04-04-06 Minutes Reg
Commissioner Jeff Perlman
APRIL 4, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida,
was called to order by Mayor Jeff Perlman in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00
p.m., Tuesday, April 4, 2006.
1.
Roll call showed:
Present - Commissioner Rita Ellis
Commissioner Fred Fetzer
Commissioner Jon Levinson
Commissioner Brenda Montague
Mayor Jeff Perlman
Absent - None
Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager
Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk
At this point,Mayor Perlman stated he would like to observe a moment of silence
in memory of Reverend Franck Francois of Bethel Evangelical Baptist Church who recently
th
passed away. The church just celebrated their 25 Anniversary and he was a terrific member of
the Delray Beach Clergy Association.
2.
The opening prayer was delivered by Reverend Nancy Norman with Unity
Church of Delray Beach.
3.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given.
4.AGENDA APPROVAL.
Item 8.P., Third Amendment to Contract for Sale and
Mayor Perlman stated
Purchase/Auburn Trace
, has been removed from the Consent Agenda. He noted that there is a
Item 9.A., Appeal of the Historic Preservation Board’s Decision
revised Board Order for
Associated with 711 North Swinton Avenue.
Item 8.C., Delray Lakes Homeowners’
Also, Mayor Perlman requested that
Association Traffic Enforcement AgreementItem 9.A.1.
be moved to the Regular Agenda as
Mrs. Ellis moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mrs.
Montague. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer – Yes; Mr. Levinson –
Yes; Mrs. Montague – Yes; Mayor Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes. Said motion passed with a
5 to 0 vote.
04/04/06
5.APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Levinson moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 6,
2006, seconded by Mr. Fetzer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson –
Yes; Mrs. Montague – Yes; Mayor Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer – Yes. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
Mrs. Ellis moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 21,
2006, seconded by Mrs. Montague. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs.
Montague – Yes; Mayor Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer – Yes; Mr. Levinson –
Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
Mr. Fetzer moved to approve the Minutes of the Organizational Meeting of March
30, 2006, seconded by Mrs. Montague. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor
Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer – Yes; Mr. Levinson – Yes; Mrs. Montague – Yes.
Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
6. PROCLAMATIONS:
6.A.Recognizing and commending James Scala – Ocean Rescue Division - Parks
and Recreation Department Employee of the Year for 2005; and Angel Rodriguez – Parks
Maintenance Division and Matthew Carbone – Administration/Recreation Division as
Parks and Recreation Top Employees of the Year for 2005
Mayor Perlman read and presented a proclamation hereby recognizing and
JAMES SCALA,ANGEL RODRIQUEZMATTHEW CARBONE
commending and
PARKSRECREATION TOP EMPLOYEES OF THE YEAR 2005
and on a job well done
for the Parks and Recreation Department and the City of Delray Beach. Joe Weldon, Director of
Parks and Recreation, stated Angel Rodriquez could not attend this evening and presented James
Scala and Matthew Carbone with a plaque and check. Mr. Scala and Mr. Carbone came forward
to accept their proclamations.
6.B.National Public Works Week – May 21-26, 2006
Mayor Perlman read and presented a proclamation hereby proclaiming the week
NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK
of May 21 through 26, 2006 as in Delray Beach,
Florida. Richard Hasko, Director of Environmental Services, came forward to accept the
proclamation.
6.C.Days of Remembrance – Holocaust
Mayor Perlman noted this proclamation will be mailed.
7.PRESENTATIONS:
7.ADelray Camera Club Awards – “Vibrant Delray 2006”
.
- 2 -
04/04/06
Mayor Perlman presented a Certificate of Achievement to the following winners
of this year’s competition.
HONORABLE MENTION
Ruthe Zucker
“Libraries Are Fun”
Herl Wilkins
“Catch of the Day”
Jesse Lobel
“Ballroom Dancers”
Third Place
Don McKenzie
“An Evening Snack”
Second Place
Larry Diou
“Gazebo At Sundy House”
First Place
Ted Reich
“Balloon Night”
8.CONSENT AGENDA:
City Manager Recommends Approval.
8.A.AMENDMENT NO. 1/BUSINESS LEASE AGREEMENT/MAE VOLEN
SENIOR CENTER, INC.:
Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Business Lease Agreement with
the Mae Volen Senior Center, Inc. to extend the operation of the Alzheimer’s Center to
September 21, 2006.
8.B.ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT/EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)
GRANT:
Accept Emergency Medical Services (EMS) grant funding in the amount of
$43,707.20; and authorize the purchase of eight (8) EtCO2 Sidestream LoFlo Upgrades and
supplies in the amount of $41,199.50 from Zoll Medical Corporation for the Fire-Rescue
Department. Funding is available from 001-2315-526-64.90 (General Fund/Fire Rescue/Other
Machinery/Equipment).
8.C.THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS
ITEM 9.A.1.
- 3 -
04/04/06
8.D.RESOLUTION NO. 16-06:
Approve Resolution No. 16-06 authorizing funding
in the amount of $5,000.00 to the Brickel Foundation for the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program.
The caption of Resolution No. 16-06 is as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING FUNDING IN
THE AMOUNT OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00)
FOR THE BRICKELL FOUNDATION, THEREBY ENABLING
THEM TO IMPLEMENT THE OLWEUS BULLYING
PREVENTION PROGRAM IN LOCAL SCHOOLS AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Resolution No. 16-06 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.)
8.E.AMENDMENT NO. 1/GENERAL CONSULTING ENGINEERING
SERVICES AGREEMENT/MCMAHON ASSOCIATES, INC.:
Approve Amendment No. 1
to the General Consulting Engineering Services Agreement between the City and McMahon
Associates, Inc. to provide for a 5% increase in the cost of professional engineering services.
8.F.ACCEPTANCE OF 2004/2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT:
Accept
the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ended September 30, 2005; a formal
presentation of the report will be made at the April 11, 2006 Commission Workshop Meeting.
8.G.SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/AVDA:
Approve a special event request to
th
allow the 9 Annual Aid to Victims of Domestic Abuse, Inc. (AVDA) 5K Walk/Run to be held
on Saturday, October 14, 2006 from 7:30 a.m. until approximately noon.
8.H.DONATION/COMMUNITY CHAIR PROJECT:
Accept a donation from the
West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) of twelve (12) Adirondack chairs to become
part of the City’s public art inventory.
8.I.CONSENT TO SUBCONTRACT/WASTE MANAGEMENT:
Approve a
Consent to Subcontract Agreement with Waste Management (WM) to allow the use of a
subcontractor, Eastern Waste Systems, Inc. (EWS), to collect vegetative and bulk waste in the
City.
8.J.SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/BED RACE:
Approve a special event request
th
to allow the 9 Annual Bed Race and Street Dance to be held on May 11, 2006 from 5:30 p.m.
until 10:00 p.m.
8.K.SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. 3.1/CH2M HILL, INC.:
Approve
Service Authorization No. 3.1 to CH2M Hill, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $16,802.00 for
boundary and topographic surveying; and gopher tortoise permitting for site plan layout and
design of the Bexley Park Project. Funding is available from 380-4150-572-63.24 (2004 G.O.
Bond/Parks & Recreation/Bexley Park).
- 4 -
04/04/06
8.L.BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE (BJA) BULLETPROOF VEST
PARTNERSHIP (BVP) GRANT:
Authorization to apply for the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA) Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant in an amount up to $112,000.00 with a City
match of $56,000.00 to purchase bulletproof vests for the Police Department.
8.M.REQUEST FOR VALET QUEUE EXPANSION/CAFFE LUNA ROSA:
Approve a request from Caffe Luna Rosa to permanently expand their existing valet queue area
from four (4) spaces to seven (7) spaces.
8.N.FINAL BOUNDARY PLAT APPROVAL/SEAGATE HOTEL AT
ATLANTIC PLACE PLAT:
Approve the boundary plat for the Seagate Hotel at Atlantic Place
Plat, located on Atlantic Avenue at Venetian Drive.
8.O.INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/PALM BEACH COUNTY/LINTON
BOULEVARD BRIDGE TENDER HOUSE:
Approve an Interlocal Agreement with Palm
Beach County for reimbursement of $100,000.00 for upgrades to the Linton Boulevard Bascule
Bridge Tender House. Funding is available from 334-3162-541-46.10 (General Construction
Fund/Bridge/Linton Blvd. Tender House).
8.P.THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
8.Q.REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS:
Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period March
20, 2006 through March 31, 2006.
8.R.AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS:
1.
Purchase award to Container Systems & Equipment Co., Inc. the
amount of $131,686.00 as a sole source purchase for the purchase
of one (1) 2006 Schwarze A7000 Regenerative Air Street Sweeper
demonstrator model replacement vehicle for the Public Works
Department. Funding is available from 501-3312-591-64.20
(Central Garage Fund/Automotive).
2.
Lease award to Ikon Office Solutions in the total amount of
$22,662.72 over a three (3) year term via the Miami-Dade Contract
#114-DD11 for the lease of a Canon Image Runner 7095 Digital
Copier to be shared by the Community Improvement and Planning
& Zoning Departments. Funding is available from 001-2511-515-
44.30 and 001-2711-524-44.30 (General Fund/Equipment Rental
Leases).
3.
Contract award to Ron Bell, Inc. in the amount of $83,270.00 for
the repairs to the Old Train Depot roof which was damaged by
Hurricane Wilma. Funding is available from 551-1575-591-45.50
(Business Insurance Fund/Property Claims).
4.
Bid award to Larson Builders in the amount of $69,234.40 to
remove and replace the existing perimeter fence as part of the
- 5 -
04/04/06
Strategic Task Team (STT) Partnership and approved
Neighborhood Plan. Rainberry Woods Homeowners’ Association
will contribute $20,000.00. Funding is available from 334-6130-
541-63.89 (General Construction Fund/Neighborhood
Enhancements).
Mrs. Ellis moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, seconded by Mr.
Fetzer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer – Yes; Mr.
Levinson – Yes; Mrs. Montague – Yes; Mayor Perlman – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0
vote.
9.REGULAR AGENDA:
9.A.1.DELRAY LAKES HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION TRAFFIC
ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT:
Approve an agreement between the City and the Delray
Lakes Homeowners’ Association allowing the Delray Beach Police Department to enforce local
and state traffic laws on its property.
Mayor Perlman declared a conflict of interest and passed the gavel to Vice Mayor
Ellis and stepped down from the dais.
Mr. Levinson moved to approve the agreement between the City of Delray Beach
and the Delray Lakes Homeowners’ Association allowing the Delray Beach Police Department
to enforce local and state traffic laws on its property, seconded by Mrs. Montague. Upon roll
call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer – Yes; Mr. Levinson – Yes; Mrs. Montague –
Yes; Vice Mayor Ellis – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote.
9.A.APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD’S DECISION
ASSOCIATED WITH 711 NORTH SWINTON AVENUE:
Consider an appeal of the
Historic Preservation Board’s decision for 711 North Swinton Avenue, located in the Del-Ida
(Quasi-Judicial Hearing)
Park Historic District.
