Loading...
07-24-01July 24, 2001 A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida was called to order by Mayor David Schmidt in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 24, 2001. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Patricia Archer Commissioner Jon Levinson Commissioner Alberta McCarthy Commissioner Jeff Perlman Mayor David Schmidt Absent - None Also present were - City Manager David T. Harden and City Attorney Susan A. Ruby At this point, Mayor Schmidt announced that Mr. Spencer Pompey passed away this morning and he has been a real pillar of our community. The viewing for Mr. Pompey will be Friday, July 27th at 7:00 p.m. at St. Paul AME Church, located at 199 N.W. 5th Avenue, Delray Beach, and the funeral is Saturday, July 28th at 12:30 p.m. at Cason United Methodist Church, located at 342 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach. Before Reverend Parrish gives the Invocation, Mayor Schmidt asked that everyone observe a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Pompey. o prayer. Reverend Judy K. Parrish with St. Paul's Episcopal Church delivered the opening o The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. o AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Schmidt stated he wished to pull Item 8.E., Request for Release of Liens, from the Consent Agenda and move it to the Regular Agenda as Item 9.A.A. Ms. McCarthy moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mrs. Archer moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 19, -1- 07/24/01 2001, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. At this point, Mayor Schmidt noted a correction to page 3, Item 7.A., Honoring County Commissioner Addie Green. He stated while we note that we honored County Commissioner Addie Green, the minutes do not indicate that the we gave her the "Key to the City" and then in return she presented a proclamation to the City of Delray Beach for winning the All America City Award. Mayor $chmidt requested that this wording be added to Item 7.A. to reflect this correction. Mrs. Archer moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 10, 2001 as corrected, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. PROCLAMATIONS: None. PRESENTATIONS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. 8.A. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/CHAMBERS OFFICE CENTER: between Whatley Road and Sherwood Forest Drive, wherein the City agrees to act as the utility Approve a hold harmless agreement between the City and B.C. Properties & Investment, LLC, the developer of the Chambers Office Center, located on the South Side of West Atlantic Avenue permit applicant for the purpose of constructing utilities within FDOT right-of-way and the developer agrees to hold the City harmless for the work performed under the permit. 8.g. REQUEST TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDING/ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH: Approve a request to allow a temporary modular building at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, located north of SW 2nd Street, between South Swinton Avenue and SW 1st Street for a period of one (1) year. 8.C. DEDUCT CHANGE ORDER # 1 & FINAL PAYMENT/JMW CONSTRUCTION CORP. (RENOVATIONS POMPEY PARK PHASE ii): Approve deduct closeout Change Order # 1 in the amount of-$$,000.00 and final payment in the amount of $3,395.14 to JMW Construction Corp. for completion of renovations to Pompey Park Phase II project. Funding is available from 334-4172-572-63.03 (General Construction Fund/Pompey Park). 8.D. PROOF OF CLAIM/BROCK v. MERRILL LYNCH & CO., et al: Approve the recommendation for the City to opt-in to the proposed Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing in the Brock v Merrill Lynch & Co., et al. -2- 07/24/01 MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 9.A.A. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period July 9, 2001 through July 20, 2001. g.G. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: Housing Rehabilitation grant awards through Community Development Division Housing Rehabilitation Grants in the amount of $12,636.75 to Abisset Corporation for 309 SW 12th Avenue, and two (2) contract awards to Hatcher Construction for 421 SW 9th Court in the amount of $22,651.65, and 229 SE 1st Avenue in the amount of $12,747.00. Funding in the total amount of $48,035.40 is available from 118-1924-554-49.19 (SHIP Rehab Program). Ms. McCarthy moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. o REGULAR AGENDA: 9.A.A. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF LIENS: Approve a request for the release of liens in the amount of $2,748.50 for property located at 332 NW 11th Avenue. Mayor Schmidt requested that this item be pulled from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda because when he first read the letter from Shendell Miller & Shendell, P.A., he felt someone from this law firm made a mistake and is trying to pass the cost on to the City. Mayor $chmidt stated he spoke to Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney, to get a little background regarding this item. Apparently, this law firm did a title search, when they called the City they received the certificate referencing five liens. The three outstanding liens they are complaining about were not listed. Mayor $chmidt stated he does not like to criticize a fellow lawyer, but if he had a title search that said there is a lien and did not have a satisfaction recorded he would have called the City Clerk's office back after receiving the letter. Furthermore, at that point, Mayor Schmidt stated he would have asked for the satisfaction or would have asked for an explanation. Mayor $chmidt stated he will not support the City waiving this cost in this particular case. Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney, stated he spoke with the attorney from Shendell Miller & Shendell, P.A. and the City did send the attorney a letter saying this subject property had "xxx" number of liens. Mr. Shutt stated the attorney from Shendell Miller & Shendell, P.A. relied on the information provided to him from the City versus what the title search showed. -3- 07/24/01 Mrs. Archer stated she is perplexed over this and her tendency is to say "well everyone makes a mistake" but by the same token the attorney's job is to locate all of the liens. Mrs. Archer stated she would like to be kind but at the same time does not feel the City should waive the outstanding amount of $2,748.50. Mrs. Archer made a recommendation to waive half the cost of the liens. Mrs. Archer moved to waive half the cost of the outstanding municipal liens against 332 N.W. 11th Avenue. There being no second to the motion, Mayor Schmidt asked that someone make a substitute motion. Mr. Perlman moved to deny the waiver request for the release of liens in the amount of $2,748.50 for the property located at 332 N.W. 11th Avenue, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes. Said motion to deny passed with a 5 to 0 vote (denied request to release liens). 9.A. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: Consider a conditional use request to allow the establishment of a 24-hour child care facility for Grammy's Place, Inc. located at the northeast corner of South Swinton Avenue and SE 3rd Street. (Planning and Zoning Board is recommending denial based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Compatibility) of the LDR' s) Quasi-Judicial Hearing Mayor Schmidt asked the Commission to disclose any ex parte contacts. Mayor Schmidt stated that on Friday the Commission should have received a copy of a letter as well as a copy of a petition in their mail backup. Mayor Schmidt stated he provided the Acting City Clerk with copies of the letter and petition to enter into the record and stated he has had no other ex parte contact on this matter. The City Attorney stated all involved parties would conduct this item as a quasi- judicial hearing, which allows for presentations, the admission of documents into the record and public testimony. Ms. McCarthy stated she had a conversation earlier today with a woman who is an investor and lives in this neighborhood. The City Attorney informed Ms. McCarthy that she would need to disclose the name of this woman. Ms. McCarthy asked the City Attorney if she could either call the name in or send the name to the City Attorney's office because she does not want to misquote the name. Furthermore, Ms. McCarthy explained that this name is on a telephone message and she cannot locate the telephone message. The City Attorney advised Ms. McCarthy when she locates the telephone message to turn it in to Barbara Garito, Acting City Clerk. Mr. Levinson stated he only received a letter and the petition vote. The letter was personally addressed to him so he does not know whether or not it was an exact duplicate of what the rest of the Commission received. -4- 07/24/01 Mr. Perlman stated he only received the mail packet including the letter from Mr. & Ms. Montalban. Mrs. Archer stated she received all of the same information including the letter and also had a telephone conversation with Mr. Harry Gruger who lives at 223 S. Swinton Avenue. Barbara Garito, Acting City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. At this point, Ms. McCarthy noted that the investor she spoke to on the telephone happens to be sitting in the Commission Chambers and politely asked the woman to state her name. Ms. McCarthy clarified that Pearl Markfield is the woman she had a telephone conversation with today. The City Attorney stated all involved parties would conduct this item as a quasi- judicial hearing, which allows for presentations, the admission of documents into the record and public testimony. Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered into the record the Planning and Zoning Department's project file #2001-165. Mr. Dorling explained that this request is to convert an existing 1,200 square foot residence to a 24-hour child care facility which includes construction of a circular driveway for a pickup and drop off area, and conversion of the front and side yards to an outdoor play area, and construction of a four space paved parking lot. Mr. Dorling stated staff has evaluated the request and recommended approval subject to the following conditions from the June 18, 2001 Planning and Zoning Staff Report: That the maximum enrollment for the child care facility be 22 children. 2_ That the hours of pick-up and drop-off be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. 3_ That the height of the vinyl coated chain link fence adjacent to the proposed outdoor play area by 6' in height. 4_ That a hedge 4' high at time of planting be installed adjacent to the proposed vinyl coated chain link fence. lines; That a tree be planted every 25' to form a solid tree line along the north and east property 6_ That the parking lot be redesigned per attached Exhibit "A" to accommodate the required 24' wide by 6' deep maneuvering area at the north end of the proposed dead-end parking area. -5- 07/24/01 That a floor plan depicting the layouts of proposed beds or cots shall be provided. 8_ Approval of a site plan by SPRAB that is in general conformance to the submitted sketch plan and incorporates the concerns noted herein. Mr. Darling stated in addition to these conditions the applicant did agree to another condition at the first Planning and Zoning Board Hearing which related to the exterior of the property retaining it in a residential facade versus a commercial facade and agreed not to paint it with child care symbols in an effort to retain its compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods. The Planning and Zoning Board considered their request at their meeting of June 18th and several members of the public spoke on the item and voiced concerns with respect to the use, the hours of operation and the negative affect on property values. After a lengthy discussion on the hours of operation and how to enforce restricted pick-up and drop-off hours, the Board voted 3-1 (Hasner dissenting and Bird, Stark and Morris absent) to continue the Conditional Use request for the Grammy's Place to the July 16th meeting, with the discretion that staff contact the Child Resource and Family Center to see if there is a need for a 24-hour child care facility in Delray Beach. Mr. Dorling stated the surrounding facilities were identified which are noted in the agenda backup material. Mr. Darling stated this information was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board at its July 16th meeting. After some discussion the Board voted 5 to 2 (Peltzie and Randolph dissenting) to recommend that the Conditional Use request be denied based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Compatibility), in that the proposed use will have a significant detrimental effect on the stability of the neighborhood and will hinder development or redevelopment of nearby properties. While staff feels that the conditions noted in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report would mitigate the adjacent neighbors concerns, the argument that the conditions would be difficult to monitor and enforce does have merit. If the conditions are not adhered to, the conditions of compatibility with adjacent single family uses is a legitimate concern and a finding of compatibility to not be made. Mr. Dorling stated this was one of the concerns that prompted the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend denial of the request. Dennis P. Koehler, Attorney representing the petitioners Ms. Dianna Jones- Sizemore and Ms. Jeanine Newmam