Loading...
12-09-97 DECEMBER 9, 1997 A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Jay Alperin in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 9, 1997. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Ken Ellingsworth Commissioner David Randolph Commissioner David Schmidt Mayor Jay Alperin Absent - Commissioner Kevin Egan Also present were - City Manager David T. Harden and City Attorney Susan A. Ruby 2. The opening prayer was delivered by Reverend Matthew "Bump" Mitchell, Christ Missionary Baptist Church. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. 4. A~enda Approval. Mayor Alperin noted the addition of Item 6.A., Procla- mation in recognition of John Amos and his contributions to the performing arts, to the agenda by addendum. He further noted a correction to the funding source for Item 8.H.4. The correct account number is 446-4761-572-64.90 as opposed to the 445 shown. Mr. Ellingsworth moved to approve the agenda as amend- ed, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 5. Approval of Minutes: None 6. Proclamations: 6.A. Proclamation in recognition of John Amos and his contributions to the performing arts. As no one was present to accept the proclamation, Mayor Alperin deferred its reading and presentation. 7. Presentations: 7.A. United Way of Palm Beach County. Mr. Ernest Simon, on behalf of the Board of Directors of the United Way of Palm Beach County, expressed his thanks to the employees of the City of Delray Beach for their support of the recent United Way campaign. The City of Delray Beach is the leader throughout the County in terms of municipal employee contributions. Mr. Simon then introduced Ms. Patricia Gregory, Campaign Division Director, who also expressed appreciation for the outstanding response from City employees to the campaign drive. 7.B. Government Finance Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reportinq. Mayor Alperin presented to Joe Safford, Pinance Direc- tor, the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996, from the Government Finance Officers Association. Mr. Safford expressed his appreciation to the Mayor and Commission for the award presentation. He particularly recog- nized Milena Walinski, Assistant Finance Director, and her group for the excellent work they have done in compiling the annual financial report. 7.C. 6th Annual Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Award Recognition Proqram Mr. Dan Carter, Chairman of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB), stated that the SPRAB awards are given to those property owners and their design teams who have signifi- cantly contributed to the beauty of the community through cre- ative design or renovations to existing properties. He then presented the following awards: In the category of New Commercial Development: Linton Medical Park, 4800 Linton Boulevard * Holland Builders, Inc. (Owner/Developer) * Kenneth Carlson (Architect) * Kevin Holler & Debra Turner-Oster Jerry Turner & Associates of Florida, Inc. (Landscape Architects) In the category of Multi-Family Residential Development - Larqe Scale: Citation Club, 4801 S. Citation Drive * The Beztak Companies (Developer) * Marc Wiener, AIA (Architect) * Kiernan Kilday, Kilday & Associates, Inc. (Landscape Architect) In the category of Multi-Family Residential Development - Small Scale: -2- 12/09/97 Casa La Brisa, 51-59 Seabreeze Avenue * Ironwood Properties, Inc. (Developer) * Shane Ames, Ames Design International (Architect) * Debra Turner-Oster Jerry Turner & Associates of Florida, Inc. (Landscape Architect) In the category of Architectural Design: Ocean City Lumber, 50 Pineapple Grove Way * Janet Onnen, Ocean City Properties, Ltd. (Owner) * George Brewer, Brewer Architecture (Architect) In the category of Exterior Renovations: Musician's Exchange, 213 East Atlantic Avenue * Bob Kaufman, RHA Associates, Inc. (Owner) * Spiros Zakas, Zakaspace (Architect) * Frank Smith, J.F. Smith Design & Build (Architect) In the category of Signaqe: Regal Cinemas, 1660 South Federal Highway * Regal Cinemas (Owner) * Ferrin Signs, Inc. (Sign Contractor) Joseph Zupo Custom Tailor, 54 S.E. 6th Avenue * Joseph Zupo (Owner) * MacLaren Sign Company (Sign Contractor) In the category of Murals: Ocean City Lumber (facing the F.E.C. Railroad) * Janet Onnen, Ocean City Properties, Ltd. (Owner) * Anna Evans & Joe Lavely (Artists) In the category of Redevelopment Project - CRA Area: Ocean City Lumber, 50 Pineapple Grove Way (N.E. 2nd Avenue) * Janet Onnen, Ocean City Properties, Ltd. (Owner) * George Brewer, Brewer Architecture (Architect) * Dan Carter, Daniel H. Carter Landscape Architects Inc. (Landscape Architect) In the category of Redevelopment Project - Citywide: The Plaza at Delray (northwest corner of South Federal Highway and Linton Boulevard) * Robert Shapiro, LEFMARK Florida, Inc. (Developer) * AMB Property Corporation (Developer) * Lawrence S. Levinson, Levinson Associates L.P. (Architect) * Marc Reed, Reed Landscaping, Inc. (Landscape -3- 12/09/97 Architect) At this point, Mr. Carter turned the presentation over to Mayor Alperin who presented a plaque of special recognition to LEFMARK Florida, Inc., Developer of The Plaza at Delray, for the redevel- opment of the Delray Mall into a viable center and a major asset to the City of Delray Beach. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager recommends approval. 8.A. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED/FIVE YEAR PERFORMANCE MONITOR- ING STUDY OF THE BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT: Authorize Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. to proceed with the Five Year Performance Monitoring Study of the beach nourishment project at a cost not to exceed $31,362; with funding from the Beach Resto- ration Fund (332-4164-572-31.30) . The entire cost will be reimbursed from federal, state and county appropriations. 8.B. MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT/PALM BEACH COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: Approve a mutual aid agreement by and among Palm Beach County law enforcement agencies, as amended pursuant to an Attorney General Opinion which allows Police officers to arrest outside of their jurisdiction if they observe a crime of vio- lence. 8.C. FINAL PAYMENT/SIGA INCORPORATED: Approve final payment in the amount of $8,288.74 to Siga Incorporated for landscape improvements to the 1-95 sound barrier wall, with funding from 334-4144-572-63.34. 8.D. CHANGE ORDER #1 AND FINAL PAYMENT/MAN CON, INCORPORAT- ED: Approve deduct change order in the amount of $220 and final payment in the amount of $184,729 to Man Con, Inc. for S.E. 4th Street infrastructure improvements, with funding from 442-5178- 536-61.78. 8.E. RESOLUTION NO. 86-97: Adopt a resolution assessing costs for abatement action required to remove nuisances on 21 properties throughout the City. The caption of Resolution No. 86-97 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 100 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR ABATING NUISANCES UPON CERTAIN LAND(S) LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH AND PROVIDING THAT A NOTICE OF LIEN SHALL ACCOMPANY THE NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT; SETTING OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING THE COST OF SUCH ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE 4 12/09/97 DATE AND INTEREST ON ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND DECLARING SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS. (The official copy of Resolution No. 86-97 is on file in the City Clerk's office). 8.F. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/OCEAN ISLES AT DEL-RATON PHASE II: Approve the final subdivision plat for Ocean Isles at Del-Raton Phase II, a proposed three unit townhouse development located on the east side of Frederick Boulevard, south of La Mat Avenue. 