Loading...
02-05-91SpMtg FEBRUARY 5, 1991 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 6:05 P.M., Tuesday, February 5, 1991. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner William Andrews 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 this meeting has been called for the purpose of conducting a Public Hearing and Commission consideration on the following two items, as they are related: 1. Request for Waiver of City Code Requirements. The Commission is to consider a request from the property owners at 112 N.E. 1st Avenue to waive City Code provisions which require the paving of an adjacent alleyway and landscape curb improvements as part of the development of a professional office use known as "Pineapple Cottage" Historic Preser- vation Board recommends approval. 2. Commission Appeal of an Historic Preservation Board Decision. ~he Commission is to consider an appeal of an Historic Preservation Board decision regarding site plan approval for "Pineapple Cottage", located at 112 N.E. 1st Avenue. David Kovacs, Director of Planning, stated this is an appeal from the owners, John and Joan Baccari, of the Historic Preservation Board's action for the approval of a site plan. Assuming the Commission upholds that appeal, the action would then be for the approval of a request for waiver, but not to require improvement of the alleyway. Considerable discussion followed relative to the following issues: (1) Appropriateness of the use (2) Basis for variance to parking requirements (reduction from six to three) (3) Basis for variance to depth of parking spaces (reduction from 25' to 21') (4) Basis for variance which allows further encroachment into the side and rear yards for the purpose of constructing a trellis. (5) Board determination to allow pea rock as the parking surface for the two standard parking spaces. The hand- icap parking space is to be paved. (6) Board determination to not require additional right-of- way dedication for the alley instead of seeking a two foot dedication so as to eventually have a 20' section in this general location. (7) Basis for Board recommendation for the Commission to waive the requirement for protecting curbing for land- scape areas. (8) Basis for Board recommendation for the Commission to waive the requirement for improvement of the alley to its standard specification (pavement width of 16'). With regard to Issue No. 1, Mr. Andrews stated he feels it is impossible to rebuild the City in the fashion in which the Historic Preservation Board views it, based on the requirements in the current Code. He also stated he feels that possibly 80% of the properties in the downtown area of this City would be non-conforming, if it should become necessary to rebuild them. Mr. Andrews stated, if the Commission agrees to designate areas where the continuing use of zero lot line is to be allowed, then he feels it should apply to everyone. If a variance is to be granted on this particular situation, he feels it must be addressed as a total problem. Mayor Lynch stated Mr. Baccari would like to have the option that, should his tenant move out, he can move his office upstairs and have total office; or, if he moves his office out, he can have tenants on both bottom and top floors. Dr. Alperin stated he feels by allowing this, uses are being added, as opposed to converting the property, and this will create many problems if one single approval is granted. The City Manager stated he feels the Commission should operate within the parameters of the Zoning Code, thereby allowing this situa- tion to fall into the category where a rear structure is a business; therefore, the residence is a conditional use because it is existing. As for eliminating it, it seems the elimination would have to follow the normal rules; that is, if it became vacant for a six month period, the right to a residential use would be lost. Dr. Alperin commented that he feels this is a major change in the property and requested confirmation that the LDRs state, when a major change is made to a property, it must be made to comply with the Code of Ordinances. -2- 2/5/91 The City Attorney stated Mr. Baccari is requesting waivers to allow him the position that an existing non-conformity currently exists and it does not affect, in and of itself, any of the other items. He can proceed forward, and has been, with the non-conformity existing on the property. The City has no provision requiring that the entire site be brought up to Code if the non-conformity is non-impacting. Upon question, the City Attorney stated he would be uncomfort- able if the Commission were to condition it to a particular tenant, for a particular time frame, for the elimination of a non-conformity with the granting of a conditional use. Upon question by Mr. Baccari as to an interpretation, Mayor Lynch stated that he would be granted a conditional use for the second residence only, and when that resident moves out, a conditional use will no longer be allowed. The City Attorney questioned what occurs in the place of that residential use. Mayor Lynch responded that Mr. Baccari could then expand the entire building into office use for one business and he will then be complying with the Code, if that is legal. The City Attorney stated he would need to research this with respect to whether or not a conditional use could take care of that situation. At this point, Mr. Baccari stated that he would like to with- draw his application for the improvement of his property at 112 N.E. 1st Avenue. He thanked the Commission for their time and effort, but he plans to leave the property just the way it is. Mayor Lynch declared the meeting adjourned at 7:05 P.M. _ w J Ci~y- C~rk -~ 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 February 5, 1991, whic~inutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on -3- 2/5/91 - ' ' ~' -C].¥J.~ ~erk' ' ! NOTE TO READER: If the minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the official minutes of City Commission. They will become the official minutes only after they have been reviewed and approved which may involve some amendments, additions, or deletions to the minutes as set forth above. -4- 2/5/91