06-12-78 JUNE 12, 1978
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, was held in the Council Chambers at 7:00
P.M., Monday, June 12, 1978, with Mayor Leon M. Weekes presiding,
and City Manager J. Eldon Mariott, 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 Reverend Roy Forward,
Christian and Missionary Alliance Church.
2. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States
of America was given.
3. Mrs. Durante moved for the approval of the minutes of
the regular meeting of May 22, 1978, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Said
motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Sanson moved for the approval of the Special meeting
of May 22, 1978, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Said motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Chapin moved for the approval of the special meeting
of May 30, 1978, seconded by Mr. Scheifley. Said motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Scheifley moved for the approval of the minutes of
June 5, 1978, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Said motion passed unanimously.
4.a. Mr. Chapin noted he talked about Proposition 13 last week,
and the people out in California thought that was good enough to
pass by a vote of 2 to 1. He stated he wanted to congratulate the
Mayor on his comments in that regard in how it applies to us in
Florida and hopes the message goes straight to those who preside in
Washington, D.C.
4.b.1. Mr. Sanson stated to add to Mr. Chapin's comments, he
would hope that the message would go very strongly to the City
Manager as he gets ready to prepare the budget.
4.b.2. Mr. Sanson stated he would like to propose that a subject
be placed on a future workshop dealing with the aspect of the
possibility of the City forming what could be termed a Transportation
Advisory Committee. He noted he recognizes that Council has been
trying to tone down the number of committees that have been in
existence in this City and he supports that movement wholeheartedly.
He would not think that any new committee should be formed unless
he sees a purpose. He feels there is going to be a need for such
a committee in the future and he would like to think that perhaps,
Council could start the wheels in process and get the jump on a
situation that will arise in the near future. The main reason that
has precipitated his ideas has been the meeting of the Metropolitan
Planning Organization this past month where they got into an exten-
sive discussion about the future transportation planning processes
that are going to be occurring in the County and more specifically,
what the needs are going to be. Council needs to recognize that
Delray is the third largest City in Palm Beach County and they do
have much voice in terms of examples that they set for other com-
munities and governmental entities. More importantly, he is sure
Council wants to make sure that they can provide adequately for the
people of Delray, particularly the senior citizens, that system
of mass transportation will be available in an adequate manner.
Mr. Sanson~noted that when the item does come to workshop, he will
be prepared to give many more specifics as to what purpose he thinks
it can serve both now and in the future. He asked that this item
be scheduled for workshop.
This was acknowledged by the City Manager.
4.b.3. Mr. Sanson stated that in regards to the water situation,
for sometime he has been relatively quiet on this issue. He thinks
that the water situation currently in existence has very justifiable
reasons and that the public, through what he considers to be badge
heavy bureaucrats and certain officials on the county level, are
taking advantage of the emotional climate to further whatever motives
they have which he considers to be a lot of self-interest. He
stated that he is quite disturbed over the fact that perhaps the
City Administration is taking an attitude that they are not going
to confront the situation, but he does not intend to take this lying
down. He stated he thinks Mr. Williams needs to be challenged; he
thinks the man has been stepping way over bounds with his authority
and he, for one, hopes that the June 22nd Environmental Control
Hearing will be held and as the Monday paper article says, they will
be asked to explain why they have not expanded the plant to date.
Mr. Sanson stated he would love to have that opportunity tO once and
for all, under a court of law where perhaps he can say th~gs
without fear of intimidation or retribution in front of a-j~dge say
some things that are on his mind. He would like to take. on
Mr. Williams and intends to find out between now and June 22~d,
whether he can be present at that meeting and speak his mind.
4.b.4. Mr. Sanson stated he is quite concerned and has no idea
whether the report is true as far as the City's water rationing
program goes; he has gone along with it and he guesses they recognize
that, supposedly, they are exceeding capacity on some days. If,
in fact, the Monday paper article is true that because of the pro-
gram the City is using more water than what they used before, he
sincerely thinks that it would be time for the City Manager to
reassess his attitude about the water rationing program. He can't
see the purpose of instituting something if the end result, or the
conclusion, of that action is going to end up being more detrimental
than what was there in the first place. Therefore, if the City
Manager has not seen the article in the Monday paper, he is asking
that he review it and perhaps reevaluate and reassess his current
attitudes about the water rationing program.
4.c. The Mayor noted that two-thirds of the audience are
present because of the Brenan property, which is the very last
item on the agenda; as a consideration to the large number of people
present, he personally would like to accommodate them, if it is legally
possible, by amending the agenda to consider this early so that
these people may know the response and have the opportunity to return
to their homes or whatever else they may wish to do.
Upon question by the Mayor, the Assistant City Attorney
noted that it is legal to move that item forward if Council wishes
to do so.
It was consensus of Council to move this item up just
before item 7 and after item 6.i. of tonight's agenda.
5. Mark Manafo, 1378 Audubon Blvd., Delray Beach, stated he
would like Mayor Weekes and Council to consider, in the next couple
of months, a conservation program that could be handled by an ordi-
nance. The Tropic Palms Homeowners Association are busily involved
in drafting an ordinance that would help the whole city and he
would like to bring it to Council to be considered at the next work-
shop meeting. The ordinance which would subject all new water
connections to be equipped with water saving devices and toilet
tanks, and if possible and legal, through the shower. He noted that
in the Tuesday St. Petersburg Times, printed a year or so ago, a
program like this was tried in St. Petersburg with these devices
installed in 20% of the homes city-wide and resulted in a 150 million
gallon cutback in usage of water over a year. He stated that he would
like to see any new additional hook-ups addressed in this manner and
they would like to work very closely with the City in developing
this program.
The Mayor advised this would be put on a workshop agenda
as soon as they can get it scheduled.
- 2 - 6/12/78
439
6.a.1. The City Manager reported that in regards to the water
question, a hearing is scheduled for June 15, 1978 with the Health
Department and others.
The Assistant City Attorney reported that the Stipulation
Agreement has been cleared with the Attorney for the Palm Beach
County Health Department and everything was agreed upon. In para-
graph D, the City asked to have the date June 1, 1978 instead of
May 1, 1978 but was unable to get that; otherwise, the City has the
type of stipulation that they hoped to get and, if agreed to by
Council and signed, it will be filed June 15, 1978.
The City Manager noted that this is the same Stipulation
Agreement he reported to Council, in detail, sometime ago. There has
been very few words changed in it since that time and none of those
were matters of substance. The first draft of the proposed Stipu-
lation Agreement was drafted by Susan Hunter, an attorney with the
County, which the City took objectionto on two or three items and
were able to get those items changed.
Mayor Weekes asked the Assistant City Attorney if he
believes that if the City agrees to this stipulation that the County
Health Department will agree to it? The Assistant City Attorney
replied they said that they would and it is to be submitted by both
parties Tuesday morning.
Mr. Chapin took exception to the fact that they should
agree to something that is to be retroactive to May 1; he has no
problems in going back to June 1, but to saddle Council with an
after-the-fact requirement appears to him to be unfair, unjust,
improper and very much of an exercise of a heavy hand of government.
When two parties enter into an agreement, the agreement takes effect
the date of that agreement and to have it retroactive violates all
kinds of dealings of fair play. Mr. Chapin stated he will vote that
it take effect June 15 or,if need be, June 1.
Upon question by Mr. Scheifley, Mayor Weekes stated that
the City had no restriction up until this point in time. The first
month they exceed five days of the plant capacity they are then
restricted to 50 hookups per month; that occurred during the month
of May so it is retroactive and they are being restricted to 50
from this point forward.
Mrs. Durante asked the Assistant City Attorney if Council
is in a position to challenge the effective date. He stated that
the position, according to Mr. Williams, is that the City should have
been under this type of thing last fall and that they feel they have
been very liberal extending it this far; therefore, he was not agree-
able to using June 1st. The Assistant City Attorney stated he
doubts very much if the City could get an agreement on June 1st.
The City Manager concurred with this statement.
Mr. Chapin stated that he has a little knowledge because
he practices law and Mr. Williams is a fine engineer but does not
practice law. He believes that as strong a position as Mr. Williams
takes, the final authority is the lady lawyer and he thinks she will
understand the constitutional argument that would be presented on
behalf of a June 1 or June 15 date. Mr. Chapin stated that page
2 of the stipulation relative to the lifting of the moritorium, is
too vague for him; it is a good start but it is not a final thing
he would feel comfortable with in voting on tonight.
Mayor Weekes stated he agrees with Mr. Sanson in large
measure and he also agrees in large measure with what Mr. Chapin is
saying. He does not like the way they have been handled,as a City,
by the Public Health Department; he does not like the things that
have appeared in the press and feels they are counter-productive
to what the City has been trying to do. But at the same time, the
reality of the situation is such that this stipulation is the better
choice of the alternatives for the City of Delray Beach. He stated
- 3 - 6/12/78
4¸40
he, too, wishes they could get it effective June 1st or perhaps July
1st or August 1st but he does not think they have that option avail-
able to them. As a practical matter, the Public Utilities Director
has advised him that he can get along quite nicely with 50 hookups
per month, which the City will now be restricted to. Mayor Weekes
stated that he believes within the framework of the conservation
of water and the increase of the plant capacity by charcoal filtration
and two of the filters, the City would not exceed the plants rated
capacity at 5 times during any month from this point forward. He
stated he does not like the way it has been handed to them but he
thinks that everything considered in the City's best interest is
to accept it.
Mr. Scheilfey moved that Council approve this stipulation
prepared by the Assistant City Attorney, 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. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote.
Before the roll call the following discussion was had.
Mr. Sanson asked, if Council is in favor of pursuing the course of
action as outlined by Russell & Axon, and proceeds with authorizing
expansion of the plant with the iron coagulation system, and the
stipulation is agreed to and comes in and they won't accept iron
coagulation, does that mean that Council has to go along with what-
ever else they dictate? Mr. Sanson stated he truly believes that
they just want lime softening at any cost and he would be happy to,
at the proper time with proper protection, state his reasons as to
why he thinks they want it.