Mayor Perlman read the City of Delray Beach Quasi-Judicial rules into the record
for this item and all subsequent Quasi-Judicial items.
Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give
testimony on this item.
Mayor Perlman asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte communications.
Mr. Levinson stated he received emails from the property owner and these have been forwarded
to the City Clerk. Mrs. Montague stated she had no ex parte communications to disclose. Mayor
Perlman stated he received emails from the applicant. Mrs. Ellis and Mr. Fetzer had no ex parte
communications to disclose.
Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered the Planning and Zoning
Department project file #2006-066 into the record.
- 6 -
04/04/06
Mr. Dorling stated in December 2005 the applicant submitted a COA application
for the partial demolition of a structure built in 1962 and construction of a two-story addition
with attached two-car garage. The approved development proposal includes retaining
approximately 800 square feet of the existing structure and constructing a 3,475 square foot, two-
story addition including a two-car garage.
Mr. Dorling noted that adjacent structures are approximately 1,600 square feet
and 2,300 square feet. The Board had a discussion this and recommended approval of the
project. Staff received two letters of appeal from two adjacent property owners (701 N. Swinton
th
Avenue and another at 109 N.E. 7 Street) urging the Commission to reverse HPB’s decision.
At this point, the appellant came forward to speak:
Livia Landry, 701 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach (Del-Ida Park Historic
District),
expressed concern over the increasing number of large project proposals coming into
this district. She stated the proposed project is a partial demolition with the total square footage
of 4,275 square feet being the final project. Mrs. Landry stated this project is too large for the
historic district and in her opinion it jeopardizes the integrity and character of the neighborhood.
th
Warren Adams, 1020 N.W. 8 Street, Boynton Beach (Executive Director
for the Broward Trust for Historic Preservation),
representing the appellant, read his
credentials into the record and stated the actions taken by the Historic Preservation Board (HPB)
are: (1) inconsistent with the LDR’s, (2) inconsistent with the Delray Beach Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, (3) inconsistent with the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation,
and (4) inconsistent with their own direction of January 18, 2006. He stated the report from
March 1, 2006 states several times that the addition is not comparable with the historic building
stock in terms of height, massing, scale and front facade proportion as comparable to in-fill
structures. In his professional opinion, one cannot compare the two because one is an in-fill
structure and one is an addition. He stated the approval is based on a comparison based on in-fill
structures which are generally new construction; this is an addition to the existing structure and
the two cannot be compared. He stated in a historic district one should consider the surrounding
buildings and the compatibility of the addition in terms of size, scale, materials, mass and roof
form. Mr. Adams also stated that one should ensure that the addition is secondary and
subordinate to the main mass of the historic building. Additions that overwhelm the original
building are not an acceptable solution. He displayed a photograph of the streetscape (looking
north along N. Swinton Avenue) and noted there are single story dwellings along the stretch of
N. Swinton Avenue and it is identical to the south (single story low rise dwellings). Mr. Adams
stated HPB’s decision was inconsistent with the “Secretary of Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation” (guidelines used throughout the Country for any additions or alterations to
historic buildings). He stated any new addition shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale
and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Also, Mr. Warren stated that the HPB did not follow through on its own direction from its
January meeting. In summary, Mr. Adams stated they believe that HPB’s decision is
inconsistent with the LDR’s with regard to Appendix “A” Section 4.5.1(E)(7), Section
4.5.1(E)(8)(a)(b) & (j). He stated the approval is based on a comparison based on in-fill
structures which are generally new construction; this is an addition to the existing structure and
- 7 -
04/04/06
the two cannot be compared. The height of the adjacent buildings has not been taken into
account and the new property is not visually compatible with the building, mass, and the historic
sites, buildings and structures in the historic district. Furthermore, Mr. Adams stated the HPB
decision is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines under the Section entitled “Additions” and
believes is not inconspicuous, the second story is not stepped back, the surrounding buildings
and compatibility of the additions have not been considered and the addition overwhelms the
main building, and is inconsistent with the “Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation”
because the addition is not compatible with the massing, size, and scale of the historic
environment. Therefore, the historic environment is not being protected and he feels that the
HPB’s decision is inconsistent with its own direction of January 18, 2006, as they directed that
the massing and scale would be kept to a minimum and he does not feel that this has been done.
Mr. Adams stated he does believe that this home can be designed appropriately and done in the
character and scale of the historic area.
The City Attorney stated the other appellant also adopts the statements by Mr.
Adams.
David Rosenbom, owner of 711 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach,
stated the
project has been drawn within the guidelines and he submitted photographs into the record.
th
Rob Mannweiler, 109 N.E. 7 Street, Delray Beach (one of the appellants),
stated his lot was purchased in 1998 (vacant lot at the time). He decided to move into the
historic district and build a home (approximately 2800/2900 square feet) and this was in line
with all the other properties in the neighborhood with regard to square footage. Mr. Mannweiler
stated the proposed home is approximately 4,200/4,300 square feet which is by far the largest
home in the entire district. He expressed concern that building a home of this size will set a
precedent where every home in the historic district is going to be this square footage or if not
greater.
Mayor Perlman stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in
opposition of the appeal, to please come forward at this time.
th
Hayden Burrus, 10 N.E. 6 Street, Delray Beach,
stated this is a 4,400 square
foot home and urged the Commission to overrule the HPB. He stated the home immediately
adjacent to him (527 N. Swinton Avenue) is also proposed to have over a 4,000 square foot
home. Mr. Burrus stated this does not just involve one home but involves the entire
neighborhood (Del-Ida Historic Park District). He urged the Commission to not approve this
project because the entire neighborhood is going to be lost.
Carolyn Patton, 1020 Tamarind Road, Delray Beach, (also a property holder
in the Marina Historic District),
strongly supports this appeal of the HPB’s decision associated
with 711 N. Swinton Avenue. Ms. Patton stated this is the first time ever she recalls the
neighbors bringing an appeal to the City Commission and urged the Commission to support this
appeal.
- 8 -
04/04/06
Sandee Hoesley, owner of 1109 Beach Drive & owns historic property at 515
N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach,
stated she has spent one year with the HPB trying to restore
the home in the historic area which is a few houses down from the proposed home. She feels a
happy medium should be reached for everyone. Ms. Hoesley stated her home on Beach Drive is
a single family 1950’s home and next to her are huge 8,000 square feet homes being built
because the property is so valuable that no one is going to replicate her 2,700 square foot 1950’s
home. She stated property in the historic district is becoming more valuable and people are not
going to build single story 1,600 square foot homes there. Ms. Hoesley stated it should be
consistent and does not understand why this historic pocket is any more valuable to the City than
all the homes going up on Beach Drive. She does not understand how the proposed project is
deemed historic.
th
Lois Brezinski, 110 N.E. 7 Street, Delray Beach (lives in a 1926 Historic
Home)
stated she has attended numerous City Commission meetings and Historic Preservation
Board meetings. She lives next door to a 1 acre vacant lot that is under a proposed development
and stated this is an issue about guidelines. She stated by purchasing in the Historic District she
thought she was protected against certain types of development and she felt that she was always
going to be living in a neighborhood that reflected the historic charm. Ms. Brezinski urged the
Commission to protect the historic district because it is one of the very few things that Delray
Beach has in terms of history and charm.
Mark Fields, 414 Seasage Drive #5, Delray Beach,
stated he thinks it is
wonderful that the owner would like to put a proposed addition to his home; however, it is not
allowed in a historic district. He stated there are signs that designate the historic district and
stated if no one is going to abide by what the district guidelines are then he feels the blue signs
should be pulled down in every historic district. He stated if someone wants a huge mansion
they can build on the beach or somewhere other than a historic district and asked that the
guidelines in the historic district be respected. Mr. Fields urged the Commission to really
consider this.
Shannon Dawson, 527 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach,
stated she concurs
with comments expressed by Mr. Fields and feels that property rights need to be respected. She
stated that HPB is doing everything possible to protect the historic districts without completely
removing the property rights of those who live within the district. Ms. Dawson stated she is just
trying to make her property livable.
Scott Correale, 527 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach,
stated he has met many
people over the last year that have come before the HPB and the City Commission meetings and
noted people who want to come into this area have a passion for this area. He stated then
someone with the passion goes to purchase and has to go through the process and feels that the
process is broken. He urged the Commission to not penalize the people who want to come in
and build a nice home.
There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission
regarding the appeal, the public hearing was closed.
- 9 -
04/04/06
The following individuals came forward to give a brief rebuttal:
David Rosenbom, 711 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach,
stated he is
embarrassed by this situation and feels like this situation is the neighborhood against him. He is
surprised by the impact. He thanked the HPB for their comments that have been able to help him
do this project.
th
Warren Adams, 1020N.W. 8 Street, Boynton Beach (Executive Director for
the Broward Trust for Historic Preservation),
speaking on behalf of both appellants, stated
people who live in historic districts also have property rights and people have a choice build a
5,000 square foot house or build a 15,000 square foot house and they also have the choice to not
live in a historic district. He stated if someone chooses to have an architect who cannot design
an appropriate building for the historic area it is their choice. He stated generally people who
purchase in a historic area generally do so because they like the character, ambience, scale, and
architecture, etc. He stated there are plenty of other vacant lots in the City of Delray Beach that
are available to build houses. Mr. Adams stated you want to retain the feeling of the area and by
building larger homes in the historic district this feeling will be lost.
Mrs. Ellis asked if Mr. Adams had any contact with the property owner while he
was employed as a Planner with the City of Delray Beach. In response, Mr. Adams stated he had
no contact with the property owner.
At this point, the City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the
Commission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and
made an official part of the minutes).
Mr. Fetzer moved to approve the Board Order, seconded by Mr. Levinson. Upon
roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson – Yes; Mrs. Montague – Yes; Mayor
Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer – Yes. Said motion to approve the Board Order
passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
At this point, the time being 7:16 p.m., the Commission moved to the duly
advertised Public Hearings portion of the Agenda.
10.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10.A.ORDINANCE NO. 16-06 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC
HEARING):
City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) regarding
Subsection 4.3.4(J)(4)(b), "Allowances", to provide for modifications to performance standards
and to require workforce housing. Prior to consideration of passage of this ordinance on Second
and FINAL Reading, a public hearing has been scheduled to be held at this time.
The caption of Ordinance No. 16-06 is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF
- 10 -
04/04/06
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
AMENDING ARTICLE 4.3, “DISTRICT REGULATIONS,
GENERAL PROVISIONS”, SECTION 4.3.4(J) “HEIGHT”
SUBSECTION 4.3.4(J)(4), “INCREASES TO HEIGHT
REGULATIONS”, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION
4.3.4(J)(4)(b), “ALLOWANCES”, TO PROVIDE FOR
MODIFICATIONS TO PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND
TO REQUIRE WORKFORCE HOUSING; PROVIDING A
GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; A SAVING CLAUSE AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Ordinance No. 16-06 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.)
