Ord 09-02ORDINANCE NO. 9-02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5.3,
"DEDICATION AND IMPACT REQUIREMENTS",
SECTION 5.3.1(D)(4), "REDUCTION IN WIDTH", TO
REFER AN APPEAL OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION
REQUIREMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION;
PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL
REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the
proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on January 28, 2002 and voted 7 to 0 to
recommend that the changes be approved; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning Board,
sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent with and furthers
the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Article 5.3, "Dedication and Impact Requirements", Section 5.3.102))(4),
"Reduction in Width", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City
of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
(4) Reduction in Width: A reduction in the required right-of-way width established in
Subsection 02))(2), above, may be granted by the body having the approval authority of the associated
development application in developments in which new streets are created. For existing streets,
reductions in right-of-way width may be granted by the City Engineer upon a favorable
recommendation from the Development Management Services Group (DSMG). Reductions in the
required right-of-way width may be granted pursuant to the following:
(a)
The reduction is supported by the City Engineer. Nonsupport by the City Engineer
may be appealed to the n~_a,.,,.,~,. ~.~c .~._.,,o,...~..~,.,,,,,r' ....... '"~- ~m...,,o~ City Commission.
That requiring full dedication would constitute a hardship in a particular instance and
that all required improvements will be provided in a manner which will not endanger
public safety and welfare.
That acceptable, alternative provisions are made to accommodate features which
would otherwise be accommodated within the right-of-way e.g. alternative drainage
systems, alternative pedestrian walkways, alternative on-street parking, etc.
Section 2. 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.
Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are
hereby repealed.
Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on
second and final reading.
P~ASSED A~ND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the ;5 ~
ATFEST
City Clerk
Second Reading~~'~,
MAYOR
2 ORD. NO. 9-02
~ DE1/~.(~MIWT REGULATIO~
~IBiY~G ARTICL~ $.~. "tff~CA-
* M: A RI~I4T,.4~A¥ DB~CA'~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
CITY MANAGER ~
AGENDA ITEM # ~L} k). REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2002
ORDINANCE NO. 9-02 (AMENDING LDR SECTION 5.$.1)
MARCH 1, 2002
This ordinance is before Commission for second reading to amend Land Development Regulations
Sections 5. 3.1(D) (4) (a) changing appeals o-'f required right-of-way dedications from the Board of
Construction Appeals to the City Commission.
This amendment is being processed to refer an appeal of a fight-of-way dedication requirement to the
appropriate approving body, the City Commission, rather than the Board of Construction Appeals.
The Board of Construction Appeals was created to provide an avenue for relief, when warranted,
from provisions of certain building and construction codes. The Board has authority to take action
on building code related items (Chapter 7 of the Land Development Regulations).
Chapter 5 of the Land Development Regulations pertains to subdivisions, for which final action rests
with the City Commission. LDR Section 2.4.7(E) (Appeals) states that the appeal of an administrator
shall be forwarded to the Board for which such power has been granted, and an appeal of an
approving board's action shall be made to the City Commission. Based upon the above, the appeal of
an administrator's decision relating to Chapter 5, which does not involve a development board action,
would be forwarded to the City Commission.
The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing regarding this item. There was no public
testimony and after discussing this amendment the Board voted 7-0 to recommend to the City
Commission approval of the proposed text amendment, based upon positive findings with respect to
LDR Section 2.4.5(M').
At the first reading on February 19, 2002, The City Commission passed the Ordinance No. 9-02.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 9-02 on second and final reading.
S:\C~ty Clerk\chevelle folder\agenda memos\Ord.9.02 03.05.02
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PAUL DORLI/'"~u~AT"' "'NG'~"'~I~TOR OF PL~
,JEFFREY A. COSTELLO, PRINOIPA'~P~"~R'~''v'''~'
MEETING OF FEBRUARY '19, 2002
AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTION 5.3.'1(D)(4)(a) REGARDING APPEALS OF
REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF CONSTRUCTION
APPEALS.
This amendment is being processed to refer an appeal of a right-of-way dedication requirement to the
appropriate approving body, the City Commission, rather than the Board of Construction Appeals.
The Board of Construction Appeals was created to provide an avenue for relief, when warranted, from
provisions of certain building and construction codes. The Board has authority to take action on
building code related items (Chapter 7 of the Land Development Regulations).
Chapter 5 of the Land Development Regulations pertains to subdivisions, for which final action rests
with the City Commission. Further, LDR Section 2.4.7(E) (Appeals) states that the appeal of an
administrator shall be forwarded to the Board for which such power has been granted, and an appeal
of an approving board's action shall be made to the City Commission. Based upon the above, the
appeal of an administrator's decision relating to Chapter 5, which does not involve a development
board action, would be forwarded to the City Commission. Therefore, the following language change
to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4)(a)is proposed:
a) The reduction is supported by the City Engineer. Nonsupport by the City Engineer
may be appealed to the Bccrd,.,~'~ "'"""*vv..~.. .... ..,,,~,*~"", . '~,~,~,~.~`' City Commission.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), approval of an LDR amendment must be based upon a finding
that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is being made for "housekeeping" purposes. While the
amendment does not specifically further the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive
Plan, it is not inconsistent with them.