stated he prepared and faxed to staff a six page memorandum explaining the legal and factual issues in some depth focusing on the compatibility standard in the City's zoning code. Mr. Koehler asked that the Commission make this a part of the official record. In addition, Mr. Koehler supplied the Commission with a folder prepared by his clients that contains a letter written to the Mayor and each Commissioner dated July 23, 2001, along with copies of some of the petitions (approximately 115 people signed in support) recommending approval. -6- 07/24/01 Mr. Koehler thanked staff for their efficient response and cooperation for making sure he had a complete record. On page two of his summary Mr. Koehler stated Commissioner Perlman restated a question quite effectively by asking, "Does it fit the neighborhood?" Mr. Koehler stated Section 2.4.5(E)(5) of the LDR's requires the City to find that the use will not have a significant detrimental effect upon the stability on the neighborhood. Secondly, that the proposal will not hinder development or redevelopment of nearby properties. Mr. Koehler stated the City's zoning code does not carry any standards that say there shall only be one day care center within a 1,000-foot radius of each other. Another thing that was asked for by the Planning and Zoning Board was a demonstration that there is a need for day care centers in the City. This is also not found in the standards of the City Code. However, to his clients credit, Mr. Koehler stated they canvassed the neighborhood. Mr. Koehler presented Exhibit '1" (a colored map) with green indicating properties who approve of the proposal and in yellow indicating those people who approved of the proposal but would not sign. Exhibit "1" was entered into the official record. Mr. Koehler described in detail the quasi-judicial hearing process and stated the applicant comes forward and is required to show the Commission that he/she have satisfied the zoning code requirements. Mr. Koehler stated each of the standards that apply in the City Code have to be satisfied and demonstrated how they meet the standards and they must do this by competent substantial evidence. Staff reported in the Planning and Zoning Report presented to the Planning and Zoning Board in June that this applicant meets our standards and should be approved. Unfortunately, in the wake of some negative testimony at the Planning and Zoning Board meetings, the majority of the Board (5-2) decided that the petitioner did not make their case. Mr. Koehler stated when he looked at the materials supplied to him in this case he agreed that they had not gone far enough and stated two expert witnesses are here tonight to eliminate any doubt about the fact that this petition satisfies the City's standards. Mark McCree~ Proiect Architect~ stated the entire rear part of the property was engulfed with concrete as it is now. Mr. McCree stated they are not going to impact parking requirements satisfied on the site plan and did not go outside the boundaries of the existing concrete area. Mr. McCree stated the other issue is they provided a circular driveway. Thirdly, Mr. McCree stated the appearance of the house would not change. The interior has been modified to comply with ADA requirements and the facility is designed for twenty-two children. The play area outside that is required (35 square feet per child) complies with the regulations for child care. At this point, Mr. Koehler asked Mr. McCree in his professional opinion, will the proposed use and the site plan have any significant detrimental effect upon the stability of the neighborhood? In response, Mr. McCree stated not as the owner has proposed to operate the facility and modify the building. Furthermore, Mr. McCree stated this would not impact the neighborhood in any way. Secondly, Mr. Koehler stated there was a question raised by Mr. Hasner at the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting asking the following: "Will this project, if approved, hinder the development or redevelopment of the nearby properties?" Mr. McCree stated this project will not hinder the development or redevelopment of the adjacent properties -7- 07/24/01 because the structure is not going to change and the rear parking area is not going to change. With regard to the site, there is nothing being created that already exists other than the circular drive. At this point, Mr. Koehler introduced the next expert witness. Mark J. McLeam MAI & President of McLean & Associates~ Inc. of Wellingtom FL stated the specialty of his office is with transitional properties. Mr. McLean stated they focus on properties that are transitioning from one intensity to another. Mr. McLean stated he also teaches a course in the spring under the Finance and Real Estate Department at Florida Atlantic University (FAU). Mr. Koehler asked Mr. McLean if he has had experience in appraising day care centers? In response, Mr. McLean stated over the past decade he has appraised several dozen day care centers and other specialty uses and many of the day care centers have been a part of other commercial properties. However, Mr. McLean stated a significant number of day care centers have been pre-standing. Mr. Koehler asked Mr. McLean if he has ever appraised any day care centers within the City of Delray Beach. Mr. McLean stated he has appraised a number of transitional properties in Delray Beach and the two most recent appraisals he has done of a day care center was in Riviera Beach. Mr. Koehler asked Mr. McLean what impacts do these day care centers have on the surrounding residential properties and their values? In response, Mr. McLean stated he never noted that there was any derogatory impact on the real estate value. Generally, like any service use, it can create a change in market focus, quite often for the better. Mr. Koehler asked Mr. McLean if he has observed the property in question? Mr. McLean stated he has looked at the property and looked at the immediate market area and stated it is a transitional residential area. There are a lot of allowable commercial uses, which are being imposed in some of the residential properties. Mr. McLean stated his office did an appraisal on a residential home located 2 lA blocks north of there, which was converted into a beauty parlor. Within that same block, Mr. McLean stated there are also professional offices. Mr. McLean feels the neighborhood is more impacted by the traffic patterns of Swinton Avenue than it is by the uses. Mr. Koehler asked Mr. McLean if he has ever found that a day care center negatively impacts or degrades the property values. Although he has never found that a day care center negatively impacts or degrades the property values, Mr. McLean stated one of the opportunities he had earlier today was to look at some of the day care centers in Delray Beach. Most specifically, Mr. McLean stated he focused on the one that is identified as #6 on the map. Mr. McLean stated he primarily focused on this day care center because it does have extended hours (Stepping-Stone Learning Center). The property is located at the corner of S.W. 6th Avenue and S.W. 6th Street. The other similarity is the circular driveway, the playground area, and it is also a former residence. Mr. McLean stated he did an on-line search to identify any of the properties that have been sold there in the last twenty-four months. Thirty properties had been sold, six of which was vacant real estate, and twenty-four that had been sold were identified as single family residence. A significant number of them showed records of having been sold and resold over a period of time. Of those that were sold and resold under general warranty deeds there were none that showed any derogatory trend as far as their value. Mr. McLean stated there was nothing that suggested to him that there was any derogatory impact from this day care center with the extended hours. -8- 07/24/01 Based on his experience with evaluating day care centers and with his own analysis, Mr. Koehler asked Mr. McLean if this proposal will have a significant detrimental affect either on the property values or the stability of the surrounding neighborhood? In response, Mr. McLean stated there is nothing in his experience or in the studies that were done that would suggest that this facility would have a derogatory impact on the property values or on the stability of the neighborhood. In Mr. McLean's professional opinion, Mr. Koehler asked if this proposal will hinder development or redevelopment of the nearby properties. Mr. McLean reiterated that there is nothing in his experience or in the studies that would suggest that it would have any derogatory impact. At this point, Mr. Koehler entered into the record Mr. McLean's analysis of the extended hours facility. Art Feldmam 228 S. Swinton Avenue~ submitted a petition as Exhibit #3 into the official record. Mr. Feldman explained he is opposed to allowing this facility to stay open 24-hours. Mr. Feldman stated the people who are going to regulate the hours of the facility are the employers of the people who are going to bring their children there and feels this is not compatible to the surrounding area. Mr. Feldman stated he feels it will definitely impact the property values and commented about the maximum number of children and their mixed ages, ranging from age 2-12 years old. Mr. Feldman stated the needs for a two-year-old are very different from the needs of a twelve-year-old and feels this is not good. Mr. Feldman stated he does not object to day care centers and urged the Commission to look at another piece of property. Carolyn Zimmermam 212 S.W. 2I'a Avenue~ commented that Delray has approximately five nurseries and feels that five nurseries is a lot for a small area. She expressed concern over allowing this facility to remain open for 24-hours and stated there is no reason why other child care facilities shouldn't be allowed to remain open for 24-hours. Ms. Zimmerman stated she lives in this area and commented that the neighborhood has turned into a nice residential area. She is strongly opposed to this facility being open 24-hours and does not think it is a good idea to have two-year-olds and twelve-year-olds in the same room. Furthermore, Ms. Zimmerman feels this is not compatible with the surrounding properties. Sharon Kingston~ 228 S. Swinton Avenue~ stated there is article in the newspaper dated July 12th prohibiting 24-hour businesses in residential areas. Ms. Kingston feels the detrimental effect in having this in her neighborhood is that it will limit any potential buyers for the properties and is strongly opposed to this project. In addition, Ms. Kingston stated the property owners in this area have worked very hard to increase the values of their homes by improving their properties. Ms. Kingston stated the property owners feel the property values will decrease and feel it is not appropriate to allow a day care facility to be open 24 hours in a residential area. Pearl Markfield~ 302 S.W. 1st Avenue~ stated she is not just an investor but lives in the area as well. Ms. Markfield stated she does not have any objection to the nursery schools that are in existence there now. However, Ms. Markfield objects to a 24-hour facility because -9- 07/24/01 she feels it would infringe on her privacy and her right to the enjoyment of her property. Ms. Markfield stated she does not see how there could be a comparison to #6 on the map in an area far away from the area that is the subject area. Ms. Markfield stated that the effect on the property values is quite different then it would be in the immediate area and is also not adjacent to or part of a historic area. Ms. Markfield stated she would like to see potential homeonwers' and businesses moving there that will enhance the area as the property owners who currently live there feel they already have done. Lynn Hudsom 5859 S.E. 93ra Trail~ Lake Okeechobee~ stated she canvassed the neighborhood and spoke to everyone regarding this project. She stated these are two single mothers that have invested over $10,000 in this site and are leasing the property with the intent to buy with approval. Ms. Hudson stated the two women work 12 hours shifts themselves while trying to get this business off the ground since November, 1999. Ms. Hudson stated that these women have integrity and if they are informed they cannot have pickup and drop-off from 11:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. when they do enrollment that will be made very clear. Ms. Hudson stated there are approximately 10% of people out of the area that are opposed to this project and the people who are in favor of this project are working right now. Ms. Hudson stated people who work in the evenings need support services and urged the Commission to take into consideration that two single mothers without federal funding and without any grants have worked extremely hard to try and make a business a reality. Gloria Elliott, 345 S. Swinton, stated she does not disagree with a 24-hour day care facility, but feels this is the wrong location. She feels by allowing this day care facility will discourage potential homeowners' or businesses looking to buy in this area. There being no one else who, having been duly sworn, wished to address the Commission on this issue, the public hearing was closed. The City Attorney stated at this point to deny the conditional use there must be a significantly detrimental effect upon the stability of the neighborhood or it must hinder a development or redevelopment of nearby properties and also that it would be adverse to the public interest. In addition, the City Attorney