Mayor Weekes stated he does not happen to agree with
Mr. Sanson's conclusion. It is true that some people have been
uncorporative but it is also true that some have been cooperative,
maybe not to the degree that he would like. He does not necessarily
agree with Mr. Sanson's conclusion about the lime softening; now the
affect of the stipulation on the ultimate exPansion of the water
program, he does not know what bearing thatwould have. If it would
go to court, there is certainly an option there that it might be
worse than this sitpulation, such as $500 a day fine - you may say
it is not legal but the possibility is there.
Mr. Chapin stated he is willing to enter into a stipu-
lation to protect the residents of this community from the owner's
responsibilities placed upon them because of this water situation.
He finds it very difficult having walked in the chambers less than
35 minutes ago, to sit down and understand something for the first
time as a proposed final draft. His personal feelings are that the
May 1 date is negotiable and he thinks that the language that's been
quoted puts the shoe on their foot to come forth and make a showing
which gives them the preponderance of evidence to come forward; the
preponderance of proof to show that they can provide it. If they
can increase the plant capacity by a million gallons a day, there
should be no reason to have to go and make a showing to Mrs. Hunter,
who sits as the Director of the Environmental Control Board. For
those two technical reasons, he stated he is not in favor of voting
on this tonight but in spirit he is in favor of it.
Mayor Weekes noted that the Public Utilities Director,
the City Attorney and the Engineers have told him that tryas they
might, that item is not negotiable and he is willing to accept that.
Mrs. Durante stated she is willing to accept that also;
however, if Mr. Chapin feels that he can negotiate the date further,
Council should possibly postpone this and take it up at a later date.
Mayor Weekes noted that the hearing is on the 15th and
the time is short.
Upon questions by Mr. Chapin, Mr. Martin, Public Utilities
Director, stated he conducted negotiations personally with Mrs. Hunter
- 4 - 6/12/78
441
but did not have legal counsel representing him during those
negotiations. The negotiations were handled mainly between the
Health Department and himself with Mrs. Hunter on the sideline to
take directions from Mr. Gargiulo. Mr. Chapin asked Mr. Martin
how strongly he pressed this date of May 1 versus June 1 or June
15th and what reaction did he get. Mr. Martin stated he pressed
the date of June 1 extremely hard, which was on the original draft.
He stated that he explained to them at that time that the enforce-
ment of the sprinkling ban would not take effect until May 17th
which is already putting the City in the hole; the replies that
he receiv%d was that the City has been in the hole for too many
years as it was. He did manage to fight the $500 a day but it was
just like beating your head against a wall to get any further con-
cession from them. Mr. Chapin asked was there any discussion as to
the legal authority of Mr. Gargiulo to enforce the date of May 1
as opposed to another date? Mr. Martin stated, yes, definitely -
that the City does not have to accept that date and may appear
before the Environmental Control Board at which time full document
of violation, as presented by the Health Department, will be
presented. The City will then be in defense of it and the Environ-
mental Control Board, at that time, can give the City any stipula-
tion or punishment they see fit. Upon question by Mr. Chapin,
Mr. Martin stated the Environmental Control Board is a legally
constituted body in Palm Beach County to oversee the water and
sewerage violations and treatments and it has the power of punish-
ment and fines; the City Attorney checked that out as to legality
but he does not know who sits on the Board. Mr. Martin noted that
one of the fears was that the stipulation was not strong enough and
the Board may not accept it. Based upon his negotiations with
Mr. Gargiulo, Mr. Williams,and Mrs. Hunter in attendance, he feels
that this is as far as he could personally go with the County
Health Department in terms of stipulations and could not gain
another inch.
Mr. Scheifley stated that the point he is concerned with
is that apparently the County Board of Health, and the DER want
to make sure that the City of Delray Beach demonstrates good faith
and it seems to him that if Council contests this, they are doing
the opposite of what they expect. If he was on one of those boards
and listened to the tapes of all of these meetings, there are some
remarks made that would cause him to question the good faith of the
City. It behooves Council to get along with this because they have
agreed to do certain things and the Health Department, and DER
have agreed to the City's plan to make a decision and issue bids for
a new plant.
At this point the roll to the motion was called.
Mr. Sanson asked the Assistant City Attorney to explain
what the purpose of the hearing on June 22nd is and how does it
relate to the June 15th hearing.
The Assistant City Attorney advised that the June 15th
hearing is, basically, if there is an agreed stipulation to submit
that to the Environmental Control Hearing Board and, if you do not
have a stipulation it's a question of assigning it for a hearing.
It was noted that if they are satisfied at the June 15th hearing,
then the June 22nd hearing would be cancelled.
Mr. Sanson stated he is getting a little bit tired of the
aspect that Mr. Williams, specifically, has done to use the press
to continaully give some kind of image and impression that the Delray
Beach City Council is not attempting to solve a problem dealing with
this. He would like to state that what you don't realize is that
perhaps these people and their organization is what's causing the
problem. This problem could have been settled 2½ to 3 years ago if
they had tried to work with the City of Manalapan and tried to get
the methods of treatment the City is seeking approved. Not only
have they failed to in any way cooperate with that City in their
efforts, but they furthermore, have done all they can, in his opinion,
- 5 - 6/12/78
to delay any decision being given to the town of Manalapan until
such time as this Council finds itself under such a hard rock, that
they can't get out anymore. That is to the point that when deadlines
have had to be made under Administrative procedural rules the state
of Florida deals with, the DER and the local agency, which
Mr. Williams speaks for, has waited until 15 minutes before 12 mid-
night, at the end of a 90 day period, before their response is given
to the City of Manalapan asking for more questions and more material
to be given. What Council is trying to do is save approximately
$4 million to the citizens and this, in his opinion, as near as he
could figure it, can mean as much as the water bills tripling or
quadrupling in price. This, to him, is worth fighting for; it's
worth having to sprinkle your lawns only twice a week and maybe
even that is not necessary. Mr. Sanson stated he will not tolerate
these people cominghere, arbitrarily and capriciously, telling the
City how they are going to start running its affairs. There are set
rules and set regulations and set laws .that these people have not
been following, in his opinion, to show cause for their reponses and
their actions and their activities. He stated he thinks it is time
for all the citizens of Delrayto stand up togethe~ and he can guarantee
that, if they did it, you will find the City's method of treatment
is going to be approved and maybe Mr. Williams is going to be out
of a job.
6.a.2. The City Manager reported that this item concerns action
taken by the Delray Beach Kiwanis Club in its efforts tohelp fight
crime. The Delray Beach Kiwanis Club has passed a resolution aimed
at helping to fight crime and they are asking for sanction of that
action by the Delray Beach City Council.
Mr. Chapin stated that as a program of work for the year
1978, the Kiwanis International has been interested in safeguarding
against crime throughout the communities and nation. The Delray
Beach Kiwanis Club, having studied this issue at length and with
the advice of the Delray Beach Police Chief and several lawyers,
has drafted, what he believes to be a very fair, reasonable state-
ment of the problem and is asking this City Councillto adopt a
resolution in support of their resolution. Mr. ChaPin stated he
has read it with care and finds it to be appropriate and in order.
Mr. Chapin moved that Council adopt a resolution in
support of this Kiwanis Club resolution and copies thereof be sent
to Judge Poulton, the presiding Judge of the Circuit Court, presiding
Judge of the 4th District Court of Appeal, West Palm Beach, copy to
Justice England, the presiding Judge of the Florida Supreme Court,
copy to the Attorney General, Mr. Shevin, and a copy to David
Bludworth, States Attorney, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Said motion
passed unanimously.
Mayor Weekes requested that the Assistant City Attorney
prepare such a resolution for the next Council meeting. This was
acknowledged by the Assistant City Attorney.
6.a.3. The City Manager reported that this item concerns lights
at the Atlantic Dunes Park and parking lot. He stated he has been
aware of some conversation in the last several days regarding the
lights and he made a visit to the parking lot and the park last night
about 9:00; there were no cars in the parking lot and there was
no one in the park that he could see and all the lights were on. He
stated he was not sure until today exactly what the nature of the
complaint was. He did not have in his possession, until recently, a
copy of the letter written a few days ago by Mrs. Matthews to Council,
which was given to him by the Parks & Recreation acting director,
Dan Winters, with an analysis of the way he sees the lighting
picture at this location. The City Manager stated that after reading
Mrs. Matthews'letter in regard to this question, he can understand
the reason for the concern expressed in the letter and he is largely
in agreement.
- 6 - 6/12/78
City Manager Mariott reported on the action that was
taken at the staff meeting and stated if Councilwants to take any
different action they may do so. It seemed to him that there were
no objection to the three lights in the park and the City Administra-
tion, with all members present, feel that those lights should
remain. The lights in the parking lot, according to his understanding,
are the basis of the objection and in viewing the situation it
probably will not be necessary to use the lights. Therefore, he
gave instructions this morning that beginning tonight those lights
not be on in the parking lot. Additionally, they thought the best
way to cope with the park situation in an attempt to minimize
difficulty in the future would be to make it as hard to use the
park at night as they can make it; therefore, they plan to chain the
entrance to the parking lot at night and they plan to begin that
immediately upon the part of the parking lot being turned over to
the City by the County. They also thought that if they do not have
"No Parking" provisions along A1A, a number of people could park on
A1A in order to use the park area, thereby causing some difficulty.
He gave instructions that DOT be contacted in an attempt to get DOT
acquiescence for the posting of "No Parking" signs for a reasonable
walking distance both north and south of the park in order to minimize
parking along A1A.
City Manager Mariott stated that it was reported to him
by the Engineering Department that in other cases, especially the
Sandoway lot, where it was thought that lighting of the parking lot
would not be wanted, has turned out to be the reverse after the lot
was in use for sometime. When the lights go out at the Sandoway Park,
Engineering reports to him that the people who live nearby are the
first to call wanting the lights back on. Because of that, they felt
that the five lighting poles and fixtures should be left temporarily
as they are in the parking lot until they are sure, hopefully, that
the lights will not be needed and at that time have the poles and
everything removed. If they are needed, they will be there in the
future but will not be lit; if it proves over a period of time that
it is not necessary for them to be there, that they are not needed
in order to cope with the situation, then they would take them down.
