. Ms. Cross entered into the record booklets containing her wri tten remarks tonight, her December 30, 2011 email to the Commission, and pictures of her home on Andrews Avenue. Gary Eliopoulos, 314 N.W. 7 th Street, Delray Beach, FL 33444, thanked the Commission for making this a priority and the City A ttorney’s office for looking at every possible way we can try and protect our citize ns and the property values in Delray Beach along with the single family zoning. Mr. Elio poulos expressed concern over the reasonable accommodation process and how it is being appr oved. He feels we should not only look at protecting the residents but protecting those typ es of uses. Mr. Eliopoulos stated transient lodging should be in RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning or something else. He stated when you go to a community wh ere they have vacation homes they apply life safety issues. Mr. Eliopoulos st ated no one is monitoring or checking fire codes of these transient houses. He stated thi s would also protect the single family homes next to them in case of a fire, etc. that occurs in these homes. Mr. Eliopoulos urged the Commission to look at those type of things to rea ssure not only we can minimize the reasonable accommodations coming into the neighb orhood or have a limit per year. Jim Zengage, 1223 Sandoway Lane, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (property owner for over 25 years and has had several rental house in the area), stated he has never leased or rented one of his properties for l ess than a year. Mr. Zengage stated he wholeheartedly supports this ordinance. There being one else from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding Ordinance No. 03-12, the public hearing was closed. 15 02/07/12 Mr. Carney moved to approve Ordinance No. 03-12 on First Reading/First Public Hearing, seconded by Dr. Alperin. Upon roll call the Com mission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Y es; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.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 N eighborhood Stabilization Program property located at 210 N.E. 5th Court to Paul Milne and J ennifer Hong Dubowy in the amount of the lesser of $208,000.00 or the bank appraised value. The caption of Resolution No. 08-12 is as follows: 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 ACCEPTING THE CONTRACT STATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA. (The official copy of Resolution No. 08-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) 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. Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated this reque st is to sell one of the homes purchased under the City’s Neighborhood Stabi lization Program (NSP) located at 210 N.E. 5 th Court to eligible homebuyers Paul Milne and Jennifer Hong Dubowy for the purchase of the price of the lesser of $208,000 or the bank appraised value. Mrs. Butler stated the NSP property is designed to purchase for eclosed property or abandoned homes. The City will take them and resell them to other homebuyers. Mrs. Butler stated the program is designed to benefit low, moderate , and middle income households. She stated the income limit cannot exceed 120% of the area median income (AMI). Staff recommends the sale of this home to eligible hom ebuyers Paul Milne and Jennifer Hong Dubowy in the amount of $208,000 or the bank appraised value. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding R esolution No. 08-12, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Frankel moved to approve Resolution No. 08-12, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frank el – Yes; Mrs. Gray 16 02/07/12 – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. At this point, the Commission moved to Item 11, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public-Immediatel y following Public Hearings. 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. 11.B.1. Patrice Lieb, 5280 Las Verdes Circle Apt. #223, Delray Beach, FL, stated she has taken great advantage of the two pools that the Ci ty has and it has been the major source of her health. Ms. Lieb stated since retiring she has had several operations and it is the services that she has received from the wonderful st aff at these pools that keeps her going. Ms. Lieb has heard that the City may close t he pools because of budget cuts and urged the Commission to not close the pools. 11.B.2. Yvonne Odom, 3905 Lowson Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33445, stated the alternative to the fact that the City is losing r evenue and the programs that the City would have to cut she does not wish to compromise the safety, we lfare, or the recreational life they have come to expect from Delray Bea ch. Ms. Odom stated the alternative is unacceptable. She stated the Straghn Center is on the list of potential cuts and her children called it the “Tuck Center” after Mr. Tucker who was there for so long and that is where they played and grew up. She stated special events such as the parades define Delray Beach. Ms. Odom stated the City has to find more revenue and as a resident she is willing to pay the cost to support these progr ams. Ms. Odom stated she travels with her husband’s baseball team traveling in citie s throughout the south area and in Florida. She stated Delray Beach by far exceeds any of those cities that they have ever played in especially what is traditionally historically has been an African-American community. Ms. Odom stated the residents who come here applaud our facilities. Ms. Odom urged the Commission to do a bare minimal tax in such that wi ll make a maximum benefit to the employees and the citizens. 11.B.3. Ingrid Botero, 1353 Gallinule Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated she lives by the swim center and her sons have been taking swim lessons for two years. Ms. Botero stated she gave her children very expensive swim les sons prior to that and her children do not remember anything. However, Ms. Botero stated the care and the desire to teach that the lifeguards at the Delray Swim and Tennis C enter have has no price. She stated it is valuable and her children look forward to it. She sta ted many residents in her neighborhood do not have pools and the ones that do cannot use them in the winter because they are not heated. Ms. Botero urged the Commission to keep the pool open. 11.B.4. Herman Goodman, 238 S.W. 14 th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated he needs help with his neighborhood because there is everyt hing from shootings, 17 02/07/12 drug dealing, and fighting etc. Mr. Goodman stated he has called the Police Department about 11 times in the last year to report shots being fired. He urged the Commission to help him on that street he would appreciate it. 11.B.5. Darryl Jones, 302 N.W. 10 th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (employed by the City of Delray Beach working at Delray Swim and Tennis Cent er), stated he just started working at the main pool at Pompey Par k and stated that pool does make money and many people frequent the pool because of the area that it is in. Mr. Jones stated for a long time the City did not have any signs for p eople to know where that pool is but through time and word of mouth they got a lot of people t o find that location. He stated many elderly utilize the pool for the water aero bics, etc. and being able to use the pool makes them happy. Mr. Jones stated a couple of years a go they had a petition circulating because the pool was closed for one day. He stated the reve nue from that pool helps Pompey Park and noted that the pool at one time made more m oney in swim lessons alone than the main pool. Mr. Jones asked Commission to give it a chance to work before the pool is shut down. 11.B.6. Gerard Smith, Aquatics Supervisor for the City of Delray Beach , speaking on behalf of staff, stated hopefully the City can find a way to shift the money around to make sure that they can keep their current staff. Mr . Smith stated they are working hard to increase the programming and being innovative to the co mmunity with the jobs they have to do. He invited the Commission to come to some of the programs so they can see the impact that they are doing on the community. At this point, the time being 8:01 p.m. the Commission moved back to Item 9.C. of the Regular Agenda. 9.C. REQUEST FOR IN-LIEU PARKING SPACES/GROVE RESTAURANT: Consider a request from Grove Restaurant for the purchase of thr ee (3) in-lieu parking spaces in the amount of $23,400.00 located at 187 N.E. 2nd Avenue. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mayor McDuffie asked the Commission to disclose their ex par te communications. The Commission had no ex parte communications to disclose. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this i tem is a request from the Grove Restaurant for the purchase of three (3) in-lieu parking spaces. The Grove Restaurant submitted a Class III site plan modifi cation for conversion of use from retail to restaurant at 187 N.E. 2 nd Avenue (Pineapple Grove Way). The conversion would require the difference to be provided between retail and rest aurant and would require three (3) parking spaces. Mr. Dorling stated the LDRs allow you to entertain payment of in-lieu fee upon a finding that adequate public parki ng is available and that the request is consistent with the LDRs, the Comprehensive Plan and other City policies 18 02/07/12 and/or studies. He stated this property is located within Area 3 of the in-lieu fee program and requires a fee of $7,800 per space for a total of $23,400 which needs to be paid in full upon the issuance of a building permit. This property is wi thin one block of the Old School Square Garage and is next to a recently approved valet loc ated next door. Mr. Dorling stated the required findings can be made in this case. The Pineapple Grove Main Street Board, Community Redevelopment Agency, Downtown Development Authority, and the Parking Management Advis ory Board recommended approval at their respective meetings. Staff recommends approval for the purchase of three (3) in-lieu parking spaces at a cost of $23,400 to be paid in full prior to the issuance of a building permit. There was no applicant present. Mayor McDuffie stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the request, to please come forward at this time. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding the request for in- lieu parking spaces, the public hearing was closed. The City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the C ommission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the minutes). Dr. Alperin moved to adopt the Board Order as presented, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs . Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Fra nkel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.D. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. 9.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 a mount of $71,535.10 to Murray Logan Construction, Inc. for completion of the Mangrove Par k Boat Ramp Reconstruction Project. Funding is available 334-4174-572-63.90 (Ge neral Construction Fund/Improvements Other/Other Improvements). Richard Hasko, Director of Environmental Services, stated this is a contract closeout (Change Order No. 3/Final) for Murray Logan Construction, Inc. for the Mangrove Park Boat Ramps. Mr. Hasko stated the Reconstruction Pro ject was funded entirely by grant money from Florida Inland Navigational District (F.I.N.D.) and the Fishing Wildlife Commission. Mr. Hasko stated the project actua lly came in $15,229.90 under budget. He stated the ramps are complete and are open. Mr . Hasko stated staff is confident that anyone who has had any experience with launching a boat really should not have a problem with these ramps now. 19 02/07/12 Mr. Carney stated this is a very good start and encouraged s taff to come in with decreases every time they come in with contracts. Dr. Alperin moved to approve the Contract Closeout (C.O. No. 3/Final)/Murray Logan Construction, Inc., seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon r oll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carne y – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.F. CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 (C.O. NO. 2)/INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC.: Consider approval of Change Order No. 2 to Intercounty 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 additional scope, for removal of 1,300 additional linear feet of 2" water main for the Osceola Park Water Main Phase 2 Project #2010-082. Richard Hasko, Director of Environmental Services, stated this is a request for Commission approval to spend $10,400.00 out of the contracts utility allow ance for removal of additional two inch water main. Mr. Hasko stated the wa ter main is out of service and this project was in the Osceola Park neighborhood done in two phases and this is one of the types of scope additions for which staff puts utility allowances in the contract. He stated staff knew that there was old two inch abando ned water main particularly in the alleys in this neighborhood that had been a bandoned in place years ago. Mr. Hasko stated whenever they run across that they want to p ull it out for the benefit of future planning purposes and maintenance, etc. He st ated it is not cost effective to locate where it is because it is not really i mportant where it is but when staff runs across it they want to remove it. Mr. Hasko stated staff p uts the utility allowances in the contract to accommodate those kinds of costs. Mr. Carney moved to approve Change Order No. 2 to Intercounty Engineering, Inc. for a contract time extension of 14 days and approva l for the amount of $10,400.00, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as f ollows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. G ray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.G. BID AWARD/ ACCURATE EVENT GROUP: Consider approval of a bid award to Accurate Event Group in an amount not to exceed $34,102.07 for p rivate security services from February 24, 2012 through March 5, 2012 for the Champions/World Tour Tennis Tournament and authorize staff to negotiate a lower price. Funding is available from 001-4210-575-55.40 (General Fund: Recreat ional Supplies/Tennis Tournament). Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated this is a request for Commission to approve a bid award to Accurate Event Group in the am ount not to exceed $34,102.07 for private security services from February 24, 2012 thr ough March 5, 2012 for the Champions/World Tour Tennis Tournament and authorize staff to ne gotiate a lower price. Mr. Barcinski stated per the terms of the ag reement the City is required to 20 02/07/12 provide the City police staff as well as security as wel l as private security. He stated the low bidder staff thoroughly researched and do not feel that they have the sufficient experience to do an event of this size. The second low bidder who performed last year had less than a good performance and therefore staff recommends Accurate. Dr. Alperin moved to approve the bid award to Accurate Event Group not to exceed the amount of $34,102.07 and authorize staff to negotiate a lowe r price, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follow s: Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.H. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/ASIAN TRADE, FOOD FAIR AND CULTURAL SHOW: Consider approval of a special event request to allow the 19th Annual Asian Trade, Food Fair and Cultural Show sponsored by the Bangla desh 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 gra nt a temporary use permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(F) for the closure and use of a portion of N.E. 1st Avenue, to authorize staff support for traffic control and security, site cleanup and trash removal, EMS assistance, standard event signage and ass istance with banner hanging; use of the Old School Square Garage, City generator, four li ght towers, and trash boxes; and to waive the Event Policies and Procedures to allow more than two (2) major events in March; contingent upon meeting the conditions listed in the staff r eport. Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated this is a request to consider approval of the 19 th Asian Trade Food Fair and Cultural Show being held on March 24 and 25, 2012 on the grounds of Old School Square from noon to 10:00 p.m. on the grounds of Old School Square and in the Old School Square Park. Mr. Bar cinski stated the Commission is requested to grant a temporary use per mit for the closure and use of a portion of N.E. 1 st Avenue, to authorize staff support for traffic control and security, site cleanup and trash removal, EMS assistance, regul ar event signage and assistance with banner hanging. The event sponsor has also requested the use of the CRA parking lot, Old School Square Garage for vendors, VIP’s and sponsors, C ity generator, four (4) light towers, and trash boxes. Mr. Barcinski stated per the City’s event policies and procedures this would be the third major event in a month and per t he City’s event policies and procedures states that the City is allowed two p lus a tennis tournament. Therefore, the Commission would have to waive that provision. Mr. Bar cinski stated there will be an admission charge of $10.00. Staff objects to the 1 75 spaces and recommends 70 spaces. The estimated staff overtime for t he event is $11,207, trash boxes $245, signage $250, and light towers $1,000 for a total of $12,702. The event producer will be required to pay 75% of overtime and 100% of other cos ts for an estimated total of $9,900. Mr. Frankel stated he recognizes that this is a great fest ival. However, going forward especially after the discussions over the last couple of weeks due to the 21 02/07/12 fact that everyone wants to come to Delray and this is the third major event including the tennis tournament in March, he feels these groups need to start paying 100%. Mrs. Gray asked how many more festivals does the City have left for this year. Mr. Barcinski stated the City has the Garlic Fest ival this weekend, the tennis tournament starting the last weekend in February through the first week end in March., the weekend after that is the Twilight Criterium Bicycle Race, the weekend after that is St. Patrick’s Day Parade, the next weekend would be the Asian Trade, Food Fair and Cultural Show, there would be a two week break then would be the Del ray Affair (April), then in May is Cinco de Mayo, then the 4 th of July would be the next big event, September the City now has the Hispanic Festival, the EVP (Extreme Volleyball Professional) Tour, and he received another application for a Music Fe stival for one day in September. Mrs. Gray asked which festivals have been approved. Mr. Barc inski stated the events that have been approved at the 75% level are the Garlic Festival, the Delray Affair, and St. Patrick’s Day but the rest of them are 100% paym ent to the City. Mr. Carney concurs with comments expressed by Commissioner Fra nkel that on a going forward basis that the City needs to address the policy and everyone should be paying 100% of the overtime costs. Dr. Alperin concurred with comments expressed by Commissioner Carney. After brief discussion, it as the consensus of the Commission to give staff direction to bring the policy back in order to reflect the c hange that all the events pay 100% of the costs. Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Special Event Request to allow t he 19 th Annual Asian Trade, Food Fair and Cultural Show to be held on March 24 -25, 2012, subject to the conditions listed on page two of the staff report, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes ; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to revise the City’s Special Events Policy to require that all future events pay 100% of the overtime costs and bring back to the City Commission for approval. 9.I. OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN SONDRA COMISAR v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Consider an Offer of Settlement in the total amount of $27,500.00 in Sondra Comisar v. City of Delray Beach. Staff recommends approval. The City Attorney stated this is a trip and fall that occur red on Atlantic 22 02/07/12 Avenue. The Plaintiff has had surgeries on her elbow and incurred a m edical cost to date of approximately $28,000.00. The City Attorney stated they have offere d to settle the case for $27,500.00. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Carney moved to approve the Offer of Settlement in the amount of $27,500.00 in Sondra Comisar v. City of Delray Beach, seconded by Mr. Frank el. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; M ayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.J. OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN RICHARD WEINSTEIN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JASON W EINSTEIN, DECEASED v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Consider an Offer of Settlement in the total amount of $25,000.00 in Richard Weinstein, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jason Weinstein, Deceased v. City of Delray Beach. The City Attorney stated this is a drowning that occurred north of Atlantic Dunes Park in 2008. The City Attorney stated the City has outside counsel for this and Risk Management and their third party adjuster was recommends a pproval. The City Attorney stated they have offered to settle for $25,000.00 and the Cit y would incur costs to defend it in excess of $30,000.00. Mrs. Gray moved to approve the Offer of Settlement in the total amount of $25,000.00 in Richard Weinstein, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jason Weinstein, Deceased v. City of Delray Beach, seconded by Mr. Fra nkel. Upon roll call the City Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; M r. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said moti on passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.K. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. 9.L. APPOINTMENT TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD: Appoint one (1) alternate member to the Code Enforcement Board to serve an unexpired term ending January 14, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Carney (Seat #1). Mr. Carney moved to appoint Jason Whiteman as an alternate memb er to the Code Enforcement Board to serve an unexpired term ending January 14, 2013, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as fol lows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Ye s; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.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 appointme nt will be made by Mayor McDuffie (Seat #5). Mayor McDuffie stated he would like to defer his appointment t o the next 23 02/07/12 regular meeting of February 21, 2012. At this point, the time being 8:21 p.m., the Commission moved to Item 12, First Readings. 12. FIRST READINGS: 12.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 t o update same; enacting a new Subsection 2.4.7(G)(9), “Expiration of Approvals” t o provide an expiration date for untimely implementation of approvals. If pas sed, a public hearing will be held on February 21, 2012. The caption of Ordinance No. 04-12 is as follows: 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 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 IMPLEMENTATION OF APPROVALS ; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 04-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this i s an LDR amendment that will provide clarification with respect to the current information requested on the “Request Form for Reasonable Accommodation”. Mr. Dorling stated it will provide a reasonable accommodation request and this information i s necessary to appropriately consider reasonable accommodation requests. He sta ted while the ordinance is general in scope the form is very specific. Mr. Dorling stated there has been a slight change in the ordinance since the Planning and Zoning Board co nsidered it and the revised copy is before the Commission this evening. Mr. Dor ling stated the form has 24 02/07/12 been simplified after consultation with outside counsel and the for m now more closely mirrors the form contained on the Department of Justice website. At its meeting of January 23, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval with a 7 to 0 vote. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Frankel moved to approve Ordinance No. 04-12 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follow s: Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 12.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 hearin g will be held on February 21, 2012. The caption of Ordinance No. 06-12 is as follows: 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 CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 06-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Peter Anuar, Senior Landscape Planner gave a brief PowerPoint presentation regarding the changes to the landscape code. Mr. A nuar stated staff held a roundtable discussion with local landscape architects, architects, engineers to discuss the deficiencies and the possible changes to the landscape code in January 2011. Staff presented those proposed changes to the following boards: Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB), the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), the Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS), the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC). All boar ds recommended approval and any comments that were made by the boards were inc orporated into the landscape code. Staff presented those revised changes to the Pla nning and Zoning Board on November 21, 2011, and after significant discussion the Board tabled the ordinance with comments and revisions that they want to see in the landscape code. The ordinance was before the Planning and Zoning Board on January 23, 2012 at which ti me they recommended approval with a 6 to 1 vote (Al Jacquet dissenting). 25 02/07/12 Dr. Alperin moved to approve Ordinance No. 06-12 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follow s: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 12.C. ORDINANCE NO. 07-12: Consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.9, “Off-Street Parkin g Regulations”, Subsection 4.6.9(C), “Number of Parking Spaces Required”, Sub-subse ction 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 t erm, medium term and long term parking facilities. If passed, a public he aring will be held on February 21, 2012. The caption of Ordinance No. 07-12 is as follows: 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. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 07-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this modi fies LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(c), “Bicycle Parking” and enact new defini tions for short, medium, and long term parking facilities. Mr. Dorling stated the City of Delray Beach Parking Management Plan, dated August 2010, recommends that modifications be made to the City’s bicycle parking requirements. These modifications include expanding on the current bicycle parking requirements to a citywide basis as well as expanding the requirement to include more land uses than are currently listed (c urrently limited to shopping centers, fast food restaurants, government offices, community centers, private recreation facilities and non-residential uses with the City’s TCEA (Transportation Concurrency Area. This LDR amendment expands the bicycle parki ng requirements citywide and assigns requirements that correspond with 5% (reside ntial) and 10% 26 02/07/12 (commercial, office and industrial) of the vehicular parking re quirement for any particular use. At its meeting of January 9, 2012, the Downtown Development Author ity (DDA) reviewed the item and tabled it. The DDA expressed con cerns that no parking would be provided if the use required less than 10 (commercial, of fice and industrial) or 20 (residential) vehicle parking spaces. This is not the case a nd additional clarifying has been added to require a minimum of one space under both 10 and 20 vehicle s paces. At its meeting of January 10, 2012, the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coa lition (WARC) reviewed the item and recommended approval subject to conditions. Thes e include recommendations that incentives be offered for existing businesse s to participate. A recommendation was also made that the City be proactive with the placement of bike racks at public facilities. At its meeting of January 12, 2012, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the item and recommended denia l. The CRA felt that the current regulations were adequate and they also had concerns that long-term facilities would be unduly required of all employers. The regula tions have been modified to limit mandatory long-term facilities to schools, transit sta tion and public parking facilities. At its meeting of January 23, 2012, the Planning and Zonin g Board recommended approval with a 7 to 0 vote subject to two conditions. Thes e included increasing the bicycle parking requirement from 5% to 10% of the ve hicular parking requirements for commercial, office and industrial uses as recomm ended in the Parking Management Plan. Staff recommends approval. Dr. Alperin stated under Section 3 the definition of short-term pa rking is under 6 hours and the medium term parking is under 6 hours. Mr. Dorling st ated staff recommended 2-4 hours and you are required with all uses to provide short , medium or long-term parking (exceeding 6 hours). Dr. Alperin expressed con cern that the long-term parking requirements are excessive. Mrs. Gray stated with any new businesses they have to put in at least one bicycle rack. Mr. Dorling stated one bicycle space which can be a simple loop that is placed in front of a business that people can chain their bike up to because currently people chain their bikes to signs or trees. Mrs. Gray asked what would happen if there is nowhere on the premises to put that loop. Mr. Dorling stated you can always seek waivers to the codes. Dr. Alperin expressed concern over Section 2(c)(1) of the ordina nce and does not feel the bicycle parking should be closer than a handicap s pace. Mr. Dorling stated it should be in proximity to where the people are goin g to enter the building and not in the middle of the parking lot. Mr. Dorling stated in looking in what most communities have is the language that is in the ordinance. Dr. Alp erin stated he will not support the ordinance as written. Mr. Carney stated he encourages bicycle riding but he does not know the overall impact to all the businesses and other facilities. Mr. Frankel stated it is good to encourage it but to mandate it t akes it too 27 02/07/12 far. Dr. Alperin moved to approve Ordinance No. 07-12 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as foll ows: Mrs. Gray – No; Mayor McDuffie – No; Mr. Carney – No; Dr. Alperin – No; Mr. Frankel – No. Said motion was DENIED with a 5 to 0 vote. 12.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; am ending Section 117.03, “Approval of Application”, to provide additional requirements; amending Secti on 117.04, “Denial or Revocation of Permit Application; Appeals”, to clar ify grounds for revocation; and amending Section 117.06, “Tenant/Occupant Eviction”, to ensure notice and due process rights are followed or alternate housing is provi ded. If passed, a public hearing will be held on February 21, 2012. The caption of Ordinance No. 08-12 is as follows: 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 117.01, “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 FOR 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. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 08-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated the ame ndments to Chapter 117 are designed to strengthen our permit and approval proc ess and enforcement of properties receiving permits under the Landlord Pe rmit Program. The changes proposed are designed to improve the quality of life for all residents. Mrs. Butler stated permit applicants will be required to submit copies of all leases, subleases 28 02/07/12 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. She stated leased residential units will be limited to four (4) vehicles, for which residentia l parking stickers must be obtained from the City. Mrs. Butler stated additional parking stickers may be issued when certain conditions are met. She stated applicants will b e required to follow Chapter 83, Florida Statutes governing evictions. Residential units within t he City’s Residential Zoning District that are otherwise not required to follow the St ate Statute then they must provide proof of availability of an alternative temporary dwell ing unit in the event of an eviction from their property. Mrs. Butler stated the amendm ents under this ordinance clarify reasons a landlord permit may be revoked. She stated t he update the Commission received quotes a loophole with a minor change that addresses ver bal lease agreements. Mrs. Butler stated part of this ordinance also amends the applica tion so that it corresponds with the ordinance and gives staff the information they n eed from the applicant. Staff recommends approval. Dr. Alperin moved to approve Ordinance No. 08-12 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as foll ows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Dr. Alperin – Yes; Mr. Fr ankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 13.A. City Manager The City Manager stated May 25, 2012 is the Palm Beach County League of Cities Gala which will be held at the Airport Hilton. Secondly, the City Manager stated the Palm Beach County Cities were given a seat on the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and Clar ice Lejeune from Boynton Beach was appointed to fill that spot. 13.B. City Attorney The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C. City Commission 13.C.1. Dr. Alperin Dr. Alperin had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C.2. Mr. Carney Mr. Carney had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C.3. Mrs. Gray 29 02/07/12 Mrs. Gray stated there has been a lot of telephone calls a nd complaints from some of the restaurants in the downtown regarding the noise ordinance . She asked if it is possible to get some of these restaurant owners t ogether to review the Code with staff and try to work some of this out. Mayor McDuffie stated this is a great i dea. Secondly, Mrs. Gray stated the Netball Tournament at Pompey Park this weekend was fabulous. 13.C.4. Mr. Frankel Mr. Frankel recognized the Delray Citizens for Delray Polic e in particular Dan Burns, Dr. Andre Fladell and Perry DonFrancisco for their donati on and help with the Mobile Command Center. Mr. Frankel stated he and Commissioner Gray attended and it was a very nice ceremony. Secondly, Mr. Frankel recognized Suzanne Boyd for the emcee job she did at “Laugh with the Library”. Lastly, Mr. Frankel recognized the new Mayor of Boynton Beach Woodrow Hay. 13.C.5. Mayor McDuffie Mayor McDuffie stated he will not be present for the meet ing on February 14, 2012 because he will be in Miyazu, Japan. Mayor McDuffie st ated he is very excited about this trip and very excited about how excited the Japanese C onsulate, Japanese Ambassador’s office, and the Mayor of Miyazu and the Governor of Kyot o who have asked to meet with us are about the trip. Mayor McDuffie stat ed this is a great step for the City of Delray Beach. Mayor McDuffie reiterated that he is very excited to see the excitement on behalf of the Consul General here in South Florida on t heir trip and the number of things he did to increase our access to public official s in Japan. He stated one of the topics will be economic exchange and they are interested in commerce in the United States preferably in the State of Florida. Mayor Mc Duffie stated even though we think things are expensive here we are cheap compared to Japan. There being no further business, Mayor McDuffie declared the m eeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m. ________________________________________________ City Clerk ATTEST: 30 02/07/12 ____________________________________ 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 February 7, 2012, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on ________________________. _________________________________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They wil l become the official Minutes only after review and approval which may involve some amendm ents, additions or deletions as set forth above. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.A. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.A. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.B. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.B. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.B. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.B. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.B. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.C. February 7, 2012 City Commission Meeting; Item 9.C. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 13, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 7.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PALM BEACH COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC. ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILIT Y SPEAKER SERIES PRESENTATION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Recognizing and commending Douglas Smith, Milena Walinski and Richard Reade for participating in the Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. Eco nomic Sustainability Speaker Series. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 RATIFICATION OF SCRWTDB ACTIONS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This is before the City Commission to ratify the ac tion of the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board at their Quarerly Meet ing of January 19, 2012. BACKGROUND By a vote of 8 to 0, the SCRWTD Board approved the following: 1. Authorization to maintain our reclaim user rat e for Hunters Run, Country Club of Florida, Quail Ridge, Delray Dunes and Pine Tree for Fiscal Year 2 011/2012 at $0.2000/1,000 gallons. RECOMMENDATION Recommend ratification of the action approved by th e SCRWTD Board on January 19, 2012. 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:February 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/302 N.E. 7TH AVENUE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is acce ptance of a Hold Harmless Agreement for encroachment of a sign into the right of way at 302 NE 7 th Avenue, Hartman House Bed and Breakfast. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the northwest co rner of NE 7 th Avenue and NE 3 rd Street and is individually listed on the Local Register of Histor ic Places as The Hartman House. At its meeting of December 13, 2011, the City Commission approved a w aiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(7), to permit a business sign within the 10’ front setback. Due to the limited space in front o f the landscaping along the front property line, the post will be installed on the property line, while the sign will encroach no more than 18” into the right of way (swale) located betw een the property and the sidewalk. T herefore, a Hold Harmless Agreement is required.The attached agreement has been reviewed and approv ed by the City Attorney’s Office for legal form and sufficiency an d is now before the City Commission for approval. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Hold Harmless Agreement for the placemen t of a business sign within the City right of way for the property located 302 NE 7 th Avenue, Hartman House Bed and Breakfast. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Victor Majtenyi; Deputy Director of Public Uti lities Richard C. Hasko, P.E.; Director of Environmental S ervices Department THROUGH:David Harden; City Manager DATE:February 7, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. 12 -01/MATHEWS CONSULTING, INC./CONGRESS AVENUE FORCE MAIN REPLACEMENT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request to approve Service Authorization #12-01 to Mathews Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $106,291.00 for professional engineering services i n the design of the Congress Avenue Force Main Replacement project, P/N 2012-067. BACKGROUND Last month, the City experienced a failure of a 10" sanitary sewer force main at the intersection of Congress Avenue and Lowson Blvd. Performance of the emergency pipe repair at this intersection revealed segments of deteriorated pipe. The deter iorated segments exhibited longitudinal failure at the pipe’s top cross section; deteriorated to the point wher e no pipe material remained. This condition was observed at intermittent and random locations. The force main conveys sanitary sewage from southwestern communities along Germantown Road to L ift Station #50 (located at Lowson Blvd and the E-4 Canal) where it is then re-pumped to the wastewater treatment plant. The rou te of this pipeline is along the eastern side of the Congress Avenue ri ght-of-way, from Lowson Blvd south to Germantown Road, where it then crosses Congress Avenue and con tinues along Germantown Road to the west. Staff found record drawings dating back to early/mid 1980 's, suggesting the age of this pipeline to be close to 30 years. Due to the uncertainty of this pipeline, staff reco mmends its complete replacement along Congress Avenue (which is Palm Beach County right-of-way), from the intersection of Lowson Blvd south to Germantown Road, approximately 4,000 linear feet , utilizing directional drill methods. Please refer to Exhibit 1. This service authorization is for professional serv ices in the design of a replacement force main. Services under this authorization include eng ineering design, surveying, geotechnical investigations, field verification of existing util ities, permitting, and bidding services required in preparing a bid package for the project. Additiona l services arising from uncertainties discovered during surveying, field verifications, soils invest igations, or for acquiring potential property/easem ent acquisitions, will require another written authoriz ation from the City. Total cost under this Service Authorization (#12-01 ) is $106,291.00. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from account #442-5178-536-68.89, Congress Avenue Force Main Replacement, after a budget transfer. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Service Authorization #12-01 to Mathews Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $106,291.00 for professional engineering service s related to the design of the Congress Avenue Forc e Main Replacement project, P/N 2012-067. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, GISP Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Direct or THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 2, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.D. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 REIMBURSEMENT TO FLORIDA EAST (FEC) RAILROAD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Requesting approval to reimburse Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC) an amount of $55,765.40 for reconstruction of the E Atlantic Avenue railroa d crossing. Project #12-048. BACKGROUND In 1988 the City entered into a Transfer Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for transfer of the control of E Atlantic Avenue b etween Swinton Avenue and southbound US1 from FDOT to the City. This transfer included the City assuming all maintenance obligations for this secti on of E Atlantic Avenue, include the FEC crossing. In October of 2011 FEC completed routine track main tenance at the E Atlantic Avenue crossing. This type of routine maintenance typically occurs about every five to six years. The last time this crossi ng was maintained was in 2003. The attached invoice lists this crossing as Atlanti c Blvd, which appears to be a typo on FEC’s part. The reason this is believed to be a typo is because the Railroad Transfer Agreement between FEC, FDOT and the City, which was executed in 1991, reference s this crossing as DOT # 272492-H and the attached invoice references this same FDOT crossing number. Funding for this work was budgeted in the current c apital plan. The invoice and a map of the crossing location are attached. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available in 334-3162-541-46.90. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 17, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.E. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 APPROVAL OF POLL WORKERS FOR THE FIRST NONPARTISAN ELECTION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This is before the City Commission to approve the l ist of poll workers for the First Nonpartisan and Special elections to be held on March 13, 2012, and to direct the City Clerk to select a sufficient nu mber of Clerks, Assistant Clerks, Inspectors and Precinc t Advisors from the list to work during the electio n, pursuant to Section 34.02 of the City Code. BACKGROUND The list is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the poll workers list with di rection to the City Clerk to select a sufficient number of workers for the municipal election to be held on March 13, 2012. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Jasmin Allen, Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH:City Manager DATE:February 16, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.F. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 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 February 6, 201 2 through February 17, 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 Commission . 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 agenda of the Commission as an appealed item. REVIEW BY OTHERS Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Meeting of Fe bruary 8, 2012 A. Approved (4 to 1, Rustem Kupi dissenting and Shanno n Dawson and Nick Sadowsky absent), a master sign program for ABC Carpet and Home, located on the east side of Congress Avenue, south of West Atlantic Avenue (777 South Congress A venue). B. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a twenty-four month extension (expiring March 22, 2014) for the Class IV site plan, landscape plan and architec tural elevation plan for the Courtyards at Martel Arms, located on the west side of NE 8 th Avenue, north of George Bush Boulevard (1010 NE 8 th Avenue). C. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a twenty-four month extension (expiring February 22, 2014), a Class V site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan for Georgia Lime Commerce Center , located at the northwest corner of Georgia Street and Lime Lane. D. Approved with conditions (3 to 2, Rustem Kupi and A lice Finst dissenting), a Class I site plan modification associated with architectural elevatio n changes for Verizon Wireless , located on the west side of South Federal Highway, south of Linton Boulevard (1900 South Federal Highway). E. Tabled (5 to 0), a Class I site plan modification, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan associated with the addition of four parking garage s for Lakeside Condominiums , located on the east side of SW 10 th Avenue, south of Linton Boulevard. F. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a Class I site p lan modification associated with building elevation changes to the approved townhomes at Latitude Delray , located at the northwest corner of Lindell Boulevard and South Federal Highway. G. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a Class V site p lan, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan associated with the construction of a one-stor y building with 12,980 sq. ft. for the Spodak Dental Office Building , located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue , west of Homewood Boulevard and immediately west of the Delray Garden Center. Historic Preservation Board Meeting of February 15, 2012 1. Approved (7 to 0), a request for a Certificate of A ppropriateness for alterations and additions to a contributing structure, located at 415 North Swinton Avenue , within the Old School Square Historic District. 2. Approved (7 to 0), a request for a Certificate of A ppropriateness for the construction of a single family dwelling and detached single-car garage on a n existing vacant lot located at 218 NE 5 th Street within the Del Ida Park Historic District. RECOMMENDATION By motion, receive and file this report. Attachment: Location Map MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Victor Majtenyi; Deputy Director of Public Uti lities Richard C. Hasko, P.E.; Director of Environmental S ervices Department THROUGH:David Harden; City Manager DATE:February 7, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.G.1 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 CONTRACT AWARD/ MWI PUMPS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request to approve an award to MWI Pumps in the amo unt of $16,987.17 for the rebuild of storm water pump at the Sea Sage Drive storm water pump station . BACKGROUND During the early part of January 2012, Utilities Ma intenance Division responded to several inquiries regarding a malfunction at the Sea Sage Drive Pump Station. The pump assembly is a 16 ” pump/impeller, remanufactured by MWI Pumps. Staff removed the pump assembly and contacted MWI to pick up the unit and take it to their facili ty in Vero Beach for evaluation. Investigation at the shop revealed failure of the bearings and motor sha ft assembly. MWI provided a quote in the amount of $16,987.17 for the complete rebuild of the unit. With parts in stock, the rebuild would take two to three weeks. Staff recommends, award to MWI Pumps in the amount of $16,987.17 for the rebuild of this pump unit. The rebuilt unit will have a standard one yea r warranty. Staff has experienced good performance with MWI Pumps; throughout the past three years the y have rebuilt the pumps at the Thomas Street, Bay Street, and Atlantic Ave Pump Stations. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from account #448-5416-538-46.90, Storm Water Utility Fund/Other Repair and Maintenance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends an award to MWI Pumps in the amoun t of $16,987.17 for the rebuild of a storm water pump for the Sea Sage Drive storm water pump station. February 6, 2012 City of Delray Milton Willingham 434 S Swinton Delray Beach FL 33444 REF: Seesage Storm Water Pump Repair Dear Milton, As per your request I’m submitting the following for your review. Repair Cascade 16” Pump Replace impeller Replace complete stainless steel shaft Replace bowl and flanges Replace complete intake Replace 6 ft. of pump barrel Replace distributer. Replace entire enclosing tube including bearing carriers. Replace complete packing gland. Replace thrust bearings. Replace bronze bearings Replace cutlass bearings Replace gaskets and hardware Re weld cracks throughout pump and intake. Replace all lubricants Replace seals Sandblast and epoxy coat pump inside and out. TOTAL PRICE: $16,987.17 plus any applicable taxes. Sincerely, Tom Hyde MWI/Couch Repair MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Kevin Rumell, Fleet Superintendent Richard Hasko, Environmental Services Director THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 8, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.G.2 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/BROWARD MOTOR SPORTS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a Pur chase Award to Broward Motorsports in the total amount of $21,336.00 for the purchase of three (3) ATV's to be utilized by Ocean Rescue. BACKGROUND Three (3) ATV's operated by Ocean Rescue are in nee d of Replacement. Three quotes were obtained for the ATV's. All quotes are attached for your re ference. Quotes received were as follows: ATV'S Broward Motor Sports $7,112.00 each Florida Sport Cycle $7,264.00 each Riva Motorsports $7,659.00 each FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from account code 501-3312-591 -64.20 (Machinery, Equipment Automotive). RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending purchase of three (3) replace ment ATV's for Ocean Rescue due to age and condition of existing ATV's. Recommending purchase awarded to Broward Motorsports of Palm Beach who submitted the lowest quote. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construc tion Richard Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Directo r THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 10, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.G.3 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a pur chase award in the amount of $15,225.69 to HD Supply Waterworks for various piping materials to b e installed by the City's in-house construction crew for the NW 16th St. Water Main Project #2010-070. BACKGROUND This project is to replace an undersized, existing 2 inch water main. The scope of work consists of th e construction of 720 linear feet of 8 inch PVC water main, 20 linear feet of 6 inch PVC water main, 3 valves, 1 fire hydrant and water service connection s to the new water main. The project also includes sodded swales, asphalt trench repair, concrete, asp halt, paver brick apron replacement and maintenance of traffic. Staff received quotes from three (3) vendors: MSC Waterworks in the amount of $17,641.29; Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $17,187.11; and HD Supply Waterworks in the amount of $15,225.69. The quotes are attached, for your refe rence. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from 442-5178-536-68.61 (Water/Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund/Improvements Other/NW 16th St WM); after Fisca l Year Rollover. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a purchase award in th e amount of $15,225.69 to HD Supply Waterworks for various piping materials to be insta lled by the City's in-house construction crew for the NW 16th St. Water Main Project. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Victor Majtenyi; Deputy Director of Public Utilities Richard C. Hasko, P.E.; Director of Environmental Services Department THROUGH: David Harden; City Manager DATE: February 7, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.G.4 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approve an award to Intercounty Engineering in the amount of $74,640.98 for the emergency repair of a 10” Force Main on Lowson Blvd, at the Congress Avenue intersection. BACKGROUND On the morning of January 24, 2012 (Tuesday), Utilities staff was alerted to major flooding conditions at the Lowson Blvd and Congress Avenue intersection. City utility crews responded immediately and suspected a breach on the sanitary sewer system. An initial assessment of the situation identified a failure on a 10” ductile iron force main pipe which coveys sewage from the area southwest of Congress Avenue and Linton Blvd. Due to the severity of the condition (flows from a large service area), the time required in completing the repair was critical. Further assessment of the situation indicated it was beyond the capabilities of our in-house resources. Therefore, staff requested emergency response from a utility contractor already working in the area. Intercounty Engineering was already working in the area on a project west of Congress Avenue, the “Lowson Blvd Force Main Replacement Project" (P/N 2011-040). Intercounty Engineering mobilized immediately and proceeded to excavate the suspect area, ultimately discovering approximately 40’ feet of deteriorated pipe under the north bound lanes of Congress Avenue. Realizing the pipe’s condition was questionable, staff directed construction crews to replace the force main pipe under the southbound traffic lanes of Congress Avenue as well; the entire width of the Right-of-Way owned by Palm Beach County. This proved to be prudent as crews uncovered an additional 10’ of deteriorating pipe segment. In addition to this emergency, on January 27, 2012 (Friday, day four on this event), another section of the same pipeline broke approximately a quarter mile upstream (along north bound Congress Ave, just north of Linton Blvd). This repair was minor in comparison, thus the repair was performed utilizing inhouse resources, with the pavement restoration by the contractor. Intercounty Engineering submitted their final accounting of the project. In summary, the scope of work consisted of replacing 167’ of ductile iron with PVC pipe, associated traffic maintenance, trench repair, and pavement restoration, the bulk of which was performed over a 4 day period, under 10-14 hour days. The total cost for the repair is $74,640.98. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is from account #442-5178-536-46.24, Water and Sewer Renewal & Replacement/Repair Sewer Mains, in the total amount of $74,640.98, after a budget transfer. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends payment to Intercounty Engineering in the amount of $74,640.98 for the emergency repair of a broken force main on Lowson Blvd at the Congress Avenue intersection. BILL TO: DATE: 434 S Swinton Avenue WORK DATES: PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME: REFERENCE: 1. INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC. LABOR: Qty Description: Extension Labor for work performed on 1/24 thru 1/27, 1 ls $27,896.40 1/30 thru 2/2, and 2/10 Subtotal $27,896.40 2. INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC. MATERIAL: Item # Description Qty Unit Price Extension 1 Limerock, 20+ ton load (9 total) (w/tax) 1 ls 3009.26 $3,009.26 2 Asphalt S-1 Rap (w/tax) 1 ls 10581.12 $10,581.12 3 10" C900 PVC green pipe (w/tax, HD Sup) 120 lf 16.80 $2,016.00 4 10"x2" MJ DI tapt cap (w/tax, HD Supply) 1 ea 72.29 $72.29 5 10" MJ C153 90 bend (w/tax, Ferguson) 1 ea 321.50 $321.50 6 10" MJ C153 Long Sleeve (w/tax, Fergson) 1 ea 280.47 $280.47 7 10" Bell Restraints (w/tax HD Supply) 8 ea 128.26 $1,026.08 8 10" megalugs (w/tax, HD Supply) 1 ea 81.23 $81.23 9 10" MJ Reg gland pack (w/tax, HD Supply) 4 ea 19.02 $76.08 10 10" PVC stargrip rest (w/tax, HD Supply) 3 ea 68.90 $206.70 11 4 ea 93.28 $373.12 Subtotal $18,043.85 3. INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC. EQUIPMENT: Qty Description Qty Unit Rate Extension 1 Pickup truck with tools 149.5 hr 25.00 $3,737.50 1 Dump Truck 1 78 hr 45.85 $3,576.30 1 Dump Truck 2 7.5 hr 45.85 $343.88 1 Komatsu Loader WA250 36.5 hr 47.00 $1,715.50 1 Bobcat Mini Loader S160 41.5 hr 40.10 $1,664.15 1 Komatsu Combination WB140 54 hr 45.95 $2,481.30 1 Leeboy Paver 13 hr 69.50 $903.50 1 Leeboy Tack machine 3 hr 20.00 $60.00 1 Asphalt Roller 20 hr 33.10 $662.00 1 Street Sweeper 5 hr 27.85 $139.25 1 Vibratory Roller 9 hr 36.50 $328.50 1 Komatsu Mini Excavator PC50 9.5 hr 39.75 $377.63 1 Wacker Plate Compactor 29 hr 24.55 $711.95 1 Lowboy trailer 3.5 hr 61.00 $213.50 Subtotal $16,914.95 3. INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC. SUBCONTRACTORS: Item # Description Qty Unit Price Extension 1 High Tech Striping, Inc Temp Pavement Markings -Inv # 100031 1 LS 850 $850.00 2 High Tech Striping, Inc Thermoplastic Striping -Inv #100072 1 LS 1200 $1,200.00 Subtotal $2,050.00 Labor $27,896.40 Materials $18,043.85 Contractors Equipment $16,914.95 Subcontractors $2,050.00 Sub Total $64,905.20 O & P 15% of sub total $9,735.78 $74,640.98 Total $74,640.98 Total money request for the extra work = City of Delray Beach 2/10/2012 Delray Beach, FL 10" megalugs *onelok with gland pack (w/tax, Ferguson) $74,640.98 Congress Ave FM blowout emergency repair (Please see timeline report attached) 1/24/12 to 2/10/12 Cost Summary for Reimbursement INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC. 1925 NW 18TH STREET POMPANO BEACH, FL 33069 TEL: (954) 972-9800 FAX: (954) 974-0042 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David Boyd, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: February 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.G.5 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/OTTO WASTE SYSTEMS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The City Commission is requested to approve the purchase of additional garage containers in various sizes in the amount of $58,150, per quotation dated 01/18/2012 for Barrier Island residents who will have curb-side service starting April 1, 2012. The hot stamped garbage carts, lids and wheels are provided by Otto Waste Systems, a sole source provider. BACKGROUND The bi-weekly garbage pick-up will change from rear door to curb-side service. This change is a result of the survey conducted in December 2010, which included all of the single family residents on the Barrier Island. Based on the survey results, it was determined that the majority preferred to switch to curb-side garbage pick-up. Otto Environmental System was approved on 11/01/2005 by City Commission as a sole source vendor for the purchase of the hot stamped garbage carts that are provided to the citizens of Delray Beach. The carts have a forest green body, black lid, rubber tires and are hot stamped with City Logo seal and serial numbers. The sizes of garbage carts required by the City of Delray Beach are 95 gallon @$53.00 each; 68 gallon @46.75 each and 35 gallon @36.00 each including lids and wheels. The carts are shipped in full truckloads for cost savings of freight. Otto Industries, Inc. is the original vendor for the purchase of these carts since their initial "roll-out" in 1996. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from 433-3711-534-49.90 (Sanitation Fund: Other Current Charges). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the purchase of the garbage carts with lids and wheels from Otto Waste Systems as a sole source vendor in the amount of $58,150 per vendor quotation dated 01/18/2012. ACCOUNT QUOTATION DATE: 01/18/2012 PAGES: One TO: Danise Cleckley FROM: Jim High COMPANY: City Of Delray Beach OTTO Environmental Systems 100 NW 1st 12700 General Dr. West Palm Beach, Fl. 33407 Charlotte, N.C. 28273 PHONE: 561-243-7213 PHONE: 704-402-7890 (Mobile) FAX: FAX: 740-539-7628 MOBILE: E-MAIL: jhigh@otto-usa.com E-MAIL: Good Afternoon Danise, Thank you for your request for a quotation for Otto “Multi–System Design” MSD95M,“MSD65C,35E Millennium ,Classic and Evolution carts”. These carts are designed to be handled with equal ease by either semi-automated or fully-automated collection equipment. We are pleased to quote as follows: (500) Otto 95C “Millennium” carts @$53.00 each $ 26,500.00 (600) Otto 65C “Classic” carts @$46.75 each $ 28,050.00 (100) Otto 35E Evolution Carts @$36.00/each $3,600.00 TOTAL COST: $ 58,150.00 Pricing is subject to any applicable taxes. Pricing in this quotation is subject to review after 30 days. Thank you for the opportunity. If you should any questions, do not hesitate to call. Jim High Product & Key Account Manager Otto Environmental Systems Mobile # 704-402-7890 jhigh@otto-usa.com This effec have will This resid switc Duri cont you Code an “X Than abov Dear R letter is to i ctive April 1 e with the re be reduced change is a dents on the ch to curb-si Area Serv Barrier Isl ing the mont ainer for gar can cont eEnforcemen X” and place nk you for y ve for any quResident: inform you t 1, 2012. The quirement th from $24.01 result of t Barrier Isla ide garbage p viced # land th of March rbage servic act the C nt@mydelra e it at curb-s your coopera uestions you that your bie service wil hat all conta 1 to $13.61 e the survey c and. Based pick-up serv of Surveys M 870 h 2012, staff e. Please re Code Enfor aybeach.com side on one o ation and fee may have re January weekly garb l continue to ainers being effective Apr conducted in on the surv vice. A summ Mailed Rea f will deliver eview the ch rcement Di m. If you wo of your sched l free to con egarding this Sincere Lula Bu Directo Small – 36” H x 19” Holds 2 ful bags. Goo person hy 12, 2012 bage service o be provide brought to c ril 1, 2012. n December vey results, i mary of the ar/Side Door 211 r to each res art below an ivision at ould like yo duled pick-u ntact us at 56 s correspond ely, utler or, Communi 35 gal ” W x 24” D l tall kitchen od for 1 -2 household will change ed on the sam curb-side. In r 2010, whic it was determ survey resul Curb-34 sidential uni nd if you wo 561/243-72 our old conta up days. 61/243-7219 dence. ity Improvem Medium – 42” H x 27” W Holds 4 full ta bags. Good person hou e from rear d me scheduled n addition, y ch included rmined that r lts are as fol -Side # 49 it a City-issu ould prefer a 219 or se ainer picked 9 or through ment Depart 68 gal x 26” D all kitchen for 3 -4 usehold Hmdoor to curb d days that y our monthly all of the s respondents lows: of Surveys R 560 (64.4 ued, medium different si end us an d up, please the e-mail a tment Large – 95 47”H x 28”W Holds 8+ full ta bags. Good more person hb-side service you currently y garbage fee single family preferred to Returned 4%) m, 68-gallon ze container e-mail a mark it with address listed 5 gal x 34”D all kitchen for 5 or household e y e y o n r, at h d MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: February 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/OFF THE AVE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Applicant is appealing the decision of the City Manager’s denial of a sidewalk café at “Off the Ave” located on SE 6th Avenue, south of Starbucks Coffee, as provided for under the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDR), Section 6.3.3(J)(1). The applicant contends that there is no legal support for this position and that it is inconsistent with prior applications for sidewalk cafés. BACKGROUND The application submitted for a sidewalk café proposes to use a portion of a City alley and City parking lot landscaped island, south of the building that the business occupies. LDR’s Section 6.3.3(F) (2) allows establishment of a sidewalk café in front of a business or along the side street adjacent to the business. The proposal submitted would encompass approximately 440 square feet of space within the alleyway and landscaped island in which the applicant has proposed removal of the existing rock, mulch and landscaping improvements done by the City and replacement of the area with pavers. The site plan also shows an aluminum fence to enclose the area. The site plan is very crowded with an existing sewer line, a concrete FPL pole with supporting guy wire, three existing mature sabal palms, several bushes and very mature lirope as ground cover. Staff also believes that the placement of the proposed tables and chairs, with all of the existing obstructions, would not provide a safe or conducive environment for outside dining. The location of the parking lot on the east, with vehicle travel and turning, would not provide a safe dining experience. This would be the only sidewalk café located in an alley way and City parking lot. Photos of the proposed cafe area and building are attached for your reference. The letter of appeal and elevations are also attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the appeal. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 1. This appeal of the denial of Off the Ave’s application for a sidewalk café permit has come before the City Commission on February 21, 2012. 2. The Appellee and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to Off the Ave’s appeal of the denial of their sidewalk café permit application. All of the evidence is part of the record in this case. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsection I. I. LDR REQUIREMENTS A. Pursuant to LDR Section 6.3.3(F)(2), the following criteria shall be considered in the review of annual sidewalk café permit applications. A sidewalk café may only be established in front of the business or along a side street adjacent to the business, or public space, and such businesses immediately adjacent to the business with which the sidewalk café is associated. The sidewalk café shall not be established adjacent to a travel lane or on-street parking unless there is no ability to establish a sidewalk café adjacent to the storefront, in which case a sidewalk café may be located adjacent to a traffic lane or street parking as long as a five foot clear pedestrian path is provided and the tables and associated chairs provide a minimum setback of 2’ from the vehicular travel lane and associated curbing. This 2’ setback does not apply when the tables are immediately adjacent on street parking. Have the requirements of 6.3.3(F)(2) been met as it relates to the annual sidewalk café permit application for Off the Ave? Yes _______ No _______ 3. The City Commission has applied the LDR requirements in existence at the time the original site plan was submitted. 4. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent 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 reports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses supporting these findings. 2 5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves ___ denies ____ the appeal and hereby adopts this Order this 21st day of February, 2012, by a vote of _____ in favor and _____ opposed. ATTEST: ________________________________ Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ________________________________ Chevelle Nubin City Clerk SE 5th Ave E Atlantic Ave 502 E ATLANTIC AVE 512 E ATLANTIC AVE 504 E ATLANTIC AVE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: February 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 WAIVER REQUEST/THE DELRAY BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission consideration of a request to waive Section 4.6.7(F)(3)(f) and allow the Delray Beach Library to erect two (2) Centennial Banners (6’ x 21’) on the south elevation of the building, facing Atlantic Avenue. The Library is celebrating 100 years of service (1913 – 2013) and seeking approval to erect these banners for one (1) year beginning, April 2012. BACKGROUND The Land Development Regulations governing Signs, Section 4.6.7, limits the use of banners to grand opening of businesses, special event non-roadway and special event roadway banners. Banners associated with City facilities and properties are submitted to the City Manager for approval. Banners for special events non-roadway are limited to 20 square feet in size. The Library is seeking approval to erect two (2) banners that are 126 square feet each that will flank the entrance from Atlantic Avenue, announcing their Centennial celebration. A copy of the banner rendering and building elevation is attached for reference. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending City Commission approval of the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.7(F)(3)(f) to allow the two (2) proposed Centennial Banners as proposed on the Library South Elevation. We would suggest, however, that these be limited to a period of six (6) months; the beginning date may be selectedbythe Library. 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 REQUESTS FOR THE DELRAY BEACH LIBRARY 1. This waiver request came before the City Commission on February 21, 2012. 2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the waiver requests for the Delray Beach Public Library. 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 granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; 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 for another applicant or owner. A. Waivers to LDR Section 4.6.7(F)(3)(f): Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.7(F)(3)(f), special signing in accordance with this Subsection, may be allowed by the Chief Building Official or his/her designee, for special events if it is determined that the sign type meets the following criteria: 1. the sign provides notice to the public of a public meeting or other public event, 2. the sign is temporary and for a limited time, and 3. the sign, if allowed for a limited time, must meet the following criteria: 2 (i) the sign will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs, (ii) the sign will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites, (iii) the sign will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians, and (iv) the sign will be installed and maintained in a safe manner. The approval, or disapproval, of such sign shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such sign. The Chief Building Official or his/her designee shall render a decision within fourteen (14) days after an application is made for utilizing this sign type for a special event. Such a decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the City Manager. 4. Each sign limited to less than twenty square feet (20 sq.ft.) in area; 5. Allowed fourteen (14) days prior to the event and must be removed by the second day after the event. Should the waiver to exceed the twenty (20) square foot maximum nonroadway banner size area be granted? Yes _______ No _______ Should the waiver to allow the banners to be up for a total of six (6) months be allowed? Yes _______ No _______ 3. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original development 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 competent substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained 3 in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses supporting these findings. 5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves __ denies ___ the waiver request. 6. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission hereby adopts this Order this 21st day of February, 2012, by a vote of _____ in favor and ____ opposed. ________________________________ ATTEST: Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ________________________________ Chevelle Nubin, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: February 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST/ROBERT GOLDSTEIN ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of the request from Mr. Robert Goldstein to reimburse to him Plan Review fees paid upon the submission of a permit application for a new single family home on July 19, 2005 in the amount of $13,161.85. BACKGROUND Mr. Goldstein’s initial request for reimbursement was made in April 2007 and my response to his request was by letter on May 2, 2007. In August 2011, Mr. Goldstein again called to follow-up on his reimbursement request stating that in these difficult economic times every penny counts. His position is that since he did not build the home, the City did nothing to earn the plan review fee made on his initial submission. According to my research, we received the permit on July 7, 2005. The plans were routed to the Planning & Zoning department the same day, because the property was immediately identified as being in the Beach Overlay District. Planning Department staff disapproved the application since it did not have the required Overlay District application; staff communicated the same to the project Architect on July 28, 2005. In addition, we actually reviewed the map used in 2005, verifying that it clearly identified the property as being within the district. The plans submitted were routed to and reviewed by Public Utilities, Engineering and building staff for structural, mechanical, electric and plumbing. Permits automatically expire when no action is taken within six months of submission. Thus, the permit application expired December 2005; Mr. Goldstein’s request for reimbursement was made seventeen (17) months after our last contact with his agent (July 28, 2005). I have attached my letter to Mr. Goldstein dated May 2, 2007 and correspondence received from him dated August 28, 2011. The property has changed owners twice since his initial ownership in 2004. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending denial of the request from Mr. Robert Goldstein for reimbursement of plan review fees associated with a permit application for a new single family home in July, 2005. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler -Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden -City Manager DATE: February 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT/WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission decision on the proposed renewal of the Franchise Agreement as requested by Waste Management. BACKGROUND Waste Management has presented a proposal to Commission 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 18th meeting. Commission directed staff to negotiate the amendments and bring the same back for consideration. Attached is the negotiated amended Franchise Agreement providing for renewal for a new eight (8)-year period, with five (5)-year renewal options, for the Commission's consideration. 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, upon approval of both parties. 2. 2. Waste Management will provide to the City one hundred and twenty-five (125) single station Big Belly Solar-powered compactors. Fifty (50) by August 1, 2012, forty-five (45) by June 1, 2013 and thirty (30) by June 1, 2014. Also, Waste Management will be responsible for maintenance of the solar powered compactors during the life of this 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 begin servicing all bus shelters without charge to the City. The City will be billed for disposal costs at the same rate currently charged for Pelican cans along Atlantic Avenue and Pineapple Grove. 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 Surcharge Table and DOE Diesel Fuel Price will be replaced with the CNG Fuel Surcharge Table that exist at that time. 5. 5. Indemnification Statement -a One Million Dollar ($1,000,000) Indemnity Clause relating to the 5th Amendment and process, that is effective for the entire term of the agreement through September 30, 2021, in addition to the broad indemnification provision set forth in Section 26 of the original Agreement. RECOMMENDATION City Commission discretion. PALM TRAN GRANT Shelter # Palm Tran Route Bus Stop Address /Intersection Notes Facing DIR PLAN SHEET# 1 Yes 1112 Military Trail @Atlantic Ave. Grammercy Square(Easement) SW 1 2 Yes 7429 West Atlantic Ave @Whatley Road Colony Palms /Existing Pad(Only Shelter) SE 2 3 Yes 287 Federal Hwy @Mangrove Park Harbourside Rd/Existing Pad(Only Shelter) NE 3 4 Yes 7703 Atlantic Ave @Congress Square SW 4 5 Yes 7618 NE 1st Street @NE 2nd Ave. (PGW) Existing Pad(Only Shelter) SW 5 6 Yes 7352 Old Germantown Rd @San Bernadino Dr. Existing Pad(Only Shelter) NW 6 7 Yes 7351 Old Germantown Rd @SW 36Th Ave. Existing Pad(Only Shelter) NW 7 8 Yes 7349 Old Germantown Rd @Via Verona Existing Pad(Only Shelter) NW 8 9 Yes 7428 SW 22nd Ave. @Germantown SW 9 10 Yes 7346 SW 22nd Ave. @Germantown SE 10 11 Yes 220 Federal Hwy @Delray Plaza FDOT Variance SW 11 12 Yes 7409 SW 29th St @SW20TH Terr NE 12 13 Yes 7362 SW 10th Ave In front of Target SW 13 14 Yes 6427 Linton Blvd@Linton Squares Oaks Existing Pad(Only Shelter) SE 14 15 Yes 222 SR 5 Transportation Ln. NW 15 16 Yes 282 SR 5 Ave G NE 16 17 Yes 221 SR 5 Fladells Way NW 17 18 Yes 224 SR 5 Lindell Blvd NW 18 19 Yes 284 SR 5 Delray Plaza SE 19 20 Yes 219 SR 5 Tropic Blvd SW 20 21 Yes 283 SR 5 Formerly Ralph Buick NE 21 22 Yes 7626 2605 West Atlantic Ave@NW24th Ave Atlantic High School(Easement) SW 22 23 Yes 7670 2605 West Atlantic Ave@NW24th Ave Golf Course NW 23 PROPOSED BUS SHELTERS AREA BUS SHELTERS MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Bob Diaz, Construction Manager Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construction Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 16, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 ADDITIONAL SCOPE/RANDOLPH & DEWDNEY/POMPEY PARK CONCESSION STAND P/N 10-128 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve additional scope, in the total amount of $2,614.50, for the relocation and extension of existing low voltage conduit and modification of all flat roof areas; and approval for the amount to be paid from the Contract's Contingency Allowance; for the Pompey Park Concession Stand Project #10-128. BACKGROUND The additional scope, in the amount of $2,614.50, includes the relocation and extension of low voltage conduit, which is currently in conflict with the improvements to the concession stand facility; and modification of all flat roof areas, which consists of installing tapered insulation to divert water away from the second floor press box building. This should prevent the water intrusion and subsequent rot which occurred in the previous second floor press box walls. The breakdown is as follows: $ 441.00 -Relocation and extension of existing low voltage conduit $2,173.50 -Modification of all flat roof areas $2,614.50 Total Attached, please find Exhibit "A" which details all costs associated with this work; and a copy of the Construction Project Detailed Allowances Spreadsheet. FUNDING SOURCE Cost to be funded out of Contract's Contingency Allowance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of additional scope, in the total amount of $2,614.50, for the relocation and extension of existing low voltage conduit and modification of all flat roof areas; and approval for the amount to be paid from the Contract's Contingency Allowance; for the Pompey Park Concession Stand Project. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lisa M. Herrmann, Budget Officer THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 16, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. 10-12 BUDGET AMENDMENT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The Commission is requested to consider Resolution No. 10-12 which amends the FY 2011-12 budget. BACKGROUND This is the Mid Year Budget Amendment for FY 2011-12 (back up attached). After the decision was made to not implement a Fire Service Fee for Fiscal 2012, staff felt that it would be best to go ahead and do our mid-year budget amendment early this year. The Commission directed that up to $1,400,000 could be taken from undesignated fund balance to help offset the $3,200,000 reduction in revenue resulting from deletion of the Fire Service Fee revenue. The attached budget amendment uses only $1,000,000 from fund balance to rebalance our budget. In addition to absorbing the $3,200,000 revenue reduction, we also are adding over $100,000 in additional expenses to unfreeze an attorney's position in the City Attorneys Office, add staff in Code Enforcement and retain experts for testimony, all in support of adopting and enforcing the newly amended ordinances relating to regulation of transient housing. Fortunately, building permit revenue is coming in much better than originally projected, and is a major factor in enabling us to make these adjustment without using more of our fund balance. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Resolution No. 10-12 amending the FY 2011-12 budget. RESOLUTION NO. 10-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 42-11 ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 WHICH MADE APPROPRIATIONS OF SUMS OF MONEY FOR ALL NECESSARY EXPENDITURES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012, BY SETTING FORTH THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATING FUNDS OF THE CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS INCONSISTENT HEREWITH. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 1 of Resolution No. 42-11 adopted by the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on September 20, 2011, is hereby repealed, and a new Section 1 is enacted and amended to read as follows: That the following sums of money, attached hereto and marked Exhibit “A”, are hereby appropriated upon the terms and conditions herein set forth. Section 2. That, subject to the qualifications contained in this resolution, all appropriations made out of the General Fund are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations, the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amounts herein named if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and other resources available during the period commencing the 1st day of October, 2011, and ending the 30th day of September, 2012, for which the appropriations are made, are sufficient to pay all the appropriations in full. Otherwise, said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of realized revenue of the General Fund is to the total amount of revenues estimated by the City Commission to be available in the period commencing the 1st day of October, 2011, and ending the 30th day of September, 2012. Section 3. That all balances of the appropriations payable out of the General Fund of the City Treasury unencumbered at the close of business on the 30th day of September, 2011, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the City Treasury and may be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in any appropriation for the fiscal year commencing the 1st day of October, 2011. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to be applicable to 2 RES. NO. 10-12 unencumbered balances remaining to the credit of the Water and Sewer Fund, Sanitation Fund or any Fund created by the setting up of special revenue, but such balances shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of these Funds for the fiscal year commencing the 1st day of October, 2011. Section 4. That no department, bureau, agency or individual receiving appropriations under the provisions of this resolution shall exceed the amount of its appropriation, except with the consent and approval of the City Commission first obtained. If such department, bureau, agency or individual shall exceed the amount of its appropriation without such consent and approval of the City Commission, the administrative officer or individual, in the discretion of the City Commission, may be deemed guilty of neglect of official duty and may be subject to removal therefor. Section 5. That nothing in this resolution shall be construed as authorizing any reduction to be made in the amounts appropriated in this resolution for the payment of interest on, or retirement of, the debt of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Section 6. That none of the monies enumerated in this resolution in connection with the General Fund, Water and Sewer Fund, Sanitation Fund or any other Fund of the City shall be expended for any purposes other than those for which they are appropriated, and it shall be the duty of the Budget Officer and/or Finance Director to report known violations of this section to the City Manager. Section 7. That all monies collected by any department, bureau, agency or individual of the City government shall be paid promptly into the City Treasury. Section 8. That the foregoing budget is hereby adopted as the official budget of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, for the aforesaid period. However, the restrictions with respect to the expenditures/expenses of the funds appropriated shall apply only to the lump sum amounts for classes of expenditures/expenses which have been included in this resolution. Section 9. That public hearings were held on the tax levy and the budget on September 6, 2011, and September 20, 2011. Section 10. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 21st day of February, 2012. 3 RES. NO. 10-12 _________________________________ M A Y O R ATTEST: __________________________________ City Clerk General Fund DOWNTOWN SPECIAL Amended DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISE REVENUE FY 11/12 FUND FUNDS FUNDS TOTAL CASH BALANCES BROUGHT FORWARD 1,135,648 5,072,260 436,799 6,644,707 ESTIMATED REVENUES: TAXES Millages AD VALOREM TAXES 7.1900 42,271,945 0 0 0 42,271,945 AD VALOREM TAXES 0.6133 3,574,055 0 0 0 3,574,055 AD VALOREM-DELINQUENT 500,000 0 0 0 500,000 AD VALOREM -DDA 1.0000 0 477,520 0 0 477,520 Sales & Use Taxes 1,295,000 0 0 0 1,295,000 Utility Taxes 4,980,000 0 0 0 4,980,000 Other Taxes 4,390,000 0 0 0 4,390,000 Franchise, Licenses & Permits 8,451,650 0 800 0 8,452,450 Intergovernmental 6,688,628 0 182,550 2,555,107 9,426,285 Charges for Services 9,814,480 0 43,436,050 0 53,250,530 Fines & Forfeitures 1,024,500 0 0 134,500 1,159,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 5,698,885 35,000 82,650 877,580 6,694,115 Other Financing Sources 3,818,590 0 103,000 1,014,620 4,936,210 TOTAL REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 92,507,733 512,520 43,805,050 4,581,807 141,407,110 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES AND BALANCES 93,643,381 512,520 48,877,310 5,018,606 148,051,817 EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES: General Government Services 8,879,455 0 0 301,150 9,180,605 Public Safety 51,946,590 0 0 662,769 52,609,359 Physical Environment 565,703 0 31,591,840 0 32,157,543 Transportation 3,220,110 0 0 126,826 3,346,936 Economic Environment 6,515,639 509,232 0 2,331,166 9,356,037 Human Services 59,750 0 0 0 59,750 Culture & Recreation 14,032,310 0 3,578,300 899,150 18,509,760 Debt Service 5,644,910 0 6,838,840 0 12,483,750 Other Financing Uses 2,730,470 0 6,120,650 0 8,851,120 TOTAL EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES 93,594,937 509,232 48,129,630 4,321,061 146,554,860 Reserves 48,444 3,288 747,680 697,545 1,496,957 TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND RESERVES 93,643,381 512,520 48,877,310 5,018,606 148,051,817 Exhibit A Budget Summary The General Fund Budget as of the four month period ending January 31, 2012 totaled $93,491,918. Adjustments of $151,463 were made for an amended total of $93,643,381. General Fund Revenue Introduction General Fund revenue collection for the four-month period ending January 31, 2012 totaled $52,463,380 or 56% of the total budget. This includes prior year encumbrances brought forward totaling $135,648. The City can expect a shortfall of $645,012 at fiscal year end. Variances are discussed in more detail below. Ad Valorem Tax Revenue A total of $35,556,250 or 78% of the budget was collected for this revenue category. The City can expect a surplus of $485,270. This is based on expected surplus balances of $385,270 for current ad valorem taxes and delinquent taxes totaling $100,000. Sales and Use Taxes Sales and Use Taxes totaled $411,401 or 31% of the budget. The City can expect a shortfall of $15,000 at fiscal year end. Franchise Taxes The City has collected $1,723,117 or 36% of the budget for this category. The City can expect a shortfall of $30,000 due to a projected shortfall in franchise fees based on gas. Utility Taxes Utility Tax revenues totaled $1,764,944 or 36% of the budget. The City can expect a surplus of $130,000 at fiscal year-end based on a projected surplus in utility taxes based on electric. Fire Assessment Fees – Franchise fees are at a negative $21,928 or a negative 1% due to expenses relative to the implementation of the Fire Assessment Fee. The City can expect a shortfall of $3,200,000 at fiscal year-end due to the fact that the proposed fire assessment fee was not passed. Other Taxes The communication service tax (CST) revenue collections totaled $1,215,891 or 32% of the budget. The City can anticipate a shortfall of $75,000 due to communication services taxes coming in less than anticipated. Licenses License revenues totaled $651,370 or 85% of the budget. The City can expect to be at budget at fiscal year end. Permit Revenues Permit revenues totaled $2,390,646 or 88% of the budget. The City can expect a surplus of $958,550 at fiscal year end. The revenue collection is up 122% from the prior year. Notable surplus balances are as follows: general building permits ($800,000), air conditioning permits ($80,000), paving permits ($30,000), tenant landlord permits ($75,000), landscape permits ($25,000), and foundation only permits ($5,000). Notable shortfalls are as follows: electrical ($30,000), shutter permits ($10,000) and no final inspection fees ($10,000), Intergovernmental Revenues Intergovernmental revenues are at $1,929,221 or 31% of the budget. The City can anticipate a surplus of $431,418 at fiscal year end. This is due to estimated surplus balances in State Homeland Grants ($177,915), JAG grant ($53,503) and the FDOT shuttle grant ($300,000) offset by an estimated shortfall in sales tax revenue ($100,000). Charges for Services Charges for Services totaled $3,350,327 or 34% of the budget. The City can expect a shortfall of $126,690 at fiscal year-end. Notable shortfalls are as follows: fire EMS –Gulfstream ($55,410), transport fees ($200,000), alarm registrations ($225,250) and a/r nuisance abatement ($10,000). Notable surplus balances are as follows: certification/copies ($40,000), Gulfstream permits ($360,000) and fire safety plan review ($18,000). Fines and Forfeitures Fines and Forfeitures totaled $345,669 or 37% of the budget. The City can expect a surplus of $91,000 at fiscal year-end due to estimated surplus balances in general fines ($5,000), parking fines ($10,000), penalties on advalorem ($86,000), false alarm fees ($5,000) and parking late fees ($10,000). This is offset by estimated shortfalls in handicap parking fines ($20,000), and $12.50 fines ($5,000). Interfund Transfers Interfund Transfers are at $5,167 or 33% of the budget. The City can expect a surplus of $493,130 which is due to transfers coming in from the Special Projects Fund ($123,130) and the 2004 GO Fund ($371,000) offset by a transfer reduction from utility tax debt service savings ($1,000). It should be noted that there is a direct offset associated with the 2004 GO transfer. Contribution from Other Funds Contributions from Other Funds are at $1,104,153 or 33% of the budget. The City can expect a surplus of $201,650 due to a transfer in from the insurance fund relative to a business insurance refund. Recovery of Administrative Costs Recovery of Administrative Costs is at $835,000 or 33% of the budget. The City can expect to be at budget at fiscal year end. Miscellaneous Revenue Miscellaneous revenues totaled $1,066,504 or 33% of the budget. The City can expect a shortfall of $10,660 at fiscal year-end which is primarily due to estimated shortfalls in interest on investments ($25,000), interest on accounts receivable ($6,500), Family Center reimbursement ($20,000) as well as the CRA reimbursement/review planner revenue ($75,510). This shortfall will be offset by estimated surplus balances in the CRA reimbursement/shuttle revenue ($94,670), various rebates ($16,625) as well as miscellaneous revenue ($35,000). Mid Year Budget Amendment Fiscal Year 2011-2012 General Fund Expenditures The General Fund expenditures total $33,211,474 or 35.5% of the proposed amended budget of $93,643,381 at 33.3% of the budget year lapsed. The departmental adjustments overall total an increase of $151,463. A brief justification of departmental adjustments is as follows: General Government Services This category includes the legislative and administrative departments of the City and the miscellaneous division. The increase in General Government expenditures totals $36,355. The City Commission’s budget is decreasing $21,900. There is an adjustment to health insurance for Commissioners who have opted not to receive the City’s insurance ($16,000) and reductions in other lines items such as Travel/Training/Education accounts ($4,900) and refreshments for meetings ($1,000). The City Manager’s budget is decreasing $11,590 as a result of a return of one third term pay for an employee who is putting off retirement until the next fiscal year. The Human Resources’ Department’s decrease of $1,760 is due to reductions in the Other Contractual Services ($360) and Special Events ($1,400) accounts. City Clerk has no adjustments. The IT division’s increase of $10,000 is due to needed funds for a consultant for the operating system upgrade taking place this fiscal year. The Public Information Department’s decrease of $18,690 is due to reductions in other contractual services ($4,500), Travel/Training/Education ($830), Other Repair and Maintenance ($2,000) and Printing ($11,360) due to the deletion of future News for Neighborhoods and Hometown Connection editions. The Finance Administration’s increase of $19,825 is due to an employee suggestion award which has a revenue offset ($16,625) and an increase in tuition reimbursement ($3,200) for the final semesters of the Accounting Specialist’s bachelors’ degree. The City Attorney’s budget will increase by $29,070 for costs associated with filling the currently frozen Assistant City Attorney I position on June 1. Administrative Services’ decrease of $1,000 covers increases in electricity ($4,500) and irrigation water ($1,500) and decreases in telephones ($6,500) and water and sewer ($500). The Planning and Zoning Department’s budget will increase by $11,500 for additional expert testimony that will be needed this fiscal year. Engineering has no adjustments. Building Maintenance’s decrease of $1,100 is due to reductions in subscriptions ($100), memberships ($600) and training/education costs ($400). The miscellaneous expenses in the general government services function is increasing $22,000 in Other Professional Services to cover costs associated with the presentation of the Fire Assessment Fee. Mid Year Budget Amendment Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Cultural and Recreation This category includes the Parks and Recreation Department, the Old School Square Grant and Library and miscellaneous cultural and recreational grants. The decrease in this category is $81,730. The Parks and Recreation Department’s decrease is $65,230. The reductions to this department are in salary lines from vacant positions ($34,870), tuition reimbursement ($1,360), irrigation water due to change to reclaimed water ($25,000) and various equipment and supplies accounts ($4,000). The Tennis Operations Department’s net decrease of $16,500 is due to decreased costs for two tournaments ($6,500), other professional services ($5,000) and building maintenance which will be postponed until next fiscal year ($5,000). Public Safety This category includes the Police and Fire Departments and Community Improvement. The Department budgets in this category represent 55% of the general fund budget total. The increase in the Public Safety budget category equals $176,525. The Police Department is 32% expended at 33.3% budget period lapsed of the adjusted budget. The total Police budget will decrease $451,780. Reductions are made for vacant positions ($476,330), the reduction of two paid holidays for lieutenants ($8,980), furniture ($8,840), a vehicle for the Crime Scene Unit ($12,090), a remote operated vehicle for underwater searches ($8,000) and equipment ($7,000). Increases were made to salaries for the raises given to lieutenants ($53,740) and the amount needed for actual retiree health trust payment ($15,720). The Fire Department’s budget increase of $563,325 includes reductions for adjustments to salaries and benefits for vacant positions ($185,310), the deletion of a part time Plan Reviewer in Fire Safety ($18,400), equipment ($38,000), building maintenance projects to be postponed to next fiscal year ($44,000) and uniforms coming in at a lower cost than anticipated ($5,000). Increases in the department are the costs for four new paramedics to fully staff Station 2 hired in November ($288,140) which has a grant revenue offset, additional needed for actual payment for retiree health trust ($27,280), a Fire and Life Safety Plan Reviewer hired full time with cost split between Fire Safety and Building Inspection ($18,030), additional overtime needed to cover vacancies for the remainder of the year ($342,670) and expenses related to grants that have a revenue offset ($177,915). The Community Improvement budget shows an increase of $64,980 due to the addition of a Fire and Life Safety Plan Reviewer with cost split with Fire Safety ($12,010), a Code Enforcement Officer, Administrative Assistant and Part Time Rental Housing Inspector for the Landlord permit program ($59,830) for the remainder of the year and additional funds needed for supplies and postage ($6,500). This was partially offset by reductions in salaries for a vacant position ($13,360). Physical Environment This category which consists of Public Works Administration and the Cemetery reflects a decrease of $240. This includes only a decrease in Public Works Administration’s membership costs. Transportation This category includes the Public Works Department. The department has four divisions, Streets, Traffic Operations, Parking, and Street Lighting. There is net departmental increase of $337,000. Reductions were made in travel and training/education ($5,630), equipment ($10,000), other contractual services ($4,000), building maintenance ($10,000), building materials ($200) and memberships ($200). Increases were made for a part time electrician funded by the CRA ($17,030) and to budget the expense related to additional grant funding for the Shuttle Bus program from the CRA and FDOT ($350,000). Mid Year Budget Amendment Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Economic Environment This category is not changing. Debt Service There is an increase to this function in the amount of $332,030 due to the adjustment in the payment for the Public Safety hardware/software from twelve months to nine (reduction of $33,970), interest coming in less than anticipated (reduction of $5,000) and using bond proceeds to pay down debt (increase of $371,000) that has a revenue offset. Transfers There is a decrease in this category of $639,610 due to a decrease in the transfer to the general construction fund of $645,910 (specific projects identified in the General Construction fund summary) and a transfer to the Special Projects Fund in the amount of $6,300 for the Centennial Event approved by Commission on September 13, 2011. Reserves $8,867 currently in the Manager’s Contingency was used to help balance this amendment. Other Funds ARRA Economic Stimulus Fund This fund will increase $400,730 overall. Grant balances are being rolled forward and distributed for the DOJ Cops Hiring Grant ($53,040), Transit Capital Assistance Grant ($46,540), Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grant ($171,480) and Local Energy Assurance Plan ($129,670). Law Enforcement Trust Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Special Projects Fund This fund will increase $7,718 overall. The increase is the Bulletproof Vest Grants ($5,418) and transfer from the general fund for the Centennial Event ($6,300) with a decrease in a transfer from the general construction for the public arts due to projects being deferred ($4,000). A transfer to the general fund of the current project reserve for the public arts program of $123,130 is being added. Neighborhood Services Fund Fiscal Year 2010/11 balances for CDBG, Neighborhood Housing, SHIP, Hope III, Disaster Recovery Initiative programs, Neighborhood Stabilization, Neighborhood Improvements and FEMA were brought forward. Total brought forward is $984,280. Also included are changes to SHIP and FEMA in a decrease of $13,996 from budgeted to actual grant amount. The overall increase for this fund is $970,284. Beautification Trust Fund This fund will increase $23,000 overall for a CRA grant for beautification of MLK area landscaping. Beach Restoration Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Mid Year Budget Amendment Fiscal Year 2011-2012 General Construction Fund This fund will decrease $645,910 overall. Reductions are being made in the following projects: Beach Pavilion replacement ($210,450), building maintenance ($50,000), City Hall chiller upgrade ($50,000), computer replacement ($67,710), data cabling and switches ($55,000), neighborhood enhancements ($20,000), Parks Master Plan update ($35,000), Police computer room relocation ($47,000), street resurfacing ($106,750) and a transfer to public arts ($4,000). 2004 GO Bond No changes or adjustment to this fund. City Marina Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Sanitation Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Water and Sewer Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Water and Sewer Renewal and Replacement Fund No changes or adjustments to this fund. Municipal Golf Course No changes or adjustments to this fund. Lakeview Golf Course No changes or adjustment to this fund. Stormwater Utility Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Garage Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Insurance Fund This fund will increase $400 overall. There will be $400 transferred in from divisions that are adding positions at mid year for the increase in life insurance premiums. In addition, $80,000 is being transferred from a reduction in claims cost for prescriptions to fund additional costs for general operating supplies in the Wellness Center ($23,000) and health claims handling costs for a project for the re-pricing of prescriptions with Cigna Insurance ($57,000). MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist Richard C. Hasko, PE, Director of Environmental Services THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PARKING STUDY CHARETTE RESULTS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is a presentation of the results from the Public Parking Charette sessions. BACKGROUND In accordance with City Commission direction, two public charettes were held to discuss options for the continued implementation of the parking study. Economic sustainability of the operations and manitenance of the parking facilities was the main topic of the conversations with the public. Staff has categorized comments contained in the report in an attempt to illustrate partipant consensus regarding this critical component of the Parking Study. Attached for your review is the facilitator's report, executive summary and staff's compilation of the comments, grouped by similarity, from the public on how to proceed. In summary, a majority of the comments suggest that if a fee based program is to be instituted, there should be careful monitoring of the impact on commerce and frequent, expeditious public reporting of the program's status. Emphasis was placed on devising a program having a positive impact on downtowwn businesses. Another significant message seemed to be flexibility, that program technology should contain measures for change of policies, including but not limited to changes in fee structure to adapt to varying conditions such as off-season v. in season; day v. night; the capability to adapt for events or other promotional/marketing efforts, etc. Although the charette topic was sustainability of the parking management program, several comments regarding valet parking were made. The Parking Management Advisory Board will consider this topic at its February 28, 2012 meeting and the issue will be brought to Commission in March. Employee parking was also mentioned. While staff intended to address employee parking subsequent to a decision on fee based parking, an employee parking program model that assumes no fee based parking is being crafted and will be completed shortly. Industry standards indicate that fee based parking is the most effective model for overall parking system management, effective and efficient enforcement of an employee parking program and the equitable generation of revenue for operational sustainability. It is also acknowledged that issues identified and discussed during the public input sessions are real and must be given serious consideration in determining the model best suited for Delray Beach. Parking Management staff believes a fee based system that addresses the concerns of the business and residential community while maintaining effectiveness and efficiency of system management can be developed and would recommend partnering with stakeholders to implement a system that achieves those goals. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests Commission direction. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2500 | Tampa, Florida 33602 | 813.490.3890 | 877.490.3890 | www.fairfieldindex.com Fairfield Index | MEMORANDUM To: The City of Delray Beach From: Fairfield Index, Inc. Attn: Date: Subject: Scott Aronson February 15, 2012 Executive Summary Re: A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions This document is designed to serve as an Executive Summary of the recent Community Conversations on sustainable parking strategies for Delray Beach. The Conversations, or “charettes”, were held on Monday, January 30 at 7:00 p.m. and Tuesday, January 31 at 9:00 a.m. at the Delray Beach Community Center. The two Conversations were scheduled by the City in order to ensure the people who call Delray Beach “home” were in a position to have a place and forum where elements of a City of Delray Beach Parking Management Plan (2010 – Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.) could be discussed. Approximately seventy-eight individuals participated in the discussions, and subject experts were present to assist with questions about technology, activities in other communities, and measuring outcomes. Participants worked with candor and commitment to identify expectations for implementation, sustainability, and outcomes; and the majority had reviewed the Plan in advance. Though this Executive Summary focuses on the top-line concerns and expectations emerging from the Conversations, it is imperative that anyone dealing with implementation, return on investment, and coordination with the community at-large refer to the complete Session Notes and related Appendices (A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions) as a resource. Though the Monday and Tuesday Conversations tended to converge on similar expectations, the Session Notes are important to distinguish between the content and character of the two events. Critical Expectations for Implementation, Tracking and Sustainability: The two Conversations produced a dominant roster of expectations that provide solid counsel for implementation, tracking, and sustainability. At the center of these expectations are: the principle that no action or collective actions in the Plan be implemented unless it is advanced as a way to grow commerce and economic competitiveness; and the call for technological, fee/revenue, regulatory and infrastructure decisions that may be measured in as close to a “real time” setting as possible. 2 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2500 Tampa, Florida 33602 www.fairfieldindex.com Fairfield Index | MEMORANDUM There are elements or parts of the Plan that impact or create concerns with each individual, but working in partnership with the City at every step of implementation will go a long way in building confidence. Setting the right priorities for measurement and moving with flexibility as conditions change will build confidence and ensure ongoing feedback from all who want to ensure a prosperous, attractive and competitive Delray Beach. Though there are some regrets that meters must be a part of the solution in the Plan, the participants generally understood that single events and actions do not necessarily produce the desired outcomes. There is a portfolio of strategies and steps required that includes metrics. And the City is obliged to acquire the right technologies to ensure flexibilities of fees, and work with the fluctuations of day, time, season and event calendar. The complete critical expectations from the Session Notes are produced below: A sound parking strategy involves a portfolio of actions and investments. This includes many aspects of the Plan, including time-of-day, seasonal pricing; vouchers; communications and signage; valet; flexible technology; constant reporting of progress and changes to merchants; security; vouchers; employees; valet; etc. There is an overarching principle that must guide all implementation and measures: the parking strategy must improve not harm commerce and the amount of time visitors and customers spend in the area. Communications must be a vital part of the strategy and in support of clarity of price, location, safety, transit, traffic flow, and access. Employee parking strategy is a priority and a top issue. Safety and security relative to parking facilities and access points must be a priority – Even if meaningful security steps have been taken, perceptions matter. See Communications. If metering must be part of the portfolio of actions, and most participants engaged in discussions of meter pricing flexibility and proper technology, then the City must ensure communications on impacts and outcomes in as close to real-time as possible and be committed to changing direction as conditions and behaviors change. Implementation of static rather than dynamic solutions is not acceptable. Clarity on valet parking locations is needed because of perceptions that nonvalet assets are being utilized. 