The URL can be used to link to this page

05-09-77 213 MAY 9, 1977 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was held in the Council Chambers at 7:10 P. M., Monday, May 9, 1977 with Mayor James H. Scheifley presiding, and the City Manager J. Eldon Mariott, Assistant City Attorney Clifford Shandy, and Council- members Robert D. Chapin, David E. Randolph, Aaron I. Sanson, IV, and Leon M. Weekes, present. 1. The Lord's Prayer was repeated in unison. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was given. 3. Mr. Sanson noted in the COuncil minutes of April 25, 1977 on page 3, item 6.a.4., 2nd paragraph, 5th line from the bottom of the paragraph,, the word "waive" should be wave. Mr. Weekes moved for the approval of the minutes of the regular Council Meeting of April 25, 1977, seconded by Mr. Randolph. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Mayor Scheifley proclaimed the week of May 15-22, 1977 as SOIL STEWARDSHIP WEEK. Mayor Scheifley proclaimed the week of May 9-15, 1977 as MUNICIPAL CLERK'S WEEK. Richard M. Brown, 301 N. W. 7th Avenue, Delray Beach, asked ~f something could be done about the dogs running freely over the properties. He stated he approached an owner of one of the dogs and was not able to accomplish anything. Mayor Scheifley asked if he had called the police on any of these occasions and Mr. Brown answered no. Mayor Scheifley asked the City Manager to get in touch with someone for the names of the violators to get this situation corrected. 5.b. Joseph Kovar, 1132 S. W. 3rd Street, Boca Raton, terminal manager for Greyhound of Delray Beach, stated he has appeared before Council several times attempting to get a conditional use permit for Greyhound Bus Terminal.· He.stated the last time he applied it took 11 months. The Beautification Committee has made certain requests ~that would cause a certain amount of structural changes, which the landlord has some objections~ Mr. Kovar noted the building where he is operating now is a rather unkept building, which was a former gas station. The property of the former bus terminal, located at ~.. E. 4th Street and north bound Federal Highway, could be converted into a new terminal but he is faced with a 16 page report that took 11 months. Upon question by the City Manager, Mr. Kovar advised the location of the former bus terminal is the location he is referring to. Mr. Kovar advised there are two buildings on the property, one is called the Delray Taxi (which'was a gas-station) and the other is a place called the Bagel Barn and he would like Go level the first building. Mr. Kotulla, the City's Planning Director, stated the question may get into a legal matter as far as vested rights are concerned. There used to be a bus terminal and it was abandoned for a certain length of time and legally he does not know whether it is ruled that there is a vested right or whether Mr. Kovar would have to go for another conditional use. The City Manager asked Mr. Kotulla if he has been approached by Mr. Kovar or anyone else with regard to this question and Mr. Kotulla stated Jake Calloway was in his office sometime ago inquiring about the property and at that time he did not know the building was formerly a bus terminal and informed Mr. Calloway it would be a conditional use. The Assistant City Attorney s~ated the question that had been presented to the City Attorney's office was since this property was used in the past as a taxi business, can it now be used for bus service and possibly taxi service; the opinion was that going from a taxi to a bus terminal would require a conditional use. The City Manager suggested that Mr. Kovar consult with the Planning Director. The Planning Director can obtain legal advice and, based on that, render an opinion to Mr. Kovar. If it looks like the period of time would take longer than Mr. Kovar wants to spend then, he can so notify the City Manager and he would bring it to Council; it would then be Council'~ decision to change the law if it wishes. Upon question by Mr. Weekes, Mr. Kovar stated it is his inten- tion to tear down the old service station and utilize what used to be the Bagel Barn as the terminal. Mr. Sanson asked Mr. Kovar if he now has a deadline to meet to install the landscaping at the Great Bear location. Mr. Kovar answered he has until November 9th on that but the landlord at this particular location does not want his concrete broken up and the Great Bear (he believes) will remain there. ' 6.a.1. The City Manager reported the previously scheduled Council Workshop meeting for the purpose of reviewing suggestions made by Council · with regard to the Land Use Plan to be held on May 11, 1977 has caused some conflict and it has been suggested that the meeting be scheduled for May 17, 1977. He stated this is before Council to determine if Council wishes to have it on this date. The Mayor stated he is not in favor of changing the date since the Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, the press, all the members of the City Beautification Committee and the Planning & Zoning Board have been notified. I~ addition to that he thinks it will conflict with the meeting of the Downtown Development Authority at the Arcade. He stated the Land Use Plan is such an important thing that if some member of Council cannot attend due to other business the meeting should go on as scheduled. Mr. Chapin asked what the conflict was to bring about a requested change of this meeting. Mr. Sanson stated the conflict would come about on his inability to be present at the meeting; it was his -hope that a comprise could be found but he would have to concur with the Mayor and ask that Council give some attention to the points he brought forth. Mayor Scheifley suggested that Mr. Sanson write a brief letter outlining the points he has questions or reservations about to be read at the meeting. Mr. Sanson stated he would like to be able to do that but he is leaving at 7:30 A. M. and he would have to wait until this comes before.Council again. Mr. Chapin stated in.his opinion, the two most important things facing Council in the month of May is Beach Restoration and adoption of the Land Use Plan and he hopes there will be no delay in this matter. T.here are other problems facing Council - the BPOA, the Water question, the Budget matters, and rather, than get behind he feels the meeting _~ should be held as scheduled. It was agreed no change in the date of the Council Workshop meeting should be made and it remains scheduled for May 11, 1977 at 7:00 P. M. in the Council Chambers. 6.a.2. The City Manager reported the Beautification Committee has recommended Clayton Wideman, 400 West Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, to fill the ~acant seat on this committee. He stated that Mr. Wideman owns three businesses in Delray Beach and is very interested and active in City betterment. Mr. Sanson moved for the appoin~tment of Mr. Clayton Wideman to the Beautification Committee, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Said motion passed unanimously. - 2 - 5~9/77 6.b. The City Manager reported ~hat at the April 25th Council meeting Council referred the agreement between the City and Russell & Axon for engineering services to the attorneys for both parties for further discussion and agreement prior to formal approval consideration -by Council. He reported the attorneys for the parties have done so and signed a statement dated April 29, 1977, signifying their concurrence with the agreement to be proposed for Council approval consideration. Mr. C~apin moved that Council adopt the memorandum agreement between the City of Delray Beach and Russell & Axon Engineers, Planners, Architects, Inc. as proposed and outlined by the City Attorney, ~econded by Mr. Weekes. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - No; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. Before roll call the following dicussion was had. Mr. Sanson stated contractually, the agreement itself is an improvement on the present existing situation· with Russell & Axon which he considers to be one of confusion, misleading verbiage in many of the contracts, but is not anywhere near what he was hoping for many months ago when this research started. Basically,there are two'main areas he finds disappoint- ~'ments in; one is in the form of the 4th sentence of the contract where it states "the City has entered into a continuing contract for engineering services since 1959". He takes exception to this and does not concur with Mr. Saberson's feelings that perhaps Council can interpret these past agreements ,to be of a continuing nature. By executing this agree- ment Mr. Sanson thinks the Council is giving its concurrence and approval that the City has had a continuing contract thereby exempting Russell & Axon from having to be subjected to competitive negotiations. The second point he has a lot of reservations about is in the area of the many examples throughout the agreement where Council is acknowledging or in agreement that Russell & Axon is entitled to do work on specific projects specifically on page 2, 1st paragraph where it states "Such engineering services include by way of example, but are not limited to, the following ....... ". He also objected to the last page where the List of Pending Delray Beach Projects Already Authorized, In Progress And On Which Some Work Has Been Done. He stated that by executing this agreement, future legal arguments could be given that this Council has agreed that, in fact, Russell & Axon is entitled to do all this work. His main argument falls on this page where it says these projects are already authorized and has very serious reservations about some work being formally and properly authorized. He stated he brought these 'two points to Mr. Saberson's.attention and came to a stalemate on the first item but on the second Mr. Saberson seemed to think he might have some merit to his argument. Therefore, Mr. Sanson suggested to Council to consider sticking in some verbiage that, in essence, would state that the execution of this agreement would in no way give a blanket acceptance on the part of the Council, that all the agreements the City had nothing to do with executing - assumes are proper - and in the future there could be challenges raised to these agreements. With Mr. Saberson's assistance, Mr. Sanson offered the following verbiage to Council for consideration: Aproval of this agreement is not intended as independent authorization for those projects listed on Exhibit A. If such projects have not previously been properly authorized by City Council, the action of City Council in approving this agreement is not intended to grant such authorization. The City Council hereby'reserves, to the City of Delray Beach, all rights whiCh it heretofore had to con- test for challenge, the authorization for specific projects. During the discussion between Mr. Chapin and Mr~ Sanson in reference.to projects listed on Exhibit A it was stated by Mr. Sanson that his statement is a general one and this is the way the matter should be approached, generally not specifically. Mayor Scheifley stated since Council's instruction was for the City Attorney to get together with the Attorney for-Russell & Axon to come to an agreement, having complete faith in Mr. Saberson and not judging the merits to the points of Mr. Sanson, he would be reluctant - 3 - 5/9/77 2,16 tu'-make any:Changes without hearing from Mr.