Mrs. William Matthews, 1024 White Drive, Delray Beach,
stated that what they have asked is that the light poles be removed.
The situation in these parking lots is not really analogous to
either Sandoway or the unlighted new parking lot, Anchor Park, because
these are deep lots going right through a full block with little or
no street light illumination. The lots at Dunes Park are shallow and
is fully lighted by street lights on three sides. The street lights
are within about 50 feet, a maximum of 60 feet, of the poles which
are there; therefore, the illumination is not necessary. She stated
that they have been promised in this Chamber by Commissioner Medlen,
who gave a pledge, which Council accepted, that this community would
be so well landscaped, so well screened, that the neighbors would
scarcely be aware that it was a public parking lot. The poles
sitting in the lots seems to them to be a direct violation of that;
no matter how well landscaped, there is no way that you can have
the poles sticking up in the middle of the lot and not see it
existing as a very obvious parking lot.
Mayor Weekes stated that if the lights are not going to
be lit, he would just as soon have the poles taken out. He stated
that Mrs. Matthews is correct, it was never intended that that park
be lit, it was never intended that it be open after dusk; there are
street lights in the vacinity. He stated he takes some exception
when he findS that the street lights were authorized by the City
after he called Mr. Medlen and asked him why it was that that park
was lighted when he told them that it wouldn't be. Therefore, he
asked members of Council, if they would agree with him, that they
instruct the City Administration that they have those light poles
removed.
Mr. Sanson concurred with Mayor Weekes, along with other
members of Council, and he stated that he would also support seeing
them come down in the rest of the area. He would be a little con-
- 7 - 6/12/78
cerned if the lights are left on all night in the park, that it
is an invitation to attract people to use it and he foresees some
bad problems that could arise there. His question would be the
question of liability the City is putting itself in from a position
of presumed okay for people to use it. They are going to assume
that since the City is lighting it, its okay to go ahead and use the
park but if it is not lit, it has to be obvious that it is their
own risk to walk up there in the middle of the night.
Mr. Chapin moved that this Council direct the Administra-
tion to move those poles in the two parking lots on the west side of
A1A, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Said motion passed unanimously.
Mrs. Durante stated she would like for the Administration
to use those light poles in Pompey Park since they already have them.
Mr. Sanson moved that the light poles also be removed
from the rest of the park. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Chapin stated he thinks this item should be referred
to workshop.
6.a.4. The City Manager reported that this item concerns a
request of the City by the Delray Problem Center for $4000 to be used
in connection with the Drug Abuse Program that is operated by that
agency. Last year, the City made an allocation of $4000 that was
allocated on/or about July 1st. The information received by his
office after the making of the agenda is that a similar amount is
being requested for the coming year. The City Manager stated that
it is his hope that, if the City continues to appropriate money to
this agency, the agency will get on the same fiscal year as the City.
It would be much more orderly for Council to consider an appropria-
tion of this sort in connection with the making of the budget than
it is to consider making appropriations at regular Council meetings
prior to the adoption of the budget. The current budget contains
an $8000 appropriation to be used for Drug Abuse purposes; $4000 to
the Delray Problem Center and $4000 to the South County Drug Abuse
Organization. The City is in receipt of a request for funds from
the South County Drug Abuse Organization in the upcoming budget,
which is in the budget file. However, the request from the Delray
Problem Center came ahead of making the budget just as it did last
year, with their informing the City as they did last year, that they
must have this for match-funds in order to keep the federal funds,
etc. George Williams of that organization, made the request and was
not sure he would be able to attend the meeting tonight but would
have a representative here; apparently, that is not the case.
Upon question by the Mayor, the City Manager stated that
the $4000 was allocated last year with the?understanding that the
$4000 would be put in the new budget, which is now the current budget.
The $4000 shown in the current budget was dispersed on July 1, 1977
and, therefore, is not in the current budget - it has already been
spent.
Mayor Weekes stated he would like to see it put in
consideration at the budget time - he doesn't like to give the money
out in June from a budget that doesn't take effect until October.
Mrs. Durante asked if last year was the first year this
organization came to the City requesting funds; it was answered,
yes. She stated that the City Manager would like to see them get
on the same fiscal year as the City but that may not be possible.
They may be on federal and state funding year which is from July 1
to June 30th. If last year was their first year asking for the funds,
which was just prior to their July 1 fiscal year and the money was
given out of this year's budget, then they are on time by asking at
this time.
The City Manager stated he does not know how the fiscal
year of this organization compares to the South County Drug Abuse
Organization - whether they operate in the same fiscal year or not.
- 8 - 6/12/78
Mr. Carey noted that the two organizations are on the same fiscal
year of July 1 to June 30.
Mayor Weekes stated he thinks, perhaps, that they are short
on their match for the ending fiscal year, which is now, and they
need this money to make up their match for the fiscal year now
closing. Mr. Carey stated that he thinks Mayor Weekes is probably
accurate in saying that they are short that much money for this
current fiscal year - they may be in that dilemma.
Mr. Chapin moved that since the Director of this organi-
zation could not attend the meeting tonight, that Council table this
until he is able to present his request to Council and give all the
facts so that Council can give an intelligent response to the re-
quest, seconded by Mr. Scheifley. Said motion passed unanimously.
6.b. The City Manager reported that it is suggested that Coun-
cil consider nominating Mr. John Gomery to serve on the Solid Waste
Authority Citizens' Advisory Committe to the unexpired term of
Paul Friend ending September, 1978. The Mayor, who is a member of
the Authority, has recommended Mr. Gomery, who has agreed to serve
if appointed.
Mr. Scheifley moved that Mr. Gomery be appointed to the
Solid Waste Authority Citizens' Advisory Committee to the unexpired
term of Paul Friend ending September, 1978, seconded by Mr. Sanson.
Said motion passed unanimously.
6.c. The City Manager reported that the City has been invited
to designate a person to serve on the Administrative Board of the
Palm Beach County Community Action Council. It is suggested that
consideration be given to designating Council member Charlotte Durante
to serve in this capacity. She has agreed to serve if appointed.
Mr. Chapin moved that Charlotte Durante be appointed to
serve on this Council, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Said motion passed
unanimously.
6.d. The City Manager reported that the City is in receipt
of a letter from Arthur V. Strock & Associates, Inc., Consulting
Engineers, requesting City approval for the installation of an
interim water treatment plant to serve Lago Del Rey, Homewood Lakes
and the Hamlet until such time as the City has sufficient water
capacity to serve these developments. Council may act on the request
or refer it to a future workshop meeting. The developers are most
anxious that City action be forthcoming at the earliest possible
date. They are asking only for conceptual approval at this time in
order to know whether to go forward with the making of expensive
detail plans and specifications for subsequent approval by the various
approving agencies.
Mr. Scheifley moved that Lago Del Rey, Homewood Lakes
and the Hamlet be given conceptual approval for an interim water
treatment plant and the terms will comply with the letter of June
1, 1978 to the City Manager from Arthur V. Strock, P.E., seconded
by Mr. Sanson. Said motion passed unanimously.
Before roll call Mr. Chapin questioned if Mr. Martin
approved this and the~City Manager stated that it is only conceptual
approval and that the City Administration is in agreement with this
action. As far as the specifics, they will be ratified at a later
date.
Mr. Sanson asked Mr. Strock what were the several alter-
native processes he considered? Mr. Strock stated they have looked
at combinations such as reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, sand
filter in conjunction with zeolite carbon and there were others which
were combinations of elements of treatment. Upon question by
Mr. Sanson, Mr. Strock stated they will be producing about 300,000
gallons of water.
- 9 - 6/12/78
At this point the roll to the motion was called.
6.e. The City Manager reported that it is recommended that
Council authorize the transfer of $2000 from the General Fund con-
tingency account to the Street Lighting budget for the purpose of
funding installation of street lighting in Bass Creek, Rainberry
Woods, Tall Pines and Pines of Delray as discussed at the June 5th
workshop meeting.
Mr. Chapin moved that Council approve the transfer of
$2000 from the General Fund Contingency Account to the Street
Lighting Budget for the purpose of providing street lighting for
Bass Creek, Rainberry Woods, Tall Pines and Pines of Delray with
underground street lighting for Bass Creek only, seconded by
Mrs. Durante. Said motion passed unanimously.
6.f. The City Manager reported it is recommended that Council
authorize the transfer of funds from the General Fund Contingency
account to the Building Inspection budget for the.purpose of funding
three additional employee positions, fringe benefits, equipment and
transportation for the balance of this fiscal year and for placing
the trailer formerly used by the Police Department on site. Assis-
tant City Attorney Shandy has given legal clearance for the planned
use of the trailer. $12,000 is the amount of the recommended trans-
fer if Council does not locate the trailer in the hole in the pocket
that was recommended; if it is located there, a $13,000 transfer is
recommended.
Mayor Weekes stated that as for as he is concerned, there
is no question but that it should be located in the "hole" between
the shed and the City Hall as opposed to the parking lot.
Mr. Sanson asked if there is any place to park the trailer
where they won't have to go to the $1000 expense? The City Manager
stated yes, it could be parked other places but would cost a lot
more than $1000. This is much more cost effective plus a greatly
added convenience to many developers and builders who do business
with the building inspection department wo would otherwise have to
be shuffled back and forth between the department and the trailer.
This is the cheapest way of doing it as well as being the most
efficient way.
Mr. Chapin moved that this Council authorize the transfer
of funds from the General Contingency Account to the Building
Inspection Budget in the amount of $13,000, funding three additional
employee positions, fringe benefits, equipment and transportation
for the balance of this year for placing a trailer formerly used by
the Police Department on a site at the rear of the City Hall and to
the east of the shed behind City Hall, seconded by Mrs. Durante.
Said motion passed unanimously.
6.g. The City Manager reported that it is recommended that
Council approve the execution of a non-financial agreement with
Palm Beach County Community Action Council whereby the City agrees
to adhere to (1) Child Labor Laws; (2) Youth Employment and Demon-
stration Projects Act of 1977; and (3) Hazardous Occupations Orders
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act in its participation in
the Youth Employment and Training Program. This program, funded
under CETA, Title III, will pay salaries to youths helping with
City recreational activities.