The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held
having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the
Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida.
Mayor Perlman stepped down from the dais and passed the gavel to Vice Mayor
Ellis.
Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this ordinance relates to
Section 4.3.4(J) which allows for an increase in height between 48 feet and 60 feet in certain
areas through the conditional use process. He stated if one chooses to go over 48 feet it requires
you to provide 20% of those additional units that you would get with the extra floor as workforce
units. The 20% can be anywhere in the development or they contribute the monies to the CLT as
provided.
At its meeting of February 27, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board considered
the proposed ordinances. There was one member of the public that spoke in support of the
amendment and after reviewing the staff report, the Board voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval.
Mayor Perlman returned to the dais.
Mayor Perlman declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the
public who wished to address the Commission regarding Ordinance No. 16-06, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Levinson moved to approve Ordinance No. 16-06 on Second and FINAL
Reading, seconded by Mrs. Montague. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs.
Montague – Yes; Mayor Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer – Yes; Mr. Levinson –
Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
10.B.ORDINANCE NO. 17-06 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC
HEARING):
City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section
4.4.6, “Medium Density Residential (RM) District”; Section 4.4.9, “General Commercial (GC)
District”; and Section 4.5, “Overlay and Environmental Management Districts”, to include
- 11 -
04/04/06
references to aspects of the Workforce Housing Ordinance for RM zoned properties that are part
of the Workforce Housing Overlay Districts; and includes additional workforce housing overlay
districts in the RM district and includes an incentive to build workforce housing in the GC
district. Prior to consideration of passage of this ordinance on Second and FINAL Reading, a
public hearing has been scheduled to be held at this time.
The caption of Ordinance No. 17-06 is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY
AMENDING SECTION 4.4.6 “MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (RM) DISTRICT”, SUBSECTION 4.4.6(D),
“CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES ALLOWED”, BY
ADDING SUBSECTION 4.4.6(D)(13) TO INCLUDE
REFERENCES TO APPLICABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING
OVERLAY DISTRICTS; AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 4.4.6(F),
“DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS”, 4.4.6(G),
“SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS” AND
SUBSECTION 4.4.6(H), “SPECIAL REGULATIONS”, TO ADD
ADDITIONAL WORKFORCE HOUSING OVERLAY
DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTION 4.4.9 “GENERAL
COMMERCIAL (GC) DISTRICT”, SUBSECTION 4.4.9(D)
CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES ALLOWED”, BY
ENACTING SUBSECTION 4.4.9(D)(19) TO INCLUDE AN
INCENTIVE TO BUILD WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS;
AMENDING ARTICLE 4.5, “OVERLAY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS”, BY
ENACTING SUBSECTION 4.5.12, “INFILL WORKFORCE
HOUSING AREA”; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER
CLAUSE; A SAVING CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Ordinance No. 17-06 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.)
The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance.A public hearing was held
having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the
Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida.
Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this ordinance amends the
RM (Medium Density Residential) section as well as the GC (General Commercial) section
which makes reference to allowing workforce housing units as a density bonus up to 18 units to
the acre and makes reference to an overlay district. The GC property that is included is the Swap
Shop (old drive-in) on North Federal Highway and the balance of the RM areas are those that are
east of I-95 and west of the coastal high hazard area.
- 12 -
04/04/06
At its meeting of February 27, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board considered
the proposed ordinance. One member spoke in support of the amendment and after reviewing
the staff report, the Board voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval of the related ordinance.
Mayor Perlman declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the
public who wished to speak in favor or in opposition of Ordinance No. 17-06, the public hearing
was closed.
Mrs. Montague moved to approve Ordinance No. 17-06 on Second and FINAL
Reading, seconded by Mrs. Ellis. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor
Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer – Yes; Mr. Levinson – Yes; Mrs. Montague – Yes.
Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
10.C.ORDINANCE NO. 18-06 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC
HEARING):
City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Article
4.7, “Family Workforce Housing”, establishing an additional workforce housing overlay district
known as the “Infill Workforce Housing Area”, located east of I-95 and west of the Intracoastal
outside of the coastal high hazard area for properties predominantly zoned RM (Medium Density
Residential). Prior to consideration of passage of this ordinance on Second and FINAL Reading,
a public hearing has been scheduled to be held at this time.
The caption of Ordinance No. 18-06 is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4.7,
“FAMILY/WORKFORCE HOUSING”, PROVIDING FOR
REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES TO BUILD WORKFORCE
HOUSING AND ENSURING THAT THE CITY HAS
SUFFICIENT FAMILY/WORKFORCE HOUSING; CREATING
AN ADDITIONAL DISTRICT ENTITLED “INFILL
WORKFORCE HOUSING AREA”; PROVIDING A
REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF WORKFORCE
HOUSING WHERE INCREASED HEIGHT AND/OR DENSITY
IS REQUESTED AND ALLOWED; PROVIDING A SAVING
CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Ordinance No. 18-06 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.)
The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance.A public hearing was held
having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the
Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida.
- 13 -
04/04/06
Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this ordinance is for the in-
fill workforce housing area (east of I-95 and west of the coastal high hazard area for all RM
(Medium Density Residential) zoned properties as well as the swap shop area. This also
increases the restrictions for the timeframes that workforce units need to remain affordable. It
has been increased from 30 to 40 years.
At its meeting of February 27, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board considered
the proposed ordinance and voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval.
Mayor Perlman declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the
public who wished to address the Commission regarding Ordinance No. 18-06, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Fetzer moved to approve Ordinance No. 18-06 on Second and FINAL
Reading, seconded by Mrs. Ellis. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Ellis –
Yes; Mr. Fetzer – Yes; Mr. Levinson – Yes; Mrs. Montague – Yes; Mayor Perlman – Yes.
Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
10.D.ORDINANCE NO. 19-06 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC
HEARING):
City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section
4.4.13(I), “Performance Standards”, to provide for inclusion of workforce housing among other
conditions in order to obtain increased density. Prior to consideration of passage of this
ordinance on Second and FINAL Reading, a public hearing has been scheduled to be held at this
time.
The caption of Ordinance No. 19-06 is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4, “ZONING
REGULATIONS”, SECTION 4.4.13(I), “PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS”, TO PROVIDE FOR INCLUSION OF
WORKFORCE HOUSING AMONG OTHER CONDITIONS IN
ORDER TO OBTAIN INCREASED DENSITY; PROVIDING A
GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; A SAVING CLAUSE AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Ordinance No. 19-06 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.)
The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance.A public hearing was held
having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the
Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida.
Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this ordinance requires that
20% of all residential units to be workforce units for densities that exceed 30 units to the acre
- 14 -
04/04/06
and those are subject to the LDR Article 4.7 of “Family/Workforce Housing” ordinance and can
be land trust units or on-site units.
At its meeting of February 27, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board considered
the proposed ordinance and voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval.
Mayor Perlman declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the
public who wished to address the Commission regarding Ordinance No. 19-06, the public
hearing was closed.
Mrs. Ellis moved to approve Ordinance No. 19-06 on Second and FINAL
Reading, seconded by Mrs. Montague. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr.
Fetzer – Yes; Mr. Levinson – Yes; Mrs. Montague – Yes; Mayor Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis –
Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
10.E.ORDINANCE NO. 20-06 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC
HEARING):
City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section
4.1.4, "Use of Lots of Record", to provide for the use of lots of record of at least 40 feet in width
for the construction of workforce housing units. Prior to consideration of passage of this
ordinance on Second and FINAL Reading, a public hearing has been scheduled to be held at this
time.
The caption of Ordinance No. 20-06 is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4 “ZONING
REGULATIONS”, SECTION 4.1.4, “USE OF LOTS OF
RECORD”, BY ENACTING A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH
4.1.4(D), TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF LOTS OF RECORD
OF AT LEAST 40 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS AS LONG AS THE DESIGNS
CONFORM TO CERTAIN PLANS; PROVIDING A GENERAL
REPEALER CLAUSE; A SAVING CLAUSE AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Ordinance No. 20-06 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.)
The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance.A public hearing was held
having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the
Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida.
Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated currently the Code requires
a buildable lot to be 50 feet or greater. He stated there are lots of records in portions of the City
that are forty feet and are now considered non-buildable. This ordinance would allow those to
- 15 -
04/04/06
become buildable lots if they are built with a workforce unit and it reduces the side setback from
the standard 7 ½ feet to 5 feet to accommodate the reduction in width of the lot.
At its meeting of February 27, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board considered
the proposed ordinance at their meeting of February 27, 2006, and the Board voted 7 to 0 to
recommend approval.
Mayor Perlman declared the public hearing open.
Maureen Turner, 1012 Del Harbour Drive, Delray Beach,
asked how the City
is accommodating the parking with this new density and how many units will be on this
property.
Mr. Dorling stated this is for development of single family lots that would not
create additional units and parking would be required as with any lot over forty feet (through a
driveway and a garage). The other issues about allowing an increase in densities are subject to
the LDR’s and are required to provide for parking.
The City Manager stated these are lots of record which means they are lots that
have already been platted (approximately 30-40 years ago) and they have been not buildable
until now because the City would not let anything be built on the lot less than 40 feet in width.
He stated the City is not creating new lots and noted these are lots that have been in existence for
a long time and are not new lots.
There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission
regarding Ordinance No. 20-06, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Levinson moved to approve Ordinance No. 20-06 on Second and FINAL
Reading, seconded by Mrs. Montague. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr.
Levinson – Yes; Mrs. Montague – Yes; Mayor Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer –
Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
10.F.ORDINANCE NO. 14-06 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING):
Amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) establishing a six (6) month
moratorium on demolitions, additions, and new construction in the City’s five (5) Historic
Districts. If passed, a second public hearing will be scheduled for April 18, 2006. Prior to
consideration of passage of this ordinance on First Reading/First Public Hearing, a public
hearing has been scheduled to be held at this time.
The caption of Ordinance No. 14-06 is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY
BUILDING MORATORIUM FOR ANY DEMOLITION AND
- 16 -
04/04/06
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL LOCATED IN ANY OF THE
CITY’S FIVE HISTORIC DISTRICTS FOR PROPERTIES
NOT ZONED COMMUNITY FACILITIES (CF) OR
COMMERCIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) AND WHICH
EXCEED CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGES, AND AS
FURTHER DEFINED HEREIN FOR A PERIOD OF SIX (6)
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ADOPTION OF THIS
ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR GEOGRAPHIC AREA
COVERED; PROVIDING FOR THE DURATION OF
MORATORIUM; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A
GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
(The official copy of Ordinance No. 14-06 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.)
The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance.A public hearing was held
having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the
Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida.
Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this ordinance is to
establish a six month moratorium on any new development proposals including demolition
except for those properties which would be deemed unsafe which would be allowed to continue
to be demolished and except for new construction under 2,000 square feet and for additions
which do not exceed 50% of the primary structure. On March 6, 2006, the City Commission
supported the implementation of a six-month moratorium on any new development proposals
including, but not limited to, demolitions, new construction, and additions. During the
moratorium, staff will work with residents within the five (5) historic districts to establish an
overlay district similar to that of the Beach Property Owners Overlay District. This overlay
would place additional development regulations specific to each district, with the intent to assure
that all new development respects and is visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
character in terms of architectural style, scale, and massing.
At its meeting of March 20, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public
hearing and recommended approval with a 7 to 0 vote.
Mayor Perlman declared the public hearing open.
Liz Bold, 1104 Nassau Street, Delray Beach (her street was designated
historical by the Historical Society in 1988)
stated she is saddened by what has been going on
over the last few months with respect to the historically designated areas in Delray Beach. She
stated there must be a balance between property owners’ rights and historical preservation. Mrs.
Bold stated to institute a moratorium to restrict building and progress because a minority feels
that their neighborhood is being violated is unjust and unfair to the majority of the people. She
stated these guidelines have been in place for 20 years and in her opinion a moratorium is not the
answer.
- 17 -
04/04/06
th
JoAnn Peart, 107 N.W. 9 Street, Delray Beach,
stated there are so few areas
in Delray Beach that are designated historic and feels the community needs to do whatever they
can to protect them. She stated this last appeal showed an example that we do have the tools on
the Historic Preservation Board but feels they need to be simplified so that it is easier to
interpret. Mrs. Peart stated if the moratorium is not implemented she expressed concern that
there will be other 4,200 square foot houses being built.
Shannon Dawson, 527 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach,
stated the guidelines
are subjective and needs help. She stated the mechanism for changing the guidelines and
amending them is already in place. Mrs. Dawson stated the changes can be made without
implementing a moratorium and noted it could take years to completely amend the guidelines.
She urged the Commission to not take away her property rights.
Scott Correale, 527 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach,
stated he loves Delray
Beach and is not in favor of the moratorium. He stated the moratorium could essentially have an
overall negative impact to the community.
Claudia Willis, 160 Marine Way (Marina Historic District),
stated all
construction does not have to stop and noted that six months is a short time and she looks to the
HPB to protect them. She urged the Commission to respect staff and other Boards that have
voted for this prior to this Commission meeting.
Carolyn Patton, 1020 Tamarind Road, Delray Beach, (also a property holder
in the Marina Historic District),
thanked the City Manager and the other Boards who have
approved this as a property owner in a historic district because she has spent the last 25 years
preserving their historic property by investing in it (i.e. making sure the windows and colors
match, etc.). In her opinion, Ms. Patton stated the moratorium is protecting her property rights
and feels that the majority of the people who own historic homes in the historic districts welcome
this moratorium.
Livia Landry, 701 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach (Del-Ida Park Historic
District),
stated in this situation she feels that the moratorium is necessary because the
community is in jeopardy of the historic districts disappearing. She feels that staff needs to
revisit the guidelines and the LDR’s and come up with specific information so that existing
homeowners, potential homeowners, and developers have specifics that they can work with that
will alleviate all this pressure that everyone is under. She urged the Commission to rule in favor
of the moratorium.
th
Lois Brezinski, 110 N.E. 7 Street, Delray Beach (lives in a 1926 Historic
Home),
supports the moratorium and feels it will give time to explain the present guidelines to
the Board so that when people come before them the process is very clear.
Andrea Harden, 516 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach,
stated she attended the
March 1, 2006 meeting where the HPB discussed the house that the Commission voted on earlier
this evening and they stated publicly that they felt they needed more guidance as to square
footage (i.e. what is acceptable and what is not). She urged the Commission to approve the
- 18 -
04/04/06
moratorium now to give more guidance to the present HPB.
There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission
regarding Ordinance No. 14-06, the public hearing was closed.
The City Attorney requested that the last sentence in Section 1, Page 3 of the
ordinance be omitted.
Brief discussion by the Commission followed.
Mr. Levinson asked staff if there is a linkage between the moratorium and
providing clarity. In response, Mr. Dorling stated that there is a linkage between the moratorium
and providing clarity. Staff would be looking to establish clear guidelines with respect to what is
considered compatible (i.e. comparison of floor area ratios or square footages). Mr. Levinson
asked if the floor area ratios and other criteria be done without a moratorium. Mr. Dorling stated
this could be done; however, staff would be continuing to receive applications which may not be
consistent or compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Levinson stated he does not support
moratoriums and feels everything that is needed is in the Code now.
The City Manager stated it is important to provide clarity to applicants as well.
As has been stated this evening, applicants are spending money to develop plans because the
guidelines are subjective and they do not know what is allowed and what is not. He stated there
is a pause here to provide the guidance so the applicants do not waste money and staff time.
Mrs. Ellis stated she is not in favor of moratoriums; however, in this situation she
feels it is appropriate because it is not just the HPB that needs clarity it is also for the applicants.
Mrs. Ellis referred to the process that Mrs. Dawson went through because of lack of clarity and
stated the moratorium will allow staff to step back so that an applicant does not have to
continually bring in plans to address the concerns of a Board that are not specific or vague.
Therefore, Mrs. Ellis stated she does support this moratorium and feels it is greatly needed for
historic districts.
Mr. Fetzer stated he does not support moratoriums; however, he feels this is a
situation where we need more specific guidelines not only for HPB but for the applicants as well.
Therefore, Mr. Fetzer stated he too supports the moratorium.
Mrs. Montague inquired about the process. Mr. Dorling gave a brief explanation
regarding the process an applicant goes through. Mrs. Montague stated in her opinion the
guidelines do need to have more specific language so that an applicant knows what they can or
cannot do. She stated she is not a fan of moratoriums; however, she would like the public,
residents, and specifically the applicants to understand that we are going to work in a timeframe
to tighten the language so that it will be very clear about what they can and cannot do.
Therefore, Mrs. Montague stated she supports this moratorium.
Mayor Perlman echoed comments expressed by the rest of the Commission and
stated he too is not a big fan of moratoriums either. He stated his hope and expectation is that
- 19 -
04/04/06
this will not take longer than six months and is not in favor of extending it beyond six months.
He does feel there is a need for clearer language. Mayor Perlman stated he appreciates what
Commissioner Levinson mentioned but he feels if we work simultaneously on the guidelines
what we will see is a rush of applications of people getting in before any changes to the rules are
made which will add to the confusion and staff time, etc. Therefore, Mayor Perlman stated he
supports the moratorium as well.
Mr. Fetzer moved to approve Ordinance No. 14-06 on First Reading/First Public
Hearing, seconded by Mrs. Ellis. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs.
Montague – Yes; Mayor Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer – Yes; Mr. Levinson – No.
Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote, Commissioner Levinson dissenting.
Item 11, Comments and Inquiries on
At this point, the Commission moved to
Non-Agenda Items from the City Manager and the Public.
11.A.City Manager’s response to prior public comments and inquiries.
The City Manager had no response to prior public comments and inquiries.
11.B.From the Public.
11.B.1.Ilyne Cooper, 2200 Riviera Drive, Delray Beach,
presented a petition to the
City Commission with 872 signatures from Country Manors, Rainberry Bay, and Rainberry
Lakes requesting them to intercede in the deplorable state of the appearance of Lake Ida Road.
She urged the Commission to ask for monies from the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) to be channeled into this area.
11.B.2.Al Sarro, 123 Mockingbird Lane, Delray Beach (Country Manors),
echoed
comments expressed by Ms. Cooper and expressed concern over the conditions on Lake Ida
Road and Military Trail. He stated there are many abandoned cars, bathtubs, etc. and urged the
Commission to send the Code Enforcement officers to this area to correct this situation.
st
11.B.3.Bunny Elrod, 302 S.W. 1 Avenue, Delray Beach,
speaking on behalf of
Progressive Residents of Delray (P.R.O.D.), she congratulated the new members of the City
Commission and thanked all the candidates for their support with regard to televising the City
Commission meetings.
11.B.4.Maureen Turner, 1012 Del Harbour Drive, Delray Beach (realtor),
expressed
concern over the noise from the Linton Boulevard Bridge and stated there is something that can
be placed on the bridge to stop the noise. She stated the City Commission is welcome to come to
her home and listen to the noise generated from the bridge and urged them to ask the Palm Beach
County Commission if something can be done. Ms. Turner stated certain homes in her
neighborhood are not selling because of the noise generated from the bridge.
11.B.5.Dr. Josh Smith, Jr., 3616 Avenue De Gien, Delray Beach,
stated black youth
should be given the same opportunities as anyone else to pursue happiness with regard to
- 20 -
04/04/06
activities characteristic of their age group. He stated “Jump Shots Sports Bar & Billiards”
located at Lake Ida Plaza was formerly known as “Shootersville Billiards” from 1999 up until
approximately ten months ago. He stated on March 22, 2006, a Delray Beach Code Enforcement
officer entered “Jump Shots Sports Bar & Billiards” and cited the Manager for a violation. Dr.
Smith stated the conditional use that was approved by the City Commission in 1999 was
satisfactory for the requirement from that time up until December 2005 and asked what has
changed since then to now that makes it not satisfactory for the requirement.
th
11.B.6.Anthony McCray, 548 N.W. 45Drive, Delray Beach,
expressed concern over
harassment of the African-American community by the Delray Beach Police Department. He
stated in the 1950’s and 1960’s his parents and others had places to go for social entertainment
and everything that his parents had has now been taken away. Mr. McCray alleged that when the
African-American community tries to establish a place of entertainment they are being harassed
by the Delray Beach Police Department. He urged the Commission to investigate what is going
on.
11.B.7.Crystal Emory, 320 S. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach,
echoed comments
expressed by Mr. McCray and asked why City officials make sure that they make people feel
like they are wanted in establishments east of Swinton Avenue (downtown Delray Beach) and
not west. She asked if a meeting can be set up so that everyone can come to an agreement.
th
11.B.8.Michelle Humos, 5235 N.W. 6 Court, Delray Beach (Rainberry Woods),
expressed concern over harassment by the Delray Beach Police Department in front of the
facility “Jump Shots Sports Bar & Billiards”. She stated the youth of the African-American
community are being treated like criminals and noted that anything for black entertainment for
youth has been shut down in Delray Beach.
th
11.B.9.Trenton Cleckley, 310 N.W. 5 Avenue, Delray Beach,
stated 15 years ago he
opened up a hip hop teen club called “The Boom Room” and the City of Delray Beach shut
down the club. He urged the Commission to let the community have a place for entertainment.
11.B.10.Larry Lacey, 725 Mallard Drive, Delray Beach,
stated there needs to be a
compromise between the community and the Delray Beach Police Department. He stated he has
seen where the attendance is beyond specific times at “Shootersville Billiards” which is in the
same location as “Jump Shots Sports Bar & Billiards”; however, he stated that this is dealing
with a different clientele. Mr. Lacey stated Code Enforcement is being sent to “Jump Shots
Sports Bar & Billiards” because of its clientele.
th
11.B.11.Trenton Cleckley, II, 305 N.W. 5 Avenue, Delray Beach,
stated once the
youth had no place to go for entertainment they started going to Pompey Park to socialize and be
with friends. He asked why the Police Department continues to harass them and discourage
them from being together to socialize.
