Loading...
12-16-92SpMtg DECEMBER 16, 1992 A Special Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Thomas E. Lynch in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 12:05 P.M., Wednesday, December 16, 1992. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner Ken Ellingsworth Commissioner Armand Mouw Commissioner David Randolph Mayor Thomas E. Lynch Absent - None Also present were - City Manager David T. Harden and City Attorney Jeffrey S. Kurtz Mayor Lynch called the meeting to order and announced that this meeting has been called for the purpose of considering the following: 1. Ordinance No. 64-92. Ordinance No. 64-92, amending the Waterford/Delint SAD in conjunction with the Builder's Square proposal is before the Commission for consideration on FINAL action. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 64-92: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, RESTATING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 79-84, AND ORDINANCES NO. 96-87, AND NO. 68-89, WHICH PREVIOUSLY AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 79-84, PERTAINING TO AN 86.423 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, PRESENTLY ZONED SAD (SPECIAL ACTIVITY DIS- TRICT) AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINTON BOULEVARD BETWEEN LINDELL BOULEVARD AND INTERSTATE-95, SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST; MODIFYING THE ALLOWABLE USES OF LAND, APPROVING A REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT, DELETING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH HAVE BEEN MET OR ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY, DETERMINING THE VESTED STATUS OF THE WATERFORD SAD, PROVIDING A GENERAL RE- PEALER, A SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Copy of Ordinance No. 64-92 is on file in the official Ordinance Book) Mayor Lynch summarized the results of the last meeting on December 8, 1992, noting that the applicant was to meet with County staff and administration in an effort to come up with a reasonable solution to the concerns raised about necessary traf- fic mitigation relating to this project. Mr. Alan Ciklin, attorney representing the applicant, who stated that since the last meeting, he and the developer have been working on the impact fee credits of $278,000 for Builder's Square, having met and spoken with several County Commissioners, all of whom seem to be receptive to the City's request for impact fee credits. It is his understanding that the County staff has requested additional information before they would make a recom- mendation, and is in the process of providing that information to them. However, he believes that a program has now been worked out that will guarantee the City's concerns over the impact fee credits, as follows: The developer would continue to ask the City to cooperate in pursuing the impact fee credits from the County for Builder's Square; however, in the event that the credits are not given, the developer will make up any shortfall in those credits. For example, if none of the $278,000 is al- lowed as credits, the developer will pay the $278,000 as addi- tional cash to the City. In addition, as previously committed, the developer will pay $212,000 to the City for S.W. 10th Avenue, so the $490,000 is guaranteed to the City. Upon question from Mayor Lynch, Mr. Ciklin stated that the funds would be provided upon the letting of the contract for the road or prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever came first. Mr. Ciklin further stated that included in the staff reports, are a couple of extensions that the City may give admin- istratively on some FDOT determinations which basically deal with 1-95 ramp studies. These have been supplied to FDOT, but, due to the holiday season, they may not be forthcoming by December 31st as required. Therefore, Mr. Ciklin asked that the City extend the determination date to March l, 1993. Lastly, Mr. Ciklin acknowledged receipt of the supplemental conditions of approval (12 conditions) and agreed to comply with same as they are stated. Mayor Lynch asked if the other property owners in the area (Haggerty, Boos, Wallace, etc.) had been contacted and if agreement with them had been reached. Mr. Ciklin stated that each of them had been contacted regarding the right-of-way and they all indicated a willingness to cooperate fully with the City in trying to make the plan happen. In response to Dr. Alperin, Mr. Ciklin advised that they had one letter of commitment signed from Mr. Haggerty; Mr. Wallace has indicated his willingness to sign a letter, and Mr. Boos was unavailable to sign, but has indicated that he will cooperate. -2- 1Z/16/92 Dr. Alperin expressed concern about the various contin- gencies attached to this project, including the lack of signed letters of commitment from the other affected property owners and the lack of firm commitment from the Board of County Commission- ers that the impact fee credits will be allocated to the City for this project, or in lieu thereof, having the developer put the money up front. In response to a question from Commissioner Mouw, Mr. Tom McMurrain stated that he had a signed letter of commitment for right-of-way from Mr. Haggerty, he had spoken with both Mr. Boos and Mr. Wallace, read them the letter, and they both had agreed to sign. Based on that information and based on the developer's commitment to fund the road impact fees if, in fact, the County does not provide the monies, and based on the developer having agreed to all of the supplemental conditions proposed by staff, Mr. Mouw moved to approve Ordinance No. 64-92 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Prior to roll call, the City Manager referred to the Planning Director's memorandum of December 16, 1992, which lays out the schedule desired by the applicant as far as permits are concerned. He stated that the schedule as laid out is impossible for staff to meet; it will take three weeks for site permits and five (5) to six (6) weeks for building permits, and that assuming the plans are in really good shape when they are submitted; if there are problems with the plans which require corrections, it could take longer. Mr. Ciklin stated that he understood and accepted this situation, and that the developer would do their best to be cooperative and provide the necessary information in a timely manner. In response to requested clarification from the Plan- ning Director as to the overall road program, the City Attorney stated that he felt the safest way to preserve the intent of the Commission on this action is that the applicant/developer would have to put up the $490,000, potentially, and definitely the $212,000 prior to getting a certificate of occupancy; that it is the present intent of the Commission that S.W. 10th Avenue be extended north to S.W. 10th Street from Linton Boulevard, but that the monies would be paid to the City and if, for some reason beyond the applicant's or the City's control, the City was unable to make that connection, then the $278,000 could be used for other roadway improvements in the area as the City sees fit, because we do not have a definitive roadway plan at this point in time. Mr. Mouw amended his original motion to reflect that a condition shall be added to the effect of the City Attorney's comments as stated above; Mr. Randolph amended his second. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin - No; Mr. -3- 12/16/92 Ellingsworth - No; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote. 1.A. Resolution No. 132-92. Resolution No. 132-92, amending the Waterford DRI Development Order, is before the Commission for consideration. The City Manager presented Resolution No. 132-92: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 49-85, WHICH CONSTITUTES A DEVELOPMENT ORDER BY THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING "WHEREAS" CLAUSES AND SECTION 1, "APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL" AND SECTION 3; MAKING A DETERMINA- TION OF ~OT BEING A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Copy of Resolution No. 132-92 is on file in the offi- cial Resolution Book) Mr. Kovacs, Planning Director, Briefly reviewed the changes to the DRI/DO Resolution, noting that the square footage for office space will be 322,413 square feet, and that a new section will be added to modify Condition 19(D) to provide for an extension of the FDOT determination from December 31, 1992 to March 31, 1993. Mr. Mouw moved approval of Resolution No. 132-92, with the changes noted, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin - No; Mr. Ellingsworth - No; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote. 1,B. Resolution No. 136-92. Resolution No. 136-92, vacating and abandoning the rights-of-way known as Redwing Circle, Gull Road and Parcel S-1 and five (5) utility easements located within the boundaries of the Builder's Square project, is before the Commission for consideration. The City Manager presented Resolution No. 136-92: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, VACATING AND ABANDONING CERTAIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC EASEMENTS WITHIN THE PLAT OF LINTON CENTER, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 39, PAGES 8 AND 9, AND TROPIC PALMS PLAT NO. 3, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 25, PAGES 137 THROUGH 139, ALL OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DE- SCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. -4- 12/16/92 (Copy of Resolution No. 136-92 is on file in the offi- cial Resolution Book) Mr. Mouw moved for approval of Resolution No. 136-92, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 1,¢. Final Plat Ap~rQval. The Commission is to consider approval of the final plat for the Builder's Square development located south of Linton Boulevard between 1-95 and S.W. 10th Avenue. Mr. Mouw moved to approve the final plat for Builder's Square, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Dr. Alperin - No. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. 2, Ordinance No. 67-92. Ordinance No. 67-92, amending the Land Development Regulations by repealing and enacting a new Subsection 4.6.7(C)(5), "Banners and Wind Signs" to provide for the prohibition of banner signs and signs consisting of flags, pennants, ribbons, spinners, streamers, or balloons; and, enact- ing a new Subsection 4.6.7(E)(8), "Flags" to provide for limiting the number and maximum size of flags on any one parcel of land, prohibiting the placement of flags within the right-of-way and to provide for the placement of flags during specific national holidays, is before the Commission for consideration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held January 12, 1993. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 67-92: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4.6.7 "SIGNS" OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BY REPEALING SUB-SUBSEC- TION 4.6.7(C)(5) "BANNER SIGNS AND FLAGS" AND ENACTING A NEW SUB-SUBSECTION 4.6.7(C)(5), "BANNERS AND WIND SIGNS" TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROHIBITION OF BANNER SIGNS AND SIGNS CON- SISTING OF FLAGS, PENNANTS, RIBBONS, SPIN- NERS, STREAMERS, OR BALLOONS; BY ENACTING ANEW SUB-SUBSECTION 4.6.7(E)(8), "FLAGS", TO PROVIDE FOR LIMITING THE NUMBER OF FLAGS ON ANY ONE PARCEL OF LAND TO THREE FLAGS, THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF FLAGS, PROHIBITING THE PLACE- MENT OF FLAGS WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF FLAGS DURING SPECIFIC NATIONAL HOLIDAYS; PROVIDING A -5- 12/16/92 REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Ellingsworth moved for approval of Ordinance No. 67-92 on First Reading, seconded by Dr. Alperin. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Prior to roll call, the following discussion was had: Upon question from Ms. Lillian Feldman, the City Attor- ney advised that the proposed ordinance refers to flags and not to bunting, which is not a flag and is prohibited. A business or a property can have three (3) flags and they can be whatever kind of flag is desired. The City Manager advised that, in essence, the City Attorney has told us that our current ordinance as it applies to flags standing on a flagstaff is not enforceable; this amendment will give the City an enforceable ordinance that applies to flags. The other activity which has taken place at the gas station property (southeast corner of Congress and Atlantic) is illegal, has been for some time, and the City will continue to cite him for that. Mr Richard Eckerle, asked if the three flags allowed could be oil company or corporate flags, which in his opinion would be signs. He asked if the ordinance was clear enough to make this distinction. The City Attorney stated that this would clearly constitute commercial speech and he felt this would be regulated by the City's sign ordinance. In further discussion, Commissioner Mouw commented that he felt the three (3) square foot size referenced in the City Attorney's memo was extremely prohibitive and suggested that consideration be given to a larger size (for which a permit would have to be obtained). The City Attorney stated he would bring back different sizes and samples of flags for review by the Commission at second reading of the ordinance, at which time a decision could be made. Commissioner Alperin commented that the way the ordi- nance is currently written, it appears that a developer who has a couple hundred acres of land could end up lining a street with flags under the ordinance. The City Attorney acknowledged Dr. Alperin's concern about the ordinance; it does not address where you put the flags, how far apart they have to be, minimum dis- tances, etc. So what could happen is someone may have a couple hundred acres in the back with 600 feet of frontage and, there- fore, there could be a flag placed every foot. The City Attorney felt the concern was a valid one and the preferred way to address -6- 12/16/92 it would be to create minimum separations; in any event, he would review this point and address it prior to Second Reading. At this point the roll was called to the motion. 3, CommissiQn Comment~. 3.1. Mr. Ellingsworth had no comments. 3.2. Mr. Randolph had no comments. 3.3, Dr. Alperin had no comments. 3,4. Mr. Mouw had no comments. 3.5, Mayor Lynch commented that he had received a letter from the Animal Rights Foundation and asked the City Manager if he had responded. The City Manager stated that he had not re- sponded in that the matter does not need to be addressed by the City; it is a Chamber of Commerce function. Mayor Lynch declared the meeting adjourned at 12:55 P.M. City ~lerk ' ATTEST: The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach and that the information provided herein is the minutes of the meeting of said City Commission of December 16, 1992, which minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission - ~ City ~erk'-- ! NOTE TO READER: -7- 1Z/1~/92