8.G, REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Historic Preserva- tion Board during the period December 1 through December 5, 1997. 8.H. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Bid award in the amount of $18,780 under GSA contract, to Pitney Bowes for a Paragon 2000 Mail Machine, with funding from 334-6112-519-64.10. 2. Bid award in the amount of $14,450 to Delray Awning, Inc. for awning covers for the teaching area and concrete pad driving range area at the Municipal Golf Course, with funding from 445-4761-572-63.90. 3. Purchase award in the amount of $177,900 to Club Car, Inc. for 60 golf carts for the Lakeview Golf Club, with funding from 446-4713-572-44.90. 4. Purchase award in the amount of $17,425 to New Holland of North America via State contract for a tractor-front end loader Model 3930, with funding from 446-4761-572-64.90 (corrected funding source). 5. Purchase award in the amount of $27,100 to Pifer International, Inc. via the Village of North Palm Beach bid for a Ransomes Model 250 mower, with funding from 445-4761-572-64.90. Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Ellingsworth. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Ran- dolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9. REGULAR AGENDA: -5- 12/09/97 9.A. CONTRACT AMENDMENT/BJCE, INC.: Consider approval of an amendment to the Golf Course Management Agreement dated November 1, 1994, to revise Exhibit "B", Performance Bonus, for FY 1998. Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated that the performance measures set forth in Exhibit "B" to the contract with BJCE, Inc. were reviewed and adjusted pursuant to Commission direction at the December 2nd regular meeting. Mr. Schmidt stated that he still felt most of the items proposed are things that would be done in the normal operation of a golf course, and that a bonus would be a reward for performance above and beyond what would normally be expected. Discussion ensued, during which Mr. Brahm Dubin, President of BJCE, Inc., explained the rationale behind setting up a bonus payment in this manner. For legal reasons, a bonus could not be calculated on a percentage profit basis. At the time the contract was entered into, the then-sitting Commission wanted to be able to give BJCE, Inc. a bonus so the Exhibit "B" containing performance measures was developed as the mechanism by which this could be done. Mr. Randolph stated that he felt Mr. Dubin's company has done an excellent job at the golf course and has turned it into a facility that the City can be very proud of. He felt that the bonus provision has served as an incentive in this regard and without it, the course might not be where it is today. Mr. Randolph moved to approve the contract amendment with BJCE, Inc. as proposed, seconded by Mr. Ellingsworth. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.B. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/FOTOFUSION '98: Consider a request for special event approval for Fotofusion '98, to include sign preparation, staff support for banner hanging, waiver of rental fees and signage costs, and a temporary use permit to allow the use of City right-of-way on N.E. 2nd Avenue. Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated that the Commission is being asked to endorse Fotofusion '98 which will be held from January 27th through January 31, 1998. The request includes the waiver of rental fees for use of City facilities, authorization for staff to make and install event signs and Photographic Center directional signs, the waiver of any costs associated with making and installing the signs, staff assistance in hanging banners, and allow the use of parking spaces on N.E. 2nd Avenue for a Pepsi truck and a Budweiser truck to assist in the hospitality program. Mr. Barcinski noted the City Commission had budgeted $6,000 to contribute to this year's Fotofusion. Staff recommends approval of the special event request. -6- 12/09/97 Mayor Alperin commented that thousands of professional photographers from all over the world will be coming to Delray Beach in January for this event. Fotofusion has become an internationally recognized photography event and provides excel- lent exposure for the City as well as Palm Beach County. Mr. Schmidt commented that a concern had been relayed to him about how the City seems to distinguish between allowing banners for special events like this and prohibiting banners for uses by business. The comment was made that the City seems to have something of a double standard for the same item. Mr. Ellingsworth moved to approve the special event request for Fotofusion '98 as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.C. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/9TH ANNUAL DOWNTOWN ART FESTIVAL: Consider a request from Howard Alan Events, Ltd. for special event approval for the 9th Annual Downtown Art Festival to be held January 10-11, 1998. Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated that the Commission is being asked to endorse the 9th Annual Downtown Art Festival sponsored by Howard Alan Events, Ltd. to be held January 10-11, 1998. The request includes approval of a temporary use permit for use of right-of-way, authorization for staff to apply for the FDOT street closure permit, staff support for security and barricading the street, and permission for an event sign to be erected on Atlantic Avenue just east of 1-95 one week prior to the event. Mr. Barcinski noted the request for closure of Atlantic Avenue has been expanded this year to west of the Intracoastal Waterway at N.E./S.E. 7th Avenue. Further, all the overtime costs associated with the event will be paid by the promoter, Mr. Alan. Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the special event request for the 9th Annual Downtown Art Festival as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.D. APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DECISION/THE MIRADOR AT SHERWOOD FOREST: Consider an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's action of November 17, 1997, to deny a master development plan modification for the Mirador at Sherwood Forest (apartment complex). The subject properties are located at the southwest and southeast corners of West Atlantic Avenue and Sherwood Forest Drive/Barwick Road, within the PRD (Planned Residential District) zone district. QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING 7 12/09/97 The City Attorney stated this item will be conducted as a quasi-judicial proceeding which allows for presentations by all involved parties, the admission of documents into the record and public testimony. The City Clerk swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Diane Dominguez, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered the Planning and Zoning Department's project file into the record, including the file for the master development plan modification, the adopted Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 97-1, the Land Development Regulations, and the minutes and taped recording of the Planning and Zoning Board's public hearing on this item held on November 17, 1997. Ms. Dominguez stated that the staff report details the applicable standards and findings, and staff's analysis of the proposal based upon those criteria. The full staff presentation was made at the Planning and Zoning Board's formal hearing, also a quasi-judicial hearing, on November 17, 1997, which is made a part of this record. Ms. Dominguez continued that the current action is an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's denial of a master development plan modification for the Sherwood Forest planned residential development (PRD). The final action for master development