Upon question by Mrs. Durante, the City Manager stated
that this is not the S.P.E.D.Y. program but a program consisting of
about 9 young employees in the Parks & Recreation Department that
would be funded by the Federal Government.
Mr. Sanson moved for the execution of the non-financial
agreement with Palm Beach County Community Action Council as outlined
in item 6.g. of tonight's agenda, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Said
motion passed unanimously.
- 10 - 6/12/78
447
6.h. The City Manager reported it is recommended that Council
authorize the execution of an agreement between the City and Palm
Beach County providing for the funding of the Pompey Park Community
Development Grant. The City entered into a similar agreement with
the County last year, which agreement was authorized by City Council
on July 25, 1977.
Mrs. Durante moved for the approval of the execution of
the agreement between the City and Palm Beach County providing for
funding of the Pompey Park Community Development Grant, seconded by
Mr. Chapin. Said motion passed unanimously.
Before roll call on the motion, Mr. Sanson asked if this
entails receiving more funds, additional ones, or what they already
have? The City Manager replied it is what they presently have in the
works - it is a standard agreement done every year.
At this point the roll was called on the motion.
6.i. The City Manager reported that the City is in receipt of
an offer (and $5000 deposit) to buy the 7.5 acre tract of city-owned
land on the north side of Lake Ida Road east of the E-4 Canal.
Council has expressed a desire in the past to explore the advisability
of selling this property, as well as the City-owned tract on the
south side of Lake Ida Road opposite the subject tract. It is
recommended that Council authorize submittal of the land to the sale
process including advertising or refer same to a future workshop
meeting.
Mr. Sanson stated that according to the agenda information
Council has talked about this but if his memory is correct, it's
been very superficially and he would not like to act on this. He
would like to take some time and go out to look at the site and per-
haps talk to some other realtors in town and get their impression of
what the City is doing and be able to make a more intelligent decision.
Mayor Weekes stated if Mr. Sanson wants to take the time
to look at it is fine and he has no objection to deferring it but
as a practical matter, the price that is offered is substantially
in excess of what he would have presumed it to be worth. Council does
not have to accept the bid.
Mr. Sanson stated that if the property is sold, instead of
turning around and putting this money back into the General Fund
or something like giving raises to City employees, that the money be
used to purchase some park land west of the town or some other area
where a mini-park is needed.
Mayor Weekes stated he agrees with Mr. Sanson in that he
wouldn't want to see it put in the operating budget but might want
to use it for other recreational purposes, to develop recreational
facilities. If this property is sold, he would like to see that
money continue to be used for some form of recreation, either addi-
tional land or additional development of recreational land.
The City Manager advised he was asked to question Council
to determine whether or not it will be feasible for the City to con-
sider~selling both of these parcels of land, the one that is the
subject on the agenda tonight and also the parcel on the south
through which a street has subsequently been built, Roosevelt Avenue.
The idea being that the City might make better use of that money
for some other purpose other than having it invested in that land
at this location.
Mrs. Durante moved that the City advertise this tract of
land for bid, 7.5-acre tract of City-owned land on the north side of
Lake Ida Road and East of the E-4 Canal. The motion died for a lack
of a second.
- 11 - 6/12/78
Mr. Chapin moved that Council defer this item for a
period of two weeks before putting it out for bids, seconded by
Mr. Sanson. Said motion passed unanimously.
Before roll call Mr. Scheifley stated that this could be
argued either way. If the City was offered $37,000 for this in
1976, presumeably it's going up to $75,000, which is what it was
appraised for. It was appraised at a figure which is double the
appraised value and it might be prudent for the City to retain it
and probably get a lot more for it in a few years.
At this point the roll was called on the motion.
Upon question by Mayor Weekes, Mark Manafo stated they
would like to discuss items 9.d, e & f tonight instead of having it
scheduled for a workshop meeting.
9.d. The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning Board,
at a meetinq held on January 17th, recommended by unanimous vote
that the Brennan - Parcel 1 rezoning request of a parcel of land
from RM-15 (Multiple Family Dwelling) District to RM-10 (Multiple
Family Dwelling) District located in Section 29-46-43 south of
Linton Boulevard between Lindell Boulevard and S.W. 4th Avenue, be
approved because'this rezoning in conjunction with the rezoning of
parcels 2 and 3 will net the City a reduction of 90± units from what
is designated in the Land Use Plan.
9.e. The Planning & Zoning Board, at a meeting held on January
17th, recommended by unanimous vote that the Brennan - Parcel 2 re-
zoning request of a parcel of land from RM-15 (Multiple Family
Dwelling) District to PRD-4 (Planned Residential) District located
in Sections 29-46-43 and 30-46-43 on the west side of Lindell Boule-
vard between Linton Boulevard and Dotterel Road, be approved because
this rezoning in conjunction with the rezoning of parcels 1 and 3
will net the City a reduction of 90± units from what is designated
in the Land Use Plan.
9.f. The Planning & Zoning Board, at a meeting held on January
17th, recommended by unanimous vote that the Brennan - Parcel 3
rezoning request of a parcel of land from R-1AA (Single Family
Dwelling) District to PRD-4 (Planned Residential) District located
in Section 29-46-43 on the north side of Audubon Boulevard between
1-95 and Lindell Boulevard, be approved because this rezoning in
conjunction with the rezoning of parcels 1 and 2 will net the City
a reduction of 90± units from what is designated in the Land Use
Plan.
PARCEL 1 Mr. Scheifley moved that in regards to parcel 1, item 9.
d of tonight's agenda, Council sustain the recommendation of the
Planning & Zoning Board, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Said motion
passed unanimously.
PARCEL 2 Mrs. Durante moved that Council sustain the recommendation
of the Planning & Zoning Board on parcel 2, item 9.e on tonight's
agenda, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Said motion passed unanimously. -
Before the roll call the following comments were made.
Mark Manafo, 1378 Audubon Blvd., Delray Beach, President of the Tropic
Palms Hcmeowner's Association, stated that they feel the down zoning
of parcels 1 and 2 are a very good idea. In the background material
on these parcels it says that the rezoning in conjunction with
parcels 2 and 3 will net the City a reduction of 90 units from what
is designated in the Land Use Plan and if Council supports the recom-
mendation to rezone parcels 1 and 2, that is your 90 units and parcel
3 has nothing to do with the reduction; all of the reduction has
taken place with parcels 1 and 2. There have been some serious
questions raised among homeowners and people who were in attendance
at the January 17th meeting as to the way that meeting was conducted
and this was tried to be handled like a package deal. It should
not matter that one person owns all of those lands - each one should
- 12 - 6/12/78
stand individually. He noted to Council if they rezone plots 1 and
2, they have affected all the reduction in density units that they
can because PRD-4, that they are proposing for plot ~3 which is
currently zoned single family homes, really doesn't make that many
more units but it does change the character of the neighborhood.
At this point the roll call on the motion to rezone parcel
2 was called.
PARCEL 3 Mrs. Durante noted that in the preface of the agenda there
is an error on this item; it refers to this parcel of land as R-iAAA,
it should be R-1AA.
Mrs. Durante moved that Council sustain the recommendation
of the Planning & Zoning Board on parcel 3, item 9.f of tonight's
agenda, seconded by Mr. Scheifley. Said motion passed unanimously.
Before the roll call the following discussion and comments
were made.
John Donovan, 1515 Gallagher Drive, Delray Beach, stated
this Council and the Planning Board, particularly at their hearings,
were most arrogant. They had made up their minds before they came
in and they weren't interested in what the citizens had to say. In
this whole proposition, Council has to consider water; you are going
to add numerous people here who are going to consume water and the
City is on a very narrow line right now. Whether Council has con-
sidered the Clean Water Standards Act that goes into effect on July
1st, they are going to come up with quality water. He stated he
asked for an analysis of the water and all they do is give it a
chlorine test. What Council is going to do is force the citizens to
secede from the City and go to Boca because maybe then they will
get some clean water and some kind of attention. Recreation is
needed in this area. He. stated when Clean Standards Act goes into
effect, the Federal Government is going to be involved and so will
the State Government and no longer will the City be independent to
do what they want.
Mrs. Durante stated that the Planning & Zoning Board looked
at that piece of property and saw that there was no open space -
every piece of land out there is platted for a house to be built
upon. She stated that that's the main reason for PRD so there will
be open space for recreational purposes.
Mr. Sanson stated what is much more important, he thinks,
is the physical integrity of the performance of the City Council.
You can have all the water you want and as clean as you want as
long as you are willing to pay for it. What the City is trying to
so is reach a balance here and by supporting Mr. Williams, you are
slitting your own throat because you're not going to be able to
afford to pay for the water that they want to put in here. He
stated that the reasons that Mr. Williams wants Delray to have the
kind of water that he is pushing can be discussed privately at any
time.
Terry Braun, 1392 Audubon Blvd., Delray Beach, Vice Presi-
dent of the Tropic Palms Homeowner's Association, stated that the
PRD-4 planning might give them open spaces but it is also going to
bring in the multiple dwelling which, he thinks, is the main opposi-
tion here. He passed to Council an aerial view of Tropic Palms,
Bass Creek and Parcel No. 3 and stated he would like to loan to
Council, or come back at a workshop, or another Council meeting to
show a 12 minute sound film that was taken in Bass Creek and
Tropic Palms and the area in question. This film shows several of
the problems, the direct result with single family homes and the
multiple family dwellings in the same area and it would be worth
Council's while to take the 12 minutes and look at it. This will
also be made available to the press. The film was given to the
City Clerk.
- 13 - 6/12/78
Mr. Chapin asked Mr. Braun what the objection is as to
the character of the development which could be built in PRD-4?