11.B.12.Frank Jacobs, (former resident of Delray Beach),
stated he recently returned
from Iraq and stated many years ago he had a problem with a Delray Beach Police Officer. He
stated he understands what is happening with the youth and commented that these kids have no
- 21 -
04/04/06
place to go. He stated if the City of Delray Beach continues to shut down these places where the
young people congregate then the City is asking for trouble. He urged the Commission to
seriously consider and investigate what the Delray Beach Police Officers are doing.
11.B.13.Dorothy Ford, 624 Hummingbird Lane, Delray Beach,
stated she moved to
Delray Beach in February 1993 and is proud of the improvements in the downtown area;
however, she would like to see these improvements for the Lake Ida Road area and the entire
City brought up to standard.
11.B.14.Alice Finst, 707 Place Tavant, Delray Beach,
representing the Homeowners’
League of Chatelaine and Progressive Residents of Delray (P.R.O.D.), stated since December
2005, the pickups have been routinely missed. She was informed by the City Manager that the
company had been fined $6,000.00 because of the missed pickups. However, Mrs. Finst stated
once again they were missed twice in March 2006. She thanked Mr. Oliver and Mr. Meteer from
Code Enforcement for their work. Mrs. Finst stated in her opinion, the system of fines is not
working and she urged the Commission to review this and would like to have an understanding
that the residents will get their pickups on the scheduled day so they do not sit through the
weekend. She stated many places have a call service where appliances can be picked up and
commented that the neighborhood would look better if they did not have to look at 6 foot high
refrigerators through an entire weekend. In addition, she stated there was a 28 x 10 foot high
trailer which was extending 4 feet into the street for several days and according to the City’s
website, there is someone who manages bulk pick up. She asked when this person monitors the
bulk pick up if they see something such as this if they could put a label on it to remind people
that they cannot have this kind of thing in the community.
The City Manager stated the Commission did approve allowing Waste
Management to assign some of their bulk pickup to another company because they agree that
they have not been able to keep up with the volume since the hurricane so they are bringing in a
second company to help out. He stated this was approved this evening on the Consent Agenda.
Item 9.B. of
At this point, the time being 8:20 p.m., the Commission moved to
the Regular Agenda.
9.B.CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST/PARC PLACE NORTH AT DELRAY
BEACH:
Consider a request to allow a free-standing multiple family residential development as
part of a mixed-use development in the General Commercial (GC) zoning district for Parc Place
North at Delray Beach, located at the east side North Federal Highway, approximately 860 feet
(Quasi-Judicial Hearing)
south of Gulf Stream Boulevard.
Mayor Perlman read into the record the City of Delray Beach procedures for a
Quasi-Judicial Hearing for this item and all subsequent Quasi-Judicial items.
Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give
testimony on this item.
- 22 -
04/04/06
Mayor Perlman asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte communications.
Mrs. Montague, Mayor Perlman, Ms. Ellis and Mr. Fetzer had no ex parte communications to
disclose. Mr. Levinson stated he had a conversation with the developers.
Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered the Planning and Zoning
Department project file #2005-385 into the record.
Mr. Dorling stated this is a 3.85 acre property on North Federal Highway and is in
the Redevelopment Area and Overlay District and is zoned GC (General Commercial). The
applicant proposes demolition of the existing residential and commercial structures and
construction of a new multiple family and mixed use development. The mixed use project would
front on Federal Highway and would include approximately 6,435 square feet of retail floor area,
and 35,647 square feet of office floor area along with 30 condominium residential units. To the
rear and adjacent the single family developments in Gulf Stream would be an additional 15
townhouse units. The stand alone multi family piece is allowed as a conditional use in the GC
zoning district. The development proposal is outside the area that is subject to the Downtown
Design Guidelines, which apply to CBD zoned properties only.
At its meeting of March 20, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public
hearing in conjunction with the request and after discussing the proposal, the Board voted 7-0 to
recommend approval.
Dale Meaux, API Group (Architect with the project),
stated they want to work
with the City and community of Gulf Stream and have been revising this project as they receive
staff’s comments and concerns trying to address the conditions of approval.
Mayor Perlman stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in
opposition of the conditional use, to please come forward at this time. There being no one else
from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Montague inquired about whether the gate is going to be unmanned. In
response, Mr. Meaux stated that the gate will be unmanned.
Brief discussion between Mrs. Montague and the Architect followed regarding the
landscaping. Mrs. Montague commented about the heavy landscaping along the Gulf Stream
side and she is hoping that the same due care is taken for the residents that are going to be living
in those units.
Mrs. Ellis asked if the garages are single or double garages. In response, Mr.
Meaux stated all the garages are double garages and all the first floor units have two parking
spaces per unit and a garage.
Brief discussion followed between the Commission and the Architect.
William H. Thrasher, Town Manager for the Town of Gulf Stream, stated he is
okay with the project and feels the applicant has made several concessions in particular as it
- 23 -
04/04/06
relates to the electric service being underground. Mr. Thrasher offered his assistance with regard
to burying the power lines as it relates to easements in the town.
Brief discussion by the Commission followed.
The City Attorney reviewed the Board Order with the Commission who made
findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the
minutes).
It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the conditional use request
with conditions as listed in the staff report.
Mr. Levinson moved to approve the Board Order, seconded by Mrs. Ellis. Upon
roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer
– Yes; Mr. Levinson – Yes; Mrs. Montague – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
9.C.CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST/ROYAL PALM CLUB AT DELRAY
BEACH:
Consider a request to allow a free standing multiple family residential development as
part of a mixed-use development in the General Commercial district for Royal Palm Club at
Delray Beach (fka Ralph Buick Site), located at the northeast corner of Fladell’s Way and South
(Quasi-Judicial Hearing)
Federal Highway.
Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give
testimony on this item.
Mayor Perlman asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte communications.
Mr. Levinson stated he reviewed the project with the developers and their attorney. Mayor
Perlman stated he reviewed the project with the applicant. Mrs. Montague had no ex parte
communications. Mrs. Ellis stated she had a conversation with Michael Weiner. Mr. Fetzer
stated he had discussions with the Tropic Bay and Tropic Isle Homeowner Associations
regarding the project and also received a telephone call from Michael Weiner today.
Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered the Planning and Zoning
Department project file #2006-040 into the record.
Mr. Dorling stated this is a 6.28 acre site which is currently zoned GC (General
Commercial) and contains four buildings that were previously the site of Ralph Buick on South
Federal Highway. This includes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a
mixed use development as will as a stand alone townhouse development. The mixed use portion
of the development will be along Federal Highway and would include approximately 13,781 of
retail area, approximately 13,900 square feet of office floor area and 16 condominium residential
units along the west portion of the site. The multiple family portion of the development consists
of 59 townhouse dwelling units to be located along the east portion of the site.
At its meeting of February 27, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public
hearing in conjunction with the request. After discussing the proposal, the Board recommended
- 24 -
04/04/06
approval subject to the seven conditions listed on pages 13 & 14 of the Planning and Zoning
Staff Report.
Michael Weiner, Attorney with Weiner & Aronson, P.A., 102 N. Swinton
Avenue, Delray Beach,
representing the applicant, briefly reviewed the architectural renderings
and the townhouse elevations. He discussed the Comprehensive Plan and stated there are two
parts (Comprehensive Plan and the LDR’s). The Comprehensive Plan requirements are (1)
compatibility, (2) concurrency, and (3) consistency and the staff report demonstrates that these
three items are met. He stated one of the most important policies is Housing Policy A-12.3 (page
4 of the Planning and Zoning staff report). Mr. Weiner stated with regard to the conditions of
approval he expressed concern over condition #5 and condition #7.
Mayor Perlman stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in
opposition of the conditional use request, to please come forward at this time. There being no
one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dorling and Mr. Weiner gave brief rebuttal remarks.
Brief discussion between staff, the Commission, and the Architects followed.
Mr. Fetzer stated when he met with the Tropic Isle and Tropic Bay Associations
regarding this they were overall in favor of the project; however, they expressed concern over the
off-street parking along Florida Boulevard and why this is necessary. He asked why this is a
requirement. In response, Mr. Dorling stated this is not a requirement but it is encouraged. Mr.
Dorling stated given those units along the east and the lack of parking that is available to their
guests he believes that they will be utilized. He stated when the association starts ticketing
people for parking in the road because they cannot fit in the garage most of the spaces will be
utilized by the residents of those townhouses.
Robert Mathias, New Century Companies,
stated in his opinion the parallel
parking creates character to the front elevations and the entire streetscape.
Mrs. Montague inquired about the “bump out” and asked if this will appear to be
a flat surface as opposed to putting some effort into creating something of a much more
architectural interest on the second and third floor.
The City Attorney reviewed the Board Order with the Commission who made
findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the
minutes).
The City Attorney noted that SPRAB will address condition #5.
Mr. Weiner reiterated that he objects to condition #7.
Prior to the vote, Mayor Perlman stated he does not agree with condition #7;
however, he will support the conditional use.
- 25 -
04/04/06
Mr. Fetzer moved to approve the conditional use request subject to the six
conditions with 4-foot requirement (condition #5) to be addressed by the SPRAB, seconded by
Mrs. Ellis. Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer – Yes; Mr. Levinson – Yes; Mrs. Montague – Yes;
Mayor Perlman – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
9.D.CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST/MAROONE FORD:
Consider a request to
establish a parking and storage lot for vehicles within the MIC (Mixed Industrial and
Commercial) district for Maroone Ford, located on the west side of Wallace Drive, between
(Quasi-Judicial Hearing)
Georgia Street and Milfred Street.
Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give
testimony on this item.
Mayor Perlman asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte communications.
Mrs. Montague stated she received a telephone from Bob Costin on behalf of a neighboring
property owner and received a telephone call from Michael Weiner but was not able to return the
call. Mr. Levinson, Mayor Perlman, Mrs. Ellis, and Mr. Fetzer disclosed the same ex parte
communication as Mrs. Montague.
Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered the Planning and Zoning
Department project file #2006-125 into the record.
Mr. Dorling stated this is a 1.923 acre site located on the west side of Wallace
Drive north of Linton Boulevard. The proposal is for a 246 parking lot to be utilized in
association with the Maroone Ford car dealership to the south and east. The parcel will serve as
an overflow bullpen parking lot for the existing dealership for its new and used dealer stock.
Outdoor storage of new and used vehicles is allowed as a conditional use within the MIC Zone
District.
At its meeting of February 27, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public
hearing and the Board voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval of this proposal. Staff also
recommends approval.