1 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by Summary and Approach to Conversations In 2010, a Delray Beach Parking Management Plan (Plan) was published. The document, found at http://www. mydelraybeach.com/Delray/News/Parking+Mgmt+Plan. htm, represents a lengthy and detailed study conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. that was commissioned by the City, coordinated through a Project Review Committee, informed by the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA); and the Parking Management Advisory Board and Downtown Development Authority. The eight chapters of the Plan provide documentation of existing parking supply and utilization, and a multi-prong approach to incorporating new practices and models, thinking strategically about fees and revenues, utilizing new technologies, and introducing new flexibilities based on day, time and seasonal shifts in patterns and behaviors. These Session Notes are not designed to reproduce the detailed Plan or duplicate the multiple stakeholder sessions conducted by the Kimley-Horn team. The Plan was cited as a primary resource and area for study in preparation for the Conversations. The Community Conversations were scheduled by the City in order to focus on sustainable solutions to parking, and ensure the people who call Delray Beach “home” were in a position to have a place and forum where elements of the Plan, post-publication, could be discussed. The City’s notice is included in Appendix A, and the Delray Beach Community Center was utilized as an ideal, central space to convene. The City and its consultant firm for the conversations, Fairfield Index, Inc., made the assumption that individuals interested in participating may come from a variety of locations in the City, be involved in a diversity of enterprises, careers and activities and, therefore, required two different options. Monday, January 30th was identified for a 7:00 p.m. session, and Tuesday, January 31st was identified for a 9:00 a.m. morning session. The Monday session lasted approximately two and one-half (2.5) hours and the Tuesday session lasted approximately two (2) hours. The Fairfield Index team remained on site after the sessions were adjourned to ensure additional ideas and concerns were not lost. For the Tuesday meeting, participants were asked if they had merchant or other job or business requirements that impacted their ability to stay for the duration of the session; and their comments were taken as a priority. The Monday session included fifty-four (54) participants with approximately 75% indicating they had reviewed the Plan. The Tuesday session included twenty-four (24) participants with approximately 66% reviewing the Plan in advance. Fairfield Index’s President, Don Upton, moderated the conversations and provided a simple, flexible agenda at the opening of each session. He emphasized the flexibility of time and topic, but noted the focus and notice on a sustainable parking plan. The agenda called for a conversation flow as follows: Welcome Business of the Meeting Expectations of Participants Breakdown of Priority Issues /Utilization of Subject Matter Experts Small Group Discussions (if Needed) Reconvene to Review New Ideas and Results Report and Next Steps Kimley-Horn experts were introduced and Upton encouraged participants to draw on their experience in other communities and perspectives on the Plan. They included Master’s Degrees in Civil Engineering and Professional Engineer Credentials. Participants were asked to approach the entire conversation as resources and experts in their own right. Study Area The study area is a loosely defined as the area bound by NE 4th Street/Lake Ida Road to the North, SE 4th Street to the South, the Atlantic Ocean to the East, and Interstate 95 to the West. However, the main focus of the study area is the central core area including a few blocks on both sides of Atlantic Avenue and the parking facilities within the study area. The study area consists of the West Atlantic neighborhood, the Central Core and the Beach Area […] Delray Beach Parking Management Plan, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., page 2 2 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by Four areas of strength and perspective were outlined: Participants serve as historical experts – residents are observers of traffic and parking behaviors Participants participate with unique personal and business perspectives and needs Participants attend with the ability to ask questions of experts Participants invest their time with the ability to issue data requests in areas that required further study Though each conversation included very specific positions on elements of the Plan – with special note of a few people with overall opposition to any kind of metering and continuation of “free parking”, the need for stepped up security and security systems relating to parking facilities, valet parking behaviors, and seasonal or festival parking strategies – there was a general openness to well-staged, prioritized implementation of the Plan. There were five overall breakthroughs in the conversations: 1. The recognition that individual and diverse concerns about current parking problems may require compromise and some overall dissatisfaction with such a compromise – actions are needed to resolve a number of parking and traffic issues 2. The expectation that no action will be taken pursuant to the Plan unless it produces overall improvement of the economy and commerce – work only under conditions that are designed and proven to improve commerce 3. The expectation that well-staged implementation will put the community, especially those with fears about impact on commerce and their own enterprises, in a position to follow progress, review measures of success, and provide counsel and communications on market changes in as close to a real-time setting as possible – make community a part of data-driven implementation and monitoring 4. The confirmation that new technology and a “portfolio” of well-timed, well-monitored actions will allow the City to change, flex and alter strategy over time and as conditions change – a dynamic, not a static investment 5. Single issues and requests for help appeared to be connected to a more complex system and potentially impact others unless part of an overall strategy – nothing is in isolation Monday Conversation Participants were asked to state their expectations for the meeting in terms critical issues, opportunities and learning. Their responses guided the discussion for most of the evening of work and allowed the subject matter experts to address technology and trends. All participants responded and the following topical areas of interest resulted, in no priority order: The need for a strategy to deal with employee parking Consideration of the need to reach a compromise on Plan implementation because solutions are needed Addressing fear of merchants regarding the loss of free parking and customer access to their establishments Addressing fear that an existing set of expectations for free parking, confronting a paid parking plan, would change shopping habits negatively The need for a strategy to deal with parking for valetparked vehicles 3 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by An assumption or perception that valet-parked vehicles are not necessarily in proper lots and spaces Ensuring a static, inflexible parking meter regime is not implemented Ensuring an implemented plan or elements of an implemented plan place improvement of commerce first Ensuring old-fashioned, single-head meters are not put inplace Exploring ways to ensure maximum flexibility in metering, and using the right metering technology to monitor, adjust, and report results Innovations in communications and signage as a priority step to ensure shoppers, patrons and visitors know good, lower-cost options are close by New strategies for signaling and traffic flow Ensuring the city understands the complex daily, hourly, and seasonal trends and behaviors of drivers and acquires the technology; and uses flexible communications, flexible fees, and strategically priced options to manage traffic and commercial patterns in as close to a real-time setting as possible Getting the message out that “free parking” is not an accurate term Awareness and planning relative to new, competitive shopping areas that may attract Delray Beach customers Awareness that meters were tried over twenty (20) years ago Utilization of vouchers and first-hour or more “Free” with smart meters during specific times of day Hands-on flexibility/dynamic approach to incentivizing parking in parking facilities with right pricing and clear communications If the plan must be implemented, create a system to share progress, and take the right steps in the best possible order Remember the dynamics and uniqueness of our community – comparisons with other communities may be helpful, but this needs to be a special Plan for Delray Beach Keep enforcement balanced with image of a welcoming City Move with consideration of citizens who live in the study area – residential living is tied to residential access and parking and walkability Provide more clarity on where revenues from metering and parking facility fees go – this is an unnecessary area of confusion Highlights of Subject Matter Expert Guidance for Session ¨¨ Return to traditional single-head meters is not required nor advised ¨¨ There are a number of fiscal strategies to acquire smart meters, including seasing v. purchasing ¨¨ Look carefully at range of smart metering to: preserve precious pedestrian sidewalks and attractiveness of community; provide flexibility of pricing to time of day, seasonal events, day of week, etc.; provide City, merchants, and other interested citizens with trends and impacts; and ensure flexibility over time ¨¨ First hour(s) at no charge are realistic strategies 4 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by ¨¨ Vouchers have worked in other markets and should be explored ¨¨ Elements of plan must be tied together for proper impact and monitoring ¨¨ Objective to attract shoppers and visitors and KEEP them in the district for longer periods is realistic ¨¨ Clear communications and marketing strategies matter ¨¨ Employee parking is an essential part of the plan ¨¨ Signals and signs are critical to success Tuesday Conversation Participants were asked to state their expectations for the meeting in terms critical issues, opportunities and learning. Their responses guided the discussion for most of the morning of work and allowed the subject matter experts to address technology and trends. All participants responded and the following topical areas of interest resulted, in no priority order: – Address the impact of festivals and special events. – Participants raising this question ranged from positions on downsizing festivals to ensuring a festival strategy in incorporated into the plan and implementation. – Address festival vendors displacing parking. Re-think traffic flow and patterns as a part of the plan. Take on perceptions and realities of valet-parkedvehicles being out-of-position relative to the best interests of merchants. Clarity of communications on valet spaces and lots. There is a serious perception problem regarding valet-parked vehicles being in lots and spaces bettersuited for others. Serious commitment to communications and traffic flow signage – big opportunity. Build a plan of action and implement on a prioritized basis. If meters are needed, ensure maximum flexibility for time, day, season, and events. Perceptions about safety relative to walks to and into parking facilities must be addressed. Strategic marketing and signage may be vastly improved – consider this a priority in implementation of the strategy. Concern about implementation of a new parking strategy going too long without measure and review – how do merchants and business owners follow trends and impacts? A few months post-implementation without data could harm businesses. Be sure the City understands that many local businesses should be viewed as needing support and information weeks into implementation, not months. Provide clarity on how revenues from parking strategy are to be utilized. Is this for general funds or to pay for and sustain parking strategy? Perceptions and realities of security when venturing to parking facilities require a comprehensive strategy, including: lighting, signage, law enforcement, and -possibly -shuttles. 5 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by Be sure the success of Delray Beach is not turned into a problem – implement a parking strategy that grows the economy. Explore dynamic pricing for meters. Serious perception issues on valet-parked vehicles being in unauthorized spaces and lots. After the meeting was adjourned, one participant shared opposition to metered parking of any kind. Employee parking is an issue – some companies may orient employees to park away from customer spaces; some companies need a strategy to ensure employees are not taking parking space intended to support commerce. How are enterprises orienting their employees to proper behavior in parking to favor customer activities? Highlights of Subject Matter Expert Guidance for Session ¨¨ Security plan and related communications and signage are important ¨¨ High tech metering addresses many of the merchants’ issues: flexibility, free parking for initial period, and tracking the impacts of metered pricing and correctly-priced parking facilities ¨¨ No-fee parking for an initial period at meters is possible and may be of strategic value to Delray Beach ¨¨ Festivals may be addressed in very specific ways and in context with the parking strategy Comments from Small Groups Small groups suggested as a part of the conversations. On Monday, this resulted in a number of additional written insights with virtually the entire group of participants engaging in one group and a debrief period. On Tuesday, approximately three small groups formed, representing about 25% of attendees. All comments are included in Appendix B. Discussions continued to trend towards the priorities of security, flexibility of parking fees, and ensuring the community is viewed as customer-friendly. New insights and information emerging from the small groups included concerns about using quality metering technology/ensuring visitors and customers do not have to confront defective and poor-functioning devises and the potential of keeping abreast of metering technology through lease alternatives to purchase. Unrecorded small group discussions revealed widespread interest in getting clarity on how revenues from a parking/meter strategy will be utilized – General fund v. support of the specific strategy and required infrastructure. Though clarity was provided relative to revenues focused on parking strategy and infrastructure, the concerns provide useful counsel to the City: Utilization of revenues to support parking probably needs to be a consistent message. The need for strategic placement of short-term, quick-visit, single-purchase parking spaces was a key expectation. As the Plan is implemented, careful consideration of enforcement, culture change, and hospitality is required. Critical Expectations Participants were candid and innovative during the sessions. Dominant expectations emerging from both sessions include: A sound parking strategy involves a portfolio of actions and investments. This includes many aspects of the Plan, including time-of-day, seasonal pricing; 6 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by vouchers; communications and signage; valet; flexible technology; constant reporting of progress and changes to merchants; security; vouchers; employees; valet; etc. There is an overarching principle that must guide all implementation and measures: the parking strategy must improve not harm commerce and the amount of time visitors and customers spend in the area. Communications must be a vital part of the strategy and in support of clarity of price, location, safety, transit, traffic flow, and access. Employee parking strategy is a priority and a top issue. Safety and security relative to parking facilities and access points must be a priority – Even if meaningful security steps have been taken, perceptions matter. See Communications. If metering must be part of the portfolio of actions, and most participants engaged in discussions of meter pricing flexibility and proper technology, then the City must ensure communications on impacts and outcomes in as close to real-time as possible and be committed to changing direction as conditions and behaviors change. Implementation of static rather than dynamic solutions is not acceptable. Clarity on valet parking locations is needed because of perceptions that non-valet assets are being utilized. (Critical Expectations Continued) Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center A Community Conversation: APPENDIX A Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions 1 Prepared by City Commission: Nelson S. “Woodie” McDuffie, Mayor Angeleta Gray, Vice-Mayor Thomas Carney, Deputy Vice-Mayor Adam Frankel, Commissioner Dr. Jay Alperin, Commissioner CITY OF DELRAY BEACH MEDIA RELEASE City Schedules Two Downtown Parking Study Charrettes Public Invited to Participate January 11, 2012: The City of Delray Beach invites all Delray Beach residents and businesses to attend two (2) Charrettes on the City’s Downtown Parking Study. These community meetings are open to the public and will provide attendees with an opportunity to examine, discuss and provide input on the Parking Study as it relates to creating a sustainable parking management program. The Charrettes will be held on the evening of Monday, January 30th, at 6:00 PM and the morning of Tuesday, January 31st, at 9:00 AM at the Delray Beach Community Center, located at 50 NW 1st Avenue (adjacent to the City’s Tennis Center). The community meetings will be facilitated by the Fairfield Index, Inc., an economic development firm specializing in the facilitation of engaged consensus and conversation building through interactive meeting forum with the public. Representatives from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., the consulting firm that completed the Parking Study, will also be in attendance to provide background and support as needed with respect to the creation of a sustainable parking management program. The proposed Parking Study has been placed on the City’s website and may be accessed by visiting www.mydelraybeach.com and selecting Delray Beach Parking Management Plan under News. All members of the Delray Beach community (i.e., residents and businesses) are encouraged to review the Study prior to the meetings. For additional information regarding the Charrettes and/or the completed Downtown Parking study, please contact Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist, at (561) 243-7196 or by E-mail aronson@mydelraybeach.com. Written comments will be accepted regarding the Parking Study for those that are unable to attend one of the two scheduled Charrettes and should be forwarded to Scott Aronson. Contact: City of Delray Beach Public Information Office (561) 243-7190 PIO@mydelraybeach.com www.mydelraybeach.com Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center A Community Conversation: APPENDIX B Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions 1 Prepared by Comments from Small Groups Small groups suggested as a part of the conversations. On Monday, this resulted in a number of additional written insights with virtually the entire group of participants engaging in one group and a debrief period. On Tuesday, approximately three small groups formed, representing about 25% of attendees. All written insights are provided below in their raw form in no priority order. Numbering and organization unique to the groups are included. 1. Smart Meters â Flexibility A. Leasing technology v. purchase B. Changing on-street v. off-street behavior 2. Employee v. Turnover A. Move close by â safety B. Education C. Stickers D. Gated system â parking cards 3. Validation On-Street A. Pay-forward system Encourage people to come back by paying for their next transaction/visit. Put in Meters and Charge a Flat Rate of $5.00 per Visit to Meter That’s roughly $3,3000,000 for every parking space within the City. 21 Strategy Marketing: Where parking is located Employee parking – Safety Transit Electronic surveillance 24/7 What is the number of parking Transport by tram for late night Enforce parking 4 – 8 p.m. Open air trolleys – different vehicles Use empty lots for employee parking Suntrust Atlantic Plaza *Do everything else before meters *Don’t forget the customers -they made our businesses/downtown successful You can go to any “dead” downtown & find all the parking you want It’s Delray Beach & Worth Ave. (only) That connect to the island, Consider local competition 1. Solve employee parking which would free up spaces on Atlantic 2. Better signage + use of existing garages 3. Image of city if meters do not work and are removed 4. Free daytime parking Charge after 5 p.m. 5. Meter side streets after 5 p.m. Intrinsic value Entertainment Dining Walking on beach Shopping do not pay Malls have FREE parking 34 Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center A Community Conversation: APPENDIX B Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions 2 Prepared by Empty store fronts east of the intracoastal Metered areas Impacted bushes? EXPECTATIONS 1. Flexible meter system Time flex Payment modes 2. Maintain traffic flow 3. Signs/Info on parking locations 4. Clear long term parking areas 5. Designate/Encourage employee parking 6. Garage security 7. Don’t let valet system dominate off street parking 8. Parking is not “FREE” Other consequences of FREE Short Term (1) hour spot *Valet use parking garage 1. Employees into parking garages 2. Not in my backyard (NIMBY) 3. Create windows in the stair walls 4. Unblock access from 2nd Street 5. Continue to encourage more office development 6. Validation 7. Encourage healthier lifestyle Meters: No daytime Until 6 p.m. Ninety (90) minutes free Have 350 employee parking stickers for garage top floors Ten (10) minutes warning tickets More short/term customer parking â then (employee people) move to outer lots Only problem three (3) months â No meters of any kind Don’t work Done it three (3) times in past It’s like a closed sign â Parking garage Clear it Secure it ***Open NE 2nd Street OSS Garage Easy access â Get property owners with empty lots to work w/city on extra spots/parking â More bike-n-scooter parking “...Not less” as proposed currently 567 89 Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center A Community Conversation: APPENDIX B Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions 3 Prepared by 1. People are open to using shuttles to ferry people to garages – Could be used for employees 2. Safety is a big issue w/parking garage 3. Maybe we should put employee parking on top of garage to give locals easy access to the cars on ground level 4. Data analysis of what City has done so far and we should fill in the gaps 5. Parking should be a funding source for City/Parking Management program. Strategy should fund itself. What is the revenue goal of the parking plan? 6. Merchants need to market parking as asset 7. We should think about keeping employees etc. on Atlantic and get patrons to park on surface lots and be shuttled to businesses 8. Merchants must communicate to employees where to park 9. Is there accountability for what the City has done so far, and how do we move that forward 10. Maybe we should have five (5) to ten (10) minute parking per block for those patrons who get in and get out 11. Railroad lot volume has increased in last two (2) years since the Parking Management Plan was published 10 Attendees w/Similar Comments Topic /Area of Concern 12 Metering could be acceptable contingent upon both technology and program protocols being flexible, allowing for change as circumstances dictate 7 A metering program would be acceptable providing its design focuses on improving rather than impeding commerce. 1 Absolutely no meters, under any circumstances. 4 Emphasized the opportunity to improve signage, signalization and traffic flow 3 Specified employee parking as a key component 5 Raised concern that valet parkers are using public spaces causing parking issues for residents, visitors and guests. 2 Emphasized safety as a priority in all parking areas, especially the garages. STAKEHOLDER COMMENT COMPILATION Please note, the chart above complied participant statements, starting on pg. 2 of the report, highlighted in blue. Address festival vendor parking as large mobile homes require special parking needs. All parties should be willing to compromise The following are statements made by one participant leading to discussion and general concurrence among the group: Getting the message out that "there is no free parking Meters have been tried more than once in the past Single head meters should not be used Enforcement should be suited to be welcoming to visitors Intended use of revenue generated from a fee based program should be made clear Program must provide for validations, initial time parked free, resident and employee programs MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 13, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.H. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC ART ADVISORY BOARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the City Commission for an appointment to the Public Art Advisory Board. BACKGROUND Ms. Ora Sorensen, regular member on the Public Art Advisory Board, submitted her resignation effective immediately. An appointment is needed for one regular member to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2013. On February 1, 2005, the Delray Beach City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 77-04 establishing the Public Art Advisory Board for the purpose of advising and making recommendations to the City Commission with respect to public art policy and related 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 seven (7) members. Three (3) seats on the Board must be filled with either an artist, architect, landscape architect or engineer. Laypersons of knowledge, experience and judgment who have an interest in public art shall make up the balance of the Board. The following individuals have submitted applications 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 July 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 01/12 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 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: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 10, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 03-12 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC HEARING) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for second reading and public hearing to the Land Development Regulations (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 penalties for same; amending Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, in order to amend the definition of “Transient Residential Use”. BACKGROUND At the first reading on February 7, 2012, the Commission passed Ordinance No. 03-12. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 03-12 on second and final reading. ORDINANCE NO. 03-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 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 PENALTIES FOR SAME; AMENDING APPENDIX “A”, “DEFINITIONS”, IN ORDER TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE”; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission hereby finds and declares that the leasing, renting, licensing, subleasing or otherwise allowing in any manner or form the use of single-family residential dwelling units for periods of less than twelve (12) months with a turnover in occupancy more often than three (3) times per year to any person, entity or family, is a non-residential activity and is not considered an accessory use customarily accessory 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. Census Bureau in 2010 provides that the average family size is 2.24 people in the City of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, transient residential uses often maximize occupancy causing increased pressure on infrastructure, including: garbage, sewer, water, roadways, and utilities; code enforcement, law enforcement, fire protection and inspection services; and WHEREAS, transient residential uses can result in increased noise and traffic in single-family residential communities; and WHEREAS, unless regulations are placed on the amount and location of transient uses, such uses could overwhelm the non-transient related single-family residential community making the City of Delray Beach a less attractive place to reside; and WHEREAS, transient residential uses can be incompatible with permanent and seasonal residential uses if not properly planned, controlled and regulated; and WHEREAS, the rapid turnover in occupancy associated with transient residential uses can be a disruptive influence on the peaceful use and enjoyment of single family residential areas; and WHEREAS, reserving land for single family residences 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 the use of zoning regulations to limit the ability of the handicapped to live in the residence of their choice in the community; however, the FHA does not preempt 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 permanent single family residential dwellings and thus reduce the number of permanent residents in the City and cause a reduction in state revenue sharing funds necessary to support the services that influence the quality of life for residents, commercial interests, and visitors to the City of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, uncontrolled and unregulated transient residential 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 assignments or otherwise allowing in any manner the use of a residential dwelling unit for under six (6) months in duration is a transient use and is therefore taxed by the State of Florida at a rate of six (6) percent of the total rental amount charged; and WHEREAS, the Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed this ordinance and a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning and Zoning Board on December 19, 2011, and said Board 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 COMMISSION 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”, Subsection 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 Residential 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 dwelling unit or any part thereof, which is located in Medium Density Residential (RM) Zoning Districts and is operated or used in such a way that any part 3 ORD. NO. 03-12 of the entire dwelling unit turns over occupancy more often than six (6) times in any one (1) year shall be presumed to be a Transient Residential Use and therefore prohibited. (1) Transient Residential Uses are Prohibited in Single Family and Planned Residential Development Zoning Districts: All transient residential uses are prohibited in Single-Family and Planned Residential Development zoning districts in order to preserve the residential character of single-family neighborhoods and minimize the impact of transient uses on permanent single-family land uses. Transient Residential Uses are permitted uses in Medium Density Residential (RM) Districts. (2) (1) Exceptions/Exemptions: (a) Existing transient residential uses with a turnover more 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 continue 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 this 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 Community Residential and Group Homes which are licensed by the state are exempt. (c) The real property owners of the dwelling unit and 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 Community Improvement Director or his/her designee including the following documentation: (a) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, 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 the previous two years; 4 ORD. NO. 03-12 (e) All appraisals, if any, obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing, 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 previous two years, if any; (h) The annual cash flow, if any, for the previous two years; (i) An applicant may submit and the Community Improvement Director of the Neighborhood Services Department or his/her designee may require that an applicant furnish additional information relevant to the determination of any alleged undue economic hardship; and (j) In the event that any of the required information is not reasonably available to the property owner and cannot be obtained by the property owner, the property owner shall file statement of the information which cannot be obtained and the reasons why such information cannot be reasonably obtained. Where such unobtainable information concerns required financial 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 include, but are not limited to, the issuance of a citation, summons, 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, subleases, or otherwise allows in any manner or form the 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) months 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 located within Medium Density Residential (RM) Zoning Districts with 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. (6) (5) Severability: (a) Generally. If any part, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, 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 competent jurisdiction, the declaration of such unconstitutionality shall not affect the remainder of Section 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”. (b) If the entire Section 4.3.3(ZZZ) is declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, 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 force and effect. Section 2. That Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, of the Land Development 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 is which is located in Single Family or Planned Residential Development Zoning Districts and is operated or used in such a way that any part of the dwelling unit 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 Districts and is operated or used in such a way that any part thereof turns over occupancy more often than six (6) times in any one (1) year. Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David Boyd, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:February 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.G.5 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/OTTO WASTE SYSTEMS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The City Commission is requested to approve the pur chase of additional garage containers in various sizes in the amount of $58,150, per quotation dated 01/18/2012 for Barrier Island residents who will have curb-side service starting April 1, 2012. The hot stampe d garbage carts, lids and wheels are provided by Otto Waste Systems, a sole source provi der. BACKGROUND The bi-weekly garbage pick-up will change from rear door to curb-side service. This change is a result of the survey conducted in December 2010, which inc luded all of the single family residents on the Barrier Island. Based on the survey results, it wa s determined that the majority preferred to switch to curb-side garbage pick-up. Otto Environmental System was approved on 11/01/200 5 by City Commission as a sole source vendor for the purchase of the hot stamped garbage carts t hat are provided to the citizens of Delray Beach. T he carts have a forest green body, black lid, rubber t ires and are hot stamped with City Logo seal and se rial numbers. The sizes of garbage carts required by the City of Delray Beach are 95 gallon @ $53.00 each; 68 gallon @ 46.75 each and 35 gallon @ 36.00 each including l ids and wheels. The carts are shipped in full truckloads for cost s avings of freight. Otto Industries, Inc. is the ori ginal vendor for the purchase of these carts since their initial "roll-out" in 1996. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from 433-3711-534-49.90 (Sanit ation Fund: Other Current Charges). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the purchase of the garbage carts with lids and wheels from Otto Waste Systems as a sole source vendor in the amount of $58,150 per ven dor quotation dated 01/18/2012. ACCOUNT QUOTATION DATE: 01/18/2012 PAGES: One TO: Danise Cleckley FROM: Jim High COMPANY: City Of Delray Beach OTTO Environmental Systems 100 NW 1st 12700 General Dr. West Palm Beach, Fl. 33407 Charlotte, N.C. 28273 PHONE: 561-243-7213 PHONE: 704-402-7890 (Mobile) FAX: FAX: 740-539-7628 MOBILE: E-MAIL: jhigh@otto-usa.com E-MAIL: Good Afternoon Danise, Thank you for your request for a quotation for Otto “Multi–System Design” MSD95M,“MSD65C,35E Millennium ,Classic and Evolution carts”. These c arts are designed to be handled with equal ease by either semi-automated or fully-automated collection equipment. We are pleased to quote as follows: (500) Otto 95C “Millennium” carts @ $53.00 each $ 26,500.00 (600) Otto 65C “Classic” carts @ $46.75 each $ 28,050.00 (100) Otto 35E Evolution Carts @$36.00/ each $3,600.00 TOTAL COST: $ 58,1 50.00 Pricing is subject to any applicable taxes. Pricing in this quotation is subject to review afte r 30 days. Thank you for the opportunity. If you should any qu estions, do not hesitate to call. Jim High Product & Key Account Manager Otto Environmental Systems Mobile # 704-402-7890 jhigh@otto-usa.com This e ff e c hav e will This resi d swit c Dur i cont you Cod e an “X Tha n abo v Dear R letter is to i c tive A pril 1 e with the re be reduced change is a d ents on the c h to curb-s i Area Ser v Barrier Is l i ng the mon t ainer for ga r can cont e Enforceme n X ” and plac e n k you for y v e for any q u R esident: i nform you t 1 , 2012 . Th e quirement t h from $24.0 1 a result of t Barrier Isl a i de garbage p v iced # l and t h of Marc h r bage servic act the C n t@mydelr a e it at curb-s y our cooper a u estions you t hat your bi- e service wil h at all cont a 1 to $13.61 e t he survey c a nd. Based p ick-up ser v of Surveys M 870 h 2012, staf f e. Please r e C ode Enfo r a ybeach.co m s ide on one o a tion and fee may have r e Januar y weekly gar b l continue t o a iners b eing e ffective Ap r c onducted i n on the sur v v ice. A sum m M ailed Re a f will delive r e view the ch r cement D i m . If you w o o f your sche d l free to co n e garding thi s Sincer e Lula B u Direct o Small – 36” H x 19 ” Holds 2 ful bags. Go o person h y 12, 2012 b age service o be provid e brought to c r il 1, 2012. n Decembe r v ey results, i m ary of the a r/Side Door 211 r to each re s art b elow a n i vision at o uld like y o d uled pick-u n tact us at 5 6 s correspon d e ly, u tle r o r, Commun i – 35 gal ” W x 24” D l tall kitchen o d for 1 - 2 h ousehold will chang e e d on the sa m c urb-side. I n r 2010, whi c i t was deter m survey resu l Curb - 3 4 s idential un i n d if you w o 561/243-7 2 o ur old cont a u p days. 6 1/243-721 9 d ence. i ty Improve m Medium – 42” H x 27” W Holds 4 full t a bags. Good person ho u e from rear d m e schedule d n addition, y c h included r mined that r l ts are as fol -Side # 4 9 i t a City-iss u o uld prefer a 2 19 or s e a iner picke d 9 or through m ent Depar t – 68 gal W x 26” D a ll kitchen for 3 - 4 u sehold H m d oor to cur b d days that y our monthl y all of the s r espondents lows: of Surveys R 560 (64.4 u e d , mediu m a different si e nd us an d up, please the e-mail a t ment Large – 9 5 47”H x 28”W H olds 8+ full t a bags. Good m ore person h b -side servic e y ou currentl y y garbage fe e s ingle famil y preferred t o R eturned 4 %) m , 68-g allo n ze containe r e-mail a mark it wit h a ddress liste d 5 gal W x 34”D a ll kitchen for 5 or h ousehold e y e y o n r , a t h d MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:February 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/OFF THE AVE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Applicant is appealing the decision of the City Man ager’s denial of a sidewalk café at “Off the Ave ” located on SE 6th Avenue, south of Starbucks Coffee , as provided for under the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDR), Section 6.3.3(J)(1). The applicant contends that there is no legal support for this position and that it is inconsiste nt with prior applications for sidewalk cafés. BACKGROUND The application submitted for a sidewalk café propo ses to use a portion of a City alley and City parki ng lot landscaped island, south of the building that t he business occupies. LDR’s Section 6.3.3(F) (2) allows establishment of a sidewalk café in front of a business or along the side street adjacent to th e business. The proposal submitted would encompass ap proximately 440 square feet of space within the alleyway and landscaped island in which the applica nt has proposed removal of the existing rock, mulch and landscaping improvements done by the City and r eplacement of the area with pavers. The site plan also shows an aluminum fence to enclose the area. The site plan is very crowded with an existing sewe r line, a concrete FPL pole with supporting guy wire, three existing mature sabal palms, several bu shes and very mature lirope as ground cover. Staff also believes that the placement of the proposed ta bles and chairs, with all of the existing obstructi ons, would not provide a safe or conducive environment f or outside dining. The location of the parking lot on the east, with vehicle travel and turning, would not provide a safe dining experience. This would b e the only sidewalk café located in an alley way and City parking lot. Photos of the proposed cafe are a and building are attached for your reference. The l etter of appeal and elevations are also attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the appeal. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 1. This appeal of the denial of Off the Ave’s applica tion for a sidewalk café permit has come before the City Commission on February 21, 2012. 2. The Appellee and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to Off the Ave’s appeal of the denial of their sidewalk café permit application. All of the evidence i s part of the record in this case. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsection I. I. LDR REQUIREMENTS A. Pursuant to LDR Section 6.3.3(F)(2), the followi ng criteria shall be considered in the review of annual sidewalk café permit applications. A sidewalk café may only be established in front of the business or along a side street adjacent to the business, or public space, and such businesses immediately adjacent to the business with which the sidewalk café is associ ated. The sidewalk café shall not be established adjacent to a travel lane or on-street parking unless there is no ability to establish a sidewalk café adjacent to the stor efront, in which case a sidewalk café may be located adjacent to a traffic lane or stree t parking as long as a five foot clear pedestrian path is provided and the tables and ass ociated chairs provide a minimum setback of 2’ from the vehicular travel lane a nd associated curbing. This 2’ setback does not apply when the tables are immediately adjacent on street parking. Have the requirements of 6.3.3(F)(2) been met as it relates to the annual sidewalk café permit application for Off the Ave? Yes _______ No _______ 3. The City Commission has applied the LDR requiremen ts in existence at the time the original site plan 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, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses supporting these findings. 2 5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Co mmission approves ___ denies ____ the appeal and hereby adopts this Order th is 21st day of February, 2012, by a vote of _____ in favor and _____ opposed. ATTEST: ________________________________ Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ________________________________ Chevelle Nubin City Clerk S E 5 t h A v e E A t l a n t i c A v e 5 0 2 E A T L A N T I C A V E 5 1 2 E A T L A N T I C A V E 5 0 4 E A T L A N T I C A V E Jeffrey Lynne From: Hasko, Richard [Hasko @mydelraybeach.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 1:01 PM To: Jeffrey Lynne Subject: RE: Off the Ave - Sidewalk Cafe Eli ,left: I don't recall meeting with anyone to discuss the @It The Ave sidewalk cafe, however I Know it was discussed a couple of times at DSMG. The main issue as I recall was the alley right-of-way that extends through the landscape island where the tables are proposed. I didn't really have a problem with that since most sidewalk cafes are within city rights-of-way. 'Fllere may have been an issue with the extent of improvements proposed within the city right -of -way, i.e., shade awning and fencing. I note that there is no awning shown on the drawings you attached but they show different configurations and improvements. Are they intended to illustrate alternative layouts for permitting purposes? Richard C. I Lasko, P.E. Environmental Services Director voice: (56 1) 243 -7336 FAX: (561) 2=43 -7060 email: hasl<o(uDmydelraybeach.com http: / /www.epa.gov /watersense/ From: Jeffrey Lynne [mailto:illynne@zonelaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:22 AM To: Hasko, Richard Subject: Off the Ave - Sidewalk Cafe Importance: High Dick — I hope this e -mail finds you doing well. I understand the owners of Off the Ave. restaurant met with you some time back to discuss the establishment of a sidewalk caf6 adjacent to the property on S. Federal. Proposed drawings are attached. They told me you were supportive. P &Z is having some issues with it. From your perspective, has anything changed between now and then? JEFFREY C. LYNNE, ESQ., LEED AP WEINER Et LYNNE, P.A. 10 SE 1st Avenue, Suite C I Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Tel (561) 265 -2666 1 Direct (561) 900 -0725 1 Fax (561) 272 -6831 Cell (561) 239 -0839 I National (877) 901 -2666 ilynnecazonetaw.com I www,zonelaw.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. NOTICE: This e -mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 561 - 265 -2666 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by the sender. ORDINANCE NO. 37-10 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 6.3.3, "SIDEWALK CAFE "; TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON SIDEWALK CAFES, 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 September 20, 2010 and voted 7 to 0 to reconurend 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 consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Conunission of the City of Delray Beach adopts the findnngs 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 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 63.3, "Sidewalk Cafe", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delay Beach, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 6.3.3 Sidewalk Cafe: A sidewalk cafe is a group of tables with chairs and associated articles approved by the City situated and maintained outside whether on public or private property, (excluding interior courtyard seating which is subject 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 nnust be located within the sidewalk caf6 permit area Sidevw& cafes allowed only when in compliance with this Section- (A) Permit and Fees: It shall be cunlawful 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 i pursuant to this Section. The permit shall be issued on a form provided by the City of Delray Beach No permit shall be issued until all the requirements of this Section have been met. Permits shall not be transferable. (1) Each permit shall be effective for one year, from July 1st until June 30th Any new permit application received after July 1st until December 31st will pay the full cost of the perit fee and the permit shall expire June 30th of the following year. Any new permit application received after December 31st will pay one -half of the cost of the permit fee and the permit shall expire June 30th of the same year. (2) The sidewalk caf6 application fee is one hundred fifty dollars ($15 .0 400:00). The pemvt fee is $4.50 3:00 per square foot of approved sidewalk cafes space. (3) Renewals of a Sidewalk caf6 perit and payment of fees must be submitted and approved on or before July 1st of each year. (4) Late Renewal Fee: If a renewal payment is not submitted by July 1st, it shall be considered late and subject to a late fee of ten - percent (10 %), plus an additional five - percent (5 %) late fee if payment is not received by the first of each month thereafter until paid provided that the total fee shall not exceed twenty - percent (20 %). If a renewal payrrent is not submitted by July 1st, the City has the right to immediately cancel the Sidewalk Caf6 permit upon written notice to the pernait holder. (B) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to all existing and proposed sidewalk cafes effective July 1, 2005. (C) Required Infom-ation: In addition to the required permit application and permit fee, the following must be provided at the time the application is submitted or renewed: (1) A copy of a valid eeeupak epA 4e business tax neceipt; and description of use. (2) A sketch plan of the area between the store front and vehicular travel surface or pL>ylic space, drawn to a minimum scale of 1" = 10' which shows: (a) The sidewalk cafes area including square footage and dirnensions, (b) The store front and all openings (doors, windows); (c) The location of curb, sidewalk, and any utility poles, fire hydrants, landscaping, or other items, within the right -of -way and private property, between the curb and the store front including dimensions; 2 ORD NO. 37 -10 (d) The location of any of the above items which are within six feet (6) of the ends of the proposed use area; and the location of parking spaces (or use of the street or p_ ublic s- adjacent to the proposed use area; (e) Clear delineation of the boundary between private property and the right -of -way including dimensions; (f) Delineation of "clear pedestrian pathways" and "No Table Zones" as required by Subsection (F) (5); (g) Proposed location of chairs with tables, and other private features such as but not limited to hostess stands, umbrellas, etc.; (h) Proposed location of sidewalk caf6 barriers as required by Subsection (F) (7); (i) Photographs and /or manufacturer brochures depicting the chairs, tables, umbrellas, menu boards and logos, and other temporary private features including, but not limited to, lighting planters, ropes, stanchions and other equipment to be used in the proposed sidewalk cafe area (j) If the Permittee intends to use property in front of an adjacent business, the permittee must submit a notarized statement from the adjacent business owners) indicating the adjacent business owner has allowed the use of the sidewalk in the front of their business(s), on a form acceptable to the City. (3) Proof of Insurance and a Hold Harmless Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (D) Processing. The permit application including the Required Information as requested in Subsection (C) above shall be submitted to the Community Improvement Department for processing. Appeals shall be governed by Section 2.4.7(E). (E) Geographic Limitation A permit for a sidewalk cafe may be issued witivn those zoning districts which allow restaurants, subject to any limitations or restrictions of the particular district. (F) Regulations Governing the Use, Desigo, and Maintenance of a Sidewalk Cafe: (1) A sidewalk cafe shall only be established in conjunction with a legally established restaurant or business, where the food product is prepared, processed, or assembled on the premises (for example: deli, ice cream store, can4 store sandwich shop) where the food product preparation is the main or sole p 11 =se of the business A business that prelxares ORD NO. 37 -10 (2) A sidewalk cafe may only be established in front of the business or along a side street adjacent to the business or public space acid such businesses immediately adjacent to the business with which the sidewalk cafe is associated. The sidewalk caf6 shall not be established adjacent to a travel lane or on-street parking, unless there is no ability to establish a sidewalk caf6 adjacent to the storefront, in which case a sidewalk caf6 may be located adjacent to a traffic lane or street parking as long as a five foot clear pedestrian path is provided and the tables and associated chairs provide a minimum setback of 2' from the vehicular travel lane and associated curbing. This 2' setback does (3) Alcoholic beverages may be consumed at a sidewalk cafe. (4) The use of the tables and chairs at a sidewalk cafe shall be only for the customers of the business with which the sidewalk cafe is associated Tables chairs umbrellas barriers and other objects associated with a sidewalk caf6 shall be of quality design materials and workmanship both to ensure the safety and convenience of users and to enhance the visual and aesthetic quality of the urban environment as previously approved by the City and as shown and depicted in the appro ved Sidewalk Caf6 permit. (5) Sidewalk caf6 operators shall maintain a clear pedestrian path of a minimum of five feet (51 at all times. The five foot (5) clear pedestrian path shall be parallel to the street and /or alley. In the event a five foot (5) clear pedestrian path adjacent to the curb is interrupted by street furniture, trees, tree grates or similar impediments, then the sidewalk caf6 operator may provide for a five foot (5) clear pedestrian path commencing from the edge of the impediment closest to the building fagade for a distance of five feet (5) towards the building. In areas of higher pedestrian traffic or activity or if conditions are such that additional clearance is required to assure safe pedestrian travel, additional clear space shall be required A clear pedestrian path greater than five feet (51 may be required on sidewalks with an adjacent traffic lane. (6) A "No Table Zone" is hereby established No sidewalk caf6 tables or chairs shall be located within the "No Table Zone ". The "No Table Zone" is that area located at the intersections of Atlantic Avenue with any side street, within fifteen feet (15) of the extended curb line. The fifteen feet (15') will be measured perpendicular to the street from the extended curb. For non- Atlantic Avenue intersections, the "No Table Zone" shall be ten feet as measured above. (7) The sidewalk caf6 area is to be segregated from the pedestrian pathway by means of barriers such as planters, railings or other similar moveable fixtures or other clearly visible demarcation No part of the The barrier shall net be located within the required T dear pedestrian pathway as defined in subsection (5) above. 4 ORD NO. 37 -10 (8) In addition to previously approved business signs, the sidewalk cafe may have one of the following signs: (a) A will mournted menu board sign that does not exceed three square feet (3 sq.ft.). (b) A free standing easel or art object that does not exceed five feet (5') in height that holds a menu board with a sign face not to exceed six square feet (2 ft. x 3 ft.). (c) Logos upon table umbrellas. The free standing easel or art object must be placed immediately in front of the business in the permitted sidewalk cafe area. These signs shall not require further Site Plan Review and Appeararice Board approval and are an exemption to requirements with the Citys sign code. Portable signs shall be prohibited except as allowed in Section 4.6.7(E)(3)(d) Grand Opening Portable Signs. (9) Use area and /or seating capacity realized through a sidewalk cafe use and contiguous outdoor dining areas shall not invoke provisions of the zoning code as they pertain to parking or other matters. (10) Food rrtiay be carried to tables by patrons or served by a table waiter. Food "I not be prepared in the si�%& eaf6 area The use of food preparation stations trash receptacles and cash registers are prohibited withnn the sidewalk cafe area (12) All services provided to Mtrons of a sidewalk cafes and all patron activity (i.e.. sitting, dining, etc) shall occur within the designated sidewalk cafe area and shall not impin_M on the required 5' clear distance for p�strian pgya= at any time. 13 " Hours of operation shall be the same as the associated businesses. 14 42-) The area covered by the permit, including the sidewalks, curb and gutter innmediately adjacent to it, shall be maintained in a clean, neat, attractive and orderly manner at all times and the area shall be cleared of all debris and stains on a periodic basis during the day and again at the close of each business day, ensuring a tidy appearance. The pennittee shall also be responsible to pressure clean the sidewalk surface on which the sidewalk cafe is located at least once a week or more fiwItiently, if needed and pick up all litter and debris including litter and debris in the landscaped areas adjacent to the sidewalk cafe area under permit. ORD NO. 37 -10 (c) Changing conditions of pedestrian or vehicular traffic cause congestion necessitating removal or modification of the sidewalk cafe, in order to avoid danger to the health, safety or general welfare of pedestrians or vehicular traffic. (d) The pem-ittee has, failed to correct violations of this subchapter or conditions of permitting within three (3) days of receipt of written notice of same. (e) If the pemiittee receives more than three (3) Code Enforcement violations and /or civil violations in a 12 month period from the issuance of its permit for non - compliance to this Section, the permit shall be terminated and no refunds of the permit application fee shall be granted The permittee may not receive a new permit for six months. (f) The Sidewalk Caf6 does not enhance or conform to the aesthetic ambiance of the area or is not compatible with other adjacent businesses or sidewalk cafes. (2) The City many remove or relocate or order the removal or relocation of tables and chairs and other vestiges of the sidewalk caf6 and a reasonable fee charged for labor, transportation, and storage, should the permittee fail to remove said items within thirty-six (36) hours of receipt of the written notice from the City Manager or his/her designee ordering removal or relocation However, in the event of an emergency, no written notice of relocation or removal shall be given and relocation and /or removal shall commence immediately. (3) The permittee may appeal the order of die City Miniger pursLunt to Section 6.3.30), below. (4) The Code >~ F t Board shall .,., 1 ,,,E . a;etie .�l� OBS 0 dais subehapteF and may a* / _ines for nolicompliance shall lie in accordance with Chapter 37 of the Code of Ordinances. (5) The sidewalk caf6 permit may be suspended upon written notice of the City Manager or his/her designee and removal may be ordered by the City when repairs necessitate such action (6) In addition, the City may immediately remove or relocate all or parts of the sidewalk caf6 or order said removal or relocation in emergency situations, without written notice. In an i emergency or upon the issuance of a hurricane warning or notification of another weather emergency by the county, the perniittee shall forthwith place indoors all tables, chairs, and other equipment located on the sidewalk Failure to comply shall result in violation of this subsection which shall result in the issuance of a fine not to exceed $500.00. U) Appeals: ORD NO. 37 -10 (1) Appeals of the decision of the City Amager or his/her designee shall be initiated within ten (10) days of a permit denial, revocation or suspension, or of an order of removal or relocation, by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Manager. (2) The City Manager shall place the appeal on the first available regular CityCommission agulda. At the hearing on appeal, the City Commission shall hear and determine the appeal, and the decision of the City Commission shall be final and effective irmediately. The City Commission shall apply the standards set forth in 6.3.3(1:). (3) The filing of a notice of appeal by a permittee shall not stay an order of the City Manager or his/her designee regarding the suspension, revocation or denial of the permit, or the relocation or removal of the vestiges of the sidewalk cafe. Vestiges of the sidewalk cafe shall be removed as set forth in this subchapter, pending disposition of the appeal and the final decision of the City Commission (4) Appeals from the decision of the Code Enforcement Board shall be to the circuit court and not to the City Commission Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordu-uances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on sec a ond and final readin& \"''� PASS AND OPTED in regular session o on d and final on this the a day of 2010. ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Readin Second Readin �� �� Coversheet MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 25, 2010 Page 1 of I SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10 A -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 2010 ORDINANCE NO. 37-10 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for second reading to consider a city initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 6.3.3., "Sidewalk Cafd ", amending the regulations. BACKGROUND At the first reading on October 5, 2010, the Commission tabled this item to the October 19, 2010 Regular Meeting. Commission passed Ordinance No. 37 -10 on first reading at the October 19, 2010 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 3 7- 10 on second and final reading. http: // itwebapp/ Agendalntranet /Bluesheet.aspx ?IteinID =3941 &MeetingID =275 11/3/2010 ORDINANCE NO. 37-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE QTY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 6.3.3, "SIDEWALK CAF$ "; TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON SIDEWALK CARS; 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 September 20, 2010 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 consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives 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 COMMISSION OF THE QTY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2. That Section 6.3.3, "Sidewalk Cafe ", of the Land Development Reguhtions of the City of Delray Beach, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 6.3.3 Sidewalk Cafe: A sidewalk cafe is a group of tables with chains and associated articles approved by the City situated and maintained outside whether on public or private property, (excluding interior courtyard seating which is subject to parking regwmxrents) 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 sidewalk caf6 permit area. Sidewalk cafes allowed only when in compliance with this Section (A) Permit and Fees: 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 to this Section The permit shall be issued on a form provided by the City of Delray Beach. No permit shall be issued until all the requ hvn-ents of this Section have been met. Pemrits shall not be transferable. (1) Each permit shall be effective for one year, from July 1st until June 30th Any new permit application received after July 1st until December 31st will pay the full cost of the permit fee and the permit shall expire June 30th of the following year. Any new permit application received after December 31st will pay one -half of the cost of the permit fee and the permit shall expire June 30th of the sure year. (2) The sidewalk cafes application fee is one hundred —fifty dollars ($15M X99). The permit fee is $4 5Q 3:00 per square foot of approved sidewalk caf6 space. (3) Renewals of a Sidewalk caf6 permit and payment of fees must be submitted and approved on or before July 1st of each year. (4) Late Renewal Fee: If a renewal payment is not submitted by July 1st, it shall be considered late and subject to a late fee of ten-percent (10 %), plus an additional five- percent (5 %) late fee if payment is not received by the first of each month thereafter until paid, provided that the total fee shall not exceed twenty percent (20 %). If a renewal payment is not submitted by July 1st, the City has the right to immediately cancel the Sidewalk CafL6 permit upon written notice to the permit holder. (B) Applicability. The provisions of this scK tion sl -u-dl apply to all existing and proposed sidewalk cafes effective July 1, 2005. (C) Required Information: In addition to the required permit application and permit fee, the following must be provided at the time the application is submitted or renewed: (1) A copy of a valid eeEtq9atieense blusiness tax receipt; and description of use. (2) A sketch plan of the area between the store front and vehicular travel surface Qr lic ce drawn to a minimtun scale of 1" = 10' which shows: (a) The sidewalk caf6 area including square footage and dimensions, (b) The store front and all openings (doors, windows); (c) The location of curb, sidewalk, and any utility poles, fire hydrants, landscaping, or other items, within the right -of -way and private property, between the curb and the store front including dimensions; 2 ORD NO. 37 -10 (d) The location of any of the above item, which are within six feet (6) of the ends of the proposed use area, and the location of parking spaces (or use of the street or public space) adjacent to the proposed use area; (e) Clear delineation of the boundary between private property and the right -of -way including dimensions; (f) Delineation of "clear pedestrian pathways' and "No Table Zones' as required by Subsection (F) (5); (g) Proposed location of chairs with tables, and other private features such as but not limited to hostess stands, umbrellas, etc.; (h) Proposed location of sidewalk caf6 barriers as required by Subsection (F) (7); (i) Photographs and /or manufacturer brochures depicting the chairs, tables, umbrellas, menu boards and logos, and other LemW rary private features includin& but not limited to, lighting vl� anteis roes stanchions and other e�wpment to be used in the proposed sidewalk cafe area (j) If the Pemiittee intends to use property in front of an adjacent business, the permittee must submit a notarized statement from the adjacent business owner(s) indicating the adjacent business owner has allowed the use of the sidewalk in the front of their business(s), on a form acceptable to the City. (3) Proof of Insurance and a Hold Harmless Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (D) Processing The permit application including the Required Information as requested in Subsection (C) above shall be submitted to the Community Improvement Department for processing Appeals shall be governed by Section 2.4.7(E). (E) Geographic Limitation A permit for a sidewalk cafe may be issued within those zoning districts which allow restaurants, subject to any limitations or restrictions of the particular district. (F) Regulations Governing the Use, Design, and Maintenance of a Sidewalk Cafe: (1) A sidewalk cafe shall only be established in conjunction with a legally established restaurant or business, where the food product is prepared, processed, or assembled on the premises (for example: deli, ice cream store, candy store, sandwich shop) where the food product preparation is the main or sole purpose of the business A business that prepay, ORD NO. 37 -10 (2) A sidewalk cafe may only be established in front of the business or along a side street adjacent to the business, or public space, and such businesses immediately adjacent to the business with which the sidewalk cafe is associated The sidewalk caf6 shall not be established adjacent to a travel lane or on street parking, unless there is no ability to establish a sidewalk caf6 adjacent to the storefront, in which case a sidewalk caf6 may be located adjacent to a traffic lane or street parking as long as a five foot dear pedestrian path is provided and the tables and associated chairs provide a minimum setback of 2' from the vehicular travel lane and associated curbing. This 2' setback does not apply when the tables are immediatel Macent on street parkin (3) Alcoholic beverages may be consumed at a sidewalk cafe. (4) The use of the tables and chairs at a sidewalk cafe shall be only for the customers of the business with which the sidewalk cafe is associated Tables chairs, umbrellas, barriers and other urban environment as previously approved by the City and as shown and depicted in the approved Sidewalk Caf6 permit. (5) Sidewalk caf6 operators shall maintain a clear pedestrian path of a minimum of five feet (5� at all times. The five foot (5) dear pedestrian path shall be parallel to the street and /or alley. In the event a five foot (5) clear pedestrian path adjacent to the curb is interrupted by street furniture, trees, tree grates or similar impediments, then the sidev%& caf6 operator may provide for a five foot (5) dear pedestrian path commencing from the edge of the impediment closest to the building fagade for a distance of five feet (5) towards the building. In areas of higher pedestrian traffic or activity or if conditions are such that additional clearance is required to assure safe pedestrian travel, additional clear space shall be required. A clear pedestrian path greater than five feet (5) may be required on sidewalks with an adjacent traffic lane. (6) A "No Table Zone" is hereby established No sidewalk caf6 tables or chairs shall be located within the "No Table Zone ". The "No Table Zone" is that area located at the intersections of Atlantic Avenue with any side street, within fifteen feet (15) of the extended curb line. The fifteen feet (151 will be measured perpendicular to the street from the extended curb. For non- Atlantic Avenue intersections, the "No Table Zone" shall be ten feet as measured above. (7) The sidewalk caf6 area is to be segregated from the pedestrian pathway by means of barriers sudl as planters, railings or other similar moveable fixtures or other dearly visible demarcation No part of the The barrier shall net be located within the required 2 clear pedestrian pathway as defined in subsection M above. 4 ORD NO. 37 -10 (8) In addition to previously approved business signs, the sidewalk cafe may have one of the following signs: (a) A wall mounted menu board sij91 that does not exceed three square feet (3 sq ft.). (b) A free standing easel or art object that does not exceed five feet (5') in height ti-kit holds a menu board with a sign face not to exceed six square feet (2 ft. x 3 ft.). (c) Logos upon table umbrellas. The free standing easel or art object must be placed immediately in front of the business in the permitted sidewalk caf6 area. These signs shall not require further Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approval and are an exemption to requirements with the Citys sign code. Portable signs shall be prohibited except as allowed in Section 4.6.7(E)(3)(d) Grand Opening Portable Signs. (9) Use area and /or seating capacity realized through a sidewalk cafe use and contiguous outdoor dining areas shall not invoke provisions of the zoning code as they pertain to parking or other matters. (10) Food may be carried to tables by patrons or served by a table waiter. Food not be pwpawd in the sWew& eaf,6 area: The use of food preparation stations trash receptacles and cash registers are prohibited within the sidewalk caf6 area. ,(12) All services provided to patrons of a sidewalk caf6 and all patron activity_(i.e., sitting dining etc) shall occur within the designated sidewalk caf6 area and shall not impinge on the n�qureci 5' clear distance for pW trian passagQat may time 13 " Hours of operation shall be the sarm as the associated businesses. 14 (1-2) The area covered by the pernut, including the sidewalk, curb and gutter immediately adjacent to it, shall be maintained in a clean, neat, attractive and orderly manner at all times and the area shall be cleared of all debris and stains on a periodic basis during the day and again at the close of each business day, ensuring a tidy appearance. The permittee shall also be responsible to pressure clean the sidewalk surface on which the sidewalk caf6 is located at least once a week or more frequently, if needed and pick up all litter and debris including litter and debris in the landscaped areas adjacent to the sidewalk caf6 area under permit. ORD NO. 37 -10 15 (13) No tables, chairs, or any other part of sidewalk cafes shall be attached, chained, or in any manner affixed to any tree, post, sign or other fixtures, curb or sidewalk within or near the permitted area (G) Liability and 1 nsu tmre: (1) Prior to the issuance of a permit, the applicant shall furnish a signed statement that the permittee shall hold harmless the City, its officers and employees and shall inderrafy the City, its officers and employees from any claims for damages to property or injury to persons which may be occasioned by any activity carried on under the terms of the permit. (2) Permittee shall furnish insurance and insurance certificate and maintain such public liability, food products liability, and property damage insurance from all claims and damages to property or bodily injury, including death, which may arise from operations under the permit or in connection therewith Such insurance shall provide coverage of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for bodily injury, and property damage respectively, per occurrence. Such insurance shall name the City, its officers and employees as additional insureds and shall further provide that the policy shall not terminate or be canceled without thirty (30) days written notice to the City. (F) Penalties for Violations: In addition to the remedies provided in Section 6.3.3(I), the following penalties will be imposed upon the issuance of a written notice to the permittee shall be given as follows: 1" violation — a written warning 2nd violation — up to $1W 150 fine 3rd violation — up to $45 2250 fine (I) Denial, Revocation, or Suspension of Permit; Removal and Storage Fees; Cener= « Jurisdiction of the Code Enforcement Board or Civil Violations; Emergencies: (1) The City Manalegr or his/her designee may deny, revoke, or suspend a permit of any sidewalk cafe in the City if it is found that (a) Any necessary business or health permit has either been suspended revoked, or canceled or has lapsed. (b) The permittee does not have insurance which is correct and effective. 6 ORD NO. 37 -10 (c) Ganging conditions of pedestrian or vehicular traffic cause congestion necessitating removal or modification of the sidewalk cafe, in order to avoid danger to the health, safety or general welfare of pedestrians or vehicular traffic. (d) The pennittee has failed to correct violations of this subchapter or conditions of permitting within three (3) days of receipt of written notice of same. (e) If the peimittee receives more than three (3) Code Enforcement violations and /or civil violations in a 12 month period from the issuance of its permit for non - compliance to this Section, the permit shall be terminated and no refunds of the permit application fee shall be granted. The permtttee may not receive a new permit for six months. (f) The Sidewalk Caf6 does not enhance or conform to the aesthetic ambiance of the area or is not compatible with other adjacent businesses or sidewalk cafes. (2) The City many remove or relocate or order the removal or relocation of tables and chairs and other vestiges of the sidewalk cafL6 and a reasonable fee charged for labor, transportation, and storage, should the permtttee fail to remove said items within thirty -six (36) hours of receipt of the written notice from the City Manager or his/her designee ordering removal or relocation However, in the event of an emergency, no written notice of relocation or removal shall be given and relocation and /or removal shall commence immediately. (3) The permittee may appeal the order of the City NU-uger pursuult to Section 6.3.30), below. (4) TW (` d 9 F - F R d ]F 71 1, t i ' ' a 4 3 ':MB F subehapter and may eWy _ines for noncompliance shall be in accordance with Chapter 37 of the Code of Ordinances. (5) The sidewalk caf6 permit may be suspended upon written notice of the City Manager or his/her designee and removal may be ordered by the City when repairs necessitate such action (6) In addition, the City may immediately remove or relocate all or parts of the sidem k caf6 or order said removal or relocation in emergency situations, without written notice. In an emergency or upon the issuance of a hurricane warning or notification of another weather emergency by the county, the permittee shall forthwith place indoors all tables, chairs, and other equipment located on the sidewalk Failure to comply shall result in violation of this subsection which shall result in the issuance of a fine not to exceed $500.00. 0) Appeals: 7 ORD NO. 37 -10 (1) Appeals of the decision of the City Manager or his /her designee shall be initiated within ten (10) days of a permit denial, revocation or suspension, or of an order of removal or relocation, by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Manager. (2) The City Manager shall place the appeal on the first available regular City Commission agenda. At the hearing on appeal, the City Commission shall hear and determine the appeal, and the decision of the City Commission shall be final and effective immediately. The City Commission shall apply the standards set forth in 6.3.3x). (3) The filing of a notice of appeal by a permittee shall not stay an order of the City Manager or his/her designee regarding the suspension, revocation or denial of the permit, or the relocation or removal of the vestiges of the sidewalk cafe. Vestiges of the sidewalk cafe shall be removed as set forth in this subchapter, pending disposition of the appeal and the final decision of the City Commission (4) Appeals from the decision of the Code Enforcement Board shall be to the circuit court and not to the City Commission Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final readn & PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of 2010. ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Read ng ORD NO. 37 -10 Coversheet MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: October 13, 2010 Page 1 of 2 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2010 ORDINANCE NO. 37-10 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of a city- initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will modify and provide additional clarification to the regulations for sidewalk cafes. BACKGROUND Section 6.3.3 of the Land Development Regulations identifies the permitting process, associated fees, and regulations governing the use, design and maintenance of sidewalk cafes. The proposed modifications provide additional clarification as to where sidewalk cafes can locate, what businesses can utilize sidewalk cards, provide for minimum setbacks from vehicular travel lanes and outline certain operational fiuctions that are prohibited within the sidewalk cafe area. The proposed changes also increase the application, permit and penalty fees associated with the use. In summary, the following substantial changes are proposed: - Clarifies that retail businesses with food sales as an accessory use are not eligible for sidewalk cafe permits. These changes are necessary to address on going issues as well as evolving concerns related to the proliferation of sidewalk cafes in association with primarily retail uses; - Provides clarification that certain operational functions (food prep, trash receptacles, and cash registers) are prohibited in the sidewalk cafe area; - Expands the area where sidewalks cafes can occur to include areas adjacent to public spaces and areas between the side street and the building in addition to the current language which allows the use only in areas between the front of the building and the street; - Increases the application, permit and penalty fees; - Includes aesthetic changes, including a requirement that street furniture associated with the cafd use be of a quality design, materials and workmanship that will enhance the visual and aesthetic quality of the http:// itwebapp/ Agendalntranet /Bluesheet.aspx ?ItemID= 3915 &MeetinglD =274 10/25/2010 Coversheet Page 2 of 2 urban environment. The changes also require aesthetic approval of elements such as carpeting, artificial turf or other surfaces; and - Requires a minimum two foot setback for tables and associated chairs when they are located immediately adjacent to a vehicular travel lane. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Community Redevelopment Agency unanimously recommended approval at their September 23, 2010 meeting, but recommending the fee increase be limited to 30 %. The Downtown Development Authority unanimously recommended approval at their September 13, 2010 meeting, with clarification of a 5 -foot wide clear area as opposed to 6 feet (this change is reflected in the current ordinance). The Planning and Zoning Board voted 7 — 0 recommending approval at their September 20, 2010 meeting, with the conditions that 1) markers be placed that are both permanent and visible to mark the 5 -foot wide area referred to in the ordinance and, 2) that staff is to advise applicants to provide public safety measures as part of their application. The City Commission considered the ordinance on first reading at their meeting of October 5, 2010 where you recommended continuance. Staff was directed to add language that required a minimum 2' setback for any tables or chairs located immediately adjacent toa vehicular travel lane. This change has been added to the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve on first reading Ordinance No. 37 -10 for a city- initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations, by adonting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is coi Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Dew http ://itwebapp /AgendaIntranet/Bli PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 AGENDA NO: V.E AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY - INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 6.3.3 (SIDEWALK CAFE). 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) Section 6.3.3 (Sidewalk Caf6) to modify and provide additional clarification with respect to the use. 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 Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS Section 6.3.3 of the LDRs indentifies the permitting process, associated fees, and regulations governing the use, design and maintenance of sidewalk cafes. The proposed modifications provide additional clarification as to where sidewalk cafes can locate, what businesses can utilize sidewalk cafes, and outlines certain operational functions that are prohibited within the sidewalk cafe area. The proposed changes also increase the application, permit and penalty fees associated with the use. In summary, the following substantial changes are proposed: • Clarify that retail businesses with food sales as an accessory use are not eligible for sidewalk cafe permits; • Provide clarification that certain operational functions (food prep, trash receptacles, and cash registers) are prohibited in the sidewalk caf6 area; • Expansion of the area where sidewalks cafes can occur to include areas adjacent to public spaces and areas between the side street and the building in addition to the current language which allows the use only in areas between the front of the building and the street; • Increase the application, permit and penalty fees; and • Include aesthetic changes, including a requirement that street furniture associated with the cafe use be of a quality design, materials and workmanship that will enhance the visual and aesthetic quality of the urban environment. The changes also require aesthetic approval of elements such as carpeting, artificial turf or other surfaces. These changes are necessary to address on going issues as well as evolving concerns related to the proliferation of sidewalk cafes in association with primarily retail uses. 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. A thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan was conducted and while there are no specific goals, objectives, or policies to which this amendment would apply, the amendment is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS The amendment was reviewed by the Downtown Development Authority at their meeting of September 13, 2010 and they unanimously recommended approval subject to a condition which has been incorporated into the ordinance. The Community Redevelopment Agency was scheduled to consider the amendment at their September 16, 2010 meeting however the meeting was canceled. The CRA will consider the amendment prior to second reading by City Commission and their recommendation will be presented to City Commission. Courtesy Notices Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowner and civic associations: ■ Neighborhood Advisory Council ■ Progressive Residents of Delray (PROD) Letters of objection and support, if any, will be provided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and is necessary to address on going issues as well as evolving concerns related to the proliferation of sidewalk caf6s in association with primarily retail uses. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 6.3.3, "Sidewalk cafe ", 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 Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 6.3.3, "Sidewalk cafe ", by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative). 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend approval of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 6.3.3, "Sidewalk caf6 ", 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). Attachment: ■ LDR Text Modification 3 Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami, 286 So.2d 552 (1973) 6 Cases that cite this headnote 286 So.2d 552 Supreme Court of Florida. 3 Municipal Corporations RINKER MATERIALS CORPORATION, .�- Construction and operation a Florida corporation, Petitioner, 268 Municipal Corporations V. 268iV Proceedings of Council or Other Governing CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, a Florida Body Municipal corporation, Respondent. 268IV(B) Ordinances and By -Laws in General 268kl20 Construction and operation No. 43645. 1 Dec. 6,1973. Unless it is clear that omission was inadvertent, courts, generally, may not insert words or phrases After board of adjustment and city council had denied in municipal ordinances in order to express property owner a permit to construct a ready mix concrete intentions which do not appear and must give batching plant on property in city's industrial zone, owner ordinance plain and ordinary meaning of words filed petition for writ of certiorari. The Dade County Circuit employed by legislative body. Court, George E. Schultz, J., denied the petition, and owner appealed. The District Court of Appeal, 273 So.2d 436, 22 Cases that cite this headnote affirmed, and certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court held that where zoning ordinance permitted contractor's plants 4 Municipal Corporations in industrial zone, owner had right to construct concrete . Construction and operation batching plant. 268 Municipal Corporations Petition granted. 2681V Proceedings of Council or Other Governing Body For opinion after remand see 288 So.2d 536. 268IV(B) Ordinances and By -Laws in General 268k120 Construction and operation West Headnotes (6) Where words used in ordinance, when considered in their ordinary and grammatical sense, 1 Courts clearly express legislative intent, other rules of , Florida construction and interpretation are unnecessary 106 Courts and unwarranted. 106VI Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction 106VI(B) Courts of Particular States 20 Cases that cite this headnote 106k216 Florida Misapplication of established decisional rules of 5 Zoning and Planning statutory construction is clear basis of conflict. - Intention and purpose of enacting body F.S.A.Const. art. 5, § 3(b)(3). 414 Zoning and Planning 414V Construction, Operation, and Effect 414V(A) In General 2 Municipal Corporations 4141205 Intention and purpose of enacting body _= Construction and operation (Formerly 414k233) 268 Municipal Corporations Intent of city commission in enacting zoning 268IV Proceedings of Council or Other Governing ordinance is to be determined primarily from Body language of ordinance itself and not from 268IV(B) Ordinances and By -Laws in General conjecture aliunde. 268k 120 Construction and operation Municipal ordinances are subject to same rules of 4 Cases that cite this headnote construction as are state statutes. 6 Zoning and Planning Next Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami, 286 So.2d 552 (1973) -v-- Industrial districts and uses in general 414 Zoning and Planning 414V Construction, Operation, and Effect 414V(C) Uses and Use Districts 414V(C)l In General 414k1242 Industrial districts and uses in general (Formerly 414278.1, 414278) Under zoning ordinance which provided for industrial use and specifically authorized contractor's plants, property owner had right to construct concrete hatching plant. 1 Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms *553 Anne C. Booth of Booth & Booth, Tallahassee, and Toby Prince Brigham, Miami, for petitioner. Arthur J. Wolfson and John G. Fletcher, Miami, for respondent. Opinion PER CURIAM. We review on certiorari the Third District's opinion of February 14, 1973, reported at 273 So.2d 436, rehearing denied March 13, 1973, which upheld the Dade Circuit Court's affirmance of the City's denial of a building permit to the petitioner upon its property in the City's industrial zone. 1 Conflict appears from failure to follow established decisional rules of statutory construction in the consideration of the legislative intent applying to the law in question, contrary to the holdings which set forth such rules and are hereinafter footnoted. In failing to apply the plain and ordinary meaning and common usage of the language of the ordinance in determining intent, the district court misapplied the established decisional rules of statutory construction. Such misapplication is a clear basis of conflict. t Further conflict is demonstrated with City of Miami Beach v. Royal Castle System, Inc., 126 So.2d 595, 597 (F1a.App.3d 196 1) holding a Board of Adjustment for the City to be bound by the `ordinary and usual meaning of the term' in the statute unless differently defined in its own provision and applying a reasonable dictionary definition. 2 The opinion under review, like the trial court's ruling, applied statutory construction which is in conflict with established principles in the decisional law of Florida in at least the following respects: (a) In statutory construction, statutes must be given their plain and obvious meaning and it must be assumed that the legislative body knew the plain and ordinary meanings of the words. 3 (b) Statutes or ordinances should be given that interpretation which renders the ordinance valid and constitutional. 4 (c) Since zoning regulations are in derogation of private rights of ownership, words used in a zoning ordinance should be given their broadest meaning when there is no definition or clear intent to the contrary and the ordinance should be interpreted in favor of the property owner. 5 2 3 Municipal ordinances are subject to the same rules of construction as are state statutes. Rose v. Town of Hillsboro Beach, 216 So.2d 258 (F1a.App.4th 1968); Jacksonville v. Ledwith, 26 Fla. 163, 7 So. 885 (Fla. 1890). Rose also stands for the substantive proposition that courts generally may not insert words or phrases in municipal ordinances in order to express intentions which do not appear, unless it is clear that the omission was inadvertent, and must give to a statute (or ordinance) *554 the plain and ordinary meaning of the words employed by the legislative body (here the City Council). Brooks v. Anastasia Mosquito Control District, 148 So.2d 64 (Fla.App.Ist 1963). 4 5 In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Sutherland, 125 Fla. 282, 169 So. 679 (1936), dealing with judicial construction of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Court states the first rule of statutory construction in a like manner: `The legislative history of an act is important to courts Only when there is doubt as to what is meant by the language employed.' (Emphasis added.) Where words used in an act, when considered in their ordinary and grammatical sense, clearly express the legislative intent, other rules of construction and interpretation are unnecessary and unwarranted. The intent of the North Miami City Commission in its enactment of the zoning ordinance in issue is to be determined primarily from the language of the ordinance itself and not from conjecture Aliunde. A statute or ordinance must be given its plain and obvious meaning. See Neil I 1'. + i, n i!r r S. No c:lMfll 10 oriciinal 11.5 (_.iuv(-!111 nc:nl WOI'ICS. Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami, 286 So.2d 552 (1973) Marion County Hospital District v. Namer, 225 So.2d 442 (F1a.App.Ist 1969), citing Maryland Casualty, Supra. This Court in Gay v. City of Coral Gables, 47 So.2d 529 (Fla.1950), stated the rule that must be followed in determining intent of an ordinance: 'When the legislative intent is clear from words used in the enactment, courts are bound thereby and may not seek a meaning different from ordinary or common usage connotation of such words unless, upon a consideration of the act as a whole and the subject matter to which it relates, the court is necessarily lead to a determination that the legislature intended a different meaning to be ascribed to the language adopted by it.' Petitioner's property is within the principal industrial area of the City of North Miami, bound on all sides by industrial plants such as the Panelfab Manufacturing Plant and the Lehigh Concrete Batching Plant, and is within the last undeveloped part of this industrially zoned area which is not developed. The fact that another company has a concrete batching plant already in operation right across the street from petitioner's proposed site is not mentioned below. The only non - industrial use in the area is really one which has recently intruded into the previously heavily industrialized neighborhood. This is property of the principal objector who erected apartment buildings in a portion of this industrial center which was expressly rezoned from its previous industrial zoning classification to one for multiple family residential use, and thereupon this objector and developer proceeded to erect his apartment houses there. Petitioner made its purchase in 1970 after a meticulous search for an appropriate site location which was compatible with its spacing of concrete batching plants to serve the needs of the areas served by the petitioner. The then officials of the City of North Miami Beach were expressly asked whether the intended use of the concrete batching plant by petitioner met the zoning requirements and gave an affirmative response which led to petitioner's purchase; only to have petitioner learn upon a change of administration that it was to be denied the building permit, the very purpose for which it had made the purchase. We do not hold that such inquiry gave petitioner a vested guarantee in the issuance of its permit, for times and conditions change. But it does reflect petitioner's good faith and reliance; it also shows what the true 'intent' of the legislative body in question was as to the zoning use intended for the area, which is the principal point raised by petitioner as being violated *555 by the 'interpretation' of the ordinance to arrive at a contrary intent. 6 The ordinance in question is s 29 -42 of the City's zoning code setting forth the uses permitted in the zone in question, namely 'industrial zoning district 3 -A'. (Ordinance 380.244) The code proceeds to set forth specifically 43 delineated zoning usages which cover the gamut of typical industrial use from 'automobile wreckage service, storage yards ...', blacksmith shops, storage of gasoline, dredging machinery storage areas, fertilizer sales, power or steam laundries, stone cutting, welding, leather goods manufacture, and the category under which petitioner claims to fall: '(29) Contractor's plants and/or storage yards, providing the area used is enclosed by a building or by a wall not less than 6 feet in height.' Application of the maxim Expressio unius est exclusio alterius would demonstrate the consistency of petitioner's use with that of the 42 other uses set forth in this industrial grouping. The doctrine of Noscitur a sociis will similarly apply in not excluding the 'batching' or mixing of ingredients for ready mix concrete in truck cylinders, from the type of products otherwise set forth in the ordinance. Carraway v. Armour and Co., 156 So.2d 494, 495 (Fla. 1963); and Rose v. Town of Hillboro Beach, Supra. Petitioner seeks to install his 'contractor's plant and storage yard' for a concrete mixing or 'batching' plant where the ingredients of sand, rock and portland cement mix are 'batched' into the revolving turrets of the typical concrete delivery truck which proceeds to the job while these ingredients are mixed as the turret (or drum) turns during the trip to its destination. The plant area is fully paved with a built -in wash down system; the aggregate is stored in enclosed silos and carried by an enclosed conveyor system, the entire operation being automated and enclosed. There is no manufacture of heavy cement products. This is significant because the principal contention of the City and of the holdings below is that when Ordinance 380.244 was adopted in 1966, it deleted a phrase 'cement products such as concrete blocks, pipe, etc.' The reasoning of the zoning director which is the basis for the rulings below, is that this quoted deletion meant that, 'it also eliminated the manufacture of concrete as a permitted Next ? I Irui scm Reuters. Vii rlaiin to oriyii� II U.S. Govarnmc;nt Works. i Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami, 286 So.2d 552 (1973) use.' This is, of course, an interpretation completely at odds with the approval of a competitive `cement batching plant' already in operation across the street. The director put it that in his view `concrete was a product of Cement and it made no difference in his opinion in what form it set up in.' Of course concrete is the `set up' or end result of a `cement' mixture. The exception in the deletion from the ordinance which was pointed to by the director as direction for the intended meaning of the permitted use, only included Cement products `SUCH AS concrete, pipe, etc.` and there are no products, particularly no `such as' products involved in petitioner's use, nor contained in the permitted uses for a `contractor's plant and storage yard' in item 29. To inject such additional meaning into such words violates the statutory interpretation earlier pointed out in this opinion as the basis for conflict. The distinction between `cement' and `concrete' is clear. The dictionary definitions of the two words draws the distinction: `Cement' is 'a substance used in a soft state to join stones in building, to cover floors, etc., and which afterwards becomes hard like stone; any substance used for making bodies adhere to each other.. .'. On the other hand, `concrete' is defined as: 'A concrete form or Object ...; a mass formed by concretion or coalescence of separate particles of matter in one body; artificial stone made by *556 Mixing cement and sand with gravel, broken stone, or other aggregate.' 6 This distinction between the two substances was apparently overlooked by the zoning director and City and may have been the cause of the fallacious reasoning that the deletion from item 29 of 'concrete pipe, etc.' was also a defection of 'cement' which, of course, is not the case. As we understand the district court's reasoning, it founded its decision upon the fact that the language in the ordinance, 'contractor's plants and/or storage yards' is not explicit enough to include a 'concrete batching plant' which is this contractor's business, within the meaning of that language. The district court opinion does not suggest what the statutory 'contractor's plants and/or storage yards' might mean, but simply stated that whatever it means, a concrete batching plant is not included in that meaning. The trouble with this position is that it leads to one of two contradictory results: (1) either the permitted item 29 'contractor's plants ...' is meaningless because it does not specify a particular type of contractor as to Any type of plant within the general industrial purport of the 43 items of industrial uses (since any contractor Footnotes at all would meet with the same difficulty in that his particular business was not specified); or (2) item 29 as to `contractor's plants ...` is open to whatever determination the zoning director and City of North Miami might from time to time choose to give to it, resulting in an arbitrary discretion and an inevitable resort to the courts in each instance. Such an unconstitutional result is not permitted where such contractors are not given equal treatment. The present case bears this out wherein it is clear from the record that the City has permitted all sorts of contractor's plants, some of which are identical and others of which are heavier industrial usage in the same area, one even being a Lehigh Concrete Batching Plant, yet has rejected the petitioner's batching plant. The legislative intent with regard to item 29 in particular is clarified in the record from the statements of the City Council members who passed the ordinance and eliminated from number 29 any `cement products such as concrete blocks, pipe, ect.'. One Commissioner and former Mayor stated: `This action was directed at the Florida Litho -Bar Manufacturing Plant which manufactured pre - stressed concrete beams; culvert pipe; blocks and so forth. It was not a ready -mix batching plant. It was very noisy, very unsightly and was expanding even beyond the large size it had. 'The action of the Council in eliminating the manufacture of cement products such as 'concrete blocks, pipe, etc.' in no way was meant to include elimination of the contractors plant and storage yard such as a cement batching plant where cement and aggregates are stored in silos; mixed together and placed in trucks for delivery to job sites.' Seldom do we have such evidence of the clear legislative intent of the change (deletion) upon which to rely and it should not be ignored. The petition for certiorari is accordingly granted; the opinion of the district court is quashed with directions that the order of the circuit court denying relief be set aside and an order entered directing that the City of North Miami forthwith issue the building permit sought by petitioner. It is so ordered. CARLTON, C.J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADICINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur. Next !�:� 2012 -i hornson Rentuis. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami, 286 So.2d 552 (1973) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So.2d 731 (Fla. 1960); F1a.Const., Article V, s 3(b)(3). Godson v. Town of Surfside, 150 Fla. 614, 8 So.2d 497 (1942); and Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. D'Alemberte, 39 Fla. 25, 21 So. 570 (1897). Rose v. Town of Hillsboro Beach, 216 So.2d 258 (Fla.App.4th 1968); Brooks v. Anastasia Mosquito Control Dist., 148 So.2d 64 (Fla.App.lst 1963); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Sutherland, 125 Fla. 282, 169 So. 679 (1936); Marion County Hospital District v. Namer, 225 So.2d 442 (Fla.App. l st 1969), citing Maryland Casualty, Supra; Godson v. Town of Surside, 150 Fla. 614, 8 So.2d 497 (Fla. 1942); Gay v. City of Coral Gables, 47 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1950); Union Trust Co. v. Lucas, 125 So.2d 582 (F1a.App.2d 1960); and State ex rel. Lacedonia v. Harvey, 68 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1953). Owen v. Cheney, 238 So.2d 650 (F1a.App.2d 1970); Rotenberg v. City of Fort Pierce, 202 So.2d 782 (F1a.App.4th 1967); City of Eau Gallie v. Holland, 98 So.2d 786 (Fla. 1957). See footnote 3. Webster's Dictionary, Fifth Edition. End of Document (D 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Next t,. 2012 Thomson Reutrrr >. No claim to original U.S Goverrurienl Works. -- - — - - — - Stroemel v. Columbia County, 930 So.2d 742 (2006) 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1251 930 S0.2d 742 District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. William STROEMEL, III, Appellant, V. COLUMBIA COUNTY, Florida, Appellee. No. iDo5 -1695• I May 4, 2oo6. Rehearing Denied June 5, 2oo6. Synopsis Background: Landowner sought judicial review of county's denial of development plan for canoe and kayak rental business on his property that was located in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA). The Circuit Court, Columbia County, Paul S. Bryan, J., ruled that only publicly - owned recreational facilities were allowed. Landowner appealed. 2 Holdings: The District Court of Appeal held that: 1 privately -owned recreation facility was "public resource based recreational facility," and 2 rental facility was a water - dependent commercial use 3 permitted in the ESA. Reversed. West Headnotes (8) 1 Statutes Meaning of Language Statutes Knowledge of legislature 361 Statutes 361VI Construction and Operation 361 VI(A) General Rules of Construction 361kl87 Meaning of Language 361k188 In general 361 Statutes 361 VI Construction and Operation 361 VI(A) General Rules of Construction 361k212 Presumptions to Aid Construction 361k212.1 Knowledge of legislature In statutory construction, statutes must be given their plain and obvious meaning and it must be assumed that the legislative body knew the plain and ordinary meanings of the words. 4 Constitutional Law Presumptions and Construction as to Constitutionality Municipal Corporations -� - Construction and operation 92 Constitutional Law 92VI Enforcement of Constitutional Provisions 92VI(C) Determination of Constitutional Questions 92VI(C)3 Presumptions and Construction as to Constitutionality 92k990 In general (Formerly 92k48(1)) 268 Municipal Corporations 268IV Proceedings of Council or Other Governing Body 268IV(B) Ordinances and By -Laws in General 268k120 Construction and operation Statutes or ordinances should be given that interpretation which renders the ordinance valid and constitutional. Zoning and Planning Free or unrestricted use of property Zoning and Planning Meaning of Language 414 Zoning and Planning 414V Construction, Operation, and Effect 414V(A) In General 4141204 Free or unrestricted use of property (Formerly 414k231) 414 Zoning and Planning 414V Construction, Operation, and Effect 414V(A) In General 4141206 Meaning of Language 414k1207 In general (Formerly 414233) Since zoning regulations are in derogation of private rights of ownership, words used in a zoning ordinance should be given their broadest meaning when there is no definition or clear intent to the contrary and the ordinance should be interpreted in favor of the property owner. Municipal Corporations Next' )� 0, i2 ThO rnson R(tUIcas. M) claim to odgiiwl U.S. Government Works. Stroemel V. Columbia County, 930 So.2d 742 (2006) 31 Fla.-C.—Weekly D1251 ._= Construction and operation ,-- Water - related uses and regulations; flooding 268 Municipal Corporations and wetlands 2681V Proceedings of Council or Other Governing 414 Zoning and Planning Body 414V Construction, Operation, and Effect 2681V(B) Ordinances and By -Laws in General 414V(C) Uses and Use Districts 268k120 Construction and operation 414V(C) I In General Municipal ordinances are subject to the same 414k1253 Entertainment and recreation; theaters rules of construction as are state statutes. (Formerly 414k278.1) 414 Zoning and Planning 414V Construction, Operation, and Effect 5 Municipal Corporations 414V(C) Uses and Use Districts 414V(C)i In General Construction and operation 4141280 Water - related uses and regulations; 268 Municipal Corporations flooding and wetlands 2681V Proceedings of Council or Other Governing (Formerly 414k278.1) Body Property owner's proposed canoe and kayak 268IV(B) Ordinances and By -Laws in General rental facility was a permitted use under county's 268k120 Construction and operation land regulations for environmentally sensitive Courts generally may not insert words or phrases areas (ESAs), even though regulations prohibited in municipal ordinances in order to express commercial uses in ESA, given that regulations intentions which do not appear, unless it is clear specifically allowed docks and other structures that the omission was inadvertent, and must give for water - dependent commercial uses. to a statute or ordinance the plain and ordinary meaning of the words employed by the legislative body. S Statutes .., General and specific words and provisions 6 Zoning and Planning 361 Statutes 361 VI Construction and Operation = Entertainment and recreation; theaters 361 VI(A) General Rules of Construction 414 Zoning and Planning 361k187 Meaning of Language 414V Construction, Operation, and Effect 361kl94 General and specific words and 414V(C) Uses and Use Districts provisions 414V(C) I In General Where there is in the same statute a specific 4141253 Entertaimnent and recreation; theaters provision, and also a general one which in its (Formerly 414k278.1) most comprehensive sense would include matters Property owner's proposed canoe and kayak embraced in the former, the particular provision rental facility was permitted use as "public must control. resource based recreational facilities" under city's development regulations for land in 1 Cases that cite this headnote environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs), given that plain and clear meaning of phrase was not that the facility had to be publicly owned, but that the owner could operate a privately -owned Attorneys and Law Firms recreational facility on a public river. *743 Timothy P. Atkinson and Segundo J. Fernandez of Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A., Tallahassee, for 7 Zoning and Planning Appellant. _- Entertainment and recreation; theaters Marlin M. Feagle of Feagle & Feagle, Attorneys, P.A., Lake Zoning and Planning City, for Appellee. Ilea 1,1.; :_'.0 12 Vhorfisuri I; t,i; rs. r\lu, claim to oiidinal U.S. Government Woi,ks. ' Stroemel v. Columbia County, 930 So.2d 742 (2006) 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1251 Opinion 19 t1I;Zi1liAMuI Appellant appeals the trial court's Final Judgment on Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. In the proceeding below, appellant argued that he was permitted, as a matter of right, to construct a single family dwelling, and canoe and kayak rental facility on his Columbia County property. The bulk of appellant's property is located within the Environmentally Sensitive Area 2 ( "ESA -2 ") portion of Columbia County, as defined by the county's Land Development Regulations ( "LDRs "). Appellant reasoned that section 4.4.2, Columbia County Code, expressly permits "public resource based recreation facilities," and that his rustic canoe and kayak rental operation located on the Santa Fe River would qualify as such a use. The trial court ruled that (i) appellant's lot, though non- conforming due to its size, I may nevertheless be used for permitted uses; (ii) any development project proposed by appellant for his Columbia County property would have to meet the criteria for ESA -2 development to be permitted without special exception, and; (iii) the plan submitted by appellant for the development of his property fails to satisfy the ESA -2 standards, so it may not be undertaken without special exception. In coming to its conclusion on point (iii), the trial court relies on the following rationale in its rejection of appellant's argument that his proposed project is a "public resource based recreation facilit[y]:" [T]his is a private commercial enterprise as proposed, not a public one. Plain and *744 obvious meaning shows that "public" modifies "facilities ", and was not intended to be read public resource based recreational facilities. Even without additional reference to other parts of the L.D.R.'s this appears plain. When coupled with the definition of "Public Buildings and Facilities" ... this becomes even more plain and obvious, and is meant to apply to governmental entities for a public service purpose. The trial court also states that appellant's argument on this point must fail, because section 4.4.4, Columbia County Code, prohibits "commercial uses." We reverse, because we agree with appellant that the trial court erred in (1) construing the phrase "public resource based recreational facilities," and (2) in holding that all "commercial uses" are prohibited by the County Code. 2 I. Background On June 25, 1996, appellant purchased 8.52 acres of wooded property situated in Columbia County along the north bank of the Santa Fe River. This property is bordered on its west by State Road 47 and on its east by a commercial goat farm. Directly across the river from this property, trailered power boats, jet skis, canoes, and kayaks are launched by the public from Santa Fe State Park. The bulk of appellant's property is located within a portion of the county that is zoned by the county's LDRs as ESA -2. Appellant purchased this property for the purpose of establishing a single family dwelling, as well as a rustic canoe and kayak rental operation. Appellant proposed a development plan, which includes a single family residence or caretaker's residence, a canoe and kayak rental operation, sanitary facilities for guests, unpaved parking, educational aspects, and maintenance facilities for the repair of the canoes and kayaks. II. The Columbia County Code The Columbia County Code, states: The "ESA" ... category includes three (3) zone districts: ESA -1, 2, 3. Lands in these districts are considered in need of special planning and treatment regarding land development regulation. These are not preservation districts, but land uses permitted within these districts are to provide mitigating measures to protect the natural functions of areas which are limited to the planning and treatment of land development within the one - hundred (100) year floodplain of the ... Santa Fe River Corridor.... These regulations prohibit intensive residential, intens[ive] recreational and intensive agricultural uses and prohibit industrial and commercial development within the 100 year floodplain of the areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. § 4.4.1, Columbia County Code (emphasis added). Section 4.4.2 of the Code identifies "Permitted Principal Uses and Structures." "Single family dwellings" and "public resource based recreation facilities" are expressly named as permitted principal uses and structures. § 4.4.2(2), (5), Columbia County Code. Section 4.4.3 of the Code defines and provides examples of "Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures." These are defined as uses and structures which: Next 'c -> "0 ? 2 Thcrrsui Rriitet No nlaii77 to original U.S. Government Works. Stroemel v. Columbia County, 930 So.2d 742 (2006) 31 Fla. l-. Weekly D1251 *745 a. Are customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to permitted or permissible uses and structures; b. Are located on the same lot as the permitted or permissible principal use or structure, or on a contiguous lot in the same ownership; and c. Do not involve operations or structures not in keeping with the intent of these land development districts. § 4.4.3(1), Columbia County Code. Examples of such accessory uses and structures include "[d]ocks, ramps, piers and walkways for residential and water - dependent commercial uses," as well as "[r]esidential facilities for caretakers whose work requires residence on the premises or for employees who will be quartered on the premises." § 4.4.3(2), Columbia County Code. to express intentions which do not appear, unless it is clear that the omission was inadvertent, and must give to a statute (or ordinance) the plain and ordinary meaning of the words employed by the legislative body (here the City Council). Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami, 286 So.2d 552, 553 -54 (Fla. 1973) (citations and footnotes omitted). 