plans is by the Planning and Zoning Board unless that action is appealed, which is the case with this application. The proposal was to develop the two parcels of the Sherwood Forest PRD. One parcel is currently the driving range for the adjacent golf course and the other parcel is vacant except for a portion of one of the tees. The parcels are sepa- rated by Sherwood Forest Drive and the development proposal was for a 108 unit apartment complex which would consist of three buildings that are a combination of two and three-stories and one two-story building. Also included in the proposal were a recrea- tion building, a swimming pool and a tot lot. All of the units were proposed to be one and two bedroom apartments. No three bedroom units were proposed. Ms. Dominguez continued that the existing Sherwood Forest PRD is developed with single family zero lot line homes that surround the golf course and a clubhouse. The homes are one and two-story in height. The property, being zoned PRD, is subject to certain standards which speak to the integration of the community, the sharing of common areas and open space, and so on. The existing single family community is gated from the two front parcels proposed for development. The golf course is separately owned, and the apartment complex is not proposed to be integrated at all into the existing community. The overall site barely functions anymore as a planned residential development and this has created quite a bit of difficulty as far as evaluating the development proposal in terms of the special PRD standards. Ms. Dominguez noted it is especially difficult trying to inte- grate a new 108 unit apartment complex within an existing, -8- 12/09/97 established low density single family golf course-type community. She stated this is at the heart of staff's objections as well as the Planning and Zoning Board's objections to this proposal. The applicant does have the underlying Medium Density land use which allows for a range of from 5 to 12 units per acre. However, given the existing development pattern of the remainder of the planned residential district and the pattern of development of the surrounding neighborhoods, staff and the Board do not feel it is appropriate to develop these parcels at the maximum density of just under 12 units per acre which is what is proposed. It is especially inappropriate when it results in some fairly massive three-story buildings that are not in keeping with the rest of the character of the PRD. It is inconsistent with required findings of compatibility and with several Comprehensive Plan policies, including the Housing Element Policy C-2.4 which states that development of remaining vacant properties which are zoned for residential uses shall be consistent with adjacent develop- ment regardless of the zoning. The vacant parcels at Sherwood Forest are the entryway to the existing single family neighbor- hood and the character of their development will affect the stability of the rest of the neighborhood. There is also the concern that the proposed development is oriented primarily to adults, given that it is all one and two-bedroom units and has limited recreational amenities, when the City has indentified that housing for families with children is a critical need. Ms. Dominguez further stated that the applicant's attorney, Michael Weiner, has either submitted or will be submit- ting some documentation to the City Commission. One document is a memorandum that outlines some of the reasons for the appeal and why the appellant feels the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board should be reversed. In this document, Mr. Weiner contends that the density of the subject parcels should be evaluated in context of the entire planned residential district and that the density should be calculated on an overall basis for the PRD and not separately. If this were done and the existing 125 single family homes, the golf course and the proposed 108 apartments were considered together given the acreage, this would equate to something like 3 units to the acre for the overall PRD. Mr. Weiner has stated that he feels the City has denied that level of density and, therefore, it is inappropriate because the parcel is guaranteed 5 to 12 units per acre. Ms. Dominguez stated she feels this is an incorrect interpretation of the PRD zoning district standards. The zoning district regulations state that the density for a PRD is either to be established by a suffix, as is the case with Hammock Reserve and Delray Lakes, or in a case where there is not a suffix such as the subject property the density is based on the underlying land use designation. The subject PRD has three different underlying land use designations. The golf course has an Open Space designation that allows no residential units. The single family section has a designation of Low Density Residential that allows up to 5 units per acre, and the driving range and the vacant parcel have a Medium Density Residential designation which allows 5 to 12 units per acre. Ms. -9- 12/09/97 Dominguez stated it is incorrect to assert that the overall density of this entire PRD is 5 to 12 units per acre and that there is some inherent right to transfer unused density from the golf course or from the single family section to the subject section and bump up the density on the front parcels accordingly. Everything that has been developed thus far in this PRD has been in accordance with the densities allowed by the underlying land use designations, and the density of this remaining vacant land needs to be considered separately. In conclusion, Ms. Dominguez stated that the Planning and Zoning Board held a quasi-judicial public hearing on the development proposal on November 17, 1997. There was a great deal of public testimony opposing the development. The Planning and Zoning Board voted to deny the master development plan modification based on the inability to make positive findings with the applicable performance standards, Comprehensive Plan policies, and site plan findings as listed in the staff report. Primarily, the Board felt that the scale and intensity of the development was out of character and not compatible with the surrounding development. At this point, Michael Weiner, attorney representing the appellant, Mirador Corporation, presented his case. Mr. Weiner stated the appeal is pursuant to Section 2.4.7 of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach. The appli- cant is Mirador Corporation, a Florida corporation, and is a contract vendee; that is, the applicant is the buyer under a contract to purchase from Sherwood Park Golf, Inc., which is the present owner of the land. The relief being sought is a reversal of the decision to deny the master development plan modification which Mirador Corporation submitted for the project known as Mirador at Sherwood Forest. The reasons for the reversal should be as follows: First of all, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Delray Beach and the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach compel the granting of this particular project. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the project is Medium Density Residential (5-12 units). The zoning is PRD (Planned Residential District). Reading from Section 4.4.7 of the Land Development Regulations, Mr. Weiner stated, "The Planned Residen- tial District provides a residential zoning district with flexi- ble densities in which multiple family and single family detached dwellings are designed together so as to promote improved design, character and quality of development, and to preserve natural scenic and open space features of a site, and to accommodate flexibility in design." Mr. Weiner continued that the subject proposal is a request for a total density of the original PRD equal to 3.1 units per acre. This density, the City's ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan require the City Commission to grant the modification. It is less than the amount allowed. Second, Mr. Weiner stated that the decision denying the project was contrary to the evidence submitted at the quasi-judi- cial hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. The evidence -10- 12/09/97 given at that hearing from the applicant's side was evidence that was submitted by experts in the field of land planning. Contrary to Florida legal precedent, non-expert testimony was considered and weighed upon. It takes substantial, competent evidence to reach a decision. None was offered and the expert evidence was disregarded. Mr. Weiner continued that the third reason the decision must be reversed is that the City is estopped from denying this project having received a benefit at the time of the original annexation of the property and having given the owner and appli- cant a right to rely upon the actions of the City. The subject property was annexed into the City as a PRD in 1988 on the express condition that the golf course remain as a golf course. This was extracted from the land owner at the time. Mr. Weiner stated there are numerous things in the record showing that the land owner had to give the golf course over and have deed re- strictions on the golf course in order to get the property zoned for planned residential development. In exchange, the present Sherwood was allowed to use the golf course and part of the open area was credited to Sherwood to allow it to be built. Regard- less of the difficulty in evaluating the property as a PRD, the property is zoned PRD and that zone district requires that the project be treated as one. Mr. Weiner contended that staff had treated it as one by requesting integration on such things as roadways, sidewalks and other common areas. The only issues that were treated differently were the issues of open space and density. Mr. Weiner stated that staff cannot take such portions of the integration which they believe are to the City's benefit and deny other portions which were previously part of the annexa- tion. Mr. Weiner continued that if the City Commission does not reverse the decision, the owner and the applicant are dam- aged. The due process rights of the owner and applicant are violated as a result of the City's reinterpretation of this ordinance, depriving them of their ability to develop the proper- ty and resulting in a taking of property without compensation. Mr. Weiner reiterated that the relief sought is reversal of the Planning and Zoning Board's decision and approve the modification of the master development plan. because the due process rights of the owner and applicant are violated. In conclusion, Mr. Weiner reviewed with the Commission the following cases: (1) Colonial Apartments, LP v. City of Deland, 577 So.2d 593 (Sth Dist. 1991). In particular, he noted how the Court talked about how the elected and appointed offi- cials charged with the administration of the city and county government are subject to increasing pressures, the difficulties in all of the weighing they had to give to all of the things that occured at the particular hearing. But then the Court goes on to say, "In statutory construction, statutes must be given their plan and obvious meaning ...". Mr. Weiner stated that the City Commission must look at the plain and obvious meaning of the PRD -11- 12/09/97 zoning district. He then noted that the Court further found, "A community should be developed in accordance with planned action. Development decisions should not be made in reaction to an application that relies on an ordinance establishing a density no longer acceptable to the majority of the current members of a governing body. Owners are entitled to fair play; the lands which may represent their life fortunes should not be subjected to ad hoc legislation." In paraphrase, Mr. Weiner stated that just because the City doesn't like this particular ordinance, it can't just be thrown away. The second case cited by Mr. Weiner was BML Investments v. City of Casselberry, 476 So.2d 713 (Sth Dist. 1985), rev. denied, 486 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1986). The Court found in part, "Courts have held that objections of residents in surrounding neighborhoods to proposed developments are not a sound basis for denying a permit to build." Mr. Weiner noted that the Court went on to say that denying BML's proposed development based upon what the majority of the persons affected said, was not a reason for denying the application. With this, Mr. Weiner concluded his presentation. Prior to opening the proceeding to comments from those in favor of the appeal and those not in favor of the appeal, the City Attorney noted that while it is true that the Courts will not look at public opposition and weigh that, the Courts have recently given weight to some opinions of laypersons as to aesthetics and other issues. However, if a layperson gives an opinion on something that requires an expert in the Court's mind, it might not be legally a basis for denying the appeal. No one from the audience came forward to speak in favor of the appeal. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the appeal: Mr. Willard (Bill) Schwartz, 3863 Live Oak Boulevard, who stated that he feels there are facts to support the public opposition to the proposed development. The presentation by the appellant tries to reassemble a planned residential development which has been segmented away for years. The issue in this instance is that of compatibility. To put in two and three-story apartment buildings at such a high density in close proximity to two very fine residential communities in the suburban part of the city does not meet the compatibility standard. It is important to not get caught up with urban densities in suburban areas of the City in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Higher densities are needed downtown to support our commercial interests and that tax base. In the suburban areas, the focus should be on iow density and not destroying the value of adjacent communities which are single family detached home neighborhoods. Mr. Schwartz requested the Commission to support the decision of the -12- 12/09/97 Planning and Zoning Board and the staff recommendation to deny the development proposal. Mr. Arthur Antin, 4780 Sherwood Forest Drive, and President of the Sherwood Forest Homeowners Association, who presented to the City Commission a copy of the comments he made at the Planning and Zoning Board's quasi-judicial hearing on November 17, 1997, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Antin stated there are 125 homeowners in Sherwood Forest who are deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts of the proposed development not only on their life style but on the property values in the community. Mr. Edward Raspler, 3501 Pine Lake Court within The Hamlet Country Club, which is immediately east of the proposed development. Mr. Raspler stated he has been a developer of single family, multi-family and commercial projects over the last 25 years and so speaks with some expertise in this matter. He stated that the proposed development of 108 units on nine acres, with approximately a 150 ft. setback from Atlantic Avenue, is a very, very intense development both physically and visually. The subject property is approximately four and one half times as wide as it is deep, and the impact of three-story multiple family dwellings that close to the road and abutting our property with a six foot separating wall is totally and completely incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Mrs. Jean Beer, President of Proqressive Residents of Delray (P.R.O.D.), stated