Mr. Braun stated that in using his addition, it looks like that area
is zoned for 170 single family homes, just in plat 3. If they go
to multiple family dwellings with the PRD-4, it will permit 260
multiple family units. Mr. Braun stated that right now the area is
entirely single family with the exception of the Lake Delray Apart-
ments, and they would like to keep it single family. The reasons
being that as you drive up 1-95 from Broward and Dade counties, you
can see, along 1-95, the apartments and many multiple family dwellings,
the overcrowded situations; you finally get out of that in Palm
Beach County and they feel that this is one of the reasons they have
chosen this lifestyle and moved to Delray and particularly this
location. Mr. Braun noted that Mrs. Durante has made a motion to
put in another bridge at Dotterel Road but at this time, even if
the bridge is added, it gives only one or two entrances and with the
small children in the area, there is a traffic problem.
Mr. Sanson asked Mr. Braun if he is still in favor of
having the bridge at Dotterel? Mr. Braun answered that the bridge
is something that should be opened up to everyone; however, they
have not had a vote on this at the Homeowner's Association as yet.
Mr. Sanson stated that in line with what he hopes will be a new
attitude on the part of the governing bodies in the City, those
that are going to start causing impacts that their developments
create, they are going to start paying for them. He stated that
there is a good chance that Mr. Brennan will be paying for the
bridge, if it is desired. Mr. Braun stated he agrees with Mr. Sanson
and noted that Lindell Blvd., is in deplorable condition; the City
keeps paving over the chuckholes and the road is still in miserable
condition.
Dr. Mike Kimberly, 1586 Audubon Blvd., Delray Beach,
stated his concern reverts back to water in terms of adding multiple
dwellings there - that's more families and more people to use water.
He asked if the City is aware of the cost of reactivating charcoal
every six months so that it will do the filtration that they are
expecting? Is there any evidence that shows that bacteria or virus
contamination is taken away from water with activated charcoal?
Upon question by Mayor Weekes as to what this has to do
with rezoning, Dr. Kimberly stated that Council is now telling them
that they should cut down on water but they are rezoning to add
more people to use more water.
Mayor Weekes stated the issue before Council is not the
water treatment plant, which was discussed at some detail last week
and previous weeks. The issue before Council is whether or not the
property in question should be rezoned from R-1AA to PRD-4.
Jeff Gailor, 1412 Audubon Blvd., Delray Beach, asked, based
on its own merits, why does the City want to increase the density of
zone 3? Mayor Weekes referred the question to the Chairman of the
Planning & Zoning Board, Mr. Carey. Mr. Carey stated he would like
to answer that question when he makes his presentation. Mr. Gailor
stated any increase in the density in any plot of land whether there
is a reduction in others, at this point in time with the water problems
would be fool-hardy.
Mr. Carey, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Board,
Delray Beach, stated that you cannot take parcel 3 out of context.
When they studied the entire land use of Delray Beach, they finally
returned to Council and there were 75 parcels of land to be rezoned
in this community; parcels 1, 2 and 3 are part of the 75 and to look
at it in any other way is unfair to the community as a whole. It is
the desire of the residents of this community to reduce the saturation
density. The net effect of what the Planning & Zoning Board has done
is to reduce the satu~gt~on_~s_~t~, q~ Delray Beach by over 30,000.
Many people were hurt by this action, many property owners were
hurt but this was the desire of the community to do this. Mr.
Carey noted that in looking at Mr. Brennan's property alone,
under its present zoning, in parcel 3 (approximately 64-acres
of land) he can build approximately 180 single family units
in the parcel 3; in parcel 1 (approximately 60+ acres of
land), he can currently build 975 units; in parcel 2
- 14 - 6/12/78
approximately 32-acres of land), he can build a total of 487 units.
In looking at all of Mr. Brennan's land, they have reduced his densit~
by 325 units in parcel i; in parcel 2 they reduced his density to
130 units; in parcel 3 there is an increase from 180 units to 256
units. The net loss in units to the developer to that one property
owner is 606 units in the overall acreage being talked about. This
is why the Board made the recommendation that was made. The single
family district that the residents of Bass Creek are in, was a
platted subdivision and the developer never had to come before the
Planning Board; all they had to do was get building permits -once
you have a platted subdivision all that is required is that you
pull permits. Under a PRD-4, 60. percent of that land use will have to be
in single family detached housing, 10 percent would have to be open
space, and 30 percent can be multiple family. Basically, the developers
have told him that PRD-4, as constituted in the City's books right
now, is by all standards, a single family zoning category. Any
approval for the use of this land, under a PRD-4, must come before
the Planning & Zoning Board for site plan approval. In addition to
the fact that the P & Z Board has to approve it and make their recom-
mendation, it then has to come before Council for its action; therefore,
you have far more protection under the PRD-4 ordinance than you ever
had under the subdivision ordinance.
Mark Manafo stated that each one of those parcels deserves
to be dealt with individually, including parcel 3; one man owning
it shouldn't have anything to do with it. If you don't make it
PRD-4, then there is no control over what is built, ifs platted and
the residents in the area are willing to take their chances on what
will be put across the street there. The 10 percent green space
sounds nice but it is not going to solve their recreation by the
least. It is not fair, when the majority of the residents in that
area request that plot 3 remain zoned as it is, to change the
character and density of that neighborhood.
Mayor Weekes asked Mr. Manafo what would his reaction be
if Council left all three parcels zoned as they are presently zoned?
Mr. Manafo stated that he does not think that RM-15 is marketable
anymore, however; he would like to see it remain as it is because he
thinks that Mr. Brennan would come in and ask for plot 1 to be rezoned
down to something that is marketable and probably the same thing
with 2.
Joe Ambridqe, 1402 Fulmar Drive, Delray Beach, asked if
Mr. Brennan is a resident of Delray and the answer was no. He stated
he heard earlier that the City was not interested in getting involved
in real estate or the commercial field out along Lake Ida Road. Yet,
the Planning & Zoning Board is trying to help a developer come out of
a situation he is in because of previous zoning; not adhering to the
wishes of the people that live in that area but to an outsider who
happens to own land. He also asked if there were three separate owners
of the land, would the Planning & Zoning Board come back with the
same recommendation and stated that he feels it is a shame that the
City does not want to hurt the owners of the property and yet they
want to affect the lives and property of the 180+ people who do live
in Bass Creek.
Frank F. Ellis, 553 Jaeger Drive, Delray Beach, suggested
that the City look into the creditability of this organization since
it has changed hands several times in the past three years.
Richard Crum, 3031 Phoebe Lane, Delray Beach, stated he
is a new resident to Delray Beach, moving from Boca Raton, and has to
agree, somewhat, with the first speaker about proposition 13 about
California. He stated he gets the message that they want all levels
of government to start paying attention to the people. When he says
government, he does not mean only elected officials but the bureaucracy
also; there are too many times the bureaucracy ignores the people
or does not serve them and that's what bureaucracy is all about,
service to the people. He stated he likes living in Bass Creek and
he likes the Tropic Palms area but had he known that parcels 1 and 2
- 15 - 6/12/78
were zoned commercial and there were high densities, he would not
have bought there. Master Plans can be changed from time to time
and he would hope that the City Council very seriously considers
leaving parcel 3, single family residence.
Bill Saundenberg, 1312 Cormorant Road, South Delray Beach,
stated he would like to reiterate his position of leaving parcel 3
the same and possibly leaving parcels 1 and 2 the same if necessary
to leave parcel 3 the same. He stated he does not believe that there
is any real fraud or intent to make deals but there is an appearance
of a deal to most of the homeowners.
Cecil Rush, 1402 Gallinule Circle, Delray Beach, stated
a statement was made by the gentleman from the Planning & Zoning
Board that the developer felt that the PRD-4 was essentially single
family and if that is so, then why change it at all. The prospect
of leaving parcels 1 and 2 as they stand now seems more reasonable
than changing the whole package as it is. He stated he still feels
there is no logic in having to consider a feeling that it must be
considered as one complete package; it wasn't zoned similarly to
begin with and he does not see why it should be zoned so similarly
now simply because they abut each other. He asked if parcel 3 is
platted and the answer was no, it is not. It was noted that if
parcel 3 remains R-1AA it would go before Council for plat approval
only, not for site and development approval. Mr. Rush stated that
Mrs. Durante mentioned open space and stated he would question
whether or not anyone developing that plot would like to have the
people across the street coming into their development to use what-
ever open space there may be. The integrity of the community is
vitally important. The neighborhood con~nunity should have overall
control of those areas that affect it the most. He stated he
personally supports leaving plot 3 at the zoning it is now, single
family dwelling and if necessary, 1 and 2 where they are now also.
Mark Manafo stated that they want to see that area stay
single family; they think the area is conducive to single family and
they are the residents and the community, at whole, who are most
directly affected by that.
Mr. Sanson asked Mr. Carey that in his figures of 606
units, did he also incorporate into that what was done about 3 years
ago when they reduced a section which is now 15 from 20? Mr. Carey
stated that his figures are only based on the current existing
zoning. Mr. Sanson noted that parcel 1, three to four years ago,
was zoned P~l-20 and it was brought down to RM-15 and the entire
Bass Creek area was, at one point, zoned multiple family and it
was brought down to single family. He stated he gets two impressions
from what has been said tonight. (1) is that they all want a good
neighborhood in Tropic Palms and asked is it to be assumed, there-
fore, that the more they have of a single family atmosphere and the
lower the density of ultimate people in that area, the better the
neighborhood is going to be?
Mr. Manafo stated that this is not to be assumed. What
they are saying is that they do not want to see the multiple family
units in there and even though parcels 1 and 2 are bringing down the
density, he really does not think that that is an issue here.
Bringing that parcel down from RM-20 to RM-15 was a first class move
for this City back in 1972 during the middle of the building boom.
But as of right now, RM-15 and maybe RM-10 is not marketable and to
say that you've already made major strides with this property by
reducing the density, does not mean he can't deal with that.
