Loading...
04-24-78 351 APRIL 24 ~ 1978 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was held in the Council Chambers at 7:03 P.M.,Monday , April 24, 1978, with Mayor Leon M. Weekes presiding, and City Manager J. Eldon Mariott, City Attorney Roger Saberson, Assistant City Attorney Clifford Shandy and Council members Robert D. Chapin, Charlotte G. Durante, Aaron I. Sanson, IV., and James H. Scheifley, present. 1. The opening prayer was delivered by Rev. Louise Earle of the Unity Church of Delray Beach. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. 3. Mr. Scheifley moved for the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 10, 1978, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Mr. Sanson spoke in reference to item 6.e. saying he received a telephone call from Mr. Canon asking that changes be made to item 6.e. Mayor Weekes asked that Mr. Sanson make the indicated changes and bring them back to Council. The City Manager noted when he~ receives the changes from Mr. Sanson, he will check it against the tapes of the actual minutes. Mr. Scheifley moved for the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 10, 1978, with the exception of item 6.e., seconded by Mr. Chapin. The motion passed unanimously. Before the approval of the minutes of the special meeting of April 3, 1978, Mrs. Durante noted that on the second page, under item two, that the motion to elect Mr. Chapin as Vice-Mayor was seconded by Mr. Scheifley not Mr. Sanson. Mr. Sanson stated that this has been corrected and a corrected copy is in front of Council. Mrs. Durante moved for the approval of the April 3, 1978 special meeting minutes, seconded by Mr. Chapin. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Chapin moved for the approval of the minutes of the special meeting of April 17, 1978, seconded by Mrs. Durante. The motion passed unanimously. 4.a.1. Mr. Chapin requested that a workshop meeting be held to discuss the selection of an outside consulting agent for reviewing the City's merit increase program and also to view the City's pay scale. 4.a.2. Mr. Chapin stated he is hopeful that Council could discuss the increase of refuse collection rates. These are two budgetary items that are very pressing and should move on without further delay. 4.b.1. Mrs. Durante stated at the Delray Affair she had a suggestion box for people to drop in suggestions regarding improvements that they would like to see take place in this City. She read all of those suggestions and categorized those that addressed some particular issue and she has sent a memo with these suggestions to the City Manager. Also, she noted she is sending Mr. Ken Ellingswor~h of the Chamber of Commerce a copy of those suggestions because some of them made some comments and suggestions about the Delray Affair. 4.c.1. Mr. Sanson stated he is sure that most people realize that a very important milestone is occuring in Palm Beach County tomorrow to the extent of the problem with the County pockets. We have the Land Use Advisory Board and the County Commission finally agreeing to study these pockets with the hope that they will bring their county pockets in line with our zoning. He understands that Mr. Scheifley will be present tomorrow and he will try to be there also. 4.c.2. Mr. Sanson spoke in reference to the pay scales and the merit system saying he has been concerned because it was back in September when we originally talked about this with the idea we would see some changes initiated in the upcoming budget. Now, as we have all seen with the newspaper reports with Mr. Mariott's comments that we are well into preparation of the new budget and he is getting the impression that no changes are going to be made. He would like to proceed with this as quickly as possible. It is his stronglfeeling that he would have a very hard time with this budget if he does not see some changes from the manner in which it has been instituted in the past. The City Manager replied he does not know what newspaper Mr. Sanson has been reading but he has not seen anything indicating whether or not there would be changes in any particular category. With regard to Mr. Chapin's suggestion, regarding a study of the City's pay plan and the related merit increase policy of the City, that is scheduled for workshop on May 1st. All Council members know what actions have been taken on that and whether or not any changes will be made, will be up to Council. 4.d.1. Mr. Scheifley stated he has been the leading proponent in buying the Delray Beach Country Club and informed Council that he is being besieged by questions about the Delray Beach Country Club and he wishes the press could give some publicity to the present status of the situation. The present status, as he understands it, is we have appointed our appraiser and they have made the appraisal. It calls for the present owners, the Harris family,to also have an appraisal made. ~ It is his understanding that the Harris family is in that process. When that appraisal is complete, we will go into negotiations and if we can't agree on a price, then a third appraiser will be appointed and then the price will then be automatically decided. This purchase has to be consummated within 11 months. Every day he is besieged with questions from different people as there are quite a few people who want to return to the Delray Beach Country Club if it is fixed up and put in first class condition. 5. There were no public requests from the floor. 6. There were no items to be submitted that were not on the agenda. 6.b. Mayor Weekes introduced Councilman Mark Byron from Boca Raton. Mr. Byron has asked to speak to Council regarding the proposal for a new county separating the south end of Palm Beach County into a new entity. Councilman Byron appeared before Council and presented Council with copies of the preliminary statistics he has prepared on all Palm Beach County Municipalities and towns south of the Boynton Canal and south of Hypoluxo Road, and outlined the contents therein. Mr. Byron asked that Council appoint a committee to look into the feasibility of a new county. Mayor Weekes stated whether one agrees with Mr. Byron's conclusion or not, he has done his homework and he has made a very interesting presentation. Mr. Sanson stated for a point of clarification, when Mr. Byron says to appoint a committee, what he is really asking is to appoint a representative to a committee that he (Byron) is putting together. Mr. Byron stated it would be the City's own personal committee because that committee would report to Council and would have the responsibility of outlining those points of importance. Mr. Chapin stated he is aware that the majority of Council is not in favor of adopting a resolution similar to Boca Raton's and - he suggested that the City administration send a representative of the City to keep Delray Beach abreast of the deliberations of this feasibilit~ committee. Mr. Chapin added he has been informed by the City Manager that Mr. Dan Kotulla has been assigned as a City representative. Mr. Chapin stated he is not opposed to have