that P.R.O.D. supports the position of staff and the Planning and Zoning Board in that the proposed development is not compatible with its surroundings. Mrs. Beer continued that she finds it disturbing that from the outset, the applicant has not made any changes to the proposal. There has been no attempt at compromise or bending to try to address the expressed concerns. Mr. Arthur Zweiqenhaft, 425 Sherwood Forest Drive, stated that at the time he purchased his home, a misrepresenta- tion was made. This misrepresentation was made in printed material given to home buyers which showed the two pieces of property in question as part of the golf course. There was no reason to inquire about zoning since it was shown as a recreation areas. The developers are long gone, so the residents are looking to the City Commission for fair and equitable treatment. Not only were the home buyers subject to deceit and misrepresen- tation then, but now the property owners may be subjected to a development that they feel is detrimental to the community and its quality of life. Mr. Georqe Mark Curry, 4670 Sherwood Forest Drive, stated he is a member of the New York bar although he no longer practices law. He refuted Mr. Weiner's statement that the Commission is obligated by law to reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Laws are made in this country and, -13- 12/09/97 under circumstances, can be amended, denied or supported based upon findings. Mr. Curry asked the Commission to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board based upon their findings, especially as to compatibility and the vision for the City as set out in the Comprehensive Plan. At this point, Mr. Weiner presented his rebuttal. With respect to the issues raised concerning compatibility, Mr. Weiner pointed out that proposed project is surrounded by no less than six different types of zoning. A main arterial roadway is in the front of the property which carries almost 30,000 cars a day. With respect to the site plan issues that were raised, Mr. Weiner stated the City has a Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and all of those issues such as whether or not there are adequate recreational amenities and do emergency vehicles have adequate access will be addressed by that board. What has been the issue of whether or not this is a whole PRD or whether it can somehow be bifurcated, if one looks at the zoning map it is not bifurcat- ed. The City decided it was going to be treated this way with the benefit of the open space of the golf course in 1988. That bargain cannot be undone. In summation, Mr. Weiner referred to a letter dated January 4, 1989, from Paul Dorling (at that time Planner II) to then City Attorney Herb Thiele. The third para- graph of the letter states, "The PRD-L zoning designation re- quires a 15% open space requirement. As a condition of site plan approval on August 23, 1988, the residential development was required to integrate the golf course development into the project by (1) making memberships available to all Sherwood Forest homeowners as well as (2) assuring the continued existence of the golf course ...". He concluded by stating that if the City thought it was a good deal then, it has to be abided by now. Discussion by the Commission ensued. Mr. Schmidt commented that in the letter dated January 4, 1989, from Mr. Dorling to Mr. Thiele, reference is made to the fact that the entire property was annexed into the City with a PRD-L (Planned Residential Development Low to Medium Density) designation on October 11, 1988. Mr. Schmidt asked if this zoning category is still contained in the City Code? Ms. Domin- guez stated the PRD-L zoning category no longer exists. Mr. Schmidt then asked if the PRD-L zone district provided for a maximum density at the time the property was annexed? In re- sponse, Ms. Dominguez stated the PRD-L district provided for a base of three units per acre up to a maximum of 6.9 dwelling units per acre. She continued that one of the difficulties with this PRD is that there was no overall development plan ever discussed, no maximum number of units for the PRD. What was considered was the plat and the plan for the single family homes and the golf course, and the front parcels were left with the Medium Density land use designation. From what staff could find through research, there was no discussion of an overall density for the entire PRD as a whole. -14- 12/09/97 On question from Mr. Randolph, Ms. Dominguez stated that staff did not find anything that indicated the driving range was to be preserved or kept in open space. It is assumed from the underlying land use designation of Medium Density that it was ultimately intended to be developed. The sale of the property by Sherwood Golf to the present developer does not violate any master plan or deed restrictions or anything of that nature. Mr. Ellingsworth moved to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board's decision and deny the master development plan for The Mirador at Sherwood Forest based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Stan- dards) and Sections 2.4.5 (F) (5) (Site Plan Findings) , 3.1.1(C) (Standards for Site Plan Actions) , 4.4.7(F) (2) (PRD - Development Standards), and 4.4.7(H) (1) (Density) and (2) (Master Site Plan Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and Land Use Element Objective A-1 of the Comprehensive Plan, and Policy C-2.4 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Upon roll call the Commis- sion voted as follows: Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. At this point, the time being 7:45 p.m., the Commission moved to the duly advertised Public Hearings portion of the agenda. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.A. ORDINANCE NO. 32-97 (ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 97-1): An ordinance adopting Comprehensive Plan Amendment 97-1 which implements the changes recommended in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) adopted by the City Commis- sion on July 9, 1996, via Resolution No. 54-96. Prior to consid- eration of passage of this ordinance on Second and FINAL Reading, a public hearing has been scheduled to be held at this time. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 32-97: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 97-1 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE "LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT" FLORIDA STATUTES SECTIONS 163.3161 THROUG~ 163.3243, INCLUSIVE; ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ENTITLED "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 97-1" AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE; PROVID- ING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 32-97 is on file in the City Clerk's office) -i5- i2/09/97 The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. John Walker, Project Coordinator, presented an overview of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 97-1. On September 9, 1997, the City Commission voted to transmit the document to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for the required review. During the DCA review process, staff performed a detailed edit of the document and made certain changes involving format, correction of typographical errors, and adjustments for internal consistency. None of the changes resulted in a change in growth management philosophy or in the direction of the transmitted document. As examples, Mr. Walker cited the following: Conservation Policy B-2.2, regarding the preservation of sensitive flora and fauna during development, was clarified to allow mitigation where preservation is not possible or appropriate; Open Space and Recreation Policy A-3.1, calling for the provision of tot lots and recreation areas in new residential