Michael Weiner, Attorney with Weiner & Aronson, P.A., 102 N. Swinton
Avenue, Delray Beach, representing the applicant (Maroone Ford), stated the perimeter will be
heavily landscaped and this will be looked at when it goes before SPRAB. He stated they agree
with all the conditions of approval. He stated they have met all the ordinances.
Mayor Perlman stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in
opposition of the conditional use, to please come forward at this time. There being no one from
the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Levinson commented about the surface parking lots. He stated he feels there
are plenty of things that can be done instead of building another surface lot on an area that
specifically in the overlay calls for a variety of uses.
- 26 -
04/04/06
The City Attorney reviewed the Board Order with the Commission who made
findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the
minutes).
Mrs. Ellis moved to approve the Board Order as set forth, seconded by Mrs.
Montague. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer – Yes; Mr. Levinson –
No; Mrs. Montague – Yes; Mayor Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4
to 1 vote, Commissioner Levinson dissenting.
9.E.TREE REMOVAL POLICY/REPLACEMENT AFTER STORM EVENT:
Consider approval of a proposed policy for tree removal and replacement after a major storm
event.
Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated staff has developed a
policy on how the City will handle the removal of trees, maintenance and the replacement of
landscape materials in the event of storms. With regard single family residences, within the first
60 days after a major storm or hurricane any trees can be removed without permits. After 60
days one would have to come in and ask the City permission to remove the trees. The single
family homeowners would have up to one year to replace their landscape materials. Multi-
family and duplexes would have 30 days to remove any nuisances they may have and after that
they would like people to come in for a permit. Staff found that in some multi-family
subdivisions they take advantage of removing trees because people are afraid of trees after a
hurricane and start taking things out that they are actually required to have and the same goes for
commercial property.
Mr. Levinson asked if this is going to be a workable solution with the tree
companies and expressed concern over the tight timeframes. He asked staff if 60 and 30 days are
reasonable timeframes based upon expectations of contractors. In response, Mrs. Butler stated
staff is not saying that the trees have to be removed and clarified that after that timeframe people
need to ask the City.
Mrs. Ellis stated she does not feel this is appropriate for residential properties.
She stated that multi-family, residential, and commercial have strict guidelines about what they
need to have and what they should not have. Mrs. Ellis stated the timeframes are too restrictive
and feels it would be a real imposition on the average homeowner to have to worry about getting
a permit when they want to replace a tree with another one.
Mayor Perlman stated he likes the policy; however, he understands the points
brought up by Commissioner Levinson and Commissioner Ellis. He stated he feels this will be
an affordability issue for some homeowners that are dealing with trying to get their homes back
into a safe condition. Mayor Perlman stated there needs to be a happy medium and suggested
that staff bring this to the Neighborhood Advisory Council (NAC) for their input particularly if
they go into the geographical areas and get a broader range of opinion from the various
associations.
- 27 -
04/04/06
Mrs. Montague concurred with comments expressed by Mayor Perlman and does
not want to see the Commission place any artificial timeframes on the residents after the stress of
going through a storm and would like to see what a more realistic timeframe would be.
9.F.ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA.
9.G.SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/ART & JAZZ:
Consider approval and
endorsement of Art & Jazz on the Avenue scheduled for May 11, 2006 from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00
th
p.m.; and approve the closure of Atlantic Avenue from Swinton Avenue to N.E. 7 Avenue, the
th
south side of Atlantic Avenue from N.E. 7 Avenue to just past the Blue Anchor Pub, Railroad
stnd
Drive from Atlantic Avenue to N.E. 1 Street, and N.E. 2 Avenue from Atlantic Avenue to
nd
N.E. 2 Street (street closure will be from 3:00 p.m. to approximately midnight).
Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated this is a request for the
Commission to endorse the next Art & Jazz on the Avenue scheduled for May 11, 2006 from
6:00 to 10:00 p.m., to grant a temporary use permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(H) for the closure of
th
Atlantic Avenue from Swinton Avenue to N.E. 7 Avenue. Although the City is not asking to
th
close Atlantic Avenue west of Swinton Avenue, the event boundary will extend to NW/SW 5
th
Avenue. Also being held this evening is the 9 Annual Bed Race. The estimated overtime is
$8,800.00. Based on the event agreement, the Downtown Marketing Cooperative is to pay the
City of Delray Beach 20% for all costs over $1,000. The estimated charges for this event are
$1,835.00. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Mr. Levinson stated he is not in favor of this because in addition to the sponsor he
requested that they try and put some new life into this and according to the maps nothing has
changed.
Mrs. Ellis moved to approve the special event request for Art and Jazz on the
Avenue scheduled for May 11, 2006, from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., seconded by Mr. Fetzer.
Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson – No; Mrs. Montague – Yes;
Mayor Perlman – Yes; Mrs. Ellis – Yes; Mr. Fetzer – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1
vote, Commissioner Levinson dissenting.
12.FIRST READINGS:
?
NONE
Item 13, Comments and Inquiries on
At this point, the Commission moved to
Non-Agenda Items.
13.COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS.
13.A.City Manager
The City Manager stated regarding the issue that was raised about the billiard
pallor, he stated he suspects that they have alluded to a 24-hour operation; they received the
conditional use years ago for the billiard pallor to go in there, however, the 24-hour operation is
- 28 -
04/04/06
a separate conditional use to allow any kind of business that operates 24-hours. The City
Manager stated there are issues with alcohol sales and the complaints about harassment should
be referred to the Police Advisory Board. With regard to the usage of Pompey Park, the City has
received calls from neighbors and other people using the park about people hanging out in the
parking lot smoking pot and drinking alcoholic beverages and things that are not allowed. He
stated the City is trying to watch this by hiring private security because people who want to use
the park for legitimate purposes need to be able to without that kind of activity going on.
13.B.City Attorney
The City Attorney reminded the Commission that there will be a meeting
tomorrow at the Solid Waste Authority at 9:30 a.m. regarding the transmittal of the County
Comprehensive Plan that modifies the City’s traffic concurrency exemption that we currently
have to require workforce housing in a certain framework that is acceptable to the County. The
City Attorney stated the City is opposing this.
Secondly, she stated staff had a meeting with the NIFL and they are having their
first game this week. The City Attorney stated there was discussion about the terms of the
contract and they have asked to revise the rent section from what was $15,000.00 to $8,000.00
and the compromise was that if it is $8,000.00 they will clean the stadium (the cost for cleanup is
approximately $3,000.00). It was the consensus of the Commission to go to the NIFL with this
change and then formalize the contract at a Special Workshop meeting.
13.C.City Commission
13.C.1.Mr. Fetzer
Mr. Fetzer had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items.
13.C.2.Mrs. Ellis
Mrs. Ellis had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items.
13.C.3.Mrs. Montague
Mrs. Montague had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items.
13.C.4. Mr. Levinson
th
Mr. Levinson stated he received a complaint from someone on S.W. 10 Avenue
that the Peart’s have not (as the Commission had been told they were going to do), built any
buildings to house their equipment. He stated the equipment is on the lot the City sold them and
the grass is overgrown significantly. He asked Mrs. Butler to send someone from Code
Enforcement to make sure that they police the lot for trash and also make sure that the grass is
cut.
- 29 -
04/04/06
Secondly, he commented about the Legislature with regard to Homestead
Exemption.
Mr. Levinson commented about an article in Civic Strategies by Otis White
talking about “Delray Beach Revisited” and stated it is a terrific article. He gave the article to
the City Clerk and stated he would like to have this posted to the City’s website.
He stated he joined the USTA and receives the Florida Tennis Magazine. He
stated the magazine is great and there is an article about Delray Beach in addition to a variety of
events including the recent tennis tournament. He commented about an article entitled “Delray
Beach Is the Finest Week of the Year” by John Murray.
Mr. Levinson stated there was an editorial about how cities are being allegedly
overcharged by Florida Power & Light (FPL) on street lights and commented that there are many
lights that are still out. The City Manager stated staff is working with Tony Newbold on this.
He commented about the Police Report this month regarding the mobile traffic
monitoring division. He asked the City Manager to check and see if this has been staffed with
volunteers. Mr. Levinson suggested that something be placed in the “News for Neighborhoods”
to get people to volunteer for this because it is a very good event.
Mr. Levinson stated the Board Appreciation Reception last Friday was a great
event.
Lastly, Mr. Levinson stated the Manager’s Association is working on the Bird Flu
issue and commented that he and Mayor Perlman heard a presentation regarding this. Mr.
Levinson stated he had advocated at the League and also encouraged Mike Bornstein with the
Manager’s Association to see if he can focus on this. Mr. Levinson stated the City of Delray
Beach has to deal with personnel administration issues and suggested that the Human Resources
Director look into this matter. The City Manager stated this has been discussed with staff and
the Emergency Management personnel are going to conferences to learn how they would handle
something of this nature.
13.C.5.Mayor Perlman
Mayor Perlman stated he attended the Youth Enrichment Vocational Center last
Friday and was pleased to see that Officer Hart is doing a very good job. He stated there was a
gentleman whose father passed away who donated a car (a replica of a 1929 Mercedes
convertible). He stated approximately 74 children from Boynton Beach, Lake Worth and Jupiter
attend the vocational center and only about half of the children are from Delray Beach. Mayor
Perlman suggested that the school actively select those City Commissions for support and feels
some of the neighboring municipalities should kick in. He stated he committed to going with
them to talk to the various City Commissions.
- 30 -
04/04/06
Secondly, he stated St. Vincent's celebrated its 50th year and Pine Grove
Elementary celebrated its 40th year. Mayor Perlman stated he would like to bring both of them in
for recognition since these are significant anniversaries.
Lastly, Mayor Perlman stated he will be in Atlantic City, New Jersey Wednesday
through Friday for the Governor's Conference regarding Cultural Tourism and he is very excited
that Delray Beach is included in this.
There being no further business, Mayor Perlman declared the meeting adjourned
at 10:25 p.m.
~.~S). ~.,,'J
City Clerk
ATTEST:
~of 4.
The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information
provided herein is the Minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeting held on April 4, 2006,
which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on
April 18, 2006
~~..SJ.~
City Clerk
NOTE TO READER:
If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not
the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after
review and approval which may involve some amendments, additions or deletions as set forth
above.
--
- 31 -
04/04/06
r,
L
IN THE CITY COMMISSION
CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF
DELRA Y BEACH, FLORIDA
LIVIA LANDRY and ROBERT MANNWEILER,
Appellant(s),
vs.
CITY OF DELRA Y BEACH,
Appellee.
I
AMENDED
ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA FOR 711 N. SWINTON AVENUE
1. This appeal of an approval of a certificate of appropriateness for a partial
demolition and major additions and aUerations to the property at 711 N. Swinton
Avenue came before the City Commission on April 4, 2006.
2. The Appellants, Appellee and City staff presented documentary evidence
and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the appeal of the certificate of
appropriateness for 711 N. Swinton Avenue. All of the evidence is a part of the record
ih this case. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsections I, II and III.