Mr. Sanson stated, (2) is the aspect from Mr. Manafo's
concern and other people from in the immediate Tropic Palms area,
that of wanting to preserve the integrity of your property values
and that those values are preserved through a single family atmos-
phere? Mr. Manafo answered, yes. Mr. Sanson asked, if it could be
assumed that from the immediate proximity of any visual distance
from Bass Creek, there would be a single family environment, would
then their objections be as strenuous? Mr. Manafo answered, yes,
- 16 - 6/12/78
453
they would be. Mr. Sanson stated that the Planning & Zoning Board
and Council have control over this site plan; if it could be arranged
that Audubon Boulevard boundary would have single family on that area
as far back as needed in order to minimize any impact of multiple
family to the Bass Creek area, is that not a satisfactory compromise?
Then if it is under the assumption that in return for that you are
going to eliminate some 600+ units in the rest of the neighborhood,
which is still going to have a vast impact if they are not eliminated,
couldn't that be a reasonable compromise? He stated that he is not
saying that he has any idea that Mr. Brennan intends putting single
family on Audubon Boulevard, but it could be, perhaps, seriously
reviewed and looked at before any permission is given to build.
Mr. Manafo stated he might have, at one time, thought that
could be an alternative but he is constantly reminded that he is
President of Tropic Palms and not Bass Creek and they want to see that
area 3, in total, remain single family-and they are willing to take
their chances that if none of it is rezoned they are not going to
see 975 units in plat 1 and 487 units in plat 2; they want to see
Tropic Palms plat 3 remain single family.
Mr. Sanson stated that he thinks one of the greatest
mistakes they would ever make is not reduce the density on parcel 1,
in particular and if you can take advantage on 2, fine, but in no
way would he jeopardize seeing the density come down on 1; that place
is built at 15 units per acre and he would not share Mr. Manafo's
optimism for whatever logic and rationing he could use to say that
it is not possible. He stated he thinks it would be a great mis-
take to the overall neighborhood of Tropic Palms to have anymore 15
units per acre than they have to have and if there is an opportunity
to bring it down, it should come. He thinks it is wrong for anybody
to insinuate that Council has not been looking at this as a total
package; it never has been viewed as three separate parcels and
that is a correct assumption on both the P & Z's part and Council.
He does not know what would happen if they did this and kept 1 and
2; he assumes Mr. Brennan would probably fight the other two rezonings
in court and he, for one, has never been willing to back down from
any fight a developer wants to come on. But in a spirit, if you can
avoid legal processes and expenditures of thousands of dollars in
legal fees, which will becoming out of the pocktets of the citizens,
and it can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction, then every avenue
should be considered.
Mr. Manafo stated his fairness is based on (1) as the
issue stands, none of those assumptions are included so all he can
do is stand up against it. They are here to defend their position
based on the position presented to them. On 1 and 2 they really
want to see those go down but what they are trying to say is that
there is no logic for plot 3 to be rezoned. The assumptions Mr. Sanson
is presenting have never been presented to him before by Mr. Brennan,
the Planning & Zoning Board, or anyone. They have supported 1 and 2
and said that was a great change in density but they do not want to
see 3 rezoned.
Mr. Scheifley asked Mr. Manafo if he made the same pre-
sentation with all the points he has made, to the Planning & Zoning
Board when they were studying this - did they have the benefit of his
presence? Mr. Manafo stated, yes they did but they were not able
to make all these points because they were having a tough time
getting most of the research done prior or after that. He stated
he does not feel they had a fair confrontatio~ neither on their part
nor the way they reacted to them.
Mr. Chapin stated he is a firm believer that the best
government is the least government and the better government is that
which is closest to the people. He is very sensitive to the question
raised by several speakers, the question of arrogance and indifference
by the members of Council to this particular question. He is also
sensitive to the question of appearance, that has been suggested,
that there is some kind of a deal; Bob Chapin, and, as far as he
- 17 - 6/12/78
454
knows, no other member of this Council, has not discussed this matter
with the developer, any other member of this Council because of
potential violation of the Sunshine Law, and he has not had any
discussion with the homeowners, personally. He is basing his decision
tonight on substantial testimony presented over a 3 to 4 month
period last summer and fall; on the advice of the consultants of
the Land Use Plan; a three hour public hearing on this particular
issue in October, and again on the taped presentation of the January
17th meeting and the various correspondence he has received from all
the homeowners. He thinks that the problem is whether this Council,
in exercising its best judgement, can be guided by the emotional
appeal and a very fundamental appeal of the residents, or whether it
can be guided by the planning and research of a staff to support it
as a matter of good logical sound planning. Based upon his under-
standing of the law, the legislative body closest to the people must
base their decisions, when it affects people's property, on some logic _
and expertise. Therefore, he will support the recommendation of the
Planning & Zoning Board fully cognizant that the people will be
protected because he sees the perimeter on Dotterel and Audubon Road
as being entirely single family. He can see the homeowners'main
issue coming later when this particular developer will wish to present
building plans under this particular PRD-4 ordinance; it is at that
time the homeowners will have their day before the Planning & Zoning
Board and before this Council to protect the integrity and character
of a single family neighborhood.
Mr. Manafo stated he does not feel Council has the fair
facts; he does not feel they got a fair hearing before the Planning
& Zoning Board and if this is going to fall to defeat, he would like
to ask that Council postpone it, send it back to the Planning & Zoning
Board and let them sit down and have an honest, open meeting with all
the emotion and carrying on put aside.
Mr. Scheifley stated they had this master plan that has
been worked on for a few years and last year they had the comprehen-
sive rezoning to implement this plan. It has been alluded to before
and some 75 parcels of land were in question and a lot of them were
contested; there have been many hearings ~and they have listened to
groups on each and every case; he has been the only member of Council
to sustain the Planning & Zoning Board in every recommendation
without exception. He stated that when he ran for Council this past
March, he made that a part of his platform that he was a strong supporter
of the planning and zoning of the Land Use Plan and made a point of
the fact that, without exception, he will support it in every case
and he does not intend to change now.
Mrs. Durante stated that one question that one of the
speakers raised was would the P & Z Board have made the same con-
sideration if the property had not been owned by the same owner. The
P & Z Board considered 75 different parcels and she is pretty sure
they had more than 50 different owners; the rezoning was done based
on overall needs of this community and the desires expressed by the
community through a survey conducted some time ago. Therefore,
Council is not making any deal or any concession with any particular
owner - this was taken as a total plan for the City. She stated --
that someone asked the question can parcel 3 stand on its own - yes,
parcel 3 can stand on its own. In parcel 3 you are talking about
180 units as it stands now into a particular area. It has already
been admitted that this is a family area with children and right
away you're going to think about needing some space for these kids
to play other than in the streets. You can't do it with single
family with it platted but if you do something like bring it under
PRD then it is under control and you can get some open space. She
stated she has a vote tonight on this motion that is on the floor
and this vote is in regards to protecting the zoning integrity of
this town and that is the issue; that was the issue the Planning
& Zoning Board considered at the time they studied it. When an issue
comes before her on protecting the integrity of this town, as it is
now on the zoning question, that is they way she is going to have to
look at it. She has studied this when she was on the P & Z Board and
- 18 - 6/12/78
has given it some more consideration since then and she still thinks
that this is the best recommendation for that particular piece of
land and it is the best recommendation for the total Master Land Use
Plan and that is going to be her vote tonight.
Mr. Sanson stated he does not think that Mr. Manafo is
right and he does not think all of them are being entirely fair. He
concurs with Mr. Chapin and he thinks that Mr. Carey and other members
of the P & Z Board that are here tonight have heard the message
loud and clear that there are members of Council, that when this site
plan comes out, there better be single family along the buffer;
otherwise, the plan will probably be rejected. He can't see how
there can be a serious affect to the neighborhood if there is no
semblance of multiple family environment dominating you and that
won't be the case. They have made mention of the fact that under
the PRD-4 and under the R-1AA, which is close to 3.8 or 3.9 units
instead of 3 units per acre, it is almost the same exact density and
what you gain here is the aspect of having some open space; some sem-
blance of what is termed a "planned community".
Mr. Manafo stated that residents of the Bass Creek area
and Tropic Palms have every intention of taking the City of Delray
Beach to court because he does not think these same arguments will
hold up in court.
Mr. Sanson stated that this is a situation he finds is
full of a lot of irony because when this all started back when the
land was zoned 20 units and the commercial was zoned SC, they all
stood together as Tropic Palms Homeowners and at tha~ point it was
a 3 to 2 vote to go down to 15 and they thought they had made some
tremendous progress. Mr. Sanson stated he continues to feel that
they have made a lot of progress here for the benefit of the entire
neighborhood looking at this as a total package. He just does not
feel that they really have done anything detrimental by going to
PRD-4; the density is the same and the overall affect will be improved
by some kind of control and planned development.
At this point the roll to the motion was called.
At 10:05 P. M. a five minute recess was taken. The
meeting reconvened at 10:10 P. M.
Mrs. Durante moved that the City Attorney's office be
instructed to prepare the ordinances to make the necessary changes,
seconded by Mr. Chapin. Said motion passed unanimously.
7.a. Mayor Weekes acknowledged the minutes of the Beautification
Committee meeting held May 3, 1978.
Mr. Sanson stated on the border of those minutes is an
item which he does not understand why Council has not discussed
relative to the landscaping plans for the beach. They were told a
couple of months ago that it was very important for Council to give
an immediate answer, and asked what is being done on that.
Mr. Weekes stated his own thought was that it was pretty
well determined that grass would not really stop erosion and the
pressure of that was taken off some.
The City Manager stated this will still be scheduled for
a future meeting and when it is scheduled the Beautification Committee
will be notified so that they will be present at the meeting. He
noted that they did not need to hold the meeting up until the present
time; he has been coordinating that with the Strock Firm and it will
be scheduled at the appropriate time.
Upon question by the Mayor, the City Manager stated that
he anticipated this being within the next month.
- 19 - 6/12/78
Mr. Sanson stated he would like for the Administration
to respond to the Beautification Committee with some kind of notation
as to what Council is doing. This was acknowledged by the City
Manager.
8.a. The City Manager reported that Resolution No. 38-78,
requesting permission from the Palm Beach County Board of Commissioners
to rezone land to be annexed from RS (Residential Single Family)
(County) to RM-10 (Multiple Family Dwelling District) (City) on the
eaStis beforeSide ~u~e~kp~~a~. s'~~'o~Ven~e"H"Planningand Avenue& Zoning"J"'
Board, at a meeting held on October 18, 1977, recommended by unani-
mous vote that the property be annexed subject to RM-10 zoning.