developments, was revised to be consistent with a similar policy (B-2.2) in the Housing Element; Coastal Management Policy D-3.3, regarding commercial development on the barrier island in the area of Atlantic Avenue/ State Road A1A, was found to be redundant and deleted; Future Land Use Policy A-2.3, which was called for in the EAR but inadvertently omitted from the transmitted Comprehensive Plan, was added. This policy states that the development of remaining vacant properties shall occur in a manner which is consistent with and complimentary to adjacent development, regardless of zoning designations; and Future Land Use Policy D-l.1, regarding the policy toward racial balance in schools, was expanded to specify the City's goals in addition to those of the School Board. Mr. Walker then reviewed the results of the DCA review as contained in the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC) and how the various comments and objections had been addressed. At this point, Mayor Alperin declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the audience who wished to address the City Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Schmidt moved to approve Ordinance No. 32-97 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 10.B. SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY (~OPE 3 PROGRAM): Consider approval of the Contract for Sale and Purchase between the City and Porfirio Maisonet and Debbie Shoun for property located at 239 N.E. 9th Street, through the HOPE 3 Program. Prior to consideration of this item, a public hearing has been scheduled to be held at this time. -16- 12/09/97 Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated that under the HOPE 3 Program the City has acquired all ten of the units programmed for this year under this affordable housing program. The contract before the Commission represents the sixth sale of a HOPE 3 unit to an income eligible homebuyer. Mayor Alperin declared the public hearing open. There being no one who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Ellingsworth moved to approve the Contract for Sale and Purchase for property located at 239 N.E. 9th Street under the HOPE 3 Program, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 11. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Aqenda Items from the Public-Immediately followinq Public Hearinqs. ll.A. City Manaqer's response to prior public comments and inquiries. Concerning the request for the City to reconsider its prohibition of dogs east of the curb on A1A, the City Manager read the following response from Mr. Rich Connell, Beach Supervi- sor: "I recommend continuing the 'no dogs east of curb' ordi- nance. As a dog owner and lover, I asked a Police officer why this prohibition was stencilled on the curb of Ocean Boulevard every couple of hundred feet when I moved to Delray Beach in 1971. I was told this was at the request of many senior citizens who walked along Ocean Boulevard every evening and brought folding chairs to sit, talk and play cards in the early evening. The introduction of dogs along the sidewalk is undesirable for two reasons. Many dog owners have not trained their dogs suffi- ciently to keep them under control as they pass by people and other dogs. Many children and elderly persons have a fear of lunging, barking and growling dogs. Second, dog owners rarely take responsibility for the feces left by their pets defecating in the grassy area between the sidewalk and the dune. This area is enjoyed by many visitors to walk across, sit or lay down on a blanket. Again, dog feces deposited in this area are highly undesirable and present a health hazard to people without shoes. It is unfortunate that a few ruin it for many, but it is reason- able for the City to insure the health and safety of those using the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk areas." In response to the suggestion from Mr. Scheinberg, President of the Tropic Isles Homeowners Association, that the City might be able to get Florida Inland Navigation District (F.I.N.D.) and Boating Improvement money to improve the canals in the Tropic Isles area, the City Manager reported that staff contacted F.I.N.D. to get information about the newspaper article regarding the dredging of the Hillsboro Canal. F.I.N.D. provides -17- 12/09/97 grants for projects that are on natural, navigable waterways. Even though the Hillsboro Canal is called a canal, it was origi- nally a natural waterway. F.I.N.D. provides funding for projects that are in the rights-of-way of the Intracoastal Waterway. The right-of-way is generally defined as bulkhead to bulkhead at the mouth of the canals tying into the Intracoastal. F.I.NoD. does provide assistance for dredging at the mouth of man-made canals. They will not do any dredging in the man-made canals because they believe these are private canals and only benefit the few proper- ty owners living on them. The City Manager continued that staff had also contacted the Palm Beach County Parks Department regard- ing the Boating Improvement Program. These funds are received by the County from the County vessel registration fees. Although the County has participated in funding municipal projects, they are not required to participate in municipal projects. Approxi- mately 100% of the funds programmed over the next three to four years are intended to fund major County projects. The intent of these funds is to fund projects that serve the largest possible general public population. In conclusion, the City Manager stated that staff does not believe either one of these funding sources would be available. Concerning Mr. St. Louis Marvilius who had appeared before the Commission with a zoning problem related to his church, the City Manager reported that he was cited by Code Enforcement for illegally establishing a church in a Special Activities District zone. He has been given all of the necessary documents and information to make application for the conditional use approval which is required. The Manager stated Mr. Marvilius had been given those documents prior to his appearance before the City Commission and, at least as of December 2nd, had not made application. With respect to the request from the Southridge Home- owners Association about paving their road, the City Manager reported that he had sent Mr. Martinez, the Association's Presi- dent, a letter informing him that the Southridge neighborhood has been designated by the City as a redevelopment area. This means that a plan is to be prepared by the City which will specify the improvements that are to be made to the neighborhood such as streets, lighting and landscaping, and determine how and when those improvements are to be funded. That plan is to be prepared by the Planning and Zoning Department in the coming year. The Planning staff will contact Mr. Martinez to arrange a neighbor- hood meeting to discuss preparation of the plan. ll.B. From the Public. ll.B.1. Mrs. Jean Beer, 945 Tropic Boulevard, thanked the City Manager for the restriping of Tropic Boulevard. It does make it easier for cars to get out since drivers are now going either right or left. However, Mrs. Beer expressed concern about what seems to be a total lack of communication with the Federal Department of Transportation. When the City did the beautifica- -18- 12/09/97 tion of North Federal Highway, all of the money that was supposed to be applied to South Federal Highway was used for the North Federal project. The rationale for this was that South Federal Highway was going to be widened and it would not make sense to beautify the road and then have to tear it up. Now, the federal government has come along and is tearing out all of the beautifi- cation that was put in at both ends of the highway. Further, there was a traffic study done for Tropic