· Saberson. He stated as far. ~S:~-is concerned there are only two alternatives, acceDt the agreement as presented, or refer it back to Mr. Saberson and inform him to try it again. - ........ .;.~.s~:::~ ':: ' Mr. Sanson stated he does not think his statement as presented ~°'Council is that controversial but a point of proper procedure acknow- ledging that Council has not reviewed every authorization in Exhibit A and that in executing the agreement Council does not assume that every Projegt is proper in its form. ~::-~ ;:'z:: The City Manager stated that it is true that City Council has not reviewed all the authorizations for the variou~ assignments that Russell & Axon'have been given, but the City Attorney was assigned the task of making those reviews and determine for himself which ones were in the approved category, and which ones were not; he along with several - other people including Russell & Axon's legal counsel spent many months doing just that. Therefore, he would assume that the City Attorney has covered that ground more thoroughly than would be possible for individual members of Council. The City Manager stated that last 'week when he was making the agenda for this Council meeting he contacted the City Attorney to determine whether or not the proposed agreement would be ready for ~oUncil's action at this meeting and was informed that it would be. The City Attorney forwarded to him a copy of the letter of agreement executed by-the attorneys, which was forwarded to Council, and assured him that the agreement was ready and the attorneys were in complete agreement. The City Attorney stated he talked to the City Attorney two or three times today-on various matters and he did not mention the fact that he was recommending or suggesting any change in the proposed agreement; if the City Attorney was to carry out an orderly approval process he would have communicated such a change to his assistant Mr. Shandy or himself (the City Manager). Mr. Sanson stated he talked to Mr. Saberson around 4:00 P. M. tOday and concluded about 5:30 and he was unable to contact the Assistant City Attorney at that time. Mr. Randolph stated he has no particular objection to "Exhibit '-A"-but feels if Mr. Sanson has some reservations about those items contained in Exhibit A, this difference would more than adequately be taken care of in the termination of the contract or any Darts thereof if there was some problem later. This agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and council should basically go by his word and if Council finds him to be wrong, then appropriate action could be taken. "Mr. Randolph stated he has not read all of the agreements nor does he "intend to and would suggest that Council proceed with approving the :agreement. Mr. Sanson stated he would vote no on the agreement but would. like to clarify that his "no" vote in no way reflects that what the other .. -Council members are doing in approving this agreement is wrong. In his .opinion it does not go far enough and upon execution of this agreement 'at the next regular Council meeting he will mak~ a motion that the firm __ be given its seven days notice for full termination. 6.c. The City Manager reported on January 24, 1977 Council adopted Resolution No. 1-77 which seeks to rezone from RM (County'Zoning) to R1-AA (City Zoning) Lots 20, 21, 60 and 61, Delray Beach Shores and it is recommended that Council pass a motion requesting the City Clerk to ~notify the property owners of Delray Beach Shores in accordance with -the provisions for rezoning contained in the Home Rule Act. - Mr. Chapin stated that the Planning & Zoning Board minutes will -reflect that there was a request that Lots 20 and 21, known as the Glass- man lots, be zoned to Single Family and Lots 60 and 61 be zoned to RM-6. His partner represents the owners Of Lots 60 and 61 and in compliance ~With Florida Law, he would abstain from any vote on Lots 60 and 61 to avoid any simulance or possible conflict of interest. At this point - 4 - 5/9/77 M~ pi~: - the-room,. - ..... i ~.' Cha : left:: -.:~ :_:- :-~:~:~:-~.~::~. ~ ..... ~'~::'~: : ~" ~"hr%"~a~d~lph ~0~'d-that~:~he~C~%~'~Ci~r~'~o~y ~ne: 6%he~: in ~mpliance with the State Law, seCohded'by Mr% 'WeekeS% /ppon'roll-cal.1 'Council voted as. .follows: Mr. Randolph - yeS;_Mr, sanpon Mr. Weekes - yeS; Mayor scheifley - Yes. The~motion passed With~ a 4 tO 0 vote. ~ 'At' th~s:- point Mr. ~Chapin~returned to-his' ~6.d. The City Manager reported that-the Planning &-~bning B~a~d, at a meeting held on May 3rd at the request of CitY CoUncil~ discussed the proposed parking lot plan for a site location On the west side of State Road A1A at Rhodes Villa Avenue and took the actions delineated in the Planning Director's memorandum dated May 4, 1977. The County, the State Department of Transportation, the City Parks &'Recreation' Department and the City Beautification Committee have previously dpproved the referred to plans. The Planning Director recommended approval of the plan at the May 3rd Planning & Zoning Board meeting. The City Manager. reported that the City should act on these plans as soon as possible in order to not interfere with the County's planned construction schedule and to safeguard these funds for the improvements at the Atlantic Dunes Park and parking area. It is therefore recommended that Council consider approval of theplans or refer same to a future workshop meeting. Mayor Scheifley welcomed the County Commissioner for this Distrlct, Mr. Medlen, and the County.Engineer Mr. Kahlert. An artists drawing of the-proposed~parking lot was presented for review. At Mayor Scheifley's sugges~ion,-'Mr. Kotulla exPlained'the highlights of the plgn and briefly summarized.the pros and cons of the plan. He stated the Planning & Zoning Board made two motions, the first being that the plan be referred back for further study for possible revision to (.1) incorporate at least two underpasses - one from the Parking area under A1A and an underpass from the southern portion of the parking 16t across A1A to Atlantic Dunes Park. This was suggested because it was felt that it would be a problem for people to park and randomly cross A1A; (2) the possible study of ingress and egress from each parking 'lot, not as a northern portion or southern portion coming on Rhodes V$11a, but perhaps an egress and ingress coming off A1A into .the northern parking lot and a seParate egress and ingress coming off .A1A into the southern parking lot. He stated the County summarized by saying they had studied all feasible alternatives and felt that the plan presented is the best one. The second motion was recommending to City Council the adoption of the plan for the East side of A1A (the park itself) but that Council reject the traffic pattern for the parking area on the West side of A1A basically meaning the ingress and egress both onto Rhodes Villa. · Mayor Scheifley asked' Mr. Kotulla, speaking for the Adminis- tration and not the Planning & Zoning Board, if he recommends 'the approval of this County plan and he answered yes. The City Manager stated the City Engineering Department and the City Parks.& Recreation Department personnel, in addition to County Departments, and the Depart- ment of Transportation of the State recommend this plan. Herb Kahlert, County Engineer, noted that he had with him Mr.. Wilson from the Department of Transportation-Traffic Director, and 'Mr. White from the Department of Transportation-Permit Section. -He stated from a traffic operation standpoint you want to minimize con- ~usion and congestion in terms of the traveling, and the general public. If you can concentrate the access at one point as well as controlling pedestrian traffic that is the safest facility. Mr. Weekes asked if they would review the exiting on A1A as a viable alternative, Mr. Kahlert answered no. - 5 - 5~9~77 .Mr.. Weekes stated he does not know what alternatives Council.