06-03-97 Regular DELRAY BEACH
~ C~TY QF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AII-Ameri~aCi~
COMMISSION .CHAMBERS ~11~v
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
Randolph at 243-7127 (voice) or 243-7199 (TDD), 24 hours prior to the
event in order for the City to accommodate your request. Adaptive
listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers.
RULES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .
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, (10 minutes for group presentations). 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: When extraordinary
circumstances or reasons exist and at the discretion of the
Commission, citizens may speak on any official agenda item under
these sections.
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.
Regular Commission Meeting
June 3, 1997
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.
AGENDA
1. Roll Call.
2. Invocation.
3. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
4. Agenda Approval.
5. Approval of Minutes:
Regular Meeting of May 20, 1997
6. Proclamations: None
7. Presentations: None
8. Consent Agenda: City Manager recommends approval.
A. FUNDING SUBSIDIES/DELRAY BEACH RENAISSANCE PROGRAM: Approve
and authorize issuance of two funding subsidies for eligible
applicants in the amounts of $16,164.35 (Lot 7, Block 10, Town
of Delray) and $14,809.95 (119 N.W. 6th Avenue), for a total
expenditure of $30,974.30 under the Delray Beach Renaissance
Program ($21,522.90 from HOME Account %118-1923-554-83.01, and
$9,451.40 from SHIP Account %118-1924-554-83.01).
B. CONTRACT CANCELLATION/SNACK MACHINE VENDING SERVICE: Approve
the cancellation of the snack machine vending service contract
with DiLoreto & Sons, and authorize staff to bid the service.
C. SETTLEMENT OFFER/SEAN DERUISE V. OFFICER M. LaFLEUR: Reject a
settlement offer in the referenced matter and authorize a
counter offer of judgment as recommended by the City Attorney.
D. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept
the actions and decisions made by the Site Plan Review and
Appearance Board during the period May 19 through May 30, 1997.
E. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Bid award via the Florida Sheriffs Association cooperative
bid to Don Reid Ford, Inc. in the amount of $22,596.00 for
a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria pursuit vehicle for the Police
Regular Commission Meeting
June 3, 1997
Department (replacement vehicle), with funding from
501-3312-591-64.20.
9. Regular Agenda:
A. REPLACEMENT WALL ALONG LAKE IDA ROAD: Consider a request from
the Lake Ida Property Owners Association for City assistance in
replacing the concrete fence along Lake Ida Road with a wall.
B. ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR BOSTON MARKET/EINSTEIN BROS.
BAGELS: Consider approval of the architectural elevations for
Boston Market/Einstein Bros. Bagels (formerly Wag's and
Sparticus restaurants), located in the Old Harbor Plaza
shopping center at the northeast corner of South Federal
Highway and Linton Boulevard.
10. Public Hearings:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 22-97: An ordinance rezoning a 1.415 acre parcel
of land from A (Agricultural) to RM (Medium Density Residen-
tial) District for Fine Construction Co. The subject property
is located on the north side of Old Germantown Road, east of
the Spanish Wells condominium development. QUASI-JUDICIAL
HEARING
B. REQUEST FOR SIGN CODE WAIVER/SHELL OIL COMPANY: Consider a
request for a waiver of LDR Section 4.6.7(E) (7) governing flat
wall signs to exceed the maximum size allowed, and to allow a
proposed free standing sign to exceed the height limitation for
the Shell Oil Company located at the southeast corner of West
Atlantic and Congress Avenues.
C. ORDINANCE NO. 21-97: (CONTINUATION OF SECOND READING/SECOND
PUBLIC HEARING) An ordinance amending Section 4.4.9, "General
Commercial (GC) District", Section 4.4.13, "Central Business
(CBD) District", Section 4.4.20, "Industrial (I) District",
Section 4.4.21, "Community Facilities (CF) District", Section
4.4.26, "Light Industrial (LI) District", Section 4.4.27, "Open
Space and Recreation (OSR) District", Section 4.3.3, "Special
Requirements for Specific Uses", and Appendix A, "Definitions",
of the Land Development Regulations to provide for the
regulation of telecommunication towers and antennas.
11. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public-
Immediately following Public Hearings.
A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries.
B. From the Public.
12. First Readings:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 24-97: An ordinance rezoning a parcel of land
known as the Colombi Property from POD (Professional Office
District) and RM (Medium Density Residential District) to NC
-3-
Regular Commission Meeting
June 3, 1997
(Neighborhood Commercial) District. The subject property is
located at the northeast corner of South Federal Highway and
LaMat Avenue. If passed, a quasi-judicial public hearing will
be scheduled for June 17, 1997.
B. ORDINANCE NO. 25-97: An ordinance changing the Future Land Use
Map designation (small scale amendment) from Commerce to
General Commercial, and rezoning from MIC (Mixed Industrial and
Commercial) to GC (General Commercial) District for the Country
and Western Bar of Delray Beach, to be located at the northwest
corner of Atlantic Avenue and the CSX Railroad, immediately
west of 1-95. If passed, a quasi-judicial public hearing will
be scheduled for June 17, 1997.
13. Co~ents and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items.
A. City Manager
B. City Attorney
C. City Commission
-4-
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 3, 1997 - 6:00 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
AGENDA ADDENDUM
THE CONSENT AGENDA IS AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING:
F. MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AND AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT WITH PALM
BEACH COUNTY FIRE RESCUE: Approve an Emergency Services
Agreement for Mutual Assistance and Automatic Aid between
Palm Beach County and the City of Delray Beach.
ref:ADDENDUM
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER~'~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~ - MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997
FUNDING SUBSIDIES/DELRAY BEACH RENAISSANCE PROGRAM
DATE: MAY 30, 1997
This is before the Commission to approve funding subsidies for
two eligible applicants under the Delray Beach Renaissance
Program which focuses on very low, low, and moderate income
persons. The Renaissance Program Memorandum of Understanding was
approved by the Commission on January 23, 1996.
In partnership with the TED Center, the Community Redevelopment
Agency, the Community Financing Consortium, Inc., the Federal
Home Loan Bank of Atlanta and the Delray Beach Housing Authority,
the City is committed to providing home ownership opportunities
to 80 home buyers through new construction and acquisition/
rehabilitation beginning October 1, 1995 through September 30,
1997.
The two applicants are Carla Williams, for vacant property
located on N.W. 6th Avenue in the amount of $16,164o35; and
Elnora Brewton-Clark for property at 119 N.W. 6th Avenue in the
amount of $14,809.95.
Recommend approval to fund subsidies for two applicants in the
total amount of $30,974.30 under the Delray Beach Renaissance
Program ($21,522.90 from HOME Account #118-1923-554-83.01, and
$9,451.40 from SHIP Account #118-1924-554-83.01).
Agenda Item No:
AGENDA REQUEST
Date: May 27, 1997 When: June 3. 1997
Request to be placed on:
~ Regular ~ Special ~ Workshop XX Consent
Description of Agenda Item: Authorization and approval to issue subsidy to an eligible applicant
under the Delray Beach Renaissance Program totaling $16,164.35
ORDINANCE / RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Drat't Attached: YES/NO
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of subsidy award. Funds are to be awarded from
HOME Investment Partnership Program and State Housing Initaitives Partnership Program
(SHIP) dollars.
HOME total $11,232.90 Account # 118-1923-554-83.01
SHIP total $ 4,931.45 Account # 118-1924-554-83.01
Department Head Signature:
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
Budget Director Review (required on all invo¥1ing expenditure of funds):
Funding Available: ~No ~~l'2J'1%0
Funding Alternatives: (if applicable)
Account # & Description:
Account Balance:
City Manager Review:
Approved for Agenda: ~/No ~fP~1
Hold Until:
Agenda Coor~linator Review:
Recieved:
Action: Approved / Disapproved
agenform.wpd
Agenda Item No:
AGENDA REQUEST
Date: May 27, 1997 When: June 3, 1997
Request to be placed on:
~ Regular ~ Special ~ Workshop XX Consent
Description of Agenda Item: Authorization and approval to issue subsidy to an eligible applicant
under the Delray Beach Renaissance Program totaling $14,8-39.05
ORDINANCE / RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of subsidy award. Funds are to be awarded from
HOME Investment Partnership Program and State Housing Initaitives Partnership Program
(SHIP) dollars.
HOME total $10,290.00 Account # 118-1923-554-83.01
SHIP total $ 4,519.95 Account # 118-1924-554-83.01
Department Head Signature:
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
Budeet Director Review (required on all in. vg,~l~g expenditure of funds): - Funding Available:~o~t~9-~')~ vt"~
Funding Alternatives: (if applicable)
Account # & Description:
Account Balance:
City Manager Review:
Approved for Agenda: ~ / No ~j,~2v/l
Hold Until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Recieved:
Action: Approved / Disapproved
agenform.wpd
Memorandum
To: David Harden, City Manager
Thru: Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director
From: Michael Simon, Acting Community Development Coordinator
Bate: May 27, 1997
Subject: Delray Beach Renaissance Program Subsidy Recipient
ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
City Commission authorization and approval to issue subsidy to one eligible applicant under the
Delray Beach Renaissance Program.
BACKGROUND:
The Delray Beach Renaissance Program Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the City
Commission on January 23, 1996. In partnership with the Delray Beach Community Development
Corporation, The TED Center, the Community Redevelopment Agency, the Community Financing
Consortium, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta and the Delray Beach Housing Authority, we
are committed to providing homeownership opportunities to 80 homebuyers through new
construction and acquisition/rehab beginning October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1997. The
Renaissance Program focuses on very low, low and moderate income persons in Delray Beach.
Each potential homebuyer is required to attend a homebuyers seminar sponsored by the Community
Financing Consortium, Inc., the Renaissance Programs partner and first mortgage lender. The seminar
includes training and information on financial planning, credit and borrowing, budgeting, fair housing
issues, mortgage and closing costs and a comprehensive glossary of real estate terms.
The Grant is secured by a Promissory Note/Second Mortgage approved by the City Attorney and
requires the applicant to maintain ownership/residence for a specified period according to the amount
of the Grant. Grant amounts less than $15,000 per unit, are forgiven at a rate of 20% per year for
a period of 5 years and Grant amounts equal to or greater than $15,000 but less $40,000 per unit, are
forgiven at a rate of 10% per year for 10 years.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff.is recommending City Commission approval to fund subsidy for the eligible applicant of the
following property: Lot 7, Block 10, Town o£Delray / $16,164.35
u\comagead
DELRAY BEACH RENAISSANCE PROGRAM
SUBSIDY REQUEST BREAKDOWN
NEW CONSTRUCTION XX CENSUS TRACT 67
NAME Carla Williams
RPERTY ADDRESS XXX N.W. 6th Avenue, Delray Beach
LEGAL DESCRPTION Lot 7, Block 10 Town of Delray
Plat Book 1, Page 3
% OF AREA MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 57 # IN HOUSEHOLD 1
COST OF HOUSE $63~097 COST OF LOT $8,500 CLOSING COSTS $4,857.35
TOTAL TRANSACTION $76,454.35
PROJECT/SUBSIDY BREAKDOWN
FIRST MORTGAGE $ 52,000.00 CFC Bank
RATE 8.25 %
LTV 72.62%
SECOND MORTGAGE $ 11,232,90 City of Delray. HOME
$ 4,931.45 City of Delray, SHIP
$. CRA of Delray
$. Housing Authority
THIRD MORTGAGE $ 3,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank
GRANT $. HTF "A"
CITY PERMIT FEES WAVIED $ 953,00
APPLICANT FUNDS
Pre-paids $ 305.00
Escrowed $ 500.00
Paid at closing $3~532.00
TOTAL TRANSACTION $76,454.35 subreqst.wpd
Ir * 2~ ~ I0 ~ 7 17 22
N W -~ RD '
Memorandum
To: ' David Harden, City Manager
Thru: Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director ~)
From: Michael Simon, Acting Community Development Coordinator
Date: May 27, 1997
Subject: Delray Beach Renaissance Program Subsidy Recipient
ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
City Commission authorization and approval to issue subsidy to one eligible applicant under the
Delray Beach Renaissance Program.
BACKGROUND:
The Delray Beach Renaissance Program Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the City
Commission on January 23, 1996. In partnership with the Delray Beach Community Development
Corporation, The TED Center, the Community Redevelopment Agency, the Community Financing
Consortium, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta and the Delray Beach Housing Authority, we
are committed to providing homeownership opportunities to 80 homebuyers through new
construction and acquisition/rehab beginning October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1997. The
Renaissance Program focuses on very low, low and moderate income persons in Delray Beach.
Each potential homebuyer is required to attend a homebuyers seminar sponsored by the Community
Financing Consortimn, Inc., the Renaissance Programs partner and fn-st mortgage lender. The seminar
includes training and information on financial planning, credit and borrowing, budgeting, fair housing
issues, mortgage and closing costs and a comprehensive glossary of real estate terms.
The Grant is secured by a Promissory Note/Second Mortgage approved by the City Attorney and
requires the applicant to maintain ownership/residence for a specified period according to the amount
of the Grant. Grant amounts less than $15,000 per unit, are forgiven at a rate of 20% per year for
a period of 5 years and Grant amounts equal to or greater than $15,000 but less $40,000 per unit, are
forgiven at a rate of 10% per year for 10 years.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffis recommending City Commission approval to fund subsidy for the eligible applicant of the
following property: Lot 26, Block 19, Town ofDelray / $14,809.95
u~:omagend
DELRAY BEACH RENAISSANCE PROGRAM
SUBSIDY REQUEST BREAKDOWN
NEW CONSTRUCTION XX CENSUS TRACT 67
NAME Elnora Brewt0n-Clark
PROPERTY ADDRESS 119 N.W. 6th Avenue, Delray Beach
LEGAL DESCRPTION Lot 26 Block 19 Town of Delray
Plat Book 1. Page 3
% OF AREA MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 61 # IN HOUSEHOLD 6
COST OF HOUSE $74,250 COST OF LOT $9,000 CLOSING COSTS $5,614.95
TOTAL TRANSACTION $ 88,864.95
PROJECT/SUBSIDY BREAKDOWN
FIRST MORTGAGE $ 67,000.00 CFC Bank
RATE 8,00 %
LTV 79,76 %
SECOND MORTGAGE $ 10.290,00 City of Delray. HOME
$ 4,519.95 City of Delray. SHIP
$ CRA of D¢lray
$. Housing Authority
THIRD MORTGAGE $ 3,000,00 Federal Home Loan Bank
GRANT $ HTF "A"
CITY PERMIT FEES WAVIED $ 1,092.00
APPLICANT FUNDS
Pre-paids $ 305.00
Escrowed $ 500.00
Paid at closing $2,158.00
TOTAL TRANSACTION $88,864,95 sub~eq~t.wpa
1
8-~ -_ ';- f~ f"$ - ~ - -- z5 ~ ~, _
_ ~ -- . ==.. ~, 8_8 z__6 o ~ z._6 _.5
_9 Z 1_~_8 ~, _3 2_4 21 '- f~ 1_9
9.1 b :(~-9-Lli~ lO ~ 2 3 ~ '- ,
-.' ,,,- 4 - I ~1_, ,~ L6 I_L
-- ,- -
fi 4_ 2_9 ~ ~
7 ~' ~o _2_} .... 8 ~ 6 21~ 2 1__2 [7 :: ._8 .'-
, L_5 ,' L_o ~ 2___z 2_ Z 2__o
14 ,f 2_.~ '.6_6_ 8_ 1_9
- L_9 ~ 2~4 _~__
IF ~ 2_~. ~_ I0
:7 o ;~ 2,'5 _,.!_
_ ~ -_ 2__7 ~, j_ ' ~I_2 I~ ~d 1_5 ~ --S -- -- -
N W ' 3 eD '"-
I
, 'Z,~ '"' ~' "~'"~ '" '-' "5_.'~ "k '~ " ~ 15'"' '"' '~' o I"'- '"~
- ~' ~ ~ ,, ~/l :'-- ' ~'~ '~' ~ '
~ · ~ -- ¢o,~,S · ,:., ,-.. .~ -- -- __ .. 14, -
7 ~ 20 7 17
~ 2,0 le I ._J ,__ " '
-- ,~$ " ~' '~ I I.'2~.~
. ~ ~ ~ --~
_ .~.,-- ~ ---. --~-, . __
:-i I I ~ ~ ,o,,,.
Ii ,,,13 19:4 il .,- ~ 7 6 16 ~; ~ 12. II
--""-- "=' - ' ' , - - -- -- $ II :3117i~, .,
2~ S1-
ND -_ '~ '--- ~'-- ' i'
· - i,~f_ ~ ~o ,,-. .o,. ~ '*° , f$ ,, ~ , 8, ,.
' :I/~. 9 '~ %,1:'~. '-Y I ' ~ 7
; -- , v' · -- -- -
~ II ~ "~" ? -- - --
' "' -- - '
· 9.1 ~' 8
' ' - I { 9,2 ~ t_~ ; --
-- ~ ,~ --, _
.. II 2 I4 ~ ~ ~,l 9_ ~ 14 ~ ,t -- II ' --.
_ _ -/ ..,,.,.
' f.3 ~ ; f9 !
-- -- 13,2 ..
il - "
....
, IZ fo' : ~ ~" I~ < ~ "' ~. -
.,,-~: ,, t_5 _..7 ,.~
IZ _L _,3__ 6,._fL -"&~.~ Id
~,t W( ,' ST ~.'
i F -"
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Harden, City Manager
FROM: Jacklyn Ro~hasing Supervisor ~
THROUGH: Joseph Saffor.~nce Director
DATE: May 27, 1997
SUBJECT: DOCUMENTATION - CITY COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 03, 1997 - CONTRACT CANCELLATION
SNACK MACHINE VENDING SERVICE
Item Before Commission:
The City Commission is requested to approve the cancellation of the snack
machine vending service with DiLoreto & Sons, and recommend re-bidding of
this service.
Background:
In the past month, Purchasing has received several inquires from vendors in
reference to our snack machine vending service contract with DiLoreto &
Sons, and stating concerns in reference to an inconsistent policy for
awarding the vending service contracts and not providing other vendors the
opportunity to bid on this service. See attached letter from American
Vista Vending.
DiLoreto & Sons is the current vendor who has the agreement with the City.
This agreement was signed December 02, 1988. The term of the agreement is
indefinite with no expiration date. See attached Agreement page 3, #4
"Term of Contract", "This Contract shall be for an indefinite term, subject
to cancellation as set forth in paragraph 3 above".
Also note #3, "Cancellation", "The Vendor and the City reserve the right
to cancel this Contract, without cause, upon 30 day written notice;
provided that this Contract may be cancelled for cause immediately".
Recommendation:
Purchasing staff is recommending that we advise DiLoreto & Sons that their
agreement shall terminate in ninety (90) days and will be bidding out this
service to insure competitive pricing and competition for other vending
service contractors.
Attachments:
Letter From American Vista Vending
Vending Service Agreement Dated December 02, 1988
Agenda Item No.: ~
AGENDA REQUEST
Date: ~ay 27, 1997
Request to be placed on:,
Consent
XX R~-u-~r Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda
When: June 03~ ]997 .
Description of agenda item (who, what, where~ how much):
Contract cancellation with DiLoreto & Sons for the snack machine vending
service and re-b'id this service.
ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO
Recommendation: Cancellation of contract with DiLoreto & Sons and re-bid
this service for snack vending machines.
Department Head Signature: ~~-~~~
_
\
D . - n f Cons s-e c '
euerminatio o i t n y wi~/C~mprenensive Plan:
City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable):
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure
of funds):
Funding available: YES/ NO
Funding alternatives: (if applicable)
Account No. & Description:
Account Balance:
City Manager Review:
Approved for agenda.: ~/ NO ~-~/~,"1
Hold Until:~
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Action: Approved/Disapproved
April 7, 1997
Mayor Jay Alprin
City of Dekay Beach
100 NW 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, F1 33444
Dear Mr. Mayor:
As a result of our recent inquiry regarding the procedure for subwfitting a proposal
provide snack vending services to thc City of Delray Beach, it came to mx attemion that
'~),~ther~.is~m inconsistent policy for awarding vending serx4ces contracts.
I have learned that the soda vending services contract is put up tbr bid periodically and all
qualified soda vending SelMce providers can participate in that fab' and equal bid process.
In contrast, the snack vending services contract never comes up for bid but is under an
"automatic renewal" arrangement with the same vendor which has been in effect since
1988. It appears that no other snack vending services provider has been afforded the
opportunity to bid or compete for the snack vending serx4ces contract in over nine vears.
.as one of Palm Beach County's premier full-line vending services provider, American
Vista Vending is currently serving a wide range of clients varying in size and needs such as
Palm Beach Community College (all four campuses and over 17.000 student population),
Town of Jupiter, Coca Cola Bottling Company (Riviera Beach distribution complex).
North Palm Beach County Club and, one of Delray Beach's newest residents, ABC
Carpet and Furnishings Outlet to name a few. We would welcome the oppormni~' to
provide the CiB~' of Delray Beach, too, with our unique combination of state-of-the-art
vending equipment, fresh, high-quail .ty name-brand products and unsurpassed personalized
route service.
~.We respocffully request that you review your "automatic renewal" snack vending servSces
contract and advise us of the procedure l~y which we can vie to become your snack
vending services provider. Thank you for your time and attention and I look tbrward to
speaking or meeting with you soon to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
J.~Keleher
Vice President
cc: Mr. Ken Ellingsworth, City Commissioner
Ms. Jackie Rooney., Director of Purchasing
P.O. Box 7024 · Jupiter, FL 33468 · i407) 74~:8275 · I~ax i407) 744-9167
VENDING SERVICE SALES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this~day of .~--~. ,
1988, by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a Florida
municipal corporation, of 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach,
Florida 33444, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and
ALL BRANDS VENDING COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, of
914 Fern Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, hereinafter
referred to as the "Vendor".
1. Vendi~ Service:
a. The Vendor agrees to install the following
vending equipment at the following locations:
City Hall ...................... 100 N.W. 1st Avenue
(1) Showcase with Dollar Acceptor (now there)
(1) FM-72 Cold Food Vendor
Fire Station ~1... .... . .......... 101 W. Atlantic Ave
(1) AP-272 Combo Vendor
Police Department .............. 300 W. Atlantic Ave (1) Showcase with Dollar Acceptor
(1) FM-72 Cold Food Vendor
PurchasinK
Public Works
Parks Depts .................... 434 S. Swinton Ave
(1) Showcase with Dollar Acceptor
(1) FM-72 Cold Food Vendor
(1) Condiment Stand
(1) Microwave Oven
Civic Center ................... 50 N.W. 1st Avenue
(1) Showcase with Dollar Acceptor
Pom_p_~ Park .................... 1101 N.W. 2nd St.
(1) Showcase with Dollar Acceptor
Adult Center ................... 802 N.E. 1st St.
(1) AP-164 Candy Machine
(1) AP-364 Snack/Pastry Machine
NOTE: DURING THE CONTRACT, EQUIPMENT MAY BE ADDED OR DELETED
FROM THIS LIST DEPENDING ON NEED.
Page 2
b. The Vendor agrees to provide the following
products to the City, subject to the conditions
contained in this Contract, according to the
following schedule:
SellinR Commission
Product Price to City
Candy & Crackers .50 11%
Pastries .55 11%
Cold Food °45 - $1.50 11%
Chips & bagged snacks .45 11%
Juices (12 oz.) .65 11%
Gum & mints .40 11%
c. Vendor will provide dollar bill changers at no
charge to the City. Vendor shall supply the
dollar bill changers with change as required.
d. Each commission percentage rate quoted shall be
reduced by an applicable sales tax percentage
rate, and the resultant net commission
percentage rate thus determined shall then be
applied to the gross sales volume of the item
vended to determine the commission dollar
payment due. An increase or decrease in any
applicable sales tax percentage rate will thus
automatically and directly affect the net
commission's percentage rate and the dollar
commission payment.
e. All food prices during the period of this
Contract shall be subject to adjustment
quarterly based on price increases by Vendor's
suppliers. Vendor shall notify City of increase
and Vendor shall determine adjustment in
prices.
Page 3
2. Exclusivity: The City shall not, while the Vendor's
service is installed at City facilities, permit any
other person, firm, or corporation to install
vending machines selling the same type of
merchandise sold through the Vendor's equipment.
3. Cancellation: The Vendor and the City reserve the
right to cancel this Contract, without cause, upon
30-days written notice; provided that this Contract
may be cancelled for cause immediately.
Nonperformance, unsatisfactory performance, and lack
of budget shall be considered grounds for immediate
cancellation.
/4. Term of Contract: This Contract shall be for an
indefinite term, sub3ect to cancellation as set
forth in paragraph 3 above.
5. Licenses: The Vendor will obtain, at his expense,
all required federal, state, and local licenses
necessary for rendering service at City facilities.
6. Product Refunds: Any food products provided by the
Vendor and any short changes which result in
consumer complaint shall be resolved by immediate
refund by the Vendor in a manner that is mutually
agreed upon between the Vendor and the City.
7. Disposal of Surplus and Waste: Any surplus, waste,
spoiled beverages, and spoiled food products must be
removed by the Vendor from the location at which the
vending machine is located, with credit issued for
any products paid for by the City.
8. Vendin~ Machine Installation, Maintenance, Supply,
Repair~ and Removal:
a. As the vending machines are the sole and
exclusive property of the Vendor, the Vendor
shall be solely responsible for all vending
machine installation, maintenance, repair, and
removal.
b. The Vendor shall, at no cost to the City,
install, maintain, repair, and remove all
vending machines covered by this Contract.
Page
c. Vending machines shall be supplied with fresh
merchandise, suitable and acceptable to the
City, by fully insured and bonded service
personnel.
d. The Vendor shall operate vending machines in
accordance with all applicable laws,
ordinances, regulations, and rules of federal,
state, and local authorities, and the standards
of cleanliness, safety, and health as
established by the City.
e. The Vendor shall provide repair service from
6:00 pm to 10:00 pm on all days. Satisfactory
repairs must be completed no later than one day
after service is requested by telephone.
Utilities, Service, and Location:
a. The City shall provide electric current and
electrical outlets for all vending machines
installed by the vendor pursuant to its
proposal.
b. The City shall maintain the area of
location in a clean condition, and shall
provide extermination and 3anitorial services
to the area.
c. The City shall provide such space, at City
Hall, Fire Station #1, Police Department,
Public Works Building (to cover Purchasing,
Public Works, & Parks Dept.), Civic Center,
Pompey Park, and the Adult Center.
Page
10. Insurance: The Vendor shall maintain insurance
coverage, including product liability, public
liability, and property damage, in accordance with
the attached sample Certificate of Insurance during
the term of this agreement.
11. Reporting Requirement: For each month that this
agreement is in effect, the Vendor shall provide to
the Finance Director of the City a breakdown of
total income on a machine-by-machine basis. The
City's commission shall also be paid on a monthly
basis.
12. Personnel: Vendor shall provide the City Police
Department with names, addresses, social numbers,
and driver's license numbers of all personnel
assigned to work under this Contract. Vendor's
personnel will be sub3ect to personal background
checks before reporting to work.
13. Hold Harmless and Indemnification: Vendor agrees
to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Delray
Beach, its officers, employees, and agents from and
against all loss, costs, expenses, including
attorneys' fees, claims, suits, and 3udgments,
whatsoever in connection with in3ury to or death of
any person or persons or loss of or damage to
property resulting from any and all operations
performed by the Contractor, its officers,
employee, and agents under any of the terms of this
Contract.
14. Amendment: This agreement constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties, and may not be
amended unless such amendment is in writing and
signed by both parties to this agreement.
IN WITNESS whereof, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first
above written.
CITY~
By.
Doak Cambell~, Mayor
ALL B~NDS VENDING COMPANY, INC.
By
1 g
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLA.
Efzabeth ~rnau, City Clerk
~ C£RTIF~C~TE ~ ~SUEO AS A MAT~ER OF .~"~AT~ O~Y ~NO CONr~S
~ ~- ~a~ & ~. NO RIGHTS UP~ THE CERTIFICATE H~DER. T~ ~T~ ~ES NOT
2953 U.S. 19 ~
S~ 300 COMPANIES AFFOSDING COVERAG5
Cl~ater, ~ 34621
_~ 3~=~=' B Ae~ ~s~lty & S~ety C~y
P_O. ~x 260879
- O~S OF SUC~
EXCESS LIABILITYI~-:~ i
~o~s c*U~E.S~.,o. B~r 09 11223 88215 7/9/88 7/9/89 ' 100 ,~::-
2ESC~r~T~ON 0c O~Ea~T~ONS~L~CAT~ON, S/vEH~CLES:REST~iCT~ONSiS~[CIAL ITEMS
~: Ve~ng ~i~
C~-lz-~ Of [])elz'-c~]~,, ~,c~c}] SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX-
434 $. S~-~n Ave_qua PiRATION DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ~
~l~ay ~cn, ~ 33444 MAIL 30 DAYS WR~T[N NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE
LEFT.
[IT¥ DF I)ELRflV BEIIgH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
TELEPHONE 407/243-7523 · F~CSIMILE 407/243-7816
POLICE LEGAL ADVISOR
Ali. America City
MEMORANDUM
1993
TO: City Commission
FROM: Eric D. Hightower, Police Legal Advisor
DATE: May 28, 1997
SUBJECT: Sean Demise v. Officer Michael LaFleur
This case arises out of an incident that occurred at the corner of S.W. 12th Ave.
and West Atlantic Ave. on October 23, 1996. The plaintiff has sued the above-
named officer for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This case has
been scheduled for trial for the two-week period beginning April 13, 1998.