6 Contrary to the dictates of Rinker, the trial court's interpretation of the Code amounts to a rewriting of the Code's text. The trial court ignored the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the Code. The trial court states that "public resource based recreational facilities" was not meant to be read "public resource based recreation facilities," but was meant to require publicly owned recreation facilities. The trial court erred by inserting these words. Neither the term "public" nor the phrase "public resource Section 4.4.4 of the Code provides a list of uses and structures which are prohibited by the Code. This list includes "[i]ndustrial and commercial uses, intensive agricultural uses ..., private recreational uses and any use or structure not specifically, provisionally, or by reasonable implication permitted herein or permissible as a special exception." III. Public Resource Based Recreation Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 In determining whether appellant's pro development comes within the ambit of a "public resource based recreation facilit[y]," the following rules of statutory construction should be employed: (a) In statutory construction, statutes must be given their plain and obvious meaning and it must be assumed that the legislative body knew the plain and ordinary meanings of the words. (b) Statutes or ordinances should be given that interpretation which renders the ordinance valid and constitutional. (c) Since zoning regulations are in derogation of private rights of ownership, words used in a zoning ordinance should be given their broadest meaning when there is no definition or clear intent to the contrary and the ordinance should be interpreted in favor of the property owner. Municipal ordinances are subject to the same rules of construction as are state statutes.... [C]ourts generally may not insertwords or phrases in municipal ordinances in order based recreation facilities" is defined by the Code, or in case law. As such, this language must be interpreted broadly, and in favor of appellant as the property owner in this case. "Public," when used as an adjective, means "[r]elating or belonging to an entire community, state, or nation .... [o]pen or available for all to use, share, or enjoy." Black's Law Dictionary 1242 (7th ed.1999). With these definitions in mind, it is clear that the *746 Santa Fe River is a "public resource." Furthermore, reading this Code provision broadly and in favor of appellant, it is obvious that a canoe and kayak poseAntal operation would be a recreation facility based upon the Santa Fe River. IV. Commercial Uses 7 The trial court's finding that appellant may not develop his property for a canoe and kayak rental operation, because section 4.4.4, Columbia County Code, prohibits "commercial uses" is error. Section 4.4.4 does totally bar "commercial uses," but section 4.4.3(2) specifically permits "[d]ocks, ramps, piers, and walkways for residential and water - dependent commercial uses" as well as the construction of residential facilities for "caretakers whose work requires residence on the premises or for employees who will be quartered on the premises." (Emphasis added). The County apparently intends to generally prohibit commercial uses within ESA -2, but to permit some limited types of commercial activity. 8 "Where there is in the same statute a specific provision, and also a general one which in its most comprehensive sense would include matters embraced in the former, the Ne'rt ? 012 ..' hnn °iso,i Rc iilPrS.. Nn shim In original U.S. Government Works. t Stroemel v. Columbia County, 930 So.2d 742 (2006) 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1251 particular provision must control...." Parker v. Baker, 499 So.2d 843, 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In applying this principle, commercial uses which fall under section 4.4.3(2) should be permitted, and are not subject to the general prohibition of section 4.4.4, while commercial uses not falling under section 4.4.3(2) continue to be prohibited. Appellant's canoe and kayak rental operation is a "water - dependent comtercial use," and is not subject to the section 4.4.4 prohibition on commercial uses. "Water - dependent Uses" are defined by the Code as "activities which can be carried out only on, in or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body for: waterborne transportation including ports or marinas; recreation; electrical generating facilities; or water supply." § 2. 1, Columbia County Code (emphasis added). Canoeing and kayaking are certainly the types of activities covered under this definition. Therefore, a commercial enterprise seeking to establish a recreational facility for canoe and kayak rentals is permissible under the provisions of the Code. V. Conclusion The Columbia County Code specifically permits the development of "public resource based recreation facilities," and appellant's proposed development qualifies as such a use. Appellant's proposed development, though commercial, falls under the category of commercial development specifically permitted by the Code. Because we hold that appellant is permitted to implement his proposed development without first obtaining a special exception, we reverse the Final Judgment of the trial court. REVERSED. ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur. Parallel Citations 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1251 Footnotes j Both parties agree that appellant's lot is a "non- conforming lot of record," because it is less than 10 acres in size and was in existence prior to the adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 2 We reject, without further comment, appellee's argument that because appellant's property is of non - conforming size (less than 10 acres), a special exception is required to development the property for any purpose other than for a single family dwelling. Additionally, because of our ruling on the "public resource based recreational facilities" issue, we do not address appellant's argument that the canoe and kayak rental operation is permitted as a use accessory to his single family dwelling. End of Document 9 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. =.lt; Next ,�) 20'12 Thomson Reuters. No n1aim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 APPEAL OF DENIAL OF SIDEWALK CAFE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FEBRUARY 21,2012 T ercou ra t r Mxv 2/21/2012 PROPOSED SIDEWALK CAFE IN PUBLIC y : Off the Ave. f Restaurant ADJACENT PUBLIC SPACE _.:. :csra_ _ae- .- •^._. #. so City is asserting that a sidewalk cafe cannot be established in the adjacent public space. 1 CITY: "A sidewalk cafe cannot be established in a public space which is not a sidewalk." THE The "plain language" of the zoning code controls. Stroemel v. Columbia County, 930 So.2d 742 (Fla. Isi bCA2o06)-. Rinker Materials Corporation v. city of North Miami, 286 So.2d 552 (Fla.1973). A sidewalk cafe can be located: In front of a business. ✓ Along a, side street adjacent to a business. ✓. In 'a public space adjacent to a business. - ✓ In front of an adjacent business. 2/21/2012 Does the "plain language" of the LDR's restrict sidewalk cafes to just,sidewalks? 2 K w. Ordinance 37-10 Added "public spaces" as authorized location for sidewalk caf6.s. Expands the area where sidewalk caf6s can occur to include areas adiacent to public spaces..." I T ELISE, DOES THE "If any doubt as to plain language, look to the legislative intent of the ordinance." Stroemel y. Columbia County, 930 So. - 2d 742 (Fla. 151 DCA 2006) Rinker Materials Corporation v.'Qljy of North Miami,, 286 So.2d 552 (Fla.1973). "The proposed modifications !provide additional clarification as to where sidewalk cafes can locate." AREA ADJACENT TO PUBLIC SPACES'.... 2/21/2012 3 Does the "plain language" of the LDR's restrict sidewalk cafes to just sidewalks? No. ✓The location of the requested sidewalk cafe is permitted by code. ✓The appeal should be ranted. .rertr <. Lnlll. flmm: auto. f+wirdlNato4mrdWn.tw <n ooml 6aN n.Y. f:.a...f x Vol l :'tt PM Tc - Iafi.,lM+. fJhj.el: iF: 'JKli.AV.- 4NarnRt`x4 i6 ICil' I JM17 weml nlfC:inng$ 111, low 41 -111. 01f lho A,v CIN%\aik faro. W-1 l k-11 is —M.-M A cnlplJ aflimfxMQSM{F. Th;:lnin dvlC>atrcd:•:al Ott altr.riYMa( -.lar dlat;>,uvxlsOnrayh th.• i>al aap.itlmld �hcro iha lnH\lan protwud IJ'K�i arcaV) sa pfJhlJ.l.•hil.A—mutti fil.Malk e""9f4—fitll Crl \11$AIF•Qf� \lV. IRC1C m>•h >ty ¢�`i Jn l%t.\ UIC C+ifnl Cfimi l(1lknit pl tl1N31d \•iz. dK Vit)60h- r-.a,.l h — lhu m lW d—lh$% W ml tl,l ha. dlf( ulmm, l.-vM4i6 k rmie, nl and improre mfres \ imrndeJ nailo•xl:.J Ah t\<tt�0o11 forMtmdttrvC pii?pao:>^ MC1>td C. 11"tq P L 6 ulS n{ xUimr:•• IR U 0 14.1-7336 FAX Isul -IZ WTI "i didn't reaIlyhaveaproblern sii >nsly dflr�✓r with that since most sidewalk cafes are within city rights-of- way.- — 4NatcrSertse tza rhea nnn/Mxrwst>aev/watxunu/ To expand the area where sidewalk cafes can occur to include areas adiacent to public spaces. STAFF REPORT TO AGENDA ITEM 9.A. APPEAL OF DENIAL OF SIDEWALK CAFE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FEBRUARY 21,2012 kk the,9,4 O m y �G & SQ��� w 1 &5r 2/21/2012 4 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:February 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 WAIVER REQUEST/ THE DELRAY BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission consideration of a request to waive Section 4.6.7(F)(3)(f) and allow the Delray Beach Library to erect two (2) Centennial Banners (6’ x 2 1’) on the south elevation of the building, facing Atlantic Avenue. The Library is celebrating 100 yea rs of service (1913 – 2013) and seeking approval to erect these banners for one (1) year beginning, Apr il 2012. BACKGROUND The Land Development Regulations governing Signs, S ection 4.6.7, limits the use of banners to grand opening of businesses, special event non-roadway and special event roadway banners. Banners associated with City facilities and properties are submitted to the City Manager for approval. Banners for special events non-roadway are limited to 20 square feet in size. The Library is seeking approval to erect two (2) banners that are 126 square feet each that will flank the entrance from Atlantic Avenue, announcing their Centennial celebration. A copy of the banner rendering and building elevation is attached for reference. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending City Commission approval of t he waiver to LDR Section 4.6.7(F)(3)(f) to allow the two (2) proposed Centennial Banners as proposed on the Library South Elevation. We would suggest, however, that these be limited to a period of six (6) months; the beginning date may be selectedbythe Library. 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 REQUESTS FOR THE DELRAY BEACH LIBRARY 1. This waiver request came before the City Commission on February 21, 2012. 2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the wai ver requests for the Delray Beach Public Library. 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 o ther property for another applicant or owner. A. Waivers to LDR Section 4.6.7(F)(3)(f): Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.7(F)(3)(f), special signing in accordance with this Subsection, may be allowed by the Chief Building Official or his/her designee, for special events if it is determined that th e sign type meets the following criteria: 1. the sign provides notice to the public of a public me eting or other public event, 2. the sign is temporary and for a limited time, and 3. the sign, if allowed for a limited time, must meet the following criteria: 2 (i) the sign will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land u ses or signs, (ii) the sign will not conflict with the principal perm itted use of the site or adjoining sites, (iii) the sign will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians, and (iv) the sign will be installed and maintained in a safe manner. The approval, or disapproval, of such sign shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the view point expressed) on such sign. The Chief Building Official or his/her designee shall render a decision within fourteen (14) days after an application is made for utilizing this sig n type for a special event. Such a decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the C ity Manager. 4. Each sign limited to less than twenty square feet (2 0 sq.ft.) in area; 5. Allowed fourteen (14) days prior to the event and must be removed by the second day after the event. Should the waiver to exceed the twenty (20) square foot maximum non- roadway banner size area be granted? Yes _______ No _______ Should the waiver to allow the banners to be up for a total of six (6) months be allowed? Yes _______ No _______ 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 i n 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 3 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 21st day of February, 2012, by a vote of _____ in favor and ____ opposed. ________________________________ ATTEST: Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ________________________________ Chevelle Nubin, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:February 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST/ROBERT GOLDSTEIN ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of the request from Mr. Robert Goldst ein to reimburse to him Plan Review fees paid upon the submission of a permit application for a n ew single family home on July 19, 2005 in the amount of $13,161.85. BACKGROUND Mr. Goldstein’s initial request for reimbursement was made in Apr il 2007 and my response to his request was by letter on May 2, 2007. In August 201 1, Mr. Goldstein again called to follow-up on his reimbursement request stating that in these difficu lt economic times every penny counts. His positio n is that since he did not build the home, the City d id nothing to earn the plan review fee made on his initial submission. According to my research, we received the permit on July 7, 2005. The plans were routed to the Planning & Zoning department the same day, because the property was immediately identified as being in the Beach Overlay District. Planning Department staff disapproved the application since it did not have the required Overlay District application; sta ff communicated the same to the project Architect o n July 28, 2005. In addition, we actually reviewed th e map used in 2005, verifying that it clearly identified the property as being within the distric t. The plans submitted were routed to and reviewed by Public Utilities, Engineering and building staff fo r structural, mechanical, electric and plumbing. Permits automatically expire when no acti on is taken within six months of submission. Thus, the permit application expired December 2005; Mr. G oldstein’s request for reimbursement was made seventeen (17) months after our last contact with h is agent (July 28, 2005). I have attached my letter to Mr. Goldstein dated Ma y 2, 2007 and correspondence received from him dated August 28, 2011. The property has changed own ers twice since his initial ownership in 2004. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending denial of the request from Mr . Robert Goldstein for reimbursement of plan review fees associated with a permit application fo r a new single family home in July, 2005. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler - Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden - City Manager DATE:February 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.D. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT/WASTE MANAGEME NT, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission decision on the proposed renewal 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 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 1, 2013 and thirty (30) by June 1, 2014. Also, Waste Manage ment will be responsible for 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 - a One Million Dollar ($1,000,000) Indemnity Claus e relating to the 5th Amendment and process, that is effective for th e entire term of the agreement through September 30, 2021, in addition to the broad indemn ification provision set forth in Section 26 of the original Agreement. RECOMMENDATION City Commission discretion. 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:Bob Diaz, Construction Manager Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construction Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Dire ctor THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 16, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.E. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 ADDITIONAL SCOPE/RANDOLPH & DEWDNEY/POMPEY PARK CON CESSION STAND P/N 10 -128 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve addit ional scope, in the total amount of $2,614.50, for the relocation and extension of existing low voltag e conduit and modification of all flat roof areas; and approval for the amount to be paid from the Contrac t's Contingency Allowance; for the Pompey Park Concession Stand Project #10-128. BACKGROUND The additional scope, in the amount of $2,614.50, i ncludes the relocation and extension of low voltag e conduit, which is currently in conflict with the im provements to the concession stand facility; and modification of all flat roof areas, which consists of installing tapered insulation to divert water a way from the second floor press box building. This sho uld prevent the water intrusion and subsequent rot which occurred in the previous second floor press b ox walls. The breakdown is as follows: $ 441.00 - Relocation and extension of existing lo w voltage conduit $2,173.50 - Modification of all flat roof areas $2,614.50 Total Attached, please find Exhibit "A" which details all costs associated with this work; and a copy of the Construction Project Detailed Allowances Spreadshee t. FUNDING SOURCE Cost to be funded out of Contract's Contingency All owance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of additional scope, in t he total amount of $2,614.50, for the relocation an d extension of existing low voltage conduit and modif ication of all flat roof areas; and approval for th e amount to be paid from the Contract's Contingency A llowance; for the Pompey Park Concession Stand Project. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lisa M. Herrmann, Budget Officer THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 16, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.F. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -12 BUDGET AMENDMENT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The Commission is requested to consider Resolution No. 10-12 which amends the FY 2011-12 budget. BACKGROUND This is the Mid Year Budget Amendment for FY 2011-12 (back up attached). After the decision was made to not implement a Fire Service Fee for Fiscal 2012, staff felt that it would be best to go ahead and do our mid-year budget amendment early this year. The Commission directed that up to $1,400,000 could be taken from undesignated fund balance to help offset the $3,200,000 reduction in revenue resultin g from deletion of the Fire Service Fee revenue. T he attached budget amendment uses only $1,000,000 from fund balance to rebalance our budget. In addition to absorbing the $3,200,000 revenue reduct ion, we also are adding over $100,000 in additional expenses to unfreeze an attorney's position in the City Attorneys Office, add staff in Code Enforcemen t and retain experts for testimony, all in support of adopting and enforcing the newly amended ordinances relating to regulation of transient hou sing. Fortunately, building permit revenue is comi ng in much better than originally projected, and is a major factor in enabling us to make these adjustmen t without using more of our fund balance. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Resolution No. 10-12 amending the FY 2011-12 budget. RESOLUTION NO. 10-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 42-11 ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 WHICH MADE APPROPRIATIONS OF SUMS OF MONEY FOR ALL NECESSARY EXPENDITURES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL ORIDA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012, BY SE TTING FORTH THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATING FUNDS OF TH E CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012; REPEALIN G ALL RESOLUTIONS INCONSISTENT HEREWITH. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEA CH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Sect ion 1 of Resolution No. 42-11 adopted by the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Fl orida, on September 20, 2011, is hereby repealed, and a new Section 1 is enac ted and amended to read as follows: That the following sums of m oney, attached hereto and marked Exhibit “A”, are hereby appropriated upon the terms and conditions herein set forth. Section 2. That, subjec t to the qualifications cont ained in this resolution, all appropriations made out of the General Fund are declared to be maximum, conditional and proporti onate appropriations, the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amounts her ein named if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collecte d and other resources available during the period commencing the 1 st day of October, 2011, and ending the 30 th day of September, 2012, for which the appropriations are made, ar e sufficient to pay all the appropriations in full. Otherwise, said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of realized revenue of the General Fund is to the total amount of revenues estimated by the City Commission to be available in the period commencing the 1 st day of October, 2011, and ending the 30 th day of September, 2012. Section 3. That all balances of the appropriations pa yable out of the General Fund of the City Treasury unencumbered at the close of business on the 30 th day of September, 2011, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the City Treasur y and may be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in any appropriation for the fiscal year commencing the 1 st day of October, 2011. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to be applicable to RES. NO. 10-12 2 unencumbered balances remaining to the credit of the Water and Sewer Fund, Sanitation Fund or any Fund created by t he setting up of special revenue, but such balances shall be used in financing the propos ed expenditures of these Funds for the fiscal year commencing the 1 st day of October, 2011. Section 4. That no department, bureau, agency or individual receiving appropriations under the provisi ons of this resolution s hall exceed the amount of its appropriation, except with t he consent and approval of the City Commission first obtained. If such departmen t, bureau, agency or individual shall exceed the amount of its appropriation without such consent a nd approval of the City Commission, the administrative officer or individual, in th e discretion of the Cit y Commission, may be deemed guilty of neglect of official duty and may be subject to removal therefor. Section 5. That nothing in this re solution shall be construed as authorizing any reduction to be made in t he amounts appropriated in this resolution for the payment of interest on, or retirem ent of, the debt of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Section 6. That none of the monies en umerated in this resolution in connection with the General Fund, Water and Se wer Fund, Sanitation Fund or any other Fund of the City shall be expe nded for any purposes other t han those for which they are appropriated, and it s hall be the duty of the Budget Officer and/or Finance Director to report known violations of th is section to the City Manager. Section 7. That all monies coll ected by any department, bureau, agency or individual of the City government sha ll be paid promptly into the City Treasury. Section 8. That the fo regoing budget is hereby adopted as the official budget of the City of Delray Be ach, Florida, for the aforesaid period. However, the restrictions with respect to the expenditures/expenses of the funds appropriated shall apply only to the lump sum amounts for cla sses of expenditures/expenses which have been included in this resolution. Section 9. That public hearings we re held on the tax levy and the budget on September 6, 2011, and September 20, 2011. Section 10. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular se ssion on this the 21st day of February, 2012. RES. NO. 10-12 3 _________________________________ M A Y O R ATTEST: __________________________________ City Clerk General Fund DOWNTOWNSPECIA L AmendedDEVELOPMENTENTERPRISEREVENUE FY 11/12FUNDFUNDSFUNDSTOTAL CASH BALANCES BROUGHT FORWARD 1,135,6485,072,260436,7996,644,707 ESTIMATED REVENUES : TAXES Millages AD VALOREM TAXES 7.1900 42,271,94500042,271,945 AD VALOREM TAXES 0.6133 3,574,0550003,574,055 AD VALOREM-DELINQUENT500,000000500,000 AD VALOREM - DDA 1.0000 0477,52000477,520 Sales & Use Taxes1,295,0000001,295,000 Utility Taxes4,980,0000004,980,000 Other Taxes4,390,0000004,390,000 Franchise, Licenses & Permits8,451,650080008,452,450 Intergovernmental6,688,6280182,5502,555,1079,426,285 Charges for Services9,814,480043,436,050053,250,530 Fines & Forfeitures1,024,50000134,5001,159,000 Miscellaneous Revenues5,698,88535,00082,650877,5806,694,115 Other Financing Sources3,818,5900103,0001,014,6204,936,210 TOTAL REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 92,507,733512,52043,805,0504,581,807141,407,110 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES AND BALANCES 93,643,381512,52048,877,3105,018,606148,051,817 EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES : General Government Services8,879,45500301,1509,180,605 Public Safety51,946,59000662,76952,609,359 Physical Environment565,703031,591,840032,157,543 Transportation3,220,11000126,8263,346,936 Economic Environment6,515,639509,23202,331,1669,356,037 Human Services59,75000059,750 Culture & Recreation14,032,31003,578,300899,15018,509,760 Debt Service5,644,91006,838,840012,483,750 Other Financing Uses2,730,47006,120,65008,851,120 TOTAL EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES 93,594,937509,23248,129,6304,321,061146,554,860 Reserves48,4443,288747,680697,5451,496,957 TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND RESERVES 93,643,381512,52048,877,3105,018,606148,051,817 Exhibit A Budget Summary The General Fund Budget as of the four month period ending January 31, 2012 totaled $93,491,918. Adjustments of $151,463 were made for an amended total of $93,643,381. General Fund Revenue Introduction General Fund revenue collection for the four-month period ending January 31, 20 12 totaled $52,463,380 or 56% of the total budget. This includes prior year encumbrances brought forward totaling $135,648. The City can expect a shortfall of $645,012 at fiscal year end. Variances are discussed in more detail below. Ad Valorem Tax Revenue A total of $35,556,250 or 78% of the budget was collected for this revenue cat egory. The City can expect a surplus of $485,270. This is based on expected surplus bal ances of $385,270 for current ad valorem taxes and delinquent taxes totaling $100,000. Sales and Use Taxes Sales and Use Taxes totaled $411,401 or 31% of the budget. The City can expect a shortfall of $15,000 at fiscal year end. Franchise Taxes The City has collected $1,723,117 or 36% of the budget for this category. The City can expect a shortfall of $30,000 due to a projected shortfall in franchise fees based on gas. Utility Taxes Utility Tax revenues totaled $1,764,944 or 36% of the budget. The City can expect a surplus of $130,000 at fiscal year-end based on a projected surplus in utility taxes base d on electric. Fire Assessment Fees – Franchise fees are at a negative $21,928 or a negative 1% due to expenses relative to the implementation of the Fire Assessme nt Fee. The City can expect a shortfall of $3,200,000 at fiscal year-end due to the fact that the prop osed fire assessment fee was not passed. Other Taxes The communication service tax (CST) revenue collections totaled $1,215,891 or 32% of the budget. The City can anticipate a shortfall of $75,000 due to communica tion services taxes coming in less than anticipated. Licenses License revenues totaled $651,370 or 85% of the budget. The City can expec t to be at budget at fiscal year end. Permit Revenues Permit revenues totaled $2,390,646 or 88% of the budget. The City can expec t a surplus of $958,550 at fiscal year end. The revenue collection is up 122% from the p rior year. Notable surplus balances are as follows: general building permits ($800,000), air conditioning permits ($80,000), paving permits ($30,000), tenant landlord permits ($75,000), landscape perm its ($25,000), and foundation only permits ($5,000). Notable shortfalls are as foll ows: electrical ($30,000), shutter permits ($10,000) and no final inspection fees ($10,000), Intergovernmental Revenues Intergovernmental revenues are at $1,929,221 or 31% of the budget. The City can anticipate a surplus of $431,418 at fiscal year end. This is due to estimated surp lus balances in State Homeland Grants ($177,915), JAG grant ($53,503) and the FDOT shuttle grant ($300,000) offse t by an estimated shortfall in sales tax revenue ($100,000). Charges for Services Charges for Services totaled $3,350,327 or 34% of the budget. The City can expect a shortfall of $126,690 at fiscal year-end. Notable shortfalls are as follows: f ire EMS –Gulfstream ($55,410), transport fees ($200,000), alarm registrations ($225,250) and a/r nuisance ab atement ($10,000). Notable surplus balances are as follows: certification/cop ies ($40,000), Gulfstream permits ($360,000) and fire safety plan review ($18,000). Fines and Forfeitures Fines and Forfeitures totaled $345,669 or 37% of the budget. The City can e xpect a surplus of $91,000 at fiscal year-end due to estimated surplus balances in gener al fines ($5,000), parking fines ($10,000), penalties on advalorem ($86,000), false alarm fees ($5,000) and parking l ate fees ($10,000). This is offset by estimated shortfalls in handicap parking fines ($20,000), and $12.50 fines ($5,000). Interfund Transfers Interfund Transfers are at $5,167 or 33% of the budget. The City can ex pect a surplus of $493,130 which is due to transfers coming in from the Special Projects Fund ($123,130) and the 2004 GO Fund ($371,000) offset by a transfer reduction from utility tax deb t service savings ($1,000). It should be noted that there is a direct offset associated with the 2004 GO transf er. Contribution from Other Funds Contributions from Other Funds are at $1,104,153 or 33% of the budget. The City can expect a surplus of $201,650 due to a transfer in from the insurance fund relative to a business insurance refund. Recovery of Administrative Costs Recovery of Administrative Costs is at $835,000 or 33% of the budget. The City can expect to be at budget at fiscal year end. Miscellaneous Revenue Miscellaneous revenues totaled $1,066,504 or 33% of the budget. The City can expect a shor tfall of $10,660 at fiscal year-end which is primarily due to estimated s hortfalls in interest on investments ($25,000), interest on accounts receivable ($6,500), Family Cente r reimbursement ($20,000) as well as the CRA reimbursement/review planner revenue ($75,510). This shortfall will be offset by estimated surplus balances in the CRA re imbursement/shuttle revenue ($94,670), various rebates ($16,625) as well as miscellaneous revenue ($35,000). Mid Year Budget Amendment Fiscal Year 2011-2012 General Fund Expenditures The General Fund expenditures total $33,211,474 or 35.5% of the proposed amended budget of $93,643,381 at 33.3% of the budget year lapsed. The departmental a djustments overall total an increase of $151,463. A brief justification of departmental adjustments is as fol lows: General Government Services This category includes the legislative and administ rative departments of the City and the miscellaneou s division. The increase in General Government expenditures tot als $36,355. The City Commission’s budget is decreasing $21,900. There is an adjustment to health insurance for Com missioners who have opted not to receive the City’s insurance ($16,000) and reductions in other lines items such as Travel/Training/Education accounts ($4,900) and ref reshments for meetings ($1,000). The City Manager’s budget is decreasing $11,590 as a result of a return of one third term pay for an e mployee who is putting off retirement until the next fiscal year. The Human Resources’ Department’s decrease of $1,76 0 is due to reductions in the Other Contractual Ser vices ($360) and Special Events ($1,400) accounts. City Clerk has no adjustments. The IT division’s increase of $10,000 is due to nee ded funds for a consultant for the operating system upgrade taking place this fiscal year. The Public Information Department’s decrease of $18 ,690 is due to reductions in other contractual serv ices ($4,500), Travel/Training/Education ($830), Other Repair and Maintenance ($2,000) and Printing ($11,360) due to the deletion of future News for Neighborhoods and Homet own Connection editions. The Finance Administration’s increase of $19,825 is due to an employee suggestion award which has a re venue offset ($16,625) and an increase in tuition reimbur sement ($3,200) for the final semesters of the Acco unting Specialist’s bachelors’ degree. The City Attorney’s budget will increase by $29,070 for costs associated with filling the currently fr ozen Assistant City Attorney I position on June 1. Administrative Services’ decrease of $1,000 covers increases in electricity ($4,500) and irrigation wa ter ($1,500) and decreases in telephones ($6,500) and water and sewer ($500). The Planning and Zoning Department’s budget will in crease by $11,500 for additional expert testimony t hat will be needed this fiscal year. Engineering has no adjustments. Building Maintenance’s decrease of $1,100 is due to reductions in subscriptions ($100), memberships ($600) and training/education costs ($400). The miscellaneous expenses in the general governmen t services function is increasing $22,000 in Other Professional Services to cover costs associated with the present ation of the Fire Assessment Fee. Mid Year Budget Amendment Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Cultural and Recreation This category includes the Parks and Recreation Dep artment, the Old School Square Grant and Library an d miscellaneous cultural and recreational grants. Th e decrease in this category is $81,730. The Parks and Recreation Department’s decrease is $65,230. The reductions to this department are in sa lary lines from vacant positions ($34,870), tuition reimbursem ent ($1,360), irrigation water due to change to rec laimed water ($25,000) and various equipment and supplies accoun ts ($4,000). The Tennis Operations Department’s net decrease of $16,500 is due to decreased costs for two tournamen ts ($6,500), other professional services ($5,000) and building maintenance which will be postponed until next fiscal year ($5,000). Public Safety This category includes the Police and Fire Departme nts and Community Improvement. The Department budg ets in this category represent 55% of the general fund bud get total. The increase in the Public Safety budge t category equals $176,525. The Police Department is 32% expended at 33.3% budg et period lapsed of the adjusted budget. The total Police budget will decrease $451,780. Reductions are made for vacant positions ($476,330), the reduction of t wo paid holidays for lieutenants ($8,980), furniture ($8,84 0), a vehicle for the Crime Scene Unit ($12,090), a remote operated vehicle for underwater searches ($8,000) a nd equipment ($7,000). Increases were made to salar ies for the raises given to lieutenants ($53,740) and the amoun t needed for actual retiree health trust payment ($15,720). The Fire Department’s budget increase of $563,325 i ncludes reductions for adjustments to salaries and benefits for vacant positions ($185,310), the deletion of a part time Plan Reviewer in Fire Safety ($18,400), equip ment ($38,000), building maintenance projects to be post poned to next fiscal year ($44,000) and uniforms co ming in at a lower cost than anticipated ($5,000). Increases in the department are the costs for four new paramedic s to fully staff Station 2 hired in November ($288,140) which has a grant revenue offset, additional needed for actual payment for retiree health trust ($27,280), a Fire and Life Saf ety Plan Reviewer hired full time with cost split b etween Fire Safety and Building Inspection ($18,030), additional overt ime needed to cover vacancies for the remainder of the year ($342,670) and expenses related to grants that have a revenue offset ($177,915). The Community Improvement budget shows an increase of $64,980 due to the addition of a Fire and Life S afety Plan Reviewer with cost split with Fire Safety ($12 ,010), a Code Enforcement Officer, Administrative A ssistant and Part Time Rental Housing Inspector for the Landlord permit program ($59,830) for the remainder of the year and additional funds needed for supplies and postage ($6,500). This was partially offset by reductions in salaries for a vacant position ($13,360). Physical Environment This category which consists of Public Works Admini stration and the Cemetery reflects a decrease of $2 40. This includes only a decrease in Public Works Administra tion’s membership costs. Transportation This category includes the Public Works Department. The department has four divisions, Streets, Traffi c Operations, Parking, and Street Lighting. There is net departme ntal increase of $337,000. Reductions were made in travel and training/education ($5,630), equipment ($10,000), o ther contractual services ($4,000), building mainte nance ($10,000), building materials ($200) and membership s ($200). Increases were made for a part time elect rician funded by the CRA ($17,030) and to budget the expen se related to additional grant funding for the Shut tle Bus program from the CRA and FDOT ($350,000). Mid Year Budget Amendment Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Economic Environment This category is not changing. Debt Service There is an increase to this function in the amount of $332,030 due to the adjustment in the payment f or the Public Safety hardware/software from twelve months to nine (reduction of $33,970), interest coming in less th an anticipated (reduction of $5,000) and using bond proceeds to pa y down debt (increase of $371,000) that has a reven ue offset. Transfers There is a decrease in this category of $639,610 du e to a decrease in the transfer to the general cons truction fund of $645,910 (specific projects identified in the Gener al Construction fund summary) and a transfer to the Special Projects Fund in the amount of $6,300 for the Cente nnial Event approved by Commission on September 13, 2011. Reserves $8,867 currently in the Manager’s Contingency was u sed to help balance this amendment. Other Funds ARRA Economic Stimulus Fund This fund will increase $400,730 overall. Grant bal ances are being rolled forward and distributed for the DOJ Cops Hiring Grant ($53,040), Transit Capital Assistance Grant ($46,540), Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grant ($171,480) and Local Energy Assurance Plan ($129,67 0). Law Enforcement Trust Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Special Projects Fund This fund will increase $7,718 overall. The increas e is the Bulletproof Vest Grants ($5,418) and trans fer from the general fund for the Centennial Event ($6,300) with a decrease in a transfer from the general construc tion for the public arts due to projects being deferred ($4,000). A transfer to the general fund of the current pro ject reserve for the public arts program of $123,130 is being added. Neighborhood Services Fund Fiscal Year 2010/11 balances for CDBG, Neighborhood Housing, SHIP, Hope III, Disaster Recovery Initiat ive programs, Neighborhood Stabilization, Neighborhood Improvements and FEMA were brought forward. Total brought forward is $984,280. Also included are chan ges to SHIP and FEMA in a decrease of $13,996 from budgeted to actual grant amount. The overall increase for th is fund is $970,284. Beautification Trust Fund This fund will increase $23,000 overall for a CRA g rant for beautification of MLK area landscaping. Beach Restoration Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Mid Year Budget Amendment Fiscal Year 2011-2012 General Construction Fund This fund will decrease $645,910 overall. Reduction s are being made in the following projects: Beach P avilion replacement ($210,450), building maintenance ($50,0 00), City Hall chiller upgrade ($50,000), computer replacement ($67,710), data cabling and switches ($55,000), neighborhood enhancements ($20,000), Parks Master Plan update ($35,000), Police computer room relocat ion ($47,000), street resurfacing ($106,750) and a transfer to public arts ($4,000). 2004 GO Bond No changes or adjustment to this fund. City Marina Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Sanitation Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Water and Sewer Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Water and Sewer Renewal and Replacement Fund No changes or adjustments to this fund. Municipal Golf Course No changes or adjustments to this fund. Lakeview Golf Course No changes or adjustment to this fund. Stormwater Utility Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Garage Fund No changes or adjustment to this fund. Insurance Fund This fund will increase $400 overall. There will be $400 transferred in from divisions that are adding positions at mid year for the increase in life insurance premium s. In addition, $80,000 is being transferred from a reduction in claims cost for prescriptions to fund additional co sts for general operating supplies in the Wellness Center ($23,000) and health claims handling costs for a project for the re-pricing of prescriptions with Cigna Insuranc e ($57,000). Thomas F. Carney, Jr. - Carney Stanton PL From: Mary Renaud [mprenaud @bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 3:43 PM To: CityManager @MyDelrayBeach.com Cc: wmcduffie @mydelraybeach.com; 'Tom Carney'; 'Adam Frankel'; AGray @MyDelrayBeach.com; Alperin @MyDelrayBeach.com Subject: BPOA Pavilion Budget Dear Mr. Harden: I've spoken to the architects and potential builders to get a real number for you to help with your budget. They are comfortable if you split the pavilion budget in half from $210,000 to $105,000 and the BPOA comes up with another $50,000 in donations. This represents deep discounts on their part. I'm also told the city engineer would like to include the handicapped ramp in the project since someone has already fallen due to the warped wood pathway. As you know we already have $35,000 in donations and I'm hoping to get another $20,000 next month with Delray's Got Talent ... The Encore! Kind regards, Mary Renaud BPOA President N N �\i \Q-,� � a 2/21/2012 -'S -- , JIM Ile 16 Ilk 114 14 IN Ilt , )IM li Jr. 'Al tlt- I 14 IN Ilt , )IM li "'7 AL If 16 .4.7 Al zi 0 ,, -� Y5' � �� t 0 pg. W.. 'Jowl FIT L9 cz ik, Lowfest Rate. uarar =.teed. Patty Lother 4400 N. Federal Highway, Ste. 150 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Email: a�tty . loth era)guaranteed rate. com Fax: 561-431-5983 Ph: 561 -226 -4221 Loan Number: Borrower: Property Address: Property Type: Purpose: Loan Amount: Lender: Estimated Close: Title will be held as: Please provide: Title Request 11300695614 James A Gorsuch and Sandra Gorsuch 14601 Palmetto Palm Avenue, Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Single Family Refinance $158,000 Guaranteed Rate, Inc It's Successors and /or Assigns 2 -20 to fund 2124 JTWROS Title Commitment 24 month chain of title Closing Protection Letter Wire Instructions Preliminary HUD Please fax or email the requested items to patt oth or fax 1 -561- 431 -5983. ,f 1 G,� Pit,i i I ss ti ltf.9e % {1 .rT 1 tK 1 tr S •i �p� l M Y� 1 Y Y�Y •� yt i TL fit 16 4 -F' qt I Ak � - r ... v � �+�' ~�•. .JIM li � w i t. Ct I I 1 j i II II r i ! 1i + ii Ali i II THIS ITIMENT PREPARED BY AND RETURN TC WC70 (* C Cohen, Np .(s?. Scherer, Weinberger & Wolmer 712 U.S. highway One, Suite 400 North Palm '!!each Fl 33408 Property Appraise;sParcel Identification (Folio) Numbers: im��m�n�mnm�m�m�m�mnmi�m CFN 20060345569 OR BK 20463 PG 1124 RECORDED 06 /12/2006 13:37:13 Palm Beach County, Florida AMT 1, 500, 000.00 Doc Stamp 10,500.00 Sharon R. Bock,CLERR & COMPTROLLER Pga 1124 - 1125; t2pgal 12- 43- 46- 09 -73- 000 -0030 Cr -" Space Above This Line For Recording Data THIS WARRANTY DE >; made the 1st day of June, 2006 by MELANIE BARBA, a single woman , herein called the grantor, to RAYMOND J. CROTTY and LAURIE R. CROTTY, husband and wife AS TENANTS IN COMMON, whose post office address is 16 Crystal. -MR prive, Pomona, NY 10970, hereinafter called the Grantees: (Wherever used herein the terms "g �iil0l." and "grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of individuals, and the success s acid assigns of corporations) W I T N E S S E T H: That the grant6j ;'fbr,"d in consideration of the sum of TEN AND 00 /100'S ($10.00) Dollars and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof li- hc.Mby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the grantee all that certailril iid situate in PALM BEACH County, State of Florida, viz.: i� LOT 3, OF ESTUARY, ACCORDING `i O THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 86, PAGE 75, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PAL jlf BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. (. SUBJECT TO easements, restrictions and reservations of record and to taxes for the year 2006 and thereafter. TOGETHER, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. AND, the grantor hereby covenants with said grantees that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, and hereby warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2005. File No: 98037112 Book20463/Page1124 Page 1 of 2 IN W1 "EREOF, the said grantor has signed and scaled these presents the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and livered in the presence of. MELANIE BARBA 166 Middle Beach Road, Madison, CT 06443 'M —tn e s s #1 Printed N iffieI An 5 ess #2 Signature "A C141.4 A'q A Witness ft2 Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing instrument was acknovNE 0 before me this n J I f) day personally Icnown to me or has produced (I I as SEAL Dina Ann Blanco Commission # 0, 0360330 F-xPIr" OP July 27 2008 File No: 98037112 Book20463/Page1125 Name 2006 by MELANIE BARBA who is Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist Richard C. Hasko, PE, Director of Environmental Ser vices THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.G. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 PARKING STUDY CHARETTE RESULTS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is a presentati on of the results from the Public Parking Charette sessions. BACKGROUND In accordance with City Commission direction, two p ublic charettes were held to discuss options for th e continued implementation of the parking study. Econ omic sustainability of the operations and manitenance of the parking facilities was the main topic of the conversations with the public. Staff has categorized comments contained in the rep ort in an attempt to illustrate partipant consensus regarding this critical compone nt of the Parking Study. Attached for your review i s the facilitator's report, executive summary and sta ff's compilation of the comments, grouped by similarity, from the public on how to proceed. In summary, a majority of the comments suggest that if a fee based program is to be instituted, there should be careful monitoring of the impact on comme rce and frequent, expeditious public reporting of the program's status. Emphasis was placed on devi sing a program having a positive impact on downtowwn businesses. Another significant message s eemed to be flexibility, that program technology should contain measures for change of policies, inc luding but not limited to changes in fee structure to adapt to varying conditions such as off-season v. in season; day v. night; the capability t o adapt for events or other promotional/marketing efforts, etc. Although the charette topic was sustainability of t he parking management program, several comments regarding valet parking were made. The Parking Mana gement Advisory Board will consider this topic at its February 28, 2012 meeting and the issue will be brought to Commission in March. Employee parking was also mentioned. While staff intended to address employee parking subsequent to a decision on fee based parking, an employee parking program m odel that assumes no fee based parking is being crafted and will be completed shortly. Industry standards indicate that fee based parking is the most effective model for overall parking sys tem management, effective and efficient enforcement of an employee parking program and the equitable generation of revenue for operational sustainabilit y. It is also acknowledged that issues identified and discussed during the public input sessions are real and must be given serious consideration in determining the model best suited for Delray Beach. Parking Management staff believes a fee based system that addresses the concerns of the business and residential community while maintaining effectiveness and efficiency of system management c an be developed and would recommend partnering with stakeholders to implement a system that achiev es those goals. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests Commission direction. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2500 | Tampa, Florida 336 02 | 813.49 0.3890 | 877.490.3890 | www.fairfieldindex.com Fairfield Index | M EMORANDUM To: The City of Delray Beach From: Fairfield Index, Inc. Attn: Date: Subject: Scott Aronson February 15, 2012 Executive Summary Re: A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Thi s document is designed to serve as an E xecutive S ummary of the recent Community Conversations on sustainable parking strategies for Delray Beach. The Conversations, or “charettes”, were held on Monday, January 30 at 7:00 p.m. and Tuesday, January 31 at 9:0 0 a.m. at the Delray Beach Community Center. The two Conversations were scheduled by the City in order to ensure the people who call Delray Beach “home” were in a position to have a place and forum where elements of a City of Delray Beach Parking Managemen t Plan (2010 – Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.) could be discussed. Approximately seventy -eight individuals participated in the discussions, and subject experts were present to assist with questions about technology, activities in other communities, and measuring outcomes. Participants worked with candor and commitment to identify expectations for implementation, sustainability , and outcomes; and the majority had reviewed the Plan in advance. Though this Executive Summary focuses on the top -line concerns and expectations emerging from the Conversations, it is imperative that anyone dealing with implementation, return on investment, and coordination with the community at -large refer to the complete Session Notes and related Appendices (A Community Conversa tion: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions) as a resource. Though the Monday and Tuesday Conversations tended to converge on similar expectations, the Session Notes are important to distinguish between the content and character of the two events. Critical Expectations for Implementation, Tracking and Sustainability : The two Conversations produced a dominant roster of expec tations that provide solid counse l for implementation, tracking , and sustainability. At the center of these expectations are: t he principle that no action or collective actions in the Plan be implemented unless it is advanced as a way to grow commerce and economic competitiveness; and the call for technological, fee/revenue, regulatory and infrastructure decisions that may be mea sured in as close to a “real time” setting as possible. 2 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2500 Tampa, Florida 33602 www.fairfieldindex.com Fairfield Index | M EMORANDUM There are elements or parts of the P lan that impact or create concerns with each individual, but working in partnership with the City at every step of implementation will go a long way in building con fidence. Setting the right priorities for measurement and moving with flexibility as conditions change will build confidence and ensure ongoing feedback from all who want to ensure a prosperous, attractive and competitive Delray Beach. Though there are som e regrets that meters must be a part of the solution in the Plan, the participants generally understood that single events and actions do not necessarily produce the desired outcomes. The re is a portfolio of strategies and steps require d that includes metr ics . And the City is obliged to acquire the right technologies to ensure flexibilities of fees, and work with the fluctuations of day, time, season and event calendar. The complete critical expec tations from the Session Notes are produced below: A sound parking strategy involves a portfolio of actions and investments. This includes many aspects of the Plan, including time -of -day, seasonal pricing; vouchers; communications and signage; valet; flexible technology; constant reporting of progress and changes to merchants; security; vouchers; employees; valet; etc. There is an overarching principle that must guide all implementation and measures: the parking strategy must improve not harm commerce and the amount of time visitors and customers spend in the a rea. Communications must be a vital part of the strategy and in support of clarity of price, location, safety, transit, traffic flow, and access. Employee parking strategy is a priority and a top issue. Safety and security relative to parking facilitie s and access points must be a priority – Even if meaningful security steps have been taken, perceptions matter. See Communications. If metering must be part of the portfolio of actions, and most participants engaged in discussions of meter pricing flexibi lity and proper technology, then the City must ensure communications on impacts and outcomes in as close to real -time as possible and be committed to changing direction as conditions and behaviors change. Implementation of static rather than dynamic solut ions is not acceptable. Clarity on valet parking locations is needed because of perceptions that non - valet assets are being utilized. 