~ ~s:~e6a~se the~plan-presented~is 'the-only one recommended by-the Engineering'Department off'the .County and-the' Department of Transportation; the'recommendation of the people who'liVe on-Rhodes-Villa and the planning & Zoning Board does not seem to be workable. Having studied the situation, the does not see how it would be feasible from a financial or practical standpoint; the only other alternative woUld be to complete the lots, assuming the funds are available, and only permit the use of one lot for the time being, to see what traffic is actually generated. ~" ...... Mayor Scheifley stated the whole problem has been exaggerated from the standpoint of the amount of traffic. When you look at the huge beach parking lot near Atlantic Avenue, it is-hardly ever filled and it is-the central swimming point; therefore, he does not believe there is going to be much traffic or parking because of the type of beach it is and maybe people will be going there for the main reason it is there, as sort of a nature park. The Mayor stated he lives in a building where there are 104 families and there is only one entrance on the Federa Highway and there is no real problem and on. Rhodes Villa Avenue you're talking, about 10 to 12 families who probably do not generate 100 trips a day. Mr'. Chapin stated he thinks the problem is a matter of funding and priorities and thinks all the residents in the area throughout Delray Beach are very pleased with the park as proposed by the County's Recreation Department. He concurs with Mr. Weekes and Mayor Scheifley and he thinks the first priority, in terms of funding, should go to develop the park as a passive park, preserving the natural dune line and vegetation in that area. The parking lots of 128 parking spaces is probably excessive and not needed. In these days of tight dollars he would hope that the County would develop Lots 1 and 2 with the egress as shown and adopt a "wait and see" attitude as to whether or not in the three to four years to develop Lots 20 and 21. Council has been getting vibrations that there may not be enough funding for the development of the park and that concerns the people of Delray Beach. He stated the con- sensus of the people of Delr~y Beach is to first fund the par.k and " secondly whatever funds are left develop Lots 1 and 2. .Mr. Randolph stated he feels the park would be a tremendous addition to the City and he likes the egress and ingress off Rhodes Villa and would not like to see it off A1A under any circumstance. His only reservation is the. passenger walks to get from the parking area to the park; there is one from the south parking.lot and why not one from the north parking lot. Mr. Kahlert stated this is another point of conflict the City has induced into the system; the County has proposed a sidewalk which is essentially there to funnel the peoPle to the boardwalk and would take them over to the beach and continue through the vegetation. Mr. Sanson mentioned the major overriding concern that he has is to.try and make sure Council takes whatever steps necessary to prevent pell mell access to the dunes area. In some ways it is controlled.by boardwalk and the people will not be traipsing all over unless they want - to take one of the trails. By eleminating the exit and entrance on Rhodes Villa and putting it on A1A, you have immediate access to A1A and people are going to cross the road there and not walk south to the boardwalk; this could be avoided by erecting some type of wire fence or other barricade which would be considered as part. of the funding. Another concern is comments about the aspect of trying to minimize the impact of the parking lot as much as possible on the residential area, By having a good, solid buffer of landscaping, which is being proposed, one would have a hard time seeing it from A1A. Mr. Kahlert repOrted that Commissioner Medlen was effective_in getting-the original six million dollar beach bond money redistributed to the south county area and they have budgeted the appropriate monies to build the proposed site plan which is before Council. Upon question - 6 - 5/9/77 219 by the Mayor, as to the height of the vegetation in the park, Mr. Medlen stated the County will be willing to work with the City as to the type of vegetation and hedge that the City would require as far as opaqueness goes. It was pointed out that the County would have to comply with the City Landscaping ordinances and Mr. Sanson stated they have indicated to him complete willingness to do whatever the City wants. Mr. Sanson stated, if there is a problem with the funding, he would like to think the park and the one parking lot would be done'first and then go into the second one. He has no strong objections to seeing the entrance and exits changed to A1A but not to the point where he is going to agree to it when DOT says they won't and the County has very strong reservations about it. Mr. Medlen stated he would like to reassure the residents of ~elray Beach that they intend, and he will personally watch to see, that there will be kufficient landscaping put in where it will be pleasant to the residents. He stated he would prefer, and hopefully Council would agree, to do both lots.at the same time; that way they can draw their permits, get the permits from DOT as the money is now in the. budget~ There are a lot of other commissioners hoping they can get their hands on some of the money designated for this area which is designated for 2 parking lots. The work will be done in a nice way and he is sure the landscaping would please the residents of Delray Beach. He also backed up Mr. Sanson on his attitude of keeping everything thrown to one entrance in o~der to make sure people will not be going helter skelter. Mrs. William Mathews, 1024 White Drive, stated that the Planning & Zoning Board's resolution only asked that the feasibility of a tunnel underneath the road be studied, not that there should be one. She read a resolution signed by the President of the Beach Property Owners Association opposing the points of egress and ingress of the parking lots proposed for Atlantic Dunes Park. Since there will be heavy traffic along A1A, particularly when the Linton Boulevard Bridge is open, she feels that it is very inequitable to the residents and difficult to understand why a third lane could not be put there. Mr.' Kahlert stated DOT is .going to require the County to put in a third bypass lane at this location for this intersection movement; there is essentially enough right-of-way to put in that additional tUrning movement at the two points. Dail'Moore, 1020 RhodeS~Villa, Delray Beach, thanked Mr. Medlen ~' for his kind words about the landscaping of the park. He stated that all 12 families on Rhodes Villa are very firmly opposed to the ingress and egress on Rhodes Villa; they are not against parking lots there but do feel that the handling of the traffic pattern is a very severe hard- ship on the residents. He stated there is a County law, which does not particularly pertain to parking lots, the number is 500.8 and the tenor and tone of this law in County language says that neighborhoods shall ,be taken into account in things of this sort; t~e City ordinance is quite different. Mr. Moore referred to Ordinance-Section 29-22, paragraph D, sub-paragraph (3) (dealing with ingress and egress) and stated sub-paragraph (10)' very clearly says such things as this type of site development, shall not unduly affect neighborhoods, shall not affect property values; therefore, he requests that this ordinance be looked into before the plan for the Atlantic Dunes Park parking lot is okayed. Mr. Chapin asked Mr. Kahlert if he is correct in saying that before'the County can develop these lots they must have permit approval from DOT to enter and exit onto A1A and if so would they give such approval. Mr. Kahlert stated the County needs DOT approval to do any work in the State right-of-way and the permit application did not speak of alternate access points but it has been discussed with DOT and they support the plan presented to Council tonight. - 7 - 5/9/77 22O Paul White, District Permit Engineer, 4th District of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation stated for the safety of the residents on Rhodes Villa', the location of the ingress and egress of the parking lot with the left turn storage lane and the right turn storage lane puts them in a position of safety making a turn into and out-of Rhodes Villa. He stated to put a driveway in the middle of either parking lots creates traffic conflict and would not help the people in Rhode~ Villa in the form of safety. Mr. Chapin asked in the matter of permitting and jurisdiction if DOT would have the final ~ay as to the ingress and egress onto and off-of A1A at this point, Mr. White answered yes, stating under Florida Statutes 345.18 DOT does have the final say; if the City or County want to resubmit the plan in another way DOT would review it, however, based on the plan and the study that has been given~he feels the City or _ County cannot come up with a better design or a safer one. Mr. ~hilip S. Campbell, 1011 White Drive, Delray Beach, commented on the point brought up by Mr. Chapin suggesting not developing Lots 20 and 21 right away. Mr. Campbell suggested that if it is going to be done, do it as a'total concept. He expressed concern about boats pulling in and having a boat landing that was not intended. Mr. Campbell asked with the Linton Avenue Bridge being so near, are they sure they are.not going to be running the deceleration lanes (for leaving the parking lots) all the way down to the bridge. Mr. Kahlert stated, this may be a possibility .two to tw° and a half years from now when the bridge is opened but the County does not see it as a necessity at this time but will look at it again when the bridge 'is opened. Mr. Scheyler, 1033 Rhodes Villa Avenue, Delray Beach, asked Mr. White of DOT, at what time he was first approached about the parking entrances of the proposed plan, he answered about .two or three weeks ago. Mr. Scheyler asked if he was given any alternate plan to the plan pre- sented to Council and the Planning & Zoning Board, he answered no. Mr. Scheyler stated he and the residents of the Rhodes Villa neighbor- hood have been trying for many weeks to beg and plead with the people who started with this plan to look and consider alternatives. He stated this was gotten across to the City of Delray Beach Planning & Zoning Board and regret that tunnels and overpasses became an issue but there has been comments as early as February 15, 1977 that this plan has been firmed up and will not be changed even if the Governor of Florida wants it changed. Mr. Dance reiterated, at a recent Planning & Zoning Board meeting, that the plans could not conceiveably be changed. Mr. chapin asked Mr. Kahlert~for a clear-cut clarification ..