Our office has received an offer to settle this case in the amount of $25,000.00
(which includes all attorney's fees and costs). ,At this time only written discovery
has taken place in the instant litigation.
It is recommended that the present offer be rejected by the Commission and a
offer of judgment be approved by the Commission in the amount of $2,000.00 to
the plaintiff covering all attorneys fees, costs, damages, and any potential claims
that may be filed against the City.
By copy of this memorandum to City Manager David Harden, our office requests
that this matter be placed on the City Commission's June 3, 1997, agenda for
consideration.
Please call if you have any questions.
EDH:Ibg ~-~(
c: David Harden, City Manager
Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk
STEVEN' W. GOMBERG
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW CRIMINAL DEFENSE
FALSE ARREST
1610 SOUTHERN BLVD. POLICE BRUTALITY
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406
(561) 471- 81OO CIVIL LITIGATION
Fax (561) 697 - 8317
April 9, 1997 .
~.,~ ,-~ ... _
Eric Hightower, Esq.
Delray Beach City Attorney's Office
200 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Re: Sean Demise
Dear Eric:
I have received and reviewed the Internal Affaks investigation by the City concerning
the arrest of Sean Demise by Officer Michael LaFleur which is the subject of the pending
lawsuit between the parties. [ assume, based on the results of that investigation, the City will
not be seriously contesting liability to my client in regards to his detention. In fact, I have
had previous experience in introducing Internal Affairs conclusions as admissions against
interest so I do not believe that the City is going to be in much of a position to defend the
liability aspects of the case.
With all that in mind, I wanted to tell you a little bit about my client. Sean is twenty
two (22) years of age. He works at All House. calls Cleaning Service where he is a "sub-
contractor". He works full-time cleaning homes at $10.00 per hour and has worked for the
same company for three (3) years. His boss is Michael Tepsic who will vouch for his
reliability.
Sean was born in New Orleans and has lived here off and on for seven (7) years. His
mother and father are divorced and his mother lives in Delray Beach. He most recendy
arrived here after an unfortunate incident in New Orleans where he was the victim of a
random drive-by shooting which resulted in a gun shot wound to his head. He had hoped to
come to Palm Beach County in order to f'mish high school but, due to his injury, found
himself unable to do so. He completed the eleventh grade at Atlantic High School and then
dropped out. He currently resides with his girlfriend, Yolanda Robeson with whom he has a
three (3) year old child that he helps support. He also lends f'mancial support and acts as a
father to another child of Ms. Robeson's, a six year old boy.
Se. an indicates to me that he had one arrest as a juvenile which involved a fight at
school which was resolved through the J.A.S.P. program. He had one adult arrest in
approximately 1995 for contempt of court in reference to a child support obligation which
resulted in a brief incarceration at the county jail. Other than those incidents, he has no
criminal record.
Page: 2
Date: April 9, 1997
Letter to: Eric Hightower, Esq.
Re: Sean Deruise
On the night in question, Sean indicates that he was on the way to the Delray Beach
Shooting Center for the purpose of target shooting. He indicates that he often goes to that
particular location with a friend and, on this night, on the way to the Center he and the
individual accompanying him changed their minds and decided to go to another friend's house
in order watch the football game that Sunday night. It was at that time that they were stopped
by the Delray Beach Police for what was claimed to be a failed tail light.
Although, as I write this letter, I have not completed reviewed your client's statement
to the Internal Affairs investigators, I get the sense that Officer LaFleur would deny that my
client informed him of the presence of weapons in the vehicle. My client indicates that he
did, in fact, advise the officers of that fact even though he is under no legal obligation to do
so. More importantly, when you talk to Sean, you realize that he is quite knowledgeable as to
the legal restrictions rekated to the carrying of firearms. He does have a permit to own
weapons' although he does not possess a concealed weapons permit. He is well aware of the
need to keep a weapon in a vehicle securely encased under the law and was fully aware that
keeping it in a closed glove box complies with the Statute. He indicates to me that he
attempted to tell this to the officers on several occasions without success.
Because his arrest took place in daylight, and was fairly close to the home he was
headed for, apparently people saw him being detained and news of his arrest quickly swept
among his acquaintances. He appears to be quite embarrassed by these circumstances and,
more importantly, was really frustrated with his inability to get the police officers to listen to
him since he knew he was not guilty of a crime. He estimates his detention at being over an
hour and I am unaware as to whether the City has kept an accurate record which would
dispute that estimate.
Based on the foregoing, at this point in time, we would be willing settle Seam's claim
for damages as well as his claim for attorney's fees for $25,000.00
Sincerely,
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: AC~.NDA ITEM # ~' D' - M~.~.TINC OF ~. 3, 1997
REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS
DATE: MAY 30, 1997
Attached is the Report of Appealable Land Use Items for the
period May 19 through May 30, 1997. It informs the Commission of
the various land use actions taken by the designated boards which
may be appealed by the City Commission.
Recommend review of appealable actions for the period stated;
receive and file the report as appropriate.
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
REPORT OF APPEALABLE LAND USE ITEMS
MAY 19, 1997 THRU MAY 30, 1997
The action requested of the City Commission is that of review of appealable
actions which were made by various Boards during the period of May 19,
1997 through May 30, 1997.
This is the method of informing the City Commission of land use actions,
taken by designated Boards, which may be appealed by the City
Commission. After this meeting, the appeal period shall expire (unless the 10
day minimum has not occurred).
Section 2.4.7(E) 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:
1. The item must be raised by a City Commission member.
2. By motion, an action must be taken to place the item on the next meeting
of the Commission as an appealed item.
City Commission Documentation
Appealable Items Meeting of June 3, 1997
Page 2
There were no appealable items considered by the Board. The following
items which were considered by the Board will be forwarded to the City
Commission for final action.
· Approved on a 6 to 0 vote the preliminary plat and certified the final
plat for Favale Estate, a four lot residential subdivision, located at the
southwest corner of Spanish Trail and Avenue "L".
· Recommended approval (7 to 0), of the rezoning from POD
(Professional Office District) and RM (Medium Density Residential) to
NC (Neighborhood Commercial) for Lots 1-14 and 24-27 Block 25,
Del-Raton Park and recommended denial (6 to 1, Carbone
dissenting), of the rezoning from RM to NC for Lots 15 thru 23 Block
25, Del-Raton Park for the Colombi Property located at the northeast
corner of South Federal Highway and La Mat Avenue
· Recommended approval (6 to 0, McCarthy abstained), of the
abandonment of a portion of N.W. Sth Avenue, lying between N.W.
7th Street and Gardenia Terrace.
· Recommended approval (7 to 0), of the abandonment of the
alleyway lying on the north side of Avenue "G", 183 feet east of South
Federal Highway, for Fronrath Sales, Rental and Leasing
development.
· Recommended denial (7 to 0), of the Future Land Use Map
amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and rezoning
from MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial) to GC (General
Commercial) for the Country and Western Bar of Delray Beach,
located at the northwest corner of West Atlantic Avenue and the C.S.
X. Railroad.
Other Items:
· The final plat for Coral Trace and the abandonment of a portion
of Davis Road which were acted upon by the Board were
approved by the City Commission at its meeting of May 20, 1997.
City Commission Documentation
Appealable Items Meeting of June 3, 1997
Page 3
A. Approved on a 7 to 0 vote, the master sign program and the
elevation changes to remodel the exterior facade of the Lake Ida
Shopping Center, located at the southwest corner of Lake Ida
Road and Congress Avenue.
B. Granted (7 to 0), an eighteen month extension of the site plan
approval for Noland Plumbing, located at the southeast corner of
Congress Avenue and Dr. Carol Krol Way.
No Regular Meeting of the Board was held during this period.
By motion, receive and file this report.
Attachment: Location Map
LOCATION MAP FOR G, LF S~,EA,, BL~.
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
OF JUNE 5, 1997
L-30 CANAL
LAKE IDA ROAD
N.W. 2ND
S.W. 2NE
.r
LOWSON BOULEVARD
LINTON BOULEVARD
i BOULEVARD
i,- .... !
!
L-38 CANAL C-15 CANAL
c,~ L,M,~'s ........... S.P.R.A.B.'
A. - LAKE IDA PLAZA
B. - NOLAND FACILITY
MILE
SCALE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ~YOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: ~/CITY MANAGER
AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS
DATE: MAY 30, 1997
This is before the Commission to approve the award of the follow-
ing bid:
1. Bid award via the Florida Sheriffs Association cooperative
bid to Don Reid Ford, Inc. in the amount of $22,596.00 for a
1997 Ford Crown Victoria pursuit vehicle for the Police
Department (replacement vehicle), with funding from
501-3312-591-64.20.
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ~ROBERT A. BARCINSKI, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~ - REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997
BID AWARD - POLICE PURSUIT VEHICLE
DATE: MAY 30, 1997
ACTION:
The City Commission is requested to approve a bid award under the
Florida Sheriffs Association cooperative bid to Don Reid Ford, Inc.
in the amount of $22,596.00 for a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria Police
pursuit vehicle. Funding is available in Account 501-3312-591-64.20.
BACKGROUND:
Police pursuit vehicle #1210 is a 1992 Ford Crown Victoria. This
vehicle is scheduled for replacement next fiscal year. However, it
has over 105,000 miles and is in need of a transmission replacement.
Life cycle costs to date for this vehicle are high. Staff thinks
that it is more economical to replace this vehicle at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the purchase of a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria pursuit
vehicle from Don Reid Ford, Inc. in the amount of $22,596.00
utilizing the Florida Sheriffs Association cooperative bid. Funding
is available in Account 501-3312-591-64.20.
RAB/amh
Attachments
cc: Hoyt Owens, Deputy Director of Public Works
Richard G. Overman, Police Chief
ref:agmemol5
MEMORANDUM
~: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
F .R. OM: Hovt Owens, Deputy Director of Public Works
DATE: May 27, 1997
SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT/PATROL DIVISION
VEHICLE #1210
REPLACEMENT COSTS
As per your request, documentation on the replacement costs for the above described
vehicle is attached for your perusal: ,:-' I.-'-
Proposal: Don Reid Ford, Maitland, Florida
One (1) 1997 Ford Crown Victoria pursuit vehicle
(available as of 11:45 a.m. 5/27/97) $22,596.00
NOTE: Vekicle does not have reinforced roof and
is not keyed alike.
Flor/da Sheriffs Association Contract #96-04-0918 Spec 01
Administrative Costs 50.00
Delivery Price $22,646.00
Vehicle is available for immediate delivery.
Please advise upon approval, whereby, purchase order will be executed via Jackie
Rooney.
If you have any questions, please call.
HO/sdl
Attachments
c: Police ChiefPdchard G. Overman, w/attachment
David Junghans, Police Administrative Officer, w/attachment
Richard Sande!l, Superintendent Fleet Maintenance, w/attachment
May-27-97 11:45A DON REID FORD 407 647 4779 P.01
DATE _5/23/97
To CITY OF DELKAY BEACH AtTenTion ~' I{OYT OWENS
Addrcs.~ City and Slate ....
Quantity Description Price
1997 ?ORD CROWN VICTORIA ?OL£CE SEDAN $19,139.00
4.6 LTR V-8 ENGINE
FULL POLICE PKG
AUTO,MA/lC OVERDRIVE TRANSMISSION
POWER STEERING
POWER WINDOWS & LOCKS
TINTED GLASS
ATR COND [TIONER
RE?lOTS TRUNK OPENER
HR RUBBER FLOOR COVERING
ABS BRAKES
SILICONE HOSES 200,00
RADIO SUPERSSION PKG 73,00
FRONT BUCKET/VINYL REAR 65.00
ALTERNATE FLASHING LIGHTS 144.00
S POTLIGITT 18 O. 00
EX: WHITE
SAFETY BI~ER GU.~HIDS t00,00
IN: BI,US
EXTENTED WARRANTY 5/75,000 2,695,00
MA_PLIGHT
PER UNIT
I540 UNITS AVAILABLE
SUBJECT TO PRTOR SAI.K
TERMS: Settlement upon IDciivcry: Cash ABOVE and th~ following d~cribed proper~y in present
mechanical condition:
for which a trade alowancc 0f $ N/A will ~ made.
We :h=nk you for th~ oppo~unlty to m~e this proposal ~d will appreciate your ac~ptance. Acceptance of this pro-
~osal will no~ be ~inding u~on us until thi.~ propo~l i.s approv~ heron in writing by an offici~ of Don R~id Ford, Inc.
~cturn Ot' One copy o~ thi~ prapo~al and your purchase order or'order numar constitutes your of Scia] acceptance.
.ACCEPTED ,~:~ BY ~,[.-~
~'~ET MANAGER
FILE COPY
TO: Robert A. Barcinski. Assistant City Manager
FROM: Hoyt Owens, Depu~ Director of Public Works
DATE: .May 22, 1997
SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT / PATROL DIVISION
VEHICLE #1 210
REPAIR 1 REPLACE EVALUATION
This existing 1992 Ford Crown Victoria is assigned to the Police Department's Patrol Division.
The vehicle xvent out of service on April 2, 1997 for a transmission problem. Vehicle was
repaired at Delray Lincoln Mercu~ at a cost of $663 and returned to service on or about April
11, 1997. On .-Xp~l 24, 1997, transmission failed again. Current problem is isolated (?) to a
cracked transmission casing. Repair cost is estimated at $900.
Life cycle costing :o date is $47,693. which includes the above repair, SI, 156 for collision
damage repair and. 59,514 for fuel. Therefore. maintenance costs are S37,023.
Original cost for tee vehicle plus accessories was $14,659. Consequently, life cycle costing is at
253%, as the vehicle sits with an inoperable transmission ($37,023 .-' $14,659). If we invest an
additional S900 fo.- a transmission casing, the life cycle costing migrates to S37,923 (S37,023 +
S900) or 259°/(, tbr a 5+ year old vehicie with 106,784 patrol miles.
If you add collision damage costs to the life cycle costing equation, we have $39,079 (S37,923 +
S1,156) invested or 267% life cycle costing for an operable vehicle.
It is my recommendation to dispose of vehicle 1210 as-is and purchase a new replacement
Croxva Victoria pursuit vehicle. Salvage value may be $500 as-is. Additional pursuit vehicles
are available at Don Reid Ford on the Florida State Contract at approximately S22,751 + after
delivery accessories.
If you have any questions, please call.
HO/sdl
Attachment
NOTE: Full pac!-:age of back-up documents are available upon request.
c: Chief Richard Overman, w/o attachment
David Junghap, s, Police Administrative Officer, w/o attachment
Richard Sa~de!l. Fleet Maintenance Superintendent, xv/o attachment
KEF: HO/O52297D.MEM
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 3, 1997 - 6:00 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
AGENDA ADDENDUM
THE CONSENT AGENDA IS AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING:
F. MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AND AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT WITH PALM
BEACH COUNTY FIRE RESCUE: Approve an Emergency Services
Agreement for Mutual Assistance and Automatic Aid between
Palm Beach County and the City of Delray Beach.
ref:ADDENDUM
Agenda Item. No.: [
AGENDA REQUEST
Date: May 8, 1997
Request to be placed on:
X Regular Agenda
Special Agenda
Workshop Agenda When: June 3, 1'997
Description of item (whO, what, where, how much):
Request approval of Em~r~enny ~ervia~s A~r~m~nt for ~!utua!
.~ssist~.na~ ~n~ ~,,~nm~t~ A~H Between Palm Beach Ccunty and thc
(Example: .Request from Atlantic High School for $2,000 to fund
project graduation).
ORDINANCE/"RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO
Recommendation: Recommend approval, no fundin~ required.
(Example: RecOmmend· approval with~nding from Special Events Account
Department Head Signature:
City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable):
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure
of funds):
Funding available: YES/ NO
Funding alternatives: (if applicable)
Account No. & Description: _ ~ ~2[.~'
Account Balance: /
City Manager Review: ~ ~~
~pproved for agenda: Y£ ~r/r~~w/
Hold Until: ~
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received~
Placed on Agenda:
Action: Approved/Disapproved
[IT¥ OF DELRFI¥ BEFI[H
FIRE DEPARTMENT S~_"RV~NG DEl_RAY BEACH · GULFSTREAM · HIGHLAND BEACH
DELRAY BEACH
Ali.America City
~IEMORAND UM
1993
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROBERT B. REHR, FIRE CHIEF
DATE: MAY 22, 1997
SUBJECT: AGENDA REQUEST - MUTUAL ASSISTANCE
AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT
Enclosed are the Mutual Assistance - Automatic Aid Agreement with Palm
Beach County Fire Rescue. The document has been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney. Please place on the June 3, 1997, Commission Agenda.
Fire Chief
FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS · 501 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
(561) 243--7400 · SUNCOM 928-7400 · FAX (561) 243-7461
Pm?ted on P,~cycled P~per
EMERGENCY SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AND AUTOMATIC AID
BETWEEN
PALM BEACH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
· 1997, by and between Palm Beach County, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its Board of
County Commissioners and the City of Delray Beach, a Florida
municipal corporation.
WHEREAS, each of the parties to this Agreement presently
maintains a Fire-Rescue Department with fire rescue equipment, fire
fighting personnel, emergency medical equipment, emergency medical
personnel, and other emergency capabilities; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed mutually advantageous to enter into this
Agreement providing for mutual assistance/automatic aid in times of
emergency where the need created may be too great for either party
to deal with unassisted or where a closest unit response is
agreeable and in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, known as the
"Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969," authorizes local
governments to make the most efficient use of their power by
enabling them to cooperate with other localities on a basis of
mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities
that will harmonize geographic, economic, population and other
factors influencing the needs and development of local communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties that
each will render mutual assistance and automatic aid to the other
under the following stipulations, provisions and conditions:
Section 1. Request for Aid/Assistance: Emergency mutual
assistance/automatic aid will be given when properly requested so
long as rendering the aid and assistance requested will not place
the assisting party in undue jeopardy. The party requesting aid
and/or assistance shall provide the following information at the
time the request is made:
a. The general nature, type and location of the
emergency; and
b. The type and quantity of equipment and/or personnel
needed; and
c. The name and rank of the person making the request.
Ail requests shall be directed through the respective parties'
emergency communications center. The following officials of the
participating parties are authorized to request aid and assistance
under this Agreement: the respective Fire Chiefs, Assistant or
D~puty Fire Chiefs, or Incident Commanders.
2
Section 2. Representative ~nd Contract Monitor= Palm
Beach County's representative and contract monitor during the
performance of this Agreement shall be the Deputy Chief of
Operations, whose telephone number is 561-233-0010. Delray Beach's
representative and contract monitor during the performance of this
Agreement shall be the Assistant Chief of Operations, whose
telephone number is 561-243-7400.
Section 3. Co~nd Authority= In the event of an
emergency which requires additional assistance, the Fire Chief of
the jurisdiction in which the incident is located, or in his
absence, the Assistant or Deputy Fire Chief or the Incident
Commander, will direct the activities at the scene where the
emergency exists, but personnel responding to the call will remain
under the command of their own officers at all times. Each party
shall retain control over its personnel and the rendition of
services, standards of performance, discipline of officers and
employees, and other matters incidental to the performance of
services.
Each party authorizes its Fire Chief to meet with the other
party's Fire Chief and develop automatic aid plans and procedures,
including areas to be serviced and type and/or level of response,
when the Fire Chiefs have determined that improved response times
3
or other forms of efficiency within their respective jurisdictions
and/or service areas may be achieved. The Fire Chiefs are also
authorized to promulgate necessary administrative regulations and
orders to implement and administer these plans and procedures.
Section 4. Ability to Respond: Each party may refuse to
respond to a request for aid/assistance in the event it does not
have the required equipment available or if, in its sole judgment,
compliance with the request would jeopardize the protection of its
own jurisdiction.
Section 5. Employee Functions: No employee of either party
to this Agreement shall perform any function or service which is
not within the employee's scope of duties as defined or determined
by his employer.
Section 6. Employee Claims, Benefits, etc.: No employee,
officer, or agent of either party shall, in connection with this
Agreement or the performance of services and functions hereunder,
have a right to or claim any pension, workers' compensation,
unemployment compensation, civil service, or other employee rights,
privileges, or benefits granted by operation of law or otherwise
except through and against the entity by whom they are employed.
No employee of either party shall be deemed the employee of the
4
other, for any purpose, during the performance of services
hereunder.
Section 7. No Assumption of Liability: Neither party to
this Agreement nor their respective officers or employees shall be
deemed to have assumed any liability for the negligent or wrongful
acts or omissions of the other. Further, nothing herein shall be
construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity.
Section 8. Liability for Injury: Ail the privileges and
immunities from liability, exemptions from law, ordinance and
rules, and all pensions and relief, disability, workers'
compensation and other benefits which apply to the activity of the
officers or employees of either party when performing their
respective functions, within the territorial limits for their
respective agencies, shall apply to the same degree and extent to
the performance of such functions and duties extraterritorially.
Liability for injury to personnel, and for loss or damage of
equipment, shall be borne by the party employing such personnel,
and owning or possessing such equipment.
Section 9. Remuneration: The cost of gasoline and other
normal supplies used for mutual assistance/automatic aid purposes
shall be the responsibility Of the party using such supplies,
except that certain expendable supplies including, but not limited
5
to, foam, hazmat suits, containment barrels, or other specialty
products will be replaced by the agency requesting assistance, at
the sole discretion of the agency rendering aid or assistance. The
parties further agree that the agency rendering aid/assistance may
request reimbursement for any expenditure of goods or services
directly from the persons, parties, or company involved in,
causing, or responsible for, the incident. Ail compensation for
personnel shall be borne by the employing party. Ail cost of
maintenance and upkeep of equipment shall be borne by t'he party
owning or possessing the equipment.
Section 10. Effective Date and Term: This Agreement shall
take effect upon execution by both parties and shall remain in full
force and effect for a period of no less than five (5) years,
expiring on September 30, 2002, unless sooner terminated as
provided herein.
Section 11. Notice of Termination: Either party to this
Agreement may, upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the
other, terminate this Agreement for any reason or for no reason at
all.
Section 12. Capital Improvement Plans: Both parties to
this Agreement, on an annual basis, shall exchange Capital
Improvement Plans indicating projected location(s) and anticipated
6
time frames for construction of future fire stations within their
respective jurisdictions and/or service areas. It is understood
that these plans may be modified subsequent to submission and said
plans are subject to subsequent funding allocations and approvals.
Section 13. Assignment of Rights: Neither party shall
assign, transfer .or convey, in whole or in part, its rights,
duties, or obligations without the prior written consent of the
other.
Section 14. Modification and Amendment: No modification,
amendment, or alteration in the terms or conditions of this
Agreement shall be effective unless contained in a written document
executed with the same formality and equality of dignity herewith.
Section 15. Entirety of Agreement: This Agreement
represents the entire understanding of the parties and supersedes
all other negotiations, representations, or agreements, either
written or oral, relating to this Agreement. This agreement is
separate and distinct from the Fire-Rescue Interlocal Emergency
Services Agreement for Governmental Agencies in Palm Beach County.
Section 16. Equal Opportunity: Each party represents that
it will not practice discrimination as it relates to the
performance of this agreement on the basis of race, sex, sexual
orientation, color, religion, disability, age, marital status,
national origin or ancestry.
Section 17. Annual Appropriations: Each parties'
performance and obligation under this Agreement is contingent upon
an annual budgetary appropriation by its respective governing body
for the purposes hereunder.
Section 18. Remedies: This agreement shall be construed by
and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Any and all
legal action necessary to enforce the Agreement will be held in
Palm Beach County.
Section 19. Records: Each party shall maintain all records
pertaining to the services delivered under this Agreement for a
period of at least three (3) years.
Section 20. Joint Preparation: The preparation .of this
Agreement has been a joint effort of the parties, and the resulting
document shall not, solely or as a matter of judicial constraint,
be construed more severely against one of the parties than the
other.
Section 21. Notice of Suits= Each party agrees to notify
the other of any claim, or the initiation of any legal proceeding
against it which relates, in any manner, to the aid or assistance
provided by the other party. Each party will cooperated with the
8
other in the defense of any suit or action arising out of, or
related to, the aid or assistance rendered under this agreement.
Section 22. Notices: All written notices required under
this Agreement shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested, and if sent to Palm Beach County shall be mailed to:
Fire Rescue Administrator
50 S. Military Trail, Suite 101
West Palm Beach, FL 33415
and if sent to the City of Delray Beach shall be mailed to:
Fire Chief
Delray Beach Fire Department
501 West Atlantic Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Each party may change its address upon notice to the other.
Section 23. Captions: The captions and section designations
herein set forth are for convenience only and shall have no
substantive meaning.
Section 24. Filing: A copy of this Agreement Shall be
filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach
County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have caused
these presents to be signed by their duly authorized officers on
the day and year first written above.
ATTEST: DELRAY BEACH
By: By:
City Clerk Jay Alperin, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY (SEAL)
orney
ATTEST: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Dorothy H. Wilken
By: By:
Deputy Clerk Burt Aaronson, Chairman
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BZ:
County Attorney
' C: \CONTRACT. S\MTLAIDDB. WPD 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER ~/~'l
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~- REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997
REPLACEMENT WALL ALONG LAKE IDA ROAD
DATE: MAY 29, 1997
We have received the attached request from the Lake Ida Property
Owners Association for assistance from the City to replace the
existing concrete fence along the north side of Lake Ida Road
with a suitable wall. This residential community feels it has
been negatively impacted by the Lake Ida Road widening project as
outlined in their letter.
Also provided is information from the City Horticulturist on a
precast wall system, including cost estimates, as well as cost
estimates for extending the Delray Lakes (Boris Homes) wall
eastward from their new development.
The Lake Ida Property Owners Association has formed a committee
to work on this effort. I have met with the committee and they
will also meet with Palm Beach County representatives. I believe
the county should help fund this since superelevation of the
curve on Lake Ida Road has deprived the abutting homes of their
privacy and security previously afforded by the fence.
We have discussed the possibility of forming a safe neighborhood
district to help fund this project. However, that would
distribute the cost equally to everyone in the district while the
abutting homes receive by far the greatest benefit. Therefore,
the City Attorney's office is reviewing whether this project cost
could be assessed in proportion to the benefit received under
Chapter 170, Florida Statutes.
The Lake Ida Property Owners are requesting that the City also
contribute toward this cost. If we do, there are other
communities such as Lake Forest and Chatelaine which would also
like to replace fences with more durable walls. However, one
could justify a contribution if the county refuses and because we
own the park land on the south side of the eastern portion of
thfs wall. Commission direction is requested.
ref:agmemo6 ~ ~ ~~ /~p~. ~ ~m~,'~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
P.O. BOX 2758 Delray Beach, FL 33447
David T. Harden.
City Manager
City of Delray Beach
100 NW 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
May 22, 1997
Subject: Impact of widening Lake Ida Road on Lake Ida residential community.
Dear Mr. Harden,
As you are aware, the recently completed widening of Lake Ida Road between Congress and Swinton
Avenues has transformed the original 2 lane roadway into a 4 lane divided highway. As property owners
in the Lake Ida area, we are concerned that this project is negatively impacting our neighborhood. We
believe the widening of Lake Ida Road has diminished the quality of life residents in the Lake Ida area
previously enjoyed and, without corrective action, will ultimately lead to declining property values. The
following paragraphs voice our specific concerns.
Increased Vehicular Noise
As a result of the Lake Ida Road widening project, the west bound traffic lanes have been moved much
closer to the adj.acent residential property, lines and the resulting roadbed has been raised 2 to 3 feet above
the original grade. The increased height of the roadbed, and the close proximity of west bound traffic
lanes to the residential properties has resulted in a significant increase in vehicular noise.
Since the completion of the Lake Ida Road widening project, traffic volume has increased significantly.
The noise problem is growing increasingly worst as traffic volume continues to increase. Plans to
eventually extend the widening of Lake Ida Road to the west of Congress will result in more traffic,
exacerbating the noise problem.
Loss of Privacy and lncrease in Crime
The height and proximity of the roadbed and adjacent pedestrian sidewalk to the residential property lines
has completely destroyed the privacy previously enjoyed by those residents whose properties back up to
Lake Ida Road. Backyards are now completely exposed to vehicular, as well as, pedestrian traffic. This
visual exposure, and increased ease of access from Lake Ida Road, are considered factors contributing to a
documented increase in crime since the completion of the Lake Ida Road widening project.
Safety
The widening of Lake Ida Road has exposed homeowners along Lake Ida Road to risks which were
previously considered minimal. The improved road surface and divided highway design tends to
encourage higher speeds. Vehicles frequently travel Lake Ida Road well above the posted speed limit. It
is unlikely that the existing concrete fence would withstand the force of a vehicular impact. Prior to the
widening of Lake Ida Road, the risk of such an impact was consider'ed minimal; this was because there
was a much greater "buffer" zone between the west bound traffic lane and the residential property lines.
With the widening of Lake Ida Road, this "buffer" zone has been eliminated. The curvature of Lake Ida
Road, and the close proximity of the raised roadbed to the residential property line has significantly
increased the likelihood of property damage or personal injury occurring from vehicular traffic on Lake
Ida road.
Liability
The sidewalk adjacent to the west bound traffic lanes was constructed with no restraining guard rail.
Apparently, a handrail was in the original construction plans but, for some reason, was never built. There
is a steep drop-off from the elevated sidewalk down to the original grade. This drop-off constitutes a
safety hazard. Homeowners are concerned they could be potentially be held liable should a pedestrian, or
bicyclist be injured by accidentally falling into this drop-off.