stated the Commission might wish to make a finding regarding the compatibility 2.4.4(C) and impose conditions to make sure that it is compatible. Furthermore, the City Attorney stated in Section 2.4.5(E)(4) it talks about conditions when establishing a conditional use and not only may conditions be imposed but limitations may be placed on the hours of operation and/or the longevity of the use. Discussion by the Commission followed. Mayor Schmidt commented about the maximum capacity of 22 children and asked if the owners would be required to have a cot for each child and where the cots woud be stored during the day? In response, Mr. McCree stated they meet the area requirement for 22 children. Mr. McCree stated this day care center would not be set up like an army barracks where cots are lined up one right after another. Mr. McCree stated this could be a bunk bed type of set up and the next step for the petitioner is to work together in getting the interior of this -10- 07/24/01 design to cater to these children. Mr. McCree stated they have met the requirements of the square footage and does not feel there is a space issue. Mayor Schmidt asked if the requirements per space per child include a cot? In response, Mr. McCree explained that the requirements include a cot per space/per child. With regard to the impact and the 24-hour versus the standard day care, Mr. Levinson stated he feels there are differences between these two in terms of impact. Mr. Levinson asked Mr. McLean of those other day care facilities mentioned how many of them had been 24-hour day care facilities? In response, Mr. McLean stated he has been involved with have all been in metropolitan areas and part of other commercial properties (i.e., hotels, gymnasium). They have collections until 11:30 p.m. and it is his understanding that the design of this facility will be that they stop pickup at 11:00 p.m. Mr. McLean stated that he does not know if there was ever any intent to have children playing outside at 3:00 in the morning so it did not seem like it was of any significant impact to measure. Mr. Perlman inquired regarding the need for a 24-hour day care facility and asked if there was a study performed? In response, Mr. Dorling stated the inquiry indicated that there was a substantial waiting list for this type of use (labeled #6 on the map) which indicates the pickup until 11:30 p.m. Mr. Perlman expressed concern over monitoring this and asked how difficult it is to monitor and enforce these rules? In response, Mr. Dorling stated it would be difficult because staff will not be there monitoring it. However, Mr. Dorling stated he would think that the neighbors, particular those speaking in opposition, would be monitoring it. Mayor Schmidt stated he imagines the Code Enforcement Division would also be contacted if the need arises. Mr. Koehler stated one of the things his clients plan to do is when they enroll children in the facility, they will make it clear that there are no pickups between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Mr. Koehler stated they certainly cannot have someone standing there monitoring on a 24-hour basis. However, Mr. Koehler stated it is a combination of self enforcement, neighborhood intention, and the availability of police officers that would be more than enough to address the issue of enforcement and compliance with operating hour restrictions. Mr. Koehler suggested that the petitioners develop and provide the City staff with a copy of the standard enrollment agreement that will indicate that they will not allow pickups between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Mr. Perlman asked if the City receives a lot of noise complaints during the day from other day care centers that are in neighborhood settings? In response, Mr. Dorling stated he has not heard of any substantial complaints. In summary, Mr. Koehler respectfully suggests that although the Commission has heard some strong personal opinions expressed this evening about how the proposal would infringe on property rights, there has been no facts or expert witness testimony to support those opinions. Mr. Koehler stated under Florida Law, lay opinions do not qualify as competent substantial evidence. Focusing on the positive, Mr. Koehler stated he feels they have met the initial burden of proof and that they qualify for the requested use and offered competent -11- 07/24/01 substantial evidence by experts in their field to support a conclusion by the Commission that this project deserves approval. Mayor Schmidt stated the recommended action is to deny the Conditional Use request based upon failure to make a positive finding with respect to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Compatibility). There being no second to the motion, Mayor Schmidt stated the alternative is to recommend approval of the Conditional Use request to establish a 24-hour child care facility based upon positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Compatibility), and Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the conditions as set forth on page eight of the Planning and Zoning Staff Report. At this point, Commissioner Perlman inquired about the longevity of the conditional use. Mr. Levinson moved to approve the Conditional Use request to establish a 24- hour child care facility based upon positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) (Compatibility), and Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions as set forth on page eight of the Planning and Zoning Staff Report; adding two additional conditions, 1) that these conditions apply only to the existing operator and no subsequent operators, and 2) that there be no outside activities outside of the facility after 9:00 p.m., seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Prior to the vote, Ms. McCarthy asked for clarification regarding the two additional conditions made by Mr. Levinson. Mr. Levinson stated the Conditional Use is pertaining only to the location at the 300 block of S. Swinton Avenue. Mr. Levinson explained that in addition to the conditions listed on page eight of the Planning and Zoning Staff Report, two additional conditions have been added to insure that the Commission has the opportunity to review the credibility and operational abilities of any subsequent operator who might come to this location. At this point, the time being 7:15 p.m., the Commission moved to the duly advertised Public Hearings portion of the agenda. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.A. PUBLIC HEARING/BLOCK 28 AND BLOCK 36 (ATLANTIC GROVE): A Public Hearing regarding the following action relating to the proposed 4.6 acre mixed-use project located on Blocks 28 and 36 (Atlantic Grove), on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue, between NW 3rd and NW 5th Avenues: · Authorize the submittal of a $1.5 million Section 108 Loan Guarantee -12- 07/24/01 application to assist with the development of the 4.6 acre mixed use project (Continued from the July 10, 2001 Commission Meeting) Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated this is a public hearing on the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Application. Ms. Butler stated that the consultant is present to give a brief explanation on the conditions and terms of the loan per staff' s recommendation. Mark E. Briggs~ President of Mark Briggs & Associates~ Inc. located at 505 N. Tustin Avenue~ Suite #115~ Santa Ana~ California~ briefly explained the structure of the transaction and the fund process. Mr. Briggs stated the first issue is the decision by the City Commission as to when to draw down the Section 108 funds. The program is designed in such a way that only the Commission can decide at what point in time the funds need to be drawn down for the purpose that they have been identified. This would be when the project is ready to close on the property and start construction so that the Commission will know that with the City's action for the project is going to move forward. The $1.5 million Section 108 Loan funds are anticipated to be deposited into an escrow account like any other real estate transaction and would be secured by a Deed of Trust and closing on that transaction would occur only when the appropriate promissory note was executed in favor of the City. There will be a plat map that will be approved by the City for this project and it is designed now that there would be 20 commercial units that potentially all could be sold, 24 condominiums, and 55 Townhouses. Mr. Briggs stated they have calculated what the lien would be against each one of those. It would be $42,427 against the commercial properties, $9,024 against the condominiums, and $7,907 against each of the townhouses. When the unit sells, the new lender will require that the parcel be free and clear of all liens before they place their first lien. The construction lender will allow a partial lien release against those parcels. There would be a new escrow and out of that process the City would be ensured that the closing would not occur unless the amount of money that was due back to the City was paid out of escrow into the City' s account. In terms of the flow of the funds, the initial funding will come to the City from Chase Manhattan Bank. Mr. Briggs explained that there is an agreement with HUD and Chase Manhattan Bank to provide the funds on an interim basis. The interest rate is a 3-month LIBOR plus 20 basis points, which is two- tenths of one percent, which is paid quarterly. Mr. Briggs stated $300,000 of the EDI Grant funds would be used to pay the interest on the Section 108 Loan and based on the current interest rate that would exceed 2 lA years of interest for the project. Mr. Briggs stated the City has maximum flexibility while the funding is in the interim status with Chase Manhattan Bank. Mr. Briggs stated the outstanding principal amount of the Section 108 Loan amount would be repaid over the remainder of the 20 year term, but could still be prepaid at any time, should the leased portion eventually be sold. Mrs. Archer asked if the City decides to use the Chase Manhattan Bank rate and in the future decided to go into a public offering, would this limit the payments that could be made for that ten year period? Mr. Briggs stated at that point in time HUD would give the City fixed principal and interest payments for the remaining term and they would not have the ability to prepay until reaching the tenth year. Therefore, HUD would be obligated to make those payments for the continuing period of time until the tenth year when they would have the option -13- 07/24/01 to prepay. Mrs. Archer asked if the City remains with Chase for the entire term and the City makes payments of principal, would the interest due be reduced by that amount that the principal was reduced? In response, Mr. Briggs stated the interest due would be reduced by the amount the principal was reduced. The interest is recalculated quarterly each year (as long as it is with Chase) and the City would have the option to make any additional principal payments on a quarterly basis. Mr. Briggs noted that this would be simple interest. Mr. Levinson asked as repayments are made, does that then increase the City's additional borrowing capacity? Mr. Briggs explained that the City has the option to have up to five times its annual allocation in the CDBG Program as the amount less whatever the outstanding principal balance. Mr. Perlman asked when the City would be repaid? In response, Mr. Briggs explained that what happens is every time they sell either a commercial unit, condominium, or townhouse, the City gets prepaid that pro rata amount without question because the liens MB&A Associates has equals the $1.5 million. Ms. Butler stated when we collect our payments from them as they sell each unit, they give the City that amount which goes into the City's account. When the quarterly interest payments are due we pay that quarterly interest plus any monies we have recouped to reduce the principal at that time. Mr. Perlman asked if they are paying any interest or is this interest free? Ms. Butler further explained that the City is using the ED! Grant to pay the interest for the first 2 lA years. Mr. Levinson asked Mr. Briggs if the City gets to a point where they maintain some of these, what typically do you find is the offering rate in the sale? Mr. Briggs stated if someone needs to get an idea of what the rates would be, they tend to trade at 12-15 basis points over the comparable treasuries. The City Manager inquired about the scenario where the balance is put into a public offering and then it cannot be repaid for ten years, and asked if it is ten years from the time you draw down or from the time of the public offering? In response, Mr. Briggs stated it is from the time you draw down the initial funds. Mayor Schmidt stated the prepayment seems very heavily weighted towards sale of the commercial condominium units and he expressed concerns about the viability of commercial space particularly as a pioneer project west of Swinton Avenue. Mayor Schmidt stated worst case scenario, say they cannot sell any commercial condominium units and they convert to a standard rental scenario. Mayor Schmidt asked from their pro forma, are they going to have enough income coming in to cover the payments once the ED! is used up to cover the interest? In response, Mr. Briggs stated the first pro forma received from them had the allocation of the values against the commercial property and the townhouses. That allocation of dollars did not change when they came up with the primary sale approach. In