~of the funding question and asked if there is adequate funding for the development of the.park and Lots 20 and 21 as shown on the plan. Mr. Medlen stated "yes", there is sufficient money and if there happens to be a need for a few more dollars to do a proper job, it will be taken out of the funds set aside for Ocean Ridge since they are having real problems; he feels confident that the Board will go along with this also. Mr. Medlen commented that Mrs. Schey!er came to his office one day and his direction~ to Mr. Kahlert was to go back and look at - the plan to see if there was any other alternative that would give a safe entrance and exit in that area. Mr. Medlen stated .they have looked at every way that would make it the least obnoxious to the people, make it safe for the people, as well as for the people going tO and from the area. A question from the floor was asked if money is included'in the parking lot project for repair of the seawall at the end of the .canal which is completely broken down. Mr. Kahlert stated if the property is fronting on the canal and is owned by Palm Beach County it becomes their responsibility; if that is a maintenance requirement for the County to repair, then it is the County's obligation. Mr. Medlen stated this problem does exist and the County will repair it. Mr. Weekes commented that he does not see any reason to refer this back to anyone and it is time for Council to respond; they have heard the arguments pro and con and he thinks everybody who needs to - 8 - 5/9/77 221 hear the arguments have heard them. Mr. Sanson stated there seems to be one overriding question which is, is there a benefit derived by having alternatives looked at, researched, and discussed; he thinks this question has been firmly answered by members of DOT, the County, and the Planning Director. If anyone could answer this question then he would consider looking at alternatives to make the residents feel that every possible alternative has been considered. Mayor Scheifley stated he thinks some reservations have ko be made to some of the comments because they can be taken out of con- text; they are not exactly as presented. With all due respect to the property owners, he is sure this ~group has talked with the directors and persuaded them, whether or not it represents the majority opinion, because when the Beautification Committee considered this, there were about 18 people at the meeting and, with the exception of those who did not vote, it was unanimous. It is one of those things that no matter what you do you're going to get objections. Mr. chapin stated he applauds the County's efforts in building the park,but he is not convinced from all the studies that there is .a need for parking on Lots 20 and 21. He would much rather see the County take the money that it has for this project and do a good job and help the City with the Beach Restoration. Mr. Chapin stated he would make a motion that Council approve this Plan east of A1A as presented by the County and approved by the Planning & Zoning Board and the Beautification Committee, approve the plans for Lots 1 and 2, Delray Beach Shores sUbdivision but not for Lots 20 and 21. Mayor Scheifley stated this motion does not speak to the question at hand and he does not think it concerns the funding of the lots, which one is opened first, nor which job is opened first; the only thing before Council is whether to approve the design of the two parking lots and therefore, his motion would be irrelevant. This statement was confirmed ~by the Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Chapin stated he was suqqestin~ that Council approve two-thirds of the plan and not approve the third relating to Lots 20 and 21. The City Manager stated that Council previously gave its approval to the development plan for the Atlantic Dunes Park and the parking lot plans are the only thing before Council for tonight. Mr. Chapin moved that Council approve half the plan relating to the parking, Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision and not Lots 20 and 21 of the subdivision. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Randolph moved that Council approve the plan as presented to Council, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Said motion passed unanimously. Before roll call the following discussion was had. Mayor Scheifley stated there are dozens of places in the City which have problems much more serious and'much more traffi6 where people have to enter and exit onto main highways and he does not think there.is a serious safety problem there. Mr. Scheyler stated along A1A'there are lots for condominums and they all have an exit and entrance and now the City is starting a pattern in the City of Delray Beach to put all of the entrances on private residential streets; this is a precedent making decision. Approximately one week ago Mr. White, of DOT, was given an alternative plan drawn up by the City planners.that did not label the exits and entrances on A1A. Mr. White stated this had previously'been discussed in the District office upon receipt of the drawing and it was a decision reached, not by himself, but by others in the office, that the access directly from A1A into the parking lots would create more of a hazard - 9 - 5/9/77 222 than the plan-presented tonight. The plan-~presented by~the~CityLplanner had-been discussed before he received, it because~it is normal procedure to look for~alternatives on all permits they receive. ~ . ~,- '~ ~Mr. Weekes commented that-it seems· to 'him that they~ don't -really have much of an alternative because-the Department; of Trans- portation and the County Engineers's office have said that this is the only ingress an4 egress they will approve. It seems if Council does · not accept this, chances are very good that the City will not only lose the parking lot but the park as well; as Mr. Medlen stated, there are other commissioners who would like very much to have these funds placed in projects in their districts. Mr. Medlen has done an excellent job .for this district in getting these funds to do this work. Mr. Weekes ~tated he is going to have to vote on the parking lot as presented. - Mr. Chapin asked Mr. White'is this an all or nothing propo- sition; if Council asks for funding for Lots 1 and 2·only, will the City get that or will they jeoPardize losing the funding of the two lots. Mr. White stated if this is what Council wants he would still try to consider the other area,but the money would not lay there for a year or two until it is needed. If the money is not spent in this district it would Probably be spent in some other district and he cannOt guarantee what will happen in the future. His advice would be to do it now; it would be a cheaper project to do both lots at the same time because they can get a better bid price and it would look better to do it all at one time to see,what you have rather than have a piecemeal situation. Mr. Sanson asked Mr. Medlen if he would take personal attention %~' contact Mr. Dance to assure that ·he communicate properly with the City's Beautification Committee and the City Horticulturist and he stated he would. 7.a. Mayor Scheifley acknowledged the minutes of the Beautification Committee for meeting held on April 6, 1977. He also asked for the status of the matter of a bike path along the east side of U. S. ~1 from Delray's south boundary to S. E. 10th Street mentioned in the minutes on page 2, 4th paragraph. The City Manager stated that this will be scheduled for workshop; the staff work has been completed. Mr. Sanson asked for a report on the matter on page 1, 2nd paragraph from the bottom of the page, of naming the property the James Gleason Park. Mayor·Scheifley stated at the meeting held on Wednesday, May llth, there was a question as to whether the park should be named Sarah Gleason rather than James Gleason and officially they wanted to check with Mr. Saberson to find out the facts. Within the next couple of weeks something will be decided and brought to Council. 7.b. ' The City Manager reported that-Mr. Cyrus S. Hapgood, who resides at 1030 Waterway Lane, has requested that the City waive the ordinance requirement that a fence be erected around his swimming pool. The ordinance does provide that Council may waive this requirement and it is.recommended by the City Administration that the request be gTanted for the following reasons: (1) the property is bounded on three sides _ . by dense growth of bushes and tregs;on the west side by the Intracoastal Waterway (2) there are no small children in the immediate neighborhood (3) insurance coverage of $100,000 - $300,000 will be provided per Section 17-28.1 of the Code of Ordinances. A copy of the letter from Mr. Hapgood has been given to members of Council. Mr. Weekes moved, in view of the facts set forth in the -applicant's letter, that the fence requirement be waived under the provisions of the City ordinance pertaining thereto, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call. Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - No; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote ..... Before roll call Mr. Sanson asked if it is a Dractice in Tropic Isle that all the pools are enclosed, to which Mayor Scheifley · answered no. The City Manager stated the pools in the Tropic Isle - 10 - 5/9/77 subdivision which are not fenced were built before this ordinance was passed which was approximately 4 to 5 years ago. Mr. Sanson stated he has not had a chance to go by the property to see it personally to be able to make a judgement on it and in view of the fact that the safety of children and'others is concerned, if this item is not going to be tabled to give him a chance to go see the property he would vote against it. Mayor Scheifley asked Mr. Sanson if he had read the letter presented by Mr. Hapgood and stated that the Administration had checked this out and agreed with Mr. Hapgood. Mr. Sanson replied that he had read Mr~ Hapgood's letter, which does not help him, and he does not like voting on matters of safety on the basis of Administrative comments and feels this is something personal attention should be given. 