a City representative present. Mayor Weekes stated he has heard Mr. Byron's presentation some months ago; he has talked to other members of Boca Raton City Council and has given this a great deal of thought and he is not interested in pursuing this. This is an exercise in futility; he is content with the service the City receives from the County Commission. The relationship with the County Commission is excellent; they have supported the City in the beach restoration program; they have supported the City in acquiring recreational facilities and as far as he is concerned, he does not need to look into this any further. He is perfectly content with the present situation and he does not believe that a separate county can come to pass. - 2 - 4/24/78. Mr. Scheifley stated during the recent political campaign, he was asked this question many times. He has always answered this question that is if it can be proved conclusively that a separate county would be to the advantage to Delray Beach, he would be in favor; however, he tends to agree with Mayor Weekes that it would be very difficult to prove it in view of the fine cooperation we have had from the county, in most areas, and in view of the great financial help we have had in relation to the beach and parks. Also, we should keep in mind that cooperation between the County Commission and the City has been excellent. Mr. Sanson stated Mr. Byron came to the Kiwanis Club about a year ago and as so often the case when matters first start, he felt from the beginning the question of a new county is not in the hands of a few politicians; it is in the hands of the people and they will have to be motivated to the point of belief in this and to come forward. Along that line, in the past year, Mr. Byron is starting to get these people involved and the most recent conversion is that the entire Boca Raton Board of Realtors have now endorsed the plan and he has read in the newspaper that the Chamber of Commerce is seriously considering endorsement. As Mr. Byron said, it doesn't cost anything; it doesn't really form any commitments to investigate it and if studies were made and results came out to show some feasibility of a conclusive nature, then he would hate to think that the City is uninformed and uneducated. Maybe Council could refer this subject to the different City organizations to see if they have an interest. Mrs. Durante stated inasmuch as Mr. Kotulla is keeping up on this, his representation should keep the City informed. If the Chamber of Commerce or the Board of Realtors wishes to become involved, it would be up to them to decide. Mayor Weekes stated that would be satisfactory to him; he noted that of the resolution request that was sent out by Mr. Byron, he only received a response from one community - that being Highland Beach. Mayo~ Weekes noted that today he talked with the Mayor of Gulfstream and he has no interest whatsoever. Mayor Weekes added he does not think Boynton Beach is involved, and noted the balance of Boca Raton's City Council is beginning to weaken in its support because of the apathy of the balance of the south county. Mayor Weekes added he has no objection to having Mr. Kotulla attend the meetings but he does feel that Mr. Byron has a long road before success can be achieved. Mr. Byron replied when he first started work on this project, he predicted it would take three, four or maybe five years. He noted that only one member of the Boca Raton City Council proposed the passage of the resolution and he did not receive a second to his motion. He concluded by saying he is looking forward to hearing from Mr. Kotulla. 6.c. The City Manager reported that a letter to the Palm Beach County Health Department and the Department of Environmental Regulation has been drafted for Council consideration for approval. A copy of the letter which is intended to set forth the City Council's position with respect to expansion of the water treatment plant was enclosed with the agenda information. Mr. Chapin moved that Council authorize the City Manager to send the letter, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mrs. Durante - Yes; Mr. Sanson - No; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor Weekes - Yes. The motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. Before roll call, the following discussion was had. Upon question by Mr. Scheifley, the City Attorney informed that a show cause order is an order that requests you to put on proof as to why you should not be ordered to do something. Mr. Scheifley asked the City Manager if this letter will help alleviate the subject of the letter of April 20th from Suzanne Hunter? The City Manager replied he does not think the transmittal of the letter under discussion to the Health Department and DER will remove the document that Mr. Scheifley is alluding to. On the other hand he is sure that it will not do any harm. This letter was prepared inde')endently of the April 20th letter. - 3 - 4/24/78. Mr. Sanson stated some of the motivations of actions that we are taking have a little bit under the surface to be looked at and we, perhaps, are not realizing the full impact of what we are doing. He finds some questions with Mr. Mariott's second paragraph where we are.committing ourselves to expand the plant immediately upon completion of the pilot test program and in accordance with the approved schedule. The point being that what if the results of these tests come back favorable, which he fully expects they will,and if they don't,then he still maintains that we should get another independent party to look at it. What if these test results come back favorable and they are still rejected, which they possibly could be? We are saying here that we are still going to need an approved schedule but we all recognize that that will not be the case; there might then have to be some lengthy legal challenges and all of a sudden we will be accused of having broken our word. He finds even greater concern in Mrs. Hunter's suggested stipulation language which A fOllows the same lines. No one has ever explained to Council just what authority the Environmental Control Hearing Board has. He questions a lot of the orders that are being given to this City by people like Mr. Williams and the others in the Council level, as to just what force of compliance they actually have to be giving out the orders they are giving. Mr. Sanson questioned if there is a need to approve this letter on the basis of this stipulation that we've now gotten and he finds some real problems with paragraph two. Mr. Scheifley stated that if in June when the City receives the results of the pilot test and all the tests indicate that direct filtration or modified system is not recommended, or is not feasible, and the County Health Department and the DER agree, he asked if Mr. Sanson is inferring that the City should go into litigation to appeal the decisions of both the consulting engineers and the County Health Department and the DER? Mr. Sanson replied that is not entirely correct. What he is saying is if the results came back to show