1 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by Summary and Approach to Conversations In 2010, a Delray Beach Parking Management Plan (Plan) was published. The document, found at http://www. mydelraybeach.com/Delray/News/Parking+Mgmt+Plan . htm, represents a lengthy and detailed study conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. that was commissioned by the City, coordinated through a Project Review Committee, informed by the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA); and the Parking Management Advisory Board and Downtown Development Authority. The eight chapters of the Plan provide documentation of existing parking supply and utilization, and a multi-prong approach to incorporating new practices and models, thinking strategically about fees and revenues, utilizing new technologies, and introducing new flexibilities based on day, time and seasonal shifts in patterns and behaviors. These Session Notes are not designed to reproduce the detailed Plan or duplicate the multiple stakeholder sessions conducted by the Kimley-Horn team. The Plan was cited as a primary resource and area for study in preparation for the Conversations. The Community Conversations were scheduled by the City in order to focus on sustainable solutions to parking, and ensure the people who call Delray Beach “home” were in a position to have a place and forum where elements of the Plan, post-publication, could be discussed. The City’s notice is included in Appendix A, and the Delray Beach Community Center was utilized as an ideal, central space to convene. The City and its consultant firm for the conversations, Fairfield Index, Inc., made the assumption that individuals interested in participating may come from a variety of locations in the City, be involved in a diversity of enterprises, careers and activities and, therefore, required two different options. Monday, January 30 th was identified for a 7:00 p.m. session, and Tuesday, January 31 st was identified for a 9:00 a.m. morning session. The Monday session lasted approximately two and one-half (2.5) hours and the Tuesday session lasted approximately two (2) hours. The Fairfield Index team remained on site after the sessions were adjourned to ensure additional ideas and concerns were not lost. For the Tuesday meeting, participants were asked if they had merchant or other job or business requirements that impacted their ability to stay for the duration of the session; and their comments were taken as a priority. The Monday session included fifty-four (54) participants with approximately 75% indicating they had reviewed the Plan. The Tuesday session included twenty-four (24) participants with approximately 66% reviewing the Plan in advance. Fairfield Index’s President , Don Upton, moderated the conversations and provided a simple, flexible agenda at the opening of each session. He emphasized the flexibility of time and topic, but noted the focus and notice on a sustainable parking plan. The agenda called for a conversation flow as follows: Welcome Business of the Meeting Expectations of Participants Breakdown of Priority Issues / Utilization of Subject Matter Experts Small Group Discussions (if Needed) Reconvene to Review New Ideas and Results Report and Next Steps Kimley-Horn experts were introduced and Upton encouraged participants to draw on their experience in other communities and perspectives on the Plan. They included Master’s Degrees in Civil Engineering and Professional Engineer Credentials. Participants were asked to approach the entire conversation as resources and experts in their own right. Study Area The study area is a loosely defined as the area bound by NE 4 th Street/Lake Ida Road to the North, SE 4 th Street to the South, the Atlantic Ocean to the East, and Interstate 95 to the West. However, the main focus of the study area is the central core area including a few blocks on both sides of Atlantic Avenue and the parking facilities within the study area. The study area consists of the West Atlantic neighborhood, the Central Core and the Beach Area […] Delray Beach Parking Management Plan, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., page 2 2 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by Four areas of strength and perspective were outlined: Participants serve as historical experts – residents are observers of traffic and parking behaviors Participants participate with unique personal and business perspectives and needs Participants attend with the ability to ask questions of experts Participants invest their time with the ability to issue data requests in areas that required further study Though each conversation included very specific positions on elements of the Plan – with special note of a few people with overall opposition to any kind of metering and continuation of “free parking”, the need for stepped up security and security systems relating to parking facilities, valet parking behaviors, and seasonal or festival parking strategies – there was a general openness to well-staged, prioritized implementation of the Plan. There were five overall breakthroughs in the conversations: 1. The recognition that individual and diverse concerns about current parking problems may require compromise and some overall dissatisfaction with such a compromise – actions are needed to resolve a number of parking and traffic issues 2. The expectation that no action will be taken pursuant to the Plan unless it produces overall improvement of the economy and commerce – work only under conditions that are designed and proven to improve commerce 3. The expectation that well-staged implementation will put the community, especially those with fears about impact on commerce and their own enterprises, in a position to follow progress, review measures of success, and provide counsel and communications on market changes in as close to a real-time setting as possible – make community a part of data-driven implementation and monitoring 4. The confirmation that new technology and a “portfolio” of well-timed, well-monitored actions will allow the City to change, flex and alter strategy over time and as conditions change – a dynamic, not a static investment 5. Single issues and requests for help appeared to be connected to a more complex system and potentially impact others unless part of an overall strategy – nothing is in isolation Monday Conversation Participants were asked to state their expectations for the meeting in terms critical issues, opportunities and learning. Their responses guided the discussion for most of the evening of work and allowed the subject matter experts to address technology and trends. All participants responded and the following topical areas of interest resulted, in no priority order: The need for a strategy to deal with employee parking Consideration of the need to reach a compromise on Plan implementation because solutions are needed Addressing fear of merchants regarding the loss of free parking and customer access to their establishments Addressing fear that an existing set of expectations for free parking, confronting a paid parking plan, would change shopping habits negatively The need for a strategy to deal with parking for valet- parked vehicles 3 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by An assumption or perception that valet-parked vehicles are not necessarily in proper lots and spaces Ensuring a static, inflexible parking meter regime is not implemented Ensuring an implemented plan or elements of an implemented plan place improvement of commerce first Ensuring old-fashioned, single-head meters are not put inplace Exploring ways to ensure maximum flexibility in metering, and using the right metering technology to monitor, adjust, and report results Innovations in communications and signage as a priority step to ensure shoppers, patrons and visitors know good, lower-cost options are close by New strategies for signaling and traffic flow Ensuring the city understands the complex daily, hourly, and seasonal trends and behaviors of drivers and acquires the technology; and uses flexible communications, flexible fees, and strategically priced options to manage traffic and commercial patterns in as close to a real-time setting as possible Getting the message out that “free parking” is not an accurate term Awareness and planning relative to new, competitive shopping areas that may attract Delray Beach customers Awareness that meters were tried over twenty (20) years ago Utilization of vouchers and first-hour or more “Free” with smart meters during specific times of day Hands-on flexibility/dynamic approach to incentivizing parking in parking facilities with right pricing and clear communications If the plan must be implemented, create a system to share progress, and take the right steps in the best possible order Remember the dynamics and uniqueness of our community – comparisons with other communities may be helpful, but this needs to be a special Plan for Delray Beach Keep enforcement balanced with image of a welcoming City Move with consideration of citizens who live in the study area – residential living is tied to residential access and parking and walkability Provide more clarity on where revenues from metering and parking facility fees go – this is an unnecessary area of confusion Highlights of Subject Matter Expert Guidance for Session ¨Return to traditional single-head meters is not required nor advised ¨There are a number of fiscal strategies to acquire smart meters, including seasing v. purchasing ¨Look carefully at range of smart metering to: preserve precious pedestrian sidewalks and attractiveness of community; provide flexibility of pricing to time of day, seasonal events, day of week, etc.; provide City, merchants, and other interested citizens with trends and impacts; and ensure flexibility over time ¨First hour(s) at no charge are realistic strategies 4 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by ¨Vouchers have worked in other markets and should be explored ¨Elements of plan must be tied together for proper impact and monitoring ¨Objective to attract shoppers and visitors and KEEP them in the district for longer periods is realistic ¨Clear communications and marketing strategies matter ¨Employee parking is an essential part of the plan ¨Signals and signs are critical to success Tuesday Conversation Participants were asked to state their expectations for the meeting in terms critical issues, opportunities and learning. Their responses guided the discussion for most of the morning of work and allowed the subject matter experts to address technology and trends. All participants responded and the following topical areas of interest resulted, in no priority order: – Address the impact of festivals and special events. – Participants raising this question ranged from positions on downsizing festivals to ensuring a festival strategy in incorporated into the plan and implementation. – Address festival vendors displacing parking. Re-think traffic flow and patterns as a part of the plan. Take on perceptions and realities of valet-parked- vehicles being out-of-position relative to the best interests of merchants. Clarity of communications on valet spaces and lots. There is a serious perception problem regarding valet-parked vehicles being in lots and spaces better- suited for others. Serious commitment to communications and traffic flow signage – big opportunity. Build a plan of action and implement on a prioritized basis. If meters are needed, ensure maximum flexibility for time, day, season, and events. Perceptions about safety relative to walks to and into parking facilities must be addressed. Strategic marketing and signage may be vastly improved – consider this a priority in implementation of the strategy. Concern about implementation of a new parking strategy going too long without measure and review – how do merchants and business owners follow trends and impacts? A few months post-implementation without data could harm businesses. Be sure the City understands that many local businesses should be viewed as needing support and information weeks into implementation, not months. Provide clarity on how revenues from parking strategy are to be utilized. Is this for general funds or to pay for and sustain parking strategy? Perceptions and realities of security when venturing to parking facilities require a comprehensive strategy, including: lighting, signage, law enforcement, and - possibly - shuttles. 5 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by Be sure the success of Delray Beach is not turned into a problem – implement a parking strategy that grows the economy. Explore dynamic pricing for meters. Serious perception issues on valet-parked vehicles being in unauthorized spaces and lots. After the meeting was adjourned, one participant shared opposition to metered parking of any kind. Employee parking is an issue – some companies may orient employees to park away from customer spaces; some companies need a strategy to ensure employees are not taking parking space intended to support commerce. How are enterprises orienting their employees to proper behavior in parking to favor customer activities? Highlights of Subject Matter Expert Guidance for Session ¨Security plan and related communications and signage are important ¨High tech metering addresses many of the merchants’ issues: flexibility, free parking for initial period, and tracking the impacts of metered pricing and correctly-priced parking facilities ¨No-fee parking for an initial period at meters is possible and may be of strategic value to Delray Beach ¨Festivals may be addressed in very specific ways and in context with the parking strategy Comments from Small Groups Small groups suggested as a part of the conversations. On Monday, this resulted in a number of additional written insights with virtually the entire group of participants engaging in one group and a debrief period. On Tuesday, approximately three small groups formed, representing about 25% of attendees. All comments are included in Appendix B. Discussions continued to trend towards the priorities of security, flexibility of parking fees, and ensuring the community is viewed as customer-friendly. New insights and information emerging from the small groups included concerns about using quality metering technology/ensuring visitors and customers do not have to confront defective and poor-functioning devises and the potential of keeping abreast of metering technology through lease alternatives to purchase. Unrecorded small group discussions revealed widespread interest in getting clarity on how revenues from a parking/meter strategy will be utilized – General fund v. support of the specific strategy and required infrastructure. Though clarity was provided relative to revenues focused on parking strategy and infrastructure, the concerns provide useful counsel to the City: Utilization of revenues to support parking probably needs to be a consistent message. The need for strategic placement of short-term, quick-visit, single-purchase parking spaces was a key expectation. As the Plan is implemented, careful consideration of enforcement, culture change, and hospitality is required. Critical Expectations Participants were candid and innovative during the sessions. Dominant expectations emerging from both sessions include: A sound parking strategy involves a portfolio of actions and investments. This includes many aspects of the Plan, including time-of-day, seasonal pricing; 6 A Community Conversation: Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center Prepared by vouchers; communications and signage; valet; flexible technology; constant reporting of progress and changes to merchants; security; vouchers; employees; valet; etc. There is an overarching principle that must guide all implementation and measures: the parking strategy must improve not harm commerce and the amount of time visitors and customers spend in the area. Communications must be a vital part of the strategy and in support of clarity of price, location, safety, transit, traffic flow, and access. Employee parking strategy is a priority and a top issue. Safety and security relative to parking facilities and access points must be a priority – Even if meaningful security steps have been taken, perceptions matter. See Communications. If metering must be part of the portfolio of actions, and most participants engaged in discussions of meter pricing flexibility and proper technology, then the City must ensure communications on impacts and outcomes in as close to real-time as possible and be committed to changing direction as conditions and behaviors change. Implementation of static rather than dynamic solutions is not acceptable. Clarity on valet parking locations is needed because of perceptions that non-valet assets are being utilized. (Critical Expectations Continued) Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center A Community Conversation: APPENDIX A Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions 1 Prepared by City Commission: Nelson S. “Woodie” McDuffie, Mayor Angeleta Gray, Vice-Mayor Thomas Carney, Deputy Vice-Mayor Adam Frankel, Commissioner Dr. Jay Alperin, Commissioner CITY OF DELRAY BEACH MEDIA RELEASE City Schedules Two Downtown Parking Study Charrettes Public Invited to Participate January 11, 2012: The City of Delray Beach invites all Delray Beach residents and businesses to attend two (2) Charrettes on the City’s Downtown Parking Study. These community meetings are open to the public and will provide attendees with an opportunity to examine, discuss and provide input on the Parking Study as it relates to creating a sustainable parking management program. The Charrettes will be held on the evening of Monday, January 30th, at 6:00 PM and the morning of Tuesday, January 31st, at 9:00 AM at the Delray Beach Community Center, located at 50 NW 1st Avenue (adjacent to the City’s Tennis Center). The community meetings will be facilitated by the Fairfield Index, Inc., an economic development firm specializing in the facilitation of engaged consensus and conversation building through interactive meeting forum with the public. Representatives from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., the consulting firm that completed the Parking Study, will also be in attendance to provide background and support as needed with respect to the creation of a sustainable parking management program. The proposed Parking Study has been placed on the City’s website and may be accessed by visiting www.mydelraybeach.com and selecting Delray Beach Parking Management Plan under News. All members of the Delray Beach community (i.e., residents and businesses) are encouraged to review the Study prior to the meetings. For additional information regarding the Charrettes and/or the completed Downtown Parking study, please contact Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist, at (561) 243-7196 or by E-mail aronson@mydelraybeach.com. Written comments will be accepted regarding the Parking Study for those that are unable to attend one of the two scheduled Charrettes and should be forwarded to Scott Aronson. Contact: City of Delray Beach Public Information Office (561) 243-7190 PIO@mydelraybeach.com www.mydelraybeach.com Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center A Community Conversation: APPENDIX B Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions 1 Prepared by Comments from Small Groups Small groups suggested as a part of the conversations. On Monday, this resulted in a number of additional written insights with virtually the entire group of participants engaging in one group and a debrief period. On Tuesday, approximately three small groups formed, representing about 25% of attendees. All written insights are provided below in their raw form in no priority order. Numbering and organization unique to the groups are included. 1. Smart Meters â Flexibility A. Leasing technology v. purchase B. Changing on-street v. off-street behavior 2. Employee v. Turnover A. Move close by â safety B. Education C. Stickers D. Gated system â parking cards 3. Validation On-Street A. Pay-forward system Encourage people to come back by paying for their next transaction/visit. Put in Meters and Charge a Flat Rate of $5.00 per Visit to Meter That’s roughly $3,3000,000 for every parking space within the City. 2 1 Strategy Marketing: Where parking is located ŠEmployee parking – Safety Transit Electronic surveillance 24/7 ŠWhat is the number of parking ŠTransport by tram for late night ŠEnforce parking 4 – 8 p.m. ŠOpen air trolleys – different vehicles ŠUse empty lots for employee parking Suntrust Atlantic Plaza Š*Do everything else before meters Š*Don’t forget the customers - they made our businesses/downtown successful ŠYou can go to any “dead” downtown & find all the parking you want ŠIt’s Delray Beach & Worth Ave. (only) ŠThat connect to the island, Consider local competition 1. Solve employee parking which would free up spaces on Atlantic 2. Better signage + use of existing garages 3. Image of city if meters do not work and are removed 4. Free daytime parking Charge after 5 p.m. 5. Meter side streets after 5 p.m. Intrinsic value Entertainment Dining Walking on beach Shopping do not pay Malls have FREE parking 3 4 Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center A Community Conversation: APPENDIX B Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions 2 Prepared by Empty store fronts east of the intracoastal Metered areas Impacted bushes? EXPECTATIONS 1. Flexible meter system Time flex Payment modes 2. Maintain traffic flow 3. Signs/Info on parking locations 4. Clear long term parking areas 5. Designate/Encourage employee parking 6. Garage security 7. Don’t let valet system dominate off street parking 8. Parking is not “FREE” Other consequences of FREE Short Term (1) hour spot *Valet use parking garage 1. Employees into parking garages 2. Not in my backyard (NIMBY) 3. Create windows in the stair walls 4. Unblock access from 2 nd Street 5. Continue to encourage more office development 6. Validation 7. Encourage healthier lifestyle Meters: ŠNo daytime Until 6 p.m. ŠNinety (90) minutes free ŠHave 350 employee parking stickers for garage top floors ŠTen (10) minutes warning tickets ŠMore short/term customer parking â then (employee people) move to outer lots ŠOnly problem three (3) months â No meters of any kind ŠDon’t work ŠDone it three (3) times in past ŠIt’s like a closed sign â Parking garage ŠClear it ŠSecure it Š***Open NE 2 nd Street OSS Garage ŠEasy access â Get property owners with empty lots to work w/city on extra spots/ parking â More bike-n-scooter parking “...Not less” as proposed currently 5 6 7 8 9 Session Notes from Discussions of January 30th and 31st | Delray Beach Community Center A Community Conversation: APPENDIX B Parking Strategies and Sustainable Solutions 3 Prepared by 1. People are open to using shuttles to ferry people to garages – Could be used for employees 2. Safety is a big issue w/ parking garage 3. Maybe we should put employee parking on top of garage to give locals easy access to the cars on ground level 4. Data analysis of what City has done so far and we should fill in the gaps 5. Parking should be a funding source for City/Parking Management program. Strategy should fund itself. What is the revenue goal of the parking plan? 6. Merchants need to market parking as asset 7. We should think about keeping employees etc. on Atlantic and get patrons to park on surface lots and be shuttled to businesses 8. Merchants must communicate to employees where to park 9. Is there accountability for what the City has done so far, and how do we move that forward 10. Maybe we should have five (5) to ten (10) minute parking per block for those patrons who get in and get out 11. Railroad lot volume has increased in last two (2) years since the Parking Management Plan was published 10 At t e n d e e s  w/   Si m i l a r   Co m m e n t s To p i c  / Ar e a  of  Co n c e r n 12 Me t e r i n g  co u l d  be  ac c e p t a b l e  co n t i n g e n t  up o n  bo t h  te c h n o l o g y  an d  pr o g r a m  pr o t o c o l s  be i n g  fl e x i b l e ,  al l o w i n g  fo r  change  as   ci r c u m s t a n c e s  di c t a t e 7A  me t e r i n g  pr o g r a m  wo u l d  be  ac c e p t a b l e  pr o v i d i n g  it s  de s i g n  fo c u s e s  on  im p r o v i n g  ra t h e r  th a n  im p e d i n g  co m m e r c e .   1 A b s o l u t e l y  no  me t e r s ,  un d e r  an y  ci r c u m s t a n c e s . 4 E m p h a s i z e d  th e  op p o r t u n i t y  to  im p r o v e  si g n a g e ,  si g n a l i z a t i o n  an d  tr a f f i c  fl o w 3 S p e c i f i e d  em p l o y e e  pa r k i n g  as  a  ke y  co m p o n e n t 5 R a i s e d  co n c e r n  th a t  va l e t  pa r k e r s  ar e  us i n g  pu b l i c  sp a c e s  ca u s i n g  pa r k i n g  is s u e s  fo r  re s i d e n t s ,  vi s i t o r s  an d  gu e s t s .   2 E m p h a s i z e d  sa f e t y  as  a  pr i o r i t y  in  al l  pa r k i n g  ar e a s ,  es p e c i a l l y  th e  ga r a g e s . ST A K E H O L D E R  CO M M E N T  CO M P I L A T I O N Pl e a s e  no t e ,  th e  ch a r t    ab o v e  co m p l i e d  pa r t i c i p a n t  st a t e m e n t s ,  st a r t i n g  on  pg .  2  of  th e  re p o r t ,  hi g h l i g h t e d  in  bl u e . Ad d r e s s  fe s t i v a l  ve n d o r  pa r k i n g  as  la r g e  mo b i l e  ho m e s  re q u i r e  sp e c i a l  pa r k i n g  ne e d s . Al l  pa r t i e s    sh o u l d  be  wi l l i n g  to  co m p r o m i s e Th e  fo l l o w i n g  ar e  st a t e m e n t s  ma d e  by  on e  pa r t i c i p a n t  le a d i n g  to  di s c u s s i o n  an d  ge n e r a l  co n c u r r e n c e  am o n g  th e  gr o u p : Ge t t i n g  th e  me s s a g e  ou t  th a t  "t h e r e  is  no  fr e e  pa r k i n g Me t e r s  ha v e  be e n  tr i e d  mo r e  th a n  on c e  in  th e  pa s t Si n g l e  he a d  me t e r s  sh o u l d  no t  be  us e d En f o r c e m e n t  sh o u l d  be  su i t e d  to  be  we l c o m i n g  to  vi s i t o r s In t e n d e d  us e  of  re v e n u e  ge n e r a t e d  fr o m  a  fe e  ba s e d  pr o g r a m  sh o u l d  be    ma d e  cl e a r Pr o g r a m  mu s t  pr o v i d e  fo r  va l i d a t i o n s ,  in i t i a l  ti m e  pa r k e d  fr e e ,  re s i d e n t  an d  em p l o y e e  pr o g r a m s MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 13, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.H. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 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. An appointment is needed fo r one regular member to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2013. 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 01/12 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 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:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 10, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 03 -12 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC HEARING) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for second read ing and public hearing to the Land Development Regulations (LDR), amending Section 4.3.3, “Specifi c 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 s ame; amending Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, in order to amend the definition of “Transient Residen tial Use”. BACKGROUND At the first reading on February 7, 2012, the Commi ssion passed Ordinance No. 03-12. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 03-12 on second and final reading. 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 2.24 people in the City of Delray Beach; 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 res idential dwelling unit for under six (6) months in duration is a transient use and is therefore taxed by the State of Florida at a rate of six (6) percent of the tota l 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 a nd Planned Residential Development 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 mini mize the impact of transient 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 r eal 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________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning 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 Regulations (LDRs) that will amend prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers and penalties for transient residential uses; and will amend the definition of “transient residential uses”. BACKGROUND Concerns have been raised that allowing the use of single family residential dwelling units for transient residential use elevates the use to one that has characteristics of a non-residential activity and is not considered incidental and subordinate to the primary purpose of a “single family dwelling”. Transient residential uses have caused the following impacts and concerns: * Transient residential uses often maximize occupancy causing increased pressure on infrastructure. * Rapid turnover in occupancy associated with transient residential uses can be a disruptive influence on the peaceful use and enjoyment of single family residential areas. * Transient residential uses can displace permanent single family residential dwellings and thus reduce the number of permanent residents in the City and cause a reduction in state revenue sharing funds necessary to support the services that influence the quality of life for residents, commercial interests, 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 dwelling 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 leases or multiple tenants within a single dwelling unit. Coversheet Page 1 of 2 http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranet/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID=5341&MeetingID=343 2/10/2012 The existing Transient Residential Use definition includes 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 units that turn over in occupancy more than three (3) times a year in single family and PRD zoning districts. The definition is being further modified to clarify that the turnover rate refers to the entire dwelling unit or any part thereof, 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 for twelve (12) months after the effective date of the Ordinance. Any property owner that leases, rents, licenses, or subleases a single family residential dwelling unit within a single family zoning district more than three (3) times in any given year or a dwelling unit in the RM zoning district more than six (6) times in any given year will be in violation of this ordinance. The attached ordinance clarifies prohibitions, exemptions/exception s, 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 Census” and clarifying that the ordinance applied to a dwelling unit or any part thereof. The Board also recommended lowering the allowed turnover rate from three times a year to two times a year. The first two 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 Residential Uses”, in order to clarify prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers, and penalties for same; and 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 Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Coversheet Page 2 of 2 http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranet/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID=5341&MeetingID=343 2/10/2012 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2011 AGENDA NO: V. A. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT 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”, “DEFINITIONS”, IN ORDER TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USES”. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a cityinitiated amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will amend prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers and penalties for transient 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 the Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND Concerns have been raised that allowing use of single family residential dwelling units for transient residential use elevates the use to one that has characteristics of a non-residential activity and is not considered incidental and subordinate to the primary purpose of a ‘single family dwelling.’ Transient residential uses have caused the following impacts and concerns: § Transient residential uses often maximize occupancy causing increased pressure on infrastructure. § Transient residential uses can be incompatible with permanent and seasonal residential uses if not properly planned, controlled and regulated. § Rapid turnover in occupancy associated with transient residential uses can be a disruptive influence on the peaceful use and enjoyment of single family residential areas. § Transient residential uses can displace permanent single family residential dwellings and thus reduce the number of permanent residents in the City and cause a reduction in state revenue sharing funds necessary to support the services that 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 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 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, reconsideration 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 dwelling unit. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2011 LDR Amendment – Transient Residential Uses 2 The attached ordinance clarifies prohibitions, exemptions/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 Family 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 and prohibited thereafter. The existing Transient Residential Use definition includes those dwelling units in both single family and multifamily 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 further modified to clarify that the turnover rate refers to the entire dwelling unit or any part thereof, 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 Ordinance. Exemptions continue to be provided for Group and Community 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, subleases a single family residential dwelling unit within a single family zoning district more than three (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 City Commission make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Comprehensive Plan identified the following applicable objectives/policies: Housing Element Objective A-4 For those areas identified as “needing stabilization” on the Residential Neighborhood Categorization Map”, the City shall take measures to prevent 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 residents. 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 enhancing their neighborhood, the City, through public input and notification, shall take steps to ensure that modifications in and around the neighborhood do not lead to its decline, such as those described 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 homeowner and civic associations: § Neighborhood Advisory Council Letters of objection and support, if any, will be provided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, modifying Subsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”, in order to clarify prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers, and penalties 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 Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, modifying Subsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”, in order to clarify prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers, and penalties 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 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 amendment to Land Development Regulations, modifying Subsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”, in order to clarify prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers, and penalties 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 Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Attachment: § Proposed Ordinance MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 10, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 04-12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for a public hearing to 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 implementation of approvals. BACKGROUND At the first reading on February 7, 2012, the Commission passed Ordinance No. 04-12. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 04-12 on second and final reading. Revised Information for Item 12.A. 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 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 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 consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives 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 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 amended to read as follows: (G) Requests for Accommodation: (1) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to implement a procedure 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 persons with disabilities as provided by the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (42 U.S.C. 3601, et. seq.) (“FHAA”) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (42 U.S.C. Section 12131, et. seq.) (“ADAA”). 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 qualifying entities) may request a reasonable accommodation with respect to the City’s Land Development Regulations, Code of Ordinances, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures as provided by the FHAA and the ADAA 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 regarding property at which reasonable accommodation is requested, including the address of such location; 3. Address of applicant, (unless you are governed by 42 U.S.C. §290d.d., in which case you are not required to provide an address but you may be requested to provide documentation to substantiate your claim that you are governed by this section), Describe the accommodation and the specific regulation(s) and/or procedure(s) from which accommodation is sought; 4. Address of housing or other location at which accommodation is requested,unless you are governed by 42 U.S.C. §290d.d., in which case you are not required to provide an address but you may be requested to provide documentation to substantiate your claim that you are governed by this section), Reasons the accommodation may be necessary for the Applicant or the individuals with disabilities seeking the specific accommodation, and if relating to housing, why the requested reasonable accommodation is necessary to use and enjoy the housing; 5. Describe qualifying disability or handicap,; 6. Describe the accommodation and the specific regulation(s) and/or procedure(s) from which accommodation is sought, 7. Reasons the reasonable accommodation may be necessary for the individual with disabilities to use and enjoy the housing or other service, 8. Name, address and telephone number of representative, if applicable, 9. 6. Other relevant information pertaining to the disability or property that may be needed by the City in order for it to be able to evaluate the request for reasonable accommodation; 3 ORD. NO. 04-12 10. 7. Signature of applicant; Disabled Individual or Representative, if applicable, or Qualifying Entity, 11. 8. Date of Aapplication; 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 thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 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 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________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING 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 Regulations (LDRs) that will provide clarification with respect to current information requested on the “Request Form for Reasonable Accommodation.” BACKGROUND This amendment identifies additional information that is to be provided with a reasonable accommodation request. This information is necessary to appropriately consider reasonable accommodation requests. A copy of the resulting modified 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 reading 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 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. Coversheet Page 1 of 1 http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranet/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID=5335&MeetingID=343 2/10/2012 City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department Application Form to Request a Reasonable Accommodation A reasonable accommodation is any modification of a zoning rule, policy, or practice if that modification is reasonably necessary in order to give a person with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling in the City of Delray Beach. It is the policy of the City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department, pursuant to State and federal law, to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable 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 in 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 attach additional pages if necessary. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department. Name and Contact Information of the Applicant: Name: ______________________________________________ Address: _________________________ _____________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Telephone: ______________________________________________ Alternative Telephone: __________________________________ Location Where Reasonable Accommodation is Requested: Address: ______________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___ Is Applicant the owner of the property at which Reasonable Accommodation is requested? Yes □ No □ If “No”, provide the name and contact information of the owner of the property at which Reasonable Accommodation is requested: Name: ______________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Telephone: ______________________________________________ Is the dwelling licensed or certified by the State of Florida? If so, please provide the type of license or certificate, the number, and attach a copy of it: _________________________________________ _____ Are the people who will live at the dwelling persons with disabilities? ___ Yes. ___ No. If you answered Yes, you must submit the Verification 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 dwelling (please provide the specific regulation)? ____________________________________________________________ ____________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Why do you need the accommodation? In other words, why is the requested accommodation necessary in order for persons with disabilities 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 financially viable? If so, please explain why: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ _______________ Is the number of residents necessary in order for the dwelling to be therapeutically beneficial for the residents? If so, please explain why: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ I AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF I KNOWINGLY PROVIDE FALSE INFORMATION ON THIS 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’ disabilities. The City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department respects 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 records. We will limit our disability inquiry to requiring the Applicant to verify the disability status of individuals for purposes of State and federal law. Definitions: Federal law provides that “persons with disabilities” are persons who: (1) have any “physical or mental impairment” that substantially limits 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 people’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 limited to, orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, emotional illness, learning disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), 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 occupy (or who will occupy) the dwelling that is subject to the above request for reasonable accommodation ___ do _____ do not meet the definition of “persons with disabilities.” I am in a position to know about the person(s)’ disabilities because: _________________________________________________________ _______________ ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ . (For example, are you a medical or social services professional, 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’ disabilities. I affirm under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this application 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 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), “REQUESTS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION” ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a cityinitiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (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 the Planning and Zoning Board. 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. A review of the Comprehensive Plan was performed, and while there are no specific Goals, Objectives or Policies that are relevant, it is noted that the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with them. REVIEW BY OTHERS Courtesy Notices A courtesy notice was provided to the Neighborhood Advisory Council. Letters of objection and support, if any, will be provided 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 Commission of the amendment to 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 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 Commission of the amendment to Land by Development Regulations, Section 2.4.7(G), “Requests for Reasonable Accommodation”, adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is inconsistent with the 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 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 text amendment 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: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 10, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 08-12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for a public hearing to 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 Section 117.03, “Approval of Application”, to provide additional requirements; amending Section 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 alternate housing is provided. BACKGROUND At the first reading on February 7, 2012, the Commission passed Ordinance No. 08-12. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 08-12 on second and final reading. ORDINANCE NO. 08-12 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 117.01, “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 FOR 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 improved by greater involvement by the owners of property; 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 repeated 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 within 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 of public policy as it regards to interests of the residents of the City, including congestion to street parking, in residential neighborhoods, and other issues of public 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 reduce homelessness and crime in the City of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, the courts have stated that houses for recovering addicts are subject to Residential Landlord Tenant Act requirements pertaining to evictions. See, Burke v. Oxford 2 ORD NO. 08-12 House of Oregon Chapter V, 341 Or. 82, 137 P.3d 1278 (Or. 2006); and WHEREAS, hotels/motels are licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and are not regulated by landlord/tenant laws; and WHEREAS, all residential tenancies that are located in residential zoning districts and are not classified as hotel/motel uses shall be regulated by this section regardless of the length of the lease or occupant contract unless such tenancies are licensed as Group Homes or Community Residential Homes per § 419.001, Fla. Stat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION 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 to or lease, sublease, rent, license, sublicense or have any other arrangement allowing occupancy of any residential units unless a landlord permit is obtained or in existence for the units. All oral rental arrangements shall be included within the scope of this Section, but the operation of a hotel shall not be included in this Section (any building which fits the definition of hotel but also fits the definition of another use which requires a landlord permit shall be interpreted to require a landlord permit), nor shall any facility licensed by the State as a Group Home or Community Residential Home or Assisted Living Facility. Whenever Chapter 117 refers to “lease(s)”, “leased”, “rent(s)”, or “rented”, it shall hereinafter include leases, subleases, rentals, licenses, sublicenses and all other arrangements for the occupancy of property. (B) A separate permit shall be required for each leased unit. However, where a building contains a number of leased units under the same owner, or where a number of different owners in one building authorize the same person or company to act as their agent for the purposes of applying for a permit, a single permit may be obtained for all qualifying units within a single building which are under 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 leased for the first time shall be conditioned upon the applicant providing the City’s Director of Community Improvement or his/her designee a current copy of all leases, subleases and/or agreements to occupy the building or unit(s) therein and providing updated copies of all leases, subleases and/or agreements to occupy the building or unit(s) therein within thirty (30) days of any changes. In the event of an oral agreement between the parties instead of a written lease, the terms of these agreements shall be reduced to writing, specifically including, but not limited to, duration of the lease 3 ORD NO. 08-12 term, rental payment, and number of tenants, such information to be provided to the City at the time of application and within thirty (30) days of any modification thereof. Any such permit being renewed by the City shall be conditioned upon the applicant providing to the City’s Director of Community Improvement or his/her designee all required information with the application. Nothing in this Section shall require a permit for any unit enrolled in Federal housing programs or under Federal [Department of] Housing and Urban Development general supervision. (C) Leased residential dwelling units seeking such permits shall be limited to four (4) vehicles per dwelling unit, 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 affect the quality of the neighborhoods. Section 2. That Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, Section 117.03, “Approval 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 property 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 Regulations 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 dwelling; (3) That the rental of the units is in compliance with applicable zoning code regulations as enumerated in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Regulations as well as all other applicable regulations within the City’s Code of Ordinances and Land Development Regulations; 4 ORD NO. 08-12 (4) That no more than three (3) 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 this article; (7) That proof of payment of state sales tax is provided on an annual basis at renewal for all leases that are less than six (6) months in duration in accordance with Section 212.03, Fla. Stat.; (8) That a local business tax receipt has 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 each 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 for rentals. (9) If the applicant is not otherwise required to follow Chapter 83, Florida Statutes, then the applicant shall provide proof of availability of an alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in compliance with Section 117.06 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach; and (10) All tenants shall be in compliance with Chapter 136 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach regarding Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators. (B) Any permit shall be conditioned upon receipt of the documents required by Section 117.01(B). 5 ORD NO. 08-12 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 Ppermit 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 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: (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 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 City ordinance, 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 or ordinances have been violated and will state that further citations or violations could 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 6 ORD NO. 08-12 the first citation shall constitute a violation of Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach. this section and the certifications of the applicant described above, subjecting the permittee to revocation of the permit for the individual unit. (2) The representations made in the permit application are no longer true and correct. (3) The lease, sublease and/or agreement and a written statement regarding all lease arrangements 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 Manager, the Community Improvement Director and the Planning and Zoning Director or their respective designees. The City Attorney’s Office shall act as counsel to the Permit Review Committee. Requests for appeal must be made in writing and received by the Community Improvement Director within thirty (30) days of formal notice of denial or revocation with the date of the notice of denial being the first day. Decisions of the Permit Review Committee may be appealed to the City Commission, whose decision shall be final subject to any appeal of such decision to the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County. 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 enacted to read as follows: 7 ORD NO. 08-12 Sec. 117.06. TENANT/OCCUPANT EVICTION. (A) All applicants granted a landlord permit to lease residential units within the City’s Residential Zoning Districts must provide notice prior to evicting a tenant or occupant in accordance with Chapter 83 of the Florida Statutes. (B) All residential uses requiring a landlord permit that are not otherwise required to follow Chapter 83, Florida Statutes, shall provide either forty-eight (48) hours notice of eviction in writing to the tenant/occupant or provide an alternative temporary dwelling unit for the tenant/occupant for at least forty-eight (48) hours to avoid increased homelessness and crime and to ensure that tenant/occupant’s due process rights are not violated. (C) All applicants granted a landlord permit to lease 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 dwelling unit(s) to the Community Improvement Director when submitting an application for landlord 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 ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 6. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 7. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the _____ day of ___________________, 2012. ___________________________________ _ ATTEST M A Y O R _______________________________ City Clerk First Reading__________________ Second Reading________________ 1 Community Improvement 100 NW 1st 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 Application for Landlord Permit and the Landlord Permit Affidavit. Note: Please complete the Permit Application for each rental unit. Attach additional sheets as necessary. A Landlord Permit is NOT required for a hotel, for any unit enrolled in a federal housing program, or under Housing and Urban Development general supervision. 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 read the information on the reverse side of the affidavit. (A Notary Public is available in the Code Enforcement Division.) 3. 4. Landlord Permits are issued for the 12-month period of November 1, through October 31, at a fee of $60.00 per rental unit. Each separate lease, sublease, and/or agreement constitutes 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 renewal date will be subject to triple permit fees. 4. 5. Please return your completed application, notarized affidavit, supplemental sheets (if any), and payment to Landlord Permit Section, Code Enforcement Division, 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 dwelling unit at the time of the application and/or renewal. In the event of an oral agreement between the parties instead of a written lease, the terms of these agreements shall be reduced to writing specifically including, but not limited to, duration of the lease term, rental payment, and number of tenants, such information to be provided to the City at the time of application and within thirty (30) days of any modification thereof. 2 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 RECEIVE 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 BUILDING ____ NUMBER OF RENTAL UNITS FOR THIS PERMIT ____ PLEASE COMPLETE THIS RENTAL INFORMATION: Unit No. _____ No. of Bedrooms _____ No. of BedBathrooms ____ Total No. of Occupants _____ Unit No. _____ No. of Bedrooms _____ No. of BedBathrooms ____ Total No. of Occupants _____ Unit No. _____ No. of Bedrooms _____ No. of BedBathrooms ____ Total No. of Occupants _____ Unit No. _____ No. of Bedrooms _____ No. of BedBathrooms ____ Total No. of Occupants _____ Unit No. _____ No. of Bedrooms _____ No. of BedBathrooms ____ 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:_____________ 3 SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR APPLICATION FOR LANDLORD 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 ________ LANDLORD PERMIT AFFIDAVIT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY I, ________________________________, being duly sworn affirm that I am authorized to apply for a landlord permit for the following residential unit(s) located at because: I am the actual owner of the unit(s) I have the legal authority to represent the actual owner of the unit(s). authorization from the property owner.] I have read and understand the requirements of and 305.4 of the Delray Beach Code of Ordinances and Land Development Regulations Housing Code, ] as printed on the reverse side of this document, described residential unit(s) complies with those requirements. I further affirm that the above residential unit(s) is in sound structural condition, has electrical service and that all electrical devices are properly installed and in good working order. I also affirm that every habitable room has at least one window or skylight facing directly to the outdoors and that all windows are capable of being easily opened and secured in position by existing window hardware and have screens (if there is no central a/c) and unbroken glazing. New or Renewing Landlord Permit Application I am applying for a Landlord Permit for the above described residential unit(s) for the first time. I am enclosing a copy of the current lease for eac this Affidavit. I am applying to renew an existing Landlord Permit for the above described residential unit(s). I am enclosing a copy of the current lease for each above described residential unit(s) w Affidavit. Description of Vehicles for Parking Stickers: Vehicle 1: Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ Vehicle 2: Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ Vehicle 3: Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ Vehicle 4: Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License P 4 , ________________________________ OR [Submit a copy of your Sections [302.1, 302.3, 302.5.1, 302.6, 302.7, 302.9 and affirm that the above eens each of the above described residential unit(s) with Plate Number:________ _____________________________ Standard h with this late Compliance with Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits” I certify that I am in compliance with all applicable requirements of Chapter 117, Landlord Permits, including specifically the following: 1. I will provide each tenant with a a. Chapter 83, Florida Statutes b. Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances, entitled “Landlord Permits”; and c. A pamphlet provided by the City containing guidelines for rentals. 2. I am am not [y Chapter 83, Florida Statutes, regarding evictions. For those applicants that are not otherwise required to follow Chapter 83, am providing with my Landlord Permit Affidavit alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in compliance with Section 117.06 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach:_________________ _ __________________________________________ [describe type of proof and attach proof to Affidavit]. 3. All of my tenants shall be in compliance with Chapter 136 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach regarding Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predat I will inform the City of Delray Beach Code Enforcement Division of any changes from the original Application for Landlord Permit and supplemental sheets (if utilized) concerning ownership, owner's mailing address for permits and renewals, number of Federal programs or HUD supervision, number of bedrooms or number of occupants in each unit within thirty (30) days of each such change will only be rented to occupants whose relationship does not violate the City's definition of family, which definition is printed on the reverse side of the Instructions for Landlord Permit Application and which I acknowledge as reading and understanding. Owner or Authorized Agent: ________________________________________________________________ STATE OF ___________________________ COUNTY OF _________________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __________ day of ________________, 20____, by ____________________________________ who is personally known to me or who has produced (NAME) _________________________________ as identification and who did take an oath. 5 copy of: Statutes, Part II, entitled “Residential Tenancies”; you must check one of the boxes] otherwise required to follow , the following proof of availability of an _________________________________________________________________________________ unit(s), number of units under change. I affirm that the individual unit(s) described above hose __________________________________________________________ (Signature) , ou Florida Statutes—I _______________________________________ Predators. . 