8.a. The City Manager reported that Resolution No. 27-77, requesting permission from the Palm Beach County Board of Commissioners to rezone land on the east side of N. E. 9th Avenue between Witherspoon Lane and Bond Way from RH (Residential Multiple Family) (High Density) (County Zoning) to RM-15 (Multiple'Family Dwelling District) (City Zoning) has been prepared for Council consideration. At its regular meeting on April 25th, Council requested the City Attorney to prepare this resolution. The City Manager presented Resolution No. 27-77: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REQUESTING PERMIS- SION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES i71.062, TO REZONE LAND TO BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FROM THE COUNTY ZONING CLASSI-- FICATION RH (RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY) (HIGH DENSITY) TO THE CITY'S ZONING CLASSI- FICATION RM-15 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT). (Copy of Resolution No. 27-77 is on file in the official Resolution Book.) Mr. Chapin moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 27-77, seconded by Mr. Weekes. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley.- Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.b. The City Manager reported that in view of two recent develop- ments which occurred after the making of the agenda for tonight's meeting (1) the receipt by the City of a letter'dated May 6, 1977 from William Cruickshank (2) the holding of a Council meeting in Boca Raton, that was devoted, in part, to this subject with the meeting being attended by -Ned Brooke of the Area Planning Board, he is recommending that this item be skipped and referred to a future workshop meeting. Mr. Randolph stated he does not have any objections but would like to know the reason for the delay. He asked over a month ago that the City Attorney review the proposed agreement and when he had completed it that he contact the City Manager, to get in touch with Mr. Brooke for a discussion of this matter. He stated as a Board member he. is.unaware of some of these things and he is concerned about this move. Mayor Scheifley stated he would also like to know what reservations there are and this is the purpose of the workshop. Mr. Sanson stated at the. last Executive Committee meeting of the MuniCipal League which was held last week, Mr. Cruickshank brought this to their attention and asked if anyone was familiar with it or knew what was going on in their own communities relative to it. Mr. Sanson stated he was asked specifically, since the City of Delray is a direct participant in the MPO organization, if Council had done anything on it; he said no and that there had been no conversation about it and that he knew nothing about it. Mr. Sanson stated - ll- $/9/,7 224 Mr. Cruickshank expressed some reservations~relative to the main area of Municipal representation on the committee and some of the relative degrees of power that the organization might be able to wheel on commu- nities without the communities having the ability to have direct input. Therefore, Mr. Sanson stated, he brought back a copy of the Interlocal Agreement to present to the City Manager and asked him. to schedule it fOr workshop, not knowing that this was on the agenda for tonight's meeting. Mr. Randolph stated that Mr. Sanson was present at a meeting where he asked that this item be brought to workshop and at which time Mr. Sanson stated he had reservations about it. The City Manager stated that there are 10 members of this group who are appointed by the governor and Mr. Randolph is the one from Delray Beach. He stated the City Attorney.called his office about a week or so ago with the brief information concerning it and, after a discussion with Mr. Randolph, it was requested that it be scheduled for Qorkshop meeting as early as possible. The City Manager stated he put this in his workshop file intending to have it scheduled for workshop.when he received a call last Wednesday from Ned Brooke in regards to the various conversations that had been. had con- cerning it. Mr. Brooke informed the City Manager that he had been contacted by Tallahassee and the word was quite urgent that action be taken by various governmental units in the County concerning this. The City Manager. stated he informed Mr. Brooke that he had~planned to put this to workshop before bringing it to regular Council meeting and Mr. Brooke indicated to the City Manager that he doubted if there would be sufficient time to take it to workshop and thought it should ~be on the agenda for tonight's meeting. Mr. Brooke was to come to the meeting tonight to make whatever explanation Council might need in order to consider passage of the resolution. After that ~ime, he stated he received a letter from Mr. Cruickshank and then received a phone call today from Mr. Brooke. After Mr. Brooke's visit to his office this afternoon, it was not that urgent that this resolution be passed at tonight's meeting unless Council wanted to do so. He stated .Mr. Brooke agreed to come to the workshop meeting next Monday night to discuss this resolution. Mr. Sanson stated that he was referring to the Interlocal Agreement when he stated at the Executive Committee meeting that he had -'not seen anything regarding this matter. It was agreed to refer this item to workshop May 16, 1977. -8.c. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 21-77, amending ' Ordinance No. 2-77, annexing a parcel of land in Section 29-46-43, southeast corner of the intersection of 1-95 and Linton Boulevard, repealing the first Wherease Clause and inserting a new Wherease Clause to reflect that John K. Brennan, Trustee, is the fee simple ~wner of the property, was passed on First Reading at the April 25th meeting and is before Council for consideration of passage on Second and FINAL Reading. 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. 21-77:' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2-77, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 29, TOWN- SHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43' EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF 1-95 AND LINTON BOULEVARD, BY REPEALING THE FIRST WHEREAS CLAUSE AND INSERTING A NEW WHEREAS CLAUSE TO REFLECT THAT JOHN K. BRENNAN, TRUSTEE, IS THE FEE SIMPLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. - 12 - 5/9/77 225 (Copy of Ordinance No. 21-77 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. S~nson moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 21-77 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes;' Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.d. The City Manager reported Ordinance No. 22-77, amending Chapter 29 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances to permit the applicable rear setback in the R-1AAB (Single Family Dwelling) District to be 10 feet when applied to grade level swimming pools, was passed on First Reading at the April 25th meeting and is before Council for passage on Second and FINAL Reading. Prior to consideration of passage of this ordinance on Second and FINAL Reading, a public hearing has been · scheduled to be held at this time. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 22-77: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 29 "ZONING" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 29~5 (N) BY ADDING A SUBSECTION (3) PROVIDING THAT IN THE R-1AA-B ZONING DISTRICT THE REAR SETBACK APPLICABLE TO SWIMMING POOLS WHICH DO NOT PROTRUDE ABOVE GRADE LEVEL SHALL BE 10 FEET; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Copy of-Ordinance No. 22-77 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. LoU Bowring, 951 Tropic Boulevard, Delray Beach, asked if the ordinance states that never can a screen be put on the pool? The wisdom of the.25 foot setback was at the time most of the pools were screened in and they didn't want to block the view. The City Manager stated that the ordinance is silent on this point, however, a screen would be viewed as a structure and a structure would not be permitted above grade level; the ordinance does not name a screen by name or any other structure above grade level. Mayor Scheifley stated that a screen and patio is a structure and would not be allowed and asked if a fence would be considered a structure. The City Manager stated that conferring with'the Assistant City Attorney a fence would not be considered a structure. Mr. Sanson asked is a patio or pavement area a structure to which the Mayor and the City Manager stated that a patio could cover an entire lawn as long as it is not above grade level. Mr. Weekes stated that Council is going to permit this to be done and some years later someone who has built one.of these pools in the 10 'feet is going to say they have a hardship because they have children now or sold the house to someone who has children and they are going to have to have a screen around the pool. The public hearing was closed. - 13 - 5/9/77 Mr. Weekes moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 22-77 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chap~n - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5. to 0 vote. 8.e. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 23-77, amending Chapter 3 "Sign& and Billboards" of the Code of Ordinances relative to the installation of directional signs was passed on First Reading at the April 25th meeting and is before Council for passage consideration on Second and FINAL Reading. Prior to consideration of passage bf 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. 