This was tabled at the May 8th Council meeting and discussed at the
workshop meeting on June 5th.
The City Manager presented Resolution No. 38-78:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REQUESTING
PERMISSION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES
171.062, TO REZONE LAND TO BE ANNEXED
TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FROM THE
COUNTY ZONING CLASSIFICATION RS
(RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY) TO THE
CITY'S ZONING CLASSIFICATION RM-10
(MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT.
(Copy of Resolution NO. 38-78 is on file in the official
Resolution Book.)
Mr. Chapin moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 38-78,
with a request that the Mayor or City Manager send a letter ex-
plaining the situation of this and the next item, to the County
Commissioner and Mr. Medlen in particular, seconded by Mrs. Durante.
Before roll call Mr. Sanson asked if this legal description
deleted the one entrance way that they thought it was agreed would
be deleted to minimize the impact on the county? The City Manager
stated they had the minutes checked the next day after the meeting
and it was determined that Council did not determine to make a
change in the legal.
Mr. Chapin stated he would amend his motion to take out
that little section shown on the zelar which proceeds north (item
8.b.). Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes;
Mrs. Durante - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor
Weekes - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.b. The City Manager reported that Resolution No. 39-78,
requesting permission from the Palm Beach County Board of Commissioners
to rezone land to be annexed from RS (Residential Single Family) and
CG (General Commercial) (County) to SC (Specialized Commercial
District) (City) on the east side of U.S. No. 1 between Avenue "H"
and Avenue "J", is before Council for passage consideration. The
Planning & Zoning Board, at a meeting held on October 18, 1977,
recommended by unanimous vote that the property be annexed subject
to the SC zoning. Council, at the November 14, 1977 meeting,
authorized the City Attorney to prepare the resolution. This was
tabled at the May 8th Council meeting and discussed at the June
5th workshop meeting.
The City Manager presented Resolution No. 39-78:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REQUESTING
PERMISSION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES
171.062, TO REZONE LAND TO BE ANNEXED TO
- 20 - 6/12/78
TO TIlE CITY OF DELRAY BEACIt FROM TItE
COUNTY ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS RS
(RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY) AND CG
(GENERAL CO[v94ERCIAL) TO THE CITY'S
ZONING CLASSIFICATION SC (SPECIALIZED
COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT AND R-1AA (SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT.
(Copy of Resolution No. 39-78 is on file in the official
Resolution Book.)
Mr. Chapin moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 39-78
with the instruction that the City Attorney delete from the legal
description that portion which abuts out to the north end of this
particular parcel, 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. Said motion passed
with a 5 to 0 vote.
Mr. Chapin stated that the intention of the motion is to
also include a cover letter from the Mayor or the City Manager
explaining the facts surrounding this particular parcel as well.
8.c. The City Manager reported that Resolution No. 46-78,
requesting permission from the Palm Beach County Board of Commissioners
to rezone land to be annexed from AG (Agricultural) (County) to ~4-10
(Multiple Family Dwelling District) (City) at the southeast corner of
the intersection of Germantown Road and S.W. 22nd Avenue, is before
Council for passage consideration. The Planning & Zoning Board, at
a meeting held on April 25th, recommended by unanimous vote that the
property be annexed subject to RM-10 zoning. Council, at its meeting
on May 8th, authorized the City Attorney to prepare the resolution.
The City Manager presented Resolution No. 46-78:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REQUESTING
PERMISSION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES
171.062, TO REZONE LAND TO BE ANNEXED TO
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FROM THE COUNTY
ZONING CLASSIFICATION AG (AGRICULTURAL)
TO THE CITY'S ZONING CLASSIFICATION RM-10
(MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT.
(Copy of Resolution No. 46-78 is on file in the official
Resolution Book.)
Mr. Scheifley moved for the passage of Resolution No.
46-78, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Upon roll call Council voted as
follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mrs. Durante - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes;
Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor Weekes - Yes. Said motion passed with a
5 to 0 vote.
8.d. The City Manager reported that it is recommended that
Resolution No. 47-78, accepting sanitary sewers, water utilities
and storm drains in Country Manors, Section 4 Subdivision, be
approved as operational.
The City Manager presented Resolution No. 47-78:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING
ALL THE SANITARY SEWERS, WATER UTILITIES
AND STORM DRAINS IN COUNTRY MANORS, SEC-
TION 4 SUBDIVISION, CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, AS OPERATIONAL AND SETTING THE
INITIAL SCHEDULE OF RATES, FEES AND OTHER
RELATED CHARGES TO BE IMPOSED FOR THE
SERVICE AND FACILITIES FURNISHED BY SAID
SANITARY SEWERS AND WATER UTILITIES.
- 21 - 6/12/78
(Copy of Resolution No. 47-78 is on file in the official
Resolution Book.)
Mrs. Durante moved for the adoption of Resolution No.
47-78, accepting sanitary sewers, water utilities and storm drains
in Country Manors, Section 4 Subdivision, 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.
Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.e. The City Manager reported that the following quotations
were received for selling the City six garbage trucks for the Public
Works Department:
LESS
BIDDER EACH QUOTATION TRADE-IN
Truxmore Industries, Inc.
Richmond, VA
18 yd capacity $26,849.00 $161,040.00 $19,490
23 yd capacity 29,994.00 179,964.00 19,490
Broward Truck & Equip. Co.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
16 yd capacity $24,882.90 $149,297.40 $ 8,050
20 yd capacity 26,346.30 158,185.80 8,050
Perfection-Cobey Co.
Galion, OH
18 yd capacity
F-600 chassis $22,600.00 $135,600.00 None
F-700 chassis 24,039.60 144,237.60 None
It is recommended that the award be made to Truxmore Industries, Inc.
in the amount of $160,474 as it would be in the best interest of the
City to obtain garbage trucks with a 23 cubic yard capacity by pas-
sage of Resolution No. 48-78. Funding is to come from Federal
Revenue Sharing plus unexpended Public Works funds.
The City Manager presented Resolution No. 48-78:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING
THE PURCHASE OF SIX NEW GARBAGE TRUCKS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
PROGRAM.
(Copy of Resolution No. 48-78 is on file in the official
Resolution Book.)
The City Manager noted that there were two slight errors
in the first draft and the account numbers were changed from whence
a part of the funding will come and the designation of the source
of funding for $5,074 to come from unexpended Public Work's funds
rather than from the Contingency Account as provided in the first
draft of the resolution. This is another step of implimentation
of the various changes to be made in the sanitation division of the
Public Works Department. The purchase price is slightly more, about
$10,474, than what was anticipated according to the estimated amount
when discussed at the last workshop meeting. Then, the total
estimated cost of the trucks was listed at $150,000, actually it is
$160,474; this is brought about by the desire to purchase a slightly
larger truck than anticipated at that time.
Mr. Sanson asked what is being traded in for $19,490 and
questioned if the vehicles are worth more than that. Mayor Weekes
noted that one outfit is offering $8000, one offering a trade of
$6000, one offering nothing and one offering $19,000 which give you
a pretty good clue as to what they are worth.
Mr. Chapin asked if these are the side loaders and the City
Manager answered, yes, that they would operate with a two-man crew.
- 22 - 6/12/78
Mrs. Durante asked when will the staff change be made
effective; the City Manager answered, as soon as possible and some
changes have already been made. He stated they will phase all the
changes in as the acquisition of the equipment permits.
Mr. Sanson moved for the passage of Resolution No. 48-78
seconded by Mrs. Durante. Upon roll call Council voted as follows:
Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mrs. Durante - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Scheifley
- Yes; Mayor Weekes - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.f. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 17-78, amending
Chapter 29 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances relative to SC (Specia-
lized Commercial) District, is before Council for passage consideration
on Second and FINAL Reading. This ordinance was passed on First
Reading at the May 22nd 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. 17-78:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ~4ENDING
CHAPTER 29 "ZONING" OF THE CODE OF ORDI-
NANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 29-12 SC
DISTRICT (N) BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION
(5) ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL GEOGRAPHICAL
AREA WHICH WOULD HAVE ITS OWN SPECIAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT DIMENSIONS, SITE
AREA AND SETBACKS; PROVIDING A SAVING
CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(Copy of Ordinance No. 17-78 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. Scheifley moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 17-78
on Second and FINAL 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. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.g. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 32-78, rela-
tive to rezoning and placing land presently zoned R-lA (Single Family
Dwelling) District in RM-6 (Multiple Family Dwelling) District,
located in Block 72, east side of Swinton Avenue between S.E. 3rd
Street and S.E. 4th Street, is before Council for passage considera-
tion on Second and FINAL Reading. This ordinance was passed on First
Reading at the May 22nd 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. 32-78:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING
AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED R-lA
(SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT, IN
RM-6 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT,
LOTS 1 THROUGH 24, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 72,
DELRAY BEACH, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
10, PAGE 57, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
"ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA,
1977"
- 23 - 6/12/78
(Copy of Ordinance No. 32-78 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. 32-78
on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Upon roll call
Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mrs. Durante - Yes;
Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor Weekes - Yes. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.h. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 33-78,
relative to rezoning and placing land presently zoned GC (General
Commercial) District in SC (Specialized Commercial) District, located
in Sections 16-46-43 and 21-46-43 on the east and west side of the
F.E.C. Railroad between S.E. 2nd Street and S.E. 6th Street, is
before Council for passage consideration on Second and FINAL Reading.
This ordinance was passed on First Reading at the May 22nd 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. 33-78:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING
AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED GC
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT IN SC
(SPECIALIZED COmmERCIAL) DISTRICT, LOTS
1, 2 AND 15 THROUGH 23, INCLUSIVE,
BLOCK 79, DELRAY BEACH AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 1; LOTS 1 THROUGH
12, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 80, DELRAY BEACH,
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 3;
LOTS 1 THROUGH 14, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 87,
LINNS ADDITION TO OSCEOLA PARK, AS RE-
CORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 133; LOTS
1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 88,
LINNS ADDITION TO OSCEOLA PARK, AS RE-
CORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 133, OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA; AND A PARCEL OF LAND IN SEC-
TION 21-46-43, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY
S.E. 4th STREET, ON THE SOUTH BY S.E.