Conclusion
The concrete fence along Lake Ida Road has long been considered an eyesore. With the widening of Lake
Ida Road, there are now more compelling reasons to replace this dilapidated, and unsightly structure. The
property owners in the Lake Ida area believe now is the time to construct a replacement wall. This new
wall will be designed to reduce traffic noise to an acceptable level, and will be constructed to a height
which will restore the privacy previously afforded our community.
As a community, we are committed to achieving this goal and we believe that the City of Delray Beach
will share in the benefit once realized. We therefore request the City's assistance in this undertaking.
There are difficulties which must be overcome before construction of a new wall can proceed. Obviously,
the most difficult problem is construction funding. But, we also request the City's assistance in project
management, engineering, and contract negotiations. The end result of these efforts will make our Delray
Beach home a better place to live for all residents.
The Lake Ida Property Owners Association has formed a committee to pursue our goal of replacing the
existing concrete fence with a suitable wall. As a community, we respectfully request that you work with
this committee to resolve the challenges which must be overcome before construction of a new wall can
proceed. Our expectation is that the City of Delray Beach will provide support as needed, and work in
close parmership with our community to attain a mutually beneficial solution.
President
Lake Ida Property Owners Association
TO: DAVID HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THROUGH: LULA BUTLER, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DIRECTOI~
FROM: NANCY DAVILA, HORTICULTURIST '
RE: LAKE IDA ROAD-WALL
DATE: MAY 23, 1997
I have several memorandums going back to last year with information relating to
locations and costs for the construction of a new wall to replace the concrete
Iouvered fence along Lake Ida Road. The following will be a compilation of that
data as well as some cost estimates on a precast wall system.
The wall Bovis Homes plans to construct along Lake Ida Road for their Delray
Lakes project consists of a decorative concrete block stuccoed wall generally
five feet in height installed on top of a three foot high berm, for an effective eight
foot height. There are fairly massive columns every 32 feet which give some
relief and undulation to an otherwise very lineal wall. The columns are a foot
higher than the rest of the wall and in all areas there is a very nice banded cap
on the wall.
Bovis indicated to me that the estimate for the construction of this wall was $50 a
linear foot. Given the height, (Bovis's is a 5 foot wall) this is $10 a vertical foot.
Since the wall will be placed on grade, as there is no reom to provide the proper
slope for a berm between the sidewalk and property line behind the existing
houses, the wall itself will be 8 feet in height, increasing the cost to $80 a lineal
foot.
In speaking with several contractors, they feel that a pre-cast system would be
much easier to install and more cost effective. One of the problems with an 8
,foot high wall is that the footer would have to be very big to handle the wind
loads. Given the situation we have, with little space between the sidewalk and
the property line (and given that there is a drainage ditch in that area), the wall's
footing would have to be cantilevered.
Many high-end subdivisions have gone to a precast system and frankly, it is hard
to tell the difference in many cases. This type of a system allows minimal
disturbance to the area. An auger would bore the holes for the posts and the
panels slide in between them. You can even include caps and columns and
have the option of many surface finishes. I have included brochures showing
some of the different designs. On the 'green' brochure' I have put an asterisk on
the wall I think would look nice. The cost on this one for a wall 8 feet in height
and painted on both sides is roughly $48/foot.
The table below shows the costs both ways:
8 81.14 $ 6,491.00 $3,894.72
9 69.69 $ 5,575.00 $3,345.12
10 87.14 $ 6,971.00 $4,182.72
11 85.65 $6,852.00 $4,111.20
12 85.04 $6,803.00 $4,081.92
13 85.00 $6,800.00 $4,080.00
14 85.00 , $6,800.00 $4,080.00
15 85.00 $6,800.00 $4,080.00
16 109.00 $8720.00 $5,232.00
TOTAL 772.76 $61,812.00 $37,087.68
Please let me know if there is any additional information I can get for you.
Fax Cover Page
TO: Nancy Davila
FROM: Jerry Levy
Attached are elevations for the wall at "Deiray Lakes".
Boris Homes estimated cost for this wall is $50.00 per foot.
If I can provide any additional information do not hestitate
to contact me ~ 407-677-7992.
.-..._.o ;. i, I N.X/V. B tH AW'c..
~. PLAT ~"' '" p.n,¢:~E 4- r--
I
- ' X ' :, .... ~.
'~'z° "" ' ' l, .... "
~ - ~ -',, I ' -
. _ , . .
s ~;~ ~ I I ~ m
o~
( -': ~ ' ~C;~ rrl --
.-. .~.~
.~ · ..... /
i ~ t~:.. ..:. ,~ : ,. :
'~ ¢ ~ 0. ~ ~':: .: ~ : ~' i:_NW.,,,,,:~6THAVE.' m
/ ....
- 0 o .... l~:i. ,o... :: .:..
......... ~.- ,,~.~. ~ .' :
,.. ,. s . p :Z.O~
..~., .~..:.~: ,:,~ .: ..,:: , ,,,,. ~ .... >:
'" --" : '~ .........
','":.. -: " c'' '. ~ :- t ~:[~
'7"(v, ....... ~ 0
..-' ~ ~, ,. ~: ~
..... ,, ~ ~ ~ -
-' ~ ; ~ . · . .
., ~" -~ --. ~ z.c-
' ~, .... ----:",. ' "' "" ?. ~ 'c '~Z'.
o, ,~ . /~::: ~ ~-~..~
O~ ~ ~ . , -
~ ' - -- ~ ~ '~ I
'- - ~ ,o .'- , .: ;Z:~ NW. 4~AVE. ~"
~ ;~ z o~---- 1
. . ,~ o ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ -- '
~ ~ ~ e ~ .a ~ ~ ~ ~ _ , ..... ;.. ,~ ~
· , - s - o ~ ~. · ~ ~ ,J ~ '" '~ ':': ' ~' r',
.... ~ ~ ~ ': c: ....
, ~_;-.' &~: :- .,.: );
~ : ~ ~ - ~ . .~ ~ , ~ h.::
~ ~ '-' ~ oo ~,, :-- :"' ': ........... · · ~ :~-, -- .....
~ : - ~ ~ ~,...
.
- 7
· ;.~ ~-.. ¢ -
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY lvI32XlAGER~}~o~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM ~ /~D - REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR BOSTON MARKET/EINSTEIN
BROS. BAGELS
DATE: MAY 29, 1997
This is before the Commission to consider approval of the
architectural elevations for Boston Market/Einstein Bros. Bagels
(formerly Wag's and Sparticus restaurants), to be located at the
northeast corner of Linton Boulevard and South Federal Highway in
the Old Harbor Plaza shopping center. The development proposal
consists of renovating the existing restaurant and constructing
an 817 sq.ft, addition on the west side of the building to
accommodate the two-bay restaurant.
Section 4.6.18(B) (13) of the Land Development Regulations
requires that outbuildings within a shopping center shall be
compatible in terms of color, materials and architectural style,
and the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board must make a finding
of such compatibility. However, if there is not compatibility,
SPRAB may still recommend approval if a finding is made that the
elevations, while incompatible, would be an asset to the overall
shopping center.
The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board reviewed this project
on May 14, 1997, and voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the
architectural elevations based upon positive findings with
respect to LDR Section 4.6.18(B) (13) (b), that although the
proposed elevations will be incompatible, the building will be
complementary to the shopping center, and subject to the
following conditions:
(1) That the red stucco banding be provided on the south and
east elevations;
(2) That the parapet be consistent with the west elevation of
Boston Market and provided on all four sides of the
building;
(3) That an alternate color yellow be submitted for the Einstein
Bros. Bagels awning review at the time the sign package is
reviewed by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board; and
(4) That the vinyl graphics on the base of the storefront
windows of Einstein Bagels be eliminated.
Recommend approval of the architectural elevations for the Boston
Market/Einstein Bros. Bagels outbuilding in the Old Harbor Plaza
shopping plaza, based upon positive findings pursuant to LDR
Section 4.6.18(B) (13) (b) and subject to the conditions
recommended by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board.
ref: agmemo5 ~ ~ ] /D~n ~ /~p~ ~ ~F-~dgf ~/pg6~ do~
TO: ~~ T. ~Lt~RDEN, CITY MANAGER
THRU: ~I'A" [~D( M~G UE~DI R~CTO R
ZONING
FROM:
SUBJECT: MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTU~L ELEVATIONS FOR THE BOSTON
MARKET/EINSTEIN BROS. BAGELS TO BE LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH FEDE~L HIGHWAY AND LINTON
BOULEVARD.
The action requested of the Ci~ Commission is that of approval of
architectural elevations for a proposed Boston MarkeFEinstein Bros.
Bagels restaurant, pumuant to Section 4.6.18(B)(13).
The subject pmpe~ is located at the noRheast corner of South Federal
Highway and Linton Boulevard, within the Old Harbor Plaza shopping
center (former Wag's & SpaRicus Restaurants).
The su~j~ prope~y ~urr~nfly ~onf~ins ~ 45,~34 sq.~. shoppin~ ~n~er which in~lud~s
8p~i~us r~s~ur~n~s, r~sp~fiv~ly. Th~ aev~lopm~n~ proposal ~onsis~s of r~nov~fin~
within ~ shopping ~n~r sh~ll b~ ~omp~fibl~ wi~h ~h~ m~in ~n~r in ~rms of color,
m~ke ~ ~nding of such ~omp~fibili~ prior ~o
City Commission Documentation
Meeting of June 3, 1997
Boston Market/Einstein Bros. Bagels Restaurant - Architectural Elevations
Page 2
Commission with a recommendation of approval, and the City Commission shall take
final action.
The shopping center has been repainted a combination of salmon, beige and light pink.
As proposed, the restaurant structure will be dissimilar to the existing shopping center
with respect to architectural style and color. The restaurant building is proposed to be
painted light gray with storefront windows and a parapet to screen the rooftop
equipment. Raised stucco bands will be provided on the Boston Market portion (north
half) only, and will be painted white with a red band in the mid-section of the building.
On the base of the storefront windows for Einstein Bagels, vinyl graphics are proposed
on the interior of the window. Each bay will be provided with awnings to match their
corporate identity. The Boston Market awning will be back-lit with red, white and black
stripes and the Einstein awning will be black, gold and white stripes with gooseneck
lights to be installed above the awning.
At its meeting of May 14, 1997, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board
considered the proposed architectural elevations for Boston Market/Einstein Bros.
Bagels restaurant. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the design elements and
color of the structure. The general consensus of the Board was that the style of the
shopping center was dated, and that the proposed elevations with the restaurant's
corporate colors would be an asset to the center. The Board then voted 6-0 (Mr. Smith
absent) to recommend to the City Commission approval of the architectural elevations,
based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.18(B)(13)(b), that
although the proposed elevations will be incompatible with the shopping center the
building will be complimentary to the overall shopping center, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the red stucco banding be provided on the south and east elevations;
2. That the parapet be consistent with the west elevation of Boston Market and
provided on all four sides of the building;
3. That an alternate color yellow be submitted for the Einstein Bros. Bagel awning
review at the time the sign package is reviewed by the Board; and,
4. That the vinyl graphics on the base of the storefront windows of Einstein Bagels be
eliminated.
City Commission Documentation
Meeting of June 3, 1997
Boston Market/Einstein Bros. Bagels Restaurant - Architectural Elevations
Page 3
By motion, approve the architectural elevations for Boston Market/Einstein Bros. Bagels
restaurant subject to the findings and conditions as recommended by the Site Plan
Review and Appearance Board.
Attachment:
· Proposed Elevations
kll~,ll( 'ill,-- .............. -.,-,..,:~.(,~11 --.~.,
/
L
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER~I
SECOND RE INS/QUASI- IC V nIC Zm INS FOR
ORDINANCE NO. 22-97 (REZONING/FINE CONSTRUCTION CO.)
DATE: MAY 29, 1997
This is second reading and a quasi-judicial public hearing for
Ordinance No. 22-97 which rezones a 1.415 acre parcel of land from
A (Agricultural) to RM (Medium Density Residential) District which
provides for a density range of from 6 units per acre to 12 units
per acre. The subject property is located on the north side of
Old Germantown Road, east of the Spanish Wells condominium
development.
The rezoning is being requested by Fine Construction Co. in order
to construct 17 townhouse units at a density of 12 units~per acre.
The Planning and Zoning Board considered this matter at a public
hearing on April 14, 1997, and voted 5 to 1 (Schwartz dissenting)
to recommend that the rezoning be approved with a density suffix
of 8 units per acre, based on positive findings with respect to
Sections 3.1.1 (Required Findings), 3.2.2 (Standards for Rezoning
Actions), and 2.4.5(D) (5) of the Land Development Regulations and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
At first reading on May 20, 1997, the City Commission passed the
ordinance by unanimous vote for the purpose of scheduling the
formal hearing.
Recommend consideration of Ordinance No. 22-97 on second and final
reading, with the exact density to be established by the City
Conmtission and affixed by a numerical suffix to the zoning
designation.
ORDINANCE NO. 22-97
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND
PRESENTLY ZONED A (AGRICULTURAL) DISTRICT IN THE RM
(MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT WHICH
PROVIDES FOR A DENSITY RANGE OF FROM 6 UNITS PER
ACRE TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE, WITH THE EXACT DENSITY
TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND
AFFIXED BY A NUMERICAL SUFFIX TO THE ZONING
DESIGNATION; SAID LAND BEING GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF OLD GERMANTOWN ROAD, EAST OF THE
SPANISH WELLS CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, AS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AMENDING "ZONING MAP
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1994"; PROVIDING A
GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the property hereinafter described is shown on the
Zoning District Map of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated
April, 1994, as being zoned A (Agricultural) District; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of April 14, 1997, the Planning and
Zoning Board for the City of Delray Beach, as Local Planning Agency,
considered this matter at a public hearing and voted 5 to 1 to
recommend that the rezoning request be approved with a density suffix
of 8 units per acre, based upon positive findings; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the Zoning District Map of
the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, be amended to
reflect a revised zoning classification.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Zoning District Map of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, be, and the same is hereby
amended to reflect a zoning classification of RM-.. (Medium Density
Residential) District for the following described property, the exact
density being established by the City Commission and affixed by a
numerical suffix upon second and final reading:
That part of the West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the
Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast
1/4 of Section 25, Township 46 South, Range 42
East, lying North of the North right-of-way line of
Old Germantown Road, Palm Beach County, Florida.
The subject property is located on the north side
of Old Germantown Road, east of the Spanish Wells
condominium development; containing 1.415 acres,
more or less.
Section 2. That the Planning Director of said City shall,
upon the effective date of this ordinance, amend the Zoning Map of
the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to conform with the provisions of
Section 1 hereof.
Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
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 this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon passage on second and final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final
reading on this the day of , 1997.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
First Reading
Second Reading
- 2 - Ord. No. 22-97
OSR ~~,A -
LIN TO N B OU LE VA R D'
~~~~~ ~/ R D
~ ~ % % % ~ ~ % CANAL L-3~
N
~ -REZONING-
PLANI',RN'GDEPARTMENT FROM: A (AGRICULTURAL) TO: RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
CiTY OF ~DEt. RAY BEACH, FL
-- DIGIrA/. ,~A,.~ ~/~4P SY~,~'EM -- MAP REF: LM159
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN
T..U: ~
D AN~~E DOMINGUEZ, DIRE/.~
DEPAI~TMENT OF P~NNI~G AND ZONING
FROM: ~ '
SUBJECT: MEETING OF MAY 20, 1997
REZONING FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) TO RM (MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF OLD GERMANTOWN ROAD, EAST OF THE
SPANISH WELLS CONDOMINIUM.
The action requested of the City Commission is that of approval on
first reading of an ordinance rezoning a 1.415 acre parcel from A
(Agricultural) to RM (Medium Density Residential).
The subject property is located on the north side of Old
Germantown Road, east of the Spanish Wells Condominium.
The subject property consists of approximately 1.415 acres and contains a single
family residential home. the rezoning is being requested by Fine Realty and
Construction Company in order to construct 17 townhouse units at a density of
12 units per acre. Additional background and an analysis of the request is found
in the attached Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report.
l.i.~?i~!i~i~.~.~.~?.~.i.~.~.~.~.~.~.i.~.i..i...i.~.~i~.~.~.~.~. ~ ~',! ~ ~i~ ~ ~. ~ ~ !. ~.... ~ ~... ~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~ ........................ i ............................................... !
At its meeting of April 14, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public
hearing in conjunction with review of the rezoning. Public testimony was taken
City Commission Documentation
Meeting of May 6, 1997
Rezoning from A to RM (Fine Realty and Construction Company)
Page 2
from three residents of Rabbit Hollowe, Verona Woods, and Oakmont
subdivisions who expressed concerns with respect to the requested density,
traffic congestion, aesthetics, and landscaping. The residents felt a maximum of
6 units/acre was more appropriate and compatible with surrounding
development.
After discussing the proposal, the Board voted 5-1 to recommend that the
rezoning request be approved with a density suffix of 8 units per acre, based
upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 3.1.1 (Required Findings),
3.2.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions), and 2.4.5(D)(5) of the Land
Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
By motion, approve on first reading the ordinance for the rezoning from A
(Agricultural) to RM (Multiple Family Residential Medium Density), with a
density suffix of 8 units per acre, and setting a public hearing date of June 3,
1997.
Attachments:
P & Z Staff Report of April 14, 1997
· Letters of Objection
· Ordinance by Others
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT---
MEETING DATE: April 14, 1997 (Con't from March 17, 1997 meeting)
AGENDA ITEM: ~LA.
ITEM: Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to RM (Medium Density Residential) for a
parcel of land located on the north side of Old Germantown Road, east of
the Spanish Wells Condominium.
LIN TON BOULEVARD ~
L- "x6 O"~'~1~'' ' " ,
GENERAL DATA:
Owners .......................................... Daniel & Marie Myers
Applicant ....................................... Fine Realty and Construction Corp.
Location ......................................... North side of Old Germantown Road, east of Spanish Wells
Condominium
Property Size ................................. 1.415 Acres
Future Land Use Map .................... Medium Density (5-12 d.u./ac)
Current Zoning .............................. A (Agricultural)
Proposed Zoning ........................... RM (Medium Density Residential)
Adjacent Zoning ................... North: RM
East: A
South: A & R-l-AAA (Single Family Residential)
West: RM
Existing Land Use ......................... Vacant one-story single family residence.
Proposed Land Use ....................... Rezoning to RM to accommodate the construction of a 17-unit
townhouse development with a community swimming pool, cabana, and
associated parking and landscaping.
Water Service ................................ Available via a connection to an existing 12" water main along Old
Germantown Road.'
Sewer Service ............................... Available via a connection to an existing 4" force main along Old
Germantown Road.
The action before the Board is making a recommendation on a rezoning request
from A (Agricultural) to RM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium Density).
The subject property is located on the north side of Germantown Road, west of
Homewood Boulevard and contains approximately 1.416 acres.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.2.2(E), the Local Planning Agency shall review and
make a recommendation to the City Commission with respect to rezoning of any
property within the City.
Currently, a single family residential home is located on the subject property.
The site was annexed into the City in 1988, and rezoned from A (Agricultural-
county) to a city zoning designation of ART (Agricultural Residential
Transitional). A zoning designation of A (Agricultural) was attached to the
property with the citywide rezonings in 1990.
The development proposal is to rezone the subject parcel from A to RM. The
rezoning is being requested by Fine Realty and Construction Company in order
to construct 17 townhouse units at a density of 12 units per acre.
REQUIRED FINDINGS (CHAPTER 3):
Pursuant to Section 3.1.'1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval
of development applications, certain findings must be made in a
form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved
through information on the application, the staff report, or minutes.
Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to
approve or deny the development application. These findings relate
the following four areas.
,Future Land Use Map: The use or structures must be allowed in the zoning
district and the zoning district must be consistent with the land use
designation.
C
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A to RM (Fine Realty and Construction Company)
Page 2
The current Future Land Use Map designation for the subject property is Medium
Density Residential (5-12 du/ac). The requested rezoning change is from A to
RM. The proposed zoning designation of RM is consistent with the Medium
Density Residential Future Land Use Map designation.
Concurrency; Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall
be provided to new development concurrent with iss, uance of a Certificate
of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to the levels of
service established within the Comprehensive Plan,
Streets and Traffic:
A traffic impact study was submitted with the request. The existing use of the
property is one single family home. The Palm Beach County Traffic
Performance Standards Ordinance establishes traffic generation rates of 10 ADT
(Average Daily Trips) per unit for single family residences. The existing single
family home generates 10 ADT. The ultimate development under the proposed
RM designation of 17 units will result in 119 ADT (7 trips x 17 attached
residential housing units. Thus, there is a net potential increase of 109 ADT with
the rezoning.
The traffic impact study submitted indicates Germantown Road has a capacity of
14,300, and can accommodate the 119 ADT generated by the proposed
townhouse development.
Water and Sewer:
Preliminary engineering plans were not submitted with the application. Water
serviceis available to the site via a 12" main located in Germantown Road. The
city's Sewer Atlas indicates the nearest sewer main is an 8" sewer system
located within the Spanish Wells condominium north and east of the site.
Submittal of engineering plans addressing provision of water and sewer services
will be further addressed with the site plan process.
The rezoning from ^ to RM will generate an increase in water and sewer
demands, however, there is adequate capacity at the existing facilities to handle
the water and sewage demands generated from this development.
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A to RM (Fine Realty and Construction Company)
Page 3
Parks and Recreation:
The Delray Beach Comprehensive Plan Parks and Recreation Element indicates
that the City meets the adopted level of service for parks and recreation facilities
for the ultimate build-out population of the City. Thus, a positive finding can be
made to this level of service. In addition, pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.2(C)(1),
whenever a development is proposed upon land which is not designated for park
purposes in the Comprehensive Plan, an in-lieu fee of $500.00 per dwelling unit
will be collected prior to issuance of building permits for each unit.
Solid Waste:
The proposed 17 unit townhouse development will generate 8.84 tons of solid
waste per year. One single family home generates 1.99 tons of solid waste per
year. The proposed townhouse project would result in an increase in solid
waste generation, however, capacity exists to handle the increase.
ConsistencY; Compliance with the performance standards set forth in
Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions) along with required
findings in Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) shall be the basis upon
which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and
policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in the
making of a finding of overall consistency.
Section ,3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions): The applicable
performance standards of Section 3.3.2 and other policies which apply are
as follows:
D) That the rezoning shall result in allowing land uses which are deemed
compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses both existing and
proposed; or that if an incompatibility may occur, that sufficient
regulations exist to properly mitigate adverse impacts from the new
use.
The subject parcel is surrounded by residential uses, including single family
residences to the east and south (Oakmont Subdivision - 2.35 du/ac; Rabbit
Hollowe Subdivision - 1.23 du/ac; Verona Woods - 2.10 du/ac; Crosswinds
planned residential development- 9.95 du/ac), and the Spanish Wells
'condominium development to the north and west (8 du/ac). The 17 unit
townhouse development is proposed at the maximum allowed density under the
RM designation (12 units per acre). The RM zone district provides a residential
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A to RM (Fine Realty and Construction Company)
Page 4
district with flexible densities having a base of six (6) units per acre and a range
to twelve (12) units per acre. Pursuant
to LDR Section 4.4.6(H) density may exceed the base of six (6) units per acre
only upon a determination by the body taking final action on the development
plan that the resulting development is harmonious with adjacent properties.
Further, the density for a specific RM development may be established by a
numerical suffix affixed to the designation and shown on the zoning map.
Given the adjacent densities of Spanish Wells condominium development,
Rabbit Hollowe, Verona Woods, and Oakmont single family subdivisions, and
Crosswinds, staff has some concerns with respect to the compatibility of the
proposal with existing residential development. To assure maximum
compatibility the Board may want to apply a density suffix to the zoning
designation to a density similar to that of Spanish Wells (8 units per acre) which
directly abuts this development to the west and north.
Section 2.4.$(D)($) (Rezoning Findings):
Pursuant to Section 2.4.$(D)(1) (Findings), in addition to provisions of
Section 3.1.1, the City Commission must make a finding that the rezoning
change fulfills one of the reasons for which the rezoning change is being
sought. These reasons include the following:
a) That the rezoning had previously been changed, or was originally
established in error;
b) That there has been a change in circumstances which make the
current zoning inappropriate;
c) That the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed under
the Future Land Use Map and that it is more appropriate for the
property based upon circumstances particular to the site and/or
neighborhood.
The applicant submitted a justification statement as a part of the rezoning
application. The statement indicates that the applicable reason is "c". The
justification statement is summarized below:
The Agricultural Zone District (A) serves as a holding zone designation.
At this time the property owner desires a zoning compatible with the land
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A to RM (Fine Realty and Construction Company)
Page 5
use of multifamily residential. The change to RM from A would also
create a more compatible zoning with adjacent properties.
Comment: This justification is correct, as an agricultural use is no longer
appropriate for this area. The underlying land use allows for a zoning
designation that will accommodate a multiple family residential use, which is
typical of the development pattern in the area.
The requested zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation
(Medium Density Residential), however, as previously stated compatibility
concerns are noted if density were established at the maximum density of 12
units per acre. Application of a density suffix may be appropriate to ensure
compatible future development of the site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan
was conducted and the following policies are noted.
Future Land Use Element Policy A-1.1 (Medium Density_ Residential) This
designation is applied to land which...is to be developed, at a density of
five to twelve units per acre. Such land is usually developed in planned
communities or exists in older areas where there are duplexes and
condominiums. Home ownership is characteristic of this designation.
Where this designation exists, uses other than those which are residential
in character shall not be considered.
The proposed housing type, townhouse units, is consistent in terms of
surrounding residential properties, which consist of single family residences,
apartments and condominiums:
Spanish Wells Condominium: 8 du/ac.
Oakmont Subdivision: 2.35 du/ac.
Rabbit Hollowe Subdivision: 1.23 du/ac.
Verona Woods Subdivision: 2.35 du/ac.
Crosswinds Planned Residential
,Development (overall): 9.95 du/ac.
Crosswinds Subdivision: 4.14 du/ac.
Palm Cove Apartments: 17.7 du/ac.
Crosswinds Condominiums: 8 du/ac.
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A to RM (Fine Realty and Construction Company)
Page 6
The proposed density of 12 units per acre is higher than the predominant
housing densities in the area.
Housing Ob_iective C-2 Redevelopment and the development of new land
shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall
continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic
profile.
The existing use of the property, is surrounded by the Spanish Wells
condominium development to the north and west, and single family residences,
apartments, and condominium development to the east and south. The
proposed project calls for townhouse units and will achieve the above listed
objective by providing a variety of housing types in the immediate area.
Open Space and Recreation Policy A-3.3 Tot lots and recreational areas
shall be a feature of all new housing developments which utilize any of the
City's PRD zone districts or which have homeowner associations which
must care for retention areas, private streets, or common areas.
The proposal calls for townhouse units with a common swimming pool and
cabana area. Common areas, including recreation facilities and a tot lot are to
be provided and will be reviewed with submission of the associated site plan.
Compliance with Land Development Regulations; The proposed use is to
be in compliance with the Land Development Regulations.
Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall
specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on a land
development application/request.
The application has submitted a preliminary sketch plan. While the submitted
sketch plan is not being formally considered at this time, the following comments
are provided.
LDR Section 4.3.3(0) Townhouse and Townhouse Type of Development:
Sufficient information was not provided on the sketch plan to fully address all of
the standards outlined in this section. The setback and design requirements for
tthis townhouse development will be addressed at the time of site plan review.
Also, per LDR Section 4.3.3(0)(2), each townhouse, or townhouse type,
development shall be platted with a minimum designation of the interior street
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A to RM !(Fine Realty and Construction Company)
Page 7
system as a tract. When the dwelling units are to be sold, each such unit must
be shown on the plat.
LDR Section 4.4.6(H)(1) Special Regulations (Density):
A minimum density of six units per acre is established for a duplex and multiple
family housing projects within this District. Density may exceed the base of six
units per acre only upon a determination by the body taking final action on the
development application that the resulting development is harmonious with
adjacent properties and does not adversely affect areas of environmental
significance or sensitivity. However, the density shall not exceed that of twelve
units per acre. The development proposal consists of 17 townhouse units on
1.415 acres, for a density of 12 du/ac. Staff recommends that, in order to
encourage compatibility with the existing single family residences to the east and
south, and Spanish Wells condominium development to the north and west (8
du/ac), that a suffix similar to these adjacent residential uses be applied to this
property.
LDR Section 4.6.9 Parking:
Two (2) parking spaces per unit are required for multiple familY structures with
two or mo.re bedrooms, along with .5 guest spaces per unit for the first 20 units.
The sketch plan indicates parking areas in front of the townhouse structures.
This item will need to be further reviewed with the site and development plan
process.
LDR Section 4.6.16 Landscaping:
No landscape plan has been submitted at this time. The submission of a
landscape plan meeting all requirements of Section 4.6.16 will be required with
the site and development plan submission.
The rezoning is not in a geographic area requiring review by either the HPB
(Historic Preservation Board), DDA (Downtown Development Authority) or the
CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency).
Neighborhood Notice:
Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500' radius
of the subject property.
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A to RM (Fine Realty and Construction Company)
Page 8
Special courtesy notices have been sent to:
I;I Oakmont Homeowners Association
I;3 Crosswinds Homeowners Association
I;1 Foxe Chase Homeowners Association
n Andover Homeowners Association
D Rabbit Hollowe Homeowners Association
I;I Spanish Wells Condo Association
I;3 Progressive Residents of Delray
n United Property Owners
n Presidents Council
Letters of objection, if any, will be presented at the P & Z Board meeting.
The proposed rezoning of the subject property to RM is consistent with the
property's Future Land Use Map designation of Medium Density Residential (5-
12 du/ac). The proposed development plans call for the maximum allowed
density under the RM district. To ensure compatibility with adjacent residential
uses it is recommended that a density suffix similar to adjacent densities be
applied to this property. If the rezoning is approved, a site plan, landscape plan,
and engineering plans consistent with the requirements of the Land
Development Regulations will be submitted for review by staff, and consideration
by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board.
With the application of a density suffix the required positive findings with respect
to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings), Section 3.1.1, the performance
standards of Section 3.3.2, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan can be
made. Based on the above, the proposed rezoning of the subject property to
RM with a density in the range of 8-10 du/ac is recommended for approval.
.A. Continue with direction.
B. Recommend rezoning of the property from A to RM with an appropriate
density suffix based on positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(D)(5)
(Rezoning Findings), Section 3.1.1, Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning
Actions), and Comprehensive Plan policies.
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A to RM (Fine Realty and Construction Company)
Page 9
C. Recommend denial of a rezoning, based on a failure to make positive
findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings), Section
3.1.1, Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions), and Comprehensive
Plan policies.
The Board should discuss the proposed density in terms of the adjacent
properties and recommend approval of the rezoning request from A (Agricultural)
to RM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium Density), with a density suffix in the
range of 8-10 units per acre, based upon positive findings with respect to 3.1.1
(Required Findings), Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions) of the Land
Development Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and Section
2.4.5(D)(5).
Attachments:
* Survey
I I'1
LIN TON BOULEVARD
~ II ~_~~,~,RD '
I~ t ~ III
~ -REZONING-
PL*NNINSD~PAR~ENT FROM: A (AGRICULTURAL) TO: RM (MEDIUM DENSI~ RESIDENTIAL)
~TY or O~AY BEACH, FL
-- DIGItaL ~SE ~P E~EM -- ~P REF: LM159
Oakmont HomeOwners' Association
P. iO. Box 6143
Delray Beach, FL 33484
~ ¥~m~it, Peesidest J,,n~t H~ctmby,
May 19, 1997
:
llonorable Mayor ~ltd
100 H.R. ~llt Av~ue
~lgay ~a~, ~ 33444
~pli~t~on for ~zoning, Old ~~t~
~nr HonOr~le ~r ud C~Soionors:
res~n~o wht~ are lo~tod ~ ~e West end o~ ~t~
Please accept this vrieten letter ~ the ~ard of Ditchers o~
Cbs O~nt a~or'O Association coneerninq ~o ~soninv of
~e paEcel of land which ia l~a~d ~ct12 across
Road ~ ~it HolX~e a neig~rinv ~nity.
~io lette~ is vrit~n in ou~c~ o~ ~e ~sltion Ukon ~ the
noig~zing ~aitieo or ~ver, ~it Hell,e, nd Verona
Wo~o. It to our ~size to lnfo~ the hyor ~d C~oaionero,
~ a~val ~o grant~, to ~zon* fr~ "X" (~r~ltural) to
olect~ officials ~ ~ so v~ ~o o~roos Z~tat~on of a
~ ~oity o~ 6 units ~r aero.
Your ~naA~ra~on ~a~ng ~e ~eot ~ restrict ~e
of this ~X o~ Xand As greatly
b~ctfUlly, / ~
~.~ v~zt, ~,*~n: RECEIVED
~e ~nt l~or.' ~oociat~on
~ C~ CLE~
I - RECEIVED
e. v2 CITY CLERK
City Hall, Delray Beach, Fl.
In Re: Rezo~ing Ordinance
No. 22-97-Oid Germantown Road
Objection to thl~ reZonlng can be stated in two words:
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Drivers coming east on Linton Blvd. To enter 1-95 en mute to Boca or FL
Lauderdale have diseovered a ahort cut can be obtained by entering Old
C, ermantown Rd. ,Taking it to 8.W. 22nd. Ave
and then to Congre~ Ave. To connect with 1-95 at the Congre~ Ave.
In--on.
This has created an undue amount of traffic on Old Germantown Rd.
That is hazardous to drivers entering Old Oermantown Road from the
several development~ of Andover, Verona Woods, Rabbit Hollow,
Oakmont, Foxe Chase and 8panish Wells.
Traffic westbound on Old Germ~ntown Rd. Has increased due to the
proliferation of business employcc~ from the offices of Home Depot and
Sunbeam and others at the eastern end of Old C, ermantown Road.
Parcels that are now zoned Agriculture should not be changed to
categories of more housing density. The impact from 273 residences being
built in the Bloods Orove area will aho increase congestion a~ these come
on line.
It is requested that the Petition for rezonlng Ordnance No.22-97 be
denied and that no future rezonlng for increased density be permitted
in this area which is now ~aturated.
V rvtrulv~e_~,~_, yours; , /~, ~ J
........................... . .....
~'(~ % ,-~. ' 2365 Hampton Bridge Road
~ ~ ~ ~ Delray Beach, FL 33445
April 24, 1997
Honorable Mayor and Commissioners
City of Delray 8each
1 O0 NWI st Avenue
Detray Beach, FL 33444
Re: Fine Realty & Construc-
tion, Inc. - Application for Re-
zoning, Old Germantown Road
Gentlemen:
The Andover Association is a 153-member homeowners association.
Andover is a single home community located on Germantown Road at the
E~, Canal.
The Board of Directors of the Andover Association support the position of
the Rabbit Hollowe Homeowners Association concerning the rezoning of
the parcel which is located directly across Germantown Road from Rabbit
Hollowe.
For the same reasons as stated in the April 18, 1997 letter from the
Rabbit Hollowe Homeowners Association to you, the Andover Association
urges the Mayor and Commissioner, if they approve the rezoning from "A"
to "RM", to do so with the express limitation of a maximum density of 6
du/acre.
Respectfully submitted,
The Andover Association
~YKohl, 6~' K~//~
Delbert E. President ~
~e ~dover Ass~iation, Inc. ~V
C/O Haag M~agement Inc. · 2~1 N. Milit~ Trail · B~a Raton, ~ 3~31 · (40~ 241-0285
2140 Rabbit Hollowe Cir.
Delray Beach, FL 33445
April 18, 1997
Honorable Mayor and Commissioners
City of Delray Beach
100 NW 1st Ave.
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Re: Fine Realty and Con-
struction, Inc.-Appli-
cation for Rezoning, Old
Germantown Road
Gentlemen:
The Rabbit Hollowe Homeowners' Association (the Association)
is a 35-member association whose property is directly across
Old Germantown Road from the parcel which the above applicant
seeks to rezone. The requested change is from A
(Agricultural) to RM (Medium Density Residential). The
subject parcel measures 1.415 acres; the proposal is to build
it out at the maximum RM density of 12 du/acre, for a total
of 17 units.
On April 14, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the
rezoning to RM,with a density suffix of 8 du/acre.
The Association does not oppose the Planning and Zoning
Board's recommendation for rezoning to RM. It does, however,
emphatically oppose any density limit in excess of 6 du/acre.
The reasons for the Association's position are as follows:
incompatibility with surroundinq development. Across Old
Germantown Rd. to the south of the subject parcel, all of the
development is at a density of 2.35 du/acre or less. On the
north side of the road, contiguous to the subject parcel are
Spanish Wells, to the west and north, at a density of 8
du/acre, and the Crosswinds Planned Residential Development.
The Crosswinds PRD consists of Crosswinds subdivision, at a
density of 4.14 du/acre; Crosswinds Condominiums, at a
Jensity of 8 du/acre; and Palm Cove Apartments, at a density
of 17.7 du/acre. The overall density is 9.95 du/acre.
Unlike the subject property, both Spanish Wells and the
Crosswinds PRD have direct access to Linton Boulevard, and
their higher densities are no doubt directly related to their
pr~ximity and dependence on this major thoroughfare.
P & Z's recommended density of 8 du/acre for the subject
property would introduce a significant incompatibility with,
and departure from, the densities allowed for the surrounding
developments whose only access is Old Germantown Road.
To aggravate the situation, adjacent to the sgbject property
are two parcels which together are about the same size as the
subject property, and, like it, have entrance and egress only
by way of Old Germantown Road. If the recommended 8 du/acre
were to be approved for the subject parcel, it will be
virtually impossible to deny similar approval to the adjacent
parcels, resulting in even further disruption to the
compatibility of the neighborhood.
AGgravation of traffic problems. Old Germantown Rd. is now
virtually fully developed. To the west, from the Blood Groves
property to Military Trail and beyond, heavy development is
either completed, underway or planned. As a result, we
residents of Rabbit Hollowe have witnessed a very substantial
increase in the density of vehicular traffic along Old
Germantown Rd.
Old Germantown Rd. is fast becoming an alternate route to
Congress Ave. and 1-95 for residents of developments to the
west of Blood's Groves. It is also heavily travelled by
vehicles going to and from Office Depot and the other com-
mercial buildings nearby. And, with the opening of Orchard
View Elementary School, there has been not only an increase
in vehicular traffic, but also an increase in pedestrian
traffic, over and above the numerous walkers and joggers
who use this road. It should also be noted that access to the
subject property will be directly across Old Germantown Road
~rom the County School District bus stop located at the
entrance to Rabbit Hollowe.
P & Z's recommended density will significantly aggravate this
~raffic situation. The Association is concerned that the
resulting increase in traffic will only enhance the
inconvenience and danger to its members and others, including
school children, for whom Old Germantown Rd. provides the
~nly access to their homes.
2~thetics and LandscaPing. As the P & Z Staff Report
indicates, the preliminary sketch plan does not allow for
final determination whether the proposal will meet other
city requirements. The Association is concerned that this
small parcel, at the recommended density, may have the
character of a concrete slab made up primarily of parking
spaces, road and buildings, presenting an unattractive aspect
to neighbors and passersby. Such a layout would indeed be
incompatible with its surroundings.
The P & Z Recommendation. P & Z recommended a density suf-
fix of 8 du/acre. They arrived at this conclusion by
averaging the Crosswinds PRD density of 9.95 du/acre (the
highest density on the north side of Old Germantown Road)
with the 6 du/acre density advocated by the opposing Home-
owners' Associations.
P & Z's conclusion is arbitrary and unreasonable.
It rests on two fallacies. First, in arriving at their
"average", the Board arbitrarily selected for consideration
only the single most densely developed project on the north
side of Old Germantow~% Road, completely ignoring the low
density development on the south side of the road, which are
no less a part of the neighborhood and worthy of consider-
ation in the Board's calculation.
Second, in focussing exclusively on the Crosswinds PRD, the
Board failed to recognize that it and also Spanish Wells
differ from the subject property in that they abut on, have
access to, and are primarily oriented to Linton Boulevard,
not Old Germantown Road. Because of these differing
characteristics, the subject property is more closel~ akin to
the development on the south side of Germantown Road than to
~ither Spanish Wells or the Crosswinds PRD.
The Association is, moreover, concerned that if the subject
p~operty is permitted a density of 8 du/acre, this will sure-
ly be relied on by future applicants seeking to open the door
to high density development in the remaining parcels along
Old Germantown Road now zoned "A" (Agricultural).
For these reasons, the Association urges the Mayor and
"ommission, if they approve the rezoning from "A" to RM,
co do so with the express limitation of a maximum density of
~ du/acre.
Respectful ly submitted,
Rabbit }{ollowe ~{omeowners' Assn.
Bruce Steinhardt, President.
2,140 Rabbit Hollo~Cir.
Delray Beach, FL 33445
April 14, 1997
Chairperson
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Delray Beach
100 NW let Ave.
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Re: Fine Realty and Con-
struction, Inc.-Appli-
cation for Rezoning, Old
GermantownRoad
Gentlemen:
The Rabbit Hollowe Homeowners' Association (the Association)
is a 35-member association whose property is directly across
Old Germantown Road from the parcel which the above applicant
seeks to rezone. The requested change is from A
(Agricultural) to RM (Medium Density Residential). The
subject parcel measures 1.415 acres; the proposal is to build
it out at the maximum RM density of 12 du/acre, for a total
of 17 units.
The Association opposes the application for the following
reasons:
Incompatibility with surroundinq development. Across Old
Germantown Rd. to the south of the subject parcel, all of the
development is at a density of 2.35 du/acre or less. On the
north side of the road, contiguous to the subject parcel are
Spanish Wells, to the west and north, at a density of 8
du/acre.
The proposed density of 12 du/acre for the subject property
would thus introduce a jarring incompatibility with the
surrounding development.
To aggravate the situation, adjacent to the subject property
on the east are two parcels which together are about the same
size as the subject property. If the proposed zoning change
and heavy density is approved in the instant case, it will be
virtually impossible to deny similar approval for the
adjacent parcels. The Association urges the Board not to open
the door to this potential further disruption to the
compatibility of the neighborhood.
Aggravation of traffic problems. Old Germantown Rd. is now ."'
virtually fully developed. To the west, from the Blood Groves"
property to Military Trail and beyond, heavy development is
either completed, underway or planned. As a result, we , ~
residents of Rabbit Hollowe have witnessed very substanti&_l~,.~
increases in the density °f vehicular traffic al°ng Old'" ~.~ ~%%~C~<~>[.
Germantown Rd.
Old Germantown Rd. ~is fast becoming an alternate route to
Congress Ave. and 1-95 for residents of developments to the
west of Blood's Groves. It is also heavily travelled by
vehicles going to and from Office Depot and the other com-
mercial buildings nearby. And, with the opening of Orchard
View Elementary School, there has been not only an increase
in vehicular traffic, but also an increase in pedestrian
traffic, over and above the numerous walkers and joggers
that use this road.
This situation will be further exacerbated with the proposed
roadway (per the preliminary plan) being located directly
across from a Palm Beach County School bus stop.
Based on the Board's Staff estimate of 119 average daily
trips for the proposed 17 new units,the Association is
concerned that this unwarranted increase in traffic will only
enhance the inconvenience and danger to its members and
others, including elementary school children, who need to use
Old Germantown Rd. as the only access to their homes.
Esthetics and Landscaping. As the Staff Report indicates, the
preliminary Sketch plan does not allow for final
determination whether the proposal will meet other city
requirements. As the proposal now stands, the Association is
concerned that this small parcel will be nothing more than a
large slab of concrete with barrack-like buildings, including
one parallel to Old Germantown Road, presenting an
unattractive view to neighbors and passersby. Such a layout,
together with the high proposed density, would certainly not
be in keeping with the surroundings.
For the reasons stated above, the Rabbit Hollowe Homeowners'
Association opposes the subject application, and requests the
Board to approve a change to RM with a density suffix of
6 du/acre.
Respectfully submitted,
Rabbit Hollowe Homeowners' Assn.
Bruce C. Steinhardt, President.
2140 Rabbit Hollers Cir.
Delray Beach, FL 33445
April 18, 1997
lienor·bls l~yor and
1oo ~ las Ave.
Dolrey Bo·ch, FL 33444
Re: Fine Realty end Con-
struction, Inc.-Appli-
cation ~or Resontng, Old
Geramntown Road
Gentlemen:
The Rabbit Hollows Homoown·rs' Association (the Association)
is · 35-member association whose property is directly across
Old GeZlmntown Road from the parcel which the above applicant
(Agricultural) to RP[ (Medium Density Residential). The
sub3ect parcel Mesures 1.415 ·cram; the propos&l is to build
it out at the Maxt~u~ RN density of 12 du/acrs, for
of 17 units.
On April 14, 1997, the Planning end Zoning Board approved the
rssoning to RN.with · density suffix of 8 du/acrs.
T~aAlsocistlon does not oppose the Planning and Zoning
Board's recommendation for r·zoning to RN. It does,
smph&tically oppose any density limit In excess of 6 du/&cr·.
~he reasons for the Association's position ars as
9~C~mnltibilitv Wl~ ~ dev~!o~nent. Across Old
Garmintown Rd. to the south of ~hs sub~ect parcel, all of the
d.svalopeent is at · density of 2.35 du/acrs or less. On
forth side of the road, contiguous to the eub~ect parcel are
~panish ~alls0 to the west and north, at a density of
~v/acre, end the Crosswinds Planned Residential Development.
The Croeswinds PRD consists of Crosswinds subdivision, at
~{ensitF of 4.14 du/acre; Crosswinds Condominiu~l, st ·
u£ 17.7 d~/scre. The overall density is 9.95'~du/ecre.
'!~ltko"the sub~ect property, both Spanish Malls and the
Crosswindl Pled have direct access to Llnton Boulevard, and
t~air higher densities ara no doubt directly related to their
proximity nd dependence on this ma~or thorough£sre.
P & ~*a recommended density of 8 alu/acre for the ~ub]·c~ -
property would introduce a significant incompatibility with,
and departure from, the densities allowed for the surroundiag
developu~nts whose only access is Old Oermantown Road.
To aggravate the situation, ad,scent to the sub~ect property
are two parcels which together are about the same size as the
sub~ect proj~rty, and, like it,~ have entrance and egress only
by way of Old O~rmantown Road. If the recommended 8 du/acre
virtuslly impossible to deny similar approval to the ad,scent
parcall, relulting in even further disruption to the
coml~tiblllty of the neighborhood.
~ o~ ~ ~roblems. Old O~rmantown Rd. is now
virtually fully developed. To the west. from the Blood Groves
propert~ to Nllltsr~ Trail and b~yond, heavy development is
et~her completed, underway or planned. &e a result, we
residents of Rabbit Hollow~ have witnessed a very substantial
lncre&se in the density of vehicular traffic along Old
Old ~zuaantown Rd. is fast becoming an alternate route to
~ongr~ss &ye. and 1-95 for residents of developments to the
west of Blood's ~rovas. It is also heavily travelled by
vehicles going to and from Office Depot and the other com-
m~rcisl buildings nearby. And, wl~h th~ opening of Orchard
7taw El~m~ntar¥ School, there has b~en not only an increase
in vehicular traffic, but also an increase in pedestrian
traffic, over and above the nUmerous walkers and ~oggers
~ho use this road. It ehould also b~ noted that access to the
sub,act property will be directly across Old Oermantown Road
from the County Bchool District bus stop located at the
entr~nc~ to l~bbit Hollow~.
P ~ Z~S recommended density will significantly aggravate this
traffic situation. The {kseociation is concerned that the
~esultin~ increase in traffic will only enhance the
lnconv~niance and danger to i~s members and others, Including
school children, for whom Old ~mantown Rd. p~ovldes the
only access to tl~lr hom~s.
~ ~td LandscaDtno. As the P & Z Staff Repor~
indicates, the preliminary sketch plan do~e not allow for
final determination wh~ther the proposal will m~et other
city requir~m~nts. The A~sociation is concerned that this
ch&rac~ar of a concr~ slab mad~ up primarily of parking
spaces, road and buildings, pr~s~nting an unattractive aspect
to neighbors and passersby. Such a layout would indeed be
lnco~patible with its surroundings.
The [ i ~ Rsco~nondation, P & Z recommended a density suf-
fix of 8 du/acre, They arrived st this conclusion by
averaging the Crosswinds PRD density of 9.95 du/acre (the
higl~st density on the north side of Old Germantown Road)
with the 6 du/acre density advocated by the opposing Home-
o#ners' Aseoci&tions.
P & )'s conclusion is arbitrary and unreasonable.
It z~sts on t~ f&ll&ciss. First, in arriving at their
'average'0 the Board arbitrarily selected for consideration
only tll~ single ~ost densely developed prolect on the north
side o£ Old ~r~antown Road, completely ignoring the Iow
density develolxaent on the south side of the road. which ars
no less · p~rt of the neighborhood and worthy of consider-
ation in the ~oard's calculation.
Secont0 in focussing exclusively on the Crosswinds PRD. the
Board fall~ to rec~lze that it and also Spanish Wells
oiffer fr~ t~ sublect property in that they abut on, have
~ccess to, ~nd ere primarily oriented to Llnton Boulevard,
-tot Old Ger~nto~n Road. Because of these differing
caar&ctaristics, the sublect property is more closely akin to
Tie development on the south side of Germanto~n Road than to
either 8p~lllsh Wells or the Crosswlnds PRD.
~he ~societton is, moreover, concerned that if the
property is per~it~ed a density of 8 du/acre, this will
ly b~ rllild on by future applicants seeking to open the door
to high density develolx~ent in the r~aintng parcels along
Old G~rmanto~n Road now zoned 'A' (Agricultural).
· or the~ r~&sons, the lssociation urges the Ha¥or and
Co~ission, if they approve the rezoning from '&" to
to do IO with the ~press lisitation of s maximum density of
6 du/&cre.
ResPectfully sulxnitted,
Rabbit Hollows Homeowners' Assn.
Bruce Stetnhardt, President.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER,S'I
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #/~).~.- REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997
REOUEST FOR SIGN CODE WAIVER/SHELL OIL COMPANY
DATE: MAY 29, 1997
This is before the Commission to conduct a public hearing on a
request from Shell Oil Company to waive certain provisions of the
sign code. The location of the business is at 1960 West Atlantic
Avenue, or the southeast corner of Atlantic and Congress Avenues.
Drawings for one free-standing sign and two flat wall signs were
initially submitted to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board
on April 2, 1997. Since they exceeded the maximum size and
heights allowed under LDR Section 4.6.7(E) (7), the signage was
denied. The applicant submitted a revised sign package which was
considered by SPRAB on May 14, 1997. The overall size of the
proposed free-standing sign was reduced to comply with code;
however, the height and gasoline price area were still in excess
of the maximum size allowed. Also, the size of one of the
accessory use flat wall signs (ETD Food Mart) remained excessive.
These signs were denied by the Board based upon a failure to make
positive findings pursuant to Section 4.6.7(E) (7) and Section
4.6.7(D) (3) (n) (i). The Board approved the second flat wall
"SHELL" sign as it met standards.
Similar signage requests in this area have been denied or have had
conditions imposed in an effort to keep the continuity of scale in
signage at this intersection. Both the Site Plan Review and
Appearance Board and staff take the position that each sign could
be designed to meet code requirements and the business would have
adequate signage.
Recommend denial of Shell Oil Company's request to waive the
provisions of Section 4.6.7(E) (7) and Section 4.6.7(D) (3) (n) (i)
relative to the height and size of signs at 1960 West Atlantic
Avenue.
ref: agmemol 1
Date: May 23; 1997 Agenda Item No. /~)
AGENDA REQUEST
Agenda request to be placed on:
X__ Regular __ Special __ Workshop __ Consent
When: June 3, 1997
Description of Agenda Item:
Sign Waiver Request from Shell Oil Company
1960 W. Atlantic Avenue
Ordinance/Resolution Required: Yes / No Draft Attached: Yes / No
Recommendation: Denial
Department Head Signature: ~...,,q~-~-~
City_ Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds):
Funding Available: Yes / No
Funding Alternatives: (if applicable)
Account # & Description:
Account Balance:
City_ Manager Review:
Approved for agenda.'~ / No
Hold Until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Action: Approved / Disapproved 1/17/96
MEMORANDUM
TO: David T. Harden - City Manager
FROM: Lula Butler - Director, Community Improvement
SUBJECT: SHELL OIL SIGN WAIVER REOUEST
DATE: May 22, 1997
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION:
Public Hearing and City Commission consideration of the request for waivers to Section
4.6.7(E)(7) of the Land Development Regulations governing signs erected within the City
of Delray Beach. The request is submitted by the Shell Oil Company for the business
location addressed as 1960 W. Atlantic Avenue (southeast comer of W. Atlantic and
Congress Avenues).
BACKGROUND:
Shell Oil Company presented, for SPRAB's consideration, one free-standing and two flat
wall signs at the regular meeting of April 2, 1997. The free-standing and accessory use
flat wall signs exceeded the maximum size and heights allowed under Section 4.6.7(E)(7)
of the LDR's. The Board thus denied the signage request and declared it would oppose
any waiver request to the City Commission.
Shell Oil Company revised it's submission and presented the same to SPRAB at their
regular meeting of May 14, 1997. The revised sign packet included the following new
signs:
Maximum allowed under
Proposed Signage Proposed Sign Size Section 4.6.7(E)(7)
1 Free-Standing Sign 87 Sq. f. 87.5 sq. ft.
Height 21.5 fl. 18 ft.
Gasoline Price Area 27 sq. ft. 12 sq. ft.
1 Accessory Use Flat Wall 21.25 Sq. ft 10 sq. ft.
(ETD Food Mart)
1 Flat Wall - canopy 26 sq. ft 60 sq. ft
(Shell)
Shell Oil Company Sign Waiver
May 22, 1997
Page 2
The double faced, illuminated free-standing sign will replace an existing sign located at
the most eastern boundary of the property. There is an existing 40 sq. ft. free-standing
sign along Congress Avenue that will remain. Both flat wall signs will be installed on
the north elevation of the building. The Board, by proper motion, denied the request for
the proposed free-standing and accessory use flat wall signs based upon a failure to make
a positive finding pursuant to Section 4.6.7(E)(7) and Section 4.6.7(D)(3)(n)(i). The
Board approved the proposed 26 sq. ft. flat wall "SHELL" sign.
City Commission denied a similar request for the Chevron Gas Station, 1909 W. Atlantic
Avenue (northeast comer), at the same intersection in 1993. Additionally, under another
similar request, SPRAB conditioned their approval of the free-standing sign for GEO
Carpet, 2001 W. Atlantic (northwest comer) to a maximum height of 10 ft., keeping the
continuity of scale in signage at this intersection.
Staff supports the position of SPRAB since the each sign could be designed to meet code
requirements and the business would have adequate signage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending denial of the request for waivers to the height and size of signs
under Section 4.6.7(E)(7) and 4.6.7(D)(3)(n)(i) as requested by Shell Oil Company.
LB:DQ
Shell.Doc(cm)
NEW PYLON SIGN PROPOSED ~"-~ '
REDUCTION FRON PREVIOUS
REQUEST'
6'
~ ~o~ o~ ~ s~ ~
2' 1~ ~
C~s portion face was 36 S.F.
0009 4.5' and now is at 27 S.F.
000 :.
2'
~ panel raroved
i Over ~ll requested height vms 26,, now
p~sed at 21.5'
Total Square Footage = 8'/ S.F.
Total Gas $ Portion Square Footage = 27 S.F.
Total height = 21.5'
~- ~i ,- ~ OLD ATLANTIC"
,. , . ,. / .-.- .,...:.~.
,.z.. ... ,.. :., ~]~ ~
.:, :'. . _ : : ..; ,.,:, .
- .." "'~ ",'~-',~:~'::'---', :2, ~ ..'-';
~o"~
..,
~DIU8-1~7.OS' ARC-1~.28'
WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE
STATE ROAD NO 806
.. SS ~ Rato~ News, Friday May 23,1997
lc) M Nm ~ Dr~del~w~ RNulI-
A ~BLtC H~RI~ m ~ ~ M ~ ~s W~ M
~ ~UED I~CH, F~I~ R~IK AND
,/ ~ ~ & ~~ ~ ~E TO l~ UR/TS PER ACRE,
~IL W~H ~E E~ DENSI~ TO BE
~T~USHED ~Y THE CI~ C~
~ M ~M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M~I~ ~D ~FIXED BY A N~
GENE~LY ~TED ~ THE
~ EFFE~IVE ~TE.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CITY ORDINANCE
Pursuant to Section 2.4.7(B), "Waivers of City Ordinances",
NOTICE IS ~IEREBY GIVEN that a request has been received from
SHELL OIL COMPANY, 1960 West Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, for a
waiver to the provisions of Section 4.6.7(E) (7) of the Sign Code
in the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida. The City Commission will consider waiving the
provisions of this code to allow proposed flat wall ,signs to
exceed the maximum size allowed and to allow a proposed free
standing sign to exceed the height limitation.
A PUBLIC ~IEARING on the aforementioned waivers of the City's Land
Development Regulations will be held on TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1997, AT
7:00 P.M. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st
Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida.
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 hearing, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal
is to be based. The City does not provide nor prepare such
record. Pursuant to F.S. 286.0105.
PUBLISH: The News CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
May 23, 1997 Alison MacGregor Harry
City Clerk
Instructions to Newspaper: This is a standard legal ad to be
placed in the legal/classified section° Thank you.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 19, 1997
TO: Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk /~
FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement
RE: Publication of Public Hearing Notice/Sign Code
Waiver
I have attached the required public notice for a Public Hearing on a request from
Shell Oil Company for waivers to Section 4.6.7(E)(7) of the Land Development
Regulations. The notice is sent to you to have published in the local newspaper
pursuant to Section 2.4.7(B) of the LDR's. If it is possible, the notice should be
published at least by May 23rd.
Your cooperation is appreciated. Please call me if you have any questions
regarding this submission.
waiver2.shell
" RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CITY ORDINANCE
Pursuant to Section 2.4.7(B) "Waivers of City Ordinances," NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that a request has been received from SHELL OIL COMPANY, 1960 W.
Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida for a waiver to the provisions of Section 4.6.7 (E)
(7) of the Sign Code in the City's Land Development Regulations for the City of Delray
Beach, Florida, The City Commission will consider waiving the provisions of this code
to allow proposed flat wall signs to exceed the maximum size allowed and to allow a
proposed free standing sign to exceed the height limitation.
A PUBLIC HEARING on the afore-mentioned waivers of the City's Land Development
Regulations will be held on Tuesday, June 3, 1997 at 7:00PM in the City Commission
Chambers at City Hall, 100 NW 1 st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida.
Please be advised that if a person or persons decides to appeal any decision made by the
City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or heating, such
person(s) will need a record of these proceedings, and for this purpose such person(s)
may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record.
Pursuant to Florida State Statue 286.0105.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
Alison MacGregor Harty
City Clerk
Publish May 23, 1997
waiver.shell
I PRESSMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
IGovernmental Affairs and Public Relations
City Clerk ~ 7 ~7 April 3, 1997
City of Delray Beach
100 N.M. let Avenue C~T~ CLERK
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Dear City Clerk:
Please accept this letter as a request for appeal of the waivers listed in the file
and on the application for Shell Oil, 1960 West Atlantic Ave., Thomas Sign and Awning.
I have enclosed a fee of $100.O0.
This request appeared before the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board on April 2,
1997, and was denied.
I am sure you will notify me as to the re-appearance dates.
Thank you.
P~SS~N & ASSOCIATES, INC. 795
PHONE 81~7~VO~ (~)
~,.s. ~G~W,~ ,~.,~T~. ~ ~fy /~ ~
,,
FOR ................. ~ ~
~:O& ~ ~0 ? 5 ~ ~: ~oqooo ~&~O 0
28870 UM Hi9hway 19 N. · Suite ~00 · Clearwater, FL ~4821
Phone 813-72S-VOTE (8883) · Fax 813-7~8-M~75 · Pager ~-aoo-ae~-a~
t
I PRESSMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
IGov~nmental Affairs and Public Relations
I ' RECEIVEb ....
City Clerk ~]/'7/~7 April 3, 1997
City of Delray Beach
100 N.M. 1st Avenue CH CtERK
Delray Beach, FL 33444 .
Dear City Clerk:
Please accept this letter as a request for appeal of the waivers listed in the file
and on the application for Shell Oil, 1960 West Atlantic Ave., Thomas Sign and Awning.
! have enclosed a fee of $100.00.
This request appeared before the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board on April 2,
1997, and was denied.
am sure you will notify me as to the re-appearance dates.
P~~N & AS~C~S, INC. 795
I ~ ~ Hour I~o~ion
1:063 ~O?S ~ 3~: ~OqOOO
28870 US Highway 19 N. · Suite ~300 · Clea~ater, FL ~4621
Phone 813-726-VOTE (8683) · Fax 813-7~6-3975 · Pager 1-800-864-8444
I PRESSMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
IGovernmental Affal~ and Public Relat~ns
City Clerk U/?/?7 April 3, 1997
City of Delray Beach
100 N.M. 1st Avenue CI] CLERK
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Dear City Clerk:
Please accept this letter as a request for appeal of the waivers listed in the file
and on the application for Shell Oil, 1960 West Atlantic Ave., Thomas Sign and Awning.
I have enclosed a fee of $100.00.
This request appeared before the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board on April 2,
1997, and was denied.
I am sure you will notify me as to the re-appearance dates.
Thank you.
/~resi.~nt TP/sd
28870 US Highway 19 N. · Suite #300 · Clearwater, FL 34621
Phone 813-726-VOTE (8683) · Fax 813-796-3975 · Pager 1-800-864-8444
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # /~- REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997
CONTINUATION OF SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR
ORDINANCE NO. 21-97 (TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND
ANTENNAS)
DATE: MAY 29, 1997
Second reading and the second public hearing for Ordinance No.
21-97 was scheduled for and held at the City Commission's regular
meeting of May 6, 1997. Ordinance No. 21-97 amends the Land
Development Regulations by adopting regulations and requirements
pertaining to the installation, siting and design of
telecommunication towers and antennas. The attached staff report
contains an analysis of the proposed amendments.
The Planning and Zoning Board considered this matter at some
length at both regular and workshop meetings. On March 17, 1997,
the Board held a public hearing on the ordinance and recommended
unanimously that it be approved. At first reading on April 15,
1997, the Commission passed the ordinance by unanimous vote.
On May 6, 1997, the City Commission continued final consideration
of the ordinance to allow staff one more opportunity to check with
the County to see if any new information had come to light which
we might want to consider for inclusion in our ordinance. This
has been done. As of this date, nothing has been finalized at the
County level. The telecommunications issue is set to be reviewed
on a County-wide basis by a committee established through the
Intergovernmental Coordination Program.
The current moratorium on the acceptance of applications for
telecommunication towers and antennas expires on June 15, 1997.
The goal has been to have an ordinance in place by that time. As
new technology and information becomes available, the ordinance
can certainly be amended at a later date.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 21-97 on second and final
reading.
ref:agmemol0
ORDINANCE NO. 21-97
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELl{AY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTIONS
4.4.9(D) (7), 4.4.13 (D) (6), 4.4.20(D) (3),
4.4.21(D) (5) , 4.4.26(D) (2), ~ 4.4.27(D) ,
"CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES ALLOWED", OF LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
TO PROVIDE FOR THE DELETION OF COMMUNICATION AND
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES/TOWERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE
IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC), CENTR~_L BUSINESS
(CBD) DISTRICT, INDUSTRIA3~ (I), COMMUNITY FACILITIES
(CF), LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI), AND OPEN SPACE AND
RECREATION (OSR) ZONING DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTION
4.3.3, "SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES", BY
ENACTING A NEW SUBSECTION 4.3.3(S),
"TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS", TO PROVIDE
FOR REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING FREESTANDING
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE
P LA1N-NED COMMERCIAL (PC), PLANNED COMMERCE CENTER
(PCC), MIXED INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL (MIC), LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL (nI), INDUSTRIAL (I), OPEN SPACE ~
RECREATION (OSR) , AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES (CF)
ZONING DISTRICTS FOR MONOPOLE TOWERS HAVING A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 64 FEET, OR AS A CONDITIONAL USE
IN THE PLANNED COMMERCE CENTER (PCC), MIXED
INDUSTRIAL ~ COMMERCIAL (MIC), LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
(LI), INDUSTRIAL (I), OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
(OSR), AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES (CF) ZONING
DISTRICTS FOR MONOPOLE TOWERS HAVING A MAXIMUM
HEIGHT GREATER THAN 64 FEET; TO PROVIDE FOR
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CRITERIA, APPLICATION
REQUIREMENTS, INSPECTIONS, CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS,
USE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION
FACILITIES, REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS, AND WAIVERS
TO LOCATION, HEIGHT, AND CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS
BASED ON FINDINGS MADE BY THE CITY COMMISSION; TO
PROVIDE FOR REGULATIONS GOVERNING EXISTING TOWERS,
ABAiNqDONED TOWERS A_ND ANTENNAS NOT LOCATED ON
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS; AMENDING APPENDIX A,
"DEFINITIONS", TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR THE TERMS
"ANTENNA" , "GUYED TOWER" , "MONOPOLE TOWER" , "PANEL
ANTENNA" , "SELF - SUPPORT/LATTICE TOWER" , "STEALTH
FACILITY", "TELECOM]WUNI CATION TOWER", AND "WHIP
ANTENNA"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A
SAVING CLAUSE, A_ND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, recent changes in State and Federal law regarding
wireless communication technology has resulted in an increased demand
for the construction of telecommunication towers; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach
has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the
City of Delray Beach to impose controls on the location of
telecommunication towers and antennas in a manner which balances the
needs of the telecommunication industry with the needs of consumers
of telecommunication services and with the interests of the general
public for development standards which address aesthetic issues
associated with telecommunication towers and antennas; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach
has determined that regulations and requirements for accessory uses
and structures associated with telecommunication towers and antennas
should be amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter Four, "Zoning Regulations",
Article 4. ,4 "Base Zoning District", Section 4..4 9, "General
Commercial (GC) District", Subsection 4.4.9(D), "Conditional Uses and
Structures Allowed", of the Land Development Regulations of the City
of Delray Beach, be, and the same is hereby amended to delete the
following:
(D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed:
Section 2. That Chapter Four, "Zoning Regulations",
! Article 4.4, "Base Zoning District", Section 4.4.13, "Central
ii Business (CBD) District", Subsection 4.4.13(D), "Conditional Uses and
Structures Allowed", of the Land Development Regulations of the City
of Delray Beach, be, and the same is hereby amended to delete the
following:
(D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed:
' (6)
.. - 2 - Ord. No. 21-97
:i
Section 3. That Chapter Four, "Zoning Regulations",
Article 4.4, "Base Zoning District", Section 4.4.20, "Industrial (I)
District", Subsection 4.4.20(D), ',Conditional Uses and Structures
Permitted", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray
Beach, be, and the same is hereby amended to delete the following:
(D) Conditional Uses and Structures Permitted:
Section 4. That Chapter Four, "Zoning Regulations",
Article 4.4, "Base Zoning District", Section 4.4.21, "Community
Facilities (CF) District", Subsection 4.4.21(D), "Conditional Uses
and Structures Allowed", of the Land Development Regulations of the
City of Delray Beach, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed:
(5) Special Services and Facilities, such as:
privately operated parking lots and garages; stadiums
and arenas; refuse transfer stations; and power
transfer stations~/~/~~~/~~/
Section 5. That Chapter Four, "Zoning Regulations",
Article 4 4 "Base Zoning District" Section 4 4 26 "Light
Industrial (LI) District" Subsection 4 4 26(D) "Conditional Uses
and Structures Allowed", of the Land Development Regulations of the
City of Delray Beach, be, and the same is hereby amended to delete
the following:
(D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed:
Section 6. That Chapter Four, "Zoning Regulations",
Article 4.4, "Base Zoning District", Section 4.4.27, "Open Space and
Recreation (OSR) District", of the Land Development Regulations of
the City of Delray Beach, be, and the same is hereby amended to
delete Subsection 4.4o27(D), "Conditional Uses and Structures
Allowed", in its entirety.
Section 7. That Chapter Four, "Zoning Regulations",
Article 4.3, "District Regulations, General Provisions", Section
4.3.3, "Special Requirements for Specific Uses", of the Land
Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, be, and the same
is hereby amended by enacting a new Subsection 4.3.3(S),
"Telecommunication Towers and Antennas", to read as follows:
- 3 - Ord. No. 21-97
(S) Teleco...~nication Towers and Antennas:
(1) Purpose and Intent: The regulations and
requirements of this section are intended to:
(a) Promote the health, safety and general
welfare of the citizenry;
(b) Provide for the appropriate location and
development of telecommunication towers and antennas within the City;
(c} Minimize adverse visual impacts of
telecommunication towers and antennas through careful design, siting,
and screening criteria;
(d) Avoid potential damage to adjacent
properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting
of tower structures; and
(e) Protect residential areas and land uses from
potential adverse impacts of telecommunication towers and antennas by
maximizinq use of any new or existing telecommunication towers
through shared use, i.e., co-location, to reduce the number of
towers.
(2) Freestandinq Teleco,',~¥~nication Towers:
Freestanding telecommunication towers are
permitted as follows:
(a) Monopole towers having a maximum height of
64 feet are a permitted use in the following zoning districts:
Planned Commercial (PC)
Planned Commerce Center (PCC)
3__~. Mixed Industrial and Commercial
District (MIC)
4. Light Industrial (LI)
5__~. Industrial
Open Space and Recreation (OSR)
7. Community Facilities (CF)
(b) Monopole towers having a maximum height
greater than 64 feet may be permitted as a conditional use in the
following zoning districts:
- 4 - Ord. No. 21-97
Planned Commerce Center (PCC)
2__=. Mixed Industrial and Commercial
District (MIC)
.3. Liqht Industrial (LI)
Industrial (I)
Open Space and Recreation (OSR) (on
sites qreater than 10 acres in size)
6_=. Community Facilities (CF.) (on sites
qreater than 10 acres in size)
(c) Notwithstandinq the above listed
requirements, monopole towers qreater than 64 feet in heiqht are a
permitted use when located on the public properties listed below.
Towers that are to be located on these properties are not subject to
the minimum separation requirement between towers. Towers shall be
located so as to create the least potential visual impact on adjacent
riqhts-of-wa¥ and residential areas.
1_=. Miller Park, 1905 S.W. 4th Avenue
2__=. Delra¥ Beach Municipal Golf Course,
2200 Hiqhland Avenue
3_=. Public Works Complex, 434 South Swinton
Avenue
4__=. South Central Reqional Wastewater
Treatment Facility, 1801 N. Conqress
Avenue
(d) Lattice and quyed towers may be permitted as
a conditional use in the followinq zoninq districts:
1__=. Community Facilities (CFI (on sites
qreater than 10 acres in size)
2_=. Industrial (I)
(e) Development Standards and Criteria:
1. Heiqht:
a. Tower heiqht shall not exceed 125
feet unless a waiver is qranted
pursuant to subsection 4.3.3(S) (7).
b. Tower heiqht is to be measured from
the crown of the road of the
nearest public riqht-of-wa¥. The
measurement of the tower heiqht
shall include any apparatus that
extends above the tower structure,
with the followin~ exceptions:
- 5 - Ord. No. 21-97
(1) Liqhtinq rods, safety
liqhtinq, and any other
apparatus required by the
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) or the
Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to ensure the
safe operation of the
facility.
(2) Whip antennas not exceedinq 6
inches in diameter may extend
10 feet above the heiqht of
the tower structure.
Setbacks:
a. Towers shall be located a minimum
of fifty (50) feet from any
existinq or proposed public street
riqht-of-way line.
b. The minimum distance between a
monopole tower and the nearest
property line of a residential
zoninq district shall be equal to
200% of the heiqht of the tower.
c__~. The minimum distance between a
lattice or quyed tower and the
nearest property line of a
residential zoninq district shall
be equal to 400% of the heiqht of
the tower.
d__=. Monopole, lattice, or quyed
telecommunication towers shall not
be located within one thousand
(1,000) feet of any existinq
monopole, lattice, or quyed
telecommunication tower.
~.~. Equipment buildinqs and other
structures associated with a
telecommunication tower shall
conform to the setbacks established
for the underlyinq zoninq district.
~i - 6 - Ord. No. 21-97
Buffering Requirements:
a. An eight foot high fence or wall
shall be constructed around the
base of a telecommunication tower.
The fence or wall shall be screened
in accordance with LDR Section
4.6.5.
b. Accessory equipment and structures
shall be screened in accordance
with Section 4.4.16.
c. Landscaping may be required around
anchors or supports, as well as
around the perimeter of the site on
which the tower is located, in
order to enhance compatibility with
adjacent properties.
High Voltage and "No Trespassing"
Warning Signs:
a__=. If high voltage is necessary for
the operation of the
telecommunication tower or any
accessory structures, "HIGH VOLTAGE
- DANGER" warning signs shall be
permanently attached to the fence
or wall and shall be spaced no more
than forty (40) feet apart.
b_=. "NO TRESPASSING" warning signs
shall be permanently attached to
the fence or wall and shall be
spaced no more than forty (40) feet
apart.
c. The letters for the above described
signs shall be at least six (6)
inches in height. The two warning
signs may be combined into one
sign. Warning signs shall be
installed at least five (5) feet
above the finished grade of the
fence.
- 7 - Ord. No. 21-97
d. Where the warninq siqns could be
obscured by landscaDinq, they may
be installed on free standinq
poles, at least five (5) feet above
the finished grade.
5. Siqns and Advertisinq: The use of any
portion of a tower for siqns or
advertisinq purposes, includinq company
name, banners, streamers, etc. is
strictly prohibited.
6. Color: Except where superseded by the
requirements of other county, state, or
federal requlator¥ aqencies possessinq
jurisdiction over telecommunication
towers, telecommunication towers shall
be constructed in neutral colors,
designed to blend into the surroundinq
environment, such as non-contrastinq
qray.
7. Liqhtinq: Artificial tower liqhtinq
shall be limited to mandatory safety
liqhtinq required by county, state, or
federal requlatory aqencies possessinq
jurisdiction over telecommunication
towers. Security liqhtinq around the
base of a tower may be provided if such
liqhtinq conforms with the requirements
of Section 4.6.8.
8. Hazardous Materials: Review and
approval by the Fire Marshal is
required where telecommunication towers
are proposed within two hundred feet of
a proposed or existinq principal use
which includes the storaqe,
distribution, or sale of volatile,
flammable, explosive, or hazardous
wastes such as LP qas, propane,
qasoline, natural gas, and corrosive or
danqerous chemicals, unless such
materials are used for backup Dower
purposes.
- 8 - Ord. No. 21-97
9. Equipment Storaqe: Mobile or immobile
equipment not used in direct support of
a tower facility shall not be stored or
parked on the site of the
telecommunication tower, unless repairs
to the tower are beinq made.
(f) Required Information: All applications for
telecommunication towers shall contain the followinq information:
1. Standard application items pursuant to
2.4.3 (a) .
2. Site plan showinq the location,
dimensions, and elevations of the tower
and accessory structures.
3. An aerial photoqraph produced at a
scale of not less than one inch equals
300 feet (1"=300') indicatinq all
residential land uses and all existinq
telecommunication towers located within
1,500 feet of the proposed tower.
4. Landscape plan pursuant to 4.4.16.
5. A statement prepared by a professional
reqistered enqineer licensed to
practice in the State of Florida, which
throuqh rational enqineerinq analysis
certifies the tower's compliance with
applicable standards as set forth in
the Standard Buildinq Code, and any
associated requlations; and describes
the tower's capacity, includinq an
example of the number and type of
antennas it can accommodate. For all
towers attached to existinq structures,
the statement shall include a
certification that the structure can
support the load superimposed from the
tower.
6. Verification that the telecommunication
tower and antenna is in compliance with
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
requlations.
- 9 - Ord. No. 21-97
7 Written approval or a statement of no
objection from other federal or state
aqencies that may requlate
telecommunication tower sitinq, desiqn,
and construction.
8. Verification that the facility has been
licensed by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC).
9. A certified statement that the
construction and placement of the tower
will not unnecessarily interfere with
public safety communications and the
usual and customary transmission or
reception of radio and television
service enjoyed by adjacent residential
and nonresidential properties. A
statement shall be prepared by a radio
frequency enqineer identifyinq any
interference that may result from the
proposed construction and placement.
10. A line of siqht analysis shall be
required to assess the tower's visual
impact on residential areas. Such
analysis shall include a visual
representation of the tower on the
site, and an illustration of its impact
when viewed from at least three (3)
specific points within a 1,000 foot
radius of the proposed tower location.
The exact location of the points to be
included in the analysis shall be
coordinated with Planninq and Zoninq
Department staff.
Inspections:
1. The owner of a telecommunication tower
shall have the tower periodically
inspected for structural and electrical
integrity by an enqineer licensed to
practice in the State of Florida, in
accordance with the followinq schedule:
- 10 - Ord. No. 21-97
a. Monopole: at least once every five
(5) years
b. Self-support lattice: at least once
every two (2) years
c__=. Guyed: at least once every two (2)
years
2. Inspections may be required on a more
frequent basis if there is reason to
believe that the structural or
electrical inteqrity of the tower is
jeopardized.
3. Reports detailinq the results of the
inspections shall be submitted to the
Chief Buildinq Official. Based upon
the results of an inspection, the Chief
Buildinq Official may require repair or
removal of a telecommunication tower.
~. The City Commission may approve an
alternative inspection proqram when the
Chief Buildinq Official has determined
that the alternative program is
sufficient to ensure the safety of the
facility.
5. The City may conduct its own periodic
inspections of a telecommunication
tower to ensure its structural or
electrical inteqrit¥.
(h) Existinq Towers:
1. Notwithstandinq the above provisions of
this section, whip and panel type
telecommunication antennas may be
placed on existinq towers with
sufficient loadinq capacity after
approval by the Chief Buildinq
Official. Any other type of antenna
requires a modification of the
conditional use approval. The loadinq
capacity of a tower shall be certified
by an enqineer licensed to practice in
the State of Florida.
- 11 - Ord. No. 21-97
2. Notwithstandinq the provisions of this
section, towers in existence as of May
6, 1997, may be replaced with a tower
of equal or less visual impact upo~
approval by the Planninq and Zoninq
Director, provided that the followinq
criteria are met:
a. The tower meets the minimum
requirements of this section; or
b. The tower received conditional use
approval prior to May 6, 1997.
Replacement of existinq towers which do
not meet the above specified criteria
may be approved by the City Commission
as a new conditional use.
Abandoned Towers:
1. A tower shall be considered abandoned
if its use for telecommunication
service has been discontinued for one
hundred eiqhty (180) consecutive days.
All abandoned or unused
telecommunication tower facilities
shall be removed by the tower
owner/operator within ninety (90) days
of abandonment.
2. Where a tower is abandoned but not
removed within the specified time
frame, the City may remove or demolish
the tower and place a lien on the
property followinq the procedures (but
not the criteria) for demolition of
unsafe buildinqs/structures contained
in Article 7.8 of the LDRs, Unsafe
Buildinqs or Structures.
Telecommunication towers beinq utilized
for other purposes, includinq but not
limited to liqht standards and power
poles, may be exempt from this
provision.
- 12 - Ord. No. 21-97
(3) AnteDnas Not Located on Teleco,~,,unication Towers:
(a) Non-stealth and stealth antennas mounted on
rooftops, buildings, or other structures which constitute a principa.!.
use, are a permitted use in the following zoning districts, subject
to the limitatiOns and requirements contained herein:
1__=. Medium Density Residential (RM)
2. General Commercial (GC)
3. Central Business District (CBD)
4. Central Business District--Railroad
Corridor (CBD-RC)
Automotive Commercial (AC)
6_=. Planned Commercial (PC)
7_=. Resort/Tourism (RT}
8. Planned Office Center (POC}
Professional and Office District (POD)
10. Planned Commerce Center (PCC)
11. Mixed Industrial and Commercial (MIC)
12. Industrial (I)
13. Light Industrial (LI)
14. Community Facilities (CF)
15. Open Space and Recreation (OSR}
(b) Non-Stealth Antennas:
1. Shall only be permitted on buildings or
structures which are at least fifty
(50) feet tall. Antennas may be placed
on buildings or structures less than
fifty (50) feet tall in the CF or OSR
zoning districts if public safety needs
warrant the antenna.
2. Shall be placed in a manner so as to
minimize the visual impact of the
antenna on adjacent properties, and
shall be of a color which matches the
exterior of the building or structure
upon which it is situated.
3. May not extend more than ten (10) feet
above the highest point of the roof or
structure. Antennas may exceed this
maximum height in the CF or OSR zoning
districts if public safety needs
warrant the antenna.
- 13 - Ord. No. 21-97
4. Shall be accompanied by a statement
which demonstrates in a technical
manner why a stealth antenna cannot be
used for the particular application.
5. Require approval by the Site Plan
Review and Appearance Board.
(c) Stealth Antennas:
1. May extend up to twenty (20) feet above
the highest point of the roof or
structure. If a greater height is
necessary, the antenna must be approved
by the Site Plan Review and Appearance
Board.
2. Requires approval by the Director of
Planning and Zoning to ensure that the
antenna is consistent with the
definition of a stealth facility.
(d) Requirements and Standards:
1. Each application shall contain a
rendering or photograph of the antenna
including, but not limited to, colors
and screening devices.
2. No commercial advertising shall be
allowed on an antenna or on the
screening devices or elements.
3. The antenna must be in compliance with
FAA requirements. No signals, lights
or illumination shall be permitted on
an antenna unless required by the FCC
or FAA.
4. Any related unmanned equipment building
shall not contain more than 750 square
feet of gross floor area or be more
than twelve (12) feet in height; and
5. If the equipment buildinq is located on
the roof of the building, the area of
the equipment building shall not occupy
more than twenty-five percent (25%) of
the roof area.
- 14 - Ord. No. 21-97
6. An antenna proposed for location on a
structure or site that is listed on the
local or national register of historic
places, or is located within a
designated historic district, may be
denied if the antenna creates an
adverse impact on the historic
character of the structure, site or
district.
(4) Co-location:
(a) In order to minimize adverse visual impacts
associated with a proliferation of towers, co-location of
communication antennas by more than one provider on existing or new
telecommunication towers shall take precedence over the construction
of new single use telecommunication towers. An application for a new
tower that is greater than 64 feet in height shall not be approved
unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that there is a need
for the new tower which cannot be met by placing the antenna on an
existing tower. Accordingly, the followinq requirements apply to
each application for a new telecommunication tower that is greater
than 64 feet in height.
1~ All new telecommunication towers shall
be constructed so as to have the
capacity to permit multiple uses.
Monopole towers shall be able to
accommodate a minimum of two (2) users,
and lattice or guyed towers shall be
able to accommodate a minimum of three
(3) users.
All applications for new
telecommunication towers shall include
a written analysis of the feasibility
of sharing any existing
telecommunication tower located within
a half-mile radius of the proposed
tower site. The analysis shall
consider the following factors:
a. Availability of existing towers for
co-location.
b. Structural capacity of existing
tower or towers.
c. Geographic service area
requirements.
- 15 - Ord. No. 21-97
d. Radio frequency interference.
e. Mechanical or electrical
incompatibility.
f. Restrictions or limitations of the
Federal Communications Commission
that would preclude the shared use
of the tower.
~. Any other information that would
demonstrate the need for the new
tower.
3. An existinq telecommunication tower
that is determined to be inappropriate
for sharinq shall be assumed to be
inappropriate for sharinq the same
types of facilities in the future.
Such towers will not need to be
evaluated in the future reqardinq
sharinq with the same type of facility
for which it has been determined to be
inappropriate. The Planninq and Zoninq
Department shall retain a list of such
towers and will provide a copy of the
list to all potential applicants. The
City may require additional sharinq
feasibility evaluations if warranted by
chanqes in technoloqy.
4. A requirement to allow co-location will
be a condition of approval for all new
towers. This requirement will be
deemed to have been met if the facility
owner shows that it has executed a
joint use aqreement with at least one
other unaffiliated entity for shared
use, and aqrees to offer the same
contract to others. In other cases,
the facility owner must provide a
statement of intent to offer space on
the tower on fair, reasonable,
nondiscriminatory terms, at fair market
value, and to neqotiate leases promptly
and without undue delay. A condition
of any permit for a new
telecommunication tower shall be that
the permit shall be terminated, and the
facility removed, if the City finds
that the facility owner is not
complyinq with its obliqations under
this section.
- 16 - Ord. No. 21-97
5. For any telecommunication tower
approved for shared use, the owner of
the tower shall send a written notice
to all potential users of the new
tower, informinq them of the
opportunity for co-location, and
includinq information on the tower's
location and load capacity. Copies of
the notice letters shall be provided to
the City at the time that the
application is filed. The list of
potential users shall be provided by
the Planninq and Zoninq Department.
6. The City may deny an application if an
available co-location is feasible and
the application is not for such
co-location.
7. The requirement for a new tower to
provide for co-location, and the
applicable provisions of this
subsection, may be waived pursuant to
the requirements and findinqs
stipulated in subsection 4.3.3(S) (7).
(5) Use of City-Owned Property for Telecommunication
Facilities:
(a) No municipally-owned property may be used
without a lease aqreement with the City. The City shall authorize
the application and use of City property after the applicant executes
a lease aqreement that is acceptable to the City. The City shall
have no obliqation whatsoever to execute such lease even if the
applicant can meet the criteria set forth in this section.
(b) The City may, as appropriate, to protect its
property and the public interest, establish additional requirements
beyond the minimum requirements of this section for facilities
located on municipally-owned property.
(c) The City may issue letters of interest for
the, purposes of leasinq sites on desiqnated City property for the
construction and installation of personal wireless service
facilities. The City will encouraqe the installation of facilities
which have a minimal impact on the surroundinq areas and are
consistent with the development of the public property on which the
facility is located.
- 17 - Ord. No. 21-97
(6),, Review and Approval Process:
(a) The City shall process all applications for
telecommunication towers and antennas in a timely manner and in
accordance with established procedures. The reason for the rejection
or denial of any application filed in accordance with the provisions
of this section shall be set forth in writing.
(b) All conditional uses must be approved
pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.4.5(E). In addition to the
requirements of that section, the following finding must be made in
connection with a conditional use approval for a new communication
tower:
That the visual impact of the tower has been minimized to
the greatest extent possible through careful design,
siting, and screeniDq.
(7) Waivers:
(a) The City Commission may waive the
requirements of this section pursuant to the authority granted in
Section 2.4.7(B). In addition to the requirements and standards
Dpecified in that section, the following findings, which are
~pplicable to the nature of the waiver must be made:
1. Waiver of Locational Restrictions.
Finding: That approval of the waiver
will allow for the construction of a
facility at a location that is more
appropriate than sites which comply
with the zoning and separation
requirements, based upon factors such
as its distance from residential uses,
existence of permanent screening or
buffers, and location within a
large-scale non-residential area.
2. Waiver of Height Restrictions.
At least one of the following findings
must be made:
- 18 - Ord. No. 21-97
a. That a height greater than 125 feet
is necessary to accommodate
co-location by another provider,
and it has been illustrated through
a line of sight analysis that the
additional height will not
significantly impact residential
neighborhoods. Waivers granted
pursuant to this provision shall
not allow heights in excess of 150
feet.
b. That a height Greater than 125 feet
is required to meet public safety
needs.
3. Waiver of Co-location Requirements:
Finding: That it has been specifically
demonstrated through data and analysis
that co-location is not feasible
because of factors such as site
constraints, radio frequency
interference, geographic service area
incompatibilities, mechanical or
electrical incompatibilities, or
similar circumstances.
Section 8. That Appendix A, "Definitions", of the Land
Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, be, and the same
is hereby amended by enacting definitions for the following terms, to
read as follows:
ANTENNA: A transmitting and/or receiving device used for
personal wireless services that radiates or captures electromagnetic
waves, including directional antennas, such as panel and microwave
dish antennas, and omni-directional antennas, such as whips, but
excluding radar antennas, amateur radio antennas, and satellite dish
antennas.
GUYED TOWER: A telecommunication tower that is supported,
in whole or in part, by guy wires and Ground anchors.
MONOPOLE TOWER: A telecommunication tower consisting of a
single Dole or spire self supported by a permanent foundation,
constructed without Guy wires and Ground anchors.
PANEL ANTENNA: An array of antennas designed to
concentrate a radio signal in a particular area.
- 19 - Ord. No. 21-97
SRLF-SUPPORT/LATTICE TOWER: A telecommunication tower that
is constructed without quy wires and qround anchors.
STEALTH FACILITY: Any telecommunication facility which is
desiqned to blend into the surroundinq environment. Examples of
stealth facilities include architecturally screened roof-mounted
antennas, antennas inteqrated into architectural elements, and
telecommunication towers desiqned to look like liqht poles, power
poles, or trees.
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER: A quyed, monopole, or
self-support/lattice tower, constructed as a free-standinq structure,
containinq one or more antennas used in the provision of personal
wireless services.
WHIP ANTENNA: A cylindrical antenna that transmits siqnals
in 360 deqrees.
Section 9. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
Section 10. 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 11. 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 3rd day of June , 1997.
ATTEST:
J City ~erk '
First Reading April 15~ 1997
Second Reading May 6, 1997 (continued to date certain of June 3, 1997)
June 3, 1997
- 20 - Ord. No. 21-97
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN
CJ.TY MANAGER--,
FROM: MINGUEZ
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND Z. IZ)NING
SUBJECT: CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 15, '1997
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRs)
ESTABLISHING SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION
OF TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS
The action requested of the Commission is the adoption of LDR amendments
pertaining to the installation of telecommunications towers and antennas. The
amendments affect the following sections of the Land Development Regulations: 4.3.3,
Special Requirements for Specific Uses; 4.4.9, General Commercial (_CC) District;
4.4.13. Central Business District (CBD); 4.4.20, Industrial (I) District; 4.4.21, Community
Facilities (CF) District; 4.4.26, Light Industrial (LI) District; 4.4.27, Open Space and
Recreation (OSR) District; and Appendix "A", DEFINITIONS.
On February 8, 1996, the 104th Congress of the United States passed the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104). The Act addresses many
topics including telecommunication services, broadcast services, cable services,
regulatory reform, and other miscellaneous provisions. The basic intent of the act was
to encourage and allow competition in the telecommunications industry, in part by
reducing the amount of existing regulations. One result of the act is that local
governments are dealing with numerous requests from new providers to place towers
an,d antennas throughout their jurisdictions. Few governments, including Delray Beach,
have had ordinances in place to appropriately regulate the placement of these facilities.
Section 704 of the Act addresses local government zoning of towers used for cellular,
PCS (Personal Communications Services) and CMR (Commercial Mobile Radio
City Commission Documentation
LDR Amendment -- Telecommunication Towers and Antennas
Page 2
Service) transmitters. The following restrictions apply to any regulation by local
government of telecommunication facilities:
· Local zoning requirements cannot unreasonably discriminate among wireless
telecommunication providers.
· Local zoning requirements cannot prohibit or have the affect of prohibiting the
provision of wireless telecommunication service.
· Municipalities must act on a request to place or construct a wireless
telecommunication facility within a reasonable period of time.
· Any denial must be in writing and supported by reasonable evidence in a written
record before the municipality.
· Municipalities cannot deny requests for tower sites based on health concerns
regarding radio frequency emissions.
As a result of receiving four (4) applications for new telecommunication towers in a
two month period, the City Commission on December 10, 1996, enacted a 90-day
moratorium on the receipt and processing of any new tower applications. This
moratorium was recently extended another 90 days, for a total of six months. The
purpose of the moratorium was to allow staff time to draft new regulations governing the
placement of towers throughout the City. Those regulations have been drafted, and are
now before the City Commission for approval.
I
Under the City's current regulations,communication facilities and towers are permitted
as a conditional use in the following zoning districts:
· General Commercial (GC)
· Planned Commercial (PC)
· Central Business District (CBD)
· Central Business District--Railroad Corridor (CBD-RC)
· Community Facilities (CF)
· Light Industrial (LI)
· Industrial (I)
There are no specifications provided as to the placement of the towers, the maximum
heights, setbacks, etc. Other than having to make the typical findings associated with a
conditional use, there are no guidelines for determining whether or not a tower is
City Commission Documentation
LDR Amendment - Telecommunication Towers and Antennas
Page 3
appropriate in a particular location. There are no provisions for encouraging the co-
location of different providers on the same towers.
The main goal of the proposed ordinance is to be able to allow the telecommunication
industry to meet the demand for service while minimizing the visual impact of its
facilities, particularly to residential areas. The new ordinance includes regulations that
are designed to:
· Provide a simpler approval process for smaller towers and for antennas that
are concealed on buildings and structures.
· Restrict larger towers to zoning districts and sites that are not near residential
areas.
· Require that all new towers have the capacity for co-location.
· Provide minimum distances between towers and residential zoning districts, and
between existing towers and new towers.
The ordinance distinguishes between antennas that are on towers, and those that are
attached to buildings and structures. Towers are further distinguished in terms of their
type (monopole, lattice, and guyed) and height. Antennas are classified as either
stealth (concealed) or non-stealth (visible). All of these factors determine where the
facilities can be located, and the applicable approval process.
The ordinance allows towers that are up to 64 feet in height to be installed as accessory
structures in the following zoning districts:
· Planned Commercial (PC)
· Planned Commerce Center (PCC)
· Mixed Industrial and Commercial (MIC)
· Light Industrial (LI)
· Industrial (I)
· Community Facilities (CF)
· Open Space and Recreation (OSR)
[NOTE: The basis for the 64' height is that the LDRs currently permit antennas, as well
as radio and television towers, to exceed the height restrictions of the particular zoning
dis'trict in which they are located, up to a maximum of 64 feet. Greater height than 64'
requires City Commission approval.]
City Commission Documentation
LDR Amendment - Telecommunication Towers and Antennas
Page 4
The proposed ordinance provides that towers which exceed 64' in height are allowed as
a conditional use in the following zoning districts:
· Planned Commerce Center (PCC)
· Mixed Industrial and Commercial (MIC)
· Light Industrial (LI)
· Industrial (I)
· Community Facilities (CF) - on sites greater than 10 acres in size
· Open Space and Recreation (OSR) - on sites greater than 10 acres in size
In addition, there are four sites in the City that have been identified as being appropriate
locations for telecommunication towers, based on their size, existing use, and central
locations, as well as the opportunities they provide for concealing a tower from
residential areas. On these four locations, towers could be installed as a permitted
accessory use:
· Miller Park
· Municipal Golf Course (Highland Ave.)
· Public Works Complex
· Wastewater Treatment Facility (Congress Ave.)
Numerous development standards and criteria are provided for tower installation. The
height could not exceed 125' unless additional height is needed for colocation or to
meet public safety needs. Towers must be separated by at least 1,000 feet from each
other. Monopole towers must be set back from residential areas by a distance that is
200% of the pole height; lattice and guyed towers must be set back 400% of their
height. Screening requirements are spelled out, and minimum inspection procedures
are established. Provisions are made for the treatment of existing and abandoned
towers, and for the use of City-owned property for telecommunication facilities.
Provisions for co-location are also spelled out in the proposed regulations.
The ordinance provides that stealth antennas attached to buildings and structures are
allowed in almost all zoning districts, excluding the lower density residential zones and
the OS (Open Space) district. Non-stealth antennas are further restricted, and will
require approval by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB).
All of the above provisions will be contained in one section, 4.3.3 (S),
Telecommunication Towers and Antennas. However, it will also be necessary to
delete existing references to communication towers and facilities from a number of
zoning districts where they are currently listed. In addition, the OSR district contains
language stating that there are no conditional uses permitted. The telecommunication
ordinance proposes to allow towers as conditional uses on OSR-zoned sites greater
City Commission Documentation
LDR Amendment -- Telecommt~nication Towers and Antennas
Page 5
than 10 acres in size (which will exclude neighborhood parks). In order to be
consistent, the current language in the OSR district regulations regarding the prohibition
against conditional uses should be eliminated.
The Planning and Zoning Board initially considered the LDR amendments at its
meeting on February 24, 1997. They had numerous questions and comments, and
decided to hold a workshop to review the ordinance in detail. The workshop was held
on March 10th, and was attended both by members of the public and the
telecommunications industry. The Board made several modifications, including limiting
the maximum height of towers to 125' (unless additional height is necessary for
colocation or public safety needs), and specifying requirements for line-of-sight
analyses. On March 17, 1997, the Board held a public hearing on the ordinance, and
recommended unanimously that it be approved.
Following the Board's consideration, staff made certain changes to ensure consistency
between the various sections of the ordinance. All of the waiver provisions were
moved to one section, the line of sight analysis requirements were clarified, and
reference was made to the required findings for conditional use approval.
By motion, approve the amendments to the LDRs, adding Section 4.3.3(S),
Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, and amending Sections 4.4.9, General
Commercial (GC) District; 4.4.13. Central Business District (CBD); 4.4.20, Industrial (I)
District; 4.4.21, Community. Facilities (CF) District; 4.4.26, Light Industrial (LI) District;
4.4.27, Open Space and Recreation (OSR) District; and Appendix "A" DEFINITIONS;
as provided in the attached ordinance.
Attachment:
· Ordinance by others
COMMENTS FROM CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997
11. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Aqenda Items from the
Public - Immediately followinq Public Hearings.
11.A. City Manaqer's response to prior public comments and
inquiries.
The City Manager stated that at the last Commission
meeting there was a comment that County Commissioner McCarty, at
a meeting several weeks ago, had spoke about the Palm Tran
facility on Congress Avenue and indicated that if the City wanted
a wall on the site to let the County know and it would be taken
care of. At the April 15th meeting, Commissioner McCarty made
the following statement: "On the Palm Tran facility, we will do
whatever it is we are supposed to do, but I'm sure we've
submitted a site plan to the City. I'm sure that site plan
required some landscaping and berms, if any, and I'm sure that
the City would not have issued a certificate of occupancy
(c.o.'d) the property if it did not meet the requirements that
were in the site plan. But, if for some reason the City
overlooked it, or whatever, we'll be happy, I'm sure, to make it
right. I think we need to go back to what was approved to make
sure the County has met their obligation, but I would assume we
did since we're open and operating. I just want to clarify
that." The City Manager stated that he was not sure if this was
the meeting referred to by Mrs. Finst, but at the April 15th
meeting, at least, there was no mention of a wall by Commissioner
McCarty.
In response to a complaint regarding the condition of
/
JCongress Avenue between Atlantic Avenue and Lake Ida Road, and
particularly the deteriorated road (N.W. 18th Street) within the
industrial area east of Congress, the City Manager reported that
Code Enforcement has visited the area and staff feels that Code
Enforcement's efforts in this area have been reasonable and
proactive. There are several businesses within the industrial
area that are non-conforming and it is acknowledged that the
current use of the land is dense and would not be allowed under
current land development regulations. Further, the roads need to
be reconstructed and paved. One of the reasons this has not been
addressed already is because Noland Plumbing is expected to
expand their business. When this happens, they are supposed to
put in some water and sewer lines and do some road work. There
is other road work that was supposed to have been done by the
stone cutting company (Keystone Creations), but staff does not
want to go in there and do road work at least until the utility
work is done. Most of the properties are adequately screened;
however, staff will be notifying the appropriate people where
mowing is needed. In reviewing the number of citations, personal
contacts and abatement actions taken in the area, staff feels the
issues are being addressed under our requirements. The main
thing that will get the area cleaned up is when some of the new
development like Noland Plumbing proceeds. The City Manager
concluded by stating that the Planning and Zoning Department is
working on the MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial) district
regulations to eliminate some of the more heavy industrial-type
uses such as resource recovery. The area does have several auto
repair businesses and junkyards. Some of those have inadequate
parking, but the uses are grandfathered in as lawfully
non-conforming uses.
11.B. From the Public.
Alice Finst, 707 Place Tavant, complimented the City on
the recent pruning which was done at the beach. It is a pleasure
to drive down A1A and be able to see the ocean. She asked that
any future plantings be such that will continue to allow a view
of the water.
Mrs. Finst asked that someone look at the traffic
pattern at the intersection ofv/Congress Avenue and Atlantic
Avenue, especially as relates to the left turn lanes onto
Atlantic Avenue when coming south on Congress. She stated it is
very difficult to get to the 1-95 access when you are in the far
left turn lane and it presents a dangerous situation when
motorists are trying to switch lanes.
Michael Solari, 515 Seagate Drive, addressed the
Commission regarding the JLarge Home Task Team's recent
recommendations. He urged that the task teams's decisions and
recommendations be rejected by the Commission and reconsidered to
be more in line with what is being done in neighboring towns such
as Ocean Ridge.
Jean Beer, 945 .Tropic Boulevard, concurred with Mr.
Solari that the~Large Home Task Team's recommendations should be
reconsidered. She pointed out that there is a house in Tropic
Isles that has a 6 foot wall built on a 3 foot berm. While she
feels this is inappropriate, it is allowed under the land
development regulations. Mrs. Beer suggested that this scenario
needs to be looked at although it was not a part of the task
team's deliberations. There are instances where someone has a
small house which ends up with a large house on either side which
she feels effectively reduces the property's value because no one
is going to buy it unless they are going to tear the house down.
She asked that the Commission reconsider the recommendations from
the Large Home Task Team to see what can be done to mitigate in
some way some of the things that are in it.
At this point, the Commission moved to Item 13.,
Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items, from the City
Manager, City Attorney and City Commission.
13. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Aqenda Items.
2
13.A. City Manaqer.
The City Manager reported that he had just gotten back
from Kansas City where the 'Transforming Local Government'
conference was put on by the Innovation Group. It was very good
and he got some good ideas on working with neighborhoods which he
will be passing on to staff. He commented that the first
shopping center in the United States was built in Kansas City and
it is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. It was built
about three miles outside of town and is very attractive with a
Spanish/Mediterranean style architecture. It is not a mall, but
is spread out over some 10 to 12 blocks all adjacent to each
other. The parking is mostly in garages which are interspersed
throughout the center. It is in excellent shape considering it
is 75 years old and appears to have no vacancies.
13.B. City Attorney.
The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries.
13.C. City Commission.
13.C.1. Mr. Schmidt stated that he had received a phone call
from a Mr. Steven Manya, 10 N.E. 16th Court, complaining about
the inconsistency of~garbage pickup in his neighborhood. Having
just moved into this general area, Mr. Schmidt stated that he,
too, has noticed some inconsistency, especially with the Monday
pickups, where it is kind of a "hit or miss" situation as to what
is picked up. He suggested that the new manager at BFI be made
aware of this situation. In addition, Mr. Schmidt questioned why
BFI picks up yard clippings and vegetative waste on Thursday as
opposed to Monday since the typical homeowner works in the yard
on the weekend and then it sits out in front of the house for
three or four days before it is picked up.
The City Manager explained that vegetative waste is
picked up on a daily basis by the contractor, although it is done
on different days in different parts of the city. It is
impossible for BFI to pick up everyone's trash on Monday so they
rotate throughout the city. The City Manager acknowledged that
Monday is the day that we have the most problems and complaints
and this has been discussed with the new manager. He is supposed
to get back with staff as to how he proposes to correct the
situation. Perhaps BFI does not have enough equipment on the
street on Monday or they may need to change the service areas
around to better balance the workload.
13.C.2. Mr. Ellingsworth commented on the two fine events for
young people that were held in the City over the past weekend.
One event was the Gulfstream Junior Tennis Tournament which has
been held at the Tennis Center for many years. This is one of
five state qualifying tournaments for state rankings for boys and
girls 18 years of age and under. Based on information compiled
by the tennis center staff, Mr. Ellingsworth noted that 50
-3-
participants stayed at hotels in Delray with over 100 more
staying in the immediate area. The other event was a women's
golf tournament with 20 golf teams participating. The event was
sponsored by the National Association of Intercollegiate
Athletics. Mr. Ellingsworth emphasized that these type of events
are good for the local economy.
13.C.3. Mr. Randolph stated that his bowling team won the
district league and would be participating in the State Bowling
Tournament during the last weekend in June.
Mr. Randolph stated that he has received many inquiries
regarding the status of the concert series at the tennis center.
He felt the Spring concerts had provided good marketing for the
city and asked that he be kept informed of future events.
Mr. Randolph stated that he now has a FAX machine
available at his home and can be reached by fax at 278-7942.
13.C.4. Mayor Alperin had no comments or inquiries.
At this point, the time being 6:55 p.m., Mayor Alperin
declared a five minutes recess.
The meeting was reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with the
Commission considering Item 10., Public Hearings.
-4-
Response to Public Comments: See attached
The meeting Mrs. Finst refers to was April 15, 1997. County
Commissioner McCarty did address the Palm Tran facility issue. A
verbatim of her comments follows:
Commissioner McCart¥: "On the Palm Tran facility, we will
do whatever it is we are supposed to do, but I'm sure we've
submitted a site plan to the City. I'm sure that site plan
required some landscaping and berms, if any, and I'm sure that
the City would not have C.O.'d the property if it did not meet
the requirements that were in the site plan. But, if for some
reason the City overlooked it, or whatever, we'll be happy, I'm
sure, to make it right. I think we need to go back to what was
approved to make sure the County has met their obligation, but I
would assume we did since we're open and operating. I just
wanted to clarify that."
If you need any additional information, please let me know.
Alison Harty
6/2/97
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM ~;~ - REG~ MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997
FIRST READING FOR ORDINANCE NO. 24-97 (REZONING FOR THE
COLOMBI PROPERTY/NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH FEDERAL
HIGHWAY AND LA MAT AVENUE
DATE: MAY 29, 1997
This is first reading for Ordinance No. 24-97 which rezones a
1.66 acre parcel of land known as the Colombi property from POD
(Professional and Office District), in part (0.81 acre), and RM
(Medium Density Residential) District, in part (0.85 acre), to NC
(Neighborhood Commercial) District. The subject property is
located at the northeast corner of South Federal Highway and La
Mat Avenue in the Del-Raton Park subdivision.
The rezoning is being requested to allow the existing
nonconforming commercial uses to become conforming, retain the
residential uses and to accommodate other commercial uses allowed
in the NC zoning district. Please refer to the staff report for
additional background and analysis.
The Planning and Zoning Board considered the application at a
public hearing on May 19, 1997. After considering testimony both
for and against the rezoning, the Board voted unanimously to
support staff's recommendation of approval for rezoning the
westerly portion of the property (Lots 1-14 and 24-27), based on
positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance
Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, and LDR Section 2.4.5(D) (5).
The Board further voted (6 to 1, Mr. Carbone dissenting) that the
rezoning request for the easterly lots abutting Frederick
Boulevard (Lots 15-23) be denied, based on a failure to make
positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 3.3.2(D) and
2.4.5(D) (5), that the rezoning would not be compatible with the
adjacent and nearby residential land uses and that rezoning these
lots would permit additional commercial encroachment into a
residential area that is undergoing revitalization.
As drafted, Ordinance No. 24-97 contains the legal description
for the entire parcel of land as requested by the applicant. I
recommend that the Commission pass the ordinance on first reading
so that it can be scheduled for a quasi-judicial hearing on June
17, 1997. Should the Commission wish to approve, deny or modify
the ordinance as presented, it should be done subsequent to
accepting testimony and formal consideration at the hearing.
ref:agmemo8
ORDINANCE NO. 24-97
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND
PRESENTLY ZONED POD (PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE
DISTRICT) AND RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT IN THE NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL)
DISTRICT; SAID LAND BEING LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY AND LA MAT AVENUE,
AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AMENDING
"ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1994";
PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING
CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the property hereinafter described is shown on the
Zoning District Map of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated
April, 1994, as being zoned POD (Professional and Office District),
in part, and RM (Medium Density Residential), in part; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of May 19, 1997, the Planning and
Zoning Board for the City of Delray Beach, as Local Planning Agency,
considered this item at public hearing and voted to recommend that
only a portion of the subject property be rezoned, based upon
positive findings; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the Zoning District Map of
the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, be amended to
reflect the revised zoning classification.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Zoning District Map of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, be, and the same is hereby
amended to reflect a zoning classification of nc (Neighborhood
Commercial) District for the following described property:
The East 77.0 feet of Lots 1 thru 9, inclusive; the
abandoned alley right-of-way lying East of and
adjacent to said Lots 1 thru 9, inclusive; and Lots
10 thru 27, inclusive, Block 25, Del-Raton Park,
according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book
14 at Page 9 of the Public Records of Palm Beach
County, Florida.
Containing 1.66 acres, more or less.
Section 2. That the Planning Director of said City shall,
upon the effective date of this ordinance, amend the Zoning Map of
the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to conform with the provisions of
Section 1 hereof.
Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
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 this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon passage on second and final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final
reading on this the day of , 1997.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
First Reading
Second Reading
- 2 - Ord. No. 24-97
II
DAN BURNS
OLDSMOBILE
MILLER
PARK
ED MORSE
CADILLAC
BANYAN
5HER WOOD
PON TIA C
OSR
AC
DOGWOOD
8UCKY DENT'S SHERWOOD
8A.~.BALL SCHOOL
GMC TRUCKS
TROPIC
CD M "'
t,-
DELRA Y --
TOYOTA
MORSE
SA TURN tn
HYACINTH DRIVE
MOBILE PLAZA EASTVIEW
HOMES ViLLAGE (-~
CLUB
SHERWOOD
HONDA
S L
DEL RAY
SHOPPING
MOBIL E CENTER
HOMES
AVENU£
BOCA ISLE
CONDO
ISi~ OR.
"~ O
PELICAN POfNTE
CONDO
o
N
~ - REZONING-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: POD (PROFFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT) TO: NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL)
CiTY Of" DELRAY BI:ACH, FL ~ RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
-- DIGIT'AL B, ASE I~ SYS~'EM -- MAP REF: LM151
I II I
G AND ZONING
FROM: /~./,F)REY A. COSTELLO /~g~!lOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: MEETING OF JUNE 3, t997
REZONING FROM POD (.PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE
DISTRICT) AND RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO NC
(NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH FEDERAL
HIGHWAY AND LA MAT AVENUE {COLOMBI PROPERTY).
The action requested of the City Commission is that of ap.g. CO_V.~ on
first reading of an ordinance rezoning a 1.66 acres of land from
POD (Professional and Office District) and RM (Medium Density
Residential) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) for the (Colombi
Property).
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of South
Federal Highway and La Mat Avenue.
The property contains 4 commercial buildings on the west side of the property
and 3 residential buildings (1 triplex and 2 duplexes) on the east side of the
property. The commercial buildings are currently zoned POD and the residential
buildings are zoned RM. The rezoning to NC is being requested to allow the
existing nonconforming commercial uses to become conforming, retain the
,residential uses and to accommodate other commercial uses allowed in the NC
zone district. Staff has recommended that the western portion of the property be
rezoned to NC (Lots '1 - 14 and 24 - 2'7, Block 25, DeI-Raton Park) and that the
request to rezone the properties abutting Frederick Boulevard be denied (Lots 15
- 23, Block 25, DeI-Raton Park). Additional background and an analysis of the
request is found in the attached Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report.
City Commission Documentation
Meeting of June 3, 1997
Rezoning from POD and RM to NC for the Colombi Property
Page 2
On May 19, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing in
conjunction with review of the requests. There was public testimony supporting
the rezoning of the western portion of the property to NC, but opposing the
request to rezone the properties abutting Frederick Boulevard, as it would permit
additional commercial encroachment into a residential area that is undergoing
revitalization. After reviewing the staff report and discussing the proposal, the
Board took the following actions:
B_v Separate Motions:
A. Recommended to the City Commission (7-0 vote) approval of the rezoning
request from POD and RM to NC for Colombi Property (Lots 1 - 14 and 24
- 27, Block 25, DeI-Raton Park) based upon positive findings with respect to
Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations,
policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5).
B. Recommended to the City Commission (6-1 vote, Carbone dissenting) denial
of the rezoning request from RM to NC for the Colombi Property (Lots 15 -
23, Block 25, DeI-Raton Park), based upon a failure to make positive
findings with respect to LDR Sections 3.3.2(D) and 2.4.5(D)(5), that the
rezoning does not fulfill one of the reasons for which a rezoning should be
sought, and that the rezoning would not be compatible with the adjacent and
nearby residential land uses.
B_v Separate Motions:
A. Approve the rezoning request from POD and RM to NC for Colombi
Property (Lots 1 - 14 and 24 - 27, Block 25, DeI-Raton Park) based upon
positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the
Land Development Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and
LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5), and setting a public hearing for May 20, 1997.
B. Deny the rezoning request from RM to NC for the Colombi Property (Lots
15 - 23, Block 25, DeI-Raton Park), based upon a failure to make positive
findings with respect to LDR Sections 3.3.2(D) and 2.4.5(D)(5), that the
rezoning does not fulfill one of the reasons for which a rezoning should be
sought, and that the rezoning would not be compatible with the adjacent and
nearby residential land uses.
Attachments:
· P & Z Staff Report and Documentation of May 19, 1997
· Ordinance by Others
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT---
MEETING DATE: May 19, 1997 (Continued from April 28, 1997 meeting)
AGENDA ITEM:
ITEM: Rezoning from POD (Professional Office District) and RM (Medium
Density Residential) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) for a Parcel of
Land Located at the Northeast Corner South Federal Highway and La
Mat Avenue (Colombi Property).
GENERAL DATA:
Owner/Applicant ................... Henry Colombi, Trustee
Agent .................................... Doak S. Campbell, III, Esq.
Location ............................... Northeast corner of South
Federal Highway and La Mat
Avenue.
Property Size ........................ 1.66 Acres
Future Land Use Map ..........Transitional
Current Zoning ..................... POD (Professional and Office
District) (0.81 acres) & RM
(Medium Density Residential)
(0.85 acres)
Proposed Zoning .................. NC (Neighborhood
Commercial)
Adjacent Zoning ......... North: SAD (Special Activities
District)
East: RM
South: PC (Planned Commercial)
and RM
West: AC (Automotive Commercial)
Existing Land Use ................ 4 existing commercial (3
occupied and 1 vacant) on
the west side of the property,
and 3 residential buildings (a
triplex and 2 duplexes) on the
east side of the property.
Proposed Land Use ............. Allow the existing
nonconforming commercial
uses to become conforming,
, retain the residential uses,
and to accommodate other
commercial uses allowed in
the NC zone district.
Water Service ...................... Existing on-site.
Sewer Service ...................... Existing on-site.
VI.B.
The action before the Board is that of making a recommendation to
the City Commission on a privately sponsored rezoning from POD
(Professional and Office District) and RM (Medium Density
Residential) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) for the Colombi
Property, pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D).
The subject property is located on the east side of South Federal
Highway, between La Mat Avenue and Avenue G.
The subject property incorporates Lots 1 - 27, and the abandoned alley right-of-
way lying east of and adjacent to Lots 1-9, and 10 and 27, Block 25, DeI-Raton
Park, and contains 1.66 acres. The west portion of the property contains 4
commercial structures with associated parking areas, and 5 primarily vacant lots.
Two of the buildings are occupied by nonconforming retail uses, one is occupied
by a conforming insurance agency, and the other is currently vacant. The east
portion of the property contains 2 duplexes and a 3-unit multiple family structure.
Prior to July, 1989, the subject property was in unincorporated Palm Beach
County. On July 25, 1989, the subject property was annexed into the City with
initial zoning designations of GC (General Commercial), in part (Lots 1-12, 26-27
and abandoned alley), and RM (Medium to Medium High Density Dwelling) (Lots
13-25), as part of the annexations conducted via the Enclave Act (via Ordinance
No. 38-89).
With the adoption of a new Citywide Future Land Use Map on November 28,
1989, the Transitional Land Use Map designation was affixed to the subject
property. Thus, the GC zoning on Lots 1-12, 26-27, and the abandoned alley
then became inconsistent with the underlying Transitional Land Use Map
designation. In October 1990, Citywide rezonings were implemented to obtain
consistency between the Zoning and Future Land Use Maps. At that time, the
GC zoned lots were rezoned to PC (Planned Commercial) along with other
commercial properties abutting Federal Highway, directly to the north and south,
while the balance of the property remained zoned RM. However, the PC zoning
designation was inconsistent with the Transitional Land Use Map designation.
In February 1991, as part of the City's annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment
91-1, the owner of Lots 1-5, Block 24, DeI-Raton Park (Mr. Levy) sought a Land
Use change from Transitional to General Commercial, in order to re-establish
auto sales on the property (former Auto Ranch Dealership). On April 22, 1991,
the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the Future Land Use
Map amendment. However, on April 30, 1991, the City Commission denied the
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoning from POD and RM to NC
Page 2
request. On July 9, 1991, the City Commission initiated a zoning change for
Lots 1-5 from PC to POD (Professional and Office District) or another zoning
designation consistent with the Transitional Land Use Map designation. The
rezoning also included Lots 6-10, Block 24 (Paton property), which were also
previously utilized by the Auto Ranch dealership, and Lots 1-12 and Lots 26 and
27, Block 25 (Colombi property), which contained commercial uses (i.e.
insurance office, limousine service, pool/spa/diving supply retail use).
At its meeting of August 19, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Board
recommended denial of the rezoning from PC to POD, as the Board felt it was
more appropriate to amend the Future Land Use Map to General Commercial
and increase the depth of the commercial properties to allow for a well-planned
commercial development. On September 10, 1991, the City Commission
approved the rezoning from PC to POD.
On October 5, 1992, Barbara and Stanley Levy, owners of the property to the
north (Lots 1-5) filed suit in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County against the
City of Delray Beach to have the property rezoned for an auto related use. In
order to avoid a trial, the two parties entered into an agreement. On May 14,
1996, a Settlement Agreement between Barbara and Stanley Levy and the City
of Delray Beach was executed which stated that the applicant will seek approval
to establish either (I) vehicle sales, rental and leasing, with no service
component; or (11) a vehicle wash establishment and detailing, with no two uses
being conducted at any one time. The City agreed to process a Future Land
Use Map Amendment and Rezoning to SAD (Special Activities District) with an
attendant site plan. At its meeting of October 1, 1996, the City Commission
approved the associated requests.
Subsequently, on March 17, 1997, the City Commission approved a Future Land
Use Map Amendment, Rezoning to SAD (Special Activities District) and an
attendant site plan for the Paton property at the northeast corner of Federal
Highway and Avenue G to allow vehicle parking (employee, customer, display
and bullpen/inventory) to be used in conjunction with the abutting vehicle sales,
rental and leasing facility on the Levy property.
On March 7, 1997, a request for rezoning the subject property from POD and RM
to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) was submitted and is now before the Board
for action.
The proposal is to change the zoning designation of the property from POD
(Professional and Office District) (0.81 acres) and RM (Medium Density
Residential) (0.85 acres) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) (1.66 acres). The
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoning from POD and RM to NC
Page 3
property contains 4 commercial and 3 residential buildings. The commercial
building at the northwest corner of the site contains Florida No-Fault Insurance;
the centrally located building contains Art of Africa; the building at the southwest
corner of the property contains Pawn and Jewelry Place, Inc., and the building
east of the pawn shop is a vacant building previously occupied by Park Avenue
Limousine. The residential buildings consist of a triplex and 2 duplexes. The
rezoning to NC is being requested to allow the existing nonconforming
commercial uses to become conforming, retain the residential uses and to
accommodate other commercial uses allowed in the NC zone district.
REQUIRED FINDINGS: (Chapter 3)
Pursuant to Section 3.t.t (Required Findings), prior to the approval of
development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which
is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on
the application, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the
body which has the authority to approve or deny the development
application. These findings relate to the Future Land Use Map,
Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency and Compliance with the
Land Development Regulations.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The use or structures must be allowed in the
zoning district and the zoning district must be consistent with the land use
designation.
The subject property has a Transitional Future Land Use Map designation and is
currently zoned POD, in part, and RM, which are consistent with the Transitional
Land Use Map designation. The proposed NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
zoning district is also consistent with the Transitional Land Use Map designation.
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.11(B), limited retail and commercial uses are
permitted within the NC zone district, however, residential uses are not. Based
upon the above, while a positive finding can be made with respect to consistency
between the zoning and land use designations, the existing residential uses are
not allowed in the NC zoning district, and thus, will become nonconforming.
Therefore, it may be appropriate to retain the RM zoning for those properties
containing residential uses.
CONCURRENCY: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City
'shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to
levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoning from POD and RM to NC
Page4
Water & Sewer:
13 Water service currently exists to the commercial structures via a service
lateral connection to the existing 12" water main within Federal Highway.
Service to the existing residences is accommodated via a service lateral
connection to the 8" main within Frederick Boulevard.
13 Adequate fire suppression is provided via existing fire hydrants at the
southwest and northwest corners of the site, and along the east side of
Frederick Boulevard.
Sewer service currently exists to the commercial structures via a service
lateral connection to the 8" sewer main within La Mat Avenue. Service to
the existing residences is accommodated via a service lateral connection
to an 8" main within Frederick Boulevard.
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's
Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment
Plant for the City at build-out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be
made with respect to this level of service standard.
The site is primarily developed with 4 commercial buildings, 3 residential
buildings and parking areas. Drainage currently sheetflows to impervious areas
located on the site and to adjacent rights-of-ways. The rezoning will not
negatively impact this existing situation. Any future development will need to
comply with SFWMD district requirements.
Under the current POD (0.81 acres) and RM (0.85 acres) zoning designations,
the maximum development potential would be 10,323.72 sq.ft, of office
generating 252 average daily trips and 9 multiple family units generating 63 trips
for a total of 315 average daily trips. However, under the proposed NC zoning
designation a maximum development potential of 18,076 sq.ft, of retail
generating 1,344 average daily trips is possible. This section of Federal
Highway is over capacity and is operating at Level of Service E. With any future
development, submittal of a traffic impact study is required and the proposal will
, be required to meet traffic concurrency. The proposed zoning change would
allow intensification of uses which is not encouraged given the existing Level of
Service of this roadway.
Ptanning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoning from POD and RM to NC
PageS
Paris and Recreation:
Park and dedication requirements do not apply to nonresidential uses. Thus,
rezoning the property to NC will have no impact on this level of service standard.
~ the maximum development potential under the current POD (10,323.72
sq.tt. ~} 5.4 lbs/sq.ft.) and RM (9 multi-family units a 0.52 tons/yr/unit) zoning
designations, trash generated each year would be approximately 32.55 tons.
With the maximum development potential under the proposed NC zoning
designation trash generated would be 65.97 tons (18,076 sq.ft @ 7.3 Ibs/sq.ft.).
Thus, the trash generated may increase. This increase can be accommodated
by existing facilities therefore, a positive finding with respect to this level of
sewice standard can be made.
CONSISTENCY: Compliance with the performance standards set forth in
Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions) along with required
findings in Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) shall be the basis upon
which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and
policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in the
making of a finding of overall consistency.
COilPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES:
A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was
conducted and the following applicable objectives and policies are noted.
Future Land Use Element Ob_iective A-1 - Vacant property shall be
developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate in
terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical conditions, is
complementary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use
needs.
There are no special physical or environmental characteristics of the land that
would be negatively impacted by the proposed rezoning. The property has been
disturbed with the majority of the property developed with both commercial and
residential uses. It is anticipated that if the rezoning is approved, a site plan
submittal will follow for a new commercial development. The property can be
,developed in a manner which will be complementary with the adjacent
commercial properties, and not adversely impact the residential properties to the
east, provided the depth of the commercial zoning does not extend to Frederick
Boulevard. Any future development will be required to meet current code
requirements. Compatibility is discussed further on pages 6 and 7.
Planning and Zoning Board,Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoni~g from POD and RM to NC
Page 6
Traffic Element Policy C.1.1 - Through and nonresidential traffic travel shall
be limited and/or restricted in stable residential areas.
Based upon the existing site configuration, access to the office/commercial
buildings is taken primarily from a driveway and back-out parking areas on
Federal Highway with access also provided from Avenue G and La Mat Avenue.
Avenue G and La Mat Avenue provide access to the stable residential area east
of the subject property and intersects with Federal Highway, a commercial
corridor to the west. The majority of the traffic associated with the commercial
use, however, will access the site from Federal Highway and vice versa to exit
the site. The residential structures are accessed from Frederick Boulevard.
Under the current situation, access will not change. However, if the residential
properties are rezoned to NC, there is the potential, through the site plan
approval process, to convert the structures for commercial purposes, or to
demolish the structures and construct a new commercial development. As
primary access to the properties abutting Frederick Boulevard would be taken
through the residential area, it seems inappropriate to rezone the residential
properties to NC. Further, the intensification of the commercial uses along
Federal Highway i.e. via the rezoning request would exacerbate the existing
undesirable back-out parking situation. This policy will be further addressed at
the time of site and development plan review of any development proposal. In
order to ensure that direct access through the residential area is not
accommodated, rezoning of the existing residential lots to NC should be denied.
V~th site development approval of the uses fronting Federal highway alternative
access and parking should be provided.
Section 3.3.2 (Standard~ for Rezonin_u Actions): Standards A and B are not
applicable. The applicable performance standards of Section 3.3.2 are as
follows:
(C) Additional strip commercial zoning on vacant properties shall be
avoided. This policy shall not preclude rezonings on land that at the
time of rezoning has improvements on it. Where existing strip
commercial areas or zoning exists along an arterial street,
consideration should be given to increasing the depth of the
commercial zoning in order to provide for better project design.
The property is currently developed with office/commercial buildings
adjacent to Federal Highway, residential on the east end of the property,
and vacant land in the center. The site is currently owned by one property
owner. The proposal is to rezone the entire block to NC to allow the entire
site to be aggregated for commercial purposes and increase the
property's depth to provide for a well-planned development. The existing
office/commercial buildings on the west side of the property are not well-
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoning from POD and RM to NC
Page 7
planned with the commercial aspects including parking primarily located
within an 80' strip along the west side of the property. VVhile the proposal
to rezone the entire block to NC would increase the properties average
depth to 334', a well-planned development with an average depth of 207',
could be accommodated if the existing residential uses are excluded from
the rezoning request. While the NC zoning is considered strip commercial
zoning and does include some vacant land, the proposal is to increase the
depth of the commercial zoning to provide for better project design.
(D) That the rezoning shall result in allowing land uses which are
deemed compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses both
existing and proposed; or that if an incompatibility may occur, that
sufficient regulations exist to properly mitigate adverse impacts from
the new use.
The properties to the north and west are commercial in character and are
zoned SAD (Special Activities District) and AC (Automotive Commercial)
respectively. To the south is zoned PC (Planned Commercial) and RM
(Medium Density Residential) to the south, and RM to the east. The
surrounding land uses are as follows: to the north is Fronrath Vehicle
Sales Rental and Leasing Facility (currently under construction); west is
the Delray Auto Leasing/KIA dealership; south is Quality Lighting and
Accessories, a single family home and a multiple family structure; and, to
the east is a multiple family structure.
Compatibility with the adjacent residential properties to the east and south
is a concern. As previously stated there are existing residences located
along the east side of Frederick Boulevard east of this site and on the
south side of La Mat Avenue. Also, there are existing residences along
both sides of Frederick Boulevard south of the site and a fee-simple
townhouse (triplex) complex is currently under construction at the
southeast comer of La Mat Avenue and Frederick Boulevard, caddie-
corner from the property. As the portion of Frederick Boulevard south of
La Mat Avenue is scheduled to be improved (pavement, drainage and
sidewalks) this fiscal year, it is anticipated that infill residential
development will occur on the vacant lots along Frederick. Improvements
to Frederick Boulevard north of La Mat are identified in the City's five year
roadway improvement program and it is anticipated that development and
redevelopment of the residential lots north of La Mat will follow.
There are regulations in place for nonresidential uses adjacent to the
residential development which require trees every 25 feet along with a
wall or hedge to mitigate impacts. However, it is more appropriate for the
existing residences to remain zoned RM with the installation of the buffer
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoning from POD and RM to NC
Page 8
to be installed between the residential units and the existing commercial
uses along Federal Highway.
Section 2.4.5(D){5) (Rezoning Findings):
Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of
Section 3.1.1, the City Commission must make a finding that the rezoning
fulfills one of the reasons for which the rezoning change is being sought.
These reasons include the following:
a. That the zoning had previously been changed, or was
originally established, in error;
b. That there has been a change in circumstances which make
the current zoning inappropriate;
c. That the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed
under the Future Land Use Map and that it is more ap_oropriate
for the property based upon circumstances particular to the
site and/or neighborhood.
The applicant has submitted a justification statement which states the following:
"The acreage was originally general commercial and was rezoned to
POD. This is incompatible with the surrounding properties and is an
inappropriate use in that area. Because of the zoning, the property
cannot be used in its highest and best purpose for the enhancement of
the general area. Current zoning is leading to diminution in value and
deterioration of the neighborhood. Similar property within 500 feet of the
subject property has commercial zoning with similar uses. The
neighborhood (NC) zoning would not jeopardize the integrity of the
residential neighborhoods adjacent thereto."
Comment: Item "c" appears to be the basis for which the rezoning should be
granted. With regard to the entire property previously being zoned general
commercial, the portion of the subject property currently zoned RM, which
contains the existing residences has never been zoned for commercial purposes.
Also, the POD zoning is not incompatible with the adjacent residential areas,
however, it may be inappropriate given the properties frontage along Federal
Highway and the existing commercial uses. While the applicant's justification
'states that the property cannot be used for its highest and best use to enhance
the area, 3 of the 4 existing office/commercial buildings are currently occupied,
with 2 buildings occupied by retail uses including the pawn shop. Also, the
residences have been rented. Thus, the property has been income producing for
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoning from POD and RM to NC
Page 9
many years, however no improvements have been made to make it aesthetically
pleasing and accessible for potential lessees.
Rezoning of the existing residential structures is inappropriate given the existing
residential neighborhood to the east and south. If the residential structures are
rezoned to NC, there is the potential for similar rezoning requests for residential
properties south of the subject property on the west side of Frederick Boulevard.
While immediately to the north of this block a rezoning to SAD (Special Activities
District) to accommodate vehicle sales was recently approved to the west side of
abandoned Frederick Boulevard, the property owner's auto related use aspect
previously existed to that point.
With regard to the vacant portion of the property west of the north/south alley
(west of the existing residential use), the requested NC zoning is of similar
intensity as allowed under the Future Land Use Map and is more appropriate for
the property based upon circumstances particular to the site and neighborhood.
Based upon the above, if rezoning to NC is approved it should be limited to the
site area west of the north/south alley abutting the existing residences.
COMPLIANCE WiTH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be
addressed by the body taking final action on the development proposal.
Neighborhgod ~:ommer~ial Development Standards Rea_ulatiorts [LDR
Sections 4.4.11(F). (G) and (H!. and 4.3.4(K)_1
Site Area:
Pursuant to LDR Sections 4.3.4(K) and 4.4.11(F)(1), the minimum site area is 1
acre and the maximum site area is two acres. The rezoning request involves a
1.66 acre parcel of land. If the lots abutting Frederick Boulevard which contain
the existing residential structures are removed from the rezoning request the,
property will contain 1.06 acres and thus, continue to meet the minimum site
area requirements for the NC zone district.
Minimum Floor Area:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.10(F)(3), any free-standing structure which
accommodates a principal or conditional use shall have a minimum floor area of
'4,000 sq.ff. None of the buildings located on this site meet the minimum floor
area requirement, and would thus be nonconforming to this aspect of the code.
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoning from POD and RM to NC
Page 10
Building Setbacks:
W~hin the NC zone district, the front building setback is 40', the side street and
interior setback is 30', and the rear setback is 10' with 1' added for each foot in
building height higher than 10'.
The residential structures and the two northernmost commercial structures do
not meet the 40' building setback requirement nor the 30' side street setback.
Also, the second commercial building south of the north property encroaches into
the Federal Highway right-of-way. It is noted that under the current POD zoning,
a front and side street setback of 25' is required. While the existing structures
will remain nonconforming, any new construction will need to comply with the
building setback requirements of the NC zone district.
Special Landscape Setbacks:
Pursuant to Section 4.3.4(H)(6)(b) (Special Landscape Setbacks), along Federal
Highway, a single frontage lot with a depth between over 300' requires a 25'
landscape setback. As the average depth of the subject property is 334', a 25'
landscape stdp is required. If the rezoning only includes to the west side of the
north/south alley (west of the existing residences), the average depth will be
207', thus requiring a 15' landscape setback.
At the northwest corner of the site, back-out parking exists on both Federal
Highway and Avenue G, and a 5' wide landscape area is provided at the
southwest comer of the site adjacent to an existing parking lot. In conjunction
with the rezoning request, the applicant is executing a Limited Access Easement
Dccd which would relate to the west side of the property, adjacent to Federal
Highway. The easement calls for the elimination and replacement of the back-
out parking with landscaping, a time frame for the improvements, and an
easement expiration/termination clause for new development/redevelopment.
Back-out Parking:
Pursuant to Section 4.6.9(D), access to parking spaces shall conform with
minimal aisle standards and include maneuvering area so that a vehicle can
enter and exit the parking area onto a street or alley in a forward manner, except
when the use is a single family or duplex residence; when the parking is adjacent
to an alley; or, when the street is provided within a planned development and the
location of the parking has less than 200 ADT.
Back-out parking spaces currently exist at the northwest corner of the subject
property along Federal Highway and Avenue G. The back-out parking onto
Federal Highway is a major safety concern. In conjunction with the rezoning, the
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoning from POD and RM to NC
Page 11
applicant proposes to eliminate the existing back-out parking spaces, replace the
asphalt with landscaping, and upgrade the existing parking lot to the rear of the
No Fault Insurance building (northwest corner of the site) to meet current
standards. As previously stated, the applicant is executing a Limited Access
Easement Deed for the removal of the back-out parking.
t993 Landscaoe Code Compliance:
Required improvements associated with the 1993 landscape code compliance
ordinance have been installed. The improvements included installation of a
landscape island and handicapped accessible parking space at the northwest
comer of the site, and the installation of hedges and trees on the north side of
the paved parking area on the north side of the site.
~::::;::::::::: ;:::: ::i:~:i:: :: [: ~:i: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: i;:;~: :: :i:; :~: :::::::::::::::::::::: :;: ::: :::;::::~::: ::: :::::i; i;['i' ;" 'i' :: i::' :' :' :' :::::::' :::::::::' :::::' :' :' ~':::::::' :' :' :' :: :::;; ::::;;';' :' ;;;::;:::::' ::::; ::: ::: ::: ::~' :* ::::::::::> :::::::' :' >'' :::::' :' :' :' :;:::' :' :' :' :' ;::;:* :* :;:::::;:;:::::::::: ::::::::: ::: :;:: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :;: ;: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The rezoning is not in a geographic area requiring review by the CRA
(Community Redevelopment Agency), DDA (Downtown Development Authority)
or the HPB (Historic Preservation Board).
Public and Courtesy Notices:
Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500 foot
radius of the subject property. In addition, Courtesy notices were provided to the
following homeowner's and neighborhood associations:
I;] Tropic Isle
I;;3 Tropic Bay
Q Tropic Harbor
Letters of objection, if any, will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Board
meeting.
=~=~=~.~i~i~..>:..:`~:~:~:.~!!~!~i~i~:~::~i~i~i~iii~i~:~i!i~ii''''~ "~' ' ~!i' :~':.=. ' 'i ~
The rezoning from POD (Professional and Office District) and RM (Medium
Density Residential} to NO (Neighborhood Commercial) is consistent with the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 3 of the Land Development
,Regulations. However, in order to ensure compatibility with the residential
properties to the east and south, it is appropriate to retain RM zoning on the lots
abutting Frederick Boulevard (Lots 15 - 23). These lots were never used in the
past for commercial uses nor previously zoned for commercial use. The NC
zoning is more appropriate for the west end of the property as it is of similar
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoni~g from POD and RM to NC
Page 12
intensity as allowed under the Future Land Use Map and is more appropriate for
the property based UlSOn the existing uses on the property and its frontage along
Federal Highway. Also, allowing the depth of the NC portion to terminate at the
west side of the north/south alley will allow for a well-planned development with
the alley serving as a buffer between the existing residences at the east end of
the property, in addition to other buffering requirements. The improvements
associated with the Limited Access Easement will represent an upgrade to a
property that has been in disrepair and should be an enhancement to the
surrounding areas.
A. Continue with direction.
B. Recommend approval of the rezoning request from POD and RM to NC
for Colombi Property, based upon positive findings with respect to
Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land Development
Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and LDR Section
2.4.5(D)(5).
Co Recommend approval of the rezoning request from POD and RM to NC
for Colombi Property (Lots 1 - t4 and 24 - 27, Block 25, DeI-Raton
Park) based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3
(Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, policies
of the Comprehensive Plan, and LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5), and
recommend denial of the rezoning request from POD and RM to NC for
the Colombi Property (Lots 15 - 23, Block 25, DeI-Raton Park), based
upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections
3.3.2(D) and 2.4.5(D)(5), that the rezoning does not fulfill one of the
reasons for which a rezoning should be sought, and that the rezoning
would not be compatible with the adjacent and nearby residential land
uses.
D. Recommend denial of the rezoning request from POD and RM to NC for
the Colombi Property, based upon a failure to make positive findings
with respect to LDR Sections 3.3.2(D) and 2.4.5(D)(5), that the rezoning
does not fulfill one of the reasons for which a rezoning should be sought,
and that the rezoning would not be compatible with the adjacent and
nearby residential land uses.
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Colombi Property - Rezoning from POD and RM to NC
Page 13
By Separate Motions;
A. Recommend to the City Commission approval of the rezoning request from
POD and RM to NC for Colombi Property (Lots 1 - 14 and 24 - 27, Block
25, DeI-Raton Park) based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3
(Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, policies of
the Comprehensive Plan, and LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5).
B. Recommend to the City Commission denial of the rezoning request from
POD and RM to NC for the Colombi Property (Lots 15 - 23, Block 25, Del-
Raton Park), based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to
LDR Sections 3.3.2(D) and 2.4.5(D)(5), that the rezoning does not fulfill one
of the reasons for which a rezoning should be sought, and that the rezoning
would not be compatible with the adjacent and nearby residential land uses.
Attachments:
El Zoning/Location Map
13 Survey
This Report was prepared by: Jeff CQstello. Senior Plarlrler
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MA2q'AGER~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # /~_ REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997
FIRST READING FOR ORDINANCE NO. 25-97 (SMALL SCALE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR DELRAY
BEACH FARM SUPPLY)
DATE: MAY 30, 1997
This is first reading for Ordinance No. 25-97 which changes the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation from Commerce to General
Commercial for the Delray Beach Farm Supply property, and rezones
it from MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial) District to GC
(General Commercial) District. The site is located at the
northwest corner of Atlantic Avenue and the CSX Railroad,
immediately west of 1-95, and contains 0.39 acres.
The property is currently occupied by a farm supply store. If the
FLUM amendment and rezoning are approved, it is anticipated that a
site plan modification request will follow to establish a country
and western bar. Please refer to the staff report for additional
background and analysis.
The Planning and Zoning Board considered this matter at a public
hearing on May 19, 1997, and voted unanimously to recommend that
the request be denied based upon a failure to make positive
findings with respect to Future Land Use Element Policies A-1.4
and A-1.6, and Traffic Element Policy A-5.3 of the Comprehensive
Plan, LDR Section 3.3.2(C) (Performance Standards), and LDR
Section 2.4.5(D) (5) (Findings), and based upon deficiencies in the
storage capacity of the turn lane at the Congress Avenue and
Atlantic Avenue intersection, and deficiencies in on-site parking
that is available for the subject property.
Since this is a quasi-judicial matter, I recommend that the
Commission pass the ordinance on first reading for the purpose of
moving it to the formal hearing which will be scheduled for June
17, 1997. The taking of testimony and formal consideration should
occur at that time.
ref:a~memo9
ORDINANCE NO. 25-97
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE
MAP DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCE TO GENEP~AL
COMMERCIAL, AND REZONING FROM MIC (MIXED INDUSTRIAL
AND COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT TO GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
DISTRICT, FOR LOT 1, OWEN'S COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION,
AS THE SAME IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN,
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ATLANTIC AVENUE
AND THE CSX RAILROAD, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF 1-95;
ELECTING TO PROCEED UNDER THE SINGLE HEARING
ADOPTION PROCESS FOR SMALL SCALE LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENTS; AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY
BEACH, FLORIDA, 1994"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER
CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the property hereinafter described is designated
on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan for the
City of Delray Beach, Florida, as Commerce; and
WHEREAS, the property hereinafter described is shown on the
Zoning District Map of the City of Detray Beach, Florida, dated
April, 1994, as being zoned MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial)
District; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of May 19, 1997, the Planning and
Zoning Board for the City of Delray Beach, as Local Planning Agency,
reviewed this item at a public hearing and voted unanimously to
recommend denial of the small scale FLUM amendment and rezoning,
based upon a failure to make positive findings; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, finds that the change is not inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the Future Land Use Map in
the Comprehensive Plan be amended to reflect the revised land use
designation, and that the Zoning District Map of the City of Delray
Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, be amended to reflect the revised
zoning classification.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the legal description of the subject
property is as follows:
Lot 1, Owen's Commercial Subdivision, according to
the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 74, Pages
130-131 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County,
Florida.
The subject property is located at the northwest
corner of Atlantic Avenue and the CSX Railroad,
immediately west of 1-95; containing 0.39 acres,
more or less.
Section 2. That the Future Land Use Map in the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby
changed to reflect a land use designation of General Commercial for
the subject property.
Section 3. That the City of Delray Beach elects to make
this small scale amendment by having only an adoption hearing,
pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 163.3187(1) (c)4.
Section 4. That the Zoning District Map of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, is hereby amended to
reflect a zoning classification of CBD (Central Business District)
for the subject property.
Section 5. That the Planning Director of said City shall,
upon the effective date of this ordinance, amend the Zoning Map of
the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to conform with the provisions of
Section 4 hereof.
Section 6. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
Section 7. 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.
- 2 - Ord. No. 25-97
Section 8. That this ordinance shall become effective
thirty-one (31) days after adoption, unless the amendment is
challenged pursuant to Section 163.3187(3), F.S. If challenged, the
effective date of this amendment shall be the date a final order is
issued by the Department of Community Affairs, or the Administration
Commission, finding the amendment in compliance with Section
163.3184, F.S. No development orders, development permits, or land
uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it
has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by
the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be
made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective
status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Department of
Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final
reading on this the day of , 1997.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
First Reading
Second Reading
- 3 - Ord. No. 25-97
A~BRO~
DR.
COM
PALM TRAN
FACILITY
MDR DON FRANCISCO'S WAY GC
COM ~°~
COMM.
PLAZA
SHAW 9~
TRUCKING
N.w. 2ND ST. CHEVRON
RINKER
MA TERIA L S
CONGRESS Oi~
C ~°~ C M
OS
DR. ANDRES WAY
CONGRESS
CF-P
PARK
N
--~-- - FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT-
~ D[PAR'I)J[NT FROM: COMMERCE TO: GENERAL COMMERCE
CITY 0~' ~)[LRAY 6£ACH. FL
-- D/G/FA/. ~ 44A~ $~T[M -- MAP REF: LId152
RM-7 AME
MIC
PALM TRAN
RM-7 CF
FACILITY
1sT ST. DON FRANCISCO'S WAY
RM GC
COMM.
PLAZA
SHAW 9~
TRUCKING
N.W. 2ND SI'. CHEVRON
RINKER
MA TERIALS
CONGRESS
05
DR. ANDRES WAY
CONGRESS
CF
, PARK
N
~ - REZONING-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: MIC (MIXED INDUSTRIAL z, COMMERCIAL) TO: GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
CIT~ OF D£LRAY BEACH. ICL
-- OIGIFAI. ,~.4SE MAP SY~JI'£M -- MAP REF: Lla152
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
THRU: MI DI
ONING
SUBJECT: MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997
SMALL-SCALE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM
COMMERCE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL. AND REZONING
FROM MIC (MIXED INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL) TO GC
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ATLANTIC AVENUE AND THE CSX
R~ILROAD. IMMEDIATELY WEST OF 1-95.
The action requested of the City Commission is that of a.o.r)roval on
first reading of an ordinance changing the Future Land Use Map
designation from Commerce to General Commercial, and rezoning
from MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial) to GC (General
Commercial) for the Country and Western Bar of Delray Beach.
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Atlantic
Avenue and the CSX Railroad, immediately west of 1-95.
................ ::: ......................................................................................... :::::::::: .............
The subject property consists of Lot 1, Owens Commercial Subdivision,
'containing 0.39 acres, at the south end of the overall 3 lot subdivision. The
subject property is currently occupied by a farm supply store (Delray Beach Farm
Supply, Inc.). The building contains 5,380 sq.ff, of wholesale/warehouse space
and 1,793 sq.ft, of retail space. The proposal is to change the Future Land Use
Map designation for the property from Commerce to General Commercial and
City Commission Documentation
Meeting of May 6, 1997
Small-Scale FLUM Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC
to GC for the Count~j & Western Bar of Delray Beach
Page 2
rezone the property from MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial) to GC (General
Commercial). If the FLUM amendment and rezoning are approved, it is
anticipated that a site plan modification request will follow to establish a country
and western bar. Additional background and an analysis of the request is found
in the attached Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report.
At its meeting of May 19, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public
heating in conjunction with review of the requests. There was public testimony
both in support of and opposition to the requests. The Board had concerns with
potential parking and traffic problems; and that there was no compelling reason
to change the FLUM designation and zoning. The Board then voted 7-0 to
recommend to the City Commission denial of the Small-Scale Future Land Use
Map Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and the rezoning
request from MIC to GC based upon a failure to make positive findings with
respect to Future Land Use Element Policies A-1.4 and A-1.6, and Traffic
Element Policy A-5.3 of the Comprehensive Plan, LDR Section 3.3.2(C)
(Performance Standards), and LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Findings), and based
upon deficiencies in the storage capacity of the turn lane at the Congress
Avenue and Atlantic Avenue intersection, and deficiencies in on-site parking that
is available for the subject property.
As this is a quasi-judicial matter, it is recommended that the City Commission
defer takin9 testimony, and approve the item on first reading. It is further
recommended that on second readin9 the City Commission deny the Small-
Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commerce to General
Commercial and the rezonin9 request from MIC to GC based upon a failure to
make positive findings with respect to Future Land Use Element Policies A-1.4
and A-1.6, and Traffic Element Policy A-5.3 of the Comprehensive Plan, LDR
Section 3.3.2(C) (Performance Standards), and LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5)
(Findings), and based upon deficiencies in the storage capacity of the turn lane
at the Congress Avenue and Atlantic Avenue intersection, and deficiencies in on-
site parking that is available for the subject property.
Attachments:
· P & Z Staff Report and Documentation of May 19, 1997
· Ordinance by Others
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT---
MEETING DATE: May 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: VI.E.
ITEM: Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and
Rezoning from MIC (Mixed Industrial & Commercial) to GC (General Commercial) for
the Country & Western Bar located at the northwest corner of West Atlantic Avenue
and the C.S.X. Railroad.
GENERAL DATA:
Owner. ......................................... Helen Owens
Applicant ...................................... David Shine
Agent ........................................... Dennis P. Koehler, P.A.
Location ....................................... Northwest corner of West Atlantic
Avenue and the C.S.X. Railroad.
Property Size ............................... 0.39 Acres
Current Future Land Use Map ...... Commerce
Proposed Future Land Use Map.. General Commercial
Current Zoning ............................. MIC (Mixed Industrial &
Commercial)
Proposed Zoning ..........................GC (General Commercial)
Adjacent Zoning ................. North: MIC
East: GC
South: MIC
West: MIC
Existing Land Use ........................ Farm Supply Store
Proposed Land Use ..................... Conversion of the existing 7,173
sq.ft, building into a Country and
Western night club.
Water Service .............................. Existing via a service lateral
connection to an existing 8" main
along N.W. 18th Avenue.
Sewer Service .............................. Existing via a septic system.
.................................................................................................. .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the City
Commission on a privately-sponsored Small-Scale Future Land Use Map
Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and a rezoning from
MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial) to GC (General Commercial).
The subject property is located at the northwest comer of Atlantic Avenue
and the CSX Railroad, immediately west of 1-95.
The subject property consists of Lot 1, Owens Commercial Subdivision, containing 0.39
acres, at the south end of the overall 3 lot subdivision. Lot 1 contains a 7,173 sq.ft.
building which was constructed in 1952 and is currently occupied by a farm supply store
(Delray Beach Farm Supply, Inc.). The balance of the Owens Commercial Subdivision
consists of Lot 2 (middle lot) containing an 8,505 sq.ft, industrial building (constructed in
1974), and Lot 3 (northernmost lot) containing a 10,740 sq.ft, industrial building
(constructed in 1962; additions constructed 1965 and 1968). The businesses that
currently exist on Lots 2 and 3 are as follows: Lot 2 - Econo Auto Paint; and, Lot 3 --
Tile and Marble Wholesale, Inc., Modern Mica Design, Excellent Auto, Inc. and a
contractor's office (Warren Clyde Kidd, Jr.).
On November 12, 1962, the subject property along with other properties within the
vicinity north of Atlantic Avenue, east of Congress Avenue and west of the CSX railroad
were annexed into the City of Delray Beach with an initial zoning designation of C-3
(Wholesale and Light Industrial District).
In 1972, the properties zoned C-3 were rezoned to LI (Light Industrial). In March of
1977, the City Council (now City Commission) approved a conditional use request to
establish an automobile paint body and repair shop (Econo Auto Painting) within the
existing warehouse building in the middle of the overall development.
In late 1977, the subject property along with other properties in this area was rezoned
from LI to MI (Medium Industrial).
W~th the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map in
November, 1989, the land use designation of the property was changed from Industrial
to Commerce. Subsequently, with the Citywide rezonings and adoption of the Land
Development Regulations in October 1990, the property was rezoned from MI to MIC
(Mixed Industrial and Commercial).
On November 15, 1994, the City Commission approved the final plat for the Owens
Commercial Subdivision. In conjunction with the plat a cross-parking and drainage
agreement was executed as the plat also subdivided required parking spaces and
drainage flows across property lines.
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 2
On April 4, 1997, a request for a Future Land Use Map amendment and Rezoning to
GC (General Commercial) for Lot I was submitted and is now before the Board for
action.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .................. f::,:i:i::,:=, ................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::: .................... T:i:::i:r ............................... i:':i:'::::::! ................ T:T:::':'::!:, ............................... ~:::f:~:T ......................... i:::i:i'T ....................... i:::~ ........................... f:::i:f ........................... f:f:?f .................................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I
The proposal is to change the Future Land Use Map designation for the property from
Commerce to General Commercial and rezone the property from MIC (Mixed Industrial
and Commercial) to GC (General Commercial). The subject property is currently
occupied by a farm supply store (Delray Beach Farm Supply, Inc.). The building
contains 5,380 sq.ft, of wholesale/warehouse space and 1,793 sq.ft, of retail space. If
the FLUM amendment and rezoning are approved, it is anticipated that a site plan
modification request will follow to establish a country and western bar.
Florida Statutes 163.3187 - Small Scale Land Use Map Amendments:
This Future Land Use Map Amendment is being processed as a Small-Scale
Development pursuant to Florida Statutes 163.3187. This statute states that any local
government comprehensive land use amendments directly related to proposed small
scale development activities may be approved without regard to statutory limits on the
frequency of consideration of amendments (twice a year), subject to the following
conditions:
The amendment does not exceed 10 acres of land;
The cumulative effect of the amendments processed under this section shall not
exceed 120 acres within designated redevelopment and traffic concurrency
exception areas, or 60 acres annually in areas lying outside the designated
areas; and,
[3 The proposed amendment does not involve the same property, or the same
owner's property within 200 feet of property, granted a change within a period of
12 months.
The Future Land Use Map amendment involves a 0.39 acre area, thus the total area is
less than the 10 acre maximum. The amendment to General Commercial is being
processed concurrently with a rezoning request to GC (General Commercial) to
facilitate establishing a country and western bar within the existing building as a
permitted use. The property is not located within a designated redevelopment or traffic
concurrency exception area. This amendment along with other small-scale
amendments processed this year, outside the designated areas, will not exceed 60
acres. This property has not previously been considered for a land use amendment nor
has the same property owner's properties been granted a land use change within 200
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 3
feet or within the last year. Thereefore, the property meets the criteria for processing as
a small-scale amendment.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES:
A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was
conducted and the following applicable policy was found.
Future Land Use Element Policy A-1.4; "Commerce" Land Use which involves a
mix of light industrial, commercial uses, and research and development are the
most needed land uses during the City's final stage of build-out. Thus, changes
to the Land Use Map which diminish this land use are discouraged.
While the Objective regarding this policy refers to vacant land it is also relevant to
developed Commerce-designated land. City staff conducted an inventory of Commerce
designated parcels, both vacant and developed. There is a total of 246 acres, of which
160 are developed and 86 are vacant. The 246 acres represents approximately 3% of
the City's total acreage. While the subject property is only 0.39 acres, the proposed
FLUM amendment will reduce the amount of Commerce designated land. A May, 1995
article in Florida Trend estimated that 9 out of every 10 jobs in Florida are created by
small firms. According to a 1995 business profile of Delray Beach, conducted by Urban
Decision Systems, approximately 90% of "commerce" type businesses in the City are
relatively small, employing 20 or fewer people. This indicates that even the smaller
parcels within the City are important in terms of satisfying this policy regarding
Commerce land uses.
Future Land Use Element Policy A-1.6 - To encourage redevelopment of the City's
Central Business District, Future Land Use Map amendments to Commercial
designations in outlying areas of the City's Planning Area, shall not be
considered.
The proposal is inconsistent with this policy. While the petition involves a relatively
small parcel, its purpose is to accommodate a night club/entertainment use which will
compete with the redevelopment efforts in the City's Central Business District. Further,
as the property is located adjacent to and is easily accessible from 1-95, the use will be
primarily a destination type use and will not encourage customers to visit the City's
downtown. There are existing commercially zoned properties throughout the City that
can .easily accommodate the proposed use. If the amendment is approved, similar
requests to accommodate commercial uses along this section of Atlantic Avenue/N.W.
18th Avenue may occur.
Traffic Element Policy A-$.3 - The City shall guard against the
overcommercialization of intersections by restricting land uses which are high
traffic generators to no more than two adjoining streets.
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 4
The proposal is inconsistent with this policy. The subject property is located within 700
feet of the intersection of Congress and Atlantic Avenues, and 200 feet of the
intersection of Atlantic Avenue and N.W. 18th Avenue. The intersection of Atlantic and
Congress Avenue is commercialized with two gasoline stations, a carpet store and a
shopping center. This FLUM amendment and rezoning to GC will result in commercial
zoning within an industrial area which is not easily accessible from Atlantic Avenue, and
which can accommodate high traffic generating commercial uses such as fast food
restaurants, night clubs, convenience stores, and general retail uses. While the MIC
zoning allows retail uses, they are limited to no more than 25% of the total floor area of
the building and typically involve items that can be manufactured, fabricated or
assembled within the MIC district.
Land U~e Analysis:
Pursuant to Land Development Regulations Section 3.1.1(A) (Future Land Use
Map), all land uses and resulting structures must be allowed in the zoning district
within which the land is situated and, said zoning must be consistent with the
land use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map.
The proposed General Commercial Future Land Use Map designation will allow the
following zoning classifications: GC (General Commercial), PC (Planned Commercial),
AC (Automotive Commercial), NC (Neighborhood Commercial), POC (Planned Office
Center), POD (Professional and Office District), RT (Resort Tourism), CF (Community
Facilities), OS (Open Space), and OSR (Open Space and Recreation).
In conjunction with the Future Land Use Map amendment to General Commercial, a
rezoning to GC (General Commercial) is being sought. The FLUM amendment and
rezoning to GC are being processed concurrently to facilitate establishing a country and
western bar. Within the GC zone district, night clubs and bars are allowed as a
permitted use. Based upon the above, a positive finding with respect to consistency
with the proposed FLUM and zoning designations can be made.
~.d_iacent Future Land Use Map Designations. Zoning Designations & Land Uses:
North and West: North and west of the property has a Future Land Use Map
designation of Commerce and is zoned MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial). The
existing land uses include automobile paint, body and repair shops (Econo Auto
Painting, Eastern Auto Care Center/NTW Tires, etc.).
S~th: South, across Atlantic Avenue, has a FLUM designation of Commerce and is
zoned MIC (Mixed Industrial and Commercial). The existing land use is the CSPJRinker
concrete products manufacturing facility.
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendmen[ from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 5
East: East of the property, across the CSX railroad tracks, has a Future Land Use Map
designation of General Commercial and is zoned GC. The existing land use is a
contractor's office (George B. Wittmer Associates, Inc.)
Allowable Land Uses:
The current Commerce FLUM designation allows the following zoning classifications:
RT (Resort Tourism), PCC (Planned Commerce Center), MIC (Mixed Industrial and
Commercial) and LI (Light Industrial). With the exception of RT, these zoning
designations are primarily intended for industrial type uses such as manufacturing,
fabrication, assembly, etc. which allows a mix of service and commercial uses. The RT
allows uses that can be complementary to an industrial park setting, such as hotels and
conference facilities. The subject property is currently zoned MIC which allows a
mixture of industrial, service and commercial type uses.
Under the proposed General Commercial FLUM designation, commercial developments
under a variety of zoning designations (GC, PC, NC , AC, RT, POC and POD) are
allowed. The applicant has requested a zoning designation of GC (General
Commercial), which permits high intensity commercial uses such as gasoline stations,
night clubs, convenience stores, and fast food restaurants, high turnover sit-down
restaurants as well as office and other retail uses.
Land Use & Zoning Compatibility_:
As described in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Commerce land use designation is applied to property which is developed, or is to be
developed, in such a manner as to accommodate a mix of industrial, service, and
limited commercial uses. This may be done either through development of existing
parcels or through a planned concept. The proposed General Commercial land use
designation is to be applied to land which is, or should be, developed for general
commercial purposes e.g. retail, office, services.
The adjacent properties to the north, south and west have a Commerce land use
designation, are zoned MIC, and contain industrial uses. The property to the east is
zoned GC but is occupied by a contractor's office, which is compatible with industrial
type uses. Also, it is separated from the subject industrial area by the CSX railroad
tracks and takes access from Lake Ida Road.
The 'compatibility of the proposed GC zoning with the adjacent industrial uses is a
coricem as rezoning to GC allows high traffic generating commercial uses, while the
MIC zoning allows industrial uses which generally have Iow traffic volumes. The
applicant has stated that the business hours are limited to the evening hours (6:30 p.m.
to 2:00 a.m.) at which time the adjacent industrial uses are closed. However, once the
property is rezoned the hours of operation cannot be regulated. The GC zoning allows
uses that may be open during the daytime and evenings, are high traffic generators,
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 6
and have a greater parking demand. Commercial uses which would locate at or near a
busy intersection such as this (i.e. gasoline station, convenience store), are typically
open 24 hours. While peak hour traffic generation of the industrial uses may occur
during the morning and evening hours, traffic to a commercial business will be
continuous with peak hours coinciding with normal peak traffic hours. Based upon the
above, the proposed land use designation will be inconsistent with the existing
Commerce designation on surrounding properties.
CONCURRENCY: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be
provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service
established within the Comprehensive Plan.
Water and Sewer:
[3 Water service exists via a service lateral connection to an 8" water main along N.W.
18th Avenue. Adequate fire suppression is provided via existing hydrants along the
west side of N.W. 18th Avenue. No off-site water main extensions and/or upgrades
are required with this development proposal.
Currently, there are no sewer mains installed to serve the properties along this
section of N.W. 18th Avenue. Sewage for the existing wholesale/retail operation is
accommodated via an existing on-site septic system. The proposed land use and
zoning change will allow uses that have a much greater demand on sewage
facilities, such as restaurants. The proposed conversion of the structure to a night
club will at a minimum require upgrading of the existing septic system. Given the
intensity of the proposed night club use, installation of a lift station and a force main
to connect to the existing main along Congress Avenue may be required.
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water
Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the
City at build-out.
With FLUM amendment and rezoning requests drainage plans are not required. The
site was originally engineered to drain into swale areas along N.W. 18th Avenue. Over
time the swale areas have been destroyed and paved. If the FLUM amendment and
rezoning is approved, a site plan modification submittal will follow. At that time, plans
must be provided which indicate removal of the paving and the installation of swales.
Traffic:
The current use of a farm supply/feed store generates approximately 50 daily trips. The
proposed use of a country and western bar would generate approximately 588 daily
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendmer~t from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 7
trips, a net increase of 538 trips. The traffic study indicates this specific project can
meet traffic concurrency: However, as the proposal before the Board is to rezone the
parcel to General Commercial, and once rezoned any use in the GC zone district could
be established, these numbers are of little significance. The analysis of this action must
address the potential impact of the worst case use under the GC district as there is no
guarantee that this proposed use will be established or that it will not be replaced in the
future with a more intense use allowed under the GC.
While the current use of the property (farm supply/feed store) generates approximately
50 trips, the maximum development potential under the current MIC zoning (75%
industrial, 25% retail) would generate approximately 352 daily trips. The maximum
development potential under the proposed GC zoning designation is significantly
higher. For example, a retail use will generate approximately 750 trips, a fast food
restaurant 3,174 dally trips, and a convenience store 2,911 daily trips. Therefore, a
rezoning approval to General Commercial may result in daily traffic increases of: 113%
for retail, 727% for convenience store, and 801% for fast food restaurant.
This increase in traffic is of significant concern given the location of the site and the
restrictions of right turn only at the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and N.W. 18th
Avenue. The "right turn only" sign was installed to prevent vehicles on N.W. 18th
Avenue from making left tums onto eastbound Atlantic Avenue, due to the intersection's
proximity to the railroad tracks, 1-95 interchange, and the Atlantic/Congress intersection.
With the restriction to right turn only at N.W. 18th Avenue and Atlantic Avenue all trips
desiring to go eastbound on Atlantic Avenue from the site must first go west and make
a u-turn at Congress and Atlantic Avenue. An analysis of the westbound left turn
storage during peak hours was conducted on Wednesday May 7th and Thursday May
8th. The results of the analysis indicate that in the AM peak hour (7:30 AM to 8:30 AM)
the left turn lane storage is inadequate (overflows into westbound travel lanes) an
average of 20 out of 25 cycles or 80% of the time. In the PM peak (4:30 PM to 5:30
PM) the left turn storage fails an average of 5 of 25 cycles or approximately 20% of the
time. The traffic study submitted with this proposal indicates that the traffic distribution
will be primarily from 1-95 to and from the site. However, as previously indicated,
eastbound traffic must first go west and make a u-turn, thus impacting the
Congress/Atlantic intersection. The applicant argues that since the proposed use will
operate at night it will not affect the intersection at these peak hours. Again, a rezoning
cannot be tied to a single use, therefore it must be evaluated in terms of all potential
uses, many of which could significantly affect this intersection at peak hours. Further,
while project distribution may change given the different uses it is anticipated a general
commercial use will generate more trips than uses allowed under the existing zoning
and therefore increase impacts on this intersection. Given the current operating
conditions at the intersection adoption of any land use designation or zoning
designation which intensifies the traffic volumes in this area is inappropriate.
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 8
Parks and Recreation:
Park and dedication requirements do not apply to nonresidential uses. Thus, there will
be no impact on this level of service standard.
Trash generated each year by the proposed commercial use would be equal to or
slightly greater than trash generated from the uses allowed by the applicable zoning
districts of the Commerce land use designation (MIC, PCC, LI, RT). The development
of these properties under the General Commercial land use designation should not
create an adverse impact on this level of service standard.
REQUIRED FINDIN6S; (Chap~r 3)
Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of
development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part
of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the
application, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body
which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These
findings relate to the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan
Consistency and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations.
Future Land Use Map, Concurrency and Comprehensive Plan Consistency were
previously discussed under the Future Land Use Map Analysis section of this report.
Compliance with respect to Compliance with the Land Development Regulations
(Standards for Rezoning Actions, Rezoning Findings) are discussed below.
CONSISTENCy; Compliance with the performance standards set forth in Section
3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions) along with required findings in Section
2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall
consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found in the adopted
Comprehensive Plan may be used in the making of a finding of overall
consistency.
Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezonin_= Actions): Standards A and B are not
applicable. The applicable performance standard of Section 3.3.2 is as follows:
(C) Additional strip commercial zoning on vacant properties shall be avoided.
This policy shall not preclude rezonings on land that at the time of
rezoning has improvements on it. Where existing strip commercial areas
or zoning exists along an arterial street, consideration should be given to
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 9
increasing the depth of the commercial zoning in order to provide for better
project design.
The proposed GC zoning would allow inappropriate commercial zoning on a
developed parcel of land. The subject property is one parcel of an overall 3
parcel subdivision with an overall width of 670 feet and a depth of only 100 feet.
The properties currently have back-out parking onto N.W. 18th Avenue, and
substandard parking lots between the buildings. As all the properties are
developed and are located between the CSX railroad and N.W. 18th Avenue,
there is no ability to aggregate additional land to provide a'well-planned
commercial development. Thus, rezoning the property to GC would be
inconsistent with this performance standard.
(D) That the rezoning shall result in allowing land uses which are deemed
compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses both existing and
proposed; or that if an incompatibility may occur, that sufficient
regulations exist to properly mitigate adverse impacts from the new use.
The properties to the north, south and west are industrial in character and are
zoned MIC, while to the east is zoned GC, and contains a contactor's office.
Compatibility with the adjacent industrial uses is a concern. As previously stated
under the Future Land Use Map Analysis of this report, the GC zoning
designation allows uses that are much more intense than those allowed in the
MIC zone district. Given the limited on-site parking that is available, and the
potential conflicts between commercial and industrial traffic, a positive finding
with respect to this standard cannot be made.
Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezonin_= Findine_s):
Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Section
3.1.1, the City Commission must make a finding that the rezoning fulfills one of
the reasons for which the rezoning change is being sought. These reasons
include the following:
a. That the zoning had previously been changed, or was originally
established, in error;
b. That there has been a change in circumstances which make the current
zoning Inappropriate; and,
c. That the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed under the
Future Land Use Map and that it is more ap_~ropriate for the property based
upon circumstances particular to the site and/or neighborhood.
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-,.'.'.'.'.'.'.'~le FLUM Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 10
The applicant has submitted a justification statement which states the following:
· The subject property has operated as a farm supply store for the past forty-
four years. The store was established when Delray had a farming
community and the location was appropriate. However, the urbanization of
Delrey Beach makes current use inappropriate at this location. The
property owner has seen Atlantic Avenue expanded many times and
developed as a commercial corridor.
This request is to change a small 0.38 acre parcel of land to a commercial
zoning reflecting the highest and best use of use of the property. There
currently exists similar commercial zoning immediately to the east, and
fronting on both sides of Atlantic Avenue at three quadrants of the
intersection of Congress Avenue. The other quadrant of Congress and
Atlantic is also commercial zoned, PC.
· The requested rezoning to GC is best suited for this small parcel and not
planned commercial designations.
· The requested zoning district is intended for applications on arterials such
as Atlantic Avenue.
· This request is compatible with adjacent areas.
· No residential areas will be disturbed.
· Current regulations permit uses which will generate more traffic than the
proposed use.
· The proposed use will upgrade the frontage along the major entryway of
Delray Beach.
· The applicant will voluntarily limit the hours of operation to night time only to
reduce traffic impacts.
Comment: The justification statement appears to address Items "b" and "c' as the
basis for which the rezoning should be granted - that there has been a change in
circumstances which make the current zoning inappropriate, the rezoning is of similar
intensity as allowed under the Future Land Use Map and it is more appropriate for the
property based upon circumstances particular to the site. Those arguments are
discussed below.
The change in circumstances referred to by the applicant is that the urbanization of the
City. has made a farm supply store obsolete. This argument might make sense if the
properly were zoned Agricultural and had uses limited to agricultural related activities.
However, that is clearly not the case in this situation. The property has a land use and
zoning designation that allows for a variety of other uses. It is located in an industrial
area with a number of viable businesses that have been successfully operating for
many years. The applicant's argument is applicable only to the use that is currently
occupying the building. A change in the economic circumstances of a particular
business is not a valid basis to alter the land use and zoning designations of the
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendmen{ from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 11 ~
property on which it is located. The fact that Delray Beach has become more urbanized
makes those industrial uses more valuable to the City's continued economic health.
The purpose and intent of the GC zone district states that the GC zoning is appropriate
for small parcels which are best suited for general retail and office uses, and along
arterial and collector streets. However, this argument cannot be used to support the
establishment of a 7,173 sq.ft, night club or restaurant on a parcel that is less than a
half an acre in size. Further, while the property fronts an arterial street, it is only
accessible from a local street containing industrial uses. As the property is within an
industrial area and contains minimal parking, it is not well-suited for general commercial
uses. Compatibility of the GC zoning with the adjacent MIC zoning and uses must also
be taken into consideration as discussed previously in this report.
With regard to traffic, the applicant's contention that the MIC zone district contains
permitted uses that will generate more traffic that the proposed night club use is not
valid. As noted in the section of the report dealing with traffic, most of the uses allowed
in GC zoning are much higher traffic generators than industrial type uses. With regard
to the statement that the use will upgrade the property frontage, it is noted that
landscape upgrades were required as part of the subdivision plat approved in 1994,
however, that landscaping has not been installed. Finally, the offer by the applicant to
voluntarily limit the hours of operation is unenforceable as a condition of a rezoning.
Once the property is rezoned, any of the uses permitted in the GC district may apply to
establish at this location, and the City would have no ability to restrict the hours of
operation.
Based upon the above, a finding cannot be made that the rezoning fulfills any of the
reasons for which a rezoning should be granted.
COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS;
Parkina
The existing development has 3 separate parcels which share 28 parking spaces. This
is accomplished through cross-access easements and a cross-parking agreement
between the 3 parcels. However, while 28 spaces are available, a total of 96 spaces is
required by code to accommodate the current uses. Thus, there is an existing
deficiency of 68 spaces. Uses allowed in the GC zoning district typically have a higher
parking requirement than industrial uses. For example, pursuant to LDR Section
4.6.9(C)(5)(a), industrial uses require 3 spaces per 1,000 sq.ff., and I space for each
1,000 sq.ft, of storage area. By contrast, restaurants, night clubs and lounges are
required to provide 12 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft, up to 6,000 sq.ff., then 15 spaces per
1,000 sq.ft, over 6,000 sq.ft. Based upon the above, the proposed night club requires
90 parking spaces. Assuming that a third of the 28 existing spaces (9 spaces) are
allocated to the subject property, the on-site parking deficiency would increase to 149
spaces. The applicant proposes to provide required parking off-site via an off-site
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 12
parking agreement with the Eastern Auto Care Center/NTW Tires development on the
west side of N.W. 18th Avenue.
The justification for utilizing the off-site spaces is based upon the different hours of
operation between the night club and the industrial uses. Pursuant to LDP, Section
4.6.9(E)(5), an off-site parking agreement may be approved so long as it provides that
"the land comprising the alternate off-street parking area shall never be disposed of
except in conjunction with the transfer or sale of the building which the parking area is
intended to serve, so long as the parking facilities are required". The agreement must
run with the land and is binding on owners, successors, heirs, administrators and
assigns. In brief, the agreement ties the properties together and they cannot be sold
separately for as long as the parking need exists. For this reason, off-site parking
agreements to utilize private property have been very difficult to obtain. As previously
noted, the proposed GC zoning allows a variety of uses with operating hours similar to
the industrial uses which would create conflicts among users of the parking spaces.
In essence, the City is being asked to change the land use and zoning designation of
this parcel to allow a use that will create a far greater parking demand than the current
zoning allows, on a site that is already severely deficient in parking. This request is to
be based on the submission and approval of an agreement that will legally bind the
subject property to the adjacent industrial property, and proposes to limit the hours of
operation accordingly. The City would be responsible for enforcing this agreement. If
the property owners decided to dissolve the agreement, the City will be left with a parcel
that has a commercial zoning designation and severe parking shortage.
The development proposal is not within a geographical area requiring review by the
CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency, DDA (Downtown Development Authority), or
the HPB (Historic Preservation Board).
Special Courtesy and Nei_ohborhood Notices:
Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowner's associations and civic
organizations:
O Chatelaine 13 Rainberry Lake
13 Delray Shores O Rainberry Woods South
13 Hamlet [3 Sherwood Forest
O ~High Point Sections 1-7 [3 The Sudan
13 Highland Trailer Park 13 Sunset Pines
E} Pines of Delray North El United Property Owners
13 Presidents Council 13 Windy Creek
[3 Progressive Residents of Delray (PROD) E} Woodlake
13 Rainberry Bay
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendmer t from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 13
public Notice:
Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500' radius of the
subject property. Letters of objection, if any, will be presented at the Planning and
Zoning Board meeting.
With the Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial
positive findings with respect to compatibility are unable to be made. The proposal
does not comply with Future Land Use Element Policies A-1.4 and A-1.6, and Traffic
Element Policy A-5.3. The proposed FLUM amendment will reduce the City's
'Commerce" land use inventory, will accommodate a zoning designation that will
compete with the City's Central Business District, and will further commercialize the
Atlantic and Congress Avenues intersection. Compatibility of the GC zoning and its
potential uses with the adjacent industrial uses is a concern, especially with regard to
traffic and parking impacts. Eastbound vehicles are required to first head westbound
on Atlantic, and then make u-turns at the intersection of Atlantic and Congress. There
are concerns that a general commercial use at this location will severely impact the
stacking distance (queuing) of the westbound left turn lane at the Congress and Atlantic
intersection. The stacking distance of the turn lane is insufficient to accommodate the
traffic volumes generated by the commercial use. Further, the ability to expand the turn
lane (lengthening storage capacity) is limited as the turn lane for N.W. 18th Avenue
begins just east of the left turn lane.
The site is part of an industrial development that was constructed under antiquated
development standards and does not conform to current code requirements. Most
significant of these is the parking deficiency of 68 spaces. The existing deficiencies will
only be exacerbated by an intensification of the uses. The conversion of the existing
wholesale/retail building to a night club, will increase the on-site parking shortage to
149 spaces. While the applicant has offered to limit the hours of operation and provide
off-site parking agreements, limiting the hours of operation and the uses is not
enforceable. Off-site parking agreements restrict the long-term use and marketability of
the properties involved and should not be used to justify a zoning change. Finally, a
positive finding cannot be made with regard to any of the three reasons listed in LDR
Section 2.4.5(D)(5) for which a rezoning should be granted. A change in the economic
circumstances of a particular business is not a valid basis to alter the land use and
zoning designations of the property on which it is located. There are other permitted
uses in the MIC zone district that can be accommodated and would be viable at this
location.
Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report
Small-Scale FLUM Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and Rezoning from MIC to GC
Page 14
A. Continue with direction.
B. Recommend approval of the Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commerce
to General Commercial, and the rezoning request from MIC to GC based upon
positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land
Development Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and LDR
Sections 2.4.5(D)(5)(b) and (c).
C. Recommend denial of the Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commerce to
General Commercial, and the rezoning request from MIC to GC based upon a
failure to make positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance
Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive
Plan, and LDR Sections 2.4.5(D)(5), and based upon deficiencies in the storage
capacity of the turn lane at the Congress Avenue and Atlantic Avenue
intersection, and deficiencies in on-site parking that is available for the subject
property.
Recommend to the City Commission denial of the Small-Scale Future Land Use Map
Amendment from Commerce to General Commercial and the rezoning request from
MIC to GC based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to Future Land
Use Element Policies A-1.4 and A-1.6, and Traffic Element Policy A-5.3 of the
Comprehensive Plan, LDR Section 3.3.2(C) (Performance Standards), and LDR
Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Findings), and based upon deficiencies in the storage capacity of
the turn lane at the Congress Avenue and Atlantic Avenue intersection, and
deficiencies in on-site parking that is available for the subject property.
Attachments:
El Future Land Use Map
El Zoning Map
r~ Survey
' 'OWEN'S COMMERCIAL
i I SUBDIVISION'
I STORY C.8.S.
WAREHOUSE
J
~LT ~ FEN~
, L~ F~ ~WAY O~' WEST
, us P~ N89'30'36'E
:.R.) ~ 24' ~RESS/EO~ j
J ov~ L~ F~CE ~LT
j ~RETE FOOTE
V~VE ~ J w~
~ LOT I '
i ~ ISTORY C.B.S.*ND ~TAL ~C~
I ~ WAREHOUSE
: S.4' ~ST ~ PRat