23-77: _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3 "SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS" OF THE CODE OF ORDI- NANCES BY REPEALING SECTION 3-15 (D) (1) (a) AND SUBSTITUTING A NEW SECTION '3-15 (D) (1) (a) IN ITS PLACE, PROVIDING THAT GENERAL DIREC- TIONAL SIGNS FOR CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS, CHURCHES, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, BUSINESSES, AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS MAY BE PERMITTED IN OITY STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Copy of Ordinance No. 23-77 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. Weekes moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 23-77 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.f. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 24-77, repealing Chapter 24 "Interim Services and Facilities Fee" of the Code of Ordinances is recommended by the City Attorney for Council consideration on First Reading. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 24-77: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REPEALING CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE III, ,INTERIM SERVICES AND FACI- _ LITIES FEE", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF · THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Manager read the caption'of the ordinance. Mr. Chapin 'moved, based upon recommendation of the City Attorney, for the passage of Ordinance No. 24-77 on First'Reading, seconded By Mr. Weekes. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Before roll call, Mayor Scheifley stated he does not know what the reasons were for the courts turningldown the case in Boynton Beach and Delray Beach but whatever the reasons were they were wrong because he feels an interim service is a fair charge. He stated he - 14 - 5/9/77 does not see'why the ~taxpayers of 2D~i~aY ~B~c~!~0utd~ ~veC{62~ay ~ for ~hese services for 11 months for new residents. ~he City Manager reported that'Ordinance NO. 25-77, amending ter 14A "Garbage-and Trash" of the Code of Ordinances relative'to delinquent accounts has been recommended for passage by the~City Attorney and is before Council for passage consideration on First Reading. -T~e~-city Manager ~resented Ordinance No. 25-77: .... AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY -~ OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 14A "GARBAGE AND TRASH" OF THE CITY'S CODE _ OF ORDINANCES BY REPEALING SECTION 14A-8(C) .... DELINQUENCY; DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE AND INSERTING IN ITS PLACE A NEW SECTION 14A-8 .' (C~ PROVIDING FOR FILING A LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY AND FORECLOSURE OF SAID LIEN ON DELINQUENT BILLS, THE OWNER BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Manager read the.caption of the ordinance. Mr. Randolph moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 25-77 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion Passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.h. The City Manager repo~ted that Ordinance No. 26-77, amending Chapter 27 "Water and Sanitary Sewerage" of the Code of Ordinances r~lative to delinquent accounts which is a companion ordinance to Ordinance No. 25-77, is recommended by the City Attorney and is before Council for passage consideration on First Reading. The.need for this ordinance is occasioned by the Robertson case in which the City entered into a settlement agreement whereby Council agreed to amend the termination provisions of the ordinance to provide an opportunity for a hearing as to a delinquent account and to establish a new procedure to permit the opening of a new account even though there is a prior delinquent bill on the.subject property incurred by someone 'other than the applicant. The City.Manager presented Ordinance NO. 26-77: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY · ~ OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 27 "WATER AND SANITARY SEWERAGE" OF THE CODE · OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BY AMENDING THE CAPTION OF SECTION 27-5 TO ADD PROTEST AND APPEAL PROCEDURE; REPEALING SECTION 27-5(a) AND INSERTING A NEW SECTION 27-5(a) RELATIVE TO TERMINATION OF DELINQUENT WATER ACCOUNTS SUBJECT TO FILING A PROTEST AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, PROCEDURE FOR HEARING; REPEALING SECTION 27-29 AND INSERTING A NEW SECTION 27-29 RELATIVE TO TIME AND METHOD OF PAYMENT FOR SEWER SERVICE SO AS · ~ - TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN SECTION 27-5 RELATING TO A DELINQUENT ACCOUNT; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ~he City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. - 15 - 5/9/77 Mr. Weekes moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 26-77 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes~ Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.i. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No.' 27-77, relative to annexing a 19,000 square foot parcel of land located in Section 8-46-43, 602 N. W. 7th Street, subject to R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) District is before Council for passage consideration on First Reading. Council requested the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance effecting the annexation at its April 25th meeting. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 27-77: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY-COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF DELRAy BEACH CERTAIN LAND, NAMELY, THE WEST 100 FEET OF THE EAST 190 FEET OF THE EAST HALF (E½) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW¼) OF LOT 3, A SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 8, TOWN- SHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, AS RECORDED IN 'PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 4 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA EXCEPT THE NORTH 185 FEET, THEREOF, WHICH LAND IS CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SAID CITY; REDEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY TO INCLUDE SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE ~IGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SAID LAND; AND PROVIDING FOR THE ZONING THEREOF. The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Chapin moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 27-77 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - yeS; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr..Sanson - Yes; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.j. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 28-77, relative %o annexing a 19,936 square foot parcel of land located in Section 5-46-43, 2001 N. W. 3rd Avenue, subject to R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) District is before Council for passage consideration on First Reading. Council requested the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance effecting the annexation at its April 25th meeting. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 28-77: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, LOT 32, LAKE SHORE ESTATES, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 25, PAGE 26 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, WHICH LAND tS CONTINGUOUS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF S~ID CITY; REDEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF.SAID CITY TO INCLUDE SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SAID LAND; AND PROVIDING FOR THE ZONING THEREOF. The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Chapin moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 28-77 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Upon roll call Council voted as' follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. - 16 - 5/9/77 8.k. The City Manager reported Ordinance No. 29-77, amending Chapter 29 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances relative to lots of record, has been discussed at two workshop meetings and is before Council for passage consideration on First Reading. At the last meeting Council requested the preparation of this ordinance. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 29-'77: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY .OF DELRAY BEACH,. FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 29 "ZONING" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 29-17(D) TO ADD THE WORDS "OF RECORD" AND "AREA AND LOT"; REPEALING SECTION 29-24 (B) AND INSERTING A NEW SECTION 29-24(B) RELATING TO LOTS OF RECORD NOT MEETING MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PRQVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Weekes moved for the passage of Ordinance No. '29-77 on First Reading with an amendment that it becomes effective on Second Reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - No; Mr. Weekes - Ye~; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had. Mr. Sanson stated he has spent quite a bit of time talking with'the City Attorney about this item since the workshop,, trying to get an explanation as to exactly what it is Council is dging and what the option and alternatives are. He stated he feels the City Attorney is basically in agreement with him on this item. Mr. Sanson stated he will not support this Ordinance based on the argument that the City Attorney has stated the ordinance, as it stands, is defensible; that there are ways that Council could insure that some future developments, ones. that have not pulled permits, could be made to replat and have lots brought forward that would be of a-conforming nature. Mr. Sanson stated, basically, he would go along with the City Attorney's s~atement that something would have to be done with those places that have permits, otherwise there could be substantial legal problems. He would have liked to think that Council would approach it on the basis of trying to do something with that situation but not repealing the ordinance'. He stated he cannot, in good ~ conscience, vote for something which repeals something in the City of ', Delray Beach that is going to have no affect other than lowering the quality of the City, especially on the assumption that the City Attorney says there are certain areas that Council could maintain this and · provide for conformance with the ordinance. He feels that if there is - a chance that there are areas in the City of Delray Beach that could be made to