addition, Mr. Briggs stated -14- 07/24/01 the pro formas that they looked at did debt service. Secondly, Mayor Schmidt stated he has a concern with the 20-year time span. Mayor Schmidt asked if their pro forma shows enough cash flow and whether or not the 20-year time period could be shortened? Mr. Briggs stated if in fact we wanted fully amortizing over a shorter time period that increases the amount of debt service in the early years. Part of the objective of doing this project and using the ED! funds was to try and make the economics of the project in the early years as favorable as possible. Mr. Briggs stated paying the interest on the Section 108 Loan in those early years is a substantial step in doing that. Mr. Briggs stated if we ask them to do fully amortize principal and interest over ten years, it would dramatically increase their annual payments. Mayor Schmidt asked Mr. Briggs if you can amortize over a longer period but have a shorter than 20 year term? In response, Mr. Briggs stated this could be done. Further discussion followed by the Commission and Mr. Briggs. Mr. Levinson asked if there is a way to ensure the interest cost potential to the City? In other words, Mr. Levinson asked if the City gets into a situation where we have this potential arbitrage, is there a way to insure that? Mr. Briggs stated he does not know the answer to these concerns expressed by Mr. Levinson. Mr. Perlman asked what happened to the actual rental rates as a result of this and what is the practical impact for someone looking to rent in this project? In response, Mr. Briggs stated they did not do an analysis of what their rents would have to increase by to cover the $300,000. Mr. Levinson asked Mr. Briggs if $14-$16 is in fact competitive with the North Federal Highway area and those other second tier areas? Mr. Briggs stated when the CRA was going through the proposals, they had a couple of different consulting firms looking at the market and the rates. Mr. Briggs stated he does not recall the detail of their analysis but he does know that they looked at comparable office and retail rental rates. Mayor Schmidt declared the public hearing open. Kevin Warner~ 248 Venetian Drive~ commented that he feels the Commission is rolling a dice with taxpayers money with regard to the interest rate risk. Secondly, Mr. Warner stated although he does not expect this to happen, there could be a situation where the development flops or the developer goes bankrupt. If this were the situation, Mr. Warner stated the City would also be left with the exposure to the interest rate payments that go beyond the ED! money. At this point, there being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission on this issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Levinson commented about the City being the "borrower" and asked if the City would be receiving the funds and making payments to the developer? The City Attorney clarified that the City would be controlling those dollars. -15- 07/24/01 Mrs. Archer moved to approve the submission of the application to participate in the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program in the amount of $1.5 million, and approve the terms and conditions set forth in the transmittal and letter from Mark Briggs, contracted consultant, seconded by Mr. Levinson. Mr. Perlman stated he had been critical of this in the past because he felt it was a development that was coming. In addition, Mr. Perlman felt that the City would be put at risk with half of the allotment of the CDBG funds that we might be able to lure additional development. Mr. Perlman stated there is risk in this type of a deal but weighing the pros and cons, he feels the City needs to get something developed on West Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Perlman stated he supports the project and the application. Mr. Levinson asked if CDBG money could be used to repay the interest? In response, Mr. Briggs stated that the CDBG money could indeed be used to repay the interest. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.B. ORDINANCE NO. 41-01 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): An ordinance amending Land Development Regulations Appendix "A" and Section 4.3.3 adding a definition and special regulations regarding 24-hour businesses and listing 24-hour businesses as a conditional use in certain non-residential zoning districts. If passed, a second public hearing will be scheduled for August 7, 2001. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 41-01: 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, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING APPENDIX "A", "DEFINITIONS", TO PROVIDE FOR A DEFINITION OF 24-HOUR BUSINESSES; AMENDING ARTICLE 4.3, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS, GENERAL PROVISIONS", SECTION 4.3.3, "SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES" BY ENACTING SUBSECTION 4.3.3(VV), "24-HOUR BUSINESSES", TO PROVIDE THAT 24-HOUR BUSINESSES LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICT SHALL BE A CONDITIONAL USE AND SHALL COMPLY WITH SPECIFIED CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDING THAT EXISTING 24-HOUR BUSINESSES SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS REGARDING 24-HOUR BUSINESSES; BY -16- 07/24/01 AMENDING SECTION 4.4.9 "GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) DISTRICT" TO PROVIDE THAT 24-HOUR BUSINESSES ARE A CONDITIONAL USE; BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.11 "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) DISTRICT" TO PROVIDE THAT 24-HOUR BUSINESSES ARE A CONDITIONAL USE; BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.12 "PLANNED COMMERCIAL (PC) DISTRICT" TO PROVIDE THAT 24-HOUR BUSINESSES ARE A CONDITIONAL USE; BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.13 "CENTRAL BUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT" TO PROVIDE THAT 24-HOUR BUSINESSES ARE A CONDITIONAL USE; BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.14 "RESORT / TOURISM (RT) DISTRICT" TO PROVIDE THAT 24-HOUR BUSINESSES ARE A CONDITIONAL USE; BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.15 "PLANNED OFFICE CENTER (POC) DISTRICT" TO PROVIDE THAT 24-HOUR BUSINESSES ARE A CONDITIONAL USE; BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.24 "OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS (OSSHAD) DISTRICT" TO PROVIDE THAT 24-HOUR BUSINESSES ARE A CONDITIONAL USE; BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.28 "CENTRAL BUSiNESS-RAILROAD CORRIDOR (CBD-RC)" TO PROVIDE THAT 24-HOUR BUSINESSES ARE A CONDITIONAL USE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 41-01 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, Planning Director, stated at is meeting of February 6, 2001, the Commission approved an ordinance which enacted a 6-month moratorium prohibiting the establishment of new businesses having operating hours between 12:00 midnight and 5:00 a.m. in the Downtown Development Authority area, to allow time to study the impacts of 24-Hour Businesses on adjacent residential uses and the redevelopment effort. The moratorium did not effect any existing businesses that were already operating between these hours, and exempted hotels, motels, office uses, restaurants and cocktail lounges. The primary concern with 24-hour businesses is their impacts on residentially zoned properties as well as the effects on redevelopment efforts. Therefore, the proposed ordinance applies citywide rather than to just the area within the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority, as indicated in the moratorium. -17- 07/24/01 At its meeting of July 16, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board considered this and several members of the public spoke regarding the text amendment. There were concerns expressed that the proposed ordinance would apply to projects currently under construction. The applicability section was then amended to accommodate those in the way existing businesses are accommodated. Some Board members felt that the ordinance did not address the intent of the moratorium with regard to convenience type businesses, and questioned significantly broadening the affected area and uses, such as restaurants. After discussing the amendment, the Board voted 4-3 (Randolph, Peltzie, Bird dissenting) to recommend to the City Commission approval of the proposed text amendment, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Mrs. Archer asked if the City has any businesses that are currently under construction? In response, Mr. Dorling stated the City has a 24-hour Walgreen's drug store located on Lindell Boulevard and Federal Highway. Mr. Dorling stated that the developer raised this concern and he is not aware of any others. Mr. Perlman asked if the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), the Downtown Business Merchants Association (DBMA), and the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed this as well? Mr. Dorling stated they have all reviewed this and recommended approval. Mr. Levinson expressed concern over the conditional use process. Mr. Levinson stated some other type of businesses might be less desirable because it is not as clean or has less traffic impact. Mr. Levinson wants to make sure the City is not fixing one problem and creating another by the ordinance being too vague. Mr. Dorling the conditional use process includes the required findings that Mr. Levinson considers vague in some respects but it also requires that positive finding with respect to district regulations with respect to 24-hour businesses require the provision of a security plan and buffering and findings of compatibility with Housing Element A-12.3 which also deals with compatibility between commercial and residential properties. The City Attorney stated when the LDR's are being revised, there is always that opportunity for conditional uses to be more specific in the criteria. The criteria the City has especially the word "Compatibility" has been upheld by the court. Therefore, the City Attorney stated this is not vague. The City Attorney stated if the Commission wishes to have other criteria, this can be added to the LDR's under conditional use that is used for a project. Mr. Perlman stated what was appealing to him was that there was some discretion. Mayor Schmidt declared the public hearing open. John Bennett~ 137 Seabreeze Avenue~ stated he was one of the individuals who commented at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and watching the Board members who dealt with the issue as to why the vote came out as close as it did. Mr. Bennett feels it was -18- 07/24/01 difficult to follow who had an objection to the hours in question and who had more of a response that really was not dealing with the problem in the sense that you call it a 24-hour business, but it is not. Mr. Bennett feels in its current form, this ordinance sets a trap for the unworried. For example, Mr. Bennett stated if someone comes into town and decides to do some research about whether or not they want to start a business and they look at the index and see "24-hour businesses" they may not look at this section if they decide to only stay open until 12:30 p.m. when in fact this ordinance would cover you. Mr. Bennett explained when some of the Planning and Zoning Board members passed this ordinance they stated they wanted to see several fixes investigated. Most of those fixes were accommodated such as the construction issue and how they defined time. However, the idea of either calling it "late night businesses" or "businesses open during the early morning hours" did not make it because it was already advertised as "24- hours". Mr. Bennett stated if this can be changed before the next meeting, it would be desirable to call it something other than "24-hour businesses" because he does not feel the City is a 24- hour business. There being no one else who wished to address the Commission regarding this issue, the public hearing was closed. The City Attorney stated if the Commission would like to change the wording to "late night business" this would not be considered a change to the definition of the ordinance. Therefore, the City Attorney stated this ordinance would not have to be readvertised. Mr. Perlman moved to approve Ordinance 41-01 on First Reading/First Public Hearing subject to the City Attorney's direction to change "24-hour businesses" to "24-hour or late night businesses", seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.C. ORDINANCE NO. 38-01: An ordinance rezoning from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CF (Community Facilities) for the First Presbyterian Church and the abutting Fisler Property located on Gleason Street south of East Atlantic Avenue. Quasi Judicial Hearing The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 38-01: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED RM (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY) TO CF (COMMUNITY FACILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, SAID LAND BEING A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF EAST ATLANTIC AVENUE AND EXTENDS WEST OF GLEASON STREET AND EAST OF BRONSON AVENUE AND CONTAINS 3.5 ACRES, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 2001"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A -19- 07/24/01 SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 38-01 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 Schmidt asked the Commission to disclose any ex parte contacts. No ex parte contacts were noted. The City Attorney stated all involved parties would conduct this item as a quasi- judicial hearing, which allows for presentations, the admission of documents into the record and public testimony. Barbara Garito, Acting City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Paul Dorling, Planning Director, entered into the record the Planning and Zoning Department project file #2001-164. Mr. Dorling stated this rezoning request would include the entire First Presbyterian Church campus, which is located east of the Intracoastal Waterway. The rezoning will also include an additional parcel, which is under contract purchase known as the "Fisler Property". During the creation of the LDR's in 1990, all other churches of this type were given a CF zoning designation and it is not clear as to why this piece was not given one at that time. Therefore, Mr. Dorling stated it is appropriate that we proceed with the rezoning at this time. At its meeting of June 18, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing in conjunction with the request. After discussion, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended (4-0) approval of this project. Mayor Schmidt declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission on this issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Levinson moved to adopt Ordinance No. 38-01 on Second and FINAL Reading for a rezoning designation change from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CF (Community Facilities) based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), LDR Sections 2.4.5(D)(5), and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. -20- 07/24/01 Prior to the vote, Ms. McCarthy asked if this would cover all the land that they own at this time? In response, Mr. Dorling stated this will cover their entire holdings and in addition will include a parcel under contract purchase. 