I. LOR REQUIREMENTS.
a. LOR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4) and 4.5.1 (E)(8)(a-k), "Development Standards"
provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or
addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows:
(E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site improvement, or appurtenance
within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired,
relocated, demolished, or otherWise changed in accordance with the
Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time
to time.
I-t(fV1 1.AI
(E)(B) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances shall be
visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of
height, front fa~de proportion, proportion of openings (windows and
doors), rhythm of solids to voids on front facades, rhythm of buildings on
streets, rhythm of entrance and/or porch projections, relations of
materials, texture and color, roof shapes, walls of continuity, scale of
building, directional expression of front elevation.
(a) Height: The height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be
visually compatible in comparison or relation to the height of
existing structures and buildings.
Is this met?
Yes 5 No 0
(b) Front Fa.cade Proportion: The front fac;ade of each building or
structure. shall be visually compatible with and in direct relationship
to the width of the building and to the height of the front elevation of
other adjacent or adjoining buildings within a historic district.
.Is this met? .
Yes 0 No 5
(c) Proportion of Openings (windows and Doors): The openings of
any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible
with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural
styles within the district. The relationship of the width of.windows
and doors to the height of windows and doors among buildings
within the district shall be visually compatible.
Is this met?
Yes 0 No 5
(d) Rhythm of Solids to Voids~ Front Facades: The relationship of
solids to voids in the front fac;ade of a building or structure will be
visually compatible with the front facades of historic buildings or
structures within the district.
2
Is this met?
Yes 0 No 5
(e) Rhythm of BuildinQs on Streets: The relationship of buildings to
open space between them and adjoining buildings shall be visually
compatible with the relationship between historic sites, buildings, or
structures within a historic district.
Is this met?
Yes 0
No
5
(f) Rhythm of Entrance and/or Porch Proiections: The relationship
of entrances and porch projections to the sidewalks of a building
shall be visually compatible with the prevalent architectural styles of
entrances and porch projections on historic sites, buildings and
structures within a historic district.
Is this met?
Yes 0
No
5
(g) Relationship of Materials. Texture. and Color: The relationship
of materials, texture, and color of the fac;ade of a building shall be
visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the
historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district.
Is this met?
Yes 0 No 5
(h) Roof Shapes: The roof shape of a building or structure shall be
visually compatible with the roof shape of a historic site, building, or
structure within a. historic district.
.Is this met?
Yes
o
No
5
(i)
Walls of Continuity: Appearances of a building or structure such
as walls, wrought iron, fences, evergreen landscape masses, or
building facades, shall form cohesive walls of enclosure along a
,
I
~
~
3
street to insure visual compatibility of the building to historic
buildings, structures, or sites to which it is visually related.
Is this met?
Yes 0 No5
0) Scale of a Building: The size of a building, the building mass in .
relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, balconies, and
porches shall be visually compatible with the building size and the
building mass of historic sites, buildings, and structures within a
historic district.
Is this met?
Yes
o
No
5
(k) Directional Expression. of Front Elevation: A building shall be
visually compatible with the buildings, structures, and sites in its
directional character, whether vertical, horizontal, or nondirectional.
Is this met?
Yes
o
No
5
Have the overall objectives of the LOR's bee.n met?
Yes 0 No 5
II. DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES:
a. The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
recommends the following with respect to additional height and new
construction'infill:
.
For buildings where additional height is allowed, stepping back the
upper stories may help to minimize the difference as viewed from
the street
All infill must be compatible with the surrounding buildings and yet
must be differentiated from the historic building stock.
The height of any new building should be similar to those of other
buildings along the streetscape.
The new construction -should be compatible with the width of the
surrounding buildings.
The relationship of new construction adjacent to significant historic
resources can either enhance or detract from the historic setting of
the. district.
.'.--""
.
..
.
.
-4
l
I
· The character of the massing should be compatible with the
surrounding buildings.
Have the overall objectives of the Delray Beach Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines been met?
Yes 0 No 5
III. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR
REHABILITATION:
a.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
recommend:
· New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materi.9ls that characterize the property.
The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features
to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
· New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that if removed in. the future, the
essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
Have the overall objectives of the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation been met?
Yes
o.
No
5
3. The City Commission applied the LDR requirements in existence at the
timet~e original site plan was submitted.
4. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial
evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained
in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and 'other:-
competent witnesses supporting these findings.
5
5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves._ denies
X the .certificate of appropriateness thereby approving the appeal and overturning
. th~ decision of the Historic Preservation Board. This Order is adopted this 4th day of
April, 2006, by a vote of 5
in favor and 0
opposed.
~~EST: C',,_
~~'~~,
ChevelleNubin .
City Clerk
6
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
~OUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
NAME-f'lRST NAME-MtDDLE NAME
rlman Jeffre L.
MAluNG ADDRESS
arv
Lakes Drive
Pa~~ach
NAME Of BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHQRllY, OR COMMITTEE
ion
THE BoAAo. cOONclL, C()Mf.AcSSION, AlJTHORny OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
1GJCllY a cOuNtY
NAME Of PQUTlCAl SU8OIVlSION:
City of Delray Beach
a OTHER lOCAl AGENCY
Delray Beach
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
MY POStT1ON IS:
XIX ElECTIVE
a APPOINTIVE
WHO MUSt FILE FORM 88
This forin is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, coUncil,
commission, aUthority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory. and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly. depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this fonn before
I completing the reverse side and filing the foon.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
, erson holdil19 elective or ap~ntive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
)5 to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from kt10wingly voting 00 S' mea-
t ! which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a Corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain odoss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capa~ty.
For purposes of this law, a -relative- includes only the offtcer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-ln-Iaw. and daughter-in-law. A -business associate- means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the offlcef as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
.
.
.
.
.
.
*
.
.
.
.
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In adcrltion to abstaining from voting in.the situations described above, yoU must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE B~ING . TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest!n the measure on which you
. are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this fonn with the person ~esponsiblefor retarding the min-
utes of the meeting, who ~Id incorporate the form In the minutes.' e
*
.
*
.
*
.
.
.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting In the situations described above, you ottlerMSe mayi>~rticip'ate int!1ese matton>. HOwever,.you
. [.- ~. t discl9se the na. tti~. . Cif the CCHif!lctbefore making any attem. pt to In. f1uence.. the d6cls.. ion. Whether Oraliy or in writing. and wn.ether n1ad 0
ou or ~t your direction. . -. . ... . .. . . ... .
'""' l>u INTENliToi.w<e ANvATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR T6 THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE.
TAKEN:
· You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to inftuence the d6clsion) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of ~meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) .
ce fORM 88 . EFF. 1/2000
~ <g.~::: ~ ~.~.1-
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (coAtlnu-edl
. A copy of the fonn must be provided Immediately to the other members.of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at thei1exf meeting after'the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
You must disclose orally the nature of YQUrconftict in the rileasurebefore participating.
. . You must complete the fonn and file it. within 15 days after th6 vote occurs with the person resPonsil)Je for recording the minutes of the
meeting. who must Incorporate the foon in the minutes. A C9Pyof the fonn must be provided immediately to the other members of the
.agency. and the foon must be read publicly at the next ~ting after the fann is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'.S INTEREST
I, .Jeffrey Perlman
, hereby discJose that on
April 4
, 20 06--:
(a) A rT1easure came or will come oofore my agency Whidl (Check one)
~ . inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special galn.or loss of my business assoclate,
. .
Inured to the special gain or loSs of my relafrve, ~ .
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
inured to the. specia! ga.in or .Joss of
. . is the parent organization or Subsidiary..o.f a. principal which has retained me.
(b) The ineasurebefore my agency aoo ~ ~,ofmy conftid.ing.interest in the measure is as follOWs:
,by
, which
I reside in t:he Delr~y Lakes .Deyelopme.nt.
Date Flied
1-1~\tG
v
-NOTICE; ":j~[)eR PRoviSIONS OFF(ORIDA STATWE~.~;112.317, A i~ilURE:rO t4KEANY.:REQUIREli.DISCLOSURE..
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR. AND MAY -BE P.UNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT.
. REMOVAl OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION. REDUCTION tNSAlARY, REPRIMAND. OR A .
CI'iILPENALTYNOTTOEXCEED$10,ooO~; ..>.... ... . - ..'. .
.J
~
ce ~ ~ -.EFF.1J2000
PAGE 2
.,')...- ... .'.
~',
I
l
IN THE CITY COMMISSION
CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF
DELRA Y BEACH, FLORIDA
CONDITIONAL USE: REQUEST FOR PARC PLACE NORTH AT DELRAY BEACH
ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DELRA Y BEACH, FLORIDA
1. This conditional use request. has come befote the City CommissiOn on
April 4, 2006.
2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and
testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the conditional use request for Pare
Place North at Delray Beach. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case.
Required findings are made in accordance with Subsections I and II.
I. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
a. Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use and Map: Is the future use and
intensity of the development consistent with the future land use map and
comprehensive plan and is. it appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other
applicable phySical considerations, complementary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills
. remaining land use needs?
Yes 5 No 0
b. Concurrency: Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination
made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development
application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the
provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas:
Are the concurrency requirements met as respect to water, sewer,
drainage, streets and traffic, parks, open space, solid waste and
schools?
Yes .5
No 0
c. Consistency: Will the granting of the conditional use be consistent
With and further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan?
1
1;1 e fVl q.13 '.
Yes
5
No
o
II. LDR.REQUIREMENTS:
a. LOR Section 2.4.5{E) Required Findinas: (Conditional Usel: Pursuant
to Section 2A.5(E)(5), in addition to provisions of Chapter 3, the conditional use will not:
i. Have a significantly detrimental effect upon the stability of the
neighborhood within which it will be located;
ii. Nor that it will hinder development or redevelopment of nearby
properties.
Will Section 2.4.5(E)(5) be met? .
Yes 5 No 0
b. Performance Standards. for Density Increase: Does the applicant
meet the requirements set forth in Section 4.4.6(1), attached hereto, to allow a density in
excess of 6 dwelling units per acre to 11.69 dwelling units per acre?
Yes
5
No
o
3. The comments and notes set forth in the staff report are hereby
incorporated .herein.
4. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LOR
requirements in existence at the time the conditional use request was submitted.
5. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial
evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained
1n the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other
cOmpetent witnesses supporting these findings.
6. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves X
denies _ the conditional use request subject to the seven conditions set forth in the
2
[
staff report and hereby adopts this Order this 4th day of April, 2006, by a vote of
.. 5
ihfavor and 0
opposed. ~ zOIL
Rita Ellis, Vice-Mayor
~Si: ~ ~ \.. "\.~ ..
..,.,"" '.,-~-~---" .:~.N' ..N
Chevelle Nubin
City Clerk
3
LOR Section 4.4.6(1)
(1) Performance Standards:
(1) These standards shall apply to all site plans gpproved subsequent
to October 7, 1997, and for modifications to existing developments which involve the
eregtion of additional residential units.