Boulevard which showed no need for signalization. Now, however, South Federal Highway is being widened up to Linton Boulevard during the holiday season. Mrs. Beer stated that Linton Boulevard and Federal Highway has one of the highest accident rates in the City. With the lane closures due to the road work, the traffic situation in the area has become horrendous and she questioned why this large of a roadway improvement was being done at this particular time of year when traffic is at its worst. Concerning Frederick Boulevard, Mrs. Beer commented that the new townhouse development has definitely improved the neighborhood. However, she questioned when the shellrock portion of Frederick Boulevard south of La Mat Avenue would also be improved? Concerning the use of banners, Mrs. Beer stated that she feels the City's regulations need to be looked at in this regard. There has been an ongoing battle with an automobile dealership over the use of banners at a commercial location. It used to be that banners were allowed only for grand openings, but now they are being used for special events and she felt this was opening up the issue to abuse. Mrs. Beer urged the Commission to have the regulations concerning banners reviewed and better defined. 12. FIRST READINHS: None At this point, the Commission returned to Item 9.E. on the regular agenda. 9.E. RESOLUTION NO. 89-97: Consider approval of a resolu- tion authorizing the Community Redevelopment Agency to acquire by gift, purchase or eminent domain certain real property located within Block 36, Town of Delray (West Side Liquor property). The City Manager presented Resolution No. 89-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED BY THE DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR EMINENT DOMAIN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. -19- 12/09/97 (The official copy of Resolution No. 89-97 is on file in the City Clerk's office) ~ Mr. Chris Brown, Executive Director of the Community Redevelopment Agency, explained that the acquisition of this property is part of the CRA's strategy with respect to the West Atlantic Avenue redevelopment plan. Acquisition efforts without the use of eminent domain have not been successful; hence, the request for authorization to acquire the property by eminent domain. Mr. Ellingsworth moved to approve Resolution No. 89-97, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Prior to roll call, Mr. Randolph stated that while he supports the property acquisition by the CRA, he cautioned with respect to agreements the current owner might have with other parties. He urged that these aspects be looked into and resolved as necessary before they might become bigger problems after the fact. 9.F. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT/INFORMATION COLLECTION RULE: Determine which of two alternative methods should be used to comply with the Information Collection Rule as it relates to the Safe Drinking Water Act of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Richard Hasko, Acting Director of Environmental Servic- es, explained that the City was mandated to perform testing and analysis of raw and finished water at the Water Treatment Plant for levels of total organic carbons (TOCs) pursuant to require- ments of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Information Collec- tion Rule. Based on the results of that testing, it was deter- mined that the City is required to take further action for compliance with the Information Collection Rule. Mr. Hasko explained the two options available for compliance; either paying the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a "buy out" fee of $100,000 for use at their discretion in testing programs nation- wide, or bench scale testing of membrane treatment for removal of total organic carbons (TOCs) from finished water at the Water Treatment Plant at an approximate cost of $130,000.00. While somewhat more costly, the bench scale testing will provide useful data for future decision making regarding alternative treatment technologies. The request before the Commission this evening is authorization to notify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of the City's intent to comply with the Information Collection Rule using bench scale testing of membrane treatment. Mr. Randolph moved to authorize notification to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of the City's intent to comply with the Information Collection Rule using bench scale -20- 12/09/97 testing of membrane treatment as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Schmidt0 Upon roll call the Commis- sion voted as follows: Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.G. RESOLUTION NO. 88-97 (PARKING MANAGEMENT TEAM): Consider approval of a resolution to formally establish the Parking Management Team as an advisory board to the City Commis- sion. The City Manager presented Resolution No. 88-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING THE PARKING MANAGEMENT TEAM AS AN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION; PROVIDING FOR THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD'S PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR THE BOARD'S COMPOSI- TION, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS AND TERMS; PROVIDING A GEOGRAPHIC AREA WITHIN WHICH THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD SHALL OPERATE; PROVIDING GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Resolution No. 88-97 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) Mr. Ellingsworth commented that he felt it would be desirable to add someone with expertise in parking enforcement (i.e. a Police officer or perhaps one of the parking volunteers) to the make-up of the Parking Management Advisory Board. After discussion, it was the consensus to have someone in this capacity serve as an ex-officio member to the advisory board for benefit of their expertise. Mr. Randolph moved to approve Resolution No. 88-97, seconded by Mr. Ellingsworth. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.H. REMOVED 9.I. APPOINTMENT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMIT- TEE (RESOLUTION NO. 87-97): Appoint a member (Advocate for Low Income Persons) to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to fill an unexpired term ending March 31, 1999, and adopt Resolu- tion No. 87-97. The appointment will be made by Commissioner Schmidt. The caption of Resolution No. 87-97 is as follows: -21- 12/09/97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO STATE LAW; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Resolution No. 87-97 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) Mr. Schmidt moved to appoint Joseph D'Ambrosio (citi- zen-at-large serving in the capacity of Advocate for Low Income Persons) to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to fill an unexpired term ending March 31, 1999, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Alperin Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Mr. Schmidt moved to approve Resolution No. 87-97 formally appointing Mr. D'Ambrosio to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.J. APPOINTMENT TO THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD: Appoint an alternate member to the Nuisance Abatement Board to fill an unexpired term ending March 31, 1999. The appointment will be made by Commissioner Ellingsworth. Mr. Ellingsworth moved to appoint Vera Scott as an alternate member to the Nuisance Abatement Board to fill an unexpired term ending March 31, 1999, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.K. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD: Appoint two regular members to the Code Enforcement Board for three year terms ending January 14, 2001. The appointments will be made by Commissioner Ellingsworth (architect position) and Commissioner Randolph (businessperson position). Mr. Ellingsworth moved to reappoint Barbara Holden as a regular member to the Code Enforcement Board (layperson serving in the capacity of architect) for a three year term ending January 14, 2001, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Mr. Randolph moved to appoint Lynn Gardner as a regular member to the Code Enforcement Board (layperson serving in the capacity of businessperson) for a three year term ending January 14, 2001, seconded by Mr. Ellingsworth. Upon roll call the -22- 12/09/97 Commission voted as follows: Mayor Alperin - Yes; Mr. Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 13. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Aqenda Items. 13.A. City Manaqer. In response to the question raised by Commissioner Schmidt about occupational licenses for hair stylists when they rent space within an existing hair salon, the City Manager stated they are required to get an occupational license. Whoever on staff told them that it was not necessary was mistaken. 13.B. City Attorney. The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries. 13.C. City Commission. 13.C.1. Commissioner Schmidt had no comments or inquiries. 13.C.2. Commissioner Ellingsworth wished everyone a very happy holiday and all the best of the season. 13.C.3. Commissioner Randolph asked if a business owner cur- rently holds an occupational license and then moves to another location, can the occupational license be transferred from one location to the other? The City Manager responded in the affirmative, noting that there is a minor fee of $5.00 for the transfer. 13.C.4. Mayor Alperin requested that the cover sheet of the agenda be amended by deleting the reference to '10 minutes for group presentations' from paragraph 1, Public Comment. Secondly, Mayor Alperin wished everyone a very happy holiday season. There being no further business, Mayor Alperin declared the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. J-Ci~- ~rk - ATTEST.' .~ ~. The un~der~sigAned~ the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the minutes of the meeting of said City Commission held on December 9, 1997, -23- 12/09/97 which minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on Q~Lg~m~2~ ~ /99F - Cit9 Cl~rk NOTE TO READER: If the minutes you have received are not com- pleted as indicated above, this means they are not the official minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official minutes only after review and approval which may involve some amendments, additions or deletions. -24- 12/09/97 COMMENTS BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning and Zoning Board. I welcome this opportunity to appear before you and react both to the plans presented by Mr. DiMisa for the development of the property formerly owned by the Sherwood Park Golf Corporation and fronting on Atlantic Ave, and to the Planning staWs recommendation regarding these aforementioned plans. I can say with some certainty that there are very few things all 125 homeowners of Sherwood Forest would uniformly agree on. To be on the safe side, I will state as President of our Homeowners' Association, that the overwhelming majority would agree on some of the basic issues facing our Association and its members as regards the proposed development. First, and foremost there is almost unanimous agreement that we would prefer to see no development on this property at all. Our residents are mainly senior and near to be seniors who have purchased their homes in Sherwood Forest because they fell in love with the serenity and peaceful solitude it afforded. The driving range on the East side and the open land on West as you enter Sherwood Forest Drive from Atlantic Ave. provide buffers from the noise and bustle of busy Atlantic Ave., and this is what we all anticipated would continue indefinitely when we purchased our homes. Our second concern covers the question of the propriety of placing rental units in such close proximity to Sherwood Forest and the Hamlet developments. These private homes reflect an expectation of a quality of life that is not reflected in 108 rental units on less than 10 acres of property creating 11 units per acre at a rental of approximately 85 to 90 cents a square foot. We seriously question whether this density and this level of rental qualifies as luxury apartments or are compatible with what presently exists as housing in these two developments. We don't want any development. If, in the long run, development is to be, we feel there must be a greater degree of compatibility between what is built and what is already established. Our third concern is for safety. Sherwood Forest Drive is a narrow, curvy, two lane entrance from Atlantic Avenue to where our guard house and entry gates are located. Normal traffic entering and exiting our area from Atlantic Avenue will face both vehicular and pedestrian traffic crossing Sherwood Forest Drive easterly and westerly at a dangerous curve. We see this all as an accident waiting to happen. Our fourth concern is regarding the problem of flooding. Our homeowners for a long time thought that the storm water drains running along side our main thorough-fare must empty out in a City sewer system. We found out this is not the case. Our storm water is simply transported to the Golf Course where it drains out in the open areas. This may be fine in a period of light rains, but when the deluges come, the golf course develops lakes and unplanned water hazards, and many of our homes built beside the course have areas of swamp like conditions which sometimes last two or three weeks. Staff people at the Golf Course have told me that prior to our homes being built they never had a problem with flooding. Obviously, covering over open land with houses and roadways reduces the areas ability to absorb water. The proposed development further paves over open ground and hopes to control flooding with two retention areas where the builders have been assured by their engineers that the water will be absorbed in two or three days. Our day to day living experience would deny that possibility. We maintain much work has to be done in the over-all PRD zone to insure that the present development, any future development and the golf course itself are not inundated. Finally, while we are pleased that the Staff has addressed many of the problems previously mentioned by virtue of their rejection of the plan as proposed, we have some concerns. The revision to the PRD zoning and therefor the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan as applied to the proposed development does indeed limit density, addresses the number of stories planned and seeks more open space. It does so, in effect, by requiring this, and all such developments in the future to provide housing for families including teen agers, with accompanying amenities such as ball fields etc. To our residents these requirements would change the nature of our community and the quality of life we bought into. Children are wonderful. Most of our people have them and grandchildren as well. We love and cherish them, but we are at, or approaching, an age where our quality of life is dependent on the serenity of a less stressful community then one which caters to children. The City does have a responsibility to insure that families are welcome to Delray and that we don't become a city mainly seen as a haven for retirees. But it seems to us that if we have chosen that life style, a change mid-stream is inequitable. Our PRD did not address planning so specific for encouraging families with children when we purchased our homes. It seems an unfair burden to ask us to accept these requirements after the fact. Respectfully submitted Arthur Antin Sherwood Forest HOA November 17, 1997