conform with the present minimum sizes, he would want to stick With that chance. Mr. Sanson stated he feels that the Council should not let pass, without comment, a mistake that was made in the Building Depart- ment of great magnitude and, if it had been the decision for this Council to proceed along'other lines, it would have cost the taxpayers of the City of Delray Beach a tremendous amount of money to make up for that mistake. It should not have been lightly passed over as he felt it was in the City Manager's presentation on the efficiency of the Building Department. He stated mistakes, whether minor or mjaor, should be addressed and corrected and not found excuses for. Mr. Weekes stated he agrees that when mistakes are made they should be addressed and the City Council made a mistake in the ordinance that is being addressed. He stated that in his view, as presently written, it discriminates against owners of two or more lots as opposed to an owner of a single lot; it permits the owner of a single non- .. - 17 - 5/9/77 conforming lot to use that lot but, if a person has two or more lots, he may not use them; he stated it is unconstitutional in that the ordi- nances state that a person may not sell any part or all of any such lot, it is totally impractical and illegal to attempt to enforce such an ordinance as this. A great many of these non-conforming lots are odd lots and not, as Mr. Sanson would suggest, subdivisions where there are large tracts of these non-conforming lots; they are scattered all over town and it is totally an impossibility to attempt to replat these lots; therefore, suggests that the ordinance be passed before the City gets in worse shape than they are in now. Mr. Chapin stated in the discussion last Tuesday, it was clearly brought up that this ordinance is not enforceable and the City Attorney advised Council the second sentence of the second paragraph being repealed .... you cannot sell your lots ..... therefore, if that is unenforceable all you do is convey one lot to a third party and build two houses on it. The one thing he would like' to see this Council have is Qrdinances that are legally enforceable. He stated this only affects past history a~d he is for upholding and improving the quality of life in this community and voting against this ordinance is not going to do it and will therefore, vote for it. Mr. Sanson asked for clarification on whether or not it is possible to require a person to build to minimum lot size requirements -and that is where the City Attorney said,yes, he felt it was defensible. Mr. Sanson stated when he talked with the City Attorney this was clarified enough for him to vote this way. Mayor Scheifley stated he thought the lots that Council was talking about were lots that were platted before the ordinance was passed and asked if there are any large undeveloped tracts west of town --platted or not, to which Mr. Weekes answered no; MayOr Scheifley then -stated that they would be platted according to minimum lot requirements. The AsSistant City Attorney requested that Council amend this motion so that the ordinance may become effective on the Second Reading and not ten days after passage. Lee. Stone, 743 Place Chateau, Delray ~each, state~ in coniunc- tion with another matter dealing wit.h non-conforming lots, due to the efforts of Mr. Mariott, a letter was received by Mr. Reid from James Vance attorney, dated March 3, 1977 dealing with the constitutionality of Section 29-24B. He specifically states that the ordinance is reason- ably founded on the exercise of the police power of the municipality and since it does not deny an owner the entire economic benefit of his property, it is constitutionally valid; he does say that you cannot 'prevent an owner from selling that property; however, the remainder of that ordinance is Valid. Mr. Stone stated his concern is that Council ~s trying to solve one problem by eliminating the ordinance and, by doing that, he feels Council will be opening other problems. Mr. Stone stated that several pages in the letter deals with the constitutionality and enforceability of this ordinance which is contrary ~ what has been said. Mr. Sanson stated this is what his conversation with the City Attorney was about and the City Attorney had agreed to. Mr. Chapin -stated he thinks.the question is a matter of future or past - a future building can be done on limited lot sizes but Council is trying to correct the problem of plats on lots of record. Mr. Weekes advised that the Planning & Zoning Board reviewed this matter and recommended, informally, that Council take the action by passing this ordinance. ..Mr. Weekes stated he polled the majority of the Planning & Zoning Board ~members until he got four members Who could be reached readily and said yes to this ordinance. He stated he did not feel that referring it back to Planning & Zoning for further study was indicated; this is a serious matter and has'horrendus financial possibilities and potentials for the City of Delray Beach. - 18 - 5/9/77 231 8.1. The City Manager reported Ordinance No. 30-77, amending Chapter 23A "Subdivisions" of the Code of Ordinances relative to dead end streets was recommended for pas.sage by unanimous vote of the Planning & Zoning Board. This ordinance basically would be to give Council the same perrogative on waiving the length of dead end streets. This ordinance is before Council for passage consideration on First Reading. ., The Ci'ty Manager presented Ordinance No. 30-77: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 23A "SUBDIVISIONS" OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES BY REPEALING SECTION 23A-8(9) RELATING TO DEAD END STREETS AND INSERTING A NEW SECTION 23A-8(9) RELATING TO PERMA- NENT DEAD END STREETS NOT TO EXCEED ONE THOUSAND FEET IN LENGTH; PROVIDING FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TO RECOMMEND THAT PE~{ANENT DEAD END STREETS BE LONGER THAN ONE THOUSAND FEET; PROVIDING THAT THE · FINAL DECISION SHALL BE MADE BY COUNCIL; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The C~ty Manager read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Sanson moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 30-77 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. After discussion Mr. Randolph withdrew his second. The Assistant City Attorney asked that this ordinance be amended to become effective on Second Reading, rather than ten days after passage. Mr. sanson asked what was the reason for the change. It was stated that it. pertains to the Hamlet property and they are in a bind. Mr. Sanson stated he has no objection to Hamlet but this could be a request by some other developer whom he does not respect, or whose development he does not like; he would not be in favor of it and questions whether Council should set the precedent of giving out favors. Upon question by Mr. Sanson, the Assistant Attorney stated this request came from Hamlet and it was. quite urgent to them that the ordinance become effective on Second Reading; it would be beneficial to them. Mr. Chapin stated he thinks Council should treat all those who come before the City, fairly, and impartially and that Council should not be in the business of granting special favors. He stated the ordinance should pass in due course and, if Council gets a set of precedents starting with special favors, it is not good business for the public and it is not good business for this Council. At this point Mr. Randolph withdrew his second to ~he motion. The motion by Mr. Sanson for the adoption of Ordinance No. 30-77 on First Reading, was seconded by Mr. Chapin. .Upon roll call Council voted as follows: -Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. Randolph - No; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. 9.a. 'The City Manager reported that at a meeting held on April 19th, t--~Planning & Zoning Board recommended by unanimous vote that no change be made to allow a business office for transportation companies as a "Permitted Use" in the commercial zoning districts. The request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance was made by T. F. Burrows (Metropolitan Transportation Company) and discussed at the March 7th workshop meeting. It is suggested that Council consider sustaining - 19 - 5/9/77 ~h~ ~ecOmmendation of the Planning & Zoning Board or refer same to a ~fUtUre workshop meeting. Mr. Sanson moved that the Planning & Zoning Board recommenda- ~tion be sustained, seconded by Mr. Cahpin. Said motion passed ~-Unanimously. -9.b. The City Manager reported that at a meeting held on April 26th, the Planning & Zoning Board recommended by unanimous vote that -Section 29-7(D) RM-10 (Multiple Family Dwelling) District and S~ction 29-8(D) RM-15 (Multiple Family Dwelling) District be amended to allow the conveyance of one half of a duplex lot. It is suggested that Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance effecting the amendment or refer same to a future workshop meeting. Mr. ·Weekes stated he would not be agreeable to conveying a half of a duplex lot'unless a duplex was already on the lot, in other words he would not convey 'halves of Multiple Family zoned lots that ~are unimproved. It was noted that when the ordinance is prepared that they would check to see if this would be for improved or ·unimproved lots. Mr. Chapin asked why the change is requested; Mrs. Plume stated this was recently allowed in the RM-6 zone and nOw there are developers coming in requesting that this be included in RM-10 and RM-15. Mr. Weekes moved that Council sustain the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Board and instruct the City Attorney's office to prepare the ordinance, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Said motion passed unanimously. ' 9.c. The City Manager re~orted that at a meeting held on April ~-9-~, the Planning & Zoning Board recommended by unanimous vote that an amendment to Section 29-10 CC (Community Commercial) District relative to allowing cocktail lounges and bars as a Permitted Use be approved. It is recommended that Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance effecting the amendment. Mr~ Weekes stated that all the malls and shopping centers that he knows about have bars and cocktail lounges and is not un.common in this type of development. Mr. Weekes moved that Council accept the recommendation ·of the Planning & Zoning Board and instruct' the City Attorney to prepare the necessary amendment to the ordinance, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Said motion passed ~unanimously. Before roll call, Mr. Sanson stated that on the second page of the memorandum where it states "cocktail lounges, bars,· and package liquor stores" are common to the wording in all the City's commercial -districts that permit this; however, when Council adopted the Limited Commercial District Council did not put in package liquor stores. He requests, at a future date, that package liquor stores in the Limited Commercial District be permitted. Mr.. Sanson moved that Council refer'to the Planning & Zoning Board,for conSideration, the placing of package liquor stores in the LC District, seconded by Mr. Weekes. Said motion passed unanimously. 