that direct filtration does not work, then he would be in favor of obtaining another opinion. If the tests results are received to show that direct filtration is favorable, that does not necessarily imply the results are still going to be accepted. Mr. Scheifley questioned wouldn't you have to make the decision in light of the circumstances that exist at that time? Mr. Sanson questioned the authority upon which orders like that are being threatened, which is what he considers is being done by the county officials. Mrs. Durante questioned that in view of the stipulation received by Suzanne Hunter, should we still send this letter? The City Attorney replied it would be a good idea if both the letter and stipulation were discussed at a future workshop meeting. The City Manager stated whether or not this letter should be sent is not a legal matter; the purpose of this letter was not intended at all to attempt to avert receipt by the City of the legal instrument that was received today. The purpose of this letter was to attempt to assure the Health Department and DER that Council intends to keep its commitment to stay on the schedule approved by Council on January 30th with respect to the water treatment plant. This schedule is attached to the letter and the reservations expressed by Mr. Sanson are exactly the reasons Health Department and DER express the reservations to Mr. Martin. The City Attorney stated he felt that the correspondence received from the Health Department somewhat changes the picture in which this letter was originally drafted. We have been proceeding along the lines of administrative cooperation and now the Health Department has put us on notice that they are into the legal arena and are, in fact, requesting a show cause order from their board; in light of that communication, it might be well to evaluate it. He added he would like to discuss this with Mr. Moyle and return to Council next Monday. Mr. Sanson moved to table this item and discuss this at the next workshop meeting. The motion died for a lack of a second. Mr. Chapin stated he does not see any harm in sending this letter now; the letter from Suzanne Hunter can be discussed separately. City Attorney Saberson stated one of the things that concerned - 4 - 4/24/78. 365 him is in the first paragraph of the letter which states "we intend to honor its commitment" which is also in paragraph l(a) of the stipulation and receiving that letter after sending the stipulation, he is~concerned about that being a schedule we intend to make but a schedule that will become etched in stone. This is one of the reasons why he feels Council should be cautious. Mr. Sanson stated that is exactly the point he is trying to make; there is much more than just an intention of trying to show good faith. This letter is obligating the City to follow the results of the pilot plant study. Mr. Scheifley stated if Council were to agree with the reservations Mr. Sanson has in mind, they will be here within three days to shut the entire place down because that reasoning of questioning the pilot test is the exact posture that we do not want to take. Mr. Sanson stated Mr. Scheifley's comment of shutting the entire place down is most unfortunate as that will be the headlines in the newspaper tomorrow. Roll call on the motion was had at this time. 6.d. The City Manager reported that the following quotations were received to pave the parking lot of the American Legion Ball Field: Bidder Quotation City $2,700.00 Carr Soil & Sod-Driveways 3,427.50 Delray Beach Hardrives, Inc. 5,500.00 Delray Beach City Manager Mariott recommended that this project be undertaken by City forces at an estimated cost of $2,700 with funds to be transferred from the General Fund Contingency Account to Streets, Alleys and Sidewalks. This was discussed at the April 17th workshop meeting. Mrs. Durante moved that this work be done by City forces at an estimated cost of $2,700, seconded by Mr. Chapin. The motion passed unanimously. 6.e. The City Manager reported there is a vacancy on the Civil Service Board due to the expiration of the term of Mr. Kenneth Durante. Chairman John Detwiler and Mr. Jack Pitts, as individuals, recommend the appointment of Dr. Roy Ishman Mitchell. Mr. Preston Wright's name was also submitted to the Board as a possible candidate. Mr. Pitts says he feels that Mr. Wright is also qualified. This appointment is for a four-year term ending April 1, 1982. Mrs. Durante moved for the appointment of Dr. Mitchell to the Civil Service Board to a four-year term ending April 1, 1982, seconded by Mr. Scheifley. The motion passed unanimously. 6.f. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize the execution of a mutual aid agreement between the City and Palm Beach County for use in case of a disaster. This was tabled at the September 26, 1977 Council meeting at the request of the City Attorney. Mr. Chapin moved for the approval of a mutual aid agreement between the City and Palm Beach County for use in case of a disaster, seconded by Mrs. Durante. The motion passed unanimously. Before roll call, the following discussion was had. Mr. Sanson asked in the event there is an emergency in this City, does the County Commission take over the running of the City? The City Attorney replied in paragraph three of the agreement on the bottom of page one and the top of page two, it indicates that the City will make available in excess of the City's needs, employees, property, equipment, etc., but on the top of page two there has been a minor change in wording so that the form that was distributed to Council - 5 - 4/24/78. tonight indicates that "services of the governmental entity in excess of the municipalities needs of the foregoing including employees, property, equipment, etc." Roll call on the motion was had at this time. 6.g. The City Manager reported that Council agreed at the April 17th workshop meeting to proceed with plans to install four new water supply wells as recommended in the Saltwater Intrusion Management Plan, which was accepted by Council at the regular meeting on March 28th. The City Manager recommended that authorization be given for Russell & Axon to proceed with engineering, preparation of plans, specifications, and construction documents, only, at this time. Upon question by Mr. Sanson, the City Manager advised that the money will come from the Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Issue, and the total estimated cost is $400,000. Council is not being asked to approve the $400,000 expenditure at this time. Mr. Chapin moved to authorize Russell & Axon to proceed with the engineering, preparation of plans, specifications, and construction documents, for four water supply wells, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mrs. Durante - Yes ; Mr. Sanson - Yes (he will approve the work to be done, but with the minutes to reflect he would have liked to see competitive bidding on this item) ; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor Weekes - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Before roll call, the following discussion was had: Mr. Sanson stated he feels this item should be put out to competitive bid. Upon question by Mr. Chapin, the City Attorney advised that this does not have to be put out to competitive bid, according to our contract with Russell & Axon. The City has a continuing contract with Russell & Axon for all water and sewer services. In the event the City wishes to pursue a competitive negotiation, we are obligated to Russell & Axon to give a seven day notice of intention to discuss termination and a 30 days notice of actual termination. Mr. Sanson moved that this item be put to competitive bid. The motion died for lack of a second. Roll call on the original motion was had at this time. 6.h. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize approval of Addendum No. 1 -- Robert P. Miller Park Little League Field change in design of electrical light system, which will add $16,516 to the original contract price of $35,980. The change is needed to extend the length of concrete poles 13 feet through the garbage fill in order to insure stability and thus avoid the possibility of a hazardous situation. The original design proved unsatisfactory as the only support for the poles was garbage fill. This project is to be funded with money appropriated for handball courts and landscaping and walks. Mr. Scheifley moved that Council approve Addendum No. 1 -- Robert P. Miller Park, seconded by Mr. Sanson. The motion passed unanimousl' 7. There were no petitions and communications. 8.a. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 22-78 is amending Chapter 14 "Fire Department, Fire Prevention and Fire Regulations" of the Code of Ordinances relative to automatic sprinkler systems is before Council for consideration on Second and FINAL Reading. This ordinance was passed on First Reading at the April 10th Council meeting. Prior to consideration 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. 22-78: - 6 - 4/24/78. 367 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 14 "FIRE DEPARTMENT, FIRE PREVENTION AND FIRE REGULATIONS" SECTION 14-1 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BY REPEALING THAT PART OF SECTION 14-1 INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE SECTION 14.4 OF THE 1976 EDITION OF THE FIRE PREVENTION CODE AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 14-1.1 RELATING TO AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Copy of Ordinance No. 22-78 is on file in the official ordinance book.) The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Chapin moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 22-78 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes;Mrs. Durante - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor Weekes - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.b. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 18-78 is relative to rezoning and placing land presently zoned RM-15 (Multiple Family Dwelling) District in either RM-10 or RM-6 (Multiple Family Dwelling) District located on the north side of S.W. 10th Street between S.W. 15th Avenue and S.W. 12th Avenue is before Council for consideration on First Reading. The affected property owners have been notified pursuant to Section 166.041(3) (C), Florida Statutes. Second and FINAL Reading and public hearing will be held at the meeting on May 8%h. This ordinance was tabled at the April 10th meeting. Council selected the ordinance prepared for RM-6 zoning. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 18-78: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED ~4-15 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT IN RM-6 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT, REPLAT OF PORTIONS OF DELRAY BEACH HEIGHTS EXTENSION SECTION "A" & "B", BLOCK 4, LOTS 1 THROUGH 16; BLOCK 6, LOTS 1 THROUGH 14; BLOCK 8, LOTS 1 THROUGH 14; BLOCK 9, LOTS 1 THROUGH 7 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 28, PAGE 171 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID LAND IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF S.W. 10TH STREET BETWEEN S.W. 15TH AVENUE AND S.W. 12TH AVENUE, AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1977". The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. Mrs. Durante moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 18-78 to rezone land from RM-15 to RM-6 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mrs. Durante - Yes; Mr. Sanson - No; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor Weekes - No. The motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote. Before roll call, Mayor Weekes read the following letter addressed to Council from the applicant, Edward Tietig. "Re: Proposed change of zoning Blocks 4, 6, 8 and 9, Delray Beach Heights Gentlemen: This letter will confirm and formalize my objections to attempted rezoning of the subject property to anything more restrictive zoning than RM-10. This protest is being made without waiver of right to challenge on jurisdictional or other legal or equitable grounds. Edward C. Tietig" Mr. Edward Tietig, the applicant, appeared before Council - 7 - 4/24/78. 36S saying this is the third time he has been before Counci. The agenda says he is requesting the rezoning; he is not. He is resisting the attempt to rezone land that he bought that was zoned RM-15. He bought this land back in 1973 and, when he purchased this land, it was zoned RM-15. He paid a price for the land that was based on RM-15 zoning. Twice in the past three or four months, this City has said that they want to down-zone the entire City, and because his land is vacant, his land will be down-zoned. This was the only consideration that was ever spoken here and he does not feel that that is a valid consideration. The last time City Council looked at this property in this area and around it, as to what it should be zoned was about two or three years ago. The City took the piece of land near his property that used to be zoned a higher density and zoned it LI (Light Industrial). He noted his property is completely surrounded by institutional, industrial and RM-15 zoning. Council had previously agreed to zone this property RM-10 and he thought he had a deal; he has obtained development financing, has been to the FHA, has been to a mortgagee, has obtained an architect. What he plans _ to do in this area is to build something a little bit better than what is out there. He plans to build townhouses and in the RM-15 zoning, he could have this done and under the proposed RM-6 zoning, he would have to build duplexes. If Council wants to zone him down to RM-6, he could build ~ six bedroom house in a square pigeon hole you call RM-6. He could build something that is not good quality and the people really can't afford. He asked to be able to build something that makes sense, something that shows quality, thought on all factors, and not just one factor which is density. Upon question by Mr. Scheifley, Mrs. Durante advised the Planning & Zoning Board unanimously recommended that this property be zoned RM-6. One of the main reasons why the Planning & Zoning