6th ST, ON THE EAST BY THE CENTERLINE
OF THE F.E.C. RAILROAD TRACKS AND ON
THE WEST BY THE CENTERLINE OF S.E. 1ST
AVENUE, AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1977."
(Copy of Ordinance No. 33-78 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.
Mrs. Durante moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 33-78
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. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.i. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 34-78,
relative to rezoning and placing land presently zoned RM-15 (Multiple
Family Dwelling) District in RM-6 (Multiple Family Dwelling) District
located in Block 58 and the south half of Block 57 between N.W. 2nd
- 24 - 6/12/78
Street and N.W. 4th Street facing Swinton Avenue and the balance
of Blocks 58 and 57 presently zoned ~M-!5 (Multiple Family Dwelling)
District in R-iA (Single Family Dwelling) District, is before
Council for passage consideration on Second and FINAL Reading.
This ordinance was passed on First Reading at the May 22nd 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. 34-78:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING
AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED RM-15
(MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT, IN
RM-6 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT,
LOTS 15 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 57,
DELRAY BEACH, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
12, PAGE 86 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; LOTS 1
THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 58, DELRAY
BEACH, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10,
PAGE 47 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; LAND PRESENTLY
ZONED RM-15 (MULTIPLE FANCILY DWELLING) '
DISTRICT IN R-lA (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING)
DISTRICT, LOTS 8 THROUGH 14, INCLUSIVE,
BLOCK 57, DELRAY BEACH, AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 12, PAGE 86 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA;
LOTS 13 THROUGH 24, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
58, DELRAY BEACH, AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 10, PAGE 47 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID
LAND IS LOCATED IN SECTION 17-46-43,
AND IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF SWINTON
AVENUE, BETWEEN N.W. 2ND STREET AND
N.W. 4TH STREET, AND AMENDING "ZONING
MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1977".
(Copy of Ordinance No. 34-78 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, on Second and FINAL
Reading, of Ordinance No. 34-78, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Upon roll
call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mrs. Durante - Yes;
Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mayor Weekes - Yes. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.j. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 35-78 has
been prepared for Council's consideration on Second and FINAL
Reading. This ordinance, if passed, will amend Chapter 29 "Zoning"
of the Code of Ordinances relative to new zoning district, SAD,
Special Activities District. This ordinance was passed on First
Reading at the May 22nd 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. 35-78:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 29 "ZONING" OF THE CODE OF ORDI-
NANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY
CREATING A NEW ZONING DISTRICT TO BE
KNOWN AS SECTION 29-15.1 SAD (SPECIAL
- 25 - 6/12/78
ACTIVITIES DISTRICT) (NON-RESIDENTIAL)
ALLOWING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REQUEST
DESIRED USES AT THE TIME OF FILING AN
APPLICATION FOR REZONING; AMENDING
SECTION 29-2(C) "ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING
DISTRICTS" TO INCLUDE THE NEW SAD DIS-
TRICT; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(Copy of Ordinance No. 35-78 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. 35-78
on Second and FINAL 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. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
During the roll call Mr. Sanson stated that he still will
support only 5 percent of the outside being used for display purposes.
8.k. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 36-78, revising
Chapter 14A "Garbage and Trash" relative to increase in rates, is
before Council for passage consideration on Second and FINAL Reading.
This ordinance was passed on First Reading at the May 22nd 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. 36-78:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, A~ENDING
CHAPTER 14A "GARBAGE AND TRASH", OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH, FLORIDA, BY REPEALING SECTION 14A-8
SERVICE CHARGE OR FEE (A) (1) AND SUBSTI-
TUTING THEREFOR A NEW SECTION 14A-8 (A) (1)
ESTABLISHING DIFFERENT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS BASED UPON THE TYPE OF
SERVICE BEING PROVIDED TO SUCH UNITS BY
THE CITY; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(Copy of Ordinance No. 36-78 is on file in the official
Ordinance Book.)
The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. The
Assistant City Attorney noted that on page 1, Section 14A-8(A) (1) (c),
there is a minor change that was made beginning at the 4th line
where it says "however, in no event shall commercial ...............
establishment."
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. Scheifley moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 36-78
on Second and FINAL 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. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
- 26 - 6/12/78
9.a. The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning
Board, at a meeting held on May 16th, recommended by a vote of 4 to
2 (Wallin and Plume dissenting) that the conditional use approval
request for a medical office building for Morgan Wing at the south-
east corner of the intersection of N.E. 9th Street and N.E. 2nd
Avenue, be approved, subject to the following:
(1) Comments of the City Engineer as stated in his April 19th
memorandum.
(2) Comments of the Director of Public Utilities, as stated in
his April 18th memorandum.
(3) Comments of the Community Appearance Board, as stated in
their May 1st letter with the qualification that the south
access drive be two lane as required by the Fire Department,
and not one lane as suggested by the Community Appearance
Board.
(4) A time limitation of 12 months be set for development of the
project.
It should be noted that Wallin and Plume dissented as they felt that:
(1) this use represented an encroachment into the existing residential
area; (2) increased traffic congestion would result; and (3) the
proposed medical building was not compatible with this area. This
was discussed at the June 5th workshop meeting.
Mr. Chapin moved that the recommendation of the Planning
& Zoning Board, with regard to conditional use approval for a medical
office for Dr. Wing, be sustained, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Said
motion passed unanimously.
Before roll call Mr. Sanson stated he feels that Council
desperately does need to rediscuss some of their policies on this.
His concern is that this is encroaching further back into the resi-
dential areas.
Mr. Chapin stated he joins Mr. Sanson in recommending
that this matter be referred to workshop as to the continuance of
professional offices as a conditional use in ~M-10 and RM-15; however,
it is his understanding that it will be put on a workshop agenda and
addressed at that time. This was acknowledged by the City Manager.
At this point the roll was called to the motion.
9.b. The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning
Board, at a meeting held on May 16th, recommended by unanimous vote
that the site and development plan approval request for K-Kove
Apartments on the east side of A1A, between Del Haven Drive if ex-
tended east, and Del Harbour Drive if extended east, be approved
subject to the following:
(1) Comments of the Director of Public Utilities as stated in
his April 18th memorandum.
(2) Comments of the Community Appearance Board as stated in their
May 1st letter.
(3) Approval of the City Attorney's office as to documentation
pertaining to common areas.
(4) A time limitation of 12 months be set for development of
the project.
This was discussed at the May 5th workshop meeting.
Mr. Chapin moved that Council sustain the recommendation
of the Planning & Zoning Board relative to site and development plan
approval for K-Kove Apartments, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Said motion
passed unanimously.
- 27 - 6/12/78
464
9.c. The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning
Board, at a meeting held on June 6th, recommended by a vote of 4 to
1 (Stebbins dissenting) that the City not object to a petition for
a special exception to allow a skating rink and an interim on-site
water treatment facility in a CG (General Commercial) District be-
cause although this use is not consistent with our Land Use Plan
which designates this area for Light Industrial, there is a community
need for this type of facility, and the proposed location is the most
desirable area for it. Stebbins dissented because she felt this use
is not consistent with the Land Use Plan, and that the LI zoning
district should not be eroded with this type of use. The subject
property consists of 2.268 acres, and is in Section 30-46-43,
located south of Germantown Road between Congress Avenue and the
F.E.C. Railroad. This petition is scheduled for public hearing on
Thursday, June 15, 1978 before the County Planning Commission and
on Thursday, June 29, 1978 before the Board of County Commissioners.
The subject property is located in the County. The item is on
Council agenda in order for Council to determine whether it wishes
to oppose, support or take no action at all with respect to the
application pending with the County.
It was noted that this will be a roller skating rink, not
an ice skating rink.
Upon question by Mr. Sanson and Mr. Scheifley, the
petitioner stated that the property is not contiguous for annexation;
however, his daughter is handling this for him and is talking with
the Planning Department about that whole area down there and he is
working with other people on it to see about getting them all in the
City.
Mr. Sanson stated he has no personal objection to seeing
this come in as a commercial use but what he does find a little
strange is that the Planning & Zoning Board, who continually talk
about "don't dare deviate from the Land Use Plan", is deviating and
he takes exception to that. If they are going to do this, he thinks
they should change the Land Use Plan to show commercial; he does not
think it is proper to approve a non-conforming use on the Land Use
Plan.
Mr. Carey stated that the rational for this is somewhat
like the rational for the petition from South County Mental Health.
The petition for their property was also not consistent with the
Land Use Plan but they recognized there was a special need. There
is no provision in the City ordinances that would permit a roller
rink. A lot of people in the community enjoy roller skating and
that is the rational for doing this and is the only reason.
Mr. Sanson stated his point is that Mr. Blair has already
said he is trying to bring everything into the City and trying to
talk the people into annexing; what are you going to do when it
comes time for annexation? He stated he feels that between now and
when Mr. Blair wants to come to the City for annexation, Council
ought to change the Land Use Plan to recognize the use which is a
commercial use, not industrial. -
Mrs. Durante moved that Council sustain the recommendation
of the Planning & Zoning Board, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Said motion
passed unanimously.
10. The City Manager recommended that Council approve payment
of the City's bills.
Mr. Chapin moved that Council ratify payment of the City's
bills, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Said motion passed unanimously.
General Fund ............. $641,037.98
Utilities Tax Fund ........... 169,428.75
Improvement Fund ............ 105,000.00
Fed. Public Works Fund ......... 134,492.22
Water and Sewer Fund .......... 216,934.77
- 28 - 6/12/78
465
Mr. Chapin moved at 10:50 P.M., for the adjournment
of the meeting, seconded by Mr. Scheifley. Said 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 June 12, 1978, which minutes
were formally approved and adopted by the City Council on ~
.
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.
- 29 - 6/12/78