9.d. The City Manager reported, that at a meeting held on April 19th, the-Planning & Zoning Board recommended by unanimous vote that amendments to Section 29-14 LI (Light Industrial) District and Section 29-15 MI (Medium Industrial) District, relative to removing certain uses from the "Conditional Use". category and adding other uses under the "Permitted Use" category, be approved. It is recommended that COunCil direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance effecting the amendment. - 20 - 5/9/77 233 Mr. Sanson stated he has no problem with approving this for the MI District but does have problems approving this for the LI District. According to the City's zoning map,. directly across from the LI District, separated only by Congress Avenue is entirely residential areas in- cluding single families. He stated he would have a lot of problems seeing why an automobile paint and body shop or a millwork factory that has an extreme amount of noise should be allowed to be built directly across the street from single family residences. He stated to allow these use~ to remain as a conditional use should be judged on their own merits in terms of location. Mr. Sanson moved that the ordinance be prepared and requested that they be drawn up for separate consideration, seconded by Mr. Weekes. Said motion passed unanimously. Before roll call Mr. Chapin asked~what the Planninq & Zoning. Board's feelings are about Mr. Sanson's remarks. Mrs. Plume stated they feel the District Boundary line offers a great deal of protection. Mr. Kotulla stated that there are a number of uses that are now permitted that, if analyzed, the ones that are considered conditional could possibly be more offensive; they could not see the purpose of subjecting .to conditional use approval because with existing ordinances and effec- tive uses they would not be gaining that much, if anything. 9~e. The City Manager reported that at a meeting held on April 19th, the PlanniDg & Zoning Board recommended by unanimous vote that an amendment to Section 29-11 GC (General Commercial) District, Section 29-12 SC (Specialized Commercial) District and Section 29-13 CB (Central Business) District relative to allowing medical and dental clinics and laboratories as a Permitted Use be approved. It' is recom- mended that Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance effecting the amendment. Mr. Weekes moved that Council accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Board and instruct the City Attorney's office to prepare the.necessary amendments to the ordinances,' seconded by Mr. Randolph. Said motion passed unanimously. 9.f. The City Manager reported that at a meeting held on March 22nd, the Planning& Zoning Board recommended by unanimous vote that an amendment to Section 29-14 LI (Light Industrial) District and Section 29-15 MI (Medium Industrial) District relative to allowing swimming pool ~contractors as a Permitted Use be approved. It is recommended that Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance effecting the amendment. Mr. Sanson asked if' there would be any sand stored at these places or if it will be a yard for trucks. It was stated the sand is stored and trucks are kept at other locations. Mr. Weekes moved that Council accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Board and instruct the City Attorney's office to prepare the necessary amendments to the ordinance, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Said motion passed unanimously. 9t~e The City Manager reported that at a meeting held on' April 19th, Planning & Zoning Board recommended by unanimous vote that~an amend- ment to Section 29-16 relative to establishing setbacks along Linton Boulevard be-approved. The City Manager stated the reason for this recommendation is that there are now two similar provisions in effect by an ordinance that is not entirely compatible with each other and, in order to remove this incompatibility of the ordinance, the Planning & Zoning Board is recommending this amendment which will' actually be a repeal of a certain section of the ordinance. The City Manager stated this will not do ~away with the setback provisions in the ordinance but merely remove the incompatibility. - 21 - 5/9/77 234 ~.~._ ?.._.._~_Mr. ChaPin asked if this.will make. the ordinance more or l~ss~res~rictive,.to which'Mr'~ Kot~lla an~we'red';~-primarity)-it~'~ilt~be more restrictive. Mr. Kotulla stated, measuring along Linton Boulevard, there would be a setback of 30-feet from the right-of,way line; the o.n9-that is being recommended for repeal was set Up years-ag° ~ahd measured the setback from the center-line, which was fine as long as the right-of-way did not increase. With the adding of the bridge it is possible that the right-of-way line could increase. ~ _ Mayor Scheifl~asked if ~the-~setback varies~ccording to. the zoning; Mr. Kotulla answered-no. .................... ~ ...... ~ Mr. Sanson moved that the City Attorney be i~s~ru~ted fo draw up the proper document, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Said motion passed unanimously. ll.a.1. Mayor Scheifley stated he has a write up from Mr. Young o.f the Financial Advisory Board and is recommending that this be scheduled for a workshop as soon as possible. Each councilmember should have some recommendations, if any, for the Financial Advisory Board. He stated he still feels the Board will not work. Mr. Sanson stated during his remarks, after being put into' office this time, one of the things he wan%ed to do was have Council hold a session with the Financial Advisory Board to discuss and evaluate it. He does not. agree with the Mayor that the Board will not work but thinks there might be some problems with personalities that need to be corrected and agrees with the Mayor that all 7 people need to be evaluated. The Board itself is good-and can possibly serve a more 'valuable function if Council would help give it some guidance. Mayor Scheifley stated he'agrees with Mr. Sanso~ that there is a place for the Board; it can be a very valuable contribution but he does not agree that you can get 7 people who ~are willing to give the time it deserves.. What prompted this is the project that was assigned to them and he would think 3 months would be ample if all seven did something. In talking to one of them he finds that they are not willing to devote any time. The Financial Advisory Board should be just as active as the Board of Adjustment or Planning & Zoning Board and he does not feel that you can get 7 people of that age and category to devote that much time, as the Planning & Zoning Board does. 10. The City Manager recommended authorization for payment of ~ the CitY's bills. ~ Mr. Randolph moved that Council authorize payment of the City's bills, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Said motion passed unanimously. .~ General Fund ............. $305,717.84 · ' Water and Sewer Fund ......... 24,878.06 '-. Improvement Trust Fund ........ 350.00 · Special Projects Fund ........ · 2,853.00 ll.a.2. Mr. Weekes stated he would like to bring to the public's attenti'on the suit that has been filed against the City of Delray Beach called "Barlow vs The City of Delray Beach". A lady was injured by striking a palm tree in the middle of one of the City's medians and, subsequently, the City is being sued. It was stated the City shouldn't have palm trees in the median; however, it was alleged she fell asleep behind the wheel but the attorneys feel the City of Delray Beach is partia%ly responsible for injuries because of the palm tree in the median. Mr. Sanson stated that this case is exactly similar to the case that happened in Tamarac where a person hit a boulder and that City has paid out three million dollars. - 22 - 5/9/77 235 ~avor-Scheifle¥'~stated he'~does not se~any~iff~'ren~'eUWhe'n'' ~erb'Shriner, the-comedian,~ was killed in Delray Beach;when.h~-~ell'~. ~asleep behing the wheel,~ ran'off the~street into a palm-tree and~h~~ and his wife were killed. He does not see any difference whether it .is. private or public property. ,---~ .-'- : - ..... Mr. Weekes moved for the adjournment, of the meeting, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Said motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at-10:10 P.M. - ............ ~ ...... City Clerk APP ROV~: n ~ ~ - · he undersS~ned ia ~he CS~y Clerk of the City of Delray Beach and tha~ tho information providod herein ~s tho minutes of tho of sa~d City Council for ~a7 ~, 1977 which m~nutea were formally approvod and adoptod by tho City Council on . ~~ ~/ /~ . ~OTE TO RE~ER: If the m~nu~es that you havo rece~vod are not complo~ed as indica~od above, then this means that thoso are not the official m~nu~os o~ ~ho C~t7 Council. The~ become the offScial.minutes only after they have ro~iewed and approved which ma7 involve some amondmonts, additions, or deletions to tho minutes as set forth abo~o. - 23 - 5/9/77 236