The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing regarding this item at its meeting of January 28,
2002. There was no public testimony regarding the amendment. After discussing the item, the Board
voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Commission approval of the proposed text amendment, based
upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
By motion, approve the amendment to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4)(a), based upon the findings and
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board, setting a public hearing date of March 5, 2002.
Attachment: Ordinance by Others
S:/Planning&ZoninglBoardslCityCornmiss~on/LDRBoardofConstructionAppeals
ORDINANCE NO. 09-02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5.3, "DEDICATION
AND IMPACT REQUIREMENTS", SECTION 5.3.1(D)(4),
"REDUCTION IN WIDTH", TO REFER AN APPEAL OF A RIGHT-
OF-WAY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT TO THE CITY
COMMISSION; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL
REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board
reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on January 28, 2002
and voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the changes be approved; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning
Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is
consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Article 5.3, "Dedication and Impact Requirements", Section
5.3.1(D)(4), "Reduction in Width", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(4) Reduction in Width: A reduction in the required right-of-way width
established in Subsection (D)(2), above, may be granted by the body having the
approval authority of the associated development application in developments in which
new streets are created. For existing streets, reductions in right-of-way width may be
granted by the City Engineer upon a favorable recommendation from the Development
Management Services Group (DSMG). Reductions in the required right-of-way width
may be granted pursuant to the following:
(a)
The reduction is supported by the City Engineer. Nonsupport by the City
Engineer may be appealed to the ~""~-'~ c~: ""'-'"-'* .... *;"'" '~,',,"-'-~o City
Commission.
(b)
That requiring full dedication would constitute a hardship in a particular
instance and that all required improvements will be provided in a manner
which will not endanger public safety and welfare.
(c)
That acceptable, alternative provisions are made to accommodate
features which would otherwise be accommodated within the right-of-way
e.g. alternative drainage systems, alternative pedestrian walkways,
alternative on-street parking, etc.
Section 2. 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.
Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and
the same are hereby repealed.
Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its
passage on second and final reading.
the
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this
__ day of ,200
ATTEST
MAYOR
City Clerk
First Reading
Second Reading.
2 ORD. NO. 09-02
MEETING OF: JANUARY 28, 2002
AGENDA ITEM:
IV.(}. AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTION 5.3.1(D)(4)(a)
REGARDING APPEALS OF REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY
DEDICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF CONSTRUCTION
APPEALS.
The item before the Board is an amendment to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4)(a) regarding
appeals of required right-of-way dedications to the Board of Construction Appeals,
pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the LDRs may not be made until a
recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board.
This amendment is being processed to refer an appeal of a right-of-way dedication
requirement to the appropriate approving body, the City Commission, rather than the Board
of Construction Appeals. LDR Section 5.1.3(D)(4) relates to reductions of right-of-way
widths and states the following:
(4) Reduction in Width: A reduction in the required right-of-way width
established in Subsection (D)(2), above, may be granted by the body having the
approval authority of the associated development application in developments in which
new streets are created. For existing streets, reductions in right-of-way width may be
granted by the City Engineer upon a favorable recommendation from the Development
Management Services Group (DSMG). Reductions in the required right-of-way width
may be granted pursuant to the following:
The reduction is supported by the City Engineer. Nonsupport by
the City Engineer may be appealed to the Board of Construction
Appeals.
That requiring full dedication would constitute a hardship in a
particular instance and that all required improvements will be
provided in a manner which will not endanger public safety and
welfare.
That acceptable, alternative provisions are made to accommodate
features which would otherwise be accommodated within the right-
of-way e.g. alternative drainage systems, alternative pedestrian
walkways, alternative on-street parking, etc.
IV.G.
Planning and Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report
LDR Text Amendment - Appeals of Right-of-Way Dedications
Page 2
The Board of Construction Appeals was created to provide an avenue for relief, when
warranted, from provisions of certain building and construction codes. The Board has
authority to take action on building code related items (Chapter 7 of the Land Development
Regulations).
Chapter 5 of the Land Development Regulations pertains to subdivisions, for which final
action rests with the City Commission. Further, LDR Section 2.4.7(E) (Appeals) states that
the appeal of an administrator shall be forwarded to the Board for which such power has
been granted, and an appeal of an approving board's action shall be made to the City
Commission. Based upon the above, the appeal of an administrator's decision relating to
Chapter 5, which does not involve a development board action, would be forwarded to the
City Commission. Therefore, the following language change to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4)(a)
is proposed:
The reduction is supported by the City Engineer. Nonsupport by the City
Engineer may be appealed to the ~"~'~ ''~ r,,,,,,.~,,,.~,,,, ,~ .... ~" CitF
Commission.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), approval of an LDR amendment must be based
upon a finding that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives,
and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is being made for
"housekeeping" purposes. While the amendment does not specifically further the
Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, it is not inconsistent with
them.
By motion, recommend to the City Commission approval of the amendment to LDR
Section 5.3.1(D)(4)(a), based upon positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.5(M).