10.D. ORDINANCE NO. 40-01 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): An ordinance amending Land Development Regulations Section 4.4.11(B)(3) to provide for business and professional offices as a permitted use in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district, amending Section 4.4.11 (C)(2) to provide for refuse and service areas and by amending Section 4.4.1 i(H) to prohibit outdoor storage. If passed, a second public hearing will be scheduled for August 7, 2001. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 40-01: 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, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING CHAPTER FOUR, "ZONING REGULATIONS", SECTION 4.4, "BASE ZONING DISTRICT", SUBSECTION 4.4.11, "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) DISTRICT", SUB-SUBSECTION 4.4.1 i(B), "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES PERMITTED", TO PROVIDE FOR BUS1NESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES; BY AMENDING SUB-SUBSECTION 4.4.11(C) TO PROVIDE FOR REFUSE AND SERVICE AREAS; AND BY AMENDING SUB- SUBSECTION 4.4.11(H), "SPECIAL REGULATIONS", TO PROHIBIT OUTDOOR STORAGE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 40-01 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, Planning Director, stated this request was generated by "Caribbean Blue Pools and Kellerco Construction, Inc." who wish to locate at 2201 Seacrest Boulevard which is located in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. Currently, Mr. Dorling stated the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) District regulations allow business and professional offices. However, Mr. Dorling stated these businesses are limited to travel agencies, outpatient medical services, real estate, finance and accounting, and community service (outreach) offices. This amendment would strike the -21- 07/24/01 specific office types and allow business and professional offices in general. To alleviate any concerns particularly with this specific use, Mr. Dorling stated additional requirements have been added that outside storage is not an allowable component. At its meeting of July 16, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended (7-0) approval based upon positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(M)(5). Mr. Levinson commented that immediately north of this property, there is a rental equipment facility, which does have outside storage. Mr. Dorling stated that normally outside storage is not allowed. However, Mr. Dorling stated this may have been an enclave long ago and it is quite possible that they are a non-conforming use. Mayor Schmidt gave direction to Mr. Dorling to research this and bring back to the Commission at the second reading on August 7th. Mayor Schmidt declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission on this issue, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Archer moved to approve Ordinance No. 40-01 on First Reading/First Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.E. RESOLUTION NO. 46-01: A resolution establishing a budget for the Stormwater Utility System, establishing the rates for FY 2002 Stormwater Management Assessments, and certifying and adopting the Stormwater Assessment Roll. The City Manager presented Resolution No. 46-01: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A BUDGET FOR THE STORMWATER UTILITY SYSTEM; ESTABLISHING RATES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENTS FOR EACH PARCEL WITHIN THE BENEFITED AREA, OTHER THAN NON- ASSESSED PROPERTY; PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 56 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AND RELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY; PROVIDING FOR THE CERTIFICATION AND ADOPTION OF THE STORMWATER ASSESSMENT ROLL. (The official copy of Resolution No. 46-01 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The City Manager stated this is the Stormwater Utility Assessment Roll. The budget would be balanced with the same rates as we have had for several years. The City Manager explained that because the City has accelerated a lot of the stormwater projects, most of -22- 07/24/01 the revenue that is not being used for operating purposes is going to debt service this year. The City Manager stated that finishes the third year payment and next year the City will be able to complete more projects. Mayor Schmidt declared the public hearing open. There being no one who wished to address the Commission on this issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Perlman moved to approve Resolution No. 46-01, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 11. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC-IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS. ll.A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. The City Manager stated last month that there were several inquiries from Mr. O'Clark, President of the Atlantic Park Gardens Homeowners' Association. One concern was regarding a house that had been boarded up, and he was urging the City to have it demolished as soon as possible. In that particular case, the City Manager stated that the homeowner appealed to the Board of Construction Appeals (BOCA) asking for additional time in which to hire an Engineer to do the structural survey of the property; and the BOCA granted him 30 days. The City Manager stated that staff was trying to keep an open line of communication with Mr. O'Clark in case the homeowner wished to pursue selling the property to the City. Secondly, the City Manager stated that Mr. O'Clark talked about trying to convert some of the rental properties to home ownership. The City does not currently have a program to purchase apartments and convert them into single family housing. The CRA has a duplex conversion program, but it does not extend to this area of the City (only pertains to the Seacrest area). Thirdly, regarding Mr. O'Clark's concern about building more single family th th homes as had been built on 10 Avenue and 12 Avenue, the City Manager stated that the homes which had been built were part of the City's Renaissance Program and partnership with the Young Men's Progressive Club to develop seven single family homes. This helped to fulfill the goals of the Renaissance Program to increase home ownership opportunities, improve the condition of the existing housing units, and contribute to the City's overall neighborhood improvement efforts. With regard to comments expressed by Mr. O'Clark regarding drug dealers in the area and requesting that the City do something about eliminating most of the people that were buying drugs. The City Manager stated that he would consider that as a part of the City's continuing strategy in dealing with drug dealers in this area. -23- 07/24/01 The City Manager stated that there was a concern expressed about the need for Park and Recreation's employees to work on the weekend to keep the parks clean. Ms. Finst had indicated that she was at Knowles Park and saw some unsightly debris that washed in from the Intracoastal. The City Manager explained the crews working on the weekend are rest room cleaning crews and that the crews cleaning up West Atlantic Avenue work on Sunday and Monday. Normally, the City would not put staff on an overtime basis, and the regular morning crew would take care of making sure the area is cleaned up on Monday morning. The City Manager stated although it does happen occasionally, staff does not feel it is that big of a problem right now. With regard to overgrown lots on Southridge Road, the City Manager stated these vacant lots are periodically cited, or the owners are contacted with respect to overgrowth for trash accumulations. The Code Enforcement Officer, assigned to this area, developed a rapport with several of the vacant lot owners. Unfortunately, he was injured on duty and has not been at work for the last few weeks. Overgrown vacant lots on Southridge Road, except those being utilized to store road construction debris, were cited again this past week. With regard to a previous concern expressed about graffiti on the sidewalk along A-1-A near meter #119, the City Manager stated staff was not able to find the graffiti this last week. Staff assumes it is water-soluble and has been washed away by the heavy rainfall. However, the City Manager stated staff will keep a look out for any graffiti that may appear in the future. The City Manager stated Ms. Helene Miller expressed concern about getting the street signs up again at the intersection of Linton Boulevard and Federal Highway and noted the street signs were put up the very next day. With regard to the pedestrian crossing at the "S" shaped curve by the Seagate Beach Club, the City Manager explained staff has re-striped and replaced the pedestrian crossing signs within the last couple of years. A-1-A is under the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the City does not control it. However, the City Manager stated staff will look into this matter to see if the City can give FDOT any recommendations for improving safety in this location. With regard to a previous concern expressed about the amount that would be needed for the Police and Fire Pension Fund, the City Manager stated it is a little over $330,000. The City Manager stated this amount is an additional increase from last year. The City Manager addressed another concern regarding the builders out west trying to claim all the money for school construction. The School Board's capital plan for the next five years is very specific as to the schools that are to be built. The City Manager explained that if a builder wishes to build something in an area where something else is planned, then the builder has to mitigate the need for schools, or else they cannot build there. The City Manager stated as he understands the system, it is not possible for someone who is building out west to -24- 07/24/01 pull construction dollars from the east and it is not currently allowed under the City's Concurrency Agreement. 11.B. From the Public. ll.B.1. Carolyn Zimmermam President of the President's Council~ stated she received numerous complaints that on July 4th there were too many children using fireworks without adult supervision. In the Swinton Avenue area a house has a hole in it from a bomb that was set off. With regard to S.W. 12th Avenue, Ms. Zimmerman stated one President from the Sunshine Association called her and informed her children were setting off fireworks approximately one week prior to the fourth of July. Ms. Zimmerman stated she could attest to this because she witnessed children in groups of 12-15 under the age of twelve setting off fireworks around 2nd Avenue. She stated these children were setting off fireworks continually every night up until about 12:00 p.m. Ms. Zimmerman stated she also received comments from the northwest section that said there were better fireworks coming from the southwest section than the beach. In addition, a homeowners' group from George Bush Boulevard reported to Ms. Zimmerman that there was a lot of drunkenness on the road from people whom attended the 4th of July celebration. Ms. Zimmerman suggested for the City to implement a program to educate our children that they are not allowed to do this and that their parents be held responsible for their behavior. Ms. Zimmerman stated there were requests for the Police to come stop the fireworks but they did not come. ll.B.2. John Bennett~ 137 Seabreeze Avenue~ thanked the Commission for the opportunity to participate in the Citizen Summit at the Golf Course and feels it was an interesting experience. Secondly, Mr. Bennett presented the Commission with his typed comments expressed at the October 17, 2000 Regular City Commission Meeting under Comments and Inquires on Non-Agenda Items. He reiterated and suggested that the Commission look into changing the procedure for the three-minute rule because he feels it would help improve the process and people's perception of it. In addition, Mr. Bennett read the following quote taken from the questions and answer period of the All America City Presentation 2001: "The Commission has opened up the process and allowed more citizen input and community involvement. It's a continuing challenge for us and one that we embrace." (a copy is attached hereto and incorporated herein as an official part of the minutes). ll.B.3. Kevin Warner~ 248 Venetian Drive~ stated on behalf of Alice Finst, he thanked everyone for the looking into the situation with the microphones and stated the sound system is working wonderfully. 9.B. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: Consider a conditional use request to allow a mixed-use development with a density of more than 12 units per acre for the Atlantic Grove Redevelopment Project located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue, between NW 3rd and NW 5th Avenues. Quasi-Judicial Hearing -25- 07/24/01 Mayor Schmidt asked the Commission to disclose any ex parte contact. No ex parte contacts were noted. The City Attorney stated all involved parties would conduct this item as a quasi- judicial hearing, which allows for presentations, the admission of documents into the record and public testimony. Barbara Garito, Acting City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered into the record the Planning and Zoning Department's project file #2001-132. This proposal involves the establishment of a mixed-use redevelopment project, which includes 55 townhouse units, 20 condominium units and 47,856 square feet of commercial space. The Atlantic Grove project was selected from among four proposals in response to the CRA's Request for Proposal (RFP) for redevelopment of Blocks 28 & 36. Residential density within the West Atlantic Avenue Overlay may be increased from 12 units per acre up to 30 units per acre as a conditional use. The proposed residential density is 16.54 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, conditional use approval is required. At its meeting of July 16, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing in conjunction with the Conditional Use request. Several members spoke in favor of the proposal including Diane Dominguez, CRA Executive Director. After discussion, the Board unanimously recommended (7-0) approval of this proposal based upon positive findings with respect to the performance standards, the conditional use findings, and consistency with the West Atlantic Redevelopment Plan. There being no one else who, having been duly sworn, wished to address the Commission on this issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Perlman moved to approve the request for Conditional Use approval for Atlantic Grove, based upon the findings and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.C. APPROVAL OF CITY POLICY FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING: Consider approval of the proposed Policy for Neighborhood Traffic Calming. Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer, addressed a question that was brought up at the Workshop Meeting about the enrollment period and how that would correspond to the budget cycle. Mr. Krejcarek stated the way requests are handled for any project is the department informs the citizen immediately whether staff is in the beginning of the process or at the end of the process or if this will be something proposed in next year's budget. Mr. Krejcarek stated this -26- 07/24/01 will be handled the same way and that way requests can be taken all year long. Furthermore, Mr. Krejcarek stated he does not feel it would be prudent to have a specific period of time for the requests. Secondly, with regard to the list of neighborhoods and streets that the department has received requests for, Mr. Krejcarek emphasized that the list is just a sample and is not all inclusive. Mrs. Archer moved to approve the proposed Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy and Guidelines as presented by staff, seconded Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.D. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE: Consider establishing the proposed millage rate for FY 2002. Mr. Levinson moved to approve establishing the proposed millage rate at 8.1 mills, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Prior to the vote, Mrs. Archer commented that the proposed millage rate of 8.1 mills is the absolute worst case scenario that the City may have to endure because once the millage rate is established, the Commission cannot raise it. Therefore, Mrs. Archer stated she is hopeful that the Commission will be able to establish the millage rate lower than 8.1 mills. 9.E. CONSULTANT HISTORICAL SITE PLAN PHASE II /JANUS RESEARCH: Consider approval of second lowest bidder, Janus Research to act as our consultant for Phase H of the Historical Site Plan in the amount of $25,085.75. Funding is available in a $10,000.00 grant from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources and the remainder from Planning and Zoning Department's budget. Paul Dorling, Planning Director, stated in 1998, the City received a $10,000 matching grant to begin a Phase ! Historic Sites Survey from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. Janus Research, an outside consultant, conducted the survey. That survey identified and documented approximately 500 structures that had been built prior to 1950. The survey also identified an additional four to five hundred sites that needed to be surveyed. In March 2001, the City was selected to receive an additional $10,000 grant to continue the historic survey project. In May 2001, the City published a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Phase H Survey Grant. There were four responses received by the deadline. Historic Preservation Services came in with a bid of $25,025.00. Although the firm Historic Preservation Services was $60.75 less than Janus Research, they did not include any per diem allowances that will be a required expenditure. Janus Research was the only bidder to submit an inclusive budget to accomplish our objectives. -27- 07/24/01 Staff recommends approval of the firm of Janus Research (second lowest bidder) to conduct the Phase H Historic Sites Survey. Mr. Perlman moved to approve the firm of Janus Research (second lowest bidder) to conduct the Phase H Historic Sites Survey, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.F. APPOINTMENTS TO THE EDUCATION BOARD: Appoint six (6) regular members to the Education Board with two-year terms ending July 21, 2003. Appointments will be made by Commissioner McCarthy (Seat #4), Mayor Schmidt (Seat #5), Commissioner Perlman (Seat #1), Commissioner Archer (Seat #2), Commissioner Levinson (Seat #3), and Commissioner McCarthy (Seat #4). Ms. McCarthy moved to reappoint Greta Britt (incumbent) as a regular member to the Education Board for a two-year term ending July 21, 2003, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mayor Schmidt moved to reappoint Marlene Brown (incumbent) as a regular member to the Education Board for a two-year term ending July 21, 2003, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. Perlman moved to reappoint Sheldon Weil (incumbent) as a regular member to the Education Board for a two-year term ending July 21, 2003, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mrs. Archer moved to reappoint Jayne King (incumbent) as a regular member to the Education Board for a two-year term ending July 21, 2003, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - No; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. Mr. Levinson moved to appoint Sharron Ronco as a regular member to the Education Board for a two-year term ending July 21, 2003, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Ms. McCarthy moved to appoint Frances "Betsy" Owen as a regular member to the Education Board for a two-year term ending July 21, 2003, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. -28- 07/24/01 9.G. APPOINTMENTS TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD: Appoint three (3) regular members to the Historic Preservation Board with two-year terms ending August 31, 2003. Appointments will be made by Commissioner Levinson (Seat #3), Commissioner McCarthy (Seat #4), and Mayor Schmidt (Seat #5). Mr. Levinson moved to reappoint Gail Lee McDermott (incumbent) as a regular member to the Historic Preservation Board for a two-year term ending August 31, 2003, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Ms. McCarthy moved to appoint Gloria Elliott as a regular member to the Historic Preservation Board for a two-year term ending August 31, 2003, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mayor Schmidt stated he wished to appoint Michael Simon as a regular member to the Historic Preservation Board with a two-year term ending August 31, 2003, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9oHo APPOINTMENT TO THE DELRAY BEACH HOUSING AUTHORITY: Appoint one (1) regular member to the Delray Beach Housing Authority with four year term ending July 14, 2005. Appointment will be made by Commissioner McCarthy (Seat #4), subject to acceptance by the Mayor. Ms. McCarthy moved to appoint Angela D. Randolph as a regular member to the Delray Beach Housing Authority for a four-year term ending July 14, 2005, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Prior to the vote, Mayor Schmidt stated he would accept the motion presented by Commissioner McCarthy. 9.1. APPOINTMENTS TO THE SITE PLAN REVIEW & APPEARANCE BOARD: Appoint two (2) regular members to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board for with two-year terms ending August 31, 2003. Appointments will be made by Commissioner Perlman (Seat #1) and Commissioner Archer (Seat #2). Mr. Perlman moved to appoint Janine Dabney Battle as a regular member to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board for a two-year term ending August 31, 2003, seconded -29- 07/24/01 by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mrs. Archer moved to appoint Nancy J. Stewart as a regular member to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board for a two year term ending August 31, 2003, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.J. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD: Appoint two (2) regular members the Code Enforcement Board with term ending January 14, 2002 and January 14, 2004, and two (2) alternate members with term ending January 14, 2002 and January 14, 2004. The regular appointments will be made by Commissioner Perlman (Seat #1), and Commissioner Archer (Seat #2). The alternate appointments will be made by Commission Levinson (Seat #3) and Commissioner McCarthy (Seat #4). Mr. Perlman moved to appoint Robert Desjean (mortgage broker) as a regular member to the Code Enforcement Board for a term ending January 14, 2002, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mrs. Archer moved to appoint Roger W. Cope (architect) as a regular member to the Code Enforcement Board for a term ending January 14, 2004, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. Levinson moved to appoint Russell Jennings (contractor) as an alternate member to the Code Enforcement Board for a term ending January 14, 2002, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - No; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. Ms. McCarthy moved to appoint Beril Kruger (planner) as an alternate member to the Code Enforcement Board for a term ending January 14, 2004, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.K. FUNDING REQUEST/DELRAY BEACH HOUSING AUTHORITY: Consider approval of a request from the Delray Beach Housing Authority to provide bridge funding for the acquisition of 3.08 acres of undeveloped property between SW l0th Street and SW 8th Street, for the construction of affordable housing. Funding is available from 118-1922- -30- 07/24/01 554-49.14 (HOPE3 Acquisition Rehabilitation). Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, explained this is before Commission to approve and authorize to partner with the Delray Beach Housing Authority (DBHA) to acquire a 3.08 track of undeveloped land located just south of Carver Estates between S.W. l0th and S.W. 8th Street. The DBHA in partnership with the City will facilitate the construction of approximately eight new affordable houses for first time buyers qualifying under the established very low and low-income guidelines for families. The DBHA is requesting that the City advance $250,000 projected as the purchase price for the land. Staff is recommending that the City use a portion of the revenues generated under the HOPE 3 program for this initiative. Ms. Butler stated the HOPE 3 dollars must be spent by the end of December or HUD is requesting that the City will have to give back the money. The DBHA has several families that are participating in their Family Self- Sufficiency Program that educates and grooms residents for homeownership. The DBHA is scheduled under its approved five-year plan to receive capital funds at $250,000 per year beginning with their 2002 fiscal year. Thus, they are proposing to replace the City's dollars at that time, making them available to fund the infrastructure to the site. Mr. Levinson inquired about this property and inquired if this property fronts S.W. l0th Street? He stated there was some discussion as to whether or not there would be a small commercial piece facing S.W. l0th Street. Ms. Butler stated they have decided not to do that, but they would like to have some recreational amenities to go with the subdivision. Mr. Levinson asked Ms. Butler if their anticipation is to put residential through to S.W. l0th Street? In response, Ms. Butler stated that the intent is that this be residential through to S.W. l0th Street. Ms. McCarthy moved to approve the funding request from the Delray Beach Housing Authority to provide for the acquisition of 3.08 acres of undeveloped property between S.W. l0th Street and S.W. 8th Street, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 12. FIRST READINGS: 12.A. ORDINANCE NO. 42-01: An ordinance rezoning from R-1-A (Single Family Residential) to CF (Community Facilities) a parcel of land located on the west side of NW 4th Avenue, approximately 150 feet south ofNW 1st Street to accommodate an off-street parking lot associated with the Atlantic Grove Redevelopment project. If passed, a quasi-judicial public hearing will be scheduled for August 7, 2001. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 42-01: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED R-1-A (SINGLE FAMILY -31- 07/24/01 RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO CF (COMMUNITY FACILITIES) DISTRICT; SAID LAND BEING A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF N.W. 4TM AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 360' NORTH OF WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 2000"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 42-01 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Paul Dorling, Planning Director, explained that this is part of the Atlantic Grove Development Proposal. The property is currently under contract for sale to Atlantic Grove Partners, who are in the process of obtaining conditional use and site plan approval for a mixed- use project on Blocks 28 and 36. Their proposal depicts the property as a 24-space parking lot to be used by guests of residents and customers of businesses within the new development. In order to be used for parking, the zoning must be changed from its current R-1-A (Single-Family Residential) designation. Operation of a privately owned parking lot in the CF zoning district also requires conditional use approval, which is being processed concurrently with this request for rezoning and will be presented to the Commission concurrent with second reading of the rezoning. At its meeting of July 16, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning and recommended approval of the rezoning (7-0), based on positive findings with respect to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), Section 3.2.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions), and Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Perlman moved to approve Ordinance No. 42-01 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 12.B. ORDINANCE NO. 43-01: An ordinance amending the Land Development Regulations Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(b) to include a map which delineates the in-lieu of parking fee areas and corresponding fee amounts. If passed, a public hearing will be scheduled for August 7, 2001. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 43-01: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF -32- 07/24/01 ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING CHAPTER FOUR, "ZONING REGULATIONS", SECTION 4.6, "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", SUBSECTION 4.6.9, "OFF- STREET PARKING REGULATIONS", SUB-SUBSECTION 4.6.9(E)(3)(b), "LOCATION OF PARKING SPACES", TO INCLUDE A MAP WHICH DELINEATES THE IN-LIEU PARKING FEE AREAS AND CORRESPONDING FEE AMOUNTS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 43-01 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Paul Dorling, Planning Director, stated the Land Development Regulations, Sections 4.6.9(E)(3)(b)(1 through 4), explain in great detail the areas where in-lieu of parking fees are permitted along with their respective cost per space. There is currently no visual aid clarifying the areas described. The addition of a map to the LDR would clarify this provision for developers and applicants considering projects in the Delray Beach area. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), approval of an LDR amendment must be based upon a finding that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is being initiated more for "housekeeping" purposed than to fulfill any specific Comp Plan policy. At its meeting of July 16, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board, in concurrence with the Parking Management Advisory Board, unanimously recommended (7-0) approval of the proposed LDR text amendment to Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(b) to include the map delineating the in- lieu of parking fee areas and their respective cost per space, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). Mrs. Archer moved to approve Ordinance No. 43-01 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 12.C. ORDINANCE NO. 44-01: An ordinance amending Chapter 33, Police and Fire Departments Pension, Section 33.66 and Section 33.66(E)(2)(b) of the City Code of Ordinances which modifies the Police and Fire Pension Plan to conform with the Division of Retirement's concerns and meet the requirement of F.S. 112.661(5)(b). If passed, a public hearing will be scheduled for August 7, 2001. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 44-01: -33- 07/24/01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 33, "POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS", SUBHEADING "PENSIONS", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA BY AMENDING SECTION 33.66, "FINANCES AND FUND MANAGEMENT," SECTION 33.66(E)(2)(b), TO MODIFY THE TIME PERIOD FOR REBALANCING PENSION FUND ASSETS; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 44-01 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The City Attorney read the caption of ordinance. Mayor Schmidt commented that this was presented to the Police and Fire Pension Board at their last meeting and they are in favor of this amended ordinance. Mr. Perlman moved to approve Ordinance No. 44-01 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 13.A. City Manager. The City Manager noted that the year 2001 has been placed on the All America City sign. 13.B. City Attorney. The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C. 13.C.1. City Commission. Commissioner Archer Mrs. Archer reiterated that when the Commission met to discuss their goals, she mentioned that it may be worthwhile to send a letter to the MPO requesting some assistance with replanting the area on the interchanges along 1-95 because there was so much greenery that was removed that the City had paid for to put in. She is hoping to get support in replacing some of the greenery when the time comes. -34- 07/24/01 Secondly, Mrs. Archer stated it was very sad that Mr. Pompey passed away so close to Spady Day honoring the Spady Museum. Mrs. Archer stated she was sorry Mr. Pompey was not able to be at the museum and that she had been looking forward to him being there. 13.C.2. Commissioner Perlman With regard to Mr. Pompey, Mr. Perlman stated it was only two weeks ago that the Commission talked about the effort to create a statue and a bronze bust. Mr. Perlman feels it is extremely sad that Mr. Pompey is not alive to receive this honor. Mr. Perlman stated he has two stories regarding Mr. Pompey that he would like to share. One, when Mr. Perlman first came to Delray approximately fifteen years ago and was a brand new reporter on the Delray Beat, his editor informed him to meet with Mr. Pompey if he wanted to gain a better knowledge about local history. Mr. Perlman spent the entire afternoon with Mr. and Mrs. Pompey in their living room and touched base with them regularly throughout his years covering the City. Mr. Perlman stated Mr. Pompey had such tremendous insight and background and had been so much a part of creating the local history. Mr. Perlman stated the second story he would like to share is when he and Commissioner Levinson (candidate Levinson at the time) attended the Martin Luther King Day celebrations and tried to be inconspicuous. Mr. Perlman stated they showed up in a Corvette wearing suites and snuck into the auditorium and the next thing they knew microphones were thrust at them to make a speech and it was Mr. Pompey's doing. Mr. Perlman stated Mr. Pompey patted them on the back and he said, "When you're in public life, you always have to be prepared to talk". Mr. Perlman stated Mr. Pompey was a teacher from beginning to end and will be missed. 13.C.3. Commissioner McCarthy With regard to Mr. Pompey, Ms. McCarthy stated since she has been in office, she does not know or remember someone in our City of this magnitude that we all know and inquired if the Commission has certain obligations. Ms. McCarthy stated she will do her own personal things, but as a public servant asked if the City has a policy? Ms. McCarthy asked if the Commission would like to do something as a group in lieu of flowers and stated she would be more than happy to put funds together collectively for the statue. Mayor Schmidt announced donations may be sent to the NACIREMAS Club for the committee for the C. Spencer Pompey Sculpture Fund. Mrs. Archer commented she would not be unopposed to have the Commission do something as a whole and would be glad to contribute. Mrs. Archer recommended that the Commission contribute as a whole to the bronze bust. It was the consensus of the Commission as a whole to contribute funds to the bronze bust of C. Spencer Pompey. Ms. McCarthy stated she truly believes in the divine order because one of the things she remembers most about Spencer Pompey is the unique way he embraced and accepted -35- 07/24/01 people. One of the things Mr. and Mrs. Pompey said to her was for her to realize that you get out of the City what you put into the City no matter where you come from. Ms. McCarthy stated a very dear friend from Providence, Rhode Island called her and asked for the size of the flag in the tennis stadium. This friend proceeded to inform her that the flag from the country where Ms. McCarthy is from is not along side the other flags at the tennis stadium. With much pride, Ms. McCarthy presented a flag to the Commission from the Cape Verdi Islands and explained this is the country where part of her family is from. 13.C.4. Commissioner Levinson Mr. Levinson feels Mr. Pompey will be around in spirit for a long time and stated he does not feel anyone will forget him or the impact he had on this community. Mr. Levinson criticized the three-year term limits for the Code Enforcement Board and the four-year term limits for the Delray Beach Housing Authority and feels these terms are too long. Mr. Levinson suggested that staff look into these term limits. Mr. Levinson asked the City Manager if he was able to find anything out regarding the Tropic Isle dredging. In response, the City Manager stated he does not have any information at this time. With regard to Ms. Zimmerman's comments regarding fireworks, Mr. Levinson stated when he was a child, he recalls a Fire Department lecture showing children "this is your hand before fireworks and this is your hand after fireworks". Mr. Levinson suggested if appropriate, the Fire Department could look into giving lectures at the summer camps for children regarding the dangers of fireworks. Mr. Levinson stated he agrees with comments expressed by Mayor Schmidt regarding the aggregation of time and feels if there were a way to come up with something that makes sense he would be more than willing to review it. Mr. Levinson feels there should be some methodology by which other communities have dealt with this issue. Mr. Levinson commended Pat Warren for the great group of prospects she provided to the Commission for the City Boards. He feels there is a lot of new names and new people with great credentials. Mr. Levinson stated Mr. Jim Tabeek, Fire Inspector Lieutenant, informed him when he traveled this summer he saw other cities who were also winners of the All America City Award and stated these cities had utilized the logos on unique places. Mr. Tabeek suggested that the City of Delray place these logos where they are visible from other places such as the turnpike entrance or the Interstate. 13.C.5. Mayor Schmidt -36- 07/24/01 Mayor Schmidt echoed comments expressed by Commissioner Perlman regarding Spencer Pompey. With regard to Mr. Bennett's request regarding aggregating time, Mayor Schmidt stated he feels this concept is right for abuse. Mayor Schmidt stated there was someone here in the not too distant past representing himself as a Homeowners' Association and he was not on the Board. Mayor Schmidt informed Mr. Bennett if he would like to draft something that would help eliminate all those problems, the Commission could certainly take a look at it. With regard to some comments expressed recently regarding the CRA Board, people thought the four-year term was too long and people should not be appointed for more than one four-year term. Mayor Schmidt stated he finds it interesting that on tonight's agenda the Commission considered appointments to the Code Enforcement Board which has a three year term and the Delray Beach Housing Authority which has a four year term set by Florida Statute. He stated there has been no criticisms or comments regarding these terms. at 9:10 p.m. There being no further business, Mayor Schmidt declared the meeting adjourned ATTEST: Acting City Clerk MAYOR The undersigned is the Acting 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 July 24, 2001, which minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on Acting 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. -37- 07/24/01 Mayor Schmidt echoed comments expressed by Commissioner Perlman regarding Spencer Pompey. With regard to Mr. Bennett's request regarding aggregating time, Mayor Schmidt stated he feels this concept is right for abuse. Mayor Sehmidt stated there was someone here in the not too distant past representing himself as a Homeowners' Association and he was not on the Board. Mayor Schmidt informed Mr. Bennett if he would like to draft something that would help eliminate all those problems, the Commission could certainly take a look at it. With regard to some comments expressed recently regarding the CRA Board, people thought the four-year term was too long and people should not be appointed for more than one four-year term. Mayor Schmidt stated he finds it interesting that on tonight's agenda the Commission considered appointments to the Code Enforcement Board which has a three year term and the Delray Beach Housing Authority which has a four year term set by Florida Statute. He stated there has been no criticisms or comments regarding these terms. There being no further business, Mayor Schmidt declared the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Acting City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the Acting 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 1, which minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on 7, qoo/ . Acting 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. -37- 07/24/0I VICTOR AND IRENE MONTALBAN 4697 CANAL DRIVE LAKE WORTH, FL 33463 July 15, 2001 Mr. David Schmidt Honorable Mayor City of Delray Beach 100 NWI st Avenue Defray Beach, Fl 33~,~ Dem Mayor Schmidt: I am requesting that you consider the proposed day entre site on 245 South Swinton Avenue. I own this property and do not feel that this will negatively impact this area. If anything it will help the negativity of the "SOUTH" Swinton area. As is evident the once quiet residential area of North Swinton has now been turned into a VERY desireable area because of its businesses and historic homes. I feel that The Sundy House location on South Swinton has started to improve the property values on the south side and by allowing other businesses to come to the south side will only positively impact the area. It is my understanding that the CRA is planning to make SW 1st Avenue (behind the Sundy House) into a Bahamian village with pavers along the street. The historic houses that are part of the Sundy House are to be converted into antique shops, gift shops, etc. If this happens as planned there will be more traffic, more tourists, people, etc. in this area. The growth of South Swinton Avenue will be inevitable. The residents that are protesting this site are not even the homes that border up to this property. I would understand if these bordering residents were protesting this, but they are not as is evidenced by the signed petition in favor of this site. My home is zoned RM (Residential Medium Density). This allows me, or ifI sell the home, the new owner or myself to just simply obtain a permit from the City to turn the property into 'An Abused Spouse Residence with twelve or fewer residents', mm the property into "Group Homes, Level I or II', and other uses just to mention two. By turning the home into 'Grammy's Place' the home will not lose its residential look or appeal. The fencing that I need to replace(it was rotted and falling down)n~gll enclose the home. In accordance with the Planning and Zoning requirements more landscaping and trees will also be added to enhance its appeal. The Planning and Zoning requested that the pick up and drop offpoints be on S.E.3rd not Swinton Avenue. The Planning and Zoning Dept. also requested that these pick up/drop ofttimes be limited, only ocuning between the hours of 6:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m. Ifa child's parent's work schedule causes them the need to pick up or drop off on the offhours they will have to allow the children to stay until 6:00 a.m., etc. or will have to find another day care to accomodate their need. The woman are willing to comply with these times and will not risk having their 'license' pulled by not adhering to these times. Some of the surrounding neighbors are concerned that these times will not be adhered to and that there is no monitoring system to ensure this. The Police Department tries to give citations to every citizen who has either a traffic violation, criminal violation, etc. Code Enforcement tries to give citations to all that do not comply with city codes. It is impossible for these departments to monitor every single activity and ongoing violation at all times. At least these woman have a vested interest. They have already invested quite a lot of monies into all the city paperwork that is required for approval, as well as with architects, etc. and have leased the property for 3 months empty, trying to adhere to all the Planning and Zoning requirements. They have been working very closely with Planning and Zoning and to deny this site now would be a travisty. I know everyone already recognizes that there is a need is for a 24 hour day care. The woman have even canvassed the City Police and City Fire Department employees' need with overwhelming results. By having City employees who also have this need would indeed be a community asset. I feel this will not negatively impact redevelopment in the area. Currently Osceola Park is the focus for redevelopment which is just east of this property. I know as a parent it is important for me to live close to the day care that my child will be attending. A parent does not want to drive 5 miles in one direction to drop offtheir child in day care, and then drive 5 miles in another direction to commute to work. By choosing this site it might even encourage day care users to move into the Osceola Park area. As you know I bought this house to rehab the home. My husband and I have bought other homes in the City of Delray and have ONLY POSITIVI~.Y impacted the areas. The first home we rehabbed was a rental house and cottage on N.E. 12th Street located in Del Ida Park which was rampent with drugs, crime, and undesirables at that time. We purchased this three years ago with City violations on it and termite infested. We had to attend a Code Enforcement Board Hearing because the property was being liened and they agreed not to lien the property since we were purchasing it. After rehabbing that property we were chosen as "House of the Month" by the Seacrest Homeowner's Association. Our home was even featured as a surprise to us on the slide show at the yearly meeting that was held by the City at Old School Square. The second home we purchased was a foreclosed duplex on that block which was in poor condition. The CRA requested that we work with them to sell the "duplex" so that they could start implementing a program they had in place to convert duplexes into single family homes. We sold the "duplex" to an architect from San Francisco, California who converted into a beautiful single family home. It is my understanding that the house is under contract, and she will be closing the sale soon. The asking price for this home was $175,000. We spoke with the owner of the rented duplex next door to our home at that lime and found out that she would be interested in selling it. We referred this home to the CRA and they bought it. I have a friend who is a Manager of a local bank and she was interested in rehabbing. I referred her to the CRA and she purchased this duplex and converted it into a beautiful single family home and it is for sale for $175,000. My husband and I HELPED to make that area what it is today. I have spoken to a Real Estate appraiser who informed me that "by having businesses on or off the North Swinton Avenue side has only positively impacted the surrounding areas. The property values have only risen to a remarkedly high level. By putting a day care on that s'ne will only positively impact SOUTH Swinton Avenue and help it take off.like the other side." As a City Commissioner I would hope that you will see the positive impact and benefit that this day care center will have on 'South' Swinton Avenue. Others will probably follow suit. As one neighbor stated 'I would welcome a day center, this area is beginning to have quite a few halfway houses and group homes. I would not want South Swinton to have a reputation of being a halfway house neighborhood, then property values will really go down." We hope that you will vote for this s/te to become "Grammy's Place". Thank you for your time. Sincerely, KEEP SOUTH SWINTON AVENUE RESIDENTIAL We are opposed to ~245 South Swinton Avenue being developed as a 24 hour/7 days a week Child Care Center for 22 Children ranging in age from 2-12 years. This will severely impact property values in th~s exciting new area currently being developed and rehabilitated by the area residents, thus causing a significant detrimental effect in the future development of this neighborhood which has only recently begun,..,,., Name Address KEEP SOUTH SWINTON AVENUE RESIDENTIAL We are opposed to ~245 South Swinton Avenue being developed as a 24 hour/7 days a week Child Care Center for 22 Children ranging in age from 2-12 years. This will severely impact property values, in this exciting new area currently being developed and rehabilitated by the area residents, thus causing a significant detrimental effect in the futura development of this neighborhood which has only recently begun, Name Address COMMENTS_.AN~_~NOU!..RIE..$ ON NON-AGENPA_ ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC October 17, 2000 Comment of John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue: Well, I look up over there [pointing to Goals poster on the west wall of the Chamber] and the top priority is ~cltizens feeling included in the community," but that was the old Commission, and here we are more than half way through the new Commission and this [holding up a copy of the Strategic Plan 2000-2005, dated April 2000] hasn't been put up on the wal;1 yet, yet the Strategic Plan, in here we have ~Community Unity," under which is 'Citizens Having Access to City Government - Input Sought and Used." Yet for years, the procedures y'all employ, and your predecessors did, kind of work against that. And I say that on the basis of observations of some controversial issues, going back to the time when only Mr. Schmidt sat up here. Ah, whether it be a controversial ordinance or some kind of quasi-judicial hearing with a controversial applicant, the typical procedure is that Staff gets up and talks to the recommendation as long as they want and, if that's an ordinance then it goes, then the Individual citizens get their three minutes, and then it goes to the Commission. If it's a hearing, then the applicant unlimited time and then it goes to the, ah, citizens for ,their three minutes and then you all ask the applicant, and then he gets to sum up, and somewhere along in that process, he may say things that members of the public think are rather outre, but, ah, their three minutes have already passed. So they go away, particularly the people coming here the one time for this gut wrenching issue, and that's the only time they show up here, with the perception that y'all are bending over backwards for people who don't even live in Delray and giving the citizens short shrift. Now, I'm not here to contest the three minute rule, 'cause I understand it has a purpose of limiting time, and people like me, who can't finish in three minutes, probably couldn't finish in five minutes, and any period is arbitrary anyway. But I do. wonders, served, what purpose is served by saying that people can't combine their time into a coherent presentation. In the Pathw~),s hearing, you had a group of citizens that seriously analyzed the land use issues, ah, and various other issues and tried to assign one to a person. But the first guy got up and sort of stumbled through his thing, and the next got up and it wasn't as coherent as it would have been, if they could have said we'll have one person step up here and give our whole thing and I yield my time to that person. Now why do you not let that happen? It serves your own interest because then you'll get the information from those people in a clearer fashion and it's not going to take any more time. Now, the only thing I can think of is you'll say ~Well, somebody who isn't going to speak will give his time up.' But that's good too. Because ifa person is too scared to speak or doesn't want to speak, is embarrassed, or whatever, they can feel part of the process, if they can give their time to somebody else, who will present their views. So that's a recommendation I would make to you. And, ah, I guess that the short term challenge is %Vhat purpose is served by not allowing that?" You know, articulate that, and is it good? And ff it isn't good, the long term challenge is ~change the procedure.' Secondary, my charge would be: why don't you ask some of your questions before the public speaks, so they can respond to some of the answers. Now, what they say may result in more questions from y'all, but, you know, ah, it improves the process slightly. In any event, I feel that would improve the process and people's perception of it. Thank you. Items taken from the O_& A period of All-American City presentation 2001. As the Mayor told the All-America City judges (last Month): The Commission has opened up the process and allowed more citizen input and community involvement. It's a continuing challenge for us and one that we embrace.