Board recommended RM-6 is they thought a townhouse development would be great. They thought RM-10 zoning would be too high for a townhouse development. Mr. Tietig stated there is a misapprehension of what he can develop under RM-6 zoning. He could not develop townhouses under RM-6 zoning. A townhouse density is approximately seven units per acre. Mr. Scheifley asked Mr. Tietig if he is familiar with Country Manors and High Point. Mr. Tietig replied negatively. Mr. Scheifley asked that Mr. Tietig look at those developments as they are quality developments. Mr. Tietig stated he is talking about a different neighborhood, a different class of people, you are talking about sometking that is unobtainable in this area. Mrs. Durante noted that when the units at High Point were for sale, they started at $19,000 for one bedroom. Mayor Weekes stated that was back in 1972 and prices are now higher. Mayor Weekes stated this is the third time Mr. Tietig has appeared before Council and the last time he was present, Council voted 3 to 2 in favor of P~-10 zoning. Since that time, we have had an election and unfortunately Mr. Tietig is caught in the middle. Mayor Weekes added he personally asked that this matter be tabled two weeks ago so Mr. Tietig would have an opportunity to be present. He feels very badly that Mr. Tietig got caught in this web. Mayor Weekes added he personally _ feels that RM-10 is the proper zoning for that area, and has voted for this on more than one occasion and he intends to vote for RM-10 zoning. Mr. Tietig remarked that he does not intend to use the full perimeters of RM-10 zoning. Mr. Chapin commended Mr. Tietig for a very good presentation. As Mr. Tietig knows, he (Chapin) has voted on two separate occasions and will vote again tonight believing that the best use for the property is townhouses and that is why he will support RM-6 zoning. Mr. Tietig reiterated that RM-6 zoning does not give you townhouses, and added, in all respect, Council does not know its own zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance, under RM-6 zoning has been cut over the past four years to where it. only allows effectively, duplexes. Upon question by Mr. Scheifley, Mr. Tietig informed he has approximately nine acres of land. - 8 - 4/24/78. Mayor Weekes stated that he does not think at this point, anybody's mind will be changed on this matter. Mr. Tietig has made an excellent presentation. Gordon Miller, San Diego, California, owner of property in the area, appeared before Council saying he received a letter dated February 23rd that was forwarded to him that says that rezoning will be from RM-15 to RM-10. He has not received notice of the proposed rezoning from RM-15 to RM-6. The City Attorney noted some time before the election, Council decided by a 3 to 2 vote to have an ordinance drafted changing the zoning from RM-15 to ~4-10. Then the election came along and a member of the Planning & Zoning Board that had voted unanimously that the zoning be RM-6 instead of RM-10 was elected to Council. Two weeks ago, at the last meeting of Council, this item was on the agenda to consider changing the zoning from RM-15 to RM-10 and at the request of the new member of Council, action was deferred and a new ordinance was drafted to consider zoning of ~4-6 instead of RM-10. Mr. Miller stated, as a property owner, he questioned why he had not received a notice of this change. Mr. Tietig noted this land was one big parcel and informed Council from the beginning that he (Tietig) owns about 80% and Mr. Miller owns eight lots on S.W. 15th Avenue and owns four lots on S.W. 4th Avenue. He has owned these lots since 1958. Upon question by Mrs. Durante, Mr. Carey, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Board,informed that all property owners were notified when this property was first considered for rezoning from RM-15 to RM-6. Mrs. Coleen Tietig, stated her husband would not go out and buy a piece of property that he would not make money on. They paid a very high price for this property. If this is down-zoned to RM-6, it does not necessarily mean that they can make money on it. They probably will have to give the property up. At the price they paid for this property and if it is rezoned to RM-6, then it cannot be profitable. If the property is zoned ~-10, high density does not mean poor quality. Low density can mean junk. It depends upon how the property is developed. What Council had done has not been in good faith. The City Attorney advised the public notice that is sent out is sent out for the purpose of advising the property owners of when the public hearing will be held. As has been indicated, the public hearing will be held on May 22nd. Mr. Miller received a notice dated February 23rd advising of the public hearing on April 24th which was for the previous ordinance. Mr. Miller has not received, but will receive, notice that has been sent out indicating that Council intends to zone the property to either RM-6 or RM-10 and advising that the public hearing will be held May 22nd. Council may vote on first reading and need not hold a public hearing on first reading in order to do so. Mr. Miller asked, without being notified, how can Council hold a first reading without him knowing what the City is trying to do to his property? The City Attorney replied the second and final reading is where Council takes the effective action rezoning this property. It is at that public hearing, as required by state statute, that the public hearing is held and at which time property owners can present their information. Mrs. Durante stated she agrees that sometimes low density can be of low quality but Council is lookinq at the total City zoninq~ The cheapest land anyone can buy in this City is in that area. Mr. Tietig agreed with Mrs. Durante saying the cheapest land is in that area and that area is not theworld!s nicest place. He added he would like to build a nice development to enhance that area, but this cannot be done under RM-6 zoning. He asked that he be given a chance to develop under RM-10 and Council will have another shot at him with the site plan. Then if he presents junk, "shoot him down." Mr. Scheifley stated a couple of things have been said tonight which show a distinct difference in philosophy and reasoning. In all respect to Mrs. Tietig regarding the down-grading of zoning, Council is up-grading the zoning. - 9 - 4/24/78. Mr. Sanson stated it is very rare when he would disagree with the unanimous decision of the Planning & Zoninb Board. This neighborhood has been a subject of quite a bit of difference of opinion on a part of the Planning & Zoning Board and Council. Mr. Sanson maintained his opinion that RM-10 zoning is a fair and equitable zoning for this property. Mr. Sanson stated he recognizes that quite often Council makes these moves and he is really astounded that there are not legal challenges. In his four years of political life, which have entailed quite a bit of land use planning education, he has a hard time seeing how you can have land abutting an industrial zone and then have high density multiple and, particularly, if this RM-15 tract didn't have Stewart Arms sitting on it and it were vacant, then that property should be zoned RM-10. Roll call on the motion was had at this time. 8.c. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 23-78 amending Chapter 9 "Building Code" of the Code of Ordinances relative to flood hazards is before Council for consideration on First Reading. This ordinance includes revisions to the National Flood Insurance Program regulations which must be adopted by June 1, 1978 or the City's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program will be suspended. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 23-78: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 9 "BUILDING CODE" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BY REPEALING SECTION 9-6.10 AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 9-6.10 RELATING TO FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION IN ALL AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING FORTH A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES, DEFINING SPECIFIC WORDS AND PHRASES, INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP OF JULY 16, 1976, AND REVISIONS THERETO, ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION, DESIGNATION OF CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL AS ADMINISTRATOR AND SETTING FORTH ADMINISTRATOR'S DUTIES, PROVIDING PERMIT AND VARIANCE PROCEDURES, SETTING FORTH STANDARDS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION AND SUBDIVISION PROPOSALS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. City Manager Mariott noted the City adopted an ordinance as required by the Federal government several years ago with regard to flood damage zones which permits people with properties in those areas to obtain flood insurance. Since that time, a number of cities in the county have copied our ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney informed Council that what is being done is submitting to Council a model ordinance prepared by the National Flood Insurance Program with some slight changes. This ordinance _ must be approved by June 1st or the City will be suspended from the Flood Insurance Program and no more flood insurance could be written; existing policies will not be renewed. Mrs. Durante moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 23-78, on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Sanson. The Assistant City Attorney noted in Section B Article III, page five of the ordinance the sentence that reads as follows, "The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration through a scientific and engineering report entitled The Flood Insurance Study for the City of Delray Beach, dated , 19 , with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps and any revision thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance", should not be included in this ordinance. Mrs. Durante amended her motion to include the Assistant City Attorney's correction, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mrs. Durante - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor Weekes - Yes. The motion - 10 - 4/24/78. JT/ passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Before roll call, Mr. Sanson asked the Assistant City Attorney if this is the ordinance that the Board of Adjustment has been waitingfor. The Assistant City Attorney replied in the affirmative. Roll call on the motion was had at this time. 8.d. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 26-78 amending Chapter 29 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances relative to conversion of dwelling units is before Council for consideration on First Reading. This was discussed at the April 17th workshop meeting. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 26-78: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 29 "ZONING" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 29-17 "SUPPLEMENTARY REGULA- TIONS'' BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION (S) CONVERSIONS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. Mrs. Durante moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 26-78 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mrs. Durante - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor Weekes - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.e. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 27-78, amending Chapter 29 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances relative to allowing trellises to be constructed within setback areas is before Council on First Reading. This was discussed at the workshop meeting on April 17th. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 27-78: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 29 "ZONING" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY ~4ENDING SECTION 29-1 "DEFINITIONS" TO ADD TRELLIS; AMENDING SECTION 29-17 "SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS" (G) TO PERMIT TRELLISES IN SETBACKS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Sanson moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 27-78 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Scheifley. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mrs. Durante - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor Weekes - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.f. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 28-78 amending Chapter 29 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances relative to establishing a new procedure for the submission and approval of common properties documentation is before Council for consideration on First Reading. Ordinance No. 28-78 replaces Emergency Ordinance No. 5-78 adopted on January 3, 1978 as a temporary emergency ordinance not to exceed 90 days from that date. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 28-78: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 29 "ZONING" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 29-6 (P)(1), SECTION 29-7(P) (1),SECTION 29-8(P) (1), SECTION 29-8.1 (R) (7), SECTION 29-8.2(R) (7), SECTION 29-8.3(R) (7) ESTABLISHING A NEW PROCEDURE FOR THE SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF COMMON PROPERTIES DOCUMENTATION IN MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. - 11 - 4/24/78. The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. The City Attorney informed Council that page two and page three of the ordinance have been changed which added one paragraph. The substance of the entire change is that this documentation instead of being required as it presently is at the 50% of the project build out, will be required at the time an application is submitted for site plan approval that the applicant submit a proposed form of documentation. Thereafter, the Planning & Zoning Board would not enter a final recommendation on the application until an approved set of documents has been submitted. Further, the approved set of documents must, thereafter, be recorded in the public records after City Council approval but