In order to increase a project density beyond six (6) units per acre,
the approving body must make a finding that the development substantially complies
with the performance standards listed in this section. The intent of the standards is to
mitiggte the impacts of the additional density both internal and external to the site. The
extent to which a project meets the standards will determine the number of units per
. a.cre that will be permitted. For example, if a project meets or exceeds all of the
standards, and is otherwise consistent with applicable standards and policies of the
City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, the maximum density
is permitted. Projects which only partially achieve these standards will be permitted a
correspondingly lower density. The performance standards are as follows:
(a) The traffic circulation system is designed to control speed and reduce
volumes on the interior and exterior street network. This can be
accomplished through the use of traffic calming devices; street
networks consisting of loops and short segments; multiple entrances
and exists into the development; and similar measures that are
intended to minimize through traffic and keep speeds within the
development at or below 20 m.p.h.
(b) Buildings are placed throughout the development in a manner that
reduces the overall massing, and provides a feeling of open space.
(c) Where immediately adjacent to residential zoning districts having a
lower density, building setbacks and landscape materials along those
adjacent property lines are increased beyond the required minimums in
order to provide a meaningful buffer to those lower density areas.
Building setbacks are increased by at least 25% of the required
minimum; at least one tree per 30 linear .feet (or fraction thereof) is
provided; trees exceed the required height at time of planting by 25%_or
more; and a hedge, wall or fence is provided as a visual buffer between
the properties.
(d) The development offers a varied streetscape and building design. For
example, setbacks are staggered and offset, with varying roof heights
(for multi-family buildings, the planes of the facades are offset to add
interest and distinguish individual units). Building elevations
incorporate diversity in window and door shapes and locations; features
such as balconies, arches, porches, courtyards; and design elements
such as shutters, window mullions, quoins, decorative tiles, etc.
4
(e) A number of different unit types, sizes and floor plans are available
within the development in order to accommodate households of various
ages and sizes. Multi-family housing will at a minimum have a mix of
one, two and three bedroom units with varying floor plans. Single
family housing (attached and detached) will at a minimum offer a mix of
three and four bedroom units with varying floor plans.
(1) The development is designed to preserve and enhance existing natural
areas and/or water bodies. Where no such areas exist, new areas
which provide open space and native habitat are created and
incorporated into the project.
(g) The project provides a convenient and extensive bicycle/pedestrian
network, and access to available.transit.
(2) It is acknowledged that some of the above referenced standards
may not be entirely applicable to small, infill type residential projects. For those types of
projects. the ultimate density should be based upon the attainment of those standards
Which are applicable, as well as the development's ability to meet or exceed other
minimum code requirements.
[
(3) For vacant property that is proposed for rezoning to RM with a
density suffix, the approving body must made a finding that the proposed density is
appropriate based upon the future land use map designations of surrounding property
as well as the prevailing development pattern of the surrounding area.
(
5
IN THE CITY COMMISSION
CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR ROYAL PALM CLUB AT DELRAY BEACH
ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DELRA Y BEACH, FLORIDA
1. This conditional use request has come before the City Commission on
April 4, 2006.
2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evfdence and
testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the conditional use request for Royal
Palm Club at Delray Beach. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case.
Required findings are made in accordance with Subsections I and II.
I. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
a. Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use and Map: Is the future use and
! i-ntensityof the development consistent with the future land use map and
l comprehensive plan and is it appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other
applicable physical considerations, complementary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills
remaining land use needs?
Yes 5 No 0
b. Concurrency: Concorrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination
made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development
application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the
provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas:
Are the concurrency . requirements met as respect to water, sewer,
drainage, streets and traffic, parks, open space, solid waste and
schools?
Yes. 5
No 0
I
c. Consistency: Will the granting of the conditional use be consistent
with and further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan?
1
r+()y\ 1. c .
Yes
5
No
o
.11. LOR/REQUIREMENTS:
a. LOR Section 2.4.5(~1 ReQuired Findings: (Conditional Use): Pursuant
to Section 2.4.5(E)(5), in addition to provisions of Chapter 3, the conditional use will not:
i. Have a significanUy detrimental effect upon the stability of the
neighborhood within which it will be located;
ii. Nor that it will hinder development or redevelopment of nearby
properties.
Will Section 2.4.5(E)(5) be met?
Yes 5 No 0
b. Performance Standards for Density Increase: Does the applicant
meet the requirements set forth in Section 4.4.6(1), attached hereto, to allow a density in
excess of 6 dwelling units per acre to 11.94 dwelling unitS per acre?
Yes
5
No
o
3. The comments and notes set forth in the staff feportare hereby
incorporated herein.
4. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensiv~ Plan and LOR
requirements in existence at the time the conditional use request was submitted.
5. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial
evidence to support its findings in the record. submitted and adopts the facts contained
in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts a!1d other
oompetent witnesses supporting these findings.
6. Based on the en\ire record before it, the City Commission approves -X-
denies ____ the conditional use request subject to conditions set forth in the staff report,
excluding condition #5 as it pertains to the four foot requirement which will be reviewed
2
. '
by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) and hereby adopts this Order
this 4th
o opposed.
~:.... ,.
..- ;i~~~~ S\) . ~~.~ .)
Chevelle Nubin
City Clerk
I
3
-'
lOR S~ction4~4.6(I)
(I) PerformanCEt Standards:
. (1) These standards shall apply to all site plans approved subsequent
to . October 7, 1997, and for modifications to existing developments which involve the
creation of additional residential units.
In order to increase a project density beyond six (6) units per acre,
the approving. body must make a finding that the development substantially complies
with the performance standards listed in this section. The intent of the standards is to
mitigate the impacts of the additional density both internal and external to the site. The
extent to which a project meets the standards will determine the number of units per
acre that will be permitted. For example, if a project meets or exceeds all of the
standards, and is otherwise consistent with applicable standards and policies of the
City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, the maximum density
is permitted. Projects which only partially achieve these standards will be permitted a
correspondingly lower density. The performance standards are as follows:
(a) The traffic circulation system is designed to control speed and reduce
volumes on the interior and exterior street network. This can be
accomplished through the use of traffic calming devices; street
networks consisting of loops and short segments; multiple entrances
and exists into the development; and similar measures that are
intended to minimize through traffic and keep speeds within the
development at or below 20 m.p.h.
(b) Buildings are placed throughout the development in a manner that
reduces the overall massing, and provides a feeling of open space.
(c) Where immediately adjacent to residential zoning districts having a
lower density, building setbacks and landscape materials along those
adjacent property lines are increased beyond the required minimums in
order to provide a meaningful buffer to those lower density areas.
Building setbacks are increased by at least 25% of the required
minimum; at least one tree per 30 linear feet (or fraction thereof) is
provided; trees exceed the required height at time of planting by 25%_or
more; and a hedge, wall or fence is provided as a visual buffer between
the properties.
(d) The development offers a varied streetscape and building design. For
example. setbacks are staggered and offset, with varying roof heights
(for multi-family buildings, the planes of the facades are offset to add
interest and distinguish individual units). Building elevations
incorporate diversity in window and door shapes and locations; features
such as balconies, arches, porches, courtyards; and design elements
such as shutters, window mullions, quoins, decorative tiles, etc.
_.~,/'
4
. . ..
.
(e) A number of different unit types, sizes and floor plans are available
within the development in order to accommodate households of various
ages and sizes. Multi-family housing will at a minimum have a mix of
one, two and three bedroom units with varying floor plans. Single
family housing (attached and detached) will at a minimum offer a mix of
three and four bedroom units with varying floor plans.
(f) The development is designed to preserve and enhance existing natural
areas and/or water bodies. Where no such areas exist, new areas
which provide open space and native habitat are created and
incorporated into the project.
(g) The project provides a convenient and extensive bicyde/pedestrian
network, and access to available transit.
(2) It is acknowledged that some of the above referenced standards
may not be entirely applicable to small, infill type residential projects. For those types of
projects, the ultimate density should be based upon the attainment of those standards
which are applicable, as well as the development's ability to meet or exceed other
minimum code requirements.
f
j
.1
t
(3) For vacant property that is proposed for rezoning to RM. with a
density suffix, the approving body must made a finding that the proposed density is
appropriate based upon the future land use map designations of surrounding property
as well as the prevailing development pattern of the surrounding area.
(
5
.:
j'., ..
IN THE CITY COMMISSION
CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH,FLORIDA
CONDlflONAL USE REQUEST FOR MAROONE FORD
ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DELRA Y BEACH, FLORIDA
1. This conditional use request has come before the City Commission on
April 4, 2006.
2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and
testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the conditional use request for Maroone
Ford. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case. Required findings are
made in accordance with Subsections I and II.
I. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
a. Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Element Oblective A-1/Future
Land Use Map: Is the property developedlredeveloped so that the future use and
intensity is appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical
considerations, is complementary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use
needs and is consistent with the Land Use Map?
Yes 4 No 1
b Concurrency: Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan requires that development not exceed the ability of the City to fund
and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the
following areas:
Are the concurrency requirements met as respect to water, sewer,
drainage, streets and traffic, parks, open space, solid waste and
schools?
Yes 5
No 0
!
I-I--.e tvl q:'O .
c. ConsistencY: Will the granting of the conditional use be consistent
with and further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan?
Yes
4
No
1
.t LDR REQUIREMENTS:
a. LDR Section2.4.5'E) Reauired Findings: (Conditional Use): Pursuant
to Section 2.4.5(E)(5), in addition to provisions of Chapter 3, the conditional use will not:
i. Have a significantly detrimental effect upon the stability Of the
neighborhood within which it will be located;
ii. Nor that it will hinder development or redevelopment of nearby
properties.
b.
VEHICLES:
Will Section 2.4.5(E)(5) be met?
Yes 4 No 1
REQUIRED FINDINGS RELATING TO..PARKtNGAND STORAGE .OF
Pursuant to lOR Section 4.4.19(D)(2)(b), garages and lots for the parking and
storage of vehicles are allowed as conditional uses provided any outside storage
associated with such uses may not be located within one hundred and fifty feet (150') of
any property adjacent to an arterial roadway.
Ooes the Applicant meet the requirements set forth In Section
4A.19(D)(2)(b) to allow parking and outside storage of vehicles?
Yes
5
No
o
3. The comments and notes set forth in . the staff report are hereby
incorporated herein
4. The City Commission has applied the, Comprehensive Plan and LOR
requirements in existence at the time the development application request was
submitted and finds that its determinations as herein set forth are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
--_/
2
t ." ~ .!O.
( I
!
5. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial
evidenCe to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained
ill tHe record induding but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other
competent witnesses supporting these findings.
6. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves X
denieS ______ the conditional use request subject to the conditions stated in the staff
repOrt and hereby adopts this Order this 4th day of April, 2006, by a vote of 4
.In favor and 1
opposed.
~.~Qa1
Rita ElliS, -,ce::Mayor
AttEST:
~.~.~. \)~.~)
Chevelle Nubin
City. Clerk
3