6 (TYPE OF ID) __________________________________________ __________________________________________ Signature Title __________________________________________ _______________________________________ ___ Type, Print, or Stamp Name Serial Number 7 FAMILY DEFINITION: “Family” shall mean two (2) or more persons living together and interrelated 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 foster 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 allowed herein shall have twelve (12) months from the date of the enactment of this definition or the termination of the current lease agreement to come into compliance, whichever occurs first. 8 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 kitchen 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 properly 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 both cold and hot water connected to the kitchen sink, lavatory, tub or shower. All water shall be supplied through an approved distribution system connected to a potable water supply. 302.5.1 Heating Facilities Every dwelling unit shall have heating facilities which are properly installed, are maintained in safe and good working conditions and are capable of safely and adequately heating 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, cooking 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 prohibited. 4. Mechanical refrigeration equipment for the storage of perishable foodstuffs. EXCEPTION: Nothing herein shall preclude a written agreement between an owner and tenant that the tenant will furnish 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 dwelling unit shall have adequate garbage disposal facilities 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 approved 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 and meet the requirements of UL 217 (1989), Single and Multiple Station Smoke Detectors. 9 305.4 Means of Egress Every dwelling unit shall have safe, unobstructed means 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 approval landlord permit for the lease, sublease, and/or agreement for each rental 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 property 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 Regulations 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 dwelling; 3) That the rental of the units is in compliance with applicable zoning code regulations as enumerated in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Regulations as well as all other applicable regulations within the City’s Code of Ordinances and 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 this article; New Requirements: 7) That proof of payment of state sales tax is provided on a annual basis at renewal for all leases that are less than six (6) months in duration in accordance with Section 212.03, Fla. Stat.; 8) That the applicant has certified that they will provide each 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 for rentals. 9) That if the applicant is not otherwise required to follow Chapter 83 or other regulations and laws concerning eviction proceedings, the applicant provides proof of availability of an alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in compliance with Section 117.06 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach; and 10 10) All tenants will be in compliance with Chapter 136 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach regarding Sexual Offenders and Sexual 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 to read as follows: Sec. 117.04 DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION: APPEALS A. A Ppermit 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 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: 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 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 City ordinance, 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 could 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 first citation shall constitute a violation of Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach. this section and the certifications of the applicant described above, subjecting the permittee to revocation of the permit for the individual unit. 2) The representations made in the application are no longer true and correct. 3) The lease, sublease and/or agreement and written statement regarding all lease arrangements to occupy the building or unit(s) therein is not updated within thirty (30) days of any changes. 11 O RD IN AN CE N O . 03-12 AN O RD IN AN CE O F TH E CITY CO M M ISSIO N O F TH E CITY O F D ELRAY BEACH , FLO RID A, AM EN D IN G SECTIO N 4.3.3, “SPECIFIC REQ UIREM EN TS FO R SPECIFIC USES”, BY AM EN D IN G SUBSECTIO N 4.3.3(ZZZ), “TRAN SIEN T RESID EN TIAL USE”, IN O RD ER TO CLARIFY PRO H IBITIO N S, EXEM PTIO N S/EXCEPTIO N S, W AIVERS, AN D PEN ALTIES FO R SAM E; AM EN D IN G APPEN D IX “A”, “D EFIN ITIO N S”, IN O RD ER TO AM EN D TH E D EFIN ITIO N O F “TRAN SIEN T RESID EN TIAL USE”; PRO VID IN G A SAVIN G CLAUSE, A G EN ERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AN D AN EFFECTIVE D ATE. W H EREAS, the City Com m ission hereby finds and declares that the leasing, renting, licensing, subleasing or otherwise allowing in any m anner or form the use of single-fam ily residential dwelling units for periods of less than twelve (12) m onths with a turnover in occupancy m ore often than three (3) tim es per year to any person, entity or fam ily, is a non-residential activity and is not considered an accessory use custom arily accessory and incidental and subordinate to the prim ary intended purpose of dwellings, See, Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 21 Fla.L.W eekly Fed. C11541 (11th Cir. 2008); and W H EREAS, the Census D ata collected by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010 provides that the average fam ily size is 2.24 people in the City of D elray Beach; and W H EREAS, transient residential uses often m axim ize occupancy causing increased pressure on infrastructure, including: garbage, sewer, water, roadways, and utilities; code enforcem ent, law enforcem ent, fire protection and inspection services; and W H EREAS, transient residential uses can result in increased noise and traffic in single-fam ily residential com m unities; and W H EREAS, unless regulations are placed on the am ount and location of transient uses, such uses could overwhelm the non-transient related single-fam ily residential com m unity m aking the City of D elray Beach a less attractive place to reside; and W H EREAS, transient residential uses can be incom patible with perm anent and seasonal residential uses if not properly planned, controlled and regulated; and W H EREAS, the rapid turnover in occupancy associated with transient residential uses can be a disruptive influence on the peaceful use and enjoym ent of single fam ily residential areas; and W H EREAS, reserving land for single fam ily residences preserves the character of neighborhoods, securing “zones where fam ily values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air m ake the area a sanctuary for people.” See, City of Edmonds v. Oxford H ouse, 514 U.S. 725, 733 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed. 2d 801 (1995); and W H EREAS, Congress intended the FH A to “prohibit the use of zoning regulations to lim it the ability of the handicapped to live in the residence of their choice in the com m unity; however, the FH A does not pre-em pt or abolish a m unicipality’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 W H EREAS, transient residential uses can displace perm anent single fam ily residential dwellings and thus reduce the num ber of perm anent residents in the City and cause a reduction in state revenue sharing funds 12 necessary to support the services that influence the quality of life for residents, com m ercial interests, and visitors to the City of D elray Beach; and W H EREAS, uncontrolled and unregulated transient residential uses is found to have a negative im pact on the City of D elray Beach’s econom y, property values, law enforcem ent, traffic, safety, and the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of D elray Beach; and W H EREAS, the State of Florida has recognized that leases, rentals, licenses, subleases, and assignm ents or otherwise allowing in any m anner the use of a residential dwelling unit for under six (6) m onths in duration is a transient use and is therefore taxed by the State of Florida at a rate of six (6) percent of the total rental am ount charged; and W H EREAS, the D elray Beach Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed this ordinance and a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning and Zoning Board on D ecem ber 19, 2011, and said Board has recom m ended adoption of the changes to the City’s Land D evelopm ent Regulations regarding the regulation of transient rental units by a vote of 6 to 0 ; and W H EREAS, the City Com m ission and the Planning and Zoning Board both find that the ordinance is consistent with the City’s Com prehensive Plan. N O W , TH EREFO RE, BE IT O RD AIN ED BY TH E CITY CO M M ISSIO N O F TH E CITY O F D ELRAY BEACH , FLO RID A, AS FO LLO W S: Section 1. That the Land D evelopm ent Regulations of the City of D elray Beach, Florida, Section 4.3.3, “Specific Requirem ents for Specific Uses”, Subsection 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”, shall hereby be am ended to read as follows: (ZZZ) TRAN SIEN T RESID EN TIAL USE The entire dwelling unit or any part thereof, which is located in Single Fam ily or Planned Residential D evelopm ent Zoning D istricts and is operated or used in such a way that any part of the dwelling unit turns over occupancy m ore often than three (3) tim es in any one (1) year shall be presum ed to be a Transient Residential Use and therefore prohibited. An entire dwelling unit or any part thereof, which is located in M edium D ensity Residential (RM ) Zoning D istricts 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) tim es in any one (1) year shall be presum ed to be a Transient Residential Use and therefore prohibited. (1) Exceptions/Exemptions: (a) Existing transient residential uses with a turnover m ore often than three (3) tim es per year but not exceeding six (6) tim es per year in single-fam ily and planned residential developm ent zoning districts m ay continue until twelve (12) m onths after the effective date of this ordinance. (b) The leasing, renting, licensing, subleasing or otherwise allowing in any m anner or form the use of a single-fam ily dwelling unit for Com m unity Residential and G roup H om es which are licensed by the state are exem pt. (c) The real property owners of the dwelling unit and their fam ily are exem pt regardless of how m uch tim e the owners and fam ily spend at the dwelling unit on a yearly basis. 13 (2) Waiver for Undue Economic Hardship: In all instances where there is a claim of undue econom ic hardship, the property owner m ay be granted a waiver from Section 4.3.3(ZZZ) after subm ission of waiver request to the City’s Com m unity Im provem ent D irector or his/her designee including the following docum entation: (a) The am ount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and the party from whom purchased; (b) The assessed value of the land and im provem ents thereon, according to the two m ost recent assessm ents; (c) Real estate taxes for the previous two years; (d) Annual debt service or m ortgage paym ents, if any, for the previous two years; (e) All appraisals, if any, obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing, 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 incom e from the property for the previous two years, if any; (h) The annual cash flow, if any, for the previous two years; (i) An applicant m ay subm it and the Com m unity Im provem ent D irector or his/her designee m ay require that an applicant furnish additional inform ation relevant to the determ ination of any alleged undue econom ic hardship; and (j) In the event that any of the required inform ation is not reasonably available to the property owner and cannot be obtained by the property owner, the property owner shall file statem ent of the inform ation which cannot be obtained and the reasons why such inform ation cannot be reasonably obtained. W here such unobtainable inform ation concerns required financial inform ation, the property owner will subm it a statem ent describing estim ates which will be as accurate as are feasible. (3) Reasonable Accommodation: Reasonable Accom m odations from this section m ay be obtained pursuant to LD R Section 2.4.7(G ). (4) Penalties for Violations: The City adopts all enforcem ent m ethods, which include, but are not lim ited to, the issuance of a citation, sum m ons, notice to appear in county court, arrest for violation of m unicipal ordinances, civil citations, injunction or any other enforcem ent m ethod authorized by law including penalties as set forth in Section 10.99 of the City’s Code of O rdinances. Any property owner that leases, rents, licenses, subleases, or otherwise allows in any m anner or form the use of an entire dwelling unit within a single-fam ily or planned residential developm ent zoning district for a period of less than twelve (12) m onths with a turnover in occupancy of any part of the dwelling unit m ore often than three (3) tim es in any one (1) year as well as those entire dwelling units that are located within M edium D ensity Residential (RM ) Zoning D istricts with a turnover in occupancy of any part of the dwelling unit m ore often than six (6) tim es in any one (1) year shall be in violation of this section. 14 (5) Severability: (a) Generally. If any part, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term , or word of Section 4.3.3(ZZZ) is declared unconstitutional by the valid judgm ent or decree of any court of com petent jurisdiction, the declaration of such unconstitutionality shall not affect the rem ainder of Section 4.3.3(ZZZ), “Transient Residential Uses”. (b) If the entire Section 4.3.3(ZZZ) is declared unconstitutional by the valid judgm ent or decree of any court of com petent jurisdiction, the earlier version of this section adopted by the City Com m ission on July 7, 2009 as O rdinance 29-09 shall be substituted herein and shall be deem ed to be in full force and effect. Section 2. That Appendix “A”, “D efinitions”, of the Land D evelopm ent Regulations of the City of D elray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be am ended to read as follows: TRAN SIEN T RESID EN TIAL USE shall m ean the entire dwelling unit or any part thereof, which is located in Single Fam ily or Planned Residential D evelopm ent Zoning D istricts and is operated or used in such a way that any part of the dwelling unit turns over occupancy m ore often than three (3) tim es in any one (1) year and the entire dwelling unit or any part thereof, which is located in M edium D ensity Residential (RM ) Zoning D istricts and is operated or used in such a way that any part thereof turns over occupancy m ore often than six (6) tim es in any one (1) year. Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of com petent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the rem ainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the sam e are hereby repealed. Section 5. That this ordinance shall becom e effective im m ediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AN D AD O PTED 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________________ 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. -MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 08-12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission consideration of approving Ordinance 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; 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 for revocation; and amending Section 117.06, “Tenant/Occupant Eviction”, to ensure notice and due process rights are followed or alternate housing is provided. BACKGROUND City Commission directed staff to strengthen the permit 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 applicants will be required to provide copies of all leases, 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 stickers 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 not required to follow the State Statue, must provide proof of availability of an alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in compliance with Section 117.06 of the Code of Ordinance. Further, the amendments under this Ordinance clarify reasons a Landlord permit may be revoked. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 8-12 upon first reading. Page 1 of 1 http://itwebapp/NovusAgenda/Preview.aspx?ItemID=5347&MeetingID=343 2/10/2012 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 10, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 06-12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for a public hearing to consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.16, “Landscape Regulations”, to provide an updated landscape code. BACKGROUND At the first reading on February 7, 2012, the Commission passed Ordinance No. 06-12. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 06-12 on second and final reading. 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 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 6 to 1 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 consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives 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 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 4.6.16, “Landscape Regulations”, of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended 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 commercial, 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 nonconforming sites and requires the upgrading of the landscaping on these properties, to the extent physically possible, within three (3) years. This Section is further intended to fulfill objectives as contained within Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, by providing for: the conservation of potable and non-potable water; the implementation of xeriscape Florida-friendly landscape principles; proper tree selection adjacent to or within utilities to mitigate damages which may be caused by trees; encouraging the creation or preservation of open space; maintaining permeable land areas essential to surface water management and aquifer recharge; encouraging the preservation of existing plant communities; encouraging the planting of site specific, native and drought tolerant plant materials; establishing guidelines for the 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 the microclimate through the process of evapotranspiration; and promoting energy conservation through the creation of shade. The provisions of this Section are minimum standards which may be increased in accordance with the guidelines contained herein as well as aesthetic criteria established by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and the Historic Preservation Board when applicable. Additional landscape requirements may be required for certain zoning districts 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 which a building permit is applied for on or after October 1, 1990. Such properties shall comply with minimum standards set forth in Section 4.6.16(H)(1) and other applicable sections of 4.6.16; (2) To existing development of all types, including, but not limited to, commercial, industrial and multi-family development including duplexes, 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 addition to all requirements set forth in the approved landscape plan of record. (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 which results in an increase of 25% in the gross floor area of the structure, or structures, 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 structure or a paving permit, compliance with the requirements of Section 4.6.16 shall be assured through the review and approval of a landscape plan submitted pursuant to Section 2.4.3(C), including the following, if applicable: 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 site, 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 parking 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 permit; 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 areas 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 table. This table shall be shown on the Existing Tree Survey and shall 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 tabular format. The type of calculations used will be determined by the property use. Single family dwellings shall utilize the Single family dwelling calculations. Duplexes shall utilize the Duplex calculations. Multi-family, Industrial and Commercial use properties shall utilize the Multi-family/Industrial/Commercial calculations. 11. Show proposed plant material in a tabular form. Include botanical and common names, specifications, quantity and symbol (if applicable). 12. Be accompanied by a Landscape Cost Estimate when 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 grade or better as illustrated in the Grades and Standards for Nursery Plants, Part 1 (current edition) by the Florida Department of Agriculture. All material that is graded lower than Florida # 1 quality shall be rejected. 14. Show all sight triangles in their proper locations. See Section 4.6.14. 15. Be prepared, signed and sealed by a Registered Landscape Architect. Exceptions include Single Family and Duplex 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 issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. All landscaping and related items shall be installed in accordance with this section before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. (2) Review: The Landscape Compliance Review Committee is hereby created. Landscape plans for the upgrading of existing properties shall be reviewed by the Landscape Compliance Review Committee. The Committee will be comprised of two people from the Planning and Zoning Department, two people from the Community 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, industrial, 5 ORD. NO.06-12 commercial and multi-family properties is to determine 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 Board 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 Commission, 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 preparation of landscape plans. (1) Concepts for Water Conservation: Creative site development concepts shall be used in order to promote water conservation. Water requirements may be reduced by providing for: (a) The preservation of existing native plant communities; (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 parking areas. (2) Preservation and Promotion of Existing Plant Communities: All existing native plant communities on sites proposed for development 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 possible with trees, understory, and ground covers left intact and undisturbed, except for the eradication of prohibited plant species. (a) Tree Protection: Trees which are to be preserved on a site shall be protected from damage during the construction process according to appropriate tree protection techniques. The "Tree Protection Manual for Builders and Developers" published by the Division of Forestry of the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, shall be the standard for determining the appropriateness 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 equivalent number of trees based on trunk diameter. [See Section 3.4.6(G) re Tree Removal Permits] (b) Portion of Native Communities to Remain: When natural plant communities occur on a parcel of land which is to be developed, at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the required open space 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) percent of required trees and twenty-five (25) percent of all other required plant materials shall be native; (ii) Effective October 1, 1991, thirty-five (35) percent 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 for Required Parking: The intent of this section is to preserve those selected mature trees that are not able to be located in required landscape areas while maintaining a reasonable level of off-street parking 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 the substitution of existing, mature, healthy, exceptional tree specimens for required parking spaces in instances where the following conditions are met: 1. Such trees are of a hardwood and/or deciduous variety 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 of 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 location of all required parking spaces and indicate those spaces that will be eliminated in order to preserve trees. The amount of parking spaces permitted to be eliminated for any project 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 for 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 section 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 conditions 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 sandy soils; (c) Able to withstand wet conditions when planted around retention/detention ponds or in swales; (d) Deleted. (4) Tree Selection Adjacent to or Within Utility Easements: Required perimeter landscape buffers often coincide with utility easements. Careful selection of tree species is essential to minimize conflicts as trees mature. Trees planted subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance shall meet the following criteria: (a) The ultimate mature height and width of a tree to be planted should not exceed the available overhead growing space. Tree species shall be consistent with the recommendation in the most recent 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 Improvement Department), which provides recommendations for tree selections. (b) Trees shall not be planted within ten (10) feet of any underground utilities. (c) Trees shall have non-invasive growth habits which will 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 materials within the City of Delray Beach. (1) Design: Xeriscape Florida-friendly landscape principles shall be utilized in landscape designs and installations. Copies of South Florida Water Management District's "Xeriscape -Plant Guide II" and "How To Xeriscape" are available from the Building Department. Principles of xeriscape Florida-friendly landscaping include planting the right tree in the right place, efficient watering, appropriate fertilization, mulching, attraction of wildlife, responsible management of yard pests, recycling yard waste, reduction of stormwater runoff, and waterfront protection. Other important considerations include: (a) Appropriate planning and design to include consideration of the size and shape of lot, soil type, topography, intended use of 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 nutrients. (c) Efficient irrigation systems which permit turf and other less drought tolerant plantings to be watered separately from more 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 demanding 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 retention, 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 trunks to avoid rotting. Mulched planting beds are an ideal replacement for turf areas. (g) Appropriate maintenance to preserve the intended beauty of the landscape and conserve water. (2) Installation: All landscaping shall be installed in a sound, workmanlike manner and according to sound horticultural and planting procedures with the quality of plant materials herein described. All elements of landscaping shall be installed so as to meet all other applicable ordinances and code requirements. (3) Vehicular Encroachment: There shall be no vehicular encroachment over or into any required landscape area. In order to prevent encroachment and maintain a neat and orderly appearance of all planting areas adjacent to parking spaces, accessways, and/or traffic, all landscape areas shall be separated from vehicular use areas by carstops or non-mountable, reinforced concrete curbing of the type characterized as "Type D" in the current edition of the "Roadway and Traffic Design Standards" Manual prepared by the State of Florida Department of Transportation, or curbing of comparable durability. In the case of curbing around required landscaped islands, the width of the curbing shall be excluded from the calculation of the 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 beyond the car stop may be sodded, and therefore, a vehicle would encroach into this specific landscaped area. (4) Quality: All plant materials used in conformance with provisions of this ordinance shall conform to the Standards for Florida 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 spread of crown greater than twenty (20) feet and having trunks which can be 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 create the equivalent of a twenty (20) foot spread of crown. Tree species shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in overall height at the 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. 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 the 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 height at the time of planting, with a minimum of four 10 ORD. NO.06-12 (4) feet of straight single trunk, and a four (4) foot 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 planted to meet the requirements of this section, a mix of species shall be provided. The number of species to be planted shall vary according to the overall number of trees required to be planted. This species mix requirement shall not apply to areas of vegetation required to be preserved by law. The minimum 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 susceptible to lethal yellowing by the Florida Department of Agriculture shall not be used to fulfill the requirements of this article. Palm species which do not have a mature spread 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 height of a minimum of sixteen (16) feet and a minimum of eight (8) feet of clear trunk at the time of planting. Palms used for single family homes and duplexes must have an overall height of a minimum of twelve (12) feet and a minimum of six (6) feet of clear trunk at the time of planting. Minimum overall palm height may be increased if palms are of a nature that the fronds hang below an eight (8) foot clearance, and are further, located in an area where pedestrians 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) feet 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 when measured immediately after planting. Hedges where required shall be planted and maintained so as to form a continuous, unbroken, solid, visual screen within a maximum of one year after planting. To this end, shrubs shall be spaced a maximum of two (2) feet, center to center, unless plants are exceptionally 11 ORD. NO.06-12 full, in which case the shrubs shall be permitted to be planted up to a maximum of thirty (30) inches, center to center, provided the branches are touching at the time of planting. Hedges must be allowed to attain height of thirty-six (36) inches except where providing adequate and safe sight distance requires them to be maintained at a thirty (30) inch height. Hedges that are required for screening purposes shall 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 minimum of eight (8) feet in height. (8) Lawn Grass: (Turf or Sod) A major portion of water demand used for landscape purposes is required for the irrigation of lawn areas. Portions of landscaped areas that have 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 of site specific plantings will typically be able to survive on reduced water requirement and survive drought conditions better than lawn areas. For commercial, industrial and multi-family developments, no more than seventy (70%) percent of the combination of the required interior greenspace and the required perimeter landscape buffers, shall be planted in lawn grass. The balance shall be planted in a mix of shrubs and ground covers. For the development of single family and duplex residences, 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%) coverage must be achieved within ninety (90) days. Nurse grass must be sown for 12 ORD. NO.06-12 immediate effect and protection against soil erosion until coverage is otherwise achieved. Solid sod must be used in swales, canal banks, rights-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 appearance and reasonably complete coverage within six (6) months after planting. All ground cover areas must be kept free from weeds. (10) Vines: Shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height 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 twenty-five (25) percent (25%) of a front or side street setback may be comprised of mulch independent of living plant materials. (F) Irrigation Requirements: All landscaped areas shall be provided with a sprinkler system, automatically operated, to a fully automated sprinkler system that will provide complete coverage of all plant materials and grass to be maintained. Systems 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 Management 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 hundred (100) percent overlap). Low-volume irrigation systems, such as drip or micro-irrigation systems, are strongly 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 require 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 the 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 watering 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 irrigation design: (a) All landscaped areas shall be provided with an irrigation system, automatically operated, to provide complete coverage of all plant materials and grass to be maintained. All landscaped areas shall be provided with a fully automated sprinkler system that will provide complete coverage of all plant materials and grass to be maintained. The source of water shall be pursuant to Section 6.1.10(B)(5). (b) All new installations of landscape irrigation systems 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 pavements. (c) Wherever feasible, sprinkler heads irrigating lawns or other high water demand landscape areas shall be circuited so they are on a separate zone or zones from those irrigating trees, shrubbery or other reduced water requirement areas. (d) Automatically controlled irrigation systems shall be operated by an irrigation controller that is capable of watering high water requirement areas on a different schedule from law water requirement areas. (e) Sprinkler heads shall be installed and maintained so as to minimize spray upon any public access, sidewalk, street or other non-pervious area. (f) The use of low trajectory spray nozzles is encouraged 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 systems, and modifications of existing irrigation systems, shall be equipped with a rain sensing device which will override the irrigation cycle of the system when adequate rainfall has occurred. Further, these rain sensing devices must be operated and maintained for the life of the irrigation system. (i) The use of pop-up sprinkler heads is required in the swale area between the property line and the edge of pavement of the adjacent right-of-way to minimize pedestrian hazard. 14 ORD. NO.06-12 (j) The plant palette and irrigation system shall be appropriate 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 shall depict the different hydrozones and irrigate according to demand. (m) All irrigation systems shall meet current Best Management Practices as established by the most current version of the Florida Green Industries Best Management Practices Handbook, including the uniform 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, paving, and site improvements . (3) Show locations of Water Meter, Point of Connection (POC), Backflow Preventer, Controller, Pump, Zone Valves, Rain shutoff device, Rust-inhibiting device (if applicable), Main and Lateral Lines, Sprinkler Heads and Sleeves. (o) An irrigation legend shall be shown on irrigation plan. 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 description of equipment; manufacturer’s name and model number for all specified equipment; recommended operating pressure per nozzle and bubbler and low-flow emitter; manufacturer’s recommended overhead and bubbler irrigation nozzle rating in gallons per minute or gallons per hour for low flow point applicators; minimum (no less than seventy-five (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 prohibited species shall not be permitted. The following plant species shall not be planted in the City of Delray Beach: (a) Melalecua quinquenervia (commonly known as Punk tree, paper bark, Cajeput, Melaleuca); or (b) Schinus terebinthifolius (commonly known as Brazilian Pepper or Florida Holly); or (c) Casuarina Species (commonly known as Australian Pine); or (d) Acacia auriculiformis (commonly known as Earleaf Acacia): or (e) Cupianopsis anacardioides (commonly known as Carrotwood); or (f) Schefflera actinophylla (commonly known as Schefflera 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 from any public improvement. Ficus species may be planted within twelve (12) feet of any public improvements 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 when planted on a residential project and used to separate the residential use from an arterial or collector road right-of-way. Ficus hedges located on private property are allowed to exceed the eight (8) foot maximum height limit so long as the respective property owner shows documentation 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 prior 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 thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of lot area. Shade trees for single family residences shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in height with 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 preserved 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 tall 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 structures shall be planted with lawn grass, ground cover or other approved 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. Rock or gravel is expressly prohibited from being used in the right-of-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 coverage of all plant materials and grass to be maintained. The source of water may be either from City water or non-potable water. The use of recycled water is encouraged. (2) Duplex Residential Development: 17 ORD. NO.06-12 (a) One (1) tree shall be planted for every two thousand (2,000) square feet of lot area or fraction thereof. Existing trees preserved 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 achieved between the parking and street area, hedging and a shade tree will 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 faces the right-of-way and along the side of the building that provides entry for the units and shall be landscaped with shrubs and ground covers. All other lot areas not covered by buildings or paving will be landscaped 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 be screened with shrubbery that is tall enough to fully screen the units 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 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 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-family units provided below shall be required. (3) New Multiple Family, Commercial, and Industrial Development: Multifamily, commercial, industrial and all other uses are required 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, storage or other vehicular use area, where such an area will not be screened visually by an intervening building or structure from an abutting right-of-way or dedicated alley, there shall be provided landscaping as follows: Perimeter requirements adjacent to public and private rights-of-way: 18 ORD. NO.06-12 (a) A strip of land at least five (5) feet in depth located between the offstreet parking area or other vehicular use area and the right-of-way shall be landscaped, provided, however, that should the zoning code of the Delray Code of Ordinances require additional perimeter depths, that the provisions of the zoning code shall prevail. This landscape strip shall be free of any vehicular encroachment, including car overhang. The landscaping shall consist of at least one tree for each thirty (30) linear feet or fraction thereof. The trees shall be located between the right-ofway line and the off-street parking or vehicular use area. Where the depth of the perimeter landscape strip adjacent to the right-of-way exceeds fifteen (15) feet, shade trees may be planted in clusters, but the maximum spacing shall not exceed fifty (50) feet. The remainder of the landscape area shall be landscaped with grass, ground cover, or other landscape treatment excluding pavement. Additionally, a hedge, wall or other durable landscape area shall be placed along the interior perimeter of the landscape strip. If a hedge is used, it must be a minimum of two (2) feet in height at the time of planting and attain a minimum height of three (3) feet above the finished grade of the adjacent vehicular use or off-street parking area within one year of planting. Multiple tier plantings are strongly encouraged for all properties, regardless of the depth of the landscape buffer. Those properties that have a landscape buffer depth of ten (10) feet or more 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 be installed at one-half (1/2) of the height of the required perimeter hedge. If a nonliving barrier is used, it shall be a minimum of three (3) feet above the finished grade of the adjacent vehicular use. Nonliving barriers shall require additional landscaping to soften them and enhance their appearance. For each ten (10) feet of nonliving 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 conjunction 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 right-of-way may attain a height of eight (8) feet to mitigate the impact of the adjacent 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 materials being stored. Perimeter shade trees are required to be planted every thirty (30) feet and are not permitted to be clustered. (b) The unpaved portion of the right-of-way adjacent to the property line shall be landscaped with sod and provided with irrigation 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 properties: (d) A landscaped barrier shall be provided between the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area and abutting properties. 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 than 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 the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area in a planting strip of not less than five (5) feet in width that is free of any vehicular encroachment, 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 addition, 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 addition to requirements established for district boundary line separators in the zoning code, one (1) tree shall be planted every twenty-five (25) feet to form a solid tree line. 20 ORD. NO.06-12 (f) The provisions for perimeter landscape requirements 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 all 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, including car overhang. If the existing landscaping does not meet the standards of this article, additional landscaping shall be required as necessary to meet the standards. In the event that the landscaping provided by the adjacent property which has been used to satisfy the landscaping requirements for the property making application is ever removed, the property heretofore using the existing vegetation to satisfy landscaping requirements, must then install landscaping as required to comply with the provisions of this code. Interior landscape requirements for parking and other vehicular use areas: (g) The amount of interior landscaping within off-street parking areas shall amount to no less than ten percent (10%) of the total 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 shall be palms. (i) Landscape islands which contain a minimum of seventy-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 feet 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 spaces. (1) The distance between parking islands can be increased up to fifteen (15) standard or seventeen (17) compact parking spaces but the width of the parking island must be increased by one (1) foot for each additional space (i.e. if the distance between 21 ORD. NO.06-12 parking islands is fifteen (15) standard parking spaces 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 stated above, unless documentation of site constraints provide that such island width is not feasible. In such cases, the City will accept landscape islands with a minimum width of seven (7) feet, exclusive of curb, with one hundred an five (105) square feet of planting area. Under no circumstances shall any landscape island have a width smaller than seven (7) feet, exclusive of curb. Tree specifications shall adhere to those listed in Section 4.6.16(E)(5) and 4.6.16(E)(6). Minimum tree height shall be increased to eighteen feet (18’) in overall height 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 at all terminal landscape islands where it intersects a right-of-way. Clear visibility shall be maintained between three (3) feet to six (6) feet above ground. Proper plant selection shall be utilized that fully accounts for the mature height and spread of that plant. The proper design shall have low groundcovers within the nose of the island with small shrubs located at the back end of the island. (j) Each row of parking spaces shall be terminated by landscape 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 separated 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 encroachment, including car overhang. In addition, a two foot (2’) hedge shall be installed within this landscape strip and run the entire length of the strip. Pedestrian walkways are permitted to allow passage through the hedge. Nonmountable curbs are not required for these landscaping strips, providing carstops are provided. 22 ORD. NO.06-12 (l) Perimeter landscape strips which are required to be created by this code or requirements of the zoning code shall not be credited to satisfy any interior landscaping requirements, however, the gross area of perimeter landscape strips which exceed minimum requirements may be credited to satisfy the interior landscape requirements of this section. (m) Interior landscaping in both parking areas and other vehicular use areas shall, insofar as possible, be used to delineate and guide major traffic movement within the parking area so as to prevent cross-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 corridors or special landscape areas within the general parking area or adjacent to buildings located on the site, if helpful in achieving greater 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 vehicular use areas, shall be excavated down to a depth of thirty (30) inches below 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 backfilled in place of the native soil or efficiently mixed with the native soil to create an optimum environment for successful root development. If native soil is to be mixed, it shall first be screened to remove rocks and debris larger than one-half (1/2) inch in diameter prior to mixing. All 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 met. 23 ORD. NO.06-12 (n) (o) All air-conditioning units and other mechanical equipment and refuse areas whose height is five (5) feet or less shall be screened with shrubbery that is tall enough to fully screen the units 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 shall 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 height. (o) (p) Landscaping may be permitted in easements only with the written permission of the easement holder. Written permission 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 specifications as set forth in 4.6.16(E). Multiple tiers of plant material 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 improvements to existing multistructures shall adhere to the landscape requirements set forth in this section. The purpose of these requirements is to aesthetically and visually buffer larger structures and to maintain an appropriately scaled 24 ORD. NO.06-12 relationship between the height of the structure and its surrounding landscape. Foundation trees with specifications listed in Table 1 shall be planted along the building façade that faces a Right-of-Way. The spacing of these trees shall be determined based on the average canopy width of the proposed tree. These trees shall be spaced appropriately so that the canopies shall be touching at average maturity. Typical Foundation trees and spacing requirements are listed in Table 2. All trees listed in Table 2 are examples. Other species 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 designated On-Street Parking locations. Properties submitting for Site Plan Modifications that are designated as Class IV or higher are required to install on-street landscape islands. Site Plan Modifications that are classified as Class III or lower that are proposing onstreet landscape islands shall adhere to the requirements 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 within designated on-street parking sites. They are Intersection Islands, Driveway 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 length. 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, each palm shall be located behind traffic signs. Species and size to be consistent with those existing within adjacent on-street parking islands. 2. Driveway Islands are required on each side of the 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 hazard to site visibility. Species and size to be consistent with those existing within 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 spaces 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 twenty-two feet (22’) in length and contain at least one (1) canopy tree and associated understory plantings. Species and size to be consistent with those existing within adjacent on-street parking islands. Properties abutting Atlantic Avenue are exempt from the requirement of constructing on-street landscape islands. The maintenance and irrigating of islands shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner who is located adjacent to these islands. Construction of landscape islands shall not create traffic safety hazards. The utilization of root barriers will be required in instances where underground utilities are present. All compacted soil, rock and other debris shall be removed to a depth of thirty 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 the plan review process. Flexibility for location and size of islands will be considered in achieving the overall goal of creating a consistent and unified streetscape. (6) Street Trees for New Residential Developments A themed landscape is very important for creating unity and common character within residential developments. Street trees are an integral component 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 selection shall be approved by City Staff. One (1) street tree shall be required for every forty (40) linear feet 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 Industrial Development: All existing multi-family units, duplexes, and commercial and industrial uses shall comply with the minimum standards for landscaping as follows: (a) Provide for perimeter landscaping adjacent to public rights-of-way to screen vehicular parking, open-lot sales, service and storage areas to the extent physically possible and deemed feasible by the Landscape Compliance Review Committee. Elimination of parking spaces required by code will not be permitted to upgrade landscaping, however, the deletion of parking spaces in excess of code requirements will be required if they are in areas that will facilitate the required implementation of the minimum landscape requirements 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 travel 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. Adequacy of screening shall be determined by the Landscape Compliance Review Committee. (d) Foundation landscaping shall be provided for building elevations that are visible from adjacent rights-of-way. (5) (8) Sight Distance: Sight distance for landscaping adjacent to rights-of-way and points of access shall be provided pursuant to Section 4.6.14. (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 condition 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 required 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 systems 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 shorelines, in ditches or swales, or near storm drains. (b) Composting of yard wastes provides many benefits and is strongly encouraged. The resulting materials are excellent soil 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, replenishing nutrients drawn up from the soil and as an organic mulch that helps to retain moisture, lessening the need to irrigate. Grass clippings should be left on your lawn. All discharged clippings are to be kept far away from adjacent shorelines. (d) Mulches applied and maintained at appropriate depths in planting beds assist soils in retaining moisture, reducing weed growth, and preventing erosion. Mulch, applied at a layer of two (2) inches 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 fertilizing via rotary spreaders. Deflectors must be positioned such that fertilizer granules are deflected away from all impervious surfaces, fertilizer-free zones and water bodies, including wetlands. (b) Fertilizers shall not be applied, spilled or otherwise deposited on any impervious surfaces. Any fertilizers that are spilled, whether intentionally or accidentally, shall be immediately and completely removed. (c) In no case shall fertilizer be washed, swept or blown off impervious surfaces into stormwater drains, ditches conveyances or water 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 and Federal Law and with the most current version of the Florida-friendly Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources by the Green Industries. (b) Property owners and landscape management companies performing pesticide control within the City are strongly encouraged to use Integrated Pest Control (IPC). Biological control is a natural and effective means of eradicating unwanted pests within a landscape. It has relatively little impact on the environment and prevents the unnecessary use of chemicals. (c) When using pesticides, all label instructions are state and federal law and must be adhered to. (2) (5) Pruning of Trees: Maintenance pruning of trees is to allow for uniform healthy growth. Trees shall be allowed to attain their normal size, and at a minimum attain a twenty (20) foot spread of canopy, prior to any pruning except in conjunction with the removal of diseased limbs, or to remove limbs or foliage that present a hazard to power lines or structures. Lower branches 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 "hatracking" is expressly prohibited. Trees may be periodically thinned in order to reduce the leaf mass in preparation for tropical storms. All pruning shall be accomplished in accordance with the National Arborist's Standards. A tree's habit of growth must be considered before planting to prevent conflicts with view or signage and such a conflict shall not of itself necessarily permit the pruning or removal of a tree. Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and 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________________ 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. -MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 06-12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (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 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 Planning and Zoning Board on November 21, 2011. After significant 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 ordinance 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-street landscape islands in locations where on-street parking exists. The ordinance was before the Planning and Zoning Board on January 23, 2012 at which time they recommended approval on a 6-1 vote (Al Jacquet dissenting). REVIEW BY OTHERS The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) on 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 Assistant Director had some concerns. These included concerns with regulations dealing with the following: Page 1 of 2 http://itwebapp/NovusAgenda/Preview.aspx?ItemID=5333&Meeti ngID=343 2/10/2012 -Expansion of landscape islands from five (5) feet to 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 within 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, 2011 recommended approval of the proposed amendment. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) on November 15, 2011 recommended approval of the proposed amendment. The Board chose to adopt the same concerns as the CRA. One additional suggestion was to increase the maximum maintained height 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 reading for a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations Section 4.6.16 “Landscape Regulations”, 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. Page 2 of 2 http://itwebapp/NovusAgenda/Preview.aspx?ItemID=5333&MeetingID=343 2/10/2012 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: JANUARY 23, 2012 AGENDA NO: IV. C. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR) SECTION 4.6.16, “LANDSCAPE 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 Regulations (LDRs) to modify the requirements of the landscape code. 