before the issuance of any building permits. The idea is simply to build into the process as early as possible knowledge on behalf of the applicant that the documentation will be required and also to compel the applicant to begin to get started in preparing the documentation at the time the application is submitted. Mayor Weekes asked if what the City Attorney is talking about is the condominium documents? The City Attorney replied negatively saying the way he has been proceeding on these other developments is that they submit a form of covenants that is recorded prior to the time the declaration of condominium is recorded. Those covenants can go on record prior to the declaration of condominium. The declaration of condominium cannot go on record until the units are built, which will be too late to effectuate this particular ordinance. He added he has worked this out with some condominium developers that they would record a covenant rather than recording a declaration of condominium. Also, if they so desire, the City can effectuate a release of those covenants providing that the declaration of condominium includes the same type of language as is required in the covenants. Mr. Sanson asked what is being done in layman's terms? The City Attorney replied if someone has a development and in that development you have a recreation area, a street, or utilities that is intended for the use of everyone in the subdivision in a multiple family development, you have to submit documentation to the City 'to assure that first of all, those properties will be transferred either to the individual unit owners or would be transferred to an association or group in which the unit owners have majority control. There will be a promise on the homeowners behalf that in the event they fail to maintain the property that the City may then come in and maintain it for them and charge the cost of that to the people who live in that area. Mr. Sanson stated what the City Attorney is saying is that it prevents a situation like Boca Teeca where they came in and had advertised two golf courses and got higher density on the rest of the land, then when a new Council came in, they sold off one of the golf courses which was supposed to be for the people. The City Attorney replied that Boca Teeca is deed restrictive and when someone has a recreation area and that is part of the development then it will have to be in control of the people who live there. The City Attorney added this is sort of like consumer protection legislation in that respect. Mayor Weekes asked the City Attorney if this is a proper function for the City? The City Attorney replied that is for Council to decide; there is not anything illegal about Council doing this. Mr. Sanson stated what we are trying to do is insure the integrity of certain zoning practices in the City. If you didn't have this protection, future Councils could overrule. Mayor Weekes stated he does not think this is what this is about at all. Mr. Chapin stated, as he understands it, it is an ordinance requiring that a developer in a multi-family area where common areas are involved to spell out in advance exactly what the common areas are going to be. The only involvement of the City is that in the event there should be default on behalf of the developer or on behalf of the homeowners, the City has a right to come in and maintain those common areas and charge for maintenance. Mayor Weekes is correct to the extent that this is another obligation that the City is undertaking to insure quality of performance at the initial beginning of a multiple - 12 - 4/24/78. 373 family development.where there are common areas deeded to the people who live in that area. This is a little similar to the situation at High Point in that High Point wanted to have common areas and they would have to point out exactly what those areas are going to be as they are developed. Mr. Chapin asked if this is a proper role for City government to protect the consumer? That is the question, as he sees it, before Council. Mr. Sanson stated his point is let's say Mr. Smith comes in and lays out a project on some 200 acres of land and in the middle of that condominium project, he puts 20 acres of ground which is set out as recreational area but he retains ownership of this 20 acres. On the basis of the site plan, with this 20 acres that really looks like a nice development with open space,he sells this to the public as open space and then ten years later, builds new residential units on the ten acre property. The City, by taking this action, is assuring that we know what the developer is going to do. Mr. Sanson added in the original sales brochure of Tropic Palms it listed an 18 hole golf course. The people he bought his house from, when they originally purchased the home, thought that they were going to have a golf course. Mayor Weekes stated what Mr. Sanson is talking about is not exactly the same as what we are talking about in tke proposed ordinance. As he understands it, the common areas are set fortk in the condominium document and once that document is filed on record, it can't be changed. The City Attorney is trying to get on record what those common areas are going to be prior to the filing of the condominium document. This is not exactly concurrent with the two situations Mr. Sanson brought up. The City Attorney advised that the ordinance is not limited to applying to condominiums. There are many cases in which someone would come through and be required to comply with the ordinance that would never file a declaration of condominium and would never have to declare common elements, as such, in the same sense that they do in the declaration of condominium. This would apply in that context as well. This ordinance will not provide the complete protection from the type of thing~ that Mr. Sanson has alluded to because this ordinance is specifically tied to a particular site plan. A developer may come through and receive approval of a site and development plan that is only a portion of a larger development and he may intend to put a golf course in a portion that has not been site planned and, therefore, put in his advertising that he would have a golf course in the community, etc., but yet he has never come in to site plan that particular golf course. Mayor Weekes added that Tropic Palms was never site planned - it was built on single family lots and there was no common area. Mr. Sanson moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 28-78 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mrs. Durante - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor Weekes - No. The motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. 9.a. City Manager Mariott reported that the Planning & Zoning Board at their meeting on March 21st unanimously recommended that the conditional use approval request for a parking lot for Barnett Bank on the west side of Seabreeze Avenue between Atlantic Avenue and Lowry Street be approved, subject to the following: (1) Comments of the City Engineer, as stated in his February 9th memorandum. (2) Comments of the Director of Public Utilities, as stated in February 9th memorandum. - 13 - 4/24/78. (3) Compliance with the requirements of the Community Appearance Board, as stated in their February 22nd minutes, with the qualification that the ingresses and egresses be 14 feet as required by the Fire Department, and not 12 feet as asked for by the Community Appearance Board. (4) That the use of the lot be limited only to the employees of the bank. (5) That a chain be erected across the two entranceways in order to close the lot at night, weekends, and holidays. (6) A time limitation of 12 months be set for development of this ~project. This was discussed at the April 17th workshop meeting. Mr. Scheifley moved that Council sustain the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Board, seconded by Mr. Chapin. The motion passed unanimously. 9.b. The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning Board at a meeting held on January 17th, unanimously recommended that the Roberts rezoning request of a parcel of land from RM-15 (Multiple Family Dwelling) District to RM-6 (Multiple Family Dwelling) District located in Section 17-46-43 on the west side of Swinton Avenue between N.W. 2nd Street and N.W. 4th Street be denied as the proper zoning should be R-lA (Single Family Dwelling) District. Council, at the workshop meeting on January 30th, requested that the Planning & Zoning Board give consideration to the advisability of creating a new zoning classification which would be a duplex zone. The Planning & Zoning Board at a meeting held on February 22nd, unanimously recommended that they do not deem it advisable to create a duplex zoning district in the City, as it is provided in other multiple family dwelling districts. Mayor Weekes stated he thought one of the considerations of this matter is the limitation of height from two stories instead of three. It was noted by Mr. Chapin that this matter came before Council before the land use plan was adopted. Mr. Chapin moved that Council instruct the City Attorney to prepare appropriate rezoning ordinance accordingly in summary so that Block 72 be RM-6 from N.W. 2nd Street to N.W. 4th Street facing Swinton Avenue and the balance of that Block 72 be single family, seconded by Mr. Sanson. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Scheifley informed Council that Mr. Ed Smith called him regarding this subject and informed that he was calling for five or six people who had been before Council before but they would not be present because they had said everything that they had wanted to say. Mrs. Vogler. informed Council that Mrs. Elaine Roberts, the applicant, could not be present at the meeting. 9.c. The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning Board recommended by a vote of 3 to 1 (Wallin dissenting) at their meeting held on April 18th, that the final plat approval request of Country Manors (Phase iV) located in Section 12-46-42 at the northeast corner of the intersection of Lake Ida Road and Military Trail be approved, subject to the comments of the Director of Public Utilities as stated in his April 6th memorandum. Mr. Sanson stated he was under the impression that it would not be possible for any of the City's Boards to vote on a matter with less than a majority voting. - 14 - 4/24/78. 375 Mr. Scheifley stated Mr. Sanson is correct noting many times Council has returned recommendations to the Planning & Zoning Board when there was not a majority vote. Mr. Sanson noted he does not understand what Mr. Wallin's reasons were for dissenting. He personally would like to see this item go back to the Planning & Zoning Board and put this item to a vote when they have four or more members present, and see whether other members might agree with Mr. Wallin as whether there is some kind of problem here. Mr. Chapin stated that would be an exercise in futility. Phase IV of Country Manors has already been built. John Stewart of Suiter & O'Brien, stated Country Manors Phase IV is before Council for final approval and the reason it has taken so long is the platting and the improvements were done simultaneously. The dissenting vote on the Planning & Zoning Board was because Country Manors was a development with no setbacks from the private roads and it was approved in 1972 as a total site plan. Mr. Scheifley moved that the final plat for Country Manors Phase IV be approved, seconded by Mr. Sanson. The motion passed unanimously. 9.d. The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning Board at a meeting held on April 18th, unanimously recommended that the easement abandonment request of a 10-foot strip of land located on the south side of a 30-foot City easement, which is part of Lot 11, Block 1, Osceola Park, at the southwest corner of the intersection of the Intracoastal Waterway and S.E. 5th Street if extended east be approved. The reason for the abandonment is to allow the petitioner to use the 10 feet for measuring building setbacks. Mrs. Durante moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution for abandonment, seconded by Mr. Chapin. The motion passed unanimously. 9.e. The City Manager reported that at a meeting held on April 18th, the Planning & Zoning Board unanimously recommended that the amended final plat request for Patrician Villas, located in Section 19-46-43 at the southwest corner of the intersection of Lowson Boulevard and Homewood Boulevard, consisting of changing the name from "Patrician Villas" to "Palm Villas" be approved, subject to the availability of water. Mrs. Durante moved to sustain the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Board, seconded by Mr. Chapin. The motion passed unanimously. 10. The City Manager recommended payment of the City's bills. Mr. Chapin moved that Council ratify payment of the City's bills, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Mr. Sanson stated he objects to the City payment of a bill, Check 925981 to Alley & Alley in the amount of $123.50. He stated he does not understand how they were able to charge this to the City since Council instructed the City Attorney's office not to have any more dealings with them. The City Attorney explained that was for expenses incurred prior to the date Council terminated their services. The motion passed unanimously. General Fund ............... $306,384.54 Cigarette Tax Fund ............ 6,105.00 Utilities Tax Fund ............ 50,000.00 Special Projects Fund .......... 76,759.67 Federal Public Works Fund ........ 2,614.24 Water and Sewer Fund ........... 8,384.74 Mayor Weekes welcomed Mrs. Mary Aspinwall, who is a friend of Council's and the City. - 15 - 4/24/78. Mr. Scheifley moved, at 9:30 P.M., for the adjournment of the meeting, seconded by Mrs. Durante. The motion passed unanimously. CLERK APPROVED: MAYOR 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 Council of April 24, 1978 which minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Council on City Clerk 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 Council. 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. - 16 - 4/24/78.