87-94 WEINER & MORICI, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LA W
The Clark House
102 North Swinton Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
MICHAEL S. WEINER South Palm Beach County: (407) 265-2666
· t.~)~J~ North Palm Beach County: (407) 736-5888
CAROLE ARONSON Broward County: (305) 462-4935
Telecopier: (407) 272-6831
OF COUNSEL:
PETER J, MURRAY
December 15, 1994
Ms. Barbara Garito
Ms. Celeste McDonough
The City Clerk's Office
Finance Division
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Re: Minutes of the Meeting of
November 15, 1994 of the City
Commission of Delray Beach, FL
Our File No.: DCCP(163)001
Dear Ms. Garito and Ms. McDonough:
This will confirm with you that I, Michael Weiner, visited City
Hall on December 15, 1994 for the purposes of obtaining a.conformed
or certified copy of the City Commission Minutes of November 15,
1994. You indicated that the minutes were not available and that
typographical errors remained which had to be corrected by City
Commission directive~ In addition, you later indicated to my staff
that neither the Clerk or Deputy Clerk was available and would not
be available for the remainder of the day. Accordingly, no minutes
could/~giv~n to us, conformed or otherwise on December 15, 1994.
WEINER & MORICl, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LA W
The Clark House
102 North Swinton Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
MICHAEL S. WEINER South Palm Beach County: (407) 265-2666
~J,.~_(~J North Palm Beach County: (407) 736-5888
CAROLE ARONSON Broward County: (305) 462-4935
Telecopier: (407) 272-6831
OF COUNSEL:
PETER J. MURRAY
VIA HAND DELIVERY
December 13, 1994
Allison McGregor-Hardy
Clerk of the City of
Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
RE: Weinberger, Bernheim and Delaire Country Club Property
Owners Association, Inc. v. The City of Delray Beach and MDL
Realty Co.
Our File No.: DCCP(163)001
Dear Ms. Hardy:
Please accept for filing the enclosed original and five (5) copies
of the Verified Complaint Challenging the Consistency of Acts of
Local Government and Seeking Declaratory, Injunctive and Other
Relief.
This complaint is filed with your office pursuant to the terms of
Florida Statutes Section 163.3215.
Please execute the enclosed acknowledgment of receipt of the
verified complaint.
Thank~u for your cooperation.
Ver~rul~ yomr/,
MiChael S. ~iner
MSW/en
Enclosure C~Y CLERK,
cc: Alan C. Kauffman, Esquire
Mr. Saul Weinberger
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF VERIFIED COMPLAINT CH~T~.mNGING
THE CONSISTKNCT OF ACTS OF LOCAL~OVERRMENTAND SEKKING
INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby acknowledges receipt of an original and
5 copies of the Verified Complaint Challenging the Consistency of
Acts of Local Government and Seeking Injunctive and Other Relief,
and styled Saul Weinberger, Daniel S. Bernheim, Jr., and Delaire
Country Club Property Owners Association, Inc., Plaintiffs, vs.
The City of Delray Beach, The City Commission of the City of Delray
Beach, Florida and its Commissioners, Tom Lynch, Jay Alperin, David
Randolph, Barbara Smith and Ken Ellingsworth, in their official
capacities, Defendants, this /~h day of December, 1994, at
p .m.
Clerk of tile City df Delra~ Beach
Palm Beach County, Florida
BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
SAUL WEINBERGER,
DANIEL S. BERNHEIM, JR.,
and DELAIRE COUNTRY CLUB
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Plaintiffs,
VS.
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA and its Commissioners,
TOM LYNCH, JAY ALPERIN,
DAVID RANDOLPH, BARBARA SMITH
and KEN ELLINGSWORTH, in their
official capacities,
Defendants.
/
VERIFIED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3215
FLORIDA STATUTES, CH~T.T.ENGING THE CONSISTENCY OF ACTS OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND SEEKING DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
COME NOW, Plaintiffs, SAUL WEINBERGER, DANIEL S. BERNHEIM,
JR., and DELAIRE COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
MAXWELL A. WHITE its President, by and through their undersigned
attorney, and sue the Defendants, THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, THE
CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA and its
Commissioners, TOM LYNCH, JAY ALPERIN, DAVID RANDOLPH, BARBARA
SMITH and KEN ELLINGSWORTH, in their official capacities, pursuant
to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, and allege as follows:
-1-
NATURE OF CAUSE OF ACTION
1. This is an action under State Law challenging the
consistency of acts of a local government with the stated goals,
objectives and policies of its adopted comprehensive plan pursuant
to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. The action seeks
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and all such other relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.
2. The specific acts of the local government that are
alleged to be inconsistent with the local government's
comprehensive plan are, inter alia, the actions of the Defendants
granting the rezoning petition of MDL Realty Co. and the enactment
of Ordinance No. 87-94 that approved the rezoning of a certain
parcel of real property known as and referred to herein as "the
Taheri Property."
3. The Plaintiffs are aggrieved or adversely affected
parties as defined in Section 163.3215(2), Florida Statutes.
4. Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, requires and
authorizes the Plaintiffs to file this Verified Complaint, and the
Defendants to receive this verified complaint, and directs the
Defendants to respond to this verified complaint within thirty (30)
days after receipt of the verified complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. The jurisdiction of the Court over this action is based
upon the following:
A. the Florida Declaratory Judgment Act (Chapter 86,
Florida Statutes)~
--2--
B. the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act (Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes)
(herein the "Act");
C. the Delray Beach Comprehensive Plan; and
D. the Land Development Regulations of Delray Beach,
Florida as adopted by Ordinance No. 25-90, as amended (hereinafter
the "LDRs"). (Both C and D are collectively referred to herein as
the "Zoning Regulations").
6. The actions and inactions by the Defendants giving rise
to the cause of action set forth in this verified complaint
occurred in Delray Beach, Florida and the proper venue for this
action is therefore Palm Beach County, Florida pursuant to Section
163.3215(5), Florida Statutes.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff, WEINBERGER, is an owner of real property
located at 4469 White Cedar Lane, Delray Beach, Florida 33445.
8. Plaintiff, BERNHEIM, is an owner of real property located
at 4198 Live Oak Boulevard, Delray Beach, Florida 33445.
9. All of the foregoing properties are located in t he
community known as Delaire, a residential community located within
five hundred (500) feet of the subject property, further described
below.
10. Plaintiff, Delaire Country Club Property Owners
Association, Inc. is a homeowners' association duly formed under
the laws of the State of Florida, consisting of property owners in
the Delaire community.
--3--
11. Defendant City of Delray Beach (herein "Defendant City"
or "City") is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Florida.
12. The Defendant City Commission of Delray Beach, Florida
(herein the "Defendant Commission" or the "Commission") is the
legislative governing body of the Defendant City that exercises
legislative and other powers of City government through its
Commissioners including (a) the adoption of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and zoning and other land development
regulations, and (b) the review and approval of various land use
applications, permits and development orders permitted by the
City's Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations and other
Ordinances, including rezonings.
13. Defendant LYNCH, ALPERIN, RANDOLPH, SMITH and
ELLINGSWORTH (hereinafter the "Defendant Commissioners" or the
"Commissioners") are the Commissioners of the Defendant City
Commission and are sued herein in their official capacities as
Commissioners of the Defendant Commission only, and not in their
individual capacities.
NATURE OF CONTROVERSY AND DISPUTE
14. This action involves the zoning classification and
permitted use and development of a forty (40) acre parcel of land
owned by MDL Realty Co. ("MDL") that is located on the east side of
Military Trail, and within five hundred feet (500) of property
owned by Plaintiffs.
-4-
15. The controversy and bona fide dispute involved in this
action arise from certain actions taken by the Defendants including
the granting by the Defendants of a Rezoning Petition filed by MDL
that permits the Taheri Property to be rezoned from "POC" (office)
and "A" (Agricultural) zoning to multi-family residential use at a
density of ten (10) units per acre, leaving the classification of
RM-10. The Plaintiffs contend that the change in the zoning
classification of the Taheri Property and the actions of the
Defendants, including the granting of the MDL Rezoning Petition and
the approval of the rezoning of the Taheri Property by the
Defendants, were and are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and are otherwise arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious.
GENERAL FACTUAL ~?.~EGATIONS
16. In 1975, the Florida legislature adopted legislation
requiring statewide comprehensive planning. The legislation was
known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975.
This legislation was substantially amended in 1985 by the Florida
legislature. The 1985 legislation is known as the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act and is
codified as Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (herein the
"Act").
17. The stated purpose of the Act is to "utilize and
strengthen the existing role, processes and powers of local
governments in the establishment and implementation of
comprehensive planning programs to guide and control future
development." Section 163.3161(2), 'Florida Statutes.
--5--
18. The Act specifically states that "adopted comprehensive
plans shall have the legal status set out in this Act" and that "no
public or private development shall be permitted except in
conformity with comprehensive plans...prepared and adopted in
conformity with this Act." Section 163.3161(5), Florida Statutes.
19. The Florida legislature has specifically determined that
the provisions of the Act are "the minimum requirements
necessary...to maintain, through orderly growth and development,
the character and stability of present and future land use and
development...in the State of Florida." Section 163.3161(7),
Florida Statutes.
20. The Act, in summary, requires each local government to
adopt a comprehensive plan in conformance with the State planning
Act to govern future growth and development. In order to ensure
that all development approved is consistent with the comprehensive
plan once it is adopted, the Act also includes two other mandates.
First, within one year from the date its comprehensive plan is
transmitted to the State land planning agency for review under the
Act, a local government is required to adopt new or revised land
development regulations (including zoning regulations) that
implement and are consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.
Second, all development orders issued by the local government after
the adoption of the comprehensive plan are required to be
consistent with the comprehensive plan, and each element thereof.
21. The definition of "land development regulations" under
the Act is extremely broad and includes all ordinances enacted for
--6--
the regulation of any aspect of development, including any local
government rezoning, subdivision, building construction or sign
regulations, or any other regulations controlling the development
of land. Section 163.3164(22), Florida Statutes.
22. Effectively, the definition of development order under
the Act is sufficiently broad to include approvals of all types of
development applications, including a rezoning petition.
"Development order" is defined to mean any order granting, denying,
or granting with conditions an application for development permit.
Section 163.3164(6), Florida Statutes. "Development permit"
includes any building permit, zoning permit, subdivision approval,
rezoning certification, special exception, variance, or any other
official action of local government having the effect of permitting
the development of land. Section 163.3164(7), Florida Statutes.
23. The Act provides that a development order or land
development regulation is consistent with the local qovernment's
comprehensive plan "if the land uses, densities or intensities and
other aspects of development permitted by such order or regulation
are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land
uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if
it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government."
Section 163.3194(3)(b), Florida Statutes (emphasis supplied).
24. In accordance with, and in conformity with the laws then
in existence, the Defendant Commission as the governing board of
Delray Beach, Florida, in 1989 adopted "The Comprehensive Plan for
the City of Delray Beach" by enacting Ordinance No. 82-89.
-7-
25. As a precursor to the Defendant Commission's adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan, certain local and state land planning
agency reviews, state intergovernmental reviews, and public review
and commentary occurred.
26. The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Delray Beach
held public hearings on the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
27. Following the aforesaid public hearings the Planning and
Zoning Board made revisions to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and
forwarded the proposed plan, together with supporting
documentation, to the Defendant Commission.
28. The Defendant Commission held public hearings on the
proposed Comprehensive Plan as revised and recommended by the
Planning and Zoning Board.
29. Following public hearings and revisions, the
Comprehensive Plan, with supporting documentation, was transmitted
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") pursuant to
the Act's requirements.
30. As the state land planning agency, the DCA coordinated
intergovernmental review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, by
disseminating a copy of the proposed Comprehensive Plan to the
Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Natural
Resources, the Department of Transportation, the water management
district for Palm Beach County, Florida, and the regional planning
council for Palm Beach County, Florida, in accordance with Florida
Statutes, Section 163.3184(4).
-8-
31. As the previous allegations set forth, in paragraphs the
Comprehensive Plan was scrutinized by state and local planning
agencies, intergovernmental disciplines, and the citizenry of
Delray Beach, Florida prior to its adoption.
32. The Comprehensive Plan provides specific comprehensive
goals, objectives, and policies to guide future land use and zoning
decisions in Delray Beach, Florida.
33. The Comprehensive Plan was based upon sufficient,
reliable data, with projections and calculations provided by
specialists at the state as well as local and regional levels and
subject to public review and comment prior to its adoption.
34. The Comprehensive Plan is entitled to control the
decisions of the Planning Department, the Planning and Zoning
Board, the Defendant Commission and the Commissioners, as it was
deemed consistent with all legal criteria by the DCA, and was duly
adopted after full participation by the appropriate
intergovernmental divisions, and public, upon adequate review of
all trends and interests.
35. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following Elements:
Conservation; Public Facilities; Traffic; Open Space and
Recreation; Housing; Coastal Management; Future Land Use; Capital
Improvements; and Intergovernmental Coordination.
36. Each Element in the Comprehensive Plan generally provides
an inventory and analysis of the particular resource; and
identifies the existing resource and use patterns, planning
concerns, constraints, and future projected demands; and sets forth
--9--
opportunities. Each chapter concludes with a plan setting forth
goals, objectives and policies for that plan element.
A. The Housing Element
(i) Goals area "C" of the Housing Element states "The
housing needs of current and future residents of the City and the
region, including the need of belonging to a community which has
identity and pride, shall be met through rehabilitation,
redevelopment, and the development of vacant land."
(ii) Policy C-2.1 provides "Vacant land areas west of
1-95, shown on the Future Land Use Map a low density residential
and rural residential, shall be retained for single family detached
housing or low density plan unit residential development."
(iii) Policy C-3.1 provides, in part "Affordable
housing for moderate and middle income families, particularly first
time home buyers shall be achieved through increases in density
(rezoning) when it can be demonstrated that the increase will
result in a more affordable product provided that other policies of
this element are maintained." (Emphasis supplied.)
B. Future Land Use Element
(i) Goal Area "A" provides "The remaining vacant land
within the planning area shall be developed in such a manner as to
enhance the existing quality of life and complement existing land
use and result in a mixed, but predominantly residential community
with a balanced economic base (LUPG)".
-10-
(ii) Objective A-3 provides "The development of remaining
land shall provide for the retention of open space and natural
resources."
(iii) The definition of "Medium Density, Stable" in
Section 5 of the Future Land Use Element provides "Home ownership
is characteristic of this designation."
PROCEDURAL ~.~EGATIONS
37. Ail conditions precedent to the maintenance of this
action have been satisfied, have occurred or have been waived by
the Defendants.
38. Plaintiffs have exhausted all of their administrative
remedies, or it would be futile, to no avail and a waste of time to
further pursue Plaintiffs' administrative remedies, if any.
39. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer
irreparable injury and harm unless the relief requested is granted.
COUNT I.
STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION BASED
UPON INCONSISTENCY OF DEFENDANTS' ACTIONS
WITH LOCAL GOVERNNENT'S CONPREHENSIVE PLAN
40. This is a statutory cause of action brought by the
Plaintiffs against the Defendants pursuant to Section 163.3215(1),
Florida Statutes, and the Florida Declaratory Judgment Act for
declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief.
41. The Plaintiffs reallege Paragraph 1 through 39 above and
incorporate them herein by reference as though fully alleged
herein.
42. In 1985, the Florida legislature adopted Section
163.3215, Florida Statutes, (Section 18, Laws of Florida, 1985).
-11-
This new section of the Florida Statutes creates a new and
exclusive statutory cause of action to enable aggrieved or
adversely affected parties to challenge or prevent local
governments from taking any action on a development order, such as
the Ordinance 87-94, that is not consistent with local government's
comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to the State Planning Act.
43. Subsection (1) of Section 163.3125, Florida Statutes,
provides in pertinent part that "Any aggrieved or adversely
affected party may maintain an action for injunctive or other
relief against any local government to prevent such local
government from taking any action on a development order...that is
not consistent with the comprehensive plan adopted...by the local
government under the Act."
44. Subsection (2) of Section 163.3125, Florida Statutes,
defines an aggrieved or adversely affected party to mean: "Any
person...which will suffer an adverse effect to an interest
protected or furthered by the local government comprehensive plan.
The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other
members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the
general interest in community good shared by all persons."
45. Subsection (3)(b) of Section 163.3125, Florida Statutes,
provides that a suit under this section shall be the sole action
available to challenqe the consistency of a development order with
a comprehensive plan adopted under "the Act". (Section
163.3215(3)(b), Florida Statutes) (emphasis supplied).
-12-
46. As a condition precedent to the institution of an action
pursuant to this section of the Florida Statutes, the complaining
party must first file a verified complaint with the local
government whose actions are complained of setting forth the facts
upon which the Complaint is based and the relief sought by the
complaining party. The verified complaint must be filed within
thirty days after the alleged inconsistent action has been taken by
the local government. Section 163.3215(4), Florida Statutes.
47. Thereafter, the complaining party may institute the
statutory action authorized. The action, however, must be
commenced within thirty days after the expiration of the thirty day
period during which the local government may take appropriate
action on the verified complaint filed by the complaining party.
Section 163.3215(4), Florida Statutes.
48. Plaintiffs were, and are, an "aggrieved or adversely
affected party" as defined by Section 163.3215(2), Florida
Statutes.
49. Plaintiffs have complied with Section 163.3215(4),
Florida Statutes by filing this verified complaint with the
Defendants within thirty days after Defendants granted MDL Realty's
Rezoning Petition and approved Ordinance No. 87-84.
50. The actions taken by Defendants granting MDL Realty
Rezoning Petition approving Ordinance No. 87-94 and are not
consistent with and, in fact, were and are inconsistent with the
Act, the LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan because, inter alia, they
are not compatible with and do not further the goals, policies,
-13-
objectives and uses and densities or intensities set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan and, in fact, discourage the goals, policies,
objectives and land uses and densities or intensities set forth in
the Comprehensive Plan as hereinafter alleged.
51. The Defendants' granting rezoning of the Taheri Property
to RM-10 (medium density residential, ten units per acre) is inter
alia:
A. Inconsistent with Goals Area "C" of the Housing Element
of the Comprehensive Plan in that no proof was offered by the
Applicant and no finding made by Defendant Commission regarding the
identity and pride of the Community and its residents, as required
by that section.
B. Inconsistent with Policy C-2.1 of the Housing Element
which policy shows a clear intent on part of the City to form
additional single family detached housing in the vacant areas west
of 1-95, such as the Taheri Property. The plan shows a clear
preference for single family housing as opposed to large rental
developments in property such as the Taheri Property.
C. Inconsistent with Policy C-3.1 of the Housing Element
which stresses the need for single family homes. The Applicant
provided evidence that luxury apartments would be constructed on
the Taheri Property, which is in direct contravention to the clear
policy of the Comprehensive Plan. The desire to assist first time
single family home buyers is completely disregarded if the Taheri
Property is used for luxury apartments.
-14-
D. Inconsistent with the Goal Area "A" of the Future Land
Use Element as the Applicant failed to show and Defendant
Commission made no finding that the rezoning would enhance the
existing quality of life for residents of Delray Beach. In fact,
both the Applicant and Plaintiffs produced evidence of the
deleterious effects on the quality of life for Delray Beach
residents, such as increased traffic.
The Applicant also failed to show, and Defendant Commission
made no findings that the use intended would complement the
existing land use. Evidence was produced regarding communities in
Boca Raton, but such a comparison overlooks the distinctions from
Boca Raton that Delray Beach has long sought to has achieve.
E. Inconsistent with the Objective A-3 of the Future Land
Use Element as there was no showing by the Applicant and Defendant
Commission made no findings that open spaces or natural resources
would be retained by virtue of the rezoning. In fact, just the
opposite was shown: Thirty-five acres of the Taheri Property are
currently zoned for agriculture. Open space and natural resources
will, of necessity, be destroyed by a multi-family residential
complex.
F. Inconsistent with the definition of "Medium Density,
Stable" in Section 5 of the Future Land Use Element which provides
"Home ownership is characteristic of this designation." The
project to be built on the subject property will be exclusively a
rental project. This is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive
-15-
Plan for the geographic area in which the Taheri Property is
located.
52. In accordance with Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes,
the Plaintiffs have a clear legal right to injunctive relief
against the Defendants to prohibit actions by which they will
suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by
the Comprehensive Plan.
53. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan requires
consistency with each and every element of the Plan. Machado v.
Musqrove, 519 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987), review denied 529
So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1988). This was not shown by Defendants.
54. The Defendants' adoption and approval of the rezoning of
the Taheri Property and the Ordinance 87-94, unless enjoined or
restrained, will cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs in that,
as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct,
Plaintiffs are denied the right to use the Plaintiffs' Property
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request the Defendants, pursuant to
Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, to rescind their action
approving the rezoning of the Taheri Property Ordinance No. 87-94.
COUNT II.
THE REZONING OF THE TAHERI PROPERTY
WAS ~,~IT~Y AND C~.PRICIOUS ~D NOT
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTI~., COMPETENT EVIDENCE
55. This is an action for declaratory, injunctive, equitable
and other judicial relief brought pursuant to the Florida
-16-
Declaratory Judgment Act and the general, equitable jurisdiction of
the Court.
56. The Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 55 above and
incorporate them herein by reference as though fully alleged
herein.
57. The actions of the Defendants in granting the rezoning of
the Taheri Property and in approving Ordinance 87-94 under the
facts and circumstances previously alleged above:
a. were, and are, arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable;
b. were, and are, in violation of the Act, the Comprehensive
Plan and the zoning regulations of the Defendant City;
c. do not substantially advance the public health, safety,
morals or general welfare, and do not bear any substantial and real
relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general
welfare; and
d. depart from the essential requirements of the law.
58. The actions of the Defendants in granting rezoning of the
Taheri Property and approving Ordinance 87-94 under the facts and
circumstances previously alleged above, were not supported by
competent, substantial evidence and were, therefore, arbitrary,
whimsical, capricious and unreasonable.
59. As a result of the facts and circumstances previously
alleged, the Plaintiffs are in doubt as to their respective rights,
powers, privileges and immunities and of the Defendants' rights,
powers, privileges and immunities under the United States
Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Florida, the Act,
-17-
Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Regulations, including the validity and legality of the
zoning classification of the Taheri Property and the validity and
the legality of the Defendants' actions granting rezoning of the
Taheri Property and Ordinance 87-94.
60. There is a bona fide, actual, justiciable controversy
existing between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and there is an
actual, practical and present need for the declaratory, injunctive
and/or other relief requested because unless enjoined, the
Defendants' actions previously alleged will continue to result in
a loss to the Plaintiffs of its substantial rights to the
reasonable use and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs' Property.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request the Defendants, pursuant to
Section 153.3215, Florida Statutes, to rescind their action
approving the rezoning of the Taheri Property Ordinance No. 87-94,
along with such other and further relief as may be available,
including an award of costs and attorney fees.
WEINER & MORICI, P.A.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
102 North Swinton Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
(407) %65~2666
(407) ]~7~8 ~8 - Palm Beach
' ~/~B~ard
Florida Bar { a.: 265251
and
-18-
5355 To]~n Cen.t,~ Road
Boca R~': ';
(407) I
~"~/No.: 495042
-19-
VITRIFICATION
STATE OF FLORID~ )
) ss
~OUNTY OF PA/~ BE~H )
Before me, the undersigned authority personally appeared
Saul Weinberger who is personally known to me, and who did take an
oath and further having been duly sworn, hereby depose and says as
follows:
1. He is one of the Petitioners in the within Verified
Complaint.
2. He has read the foregoing Verified Complaint and the same
is true and correct to the best of his personal knowledge and
belief.
FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NAUGHT
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
i~The_ foregoin9 instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of ~ , 1994 by SAUL WEINBERGER, who is
to m?~_~~_as produced ~
n a~ho did~id not tak~n/o~ th/~.
N6tary Public '--
Printed-Signature of Notary
My Commission expires:
VERIFICATION
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
Before me, the undersigned authority personally appeared
Daniel S. Bernheim, Jr., who is personally known to me, and who did
take an oath and further having been duly sworn, hereby depose and
says as follows:
1. He is one of the Petitioners in the within Verified
Complaint.
2. He has read the foregoing Verified Complaint and the same
is true and correct to the best of his personal knowledge and
belief.
FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NAUGHT
DANIEL S. BERNHEIM, JR. (t
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
i~ The foregoing, instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of I~ ., 1994 by DANIEL S. BERNHEIM, JR.,
.who is persona] ]y ~n~_n ~ me or who has produce_qg~__~ .
as identification a~/dld not take
~'~.;~...-~ se,,:~m. ,. ~ j,.,~ N~ary Public <
.... ' P~ihted Signature of Notary
My Co~ission expires:
-21-
VERIFICATION
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) SS
COUNTY OF P~BEACH )
Before me, the undersigned authority personally appeared
Maxwell A. White, who is personally known to me, and who did take
an oath and further having been duly sworn, hereby depose and says
as follows:
1. He is the President of Delaire Country Club Property
Owners Association, Inc., a homeowners' association duly formed
under the laws of the State of Florida.
2. Delaire Country Club Property Owners Association, Inc. is
one of the Petitioners in the within Verified Complaint.
3. Individually and on behalf of Delaire Country Club
Property Owners Association, Inc., he has read the foregoing
Verified Complaint and the same is true and correct to the best of
his personal knowledge and belief.
FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NAUGHT
'MAXWEL~ ~. WHITE, i~dividuaI~y
and as P~esident on behalf of
Delaire Country Club Property
Owners Association, Inc.
(SEE ADDITIONAL PAGE FOR NOTARY ACKNOW'r_,EDGMENT)
-22-
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
f,~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of ~ ~ ., 1994 by MAXWELL A. WHITE,
individually and as President on behalf of Delaire Country Club
Property Owners Association, Inc., who is personally known to me or
W~has ,~ .roduced ~ -- ~-~i f~ation ~nd
,"'Who did/~id not take an oath. ' ~ ..... ~ ....
Printed Signature of Notary
My Commission expires:
-23-
ORDINANCE NO. 87-94
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND
PRESENTLY ZONED POC (PLANNED OFFICE CENTER) DISTRICT,
IN PART, AND A (AGRICULTURAL) DISTRICT, IN PART, TO
RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, WHICH
PROVIDES A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH FLEXIBLE
DENSITIES HAVING A BASE OF SIX (6) UNITS PER ACRE AND
A RANGE TO TWELVE (12) UNITS PER ACRE, AND WHICH ALSO
AUTHORIZES THE CITY COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH THE
DENSITY FOR A SPECIFIC RM DEVELOPMENT BY AFFIXING A
NUMERICAL SUFFIX TO THE DESIGNATION TO LIMIT THE
DENSITY TO A SPECIFIC NUMBER BETWEEN SIX AND TWELVE
UNITS PER ACRE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.4.6(H)(1) OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; S~ID LAND BEING
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILITARY TRAIL,
APPROXIMATELY 1,400 FEET SOUTH OF LINTON BOULEVARD,
AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND AMENDING
"ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1994";
PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE,
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the property hereinafter described is shown on the
Zoning District Map of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated April,
1994, as being zoned POC (Planned Office Center) District, in part,
and A (Agricultural) District, in part; and
WHEREAS, the RM (Medium Density Residential) District
provides a residential zoning district with flexible densities having
a base of six (6) units per acre and a range to twelve (12) units per
acre; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.4.6, "RM (Medium Density Residential)
District, Subsection 4.4.6(H), "Special Regulations", of the Land
Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, provides
that the density for a specific RM development may be established by a
numerical suffix affixed to the designation; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 17, 1994, the Planning
and Zoning Board for the City of Delray Beach, as Local Planning
Agency, reviewed this item and recommended by a vote of 4 to 3 that a
density suffix of "8" be affixed to the RM zoning designation, thereby
limiting the ultimate density of the property to eight (8) units per
acre; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach has
determined it to be appropriate that the Zoning District Map of the
City of Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, be amended to
reflect a revised zoning classification of RM- lQ for the subject
property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
~ That the Zoning District Map of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, dated April, 1994, be, and the same is hereby
amended to reflect a zoning classification of RM- 10 for the
following described property:
The Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of the Northwest
Quarter (NW 1/4), LESS the West 40 feet thereof for
road right-of-way, and LESS the South Half (S 1/2) of
the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of the Southwest
Quarter (SW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4),
all in Section 25, Township 46 South, Range 42 East,
Palm Beach County, Florida;
TOGETHER WITH:
The South Half (S 1/2) of the South Half (S 1/2) of
the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest
Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 25, Township 46 South,
Range 42 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, LESS the
West 685.00 feet thereof.
The subject property is located on the east side of
Military Trail, approximately 1,400 feet south of
Linton Boulevard; containing 40.52 acres, more or
less.
~_~ That the Planning Director of said City shall,
upon the effective date of this ordinance, amend the Zoning Map of the
City of Delray Beach, Florida, to conform with the provisions of
Section 1 hereof.
~ That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
~ That should any section or provision of this
ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a
whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
- 2 - Ord. No. 87-94
~ That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon passage on second and final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final
reading on this the 15th day of Nov , 1994.
Acting City Clerk
First Reading
Second Reading November 15. 1994
- 3 - Ord. No. 87-94
M E,M Q R A N D U M
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER ~
S BJEOT: ',NO IT ! 0
DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 1994
This is second reading and public hearing for Ordinance No. 87-94
which rezones the Taheri property from POC (Planned Office
Center) District, in part, and A (Agricultural) District, in
part, to RM (Medium Density Residential) District or to a
specific RM density (between six and twelve units per acre) by
affixing a numerical suffix to the zoning designation. Please
refer to staff documentation for an analysis of the proposed
rezoning.
The applicant has requested a zoning classification of RM. The
Planning and Zoning Board, by a 4 to 3 vote, has recommended RM-8
zoning (limited to 8 units per acre). This rezoning petition
requires a quasi-judicial proceeding at second reading of the
ordinance, at which time a full discussion of the density issues
is anticipated. At first reading on November 1, 1994, Ordinance
No. 87-94 was passed by unanimous vote of the Commission.
Recommend consideration of Ordinance No. 87-94 on second and
final reading.
ref:agmemol2
PROCEDURES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS
Generally the quasi-judicial proceeding will proceed in the
following manner:
The Mayor will announce that the item is before the
Commission for a hearing.
~2. The City Clerk, with the authority vested in her as a
notary of the State of Florida, shall ask all persons
who plan to give testimony before the Board to stand
and raise their right hand and "swear.or firm that the
testimony they are about to give is the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
3.~ City staff will make a presentation describing the
nature of the application, summarizing the issues, and
reporting the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Board.
4. J The applicant or his/her representative will make a
presentation.
5. j Persons other than the staff or applicant who are in
favor of approval shall speak. The Mayor may limit the
~t~nber of witnesses speaking on behalf of an
application.
6. j Persons may testify in opposition to the applicant's
request. The Mayor may limit the number of persons
speaking in opposition.
7. J The applicant or his/her representative shall have the
opportunity to cross examine staff and experts retained
to represent the City.
9. ~ Staff shall have the opportunity to cross examine or
ask questions of the applicant/his designee and experts
retained to represent the applicant.
10.3 The Mayor and the City Commission may ask questions of
the staff, applicant or any witness.
ll.~The applicant shall have the opportunity to make a
closing argument.
12./ Staff shall have the opportunity to make a closing
argument.
13. No further testimony shall be taken and the Board shall
begin its deliberations.
14. After concluding its deliberations, the City Commission
shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law on
the record.
15. Burden of Proof - Rezonings
a) The applicant has the burden of proving that the
proposed rezoning is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and is compatible with the
surrounding area. If the landowner meets this
burden of'proof, the City may choose to rezone the
property.
b) If the City wishes to deny the rezoning request,
the burden shifts to the City to demonstrate that
maintaining the existing zoning classification
accomplishes a legitimate public purpose. The
City has the burden of showing that the refusal to
rezone the property is not arbitrary,
discriminatory, or unreasonable.
16. Burden of Proof - Conditional Use
a) The applicant has the burden of proving that the
proposed conditional use is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. If the landowner meets
'~'~ his/her burden of proof and meets the other
requirements of the City's ordinances, the
applicant meets his/her burden of proof and the
City may choose to grant the conditional use with
or without conditions.
b) If the City wishes to deny the conditional use
request, the burden shifts to the City to
factually demonstrate that the conditional use
will have a:
1. Significant and detrimental effect upon
the stability of the neighborhood within
which it will be located; or
2. That it will hinder development or
redevelopment of nearby properties.
3. In addition, the Commission must
identify facts which provides
substantial competent evidence to
conclude that the public interest would
be adversely affected by granting the
applicant the conditional use.
q~$i. sar
2
Section 2.4.5 (C)
(3) Procedure: The annexation petition shall be
considered simultaneously with the zoning application and shall
be subject to the zoning procedures. In addition, prior to
second reading of the enacting ordinance by the City Commission,
notice of the annexation shall be published pursuant to
2.4.2(S)(1)(a).
(4) Findinqs: In addition to findings required for
action on the zoning application, the City Commission must make
findings that the annexation will not create a new County enclave
and that the annexation is consistent with Objective B-3 of the
Land Use Element.
(D) Change of Zoning District Desiqnation:
(i) Rule: The City Commission, by ordinance, after
review and recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Board may amend the Official Zoning Map.
(2) Required Information: Standard application items
pursuant to 2.4.3(A) shall be provided. Traffic information
prepared in accordance with Section 2.4.3(E) and which addresses
the development of property under reasonable intensity pursuant
to the existing and proposed zoning shall be provided. In
addition, a statement of the reasons for which the change is
being sought must accompany the application. Valid reasons for
approving a change in zoning include:
* That the zoning had previously been changed, or was
originally established, in error;
* That there has been a change in circumstance which
makes the current zoning inappropriate;
* That the requested zoning is of similar intensity as
allowed under the Future Land Use Map and that it is
more appropriate for the property based upon
circumstances particular to the site and/or
neighborhood.
(3) Procedure: A zoning petition shall be processed
through the following sequence:
(a) Receipt and certification as complete
(b) Consideration at a public hearing before the
Planning and Zoning Board
(c) Forwarding of a recommendation for approval
to the City Commission and consideration at
first reading of the enacting ordinance
(d) Public hearing before the City Commission and
adoption or rejection at second reading
. 2437
Section 2.4.5 (D)
(4) Conditions: A zoning action may be conditioned in
such a way to limit the intensity of development when such a
limitation is necessary in order to provide for concurrency or to
mitigate against the violation of an adopted level of service
standard.
(5) Findinqs: In addition to provisions of Chapter
Three, the City Commission must make a finding that the rezoning
fulfills, at least one of the reasons listed under Subsection
(2).
(6) Limitations of Rezoninqs: Whenever the City
Commission has denied an application for a change in zoning
designation of property, the City Commission shall not
thereafter:
(a) Consider any further application for the same
zoning change on any part or all of the same
property for a period of twelve (12) months
from the date of such action;
(b) Consider an application for any other kind of
zoning on any part or all of the same
property for a period of six (6) months from
the date of such action.
The time limits stated above may be waived by three (3)
affirmative votes of the City Commission when such action is
found and deemed necessary to prevent injustice or to facilitate
the proper development of the City (173.887). Further, the above
limitations shall not apply to a petition which expires during
processing or denied in a manner deemed as "without prejudice".
(E) Establishment of a Conditional Use:
(1) Rule: The City Commission, by motion, after
review and recommendation for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Board may approve or reject a request for a conditional use.
(2) Required Information: Standard application items
pursuant to 2.4.3(A) shall be provided. In addition, if
establishment of the use requires new improvements on a site or
substantial changes to existing improvements, a sketch plan
showing the extent of those improvements shall be provided. At
its discretion, the Planning and Zoning Board may require
submission of a site plan prepared pursuant to 2.4.3(B). At the
applicant's discretion, a simultaneous site plan application and
conditional use application may be filed.
(3) Procedure: A conditional use request shall be
processed through the following sequence:
(a) Receipt and certification as complete;
Rev. 10/11/91
2438
Section 3.1.1
CHAPTER THREE P E R F O R M A N C E S T A N D A R D S
Chapter Three sets forth Level of Service Standards
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It also sets forth
performance standards by which a development application
shall be assessed for the purpose of determining overall
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and with good
planning, engineering and design practice.
.ARTICLE 3.1 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR LAND USE AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Section 3.1.1 Required Findinq~: Prior to the approval of
development applications, certain findings must be made in a form
which is a part of the official record. This may be achieved
through information on the application, written materials
submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes.
Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to
approve or deny the development application.
(A) Future Land Use MaD: The resulting use of land or
structures must be allowed in the zoning district within which
the land is situated and said zoning must be consistent with land
use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map for the land.
(B) Concurrency: Concurrency as defined pursuant to
Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
must be met and a determination made that the public facility
needs of the requested land use and/or development application
will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or
to require the provision of, needed capital improvements (LU
A-5.5) (LU B-2.4) (CIE a-7).
(C) Consistency: A finding of overall consistency may be
made even though the action will be in conflict with some
individual performance standards contained within Article 3.3,
provided that the approving body specifically finds that the
beneficial aspects of the proposed project (hence compliance with
some standards) outweighs the negative impacts of identified
points of conflict. (CIE A-7.1)
(D) Pursuant to LDRs: Whenever an item is identified
elsewhere in these Land Development Regulations (LDRs), it shall
specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on a
land development application/request. Such items are found in
Section 2.4.5 and in special regulation portions of individual
zoning district regulations.
3101
Section 3.3.1
ARTICLE 3.3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Section 3.3.1 Basls for Determinlnq Consistency: The performance
standards set forth in this Article either reflect a policy from
the Comprehensive Plan or a principle of good planning practice.
Where a performance standard reflects a policy of the Plan, a
reference to the applicable element and policy is provided (e.g.
LU A-5.3 which means Policy A-5.3 of the Land Use Element). The
performance standards set forth in the following sections along
with compliance to items specifically listed as required findings
in appropriate portions of Section 2.4.5 shall be the basis upon
which a finding of overall consistency [Section 3.1.1(C)] is to
be made. However, exclusion from this Article shall not be a
basis for not allowing consideration of other objectives and
policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan in the making of
a finding of overall consistency. (LU A-5.6)
Section 3.3.2 Standards for Rezoninq Actions:
(A) That a rezoning to other than CF within stable
residential area shall be denied. (H A-2.4)
(B) Affordable housing for moderate and middle income
families, particularly first time home buyers, may be
.achieved through increases in density when it can be
demonstrated that the increase will result in a more
affordable product provided that other policies of the
Housing Element are maintained. (H C-3.1)
(C) Additional strip commercial zoning on vacant properties
shall be avoided. This policy shall not preclude
rezonings on land that at the time of rezoning 'has
improvements on it. Where existing strip commercial
areas or zoning exists along an arterial street,
consideration should be given to increasing the depth
of the commercial zoning in order to provide for better
project design. (LU A-1.3)
(D) That the rezoning shall result in allowing land uses
which are deemed compatible with adjacent and nearby
land use both existing and proposed; or that if an
incompatibility may occur, that sufficient regulations
exist to properly mitigate adverse impacts form the new
use.
3301
FILE NUMBER: 94-175
PETITION NAME: I TAHERI PROPERTY AND (FIVE ACRE TRACT TO THE NORTH) REZONING
A. City of Delray Beach Comprehensive Plan as Existed on 11/14/94 ,
B. City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations as Existed on 11/14/94 ,
C. City of Delray Beach Zoning District Map as Existed on 11/14/94 ,
D. City of Delray Beach Future Land Use Map as Existed on 11/14/94 ,
E. City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department Project File 93-079
Taheri Annexation
F. City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department Project File 93-080
Taheri Land Use Plan Amendment
Are Entered Into the Record.
I
DATE
ITEM ENTERED
NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF ITEM IN FILE
1. Copy of Partnership Agreement of 12/22/76. 10/17/94
2. Copy of Recorded Deed of 12/22/76. 10/17/94
3. Power of Attorney from MDL Partners to Z. E. Taheri 10/17/94
signed by Mina Taheri Miller, effective 3/2/93 (2 copies).
4. Power of Attorney from MDL Partners to Z. E. Taheri 10/17/94
signed by David B. Taheri, effective 3/2/93 (2 copies).
5. Power of Attorney from MDL Partners to Z. E. Taheri 10/17/94
signed by Linda Taheri Woodworth, effective 3/2/93
(2 copies).
6. Letter of 7/13/94 from Dan Weisberg to Paul Dorling - RE: 10/17/94
"425 Unit Apartment Complex - Military Trail".
7. Two drawings of Boundary Survey by O'Brien, Suiter &
O'Brien, Inc., dated 8/18/94 10/17/94
8. Original Affidavit for Property Owner, Joni S. Brinkman, 10/17/94
signed 8/20/94 [with attached Exhibit "A"].
9. Copy of Special Warranty Deed Recorded 8/30/94. 10/17/94
10. Original Owner's Consent & Designation of Agency of 10/17/94
8/30/94 (with exhibit).
Page i
DATE
ITEM
ENTERED
F |-DESCRIPTION OF ITEM IN FILE
NUMBER
11. Letter of 8/31/94 from James B. Hayes to Lindsey A. Walter 10/17/94
RE: "Dr. Taherl's Purchase of Five (5) Acre Tract" [with
attachments (Exhibits "A" and "B")].
12. Vicinity Map 10/17/94
13. Two drawings of 9/1/94 by Kilday & Associates - Proposed 10/17/94
Residential Development - Conceptual Site Plan
14. City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department - 10/17/94
Application for Rezoning of 9/2/94 - Project Name: "40
Acre Military Trail" (with exhibit "A" and justification
statement).
15. Letter of 9/6/94 from Robert F. Rennebaum, P.E. with 10/17/94
Simmons & White, Inc. to Paul Dorling - RE: "Revision
to the approved Traffic Impact Statement dated 6/17/94"
(with attachment "Traffic Impact Statement 425 Unit
Apartment Complex, Military Trail, Palm Beach County,
Florida").
16. Letter of 9/13/94 from Jasmin Allen to Kieran J. Kilday - 10/17/94
RE: Application for Rezoning from A (Agriculture) and POC
(Planned Office Center) to RM (Multiple Family Residential-
Medium Density) for the Taheri Property".
17. Letter of 9/16/94 from Lindsey A. Walter to Jeff Perkins 10/17/94
RE: "Taheri Property Rezoning - Our file No. 1168.1"
[response to Jasmin Allen's letter of 9/13/94].
18. Letter of 9/21/94 from Michael S. Weiner, P.A. to 10/17/94
Diane Dominguez - RE: "Taheri Property and a Five Acre
Tract of land to the North - Our File No.: DCCP(163)001".
19. Multiple Family Development Surveys of 9/30/94 10/17/94
20. Letter of 10/14/94 from Michael S. Weiner, P.A. to 10/17/94
Paul Dorling - RE: "Taheri Property - Our File No.:
DCCP(163)001".
23. Staff Report for Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of 10/17/94
10/17/94 from Jeff Perkins - RE: "Rezoning from POC
(Planned Office Center) in Part & A (Agricultural) in
Part to RM (Medium Density Residential) (Taheri Property)
24. Letter of 6/22/94 from G. Haney Frakes, Jr. P.E. to 10/19/94
David Harden - RE: "Military Trail, South of Atlantic
Avenue"
25. Letter of 10/4/94 from Mary McCarty to Thomas Lynch 10/19/94
RE: "Traffic Volumes on Military Trail from West Atlantic
Avenue to Palmetto Park Road" (with attachments, memo from
Allan Ennis to Edwin Jack of 9/6/94 RE: "Average Daily
Traffic Counts..." and memo from Tanya McConnell to Edwin
Jack of 9/19/94 RE: "Military Trail..."
Page 2
] ~ DATE
ITEM ENTERED
NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF ITEM IN FILE
26. Letter of 10/12/94 from Dan Weisberg to Paul Dorling - RE: -710/19/94
"425 Unit Apartment Complex - Military Trail".
27. Letter of 10/14/94 from Dan Weisberg to Paul Dorling - RE: 10/20/94
"425 Unit Apartment Complex - Military Trail"
28. Memo from Susan Ruby to Mayor Thomas Lynch RE: "Rezoning 11/1/94
of Taheri Property" (with attachment, Letter of 10/27/94
from Michael S. Weiner, P.A. to Susan Ruby - RE: "Rezoning
of Taheri Property - Our File No.: DCCP(163)001".
29. City Commission Documentation for meeting of November 1, 11/1/94
1994 - "Rezoning of a 40.52 acre parcel of land..." (First
Reading)
30. Transmittal from Lindsey Walter to Bill Wood (c: Diane 11/4/94
Dominguez) "40 acre Taheri Parcel" Project No. 1168.1
(with attachment, revised Conceptual Site Plan by Kilday
& Associates - Proposed Residential Development)
31. Letter from Lindsey Walter to Jeff Perkins RE: "Taheri 11/8/94
Property Our File No. 1168.1"
32. Draft Ordinance 87-94 11/1/94
33. Special Notice to Neighborhood Association's [with copy 10/17/94
of who mailed to] date mailed 9/13/94.
34. Palm Beach County Real Property Tax Roll pages listing 10/17/94
name of owners and addresses for mailing labels.
35. Letter mailed on 10/6/94 to property owners [with copy 10/17/94
attached of owners mailed to] - RE: "Proposed Rezoning
Initiated by the Property Owner AKA Taheri Property".
36. Special Notice to Neighborhood Association's [with copy 10/17/94
of who mailed to] date mailed 10/6/94.
37. Letter of 10/6/94 from Jasmin Allen to John Pancoast - RE: 10/17/94
"Privately sponsored Rezoning Petition (AKA Taheri
Property)".
38. 2 Overhead Transparencies - Aerial Photo and Zoning Map 10/19/94
39. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes for meeting of September 11/01/94
19, 1994 RE: Presentations by Applicants
40. Audio Tape of Planning and Zoning Board meeting of October 10/20/94
17, 1994
41. Letter of 10/14/94 from Robert A. Bentz to Michael So 11/14/94
Weiner, P.A. RE: "Proposed residential apartment complex
on Military Trail, in the City of Delray Beach". (with
attachment - FAX cover sheet from Michael Weiner to Jeff
Perkins)
Page 3
DATE
ITEM I ENTERED
NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF ITEM IN FILE
T: \Appeals\94-175.REZ
Page 4
~ FIELDBROOK
"'° Avg. Sale Price 1994 only $502,000
Avg. Sale Price 1993 & 1994 $485,100
L .W,O.D. CANAL
~ SEASONS
Avg. Sale Price 1994 $546,150
~ ST. JAMES APARTMENTS
THE AR¥1DA
OF UNIV; PARK-PuD (
MIDDLE SCHOOL (~
'oo' RID
(67-74 thru 76)
................. ~ RE-I
I H~, NW. WAY ~
co C,,,,~q/. /z //~'
80~ )
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM ~ /~ - MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1. 1994
FIRST READING FOR ORDINANCE NO. 87-94/TAHERI PROPERTY
REZONING
DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1994
This is first reading for Ordinance No. 87-94 which rezones the
Taheri property from POC (Planned Office Center) District, in
part, and A (Agricultural) District, in part, to RM (Medium
Density Residential) District or to a specific RM density
(between six and twelve units per acre) by affixing a numerical
suffix to the zoning designation. Please refer to staff
documentation for an analysis of the proposed rezoning.
The applicant has requested a zoning classification of RM. The
Planning and Zoning Board, by a 4 to 3 vote, has recommended RM-8
zoning (limited to 8 units per acre). Inasmuch as the rezoning
petition will require a quasi-judicial proceeding at second
reading of the ordinance, the rezoning request should be approved
on first reading with a full discussion of the density issues to
be reserved for second reading.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 87-94 on first reading and
the scheduling of a public hearing for November 15, 1994.
ref:agmemol2
....... : .......... ":'~TFRI 16:$7 FAX 407 27~ 4?$$ DEL BCH CTY ATTY -+-~-+ PURCHASING
MICHAEL S. WEINER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
A TTORAIEY$ AT LAW
'the Clark House
102 North Swinton Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
MICHAEL S. WEINI~ South P~lm Be~ch Cour~ty: (407} 26§-2666
CAROLE ARON$ON North Palm Beach County: ('~07) 736-5888
Broward Counh,: (305) 462-4935
Telecopier: (407) 272.6831
OF
PETER J. MURRAY
VIA ~AND L~LIVERY
October 27, 1994
Susan Ruby, Esquire
200 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
RE: Rezoning of Taheri Property
Our File No.: DCCP(163)001
Dear Susan:
It is my understanding that on November 1, 1994, there will be a
first reading for the rezoning of the above-captioned property.
After speaking with the land owner's representative, Mr. Kerry
Kilday, and on behalf of my clients, Mr. Saul Weinberger and the
Delaire Property Owners Association, we are jointly requesting that
the Mayor not request voluntary public testimony at the first
reading.
Because of the procedural complexity involved with zoning
proceedings as outlined, in among other cases, Board of County
Commissioners of Brevard County, Flor£da vs. Snydgr, 620 So. 2d 469
(Pla. 1993), voluntary testimony which opens a debate could require
each side to prepare in a manner sufficient to equal the standards
of a quasi-judicial hearing. We believe you would find the
preparation and presentation of rebuttals to be duplicative of
everyone's efforts.
Accordingly, we urge you to recommend to Mayor Lynch that he not
ask for any additional comment and that testimony be given, and the
qua~i-judicial proceeding be held at, the second reading.
On behalf of my clients, Mr. Saul Weinberger and the Delaire
Property Owners Association, this letter does not represent a
waiver of any rights or remedies my clients may have in connection
i' ~ ,~'-'- ~., ! '.\;, :~'~ ]'.",,
' i'~ ,.'.,' '~ : , '' ~i '~,
16:58 FAX 407 278 4755 DEL BCH CTY ATTY -~-~-~ PURCHASIN(4
Susan Ruby, Esquire
Page Two
October 27, 1994
Our File No.: DCCP(163)001
with, or of their objections to, what they perceive as procedural
defects in the manner and method by which the City of Delray Beach
is conducting this mat%er for rezoning.
If for some reason public testimony will be allowed or possibly be
allowed at the first reading, please let Mr. Kerry Kilday and
myself know.
Thank~u in advance for your cooperation.
MSW/en ~
cc: Mr. Kerry Kilday
Mr. Saul Weinberger
C I TY COMM I S S I ON DOCUMENTAT I ON
TO: ~VID_T. ~EN, CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING A~ ZONING
FROM: ~,.IEi~ PERKINS· PLANNER
SUBJECT: MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1994
REZONING OF A 40.52 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND (TAHERI
PROPERTY) FROM POC (PLANNED OFFICE CENTER) AND A
(AGRICULTURAL) TO RM (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -
MEDIUM DENSITY).
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION:
The action requested of the commission is the approval on first
reading of the rezoning of the Taheri property from POC (Planned
Office Center) and A (Agricultural) to RM (Multiple Family
Residential - Medium Density).
The subject property is a 40.52 acre parcel· containing a
commercial nursery· located on the east side of Military Trail·
approximately 1400 feet south of Linton Boulevard.
BACKGROUND:
When the City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1989,
approximately 35 acres of the subject property was under Palm
Beach County's jurisdiction, and was assigned an "advisory"
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of Medium Density
Residential. In 1993 the owner of the 35-acre parcel, Dr.
Taheri, petitioned the city for voluntary annexation. The
annexation petition called for 10 acres of the property to be
assigned a FLUM designation and zoning of Community Facilities·
in order to accommodate a proposed school site. The request for
the remainder of the property was a General Commercial FLUM
designation and zoning. Subsequent to that submission· the
School Board instead selected a 10-acre portion of the adjacent
Blood's Grove property as the school site, and area residents
expressed objections to the proposed General Commercial
designation. In light of those circumstances· the property
owner agreed to annex into the City with a FLUM designation of
Transitional and an initial zoning of A (Agricultural). The A
designation was assigned to the parcel as a "holding zone"
pending the submission of a specific development proposal.
Ordinance 44-93 annexing the 35-acre Taheri parcel was approved
by the City Commission on August 10, 1993.
The remaining 5+-acre parcel that is a part of this rezoning
petition is Phase II of an existing 10-acre office development.
The entire 10-acre site was annexed into the City in 1989 and
assigned the Transitional FLUM designation and the POC (Planned
Office Center) zoning district. Phase I was approved in 1987
pursuant to County regulations and has been constructed (known
as the South County Professional Center). In 1992, the Site
Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) approved a site and
development plan for the construction of Phase II of the center.
Phase II has not been constructed, and SPRAB approved an
extension of the site plan approval in 1992. The site plan is
valid until September 7, 1995.
The current development proposal is to rezone both the 35-acre
Agriculture parcel and the 5-acre POC parcel to RM, Medium
Density Residential. The rezoning would accommodate a multiple
family residential development at a proposed density that could
range between 6 to 12 dwelling units per acre. A detailed
analysis of the proposal is contained in the attached Planning
and Zoning Board staff report.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION:
The Planning and Zoning Board considered this request at its
meeting of October 17, 1994. At that meeting a number of
residents of nearby properties expressed concerns over the
effects of the proposed density on their communities. They felt
that development at RM densities would be incompatible with the
nearby single family residential developments. Other concerns
related to possible increases in traffic on Military Trail and
Linton Boulevard, and the potential development of the parcel as
a rental community. After a lengthy hearing and discussion, the
Board recommended by a 4-3 vote that a density suffix of "8" be
attached to the RM designation, thereby limiting the ultimate
density of the property to 8 units per acre. The 3 members who
voted against the RM-8 indicated that they would prefer a
density of less than 8 units per acre.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
As noted, the applicant has requested a zoning designation of
RM, which would allow up to 12 units per acre. Staff
recommended that the RM zoning be approved. The Planning and
Zoning Board by a 4-3 vote has recommended RM-8.
Rezonings are considered to be quasi-judicial proceedings, which
require that a full hearing be conducted. The hearing allows
for presentations by the parties involved, admission of
evidence, and comment from the public. The City conducts its
quasi-judicial hearings during the second reading of a rezoning
ordinance. Thus, this rezoning request should be approved on
first reading, with a full discussion of the density issues to
be reserved for second reading.
By motion, approve on first reading the rezoning of the
40.52-acre Taheri property from POC (Planned Office Center)
and A (Agricultural) to RM (Multiple Family Residential -
Medium Density).
Attachment:
* P&Z Staff Report of October 17, 1994
(DISLRAY
~o~
LINTON B VAR D
OSR
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH --- STAFF REPORT---
MEETING DATE: October 17, 1994
AGENDAITEM: V.A.
ITEM: Rezoning fro~ P0C (Planned Office Center) in Part & A (Agricultural)
in Part to Rb~ (Medium Density Residential). (Taheri Property)
GENERAL DATA:
Owner .................... I.~D~ Realty Co.
c\o Z. E. Taheri
Applicant ................ Kieran Kilday
Kilday and Associates
Location ................. East side of Military
Trail, south of Linton
Boulevard.
Property Size ............ 40.52 acres
Future Land Use Plan ..... Transitional
Current Zoning ........... A (Agricultural) and
POC (Planned Office
Center)
Proposed Zoning .......... RM (Multiple Family
Residential - Medium
Density)
Adjacent Zoning...North: POC and CF (Community
Facilities)
East: AR (Agricultural
Residential - PBC)
South: AR
West: RS (Residential -
Single Family - PBC),
POC, and AR
Existing Land Use ........ Wholesale nursery.
Proposed Land Use ........ Rezoning from A and POC
to RM to accommodate a
multiple family residential
development.
Water Service ............ Existing 12" water main
along Military Trail.
Sewer Service ............ Existing 8" sewer main
serving the South County
Professional Plaza, to
the north of the site.
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD:
The action before the Board is making a recommendation on a
rezoning request from A (Agricultural) and POC (Planned Office
Center) to RM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium Density).
The subject property is a 40.52 acre metes and bounds parcel,
located on the east side of Military Trail, south of Linton
Boulevard.
Pursuant to Section 2.2.2(E), the Local Planning Agency shall
review and make a recommendation to the City Commission with
respect to rezoning of any property within the City.
BACKGROUND:
With the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1989,
approximately 35 acres of the subject property (Taheri
Property), which was under Palm Beach County jurisdiction at
that time, was assigned an advisory Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
Designation of Medium Density Residential. In 1993 the owner of
the· 35 acre' Taber±'-'parcel'~-'petitioned the city- for voluntary-
annexation. The annexation petition called for 10 acres of
property to be assigned a FLUM designation and zoning of
Community Facilities to accommodate a proposed school site. The
remainder of the property was to receive General Commercial FLUM
designation and zoning. Subsequent to that submission, the
School Board selected a 10 acre portion of the adjacent Blood's
Grove property as the school site, and area residents expressed
objections to the commercial designation. Because of those
circumstances, the property owner agreed to annex into the City
with a FLUM designation of Transitional and an initial zoning of
A (Agricultural). The A designation was assigned to the parcel
as a "holding zone" pending the submission of a specific
development proposal. Ordinance 44-93, annexing the Taheri
parcel was approved by the City Commission on August 10, 1993.
The Taheri property is developed with two structures, a single
family residence and a barn used for the nursery operation (Boca
Growers, Inc.) located on the site.
The remaining 5 acre parcel that is a part of this petition is
Phase II of an existing 10 acre office development. The entire
10 acre site was annexed into the City in 1989 and assigned the
Transitional FLUM designation and the POC (Planned Office
Center) zoning district. Phase I was approved in 1987, pursuant
to County regulations and has been constructed. In 1992, Phase
II received approval from the Site Plan Review and Appearance
Board (SPRAB) of a site and development plan for the
construction of Phase II of the South County Professional
Center. The approved site plan consisted of eight medical
office structures with a total floor area of 50,400 square feet.
The project has not been constructed and SPRAB approved an
extension of the site plan approval in 1992, which will expire
on September 7, 1995.
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The development proposal is to rezone 35.43 acres of the 40.52
acre parcel from A to RM and the remaining 5.09 acres from POC
to RM. The rezoning would accommodate a multiple family
residential development at a proposed density of 6-12 units per
acre.
The applicant has submitted a sketch plan which shows a total of
fifty two-story structures containing 486 units built around a
private loop road serving the development. The sketch plan also
includes the following features; a guardhouse, tennis courts,
clubhouse, retention lake, tot lot, and associated parking and
landscaping. The sketch plan is not subject to approval or
denial at this time, and is submitted for illustrative purposes
only.
ZONING ANALYSIS:
REQUIRED FINDINGS: (Chapter 3)
Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the
approval of development applications, certain findings must
be made in a form which is part of the official record.
This may be achieved through information on the
application, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall
be made by the body which has the authority to approve or
deny the development application. These findings relate to
the following four areas.
Future Land Use MaR: The use or structures must be allowed in
the zoning district and the zoning district must be consistent
with the land use designation.
The current Future Land Use designation for the subject
property is Transitional. The requested zoning change is
from A (Agricultural) and POC (Planned Office Center) to RM
(Multiple Family Residential - Medium Density). The
proposed zoning designation of RM is consistent with the
Transitional Future Land Use designation.
Concurrency: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the
City shall be provided to new development concurrent with
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall
be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
Streets and Traffic:
The applicant has submitted a traffic study for the proposed
rezoning. Based on a maximum potential of 486 units of multiple
family housing, the site will generate 3,402 Average Daily Trips
(ADT). However, the site is currently vested for 248 ADT for
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 3
the existing nursery and 836 ADT for the approved site plan for
the former Phase II of the South County Professional Center.
The net trip generation for the proposed development would
therefore be 2,318 ADT.
The Transitional FLUM designation will permit a wide range of
uses which will generate differing amounts of traffic. Under
the current "A" zoning and nursery use 248 estimated trips are
generated. With a R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoning and a
density of 3 units per acre (121 units) 1,210 trips would be
generated. While both of these figures are considerably lower
than the 2,318 at 12 units per acre, the maximum trip generation
for the site could be considerably higher.
The highest intensity use for the parcel under the Transitional
FLUM designation would be a 38.52 acre office development with
POD (Professional Office District) or POC (Planned Office
Center) zoning and the 2 acre maximum parcel of NC (Neighborhood
Commercial). Estimating a 0.3 floor area ratio (FAR) for the
office site and a 0.25 FAR for the conunercial, the parcel would
support a total of 503,379 square feet of office and 21,780
square feet of neighborhood commercial uses. These two
developments would generate an estimated 4,761 ADT (Office) and
1,510 (Commercial), or a total of 6,271 ADT. That figure is
based on calculations for general office uses. If all or part
of the office site would be developed as medical office, the
number of ADT would increase.
The 2,318 trips which could be generated by development under
the RM district would affect several roadway links which
currently exceed Level of Service (LOS) "D" traffic volumes.
Among those links are Military Trail from Atlantic Avenue to
Linton Boulevard, and Military Trail from Linton Boulevard to
Clint Moore Road.
The applicant proposes to construct intersection improvements in
the form of left turn lane additions at the intersection of
Clint Moore Road and Military Trail which will enable that
intersection to meet concurrency requirements. Turn lane
additions at the intersection of Linton Boulevard and Military
Trail currently under way will allow that intersection to meet
LOS standards.
The remainder of the over capacity links are over 1 mile from
the site and are impacted by less than 1% of their design
capacity. Those links are therefore not considered
significantly impacted roadways and do not need to be addressed
by this development proposal.
The applicant has submitted a traffic study to the Palm Beach
County Engineering Department incorporating the trips added by
the development and the proposed roadway improvements. The
Department has accepted that the development will meet County
concurrency requirements through 1995. After January 1, 1996,
with the addition of "background trips" to the Military Trail, a
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 4
positive finding can not be made until this segment of Military
Trail is widened to six lanes.
Based on the above a positive finding can be made at this time
with regard to traffic concurrency.
Water:
Water service is available to the site via an existing 12" water
main located on the east side of the Military Trail right-of-way
adjacent to the property. Development of the site will require
extension of a water main through the property to the eastern
boundary. Looping of the system north to the South County
Professional Center or south to the Del-Aire Country Club may
also be necessary. Responsibility for provision of on-site
mains and connections will fall on the developer, and will be
addressed at the time of Site Plan review.
Sewer:
The nearest sewer service to the site is an existing 8" sewer
main located in the South County Professional Center property.
Development of the site will require accessing City lift station
number 60A which is located west of the South County Mental
Health Center, approximately 800' feet north of the site.
Provision of on-site mains and connections, as well as upgrades
to the existing lift station (if required), are the
responsibility of the developer and will be addressed at the
time of Site Plan review.
Fire and Emergency Service:
Fire rescue service for any development of this property will be
provided by the City's Fire Station #5. Servicing the site will
not require any additional equipment or manpower to be added to
the station.
Police:
Police service for any development of this property will be
provided by the Delray Beach Police. There is no need to expand
existing patrol areas as the Police currently pass by the site
during patrols of existing developments to the north and south.
Average response time to the property would be approximately 4
minute for an emergency call and 6 minutes for a non-emergency
call.
Parks and Recreations
The Delray Beach Comprehensive Plan Parks and Recreation Element
indicates that the City meets the adopted level of service for
parks and recreation facilities for the ultimate build-out
population of the City. Required provision of on-site
recreation facilities and green space will be required with site
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 5
plan approval and payment of parks and recreation impact fees
will be required with the issuance of building permits.
Solid Waste:
A 486 unit multiple family residential development will generate
466.56 tons of waste per year according to Solid Waste Authority
figures. The Solid Waste Authority indicates in its annual
report that the established level of service standards for solid
waste will be met for all developments which have been accounted
for in their Comprehensive Plan. As this proposal is currently
reflected in the adopted Plan, concurrency will be met for the
proposed development of this parcel.
Consistency:
Compliance with performance standards set forth in Chapter 3.1.1
along with required findings in Section 2.4.§(E)(5) (Conditional
Use Findings) shall be the basks upon which a finding of overall
consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found
in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in making of a
finding of overall consistency.
Chapter 3 findings include the required findings of Section
3.1.1 (Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Compliance with LDRs
and Consistency). These Chapter 3.1.1 findings are discussed in
other sections of the report.
Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) in addition to provisions in
Chapter 3, the City Commission must make findings that
establishing the Conditional Use will not:
Have a significantly detrimental effect upon the stability
of the neighborhood within which it is to be located;
Nor that it will hinder development or redevelopment of
nearby properties.
The proposed development is located adjacent to an existing
medical office development and the South County Mental Health
Center to the north. Properties to the west of the site (across
Military Trail) are developed with a mix of uses, including
single family residential, low to medium density multiple family
residential, commercial, and a church.
To the east and south of the parcel is the 111 acre Blood's
Grove area, most of which is currently in use as a commercial
orange grove. Sixteen acres of the area are currently under
construction for an elementary school and City park. The
remaining 95 acres are identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a
mixed use area, including up to 10 acres of commercial, up to
680 units of single family and multiple family housing, and a
conservation area.
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 6
The change in zoning to RM will not have a negative effect on
the existing commercial and office developments to the north and
west. Those parcels may, in fact, benefit from the increase in
the population (i.e. potential market) of the surrounding area.
That increase in population should help to support businesses in
those locations.
The proposed development will be generally consistent in terms
of density with the residential properties to the west. As the
densities are generally consistent and the parcels are separated
by a major thoroughfare, the development of the Taheri property
according to the RM zoning district regulations will not have a
detrimental effect on the stability of those areas.
An important consideration regarding the proposed rezonings is
its possible effect on the future development of the remaining
95 acres of Blood's Grove. The Blood's property is designated
by the City's FLUM as an area with a mix of Medium and Low
Density Residential with small areas of Commercial and Open
Space and Conservation. Estimates of the development potential
of the site included with Comprehensive Plan Amendment 94-1
(Future Land Use Element Table L-4) indicate 680 potential
residential units for the property. This represents an overall
density of 7.16 units per acre. A density of 7 units per acre
is consistent with the RM zoning district, which permits 6 to 12
units per acre. The portions of the Blood's property which are
identified on the FLUM as Medium Density Residential are
primarily those which are adjacent to the Taheri property. This
arrangement of land uses allows for a gradual decrease in
development intensity from commercial at the corner of Military
Trail and Linton to low density residential. The proposed RM
zoning district is appropriate adjacent to areas assigned the
Medium Density Residential FLUM designation.
Given recent events, there is a possibility that the Blood's
property will develop at a lower density than that permitted by
its current (advisory) FLUM designations. In addition, there
are areas where the Taheri parcel will be adjacent to the part
of the Blood's Property which is already designated Low Density
Residential on the FLUM. Special consideration with respect to
compatibility will be required at the time of site and
development plan review. Provision of adequate building
spacing, open space area, and landscape buffers will be required
to help buffer the use.
Within the RM zoning district regulations is a provision which
allows for the application of a density suffix. A suffix
establishes a set maximum density which could not be exceeded on
the property. If the Board determines that a maximum density
less than 12 units per acre is necessary to ensure compatibility
with the adjacent lower density development, it may recommend
the application of a density suffix to the RM district.
However, if the intention is to accommodate rental apartments, a
suffix of less than 10 units per acre is not recommended.
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 7
While compatibility is an important site plan consideration for
areas of multiple family residential adjacent to single family,
the difference in densities does not make the uses inherently
incompatible. There are numerous areas in the city where RM
zoning coexists quite well with single family districts. An
instructive example is the Old Germantown Road area. The north
side of the road has been developed at densities consistent with
the RM district:
Development De_nsity (Units/acre).
Spanish Wells 8.0
Crosswinds (excluding Palm Cove) 7.1
Palm Cove 17.7
Spring Harbor/Landing 8.3
Abbey Delra¥ South 9.7
The existence of RM densities on the north side of the road has
not hindered the development of the high-end single family areas
on the south side, such as Andover and Foxe Chase.
Furthermore, many Planned Unit Developments consist of a mix of
multiple family areas and single family areas. Within Delray
Beach the Sabal Lakes, Rainberry, Pelican Harbor, and Hamlet
developments all contain areas with planned or existing RM
densities, with no negative impacts on the development of the
single family parcels. Also, many other developments located in
nearby communities such as Boca West, Broken Sound, and P.G.A.
National incorporate portions with densities consistent with the
RM zoning district.
The proposed residential zoning district will in many ways be
more compatible with than the non-residential districts which
could be applied to the subject property under the Transitional
FLUM designation. Potential problems regarding the mix of
residential and non-residential traffic will be minimized and
land use incompatibilities between commercial and office
properties with residential developments will be avoided.
Based on the above, positive findings can be made with respect
to Section 2.4.5(E)(5) regarding compatibility.
Compliance with Land Development Regulations: The proposed use
is to be in compliance with the Land Development Regulations.
Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall
specifically be addressed by the body taking final action
on a land development application/request.
The applicant has submitted a Sketch Plan with this proposal.
While the submitted sketch plan is not being formally considered
at this time, the following comments are provided.
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 8
LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix:
The site's improvements, as proposed in the sketch plan, will
meet or exceed all requirements of this section.
LDR Section 4.4.6 RM Zoninq Regulations:
The RM district permits a minimum density of 6 units per acre.
Increases up to 12 units per acre can be accommodated upon a
finding by the Board approving the Site and Development Plan
that the development is harmonious with adjacent properties and
does not adversely affect areas of environmental significance or
sensitivity. The submitted sketch plan proposes the maximum 12
units per acre for the site. The above finding will be required
with approval of any development proposal for the site with a
density of greater than 6 units per acre.
Multiple family developments in the RM district are also
required to provide recreation areas and tot lots. The sketch
plan shows three recreation areas with a total area of 2.86
acres and containing two pools, cabana, clubhouse, volleyball
court, racquetball court, tennis courts, and a tot lot. The
proposed recreation areas meet the intent of this requirement.
The following additional regulations are highlighted at this
time:
LDR Section 4.6.9 Parkinq:
The parking requirement for multiple family residential
developments is 1.5 spaces per one bedroom unit, 2.0 spaces per
two bedroom (or larger) unit, plus 0.5 space per unit for guest
parking. The proposed development has a total of 360 two and
three bedroom units and 126 one bedroom units, requiring a total
of 1,089 parking spaces. A total of 1,089 spaces are shown on
the proposed sketch plan for the development. Of the required
spaces 21 are required to be handicap spaces and 22 are shown on
the sketch plan. Parking spaces, aisleway§, and roads on the
sketch plan generally meet City design standards. A more
thorough review of parking lot design will be conducted during
Site and Development Plan review.
LDR Section 4.6.16 Landscaping:
No landscape plan has been submitted at this time. The
submission of a landscape plan meeting all requirements of
Section 4.6.16 will be required with the Site and Development
Plan submission.
Consistency: Compliance with the performance standards set
forth in Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions) along
with required findings in Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning
Findings) shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall
consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 9
in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in the making of a
finding of overall consistency.
A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following was found:
Conservation Element Policy B-2.1: - Submission of a biological
survey and a habitat analysis shall accompany land use requests
for...rezonings... However this requirement shall not apply...
where it is that there are not such resources.
The subject parcel is in use as a commercial nursery and has
been extensively cleared. Thus, no significant biological
resources exist on the site.
Traffic Element Fiqure T-4: - Future Traffic Network
This figure consists of a map identifying existing and required
roadways for the City. One of the future roadways identified on
the map is a collector road with an 80' right-of-way connecting
Linton Boulevard and Military Trail through the subject property
and the adjacent Blood's property.
Based on Figure T-4 the applicant will be required to provide
the 80' right-of-way through the property with the development
of the site. No collector road or future right-of-way is shown
on the submitted sketch plan. The applicant has indicated that
provision of the collector road in the location indicated in
Figure T-4 would have a detrimental effect on the development of
the subject parcel and the Blood's parcel, but has expressed
willingness to provide an 80' collector right-of-way along the
south property line. There is also a possibility that the
required road may be provided as a private road for use only by
residents of the multi-family and Blood's parcels. Provision of
the necessary roadway will be addressed at the time of site and
development approval.
Traffic Element Policy A-2.2: Commensurate with approval of
development plans, provisions shall be made for dedication of
land for the ultimate planned right-of-way of adjacent streets.
The survey submitted with this application shows the segment of
Military Trail adjacent to this parcel with a 115' right-of-way.
Table T-5 Street Network Classification and Improvements shows a
planned ultimate right-of-way of 120'. A 2.5' dedication will
be required at the time of Site and Development Plan and
Preliminary Plat approval.
Traffic Element Policy A-2.3: Commensurate with approval of
development plans, provisions shall be made for installation of
improvements which are necessary to maintain the adopted level
of service concurrent with the issuance of occupancy permits.
The submitted traffic study indicates that roadway improvements
for the intersections of Llnton Boulevard and Military Trail and
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 10
Clint Moore Road and Military Trail will be necessary for the
project to meet traffic concurrency requirements. Required
improvements to the intersection of Linton Boulevard and
Military Trail are currently under way. Improvements to Cl~nt
Moore Road will be required to be completed by the developer
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Housing Element Policy A-1.5~ Each neighborhood organization
shall be apprised of all land use matters which impact their
territory and which require review by the Local Planning Agency.
Courtesy notices have been sent to all neighborhood groups in
the area. See the Neighborhood Notice section under the Review
by Others portion of this report.
Housinq Element Policy C-2.5: Development of remaining vacant
properties which are zoned for residential purposes shall be
developed in a manner which is consistent with adjacent
development regardless of zoning designations.
This requirement refers primarily to the Site and Development
Plan and Platting processes. Regardless of the zoning district
assigned to the parcel, compatibility with adjacent properties
will be of utmost importance when considering a Site and
Development Plan for this parcel.
Housing Element Policy C-3.1: Affordable housing shall be
achieved by the accommodation of a variety of housing types...
The proposed rezoning helps to fulfill the intent of this
policy. The proposed development will consist exclusively of
rental garden apartments. Although there is not a mix of unit
types within the development, rental garden apartments are a
housing type which is underrepresented in the City's housing
stock. Existing units in the western portion of the City are
predominantly single family and condominium multiple family.
The development will most likely occur in conjunction with the
Blood's property and share common access from the "Blood's Loop"
collector road. Given the City advisory FLUM designations on
the Blood's property, development of that parcel will likely
consist of primarily single family units (conventional and zero
lot line) with some low to medium density multiple family units
(i.e. villa or townhouse units). Thus, the overall development
of this large vacant area will help to fulfill this policy by
providing a mix of housing types.
Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezonlng Actions): The applicable
performance standards of Section 3.3.2 and other policies which
apply are as follows~
B) Affordable housing for moderate and middle income families,
particularly first time home buyers, shall be achieved
through increases in density (rezoning) when it can be
demonstrated that the increase will result in a more
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 11
affordable product provided that other Policies of the
Housing Element are maintained.
The proposed density of this site (6-12 units per acre) allows
for the type of development which caters to middle income
families. Based on a survey of area rental developments with
densities consistent with RM zoning, rent for a two-bedroom
apartment would be expected to fall in the $745 to $1200 per
month range (the average was $855). Those rental costs are
consistent with the demographics referenced in the above policy.
As referenced in the preceding sections of this report, the
proposed rezoning is consistent with other policies of the
Housing Element.
D) That the rezoning shall result in allowing land uses which
are deemed compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses
both existing and proposed; or that if an incompatibility
may occur, that sufficient regulations exist to properly
mitigate adverse impacts from the new use.
Parcels adjacent to and near the subject parcel to the north and
west are primarily conunercial (Wal-Mart, Delray Town Center,
etc.), office (South County Professional Center, Linton Office
Plaza), and community facilities (South County Mental Health
Center, Delra¥ Baptist Church and Delray Community Hospital).
Some properties to the west of the site (across Military Trail)
are developed with single family residential and medium density
multiple family residential with lower density than the proposed
RM zoning. Compatibility with those parcels will be insured by
the separation of the parcels by Military Trail and the 30'
landscape buffer adjacent to Military Trail required for any
development of the subject parcel.
Adjacent to the parcel to the south and east is the remaining 95
acres of the Blood's property which are identified in the
Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density Residential, Low Density
Residential, and Conservation and Open Space. The RM district
is clearly compatible with Medium Density. Compatibility with
the Low Density Residential area is insured by the RM
regulations which permit a base density of only 6 units per
acre, while increases up to a maximum of twelve units per acre
can be approved pursuant to specific findings of compatibility
at the time of Site and Development approval.
Standards "A" and "C" do not apply to this proposal.
Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings):
Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D)(1) (Findings), in addition to
provisions of Section 3.1.1, the City Commission must make a
finding that the rezoning fulfills one of the reasons for which
the rezoning change is being sought. These reasons include the
following:
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 12
a. That the zoning had previously been changed, or was
originally established, in error;
b. That there has been a change in circumstances which
make the current zoning inappropriate;
c. That the requested zoning is of similar intensity as
allowed under the Future Land Use Map and that it is
more appropriate for the property based upon
circumstances particular to the site and/or
neighborhood.
The applicant submitted a justification statement as a part of
the rezoning application. The statement indicates that the
applicable reasons are "b" and "c." As the statement is too
lengthy to be included in its entirety, the following is a
summary of the justification statement. A copy of the
justification is attached as an appendix to this report.
The A zoning designation is intended to be utilized as a
"holding zone" which permits continued agricultural activities
until development is proposed. The "A" designation was assigned
to 35 acres of the site at the time of annexation for that
reason. When development is proposed "A" zoned parcels are to
be rezoned as appropriate under the FLUM designation. As this
parcel has a Transitional FLUM designation, it may appropriately
be assigned to any residential zoning district, POD
(Professional Office District), POC (Planned Office Center), CF
(Community Facilities), NC (Neighborhood Commercial), or RO
(Residential Office). Thus, reason "b" applies to this parcel.
Reason "c" is also appropriate for this portion of the subject
property. As the surrounding area is largely developed with
office, commercial, public, and residential uses, RM zoning is
more appropriate than the current "A" designation.
The remaining five acres of the site are currently zoned POC.
The parcel is located to the west of an existing office plaza
and south of the South County Mental Health Center. When the
parcel is rezoned to RM, it will function as an area of
intermediate intensity between the office uses to the north and
west, and the residential uses to the south. As this is one
purpose of the Transitional FLUM designation, the RM district is
more appropriate in this location. Thus, reason "c" is
applicable to this parcel.
A copy of the submitted justification statement is attached to
this report.
REVIEW BY OTHERS:
The rezoning is not in a geographic area requiring review by
either the HPB (Historic Preservation Board), DDA (Downtown
Development Authority) or the CRA (Community Redevelopment
Agency).
P&Z Staff Report
Rezonlng from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 13
Notification of Adjacent Local Governments:
Per Policy A-1.7 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element
of the City of Delray Beach Comprehensive Plan notification must
be provided to an adjacent unit of government of any development
proposal which involves a private land use petition requiring
Local Planning Agency review and located within one-quarter mile
of the boundary of that unit of government.
Notice of this application has been sent to Palm Beach County.
Neighborhood Notice:
Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within
a 500' radius of the subject property. A special certified
notice has been sent to each of the property owners of record.
Courtesy notices have been sent to:
* Saul Weinberger * George Conley
Maxwell White Pines of Delray East
Del-Aire Country Club
* Ermino P. Giuliano * Jack Frieder
Fox Chase Pines of Delray West
* Joseph Maschella * Haag Management
Shadywoods Andover
* Shadywoods Homeowners * Dan Pase
Association Boca Delray
* Helen Coopersmith * Gretchen Bacon
PROD Oakmont Associates
* Lillian Feldman * Spanish Wells
United Property Owners Condominiums
* Bob Stump * Joy Binkowitz
Crosswinds Crosswinds
* Lenny Gonsalves * Dorothy Alport
Eastwinds of Crosswinds Southwinds of Crosswinds
* Bob French * Crosswinds - Office
Crosswinds Single Family
who have requested notification of petitions in that area.
Letters of objection, if any, will be presented at the P & Z
Board meeting.
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 14
ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION:
The proposed rezoning of the 40.52 acre Taheri property to RM
can be recommended for approval based on the positive findings
outlined in this report and summarized below. However, by
recommending approval of the rezoning, the Board is not
necessarily endorsing development of the subject parcel
according to the submitted sketch plan or at a density of 12
units per acre. The RM district permits a base density of only
6 units per acre, while up to a maximum of twelve units per acre
can be approved pursuant to specific findings of compatibility
at the time of Site and Development approval.
While the Board has the option to apply a density suffix at this
time, staff does not recommend use of the suffix. The RM zoning
allows reasonable use of the property to help alleviate a need
for multi-family rental units in the city. Development of the
parcel at 6-12 units per acre will be much more compatible with
surrounding properties than the commercial and office
developments also provided for in the Transitional FLUM
designation. Sufficient provisions exist in the RM district and
the Supplemental District Requirements to ensure compatibility
of the development without the application of a density suffix.
Ail required public facilities and services are available to
serve residential development at a density of up to twelve units
per acre. The RM zoning district is consistent with the
Transitional FLUM designation. Required positive findings with
respect to Section 2.4.5(D)(1) (rezoning findings), Section
3.1.1, and the performance standards of Section 3.3.2 can be
made. Additionally, the proposed rezoning meets the intent of a
number of Comprehensive Plan policies including Housing Element
policies relating to provision of housing for middle income
families, and provision of a variety of housing types. Based on
the above, the proposed rezoning of the Taheri property to RM
can be recommended for approval.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
A. Continue with direction.
B. Recommend rezoning of the Taheri property from A and
POC to RM, based on positive findings with respect to
Section 2.4.5(D)(1) (rezoning findings), Section
3.1.1, and the performance standards of Section 3.3.2.
C. Recommend rezoning of the Taheri property from A and
POC to RM, with the application of a density suffix to
ensure compatibility with surrounding lower density
residential properties, based on positive findings
with respect to Section 2.4.5(D)(1) (rezoning
findings), Section 3.1.1, and the performance
standards of Section 3.3.2.
P&Z Staff Report
Rezoning from A and POC to RM for the Taheri Property
Page 15
D. Recommend denial of a rezoning of the Taher! property,
based on a failure to make positive findings.
S T A F F R E C OM M E N D A T I ON:
Recommend approval of the rezoning request for the Taheri
property from A (Agricultural) and POC (Planned Office Center)
to RM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium Density), based upon
positive findings with respect to Section 3.1.1 (Required
Findings) and Section 3.3.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions) of
the Land Development Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive
Plan, and Section 2.4.5(D)(5).
Attachments:
* Location Map
* Justification Statement
Report prepared by : Jeff Perkins~ Planner
JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
FOR
MILITARY TRAIL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
The propedy owner is requesting a rezoning approval from Agricultural in part and Planned Office
Center in part to RM - Multiple Family Residential Medium Density. The property in question is
an existing wholesale nursery approximately 40.5 acres in size and is located on the east side
of Military Trail approximately 1,300 feet south of LJnton Blvd. For your reference, a boundary
survey is included with this application identifying the configuration of the subject parcel.
This property was the subject of Annexation and a Future Land Use Plan Amendment in 1993.
The Future Land Use Plan Amendment involved an amendment from an existing City advisory
designation of Medium Density Residential to a City Transitional Land Use designation. Because
there was no development plans at that time, an Agricultural zoning designation was kept as a
holding zone until a realistic zoning/development approval was requested.
Pursuant to the City's Land Development Regulations, Section 2.4.5(D)(2), a statement of reason
for Rezoning must be included. In this case, the validity for approving a change in zoning
applies to letter B. and C. Item B. indicates whether a change in circumstances which makes
the current zoning inappropriate. In this case, the current zoning, which is predominantly
Agricultural, is inappropriate because this area is one that is rapidly growing wi~h new residential
communities. This parcel is one of the few remaining vacant/undeveloped parcels along Military
Trail. In other words, this property represents in-fill development. Furthermore, this property
developed residential versus left in an agricultural use is appropriate because a residential
development makes more efficient use of existing infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, drainage) and
public services (e.g., solid waste, fire rescue, mass transit). Additionally, the proposed rezoning
will in effect eliminate an existing land use incompatibility between agricultural and residential
developments. Uses permitted as accessory to agriculture such as chipping and mulching,
composting and potting soil manufacturing are considered as accessory to the wholesale nursery
use. The use of pesticides and other chemicals may be incompatible with surrounding residential
development.
Item C. indicates whether the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed under the Future
Land Use Map and that it is more appropriate for the property based upon circumstances
particular to the site and/or neighborhood. The Transitional Land Use designation allows both
Residential and Non-Residential Uses. The Transitional Land Use designation permits all
Residential Zoning Districts with the exception of the Rural Residential, and it allows
Neighborhood Commercial, Planned Office Center and Professional Office. For your reference,
a preliminary site plan has been submitted with this application. In this case, the property owner
is exclusively requesting an RM ~ Multiple-Family Rental Residential development at a density
of 12.0 dwelling units per acre to allow 486 dwelling units. This designation and rezoning request
Justification Statement
Military Trail Residential Project
Page 2 of 2
will attempt to provide a transition between less intensive residential uses existing to the south
and existing commercial uses to the nodh. This Transitional category allows for a fairly dense
residential development which can make a good buffer between commercial and office uses to
the north and a sin91e family residential development to the south.
With regard to compatibility, this property is adjacent to the existing Palm Beach County Mental
Health Center and the South County Professional Office Center Phase I project. The balance,
Phase II (rear 5.0 acres), is still approved but has never been c~eveloped and is now being
incorporated into this rezoning request for residential use. To the northwest is an existing Wal-
Mart Shopping Center; the property located to the south and east is the Blood's Grove properly,
which is identified on the City's (Advisory) Land Use Map as Medium Density/Low Density
Residential Commercial, Community Facilities and Open Space. To the west is the Lynn Cancer
Research Center, a Baptist Church, Country Lakes Planned Unit Development which includes
multi-f~tmily unit types and to the south of Country Lakes is the PUD known as BeI-Aire PUD
which includes single family unit types. As noted on the City of Delray Beach's Future Land Use
Plan Map, starting from the intersection of Linton Boulevard and Military Trail, on the east side
of Military Trail, the parcels are designated General Commercial, Hospital, Transitional (Planned
Office), then the subject property proposed Medium Density Residential and ultimately a Low
Density Residential. This gradual transition makes excellent Planning sense for less intense
development fudher away from the busy roadway intersections. This gradual transition also
occurs on the west side of Military Trail with properties directly across the street designated MR5
- Medium Density (Palm Beach County), which allows up to five (5) dwelling units per acres as
a Planned Unit Development.
With regard to traffic intensity, the proposed residential request will generate nearly 3,000 trips
per day less than if this project were developed under strictly a commercial designation utilizing
a Neighborhood Commercial zoning category and a Planned Office Center District. Additionally,
with regard to intensity, the City of Delray Beach responded to the Department of Community
Affairs via the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report in 1993 as part of Plan
Amendment 93-2. As part of that response the City did a Public Facilities Analysis describing the
demand with regard to Medium Density Residential Development as compared to a Transitional
Land Use Development. In part of this analysis, it was determined that water and sewer
consumption was slightly higher for a Medium Density Residential project, as well as the demand
for additional recreational area. However, traffic circulation impact and solid waste impact were
significantly less than the highest Transitional Land Use.
ALAW/jb/trail2.jus
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held on the following proposed ordinances
at 7:00 P.M. on TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 15. 1994 (or at any continuation
of such meeting which is set by the Commission), in the City
Commission Chambers, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida,
at which time the City Commission will consider their adoption.
The proposed ordinances may be inspected at the Office of the City
Clerk at City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida,
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays. Ail interested parties are invited to
attend and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinances.
ORDINANCE NO. 84-94
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 71, "PARKING REGULATIONS", BY REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 70-94 AND FORMER SECTION 71.60 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 71.060, "PARKING METER
PERMITS", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, TO ESTABLISH THAT ALL PERSONS MAY OBTAIN A PARKING PERMIT
FOR ANCHOR, SANDOWAY, AND THE HOLIDAY INN NORTH PARKING LOTS, AND
TO LIMIT THE PURCHASE OF PARKING PERMITS FOR THE INGRAHAM AVENUE
LOT TO CITY RESIDENTS IN THE MANNER WHICH EXISTED PRIOR TO
ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 70-94; ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE
PARKING PERMIT; TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFERRING OF PARKING PERMITS
AND THE ISSUANCE OF .SUBSTITUTE STICKERS FOR A SUBSTITUTE VEHICLE
ACQUIRED BY THE SAME PERMIT HOLDER SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF
THE ORIGINAL PARKING PERMIT; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE,
A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO. 87-94
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED POC (PLANNED
OFFICE CENTER) DISTRICT, IN PART, AND A (AGRICULTURAL) DISTRICT,
IN PART, TO RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, WHICH
PROVIDES A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH FLEXIBLE DENSITIES
HAVING A BASE OF SIX (6) UNITS PER ACRE AND A RANGE TO TWELVE (12)
UNITS PER ACRE, AND WHICH ALSO AUTHORIZES THE CITY COMMISSION TO
ESTABLISH THE DENSITY FOR A SPECIFIC RM DEVELOPMENT BY AFFIXING A
NUMERICAL SUFFIX TO THE DESIGNATION TO LIMIT THE DENSITY TO A
SPECIFIC NUMBER BETWEEN SIX AND TWELVE UNITS PER ACRE, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 4.4.6(H)(1) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; SAID LAND
BEING LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILITARY TRAIL, APPROXIMATELY
1,400 FEET SOUTH OF LINTON BOULEVARD, AS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, 1994"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING
CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO. 85-94
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED GC (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT IN THE CF (COMMUNITY FACILITIES) DISTRICT;
SAID LAND BEING GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF
N.W. 5TH AVENUE, BETWEEN N.W. 1ST STREET AND N.W. 2ND STREET; AND
AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1994"; PROVIDING' A
GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO. 86-94
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED CF (COMMUNITY
FACILITIES) DISTRICT IN THE GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT; SAID
LAND BEING LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE,
BETWEEN S.W. 1ST AVENUE AND S.W. 2ND AVENUE; AND AMENDING "ZONING
MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1994"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER
CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO. 89-94
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, LOT 19 OF DELRAY
BEACH ESTATES LOCATED AT 2706 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, WHICH LAND IS
CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SAID CITY; REDEFINING
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SAID LAND; AFFIXING AN OFFICIAL LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR SAID LAND TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS CONTAINED
IN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ELECTING TO
PROCEED UNDER THE SINGLE HEARING ADOPTION PROCESS FOR SMALL SCALE
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE ZONING THEREOF TO GC
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER
CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANCE NO. 90-94
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 94-1 PURSUANT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THE "LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT", FLORIDA STATUTES SECTIONS
163.3161 THROUGH 163.3243, INCLUSIVE; ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ENTITLED "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
94-1" AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE; PROVIDING A SAVING
CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
- 2 -
ORDINANCE NO. 91-94
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE XI, "BUSINESS REGULATIONS", OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY REPEALING
CHAPTER 112, "ALARM SYSTEMS", IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND ENACTING A NEW
CHAPTER 112, "ALARM SYSTEMS" TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF
ALARM SYSTEMS WITHIN THE CITY 'OF DELRAY BEACH; PROVIDING A GENE ~RAL
REPEALER CLAUSE,. A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision
made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered
at this hearing, such person will need a record of these
proceedings, and for this purpose such person may need to ensure
that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide nor
prepare such record. Pursuant to F.S. 286.0105.
PUBLISH: Delray Beach News CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
November 4, 1994 Alison MacGregor Harry
City Clerk
- 3 -