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 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 November 21, 2011. After significant discussion the Board tabled the ordinance on a 7 -0 vote. The Board directed staff to be more creative in an effort to further upgrade the regulations within the landscape code particularly in the downtown core area. The Board meeting recommended the following: • Increase the size specifications for plant material, especially within the Central Business District (CBD); • Push the landscape envelope out into the street with the use of on-street landscape islands (specifically addressing properties located within CBD); • Add additional requirements for plant material located within parking lots. In response to these recommendations the following modifications are proposed: • Revision to the required tree height specifications within 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 strips between parking tiers; • Adds language to require on-street landscape islands in 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 this amendment: Open Space and Recreation Element Goal Area “B” An open space creation, retention and enhancement system consisting of, but not limited to, links and loops throughout the City, shall be pursued in order to enrich the quality of life in Delray Beach as well as enhancing 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, and additional open space are objectives which shall be accomplished through the following: Policy B-1.2 The City shall continue its on-going street beautification efforts, including programs such as Adopt-A-Tree, landscaping upgrades as part of street construction projects, and an emphasis on providing sufficient funds to maintain existing landscaping at a high level. Policy B-1.3 New developments shall provide central focal points at entries and landscape buffers along the external (arterial, collector) streets which service them. Back-lotting of individual homes along such streets should be allowed only 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 foundation landscape principles and multiple-tier landscaping along rights-of-way. The enhancement of streetscapes as described under this objective will be satisfied through the principles of sustainable landscaping by creating a larger urban canopy on both public and private 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 amendment 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 CRA 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 and 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 be allowed in the form of palm trees; • Requirement for the installation of street trees within residential developments. The landscape code has been modified to address these comments. 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 chose to adopt the same concerns as the CRA. One additional suggestion was to increase the maximum 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 suggestion 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 Commission 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 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 Commission 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 amendment and approval thereof is not consistent with the 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 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 amendment 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 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2011 AGENDA NO: IV.D. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR) SECTION 4.6.16, “LANDSCAPE 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 Regulations (LDRs) to modify the requirements of the landscape code. 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 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 particular items associated with landscape plan preparation. The following items have always been requested during submittal but will now be codified in the landscape regulations: submission of landscape permit, existing tree survey (if applicable), landscape calculations, cost estimate for improvements over $1,000, minimum of FL#1 plant material, sight visibility triangles, details the RLA requirements, and requires landscape completion prior to C/O; § Adds language pertaining to Florida-Friendly landscape principles; § Revises tree minimum height requirements to 12’ in overall height for all properties with no exceptions; § Adds language to reduce conflict between tree canopy and vehicular traffic along rights-ofway by imposing a minimum branch clearance height for those 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 depend on height of equipment to be screened; § Adds language that references irrigation regulations and proper irrigation system design standards that have been adopted by SFWMD; Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, November 21, 2011 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 plantings for new commercial, multi-family and industrial properties; § Revises language pertaining to landscape island width and the amount of parking spaces between required landscape islands; § Adds language pertaining to the selection of plant material 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 blowovers; § Adds language to relate the height and amount of foundation 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 this amendment: Open Space and Recreation Element Goal Area “B” An open space creation, retention and enhancement system consisting of, but not limited to, links and loops throughout the City, shall be pursued in order to enrich the quality of life in Delray Beach as well as enhancing 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, and additional open space are objectives which shall be accomplished through the following: Policy B-1.2 The City shall continue its on-going street beautification efforts, including programs such as Adopt-A-Tree, landscaping upgrades as part of street construction projects, and an emphasis on providing sufficient funds to maintain existing landscaping at a high level. Policy B-1.3 New developments shall provide central focal points at entries and landscape buffers along the external (arterial, collector) streets which service them. Back-lotting of Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, November 21, 2011 LDR Amendment – Landscape Regulations 3 individual homes along such streets should be allowed only 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 foundation landscape principles and multiple-tier landscaping along rights-of-way. The enhancement of streetscapes as described under this objective will be satisfied through the principles of sustainable landscaping by creating a larger urban canopy on both public and private properties through the requirements set forth in this section. REVIEW BY OTHERS The following advisory boards reviewed the proposed amendment 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 CRA 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 and 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 be allowed in the form of palm trees § Requirement for the installation of street trees within residential developments The landscape code has been modified based on these comments. 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 chose to adopt the same concerns as the CRA. One additional suggestion was to increase the maximum 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 suggestion 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, 2011 LDR Amendment – Landscape Regulations 4 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission 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 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 Commission 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 amendment and approval thereof is not consistent with the 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 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 amendment 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 MARIE L.YORK, FACIP President, York Solutions LLC, Jupiter, Florida Senior Fellow, Center for Building Better Communities, University of Florida Marie @YorkSolutionsLLC.com - 561.222.1478 Summary Nearly 30 years of experience in public sector consulting in urban and regional planning and sustainable design; project manager and lead consultant for over 60 research projects on the multiple aspects of urban and town planning including large and small scale visioning and strategic planning, alternative scenario evaluations, economic feasibility, economic development, redevelopment, and visioning and planning for large scale rural and agricultural lands. Co- creator, director and facilitator of the award - winning Florida Public Officials Design Institute at Abacoa, training elected officials in urban design and sustainable development. Management and Administration - Skilled in organizing complex subjects, solving problems creatively, leading through communication and collaboration. An extrovert who quickly understands people and their situations, who thinks analytically, who is able to see the big picture yet manage the details for implementation. Research and Project Management - Public sector consultant and facilitator on urban and rural planning issues, public policy research, as well as the social, environmental, and economic issues of sustainability. Facilitation - Experienced facilitator for large public forums to small neighborhood workshops. Leadership — Leadership and elected board positions for national, state, and local professional organizations and state and local leadership groups. Created programs, hosted annual conferences, developed educational forums. Experience (2009 - present) President, York Solutions LLC and Senior Fellow, Center for Building Better Communities, University of Florida. (2000 -2009) Florida Atlantic University's Center for Urban & Environmental Solutions (CUES) - Associate Director for Northern Campuses (1993 -2009) College of Architecture Urban & Public Affairs at Florida Atlantic University - Adjunct — Planning of Urban Services, Financial Environment of the Public Sector, Planning Design Studio and Designing the City. (1992 -2000) Florida Atlantic University /Florida International University's Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems - Assistant Director (1987 -2000) Florida Atlantic University /Florida International University's Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems - Senior Research Associate in Economics and Finance (1983 -1987) City of Boca Raton, Florida - Economist Planner Education B.A., Economics /Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic University, 1981, Honors M.A., Economics, Florida Atlantic University, 1982, Honors Memo Date: February 21, 2012 To: Paul Dorling, Planning Director, City of Delray Beach From: Marie L. York, Planner, Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners Subject: Planning Issues Regarding Regulation of Transient Uses in Single - Family Neighborhoods In reviewing the City of Delray's planning and related documents, it is evident that the City's current policies call for practices that ensure a high quality of life, strongly emphasizes the stability of residential neighborhoods and encourages the development of permanent residential areas. Those commitments match the intent of managing and limiting transient uses to reasonable levels in those neighborhoods. Introduction For decades the City of Delray Beach has had a strong commitment to creating a vision and plan for its future, having reinvented itself into a vibrant and viable community by building upon its assets and inspiring residents to be stakeholders in the planning process. The result is an enviable and successful record of growing into a City recognized nationally for its high quality of life, unique character, sense of community and sound planning. Much of the groundwork was laid by holding several American Assemblies, in which a broad cross - section of citizens and stakeholders addressed the City's future and in turn created guiding documents for redevelopment, development and reinvigoration. The City's Comprehensive Plan presents the goals, objectives, and policies for fulfilling on that vision. Additionally, the City's other planning documents such as the 2002 Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan, speak to the citizens vision for the growth and unification of Delray Beach, while still retaining the "village by- the -sea" character and even calling for design guidelines to retain that image. The point is that the City has a strong process in place that expresses a commitment to sound planning overall, stability of residential neighborhoods, and as it relates to those residential neighborhoods, a solid record of supporting and engaging their permanent residents. Residents living in the City's single family residential neighborhoods have a reasonable expectation of a single family lifestyle. A high turnover rate of transient uses within such neighborhoods is generally inconsistent with that reasonable expectation and with the designated land use. Comprehensive Plan The City's Comprehensive Plan has two elements that specifically address residential neighborhoods and housing issues —the Future Land Use Element and the Housing Element. The Future Land Use Element reflects the City's focus on sustaining and enhancing the existing quality of life, as stated in several objectives and policies. A few excerpts of those are listed below: S�� \,6 , • "As the City has an ample supply of housing designed to accommodate its seasonal and retirement population, new residential developments shall be designed for a balanced demographic mix of permanent year -round residents." (Policy A -1.5) • "To reduce, and eventually eliminate, uses that are inconsistent with predominant adjacent land uses, and to insure compatibility of future development...." (Objective A -2 ) • "The remaining growth of the community shall occur in a manner where new development and redevelopment will be serviceable and it will not impede the community's ability to accommodate future growth or detract from its current quality of life." (Goal Area "B ") • The Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan represents the citizens' vision for the growth and unification of Delray Beach, while still retaining the "village by- the -sea" character of the Central Business District (CBD), and calls for a codification of design guidelines within the Land Development Regulations. (Policy C -3.2) The Housing Element, more specifically, focuses on residential neighborhoods. In the overarching Goal for Area "A" the goal is: "To maintain a safe and adequate supply of housing for all income levels and to preserve existing stable neighborhoods, stabilize and enhance neighborhoods that are in transition, and restore and rehabilitate neighborhoods that have declined." The fulfillment of the goals in the Housing Element is reflected in numerous statements within the Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts are listed below, divided into the categories of "commitments to neighborhood stability" and "citizen outreach to neighborhoods." Commitments to neighborhood stability • For those areas identified as "stable residential" on the Residential Neighborhood Categorization Map, the City shall implement policies to ensure that they remain "stable residential" and do not decline. (Objective A -3) • For those "needing stabilization" the City shall take measures to prevent further decline. (Objective A -4) • The Strategic Task Team Neighborhood Action Plan is a comprehensive evaluation of the physical and social characteristics of the neighborhood which have an effect on the quality of life of its residents. (Policy A -5.5) • The City shall work to upgrade substandard housing conditions. (Objective A -7) • Funding is to be provided for rehabilitation of the exteriors of owner - occupied units. (Policy A -7.3) • "To assist residents of the City in maintaining and enhancing their neighborhood, the City ... shall take steps to ensure that modifications in and around the neighborhood do not lead to its decline...." (Objective A -11) • In evaluating development proposals the City shall consider "the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods." (Policy A -11.3) • The City will provide planning and technical assistance to implement neighborhood- supported initiatives aimed at preserving the character of existing residential areas. (Policy A -11.4) Citizen outreach to neighborhoods • Courtesy notices are to be sent to representatives of homeowner and neighborhood associations of upcoming meetings regarding land use and development. (Policy A -1.3) • Annual town hall meetings are to be held to provide a report to citizens of progress made in achieving the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and to garner input. (Policy A -1.4) • Residents are to have access to Neighborhood Resource Centers which provide services to enhance neighborhood and enrich quality of life. "The NRC shall provide technical assistance to residential neighborhood associations and work to promote a sense of community throughout the City." (Policy A -1.5) • The City is to maintain regular personal contact with the representatives of associations at least quarterly by creating a liaison with the City to resolve matters of concern to a neighborhood. (Policy A -4.2) III. Compatibility Issues People who own their own homes have a stake in the property, its attractiveness and its value. Such homeowner- occupied housing contributes to the stability of a neighborhood. Also, given that real estate by nature is a very illiquid asset, owner - occupied housing contributes to a neighborhood's stability. High turnover rates of rental units within owner- occupied residential areas can change the character of a neighborhood. The neighborhood becomes different, for short term renter occupants seldom share that sense of stewardship. Rentals units are an important asset within each community —the correct location is the key. Thus, high turnover transient rentals within single family residential neighborhoods, whose permanent residents have a reasonable expectation of a single family lifestyle and a sense of community, can undermine neighborhood stability and become an inconsistent land use and subvert the underlying zoning scheme. Therefore, the City's logic in reducing the number of acceptable turnovers for transient residents from six to three fits with their intent to retain and support the single family lifestyle and will enhance the stability of single family neighborhoods. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 10, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 04 -12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for a public he aring to consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR), by amending Sec tion 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 implementation of approvals. BACKGROUND At the first reading on February 7, 2012, the Commi ssion passed Ordinance No. 04-12. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 04-12 on second and final reading. Revised Information for Item 12.A. 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 regarding property at which reasonable accommodation is requested, including th e address of such location; 3. Address of applicant, (unless you are governed by 42 U.S.C. §290d.d., in which case you are not required to provide an address but you may be requested to provide documentation to substantia te your claim that you are governed by this section), Describe the accommodation and the specific regulation(s) and/or procedure(s) from which accommodation is sought; 4. Address of housing or other location at which ac commodation is requested,unless you are governed by 42 U.S.C. §290d.d., in w hich case you are not required to provide an address but you may be requested to provide documentation to subst antiate your claim that you are governed by this section), Reasons the accommodation may be necessary for the Applicant or the individuals with disabilities seeking the specific accommodation, and if relating to hous ing, why the requested reasonable accommodation is necessary to use and enjoy the housing; 5. Describe qualifying disability or handicap,; 6. Describe the accommodation and the specific regulat ion(s) and/or procedure(s) from which accommodation is sought, 7. Reasons the reasonable accommodation may be necessary for the individual with disabilities to use and enjoy the h ousing or other service, 8. Name, address and telephone number of representative, if ap plicable, 9. 6. Other relevant information pertaining to the disab ility or property that may be needed by the City in order for it to be abl e to evaluate the request for reasonable accommodation; 3 ORD. NO. 04-12 10. 7. Signature of applicant; Disabled Individual or Representative, if applicable, or Qualifying Entity, 11. 8. Date of A a pplication; Section 3. That Section 2.4.7(G), “Requests for Accommodation”, Subsection (9), “E xpiration of Approvals”, of the Land Development Regulations of the City of De lray 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________________ MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING 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 Regulations (LDRs ) that will provide clarification with respect to current information requested on the “Request Form for Reasonable Accommodation.” BACKGROUND This amendment identifies additional information that is to be provided with a reasonable accommodation request. This information is nece ssary to appropriately consider reasonable accommodation requests. A copy of the resulti ng modified 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 reading for a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.7(G) “Requests for Reasonable Accommodation”, b y adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the sta ff 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. Page 1of 1 Coversheet 2/10/2012 htt p ://itweba pp /A g endaIntranet/Bluesheet.as p x?ItemID=5335&Meetin g ID=343 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: __________________________________ Location 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: ______________________________________________ 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 w ith 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:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 10, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 08 -12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for a public he aring to consider a city-initiated amendment to Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, of the Code of Ord inances, 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 At the first reading on February 7, 2012, the Commi ssion passed Ordinance No. 08-12. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 08-12 on second and final reading. ORDINANCE NO. 08-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AM ENDING CHAPTER 117, “LANDLORD PERMITS”, OF TH E CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 117.01, “PERMIT REQUIRED”, TO CLARIFY WHEN A PERMIT IS REQUIRED; AMENDING SECT ION 117.03, “APPROVAL OF APPLICATION”, TO PROVIDE A DDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING SECTION 117.04, “D ENIAL OR REVOCATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION; APPEALS”, TO CLARIFY GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION; AND AM ENDING SECTION 117.06, “TENANT/OCCUPANT EVICTION”, TO ENSURE NOTICE AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE FOLLOWED OR ALTERNATE HOUSING IS PROVIDED; PROV IDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of t he City of Delray Beach, Fl orida, has determined that enforcement of various City ordi nances can be improved by greater involvement by the owners of property; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of t he City of Delray Beach, Fl orida, 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 repeated instances of warning, temporary compliance and repeated viol ation of nuisance ordinances in order to more effectively address violations that affect t he rights of residents adjacent to re sidential rental property within 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 dev elopment of public policy as it regards to interests of the residents of the City, includi ng congestion to street par king, in residential neighborhoods, and other issues of public health and safety concern; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of De lray Beach, Florida, desires to ensure that proper eviction proceedings are followed by a ll landlords within the City of Delray Beach in accordance with Chapter 83, Florida Statutes , or other methods of due process afforded to reduce homelessness and crime in the City of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, the courts have stated that houses for recovering addicts are subject to Residential Landlord Tenant Act require ments pertaining to evictions. See, Burke v. Oxford 2 ORD NO. 08-12 House of Oregon Chapter V , 341 Or. 82, 137 P.3d 1278 (Or. 2006); and WHEREAS, hotels/motels are licensed by t he Department of Busi ness and Professional Regulation and are not regulated by landlord/tenant laws; and WHEREAS, all residential tenancies that are loca ted in residential zoni ng districts and are not classified as hotel/motel uses shall be regulated by this section regardless of the length of the lease or occupant contract unless such tenanc ies are licensed as Group Homes or Community Residential Homes per § 419.001, Fla. Stat . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY TH E CITY COMMISSION 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 to or leas e, 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 within the scope of this Section, but the operation of a hotel shall not be included in this Section (any building which fi ts the definition of hotel but also fits the definition of another use which requires a landlord permit shall be interpreted to require a landlord permit), nor shall any facility licensed by the State as a Group Home or Community Residential Home or Assisted Li ving Facility. Whenever Chapter 117 refers to “lease(s)”, “leased”, “rent(s)”, or “rented”, it shall hereinafter include leases, subleases, rentals, licenses, sublicenses and all other arrangements for the occupancy of property. (B) A separate permit shall be required for each leased unit. However, where a building contains a number of leased units under the same owner, or where a number of different owners in one building authorize the same person or company to act as their agent for the purposes of applying for a permi t, a single permit may be obtained for all qualifying units within a single building which ar e under 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 leased for the firs t time shall be conditioned upon the applicant providing the City’s Director of Community Improvement or his/her designee a current copy of all leases, subleases and/or agreements to occupy the building or unit(s) therein and providing updated copies of all leases, subleases and/or agreements to occupy the building or unit(s) therein withi n thirty (30) days of any changes . In the event of an oral agreement between the parties in stead of a written lease, t he terms of these agreements shall be reduced to writing, specifically incl uding, but not limited to, duration of the lease 3 ORD NO. 08-12 term, rental payment, and number of tenants, such information to be provided to the City at the time of application and wit hin thirty (30) days of any modification thereof. Any such permit being renewed by the City shall be c onditioned upon the applicant providing to the City’s Director of Community Improvement or his/her designee all required information with the application. Nothing in this Section shall require a permit for any unit enrolled in Federal housing programs or under Federal [Department of] Housing and Urban Development general supervision. (C) Leased residential dwelling units seeking such permits shall be limited to four (4) vehicles per dwelling uni t, 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 t he Community Improvement Director, if the additional stickers will not affect the quality of the neighborhoods. Section 2. That Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, Sect ion 117.03, “Approval of Application”, shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 117.03 APPROVAL OF APPLICATION. (A) The Community Improvement Direc tor 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 property 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 Regulations of the City of Delray Beach wit h regard to those facilities necessary to make the rental unit habitable specifica lly including, but not limited to, numbers of bedrooms and bat hrooms required for the number of persons who will occupy the dwelling; (3) That the rental of the units is in compliance with applicable zoning code regulations as enumerated in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Regulations as well as all other applicable regulations within the City’s Code of Ordinances and Land Development Regulations; 4 ORD NO. 08-12 (4) That no more than three (3) unrelat ed 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 proper ty are not in violation of this article; (7) That proof of payment of stat e sales tax is provided on an annual basis at renewal for all leases t hat are less than six (6) months in duration in accordance with Section 212.03, Fla. Stat.; (8) That a local business tax receipt has 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 certifi ed that they will prov ide each 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 for rentals. (9) If the applicant is not otherwis e required to follow Chapter 83, Florida Statutes , then the applicant shall provi de proof of ava ilability of an alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in compliance with Section 117.06 of t he Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach; and (10) All tenants shall be in compli ance with Chapter 136 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach regarding Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators. (B) Any permit shall be conditioned upon rece ipt of the documents required by Section 117.01(B). 5 ORD NO. 08-12 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 Ppermit 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 cont ains a material falsehood or misrepresentation; (4) The use is not allowed in the zoning district; (5) The applicant had their landlord permi t 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 wh ere 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 commencem ent of permit revocation proceedings as follows: (a) For each civil citation for a violation of a City ordinance, one (1) point will be assessed on the landlord permit for that individual unit. (b) After two (2) points are a ssessed on a landlord permit for an individual unit, the City Manager or his/her designee will send a written warning to the permi ttee or agent. The warning will specify which ordinance or or dinances have been violated and will state that further citations or violations could 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-m onth period from the date of 6 ORD NO. 08-12 the first citation shall constitute a violation of Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach. this section and the certifications of t he applicant described above, subjecting the permittee to revocation of the permit for the individual unit. (2) The representations made in the permit application are no longer true and correct. (3) The lease, sublease and/or agreement and a wri tten statement regarding all lease arrangements 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 cons ist of the City Manager, the Community Improvement Director and the Pl anning and Zoning Director or their respective designees. The City Attorney’s Office shall act as counsel to the Permit Review Committee. Requests for appeal must be made in writ ing and received by the Community Improvement Director within thirty (30) days of formal notice of denial or revocation with the date of the notice of denial being the first day. Decisions of the Permit Review Committee may be appealed to the City Commission, whose decis ion shall be final subject to any appeal of such decision to the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County. 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 enacted to read as follows: 7 ORD NO. 08-12 Sec. 117.06. TENANT/OCCUPANT EVICTION. (A) All applicants granted a landlord permi t to lease residential units within the City’s Residential Zoning Districts must prov ide notice prior to evicting a tenant or occupant in accordance with Chapter 83 of the Florida Statutes . (B) All residential uses requiring a landlor d permit that are not otherwise required to follow Chapter 83, Florida St atutes, shall provide either fo rty-eight (48) hours notice of eviction in writing to the tenant/occupant or provide an alternative temporary dwelling unit for the tenant/occupant for at least forty-eight (48) hours to avoid increased homelessness and crime and to ensure that tenant/occupant’s due process rights are not violated. (C) All applicants granted a landlord permit to lease 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 alte rnative temporary dwelling unit(s) to the Community Improvement Director when s ubmitting an application for landlord permit under Section 117.03 of the Code of Ordinanc es of the City of Delray Beach. Section 5. That should any se ction or provision of this or dinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of compet ent 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 6. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 7. That this ordinance shall becom e effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the _____ day of ___________________, 2012. ____________________________________ ATTEST M A Y O R _______________________________ City Clerk First Reading__________________ Second Reading________________ 1 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 co py of the lease, sublease and/or agreement for each rental dwelling unit at the time of the appli cation and/or renewal. In the event of an oral agreement between the parties instead of a written lease , the terms of these agreements shall be reduced to writing specifically including, but not li mited to, duration of the lease term, rental payment, and number of tenants, such information to be provided to the City at the time of application and within thirty (30) days of any modification there of. 2 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:_____________ 3 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 ________ LANDLORD PERMIT AFFIDAVIT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY I , ________________________________, being duly swor n affirm that I am authorized to apply for a landlord permit for the following residential unit(s) locate d at because: I am the actual owner of the unit(s) I have the legal authority to represent the actual owner of the unit(s). authorization from the property owner.] I have read and understand the requirements of and 305.4 of the Delray Beach Code of Ordinances and Land Developmen t Regulations Housing Code , ] as printed on the reverse side of this document, described residential unit(s) complies with those r equirements. I further affirm that the above residential unit(s) is in sound structural conditio n, has electrical service and that all electrical devices are properly installed and in good working order. I also affirm that ever y habitable room has at least one window or skylight facing directly to the outdoors and that all windows are capable of being easily opened and secured in posit ion by existing window hardware and have scr eens (if there is no central a/c) and unbroken glaz ing. New or Renewing Landlord Permit Application I am applying for a Landlord Permit for the above d escribed residential unit(s) for the first time. I am enclosing a copy of the current lease for eac this Affidavit. I am applying to renew an existing Landlord Permit for the above described residential unit(s). I am enclosing a copy of the current lease for each above described residential unit(s) w Affidavit. Description of Vehicles for Parking Stickers: Vehicle 1 : Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ Vehicle 2 : Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ Vehicle 3 : Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ Vehicle 4 : Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License P 4 LANDLORD PERMIT AFFIDAVIT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY , ________________________________, being duly swor n affirm that I am authorized to apply for a permit for the following residential unit(s) locate d at ________________________________ I am the actual owner of the unit(s) OR I have the legal authority to represent the actual owner of the unit(s). [Submit a copy of your authorization from the property owner.] I have read and understand the requirements of Sections [302.1, 302.3, 302.5.1, 302.6, 302.7, 302.9 Delray Beach Code of Ordinances and Land Developmen t Regulations as printed on the reverse side of this document, and affirm that the above described residential unit(s) complies with those r equirements. I further affirm that the above residential unit(s) is in sound structural conditio n, has electrical service and that all electrical and in good working order. I also affirm that ever y habitable room has at least one window or skylight facing directly to the outdoors and that all windows are capable of being easily opened and secured in posit ion by existing window hardware and have eens (if there is no central a/c) and unbroken glaz ing. New or Renewing Landlord Permit Application I am applying for a Landlord Permit for the above d escribed residential unit(s) for the first time. I am enclosing a copy of the current lease for eac h of the above described residential unit(s) with I am applying to renew an existing Landlord Permit for the above described residential unit(s). I am enclosing a copy of the current lease for each above described residential unit(s) w Description of Vehicles for Parking Stickers: : Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ : Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ : Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ : Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License P late Number:________ , ________________________________, being duly swor n affirm that I am authorized to apply for a _____________________________ [Submit a copy of your 302.1, 302.3, 302.5.1, 302.6, 302.7, 302.9 Delray Beach Code of Ordinances and Land Developmen t Regulations Standard and affirm that the above described residential unit(s) complies with those r equirements. I further affirm that the above residential unit(s) is in sound structural conditio n, has electrical service and that all electrical and in good working order. I also affirm that ever y habitable room has at least one window or skylight facing directly to the outdoors and that all windows are capable of being easily opened and secured in posit ion by existing window hardware and have I am applying for a Landlord Permit for the above d escribed residential unit(s) for the first time. h of the above described residential unit(s) with I am applying to renew an existing Landlord Permit for the above described residential unit(s). I am enclosing a copy of the current lease for each above described residential unit(s) w ith this : Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ : Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ : Make__________ Model ___________ Color:__________ License Plate Number:________ late Number:________ Compliance with Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits” I certify that I am in compliance with all applicab le requirements of Chapter 117, Landlord Permits, including specifically the following: 1. I will provide each tenant with a a. Chapter 83, Florida Statutes b. Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances, entitled “La ndlord Permits”; and c. A pamphlet provided by the City containing guidelin es for rentals. 2. I am am not [y Chapter 83, Florida Statutes , regarding evictions. For those applicants that are not otherwise require d to follow Chapter 83, am providing with my Landlord Permit Affidavit alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in compliance with Section 117.06 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Del ray Beach:__________________ __________________________________________ [describe type of proof and attach proof to Affidav it]. 3. All of my tenants shall be in compliance with Chapt er 136 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach regarding Sexual Offend ers and Sexual Predat I will inform the City of Delray Beach Code Enforce ment Division of any changes from the original Application for Landlord Permit and supplemental sh eets (if utilized) concerning ownership, owner's mailing address for permits and renewals, n umber of Federal programs or HUD supervision, number of bedr ooms or number of occupants in each unit within thirty (30) days of each such change will only be rented to occupants w hose relationship does not violate the City's defin ition of family, which definition is printed on the reverse side of the Instructions for Landlord Permit Application and which I acknowledge as reading and understanding. Owner or Authorized Agent: ________________________________________________________________ STATE OF ___________________________ COUNTY OF _________________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __________ day of ________________, 20____, by ____________________________________ who is pers onally known to me or who has produced (NAME) _________________________________ as identification and who did take an oath. 5 Compliance with Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits” I certify that I am in compliance with all applicab le requirements of Chapter 117, Landlord Permits, including specifically the following: I will provide each tenant with a copy of: Florida Statutes , Part II, entitled “Residential Tenancies”; Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances, entitled “La ndlord Permits”; and A pamphlet provided by the City containing guidelin es for rentals. am not [y ou must check one of the boxes] otherwise required to follow , regarding evictions. For those applicants that are not otherwise require d to follow Chapter 83, am providing with my Landlord Permit Affidavit the following proof of availability of an alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in compliance with Section 117.06 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Del ray Beach:__________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ [describe type of proof and attach proof to Affidav it]. All of my tenants shall be in compliance with Chapt er 136 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach regarding Sexual Offend ers and Sexual Predat I will inform the City of Delray Beach Code Enforce ment Division of any changes from the original Application for Landlord Permit and supplemental sh eets (if utilized) concerning ownership, owner's mailing address for permits and renewals, n umber of unit(s), number of units under Federal programs or HUD supervision, number of bedr ooms or number of occupants in each unit within thirty (30) days of each such change . I affirm that the individual unit(s) described a bove hose relationship does not violate the City's defin ition of family, which definition is printed on the reverse side of the Instructions for Landlord Permit Application which I acknowledge as reading and understanding. __________________________________________________________ (Signature) STATE OF ___________________________ COUNTY OF _________________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __________ day of ________________, 20____, by ____________________________________ who is pers onally known to me or who has produced _________________________________ as identification and who did take an oath. I certify that I am in compliance with all applicab le requirements of Chapter 117, Landlord , Part II, entitled “Residential Tenancies”; Chapter 117 of the Code of Ordinances, entitled “La ndlord Permits”; and A pamphlet provided by the City containing guidelin es for rentals. ou must check one of the boxes] otherwise required to follow For those applicants that are not otherwise require d to follow Chapter 83, Florida Statutes —I the following proof of availability of an alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in compliance with Section 117.06 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Del ray Beach:__________________ _______________________________________ All of my tenants shall be in compliance with Chapt er 136 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach regarding Sexual Offend ers and Sexual Predat ors. I will inform the City of Delray Beach Code Enforce ment Division of any changes from the original Application for Landlord Permit and supplemental sh eets (if utilized) concerning ownership, unit(s), number of units under Federal programs or HUD supervision, number of bedr ooms or number of occupants in each unit . I affirm that the individual unit(s) described a bove hose relationship does not violate the City's defin ition of family, which definition is printed on the reverse side of the Instructions for Landlord Permit Application __________________________________________________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __________ day of ________________, 20____, by ____________________________________ who is pers onally known to me or who has produced 6 (TYPE OF ID) __________________________________________ __________________________________________ Signature Title __________________________________________ __________________________________________ Type, Print, or Stamp Name Serial Number 7 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. 8 You are responsible for k nowing all applicable laws. Sections of the Standard Housi ng 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 show er 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 defec ts, 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 distribution 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 heating al l 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 c harged 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 detec tor, 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 Multiple Station Smoke Detectors. 9 305.4 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 f t 8 inches (2032 mm). Sec. 117.03 APPROVAL OF APPLICATION A. The Community Improvement Director or the assigned d esignee, shall grant a approval landlord permit for the lease, sublease, and/or agreement for each rent al 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 property or is the 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 H ousing 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 rental of the units is in compliance with app licable zoning code regulations as enumerated in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Regulati ons as well as all other applicable regulations within the City’s Code of Ordin ances and 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 o f this article; New Requirements: 7) That proof of payment of state sales tax is provided on a annual basis at renewal for all leases that are less than six (6) months in duration in accordance wi th Section 212.03, Fla. Stat.; 8) That the applicant has certified that they will provide each tena nt 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 for ren tals. 9) That if the applicant is not otherwise required to follow Chapter 83 or other regulations and laws concerning eviction proceedings, the applicant pro vides proof of availability of an alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in compliance with Section 117.06 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach; and 10 10) All tenants will be in compliance with Chapter 136 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach regarding Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators. B. Any permit shall be conditioned upon receipt of the docum ents required by Section 117.01(B). Section 3. That Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, Section 117.04, “Appeals”, 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 d escribed 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 and written state ment regarding all lease arrangements to occupy the building or unit(s) therei n is not updated within thirty (30) days of any changes. 11 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 decl ares that the leasing, renting, licensing, subleasi ng 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 2.24 people in the City of Delray Be ach; 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 disrupti ve influence on the peaceful use and enjoyment of sing le 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 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 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 th us reduce the number of permanent residents in the Cit y and cause a reduction in state revenue sharing fu nds 12 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 re sidential uses is found to have a negative impact o n 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 six (6) months in duration is a transient use and is therefore taxed by the State o f Florida at a rate of six (6) percent of the total rental amount charged; and WHEREAS, the Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Boa rd 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 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 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 exe mpt. (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. 13 (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 an y, for the 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, p rice asked, and offers received, if any; (g) The annual gross income from the property for t he previous 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 har dship; 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. 14 (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 ful l 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 r ead as follows: 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 occupancy 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________________ 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. - MEETING OF FE BRUARY 7, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 08 -12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission consideration of approving Ordinance No. 8-12, am ending Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, of the Code of Ordinances of the Ci ty of Delray Beach, by amending Section 117.01, “Permit Required”, to clarify when a permit is required; amending Secti on 117.03, “Approval of Application”, to provide additional requirements; amending Section 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 alternat e housing is provided. BACKGROUND City Commission directed staff to strengthen the permit approval and enforcement process of properties receiving permits under the Landlord Permit program. The changes prop osed are designed to improve the quality of life for all residents. Permit appli cants will be required to provide copies of all leases, subleases and/or agreements to occupy the buildi ng or unit and are respons ible for providing updated copies of the same within 30 days of any changes. Leased residential units will be limited to four (4) ve hicles, for which residentia l parking stickers must b e obtained from the City. Additional parking stickers may be issued when certain conditions are m et and are documented. Additionally, applicants will be required to follow Chapter 83, Flor ida Statutes governing evictions. Residential units within the City’s Residential Zoni ng District that are otherwise not required to follow the State Statue, must provide proof of availability of an alternative temporary dwelling unit in the event of an eviction, in compliance with Section 117.06 of th e Code of Ordinance. Further, the amendments under this Ordinance clarify reasons a Landlord permit may be revoked. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Or dinance No. 8-12 upon first reading. Page 1of 1 2/10/2012 htt p ://itweba pp /NovusA g enda/Preview.as p x?ItemID=5347&Meetin g ID=343 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 10, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.D. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 06 -12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for a public he aring to consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.16, “Landscape Regulations”, to provide an updated landscape code. BACKGROUND At the first reading on February 7, 2012, the Commi ssion passed Ordinance No. 06-12. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 06-12 on second and final reading. 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. Systems 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________________ 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. - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 06 -12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of a city-initiated amendment to the La nd Development Regulations (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 beaut y of the City using creative landscape design principles, create the foundation for a successful s ustainable 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 Planni ng and Zoning Board on November 21, 2011. After significant 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 ordina nce was revised to reflect the Board’s direction by increasing the size of trees in the CBD, requiring understory plants in every landscape island, hedg es in landscape strips between parking tiers, and on-street landscape islands in locations where on-street parking exists. The ordinance was before the Planning and Zoning Board on January 23, 2012 at which time they recommended approval on a 6-1 vote (Al Jacquet dissenting). REVIEW BY OTHERS The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) on October 12, 2011 recommended approval o f the proposed amendment. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) on October 13, 2011 recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. The Board and the CRA Assistant Director had some concerns. These included concerns with regulations dealing with the following: Page 1of 2 2/10/2012 htt p ://itweba pp /NovusA g enda/Preview.as p x?ItemID=5333&Meetin g ID=343 -Expansion of landscape islands from five (5) feet to 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 o f required trees that will be allowed in the form of palm trees; -Requirement for the installation of street trees within 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, 2011 recommended approval of the proposed amendment. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) on November 15, 2011 recommended approval of the proposed amendment. The Board chose to adopt the same concerns as the CRA. One additional suggestion was to increase the maximum maintained he ight 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 reading for a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations Section 4.6.16 “Landscape Regulations”, b y adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that th e amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. Page 2of 2 2/10/2012 htt p ://itweba pp /NovusA g enda/Preview.as p x?ItemID=5333&Meetin g ID=343 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 DELRAY Citizens Coalition A POLITICAL COMMITTEE RF,GISTERED WITH THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF ELECTIONS February 16, 2012 Dear Friend(s): YOU ARE CORDIALLY INVITED TO ATTEND THE Delray Beach Candidate Forum /Debate presented by The Delray Citizens' Coalition, PAC in conjunction with BizPac Review When: Tuesday, February 28th, 2012 6:15 PM to 9 PM Delray Citizens Coalition, PAC Contact: Gerry Franciosa (561) 716 -7355 Where: Veterans Park Recreation Center 802 Northeast 1st Street, Delray Beach Moderator: Kingsley Guy, Sun - Sentinel columnist Debate #1 — Commission Seat 4 ANGELETA GRAY (INCUMBENT) DR. VICTOR KIRSON Debate #2 — Commission Seat 2 (Open Seat) PAT ARCHER, AL JACQUET, CHRISTINA MORRISON OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, LISTEN TO YOUR CANDIDATES FOR CITY COMMISSION DEBATE THEIR VIEWS ON THE FUTURE OF DELRAY BEACH. MEET YOUR NEIGHBORS AND SHARE YOUR CONCERNS. REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED. 939 Eve Street, Delray Beach, FL 33483 Gerald P Franciosa, Chairman and Registered Agent John A Warner, Treasurer (561) 716 - 7355 (561) 251 - 0401 gersan2 @aol.com jawarner @gate.net i � n Thursday, February 23, 2012 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Crest Theatre at Old School Square 51 N. Swinton Avenue (1 block north of Atlantic Ave.) Hosted by Veteran Broadcaster, JIM SAC K ETT GET TO KNOW THE CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR DELRAY BEACH CITY COMMISSION FREE Admission For more information, Greater Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce Old 561- 278 -0424 School Square Greater Delray Deach '1 Chamber o, Commerce patty@ d e l r ay b e a c h■ co m CULTURAL ARTS CENTER Cavemnznl A!lal, NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE