06-13-77 259
JUNE 13, 1977
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, was held in the Council Chambers at 7:05 P. M.,
Monday, June 13, 1977 with Mayor James H. Scheifley presiding, and
City Manager J. Eldon Mariott, City Attorney Roger Saberson, and
Council members Robert D. Chapin, David E. Randolph, Aaron I. Sanson,
IV, and Leon M. Weekes, present.
1. The opening prayer was delivered by Dr. Frank Hamilton,
Church of the Palms.
2.' The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United Stat~s
of America was given.
3. Mr. Randolph moved for the approval of the minutes of the
~gular meeting of May 23, 1977, seconded by Mr. Weekes. Said motion
passed unanimously.
4.a. Mr. Chapin advised Council that he made a request to the
~-~ Manager to have a workshop session on the question of water
treatment for the City and the question of expansion of the City's
water supply; this has been before Council for at least a year and
there is much evidence to come before Council and he would like for
this to be the sole subject for Council's deliberation at this Work-
shop.
Mr. Chapin stated he asked the City Manager to request
from the City Attorney a legal opinion as to the necessity of com-
pliance with the Berkowitz memorandum because it is not clear to him, ~
as a matter of law, whether it applies to the City of Delray Beach.
Mr. Sanson stated he would stress that the people involved
be given ample notice because he plans to make an extensive presen-
tation to Council trying to compile two and a half years worth of
subject material on this subject and there are many people he would
like to make sure are present for this discussion.
The City Manager advised this was one of the items he
was bringing to Council tonight to discuss setting a time to have
a workshop meeting; he suggested having the meeting on June 20, 1977,
which is satisfactory with Russell & Axon, as well as himself. The
City Manager stated he asked the City Attorney to attempt to determine
the legality of this matter at this meeting.
Mr. Randolph stated that if the first session tha~ was
had on this matter was any indication as to what it will be Monday
night, he is not sure he favors this for Monday night. He personally
feels that when this comes before Council again, it should be in a
session other than the regular scheduled workshop session because
everybody wants to be heard and it is going to take more than one
or two hours.
The City Manager stated the intent was t0. have just this
item at the workshop meeting instead of two or three items as normally
done.
Mr. Sanson agreed with Mr. Randolph that Monday nights
should be reserved for regular scheduled workshop meetings, but that
seven days is not really adequate for him to prepare for the meeting
and have the people present he would like to have. He suggested
having the meeting on Wednesday, June 29, 1977.
Mayor Scheifley stated he is concerned about the format
of the workshop; presentations should not be very lengthy, going into
a lot of technical details about chemical formulas, etc., but should
be a presentation by the engineers on the two plans with the advan-
tages and disadvantages of each and it should be covered in half an
hour. If Mr. Sanson would like to make a presentation he can, with
the consideration that there is a time limitation.
Mr. Chapin suggested that the meeting be scheduled so
ample notice can be given to all so that they can be present or
properly represented. He suggested giving each side one hour and a
half and if there is additional presentations, an additional hearing
would have to be scheduled.
It was agreeable with the Council and the City Manager
that the meeting be scheduled for Wednesday, June 29, 1977.
4.b. Mr. Chapin commented that this has been a great week for
f--~nces for the City - first the City received a windfall of $872,000
for the construction of the sewer and/or water project as a result
of the PUblic Employment Act of 1977, a carry forward of the 76 act
and he thinks the City Manager should be complimented for that.
Secondly, Council received notice that the City will benefit from the
State some $200,000 in the Beach Restoration Fund; it has been a
million dollar week for the City an~ he thinks the City Manager
deserves some kudos in that regard.
4.'c. Mr. Chapin commented on the publication published by the
Kiwanis which is entitled "The Town Where the Policemen Say Yes" - a
dramatically different approach to police work that gets results;
this has been adopted in Menlo Park, California. He suggested that
a copy of this article be given to members of Council and the Chief
of Police.
4.d. Mr. Sanson stated for the benefit of the Council members
who were not present at the Municipal League meeting, at next month"s
meeting there will be a fairly detailed, in depth, discussion by the
League relative to the problem of the PBA Solicitations Campaign and
possibly there will be representatives present from the State
Attorney's Office and Alice Skaggs' office.
4.e. Mr. S~son stated he is having some concerns relative to
the union negotiations going on and he would like for Council' to give
consideration to the fact that they should have a meeting with the
City Manager and the City Attorney who are the negotiating team. He
stated he has spoken out before whenever he thinks there are times
when the Administration may be getting into a little too much of
the policy-decisions that are going on and he feels that a lot of
union negotiations have to do basically with setting policy, specifi-
cally in the areas of any raises that are being contemplated.
Mr. Sanson commented on an article in the paper regarding an 18%
raise that was being asked for. Council should tell the negotiating
team ahead of time what their feelings are and not have to hit back
with a decision that has been made by the negotiating team of the
union that Council had nothing to do with and'then Council has to be
presented with a situation going against the compromise agreement.
This, therefore, permits Council to have a discussion with the nego-
tiating team relative to negotiations that is permitted outside the
Sunshine Law.
The City Manager stated he has no objections to setting
up another meeting on this and he does not know that a meeting would
be that productive. He was not familiar with the article Mr. Sanson
made reference to. He stated he has not seen this in Delray nor has
he heard ~hat request from any union member and he knows of nothing
like that in the works at the present time; it has not come to the
negotiating table. A contract has been executed with the Fire union
with openings on wages only and that will be d~scussed with Council
in the future; there is a negotiation going on with the PBA union.
Mr. Sanson was of the opinion that a lot of negotiations
could be settled very quickly without having to go through a lot of
inpasses and arbitrators if you are told ahead of time what limits
Council is prepared to go and he feels there might be some differences
of opinion.
- ~ - 6/13/77
Mayor Scheifley suggested having a meeting of the Council
for an update to which the City Manager agreed and stated there is
not much to update.
The City Manager stated he has not seen it and has not
.received that request from any member of the union and would be
interested in seeing the article. (Mr. Sanson presented the article
to the City Manager.)
Mayor Scheifley stated if Council did get some information
of a specific nature and any Council member reacted publicly to it,
to the press, there would be some trouble. Mr. Sanson stated he thinks
Council should keep in mind that apparently Council does not have a
totally or standard arrangement with the City Manager and City Attorney
handling the labor negotiations. In many of the cities and at con-
ferences he has attended, every speaker he hears will say do not have
your City Manager handle labor negotiations; the point is if there is
an independent party, that party would be coming to Council asking
how they want the negotiation handled, what's your limit, it can be
done outside the Sunshine. Mr. Sanson was of the opinion Council has
not been consulted nor have they talked about any negotiations at all.
The City Manager stated that Council is more than con-
sulted; Council makes several determinations after the Special Master
Hearings with regard to PBA and that is the Administration and City
Attorney's bible at the'negotiation table.
It was agreed to have a 15 minute closed session Monday
night, June 20, 1977 at 6:45 P. M. on this item.
4.f. Mr. Weekes stated his appointment to the Solid Waste
Authority was approved by the legislative delegation and he met with
the Board last week fo£ the first time.
4.g. Mayor Scheifley proclaimed the week of July 3-9, 1977 as
National Safe Boating Week.
4.h. Mayor Scheifley stated it is against his principles to
bring up new subjects at a Council meeting rather than take them up
at workshop but the time is of the essence in this matter and there-
fore feels compelled to bring it up. On June 25 Morikami Park will
be formally dedicated and Council has adopted Miyazu, Japan as the
City's Sister City. Mr. & Mrs. Morikami,and their son are on their way
from Japan to attend this ceremony and will be here about a week.
It seems if Miyazu is the City's Sister City and they have already
recognized two unofficial representatives of the City, Council should
do something in recognition of this spirit and specifically in recog-
nition of Mr. Morikami, his wife and son. Mayor Scheifley suggested
having a luncheon for 14 people (5 Council members, the City Manager,
John Dance-Supervisor of Parks & Recreation who has been the guiding
light in the Sister City program, Larry Rosensweig-curator of the
museum, County Commissioner, Mr. & Mrs. Lefcourte-the host of the
Morikamis while they are here). He stated he could possibly present
the,key to the City to the Morikamis.
It was agreed that there would be a luncheon held in
honor of the Morikamis and the City Manager would be in charge of
all the arrangements.
5. Mr. Everett Palmatier, 1011 Seagate Drive, Delray Beach,
spoke stating that last summer there was a rather extensive workshop
at Palm Beach Junior College on the subject of water treatment and at
that time the representatives of DER said, without any questions,
that they themselves confirmed the fact that DER has no statutory
power to determine the type of water treatment plant design or system
that is used in water treatment.
- 3 - 6/13/77
262
He stated he believes that almost everyone in the water
treatment field feels that the best defense against any waterborne
infection is eternal vigilance over the water that exist in the plant
in the process of this treatment that's leaving the plant and also
at the wells. The City has very good equipment in the water depart-
ment to maintain this type of vigilance and he believes the equip-
ment is used expertly by the staff. But, the City Council, as a
governing body, has the responsibility of doing what it can to pro-
tect the City's water resources. Mr. Palmatier read the last three
sentences of a recent news article entitled "Reserve Area Develop-
ments Okayed". He urged the City Council never, to allow any commer-
cial development to even remotely risk the pollution of the City's
underground water sources. He stated developers should be required
to include collection systems and if necessary, well-controlled
waste water treatment plants in their projects.
6.a. The City Manager stated that with regards to the newspaper
a--~cle Mr. Sanson had concerning the 18% raise increase by the union,
he did not realize the article he was referring to was an old article
which goes back to approximately the middle of May, 1977. The article
is fairly accurate and as for as the percentage of salary increases
that the PBA requested, he can't speak to that point because he did
not pay that much attention to them - he just s.tated that the City
was not going to discuss any possible salary increases until they
know more about the City's financial position of which he will not
know until they get further down in the making of the budget.
6.'a.1. The City'Manager reported that sometime ago he informed
Council that the City had applied for employees under a new Federal
program called CETA Title Six Program with 100% funding and is called
a Special'Project Program to which a special project must be put to-
gether that seems worthwhile to the County and the Federal government
in order to get it approved. The City put three programs together
and has received approval for all three and the employees for these
projects started showing up today for work. One of them is for
cleanup and beautification campaign consisting of four laborers, one
foreman, and one Community Services Coordinator. The second one is
a beach cleanup project consisting of four laborers and one foreman
and the third one is for fire hydrants, signs and curb revitalization
consisting of four laborers.
Mr. Sanson stated he spoke with the City Manager today on
~he beach cleanup project and he thinks that is a great project.
Mr. Sanson asked if it is possible that the City Manager could tie in
their efforts with some kind of coordination with the City Horticul-
turist and Mr. Boerner's subcommittee.
The City Manager stated this could be looked into and they
had in mind using the employees on the beach in whatever way that'
would seem to be the most productive.
Mayor Scheifley advised that on Sunday night the water
was running full force on three to four of the shower heads at
the beach. The problem being that the children pull a string and the
water comes on full force and it has to be adjusted by hand, which
the children cannot reach. He stated something should be done so
the children can adjust the water by hand.
6.a.2. The City Manager stated he skipped the item brought' up
by Mr. Chapin relative to a proposed workshop meeting on BPOA because
since the water expansion meeting will not be held next Monday night
he planned to ask members of BPOA if next Monday night would be satis-
factory for them; the Administration will have input on many of the
items. It was agreeable with everyone to have the BPOA meeting next
Monday night and depending upon circumstances two or three othe~ items
will be scheduled.
- 4 - 6/13/77
Mr. Chapin asked if it would be possible for the City
Attorney to have his legal opinion available to Council prior to the
meeting of the 29th on the question of water treatment; the City
Attorney answered yes.
6.b. The City Manager reported that the Delray Problem Center,
170 N. W. 5th Avenue, has requested the City to fund the operation
of its program in the amount of $5,400 not later than July 1, 1977.
Council at its June 6th Workshop meeting indicated it would probably
favor passing a motion tonight to make $3,000 to $4,000 available to
the Delray Problem Center. The City Manager stated he has conferred
with Mr. George Williams, Program Director of the Problem Center,
since the June 6th Workshop meeting and has been informed by
Mr. Williams that they would be able to continue the pro~ram with
City financing of $3,000. It is recommended that' C°unci± authorize
payment of $3,000 to the Delray Problem Center.
Mr. Randolph stated he was not present at that workshop
meeting but he did have an occasion to speak to the City Manager and
Mr. Williams of the Problem Center. He feels that a request in
excess of $5,000 initially and having been trimmed back to $3,000 is
really not going to provide substantial funding for that organization
to get along. He has to speak out on this particular item because
he is as close to the involvement of this item as anyone who is pre-
sently seated on Council inasmuch as he lives, works, and plays
in the area. This is a very useful program to the community; he
knows that some members of Council do not share these particular
.views,but on a one on one he could substantiate his claim. With this
in mind, he feels that a minimum of $4,000 should be provided to this
organization.
Mr. Randolph moved that Council authorize the payment of
a minimum of $4,000 to be paid to the Delray Problem Center, seconded
by Mr. Weekes who stated that he felt that $4,000 was a reasonable
amount to fund this program and there has been nothing to change his
view on this and supports this figure.
Mr. Sanson asked what source the ~unding will be coming
from. The City Manager suggested thatCouncil leave this to the
Administration to determine the source of funding w~th the under-
standing that it would be from the general funds. Mr. Sanson stated
that at last Monday night's meeting he felt and still feels that
although he might be receptive to supporting the funding efforts,
he would not do it from any funds that would be considered to be
coming from this year's budget. He stated he would consider it if
Council assumes that they will borrow against next year's budget -
that the expenditure of this will show up in next year's budget.
The City Manager stated it could be done this way;
Mr. Weekes agreed with Mr. Sanson because the City has already funded
the Drug Abuse Program for the City's fiscal year and he would be
in agreement to advance the money against the next fiscal year budget.
Mr. Sanson amended the motion that it would be taken
from next year's budget. Mr. Randolph and Mr. Weekes agreed to the
amendment. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes;
Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor
Scheifley - No. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote.
Before roll call Mr. Paul Friend, ~320 S. W. 20th Terrace,
Delray Beach,stated, as a taxpayer he would rather pay to get that
man off the drugs than to take the chance that he is going to have
him in his house taking his property to stay on the drugs. He frankly
believes that Council ought to make this, and other type projects
like this, a part of the City budget annually; not a question to
come before Council every year to debate whether or not it is a
meaningful program. He thinks its going to have to be considered a
part of the annual City budget.
- 5 - 6/13/77
6.c. The City Manager reported that at the June 6th Workshop
meeting it was informally agreed that Council would authorize the
retaining of an appraiser for the Delray Beach Golf Course as
recommended by the Financial Advisory Board and the City Administra-
tion. It is recommended that Council approve the firm of Calloway
& Price, recommended by the Financial Advisory Board, be retained for
a fee of $2,500 to make the Golf Course Appraisal.
Mr. Chapin moved that the City be authorized to retain
Calloway & Price Inc.,to make a real estate appraisal of the portion
of the Delray Beach Golf Course which the City has an option to
repurchase with financing to come from the General Fund Contingency
Account with a limit up to $2,500, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Said
motion passed unanimously.
6.d. The City Manager recommended that Council declare a
nuisance to exist on the following property and in compliance with
Chapter 15 of the City's Code of Ordinances direct the City Clerk
to comply with the ordinance in abating this nuisance.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CITY CODE
Lot 9 and N.29.5' of
Lot 10, Block 38 (N½) 15-3
(302-304 S.W. 1st St.)
Mr. Sanson moved that the City Administration be instructed
to comply with Section 15 of the City's Code of Ordinances and Council
declares that a nuisance does exist relative to item 6.d., seconded
by Mr. Weekes. Said motion passed unanimously.
6.e. The City M~.nager reported that new pumps are to be in-
stalled in the Master Lift Station and replacement of the plug valves
would be necessary in the near future since they are badly worn. If
the plug valves are replaced whi31~ the new pumps are being inStalled,
it would be less expensive. It is anticipated the EPA will approve
this change order and their participation would cover 75% of the cost.
If EPA does not provide funds, the cost to the City would be $12,724.98;
if EPA does provide funds, the cost to the City would be $3,181.25.
Financing for this project will come from the 1972 Water and Sewer
Revenue Bond Funds. It is recommended that Council authorize the
execution of Change Order No. 1 Contract "B" between the City and the
contractor for the replacement of plug valves in the Master Lift
Station.
Mr. Randolph moved for authorization for the execution of
Change Order No. 1 with financing of this project to come from the
1972 Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Funds, seconded by Mr. Weekes.. Said
motion passed unanimously.
6.f. The City Manager reported at its workshop meeting on June
1st, Council informally decided to approve the Rules of Procedure
recommended by the Board of Adjustment. It is before Council for
formal consideration.
Mr. Weekes moved that Council approve the Rules of
Procedure as adopted by the Board of Adjustment, seconded by
Mr. Randolph. (Motion and second withdrawn.)
Mr. Chapin asked if these rules of ,procedure require a
rotation selection procedure for alternates. The City Attorney
stated he does not believe there is a rotation procedure.
Mr. Sanson noted that when he brought up the rotation
~procedure the response from the Chairman of tne ~oara, Mr. NoDle,
was that he would take that under c0nsideration. Mr. Sanson stated he
would like some kind of guarantee that Council would hear from the
Board of Adjustment rather than just adopt this and it be forgotten
- 6 - 6/13/77
in the shuffle; it is very important to have this rotation system
for alternates so that everybody can have an equal chance in parti-
cipating.
Upon question by Mayor Scheifley, Mr. Sanson stated there
has been a situation with the Board in past years, in looking back
in the minutes, where there has been basically only one or two
alternates ever called; he talked to at least two people in the past
that quit as alternates because they were never asked to participate.
When it was known ahead of time that one of the regular members
would not be present, then the alternate was called but it happened
to be the same alternate time after time.
Mayor Scheifley asked if this could be handled with in-
formal conversation with the Chairman of the Board rather than having
it put in writing to which Mr. Sanson stated he did not think so.
Mr. Chapin stated it was his impression that Mr. Noble agreed to the
two suggestions - his memory failing him on the second suggestion.
Mr. Sanson advised his second suggestion was based on paragraph 1,
Article 3 where it says that the members of the Board would be in-
formed 24 hours in advance but it does not really state there would
-be a concerted effort to contact these alternates. Mr. Chapin
commented that the point is not only that the alternates be rotated
but all persons be notified so that they may attend the meeting
even if they did not sit.
At this point Mr. Weekes withdrew his motion. Mr~ Chapin
moved that this item be tabled to have these items included in the
Rules of Procedure, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Said motion passed unani-
mously.
6.g. The City Manager reported that at the workshop meeting
held on June 1st, Council informally decided to approve having the
architect design a Solar Energy System for the Pompey Park Building
in accordance with the architect's letter dated May 11, 1977. It is
recommended that Council authorize the addition of the design of
the Solar Energy System for the Pompey Park Building at the regular
architectural rate of 7 3/4% with a maximum figure of $4,000.
Mr. Chapin moved for the inclusion of a Solar Mechanical
System at the Pompey Park as outlined in Mr. Simon's letter of May
11, 1977, seconded by Mr. Weekes. Said motion passed unanimously.
Before roll call the following comments were made. Mayor
Scheifley asked the City Manager who would be responsible for actually
submitting the application for Federal Funds for this; the City
Manager answered, the City. Mayor Scheifley stated it seems to him
if this is done with enthusiasm, he does not see how they could turn
it down; if President Carter is asking for this, it seems that, if
it is presented correctly, the City has a good chance of getting the.
funds. The City Manager stated he does not know what the odds are
at present but he will give it his best shot.
6.h. The City Manager reported that at the June 6th Workshop
meeting, Council informally agreed to the appointment of John Owens,
President of First Bank of Delray Beach, as an alternate member of
the Financial Advisory Board to a term ending April 12, 1978. It is
recommended that Council give formal consideration at this time.
Mr. Sanson moved for the appointment of Mr. John Owens,
as an alternate member of the Financial Advisory Board, to a term
ending April 12, 1978, seconded by Mr. Weekes. Said motion passed
unanimously.
6.i. The City Manager reported that this item was discussed
at the June 1st Workshop meeting and it is recommended that Council
give formal consideration to (1) approve the schedule of payments
relative to settlement of the Interim Service Facilities Fees obli-
6/13/77
266
gations as set forth in the Finance Director's May 26, 1977 memorandum
to the City Manager which shows a total City pay out of $42,652.57
With $27,353.57 of that amount being paid at this time which will
leave a future pay out obligation of $15,300 and (2) to authorize
the transfer of funds from the General Fund Contingency Account in
the amount of $10,670 for the payment of obligations for the 1976-77
fiscal year.
The City Attorney stated that at the workshop meeting
when Council discussed the claims procedure for the interim service
fee ordinance, he indicated that there was one claimant who had
filed approximately two days past the deadline, actually filed a
motion out of the class, and filed a separate law suit. In talking
to that claimant, they have agreed that in lieu of that motion they
would like to participate in the settlement at the 22% figure. The
City Attorney stated he has researched the subject of the ability of
them to get out of the class or to participate by filing a late
claim and, based on that, he recommends that they be allowed to
participate in the settlement. The total value of their claim would
be $2,615 as opposed to the amount they actually paid. The claimant
is Melrose Development Company - Pines of Delray.
Upon question by the City Manager if that figure would
have any bearing on the set of figures he mentioned and asked approval
of, the City Attorney said yes, it would add to the total amount for
claims of $2,615 but would not affect the other figures; where it
indicates the claims $22,252.57 you would add $2,615 and the cash
outlay would increase by $2,615.
Mr. Chapin asked the City Attorney if he finds any pre-
cedent case on point that would permit a claimant, who is two days
late, to participate in the settlement agreement or, on the other
hand, does he find any person or case authority which would permit
the claimant to opt out of the class and file a full claim?
The City Attorney stated he did, but not in Florida. In
doing research under the Rule 23, the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure,
he did find one case that permitted a class action claimant to opt
out after filing two weeks late. Other than that, the closest time
that he was able to find on anybody filing to opt out or file a late
claim was filing four months after the deadline,in which case they
did not permit it; however, the determination of whether or not they
can opt out or file a late claim is within the discretion of the
judge based upon whether or not they feel there is an excusable neg-
lect for not filing timely. Also, you face a possible claim or
defense that they never actually received a notice, which is a nebu-
lous defense, but you still have to offer your proof; it's out of
the same type of criteria where they would reopen it to file judge-
ment and based on that it is a 50-50 proposition, as far as he is
concerned, especially when the filing is only two days past the dead-
Mr. Chapin moved that Council authorize formal approval
of the transfer of $10,670 from the Contingency Fund to General
Operating Fund; that the Council authorize payment of $27,352.57
at the present time and two weeks from tonight Council will consider
the payment of $2,615 to Melrose Development Company and to include
the schedule payment in fiscal years of 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79
as outlined in the Director of Finance~s memorandum to the City
Manager dated May 26, 1977, seconded by Mr. W~ekes. Said motion
passed unanimously.
Before roll call the following discussion was had.
Mr. Randolph stated he is concerned that the City Attorney has given
a recommendation on the $2,615 for Melrose Construction and he says
there is a 50-50 chance that it could fly. Why wait until two weeks
from tonight and possibly have someone file a legal suit if said suit
- 8- 6/13/77
would be withstanding, which would end up costing the City more than
the $2,615.
Mr. Chapin stated he thinks that a sum of 22¢ on the
dollar under the tax circumstances is a financially advantageous
settlement. You would normally think that when a rule is set that
thou shall make a claim prior to the deadline or forever hold thy
peace would be final, but his experience, in 14 years before the
courts, is that many judges have a large heart and he thinks they
would feel that there might be unfortunate circumstances that would
permit the claimant to come in and file a claim for the full 100
cents on the dollar. To settle it for 22¢ a dollar, he thinks it is
an advantaqeous settlement and, in the long run, less costly to the
City than having to fight it in separate parts of the court.
Mr. Randolph stated his only reason for challenging this
was looking at the memorandum submitted to Council from the Director
of Finance to the City Manager, for 1976-77 the claim amounted to
$5,563.15, the attorney fees amounted to $5,100 and it goes on for
77, 78 and 79 with the total claim being $22,252.57 and total attorney
fees being $20,400. There is a degree of unfairness somewhere and,
for an additional $2,615, he would not want to get anymore attorney
fees tacked on.
Mr. Weekes asked Mr. Chapin if the intent of his motion
is that Council will accept the City Attorney's recommendation but
will wait the two weeks to see how it is funded; Mr. Chapin answered
yes.
Mr. Sanson stated that Council is putting out now approxi-
mately $27,400 and of that $27,000, $10,600 is coming from Contingency
and he would like to know where the remainder will be coming from.
The City Manager stated the remainder of the money will
come from future budgets, that Council need not worry about the
mechanics of it; if the City goes according to schedule, as laid out,
and according to Mr. Chapin's motion, it will all come out even.
Mr. Sanson noted that approximately $16,000 will be re-
maining to be funded out of future budgets plus the other $15,000
of attorney fees. The City Manager advised that actually the precise
statement is the last paragraph just above the money column where it
says "these expenditures are being shown as prepaid expense" which is
the technical term that is used for this sort of thing.
So that he could have something to refer back to without
having to ask questions in the future, Mr. Sanson asked that the
minutes reflect that this transfer of the $10,600 from the Contingency
would leave an approximate balance in the Contingency Fund of $5,600.
Mr. Sanson asked the City Attorney, since he and his wife
both will be receiving one of these checks, will there be any conflict
with him having voted on this; the City Attorney answered that he is
not prohibited from voting even if there is conflict under State law.
6.j. The City Manager reported that it is recommended that
Council ratify the City's execution of an agreement with Palm Beach
County Urban League for S.P.E.D.Y. workers during the summer of 1977.
The deadline for the City's execution of this agreement was June 9th.
The City has applied for this and thinks it will get 75 workers under
this program. ~
Mr. Randolph stated in going through the agreement he
finds nothing that would probably affect the City and this is free
labor, which you don't get too often. Hopefully, if the City can get
the 75 people the number of man hours they will be working will be
a benefit to the City.
- 9 - 6/13/77
Mr. Randolph moved that the agreement between the Urban
League of Palm Beach County and the City of Delray. Beach for the
S.P.E.D.Y. employees be consummated, seconded by Mr. Weekes. Said
motion passed unanimously.
Before roll call the following discussion was had.
Mr. Sanson asked the City Manager that when you say free does that
mean that the City does not have to provide group insurance or social
security payments? The City Manager replied these are really Urban
League employees and it is his understanding, that they would be
entirelyfree to the City. The program will catually start about
June 22 and end August 12th.
Mr. Sanson questioned how it would affect Workmans _
Compensation. The City Attorney stated he would say that the City
is not responsible for any Workmans Compensation claims because there
is a specific provision in the contract which provides that they are
Urban League Employees not employees of the City of Delray Beach and
this contract does not change that. There is a "hold harmless'
clause in paragraph 10; also, there is a provision in paragraph 20
which states "The Contractor hereby agrees to provide Workmans
Compensation for CETA, Title III participants and all required medical
payments".
Mayor Scheifley noted the first s~ ~tence under 10 states
it shall hold~.harmlessthe Contractor/Prime Sp sor from
liability of any kind and this covers everything.
6.ko The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning
Board, at a meeting held March 22nd, recommended by unanimous vote
that Council establish a limit of one year for completion of work
encompassed by a Site Plan Modification at Imperial Villas. Council,
at its June 6th Workshop meeting, informally decided to se% a time
limit as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Board, to be January
~24, 1978 and the approval was modified by Council on January 24, 1977.
It is recommended that Council give formal consideration at this
time.
Mr. Sanson moved that a time limitation for the Site
Plan Modification of Imperial Villas be established, such time limi-
tation expiring on January 24, 1978, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Said
motion passed unanimously.
6.1. The City Manager reported that Council, at its workshop
meeting on May 16th, informally sustained the rejection of the
Community Appearance Board regarding a sign located at 36 S. E. 6th
Avenue because of the excessive wording. The applicant was notified
that this item would be on the agenda tonight and invited to be here.
This item is before Council for formal consideration.
Mr. Chapin moved that Council affirm the decision of the
Community Appearance Board with regard to the premises of 36 S.E. _
6th Avenue, owned by Mr. Caliendo, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Said
motion passed unanimously.
6.m. The City Manager reported that it is recommended that
t-~ item (CAB Appeal - Pines of Delray West) be skipped with the
acquiescence of the applicant.
The Mayor stated that he thinks there is some confusion
as to what the decision of the community Appearance Board was.
The City Manager stated this is the reason for skipping
this item; it is rather hazy. He has had two or three discussions
today with the applicant and the last conversation he had with the
applicant was late this afternoon; at this time the applicant agreed
that the decision of the Community Appearance Board was hazy.
- 10 - 6/13/77
269
The Mayor advised that when he talked to the applicant,
the applicant stated that his petition had been denied by a 4 to 0
vote, but according to the minutes of the CAB it stated that the con-
cept was approved.
Mr. Chapin commented that that appeal did not provide a
judicial controversy and, secondly, he would prefer that matters'of
this nature come to workshop.
Mr. Sanson stated it seemed to him that this was very
premature that it would be on a regular Council agenda and the con-
cerns of Pines of Delray was also premature. Mr. Sanson commented
that he thinks the City of Delray is extremely fortunate to have
the type people serving on the Community Appearance Board that they
do; the citizens of Delray owe them a great debt of thanks for the
time and efforts that they put into their work.
Mr. Weekes stated that the applicant came before the
Community Appearance Board for conceptual approval of his site plan,
which he got, and he has not really been denied anything at this
point in time; therefore, there is nothing to appeal at this point
and that's why it was discussed with Mr. Glassman.
Mr. Randolph moved that this item be tabled at the request
of the applicant, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Said motion passed
unanimously.
6.n. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize pay-
ment to the Florida East Coast Railroad for railroad crossing improve-
ments in the City with funding to come from the $600,000 Street and
Sidewalk Bond Issue. An invoice in the amount of $1,686.11 has been
received from F.E.C.; other invoices will probably follow. The City's
total cost estimate was placed at $11,000 in January, 1977.
Mr. Sanson moved that the City Administration be instructed
to pay the invoice to the Florida East Coast Railroad for the improve-
ments in the railroad crossings in the amount of $1,686.11 with funding
to come from the $600,000 Street and Sidewalk Bond Issue, seconded
by Mr. Randolph. Said motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Sanson moved that if the City Administration feels
that the invoices are warranted that they be instructed to pay the
balance of the estimated cost of $11,000 with funding to come from
the same source, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Said motion passed unani-
.mously.
6.o. The City Manager reported he recieved a letter dated
May 31, 1977 from Anthony Canon, the Chief Executive Officer of the
SCRWTD Board which informed him that that Board took six actions
which are listed in the letter as follows:
1. "Moved for adoption of Resolution No. 4-77
(Establishing regulations for the selection
of architects, engineers, landscape architects
and land surveyors, in accordance with Florida
Statute 287.055, Consultants' Competitive
Negotiation Act)."
2. "Moved to appoint the City Manager of Delray
Beach, the City Manager of Boynton Beach
and Mr. Canon to be on a standing committee
(for compliance with Resolution No. 4-77
and the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation
Act)."
3. "Moved to adopt Mr. Federspiel's recommen-
dation (they go the safe route and go by
the Competitive Negotiation Act for the 2nd
phase construction)'."
- 11 - 6/13/77
4. "Moved to approve Change Order No. 1
(for architectural modifications for
$39,019.)."
5. "Moved that this Board approve Change
Order No. 2 for constructing an 8" water
main on Congress Ave. for the total sum
of $37,569.90."
6. "Moved that Change Order No. 3 for the
burying of fuel and L. P. gas storage
tanks be approved with the #1 priority
being to locate them in one site at the
cost of $7,900 or as an alternate, pay
$9,700 for two separate locations."
Mr. Canon is asking that those actions be ratified by
the City Council. There were a number of members of Council at the
SCRWTD Board meeting at which these actions were taken; therefore,
if there are no objections with respect to any of the six items
on the part of any member of Council, it is suggested that Council
consider approving the six recommendations.
Mayor Scheifley stated,~ for the benefit of Mr. Sanson amd
Mr. Randolph, that the other three members of Council were present at
the meeting and they all voted for the change orders.
Mr. Weekes stated that the change orders, as a matter of
information, were mostly necessitated by actions of Boards in Delray
Beach in the area of beautification and improving the facade of the
building and things of that sort.
Mr. Chapin moved that Council ratify the six actions
~dopted by the SCRWTD Board and those actions be ratified by the
City of Delray Beach as outlined in Mr. Canon's letter to Mr.. Mariott
dated May 31, 1977, seconded by Mr. Weekes. Said motion passed
unanimously.
Before roll call, Mr. Sanson asked that the City Manager
give him a status report on what the situation is for people sub-
mitting bids on the second phase. The City Manager stated that he
has not seen any bids and he does not know what the deadline date
is for that.
8.a. The City Manager reported that Resolution No. 33-77,
accepting sanitary sewers, water mains and related facilities in
Foxpointe Subdivision (Hamlet), is before Council to be approved
as operational.
The City Manager presented Resolution No. 33-77:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING
ALL SANITARY SEWERS AND WATER UTILITIES
INSTALLED IN THE HAMLET TRACT, KNOWN AS
FOXPOINTE SUBDIVISION, AS OPERATIONAL
AND SETTING THE INITIAL SCHEDULE OF RATES,
FEES AND OTHER RELATED CHARGES TO BE IM-
POSED FOR THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES
FURNISHED BY SAID UTILITIES.
(Copy of Resolution No. 33-77 is on file in the official
Resolution Book.)
Mr. Weekes moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 33-77,
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. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
- 12 - 6/13/77
8.b. The City Manager reported that Resolution No. 34-77,
a-~orizing the purchase of a Turf Vac Riding Sweeper for the Parks
& Recreation Department from De Bra Turf & Industrial Equipment
Company for $4,950, is the only sweeper the Parks & Recreation
Department has been able to find that is satisfactory. Financing
is to come from Parks & Recreation budgeted funds and it will not
be necessary to transfer any money from any other source to the
Parks & Recreation budget to make this purchase. It is, therefore,
recommended that Council adopt this resolution.
The City Manager presented Resolution No. 34-77:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORI-
ZING AND CONFIRMING THE NEGOTIATION FOR
THE PURCHASE OF A TURF VAC MODEL 80
RIDING SWEEPER TO BE USED BY THE PARKS
~qD RECREATION DEPARTMENT.
(Copy of Resolution No. 34-77 is on file in the official
Resolution Book.)
Mr. Randolph moved for the adoption of Resolution No.
34-77, seconded by Mr. Weekes. Upon roll call, Council voted as
follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. ~andolph - Yes; Mr~ Sanson - Yes;
Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. Said motion passed with a
'5 to 0 vote.
8.c. The City Manager reported that Resolution No. 35-77,
which provides for assessment of cost incurred by the City in abating
a previously determined nuisance against certain property, the owner
of which failed to abate such nuisance within the allotted time
from date of original nuisance violation notice, is recommended to
Council for adoption. The property affected has previously been
reported to Council by the City Manager in survey report of October
25, 1976 and February 14, 1977 in compliance with Section 15 of the
City's Code of Ordinances.
The City Manager presented Resolution No. 35-77:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ASSESSING
COSTS FOR ABATING NUISANCES UPON CERTAIN
LANDS LOCATED WITHIN SAID CITY; SETTING
OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY SAID CITY
TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING
THE COST OF SUCH ABATEMENT OF SAID NUI-
SANCES, AND DECLARING SAID LEVY TO BE A
LIEN UPON SAID PROPERTY IN ~ AMOUNT AS
SHOWN BY REPORT OF THE CITY MANAGER OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA.
(Copy of Resolution No. 35-77 is on file in the official
Resolution Book.)
Mr. Sanson moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 35-77,
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. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.d. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 27-77,
relating 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 Second and FINAL Reading. This ordinance was passed on First
Reading at the May 9, 1977 meeting. Prior to consideration of passage
of this ordinance on Second and FINAL Reading, a public hearing has
- 13 - 6/13/77
been scheduled to be held at this time.
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 (SW~) OF LOT 3, A SUB-
DIVISION OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 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 CONTIG-
UOUS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF
SAID 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.
(Copy of Ordinance No. 27-77 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. Chapin moved for the adoption of ~3rdinance No. 27-77
on Second and FINAL Reading (and stated this is tile first of many
pockets that is voluntarily annexing into the C.'Jty), 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. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.e. The City Manager ~eported that Ordinance No. 28-77,
relative to annexing a 19,936 square foot parcel of land located in
Section 5-46-43, 2001 N. W. 3rd Avenue, Lot 32, Lake Shore Estates,
subject to R-1AA (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 9, 1977 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. 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 IS CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING
MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SAID CITY; REDE-
FINING THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY TO
INCLUDE SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SAID LAND;
AND PROVIDING FOR THE ZONING THEREOF.
(Copy of Ordinance No. 28-77 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.
- 14 - 6/13/77
273
Mr. Chapin moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 28-77
(which is another pocket) on Second and FINAL 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. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.f. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 31-77,
amending Chapter 27 "Water and Sanitary Sewerage" of the Code of
Ordinances relative to a service charge for returned checks is
before Council for passage consideration on Second and FINAL Reading.
This ordinance was passed on First Reading at the May 23, 1977
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. 31-77:
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 THE ADDITION OF A SEC-
TION 27-37 RELATING TO A SERVICE CHARGE
FOR RETURNED CHECKS; PROVIDING A SAVING
CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(Copy of Ordinance No. 31-77 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. 31-77
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. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.g. The City Manager reported that'Ordinance No. 32-77,
amending Chapter 14A "Garbage and Trash" of the Code of Ordinances
relative to a service charge for returned checks is before Council
for passage consideration on Second and FINAL Reading. This ordinance
was passed on First Reading at the May 23, 1977 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. 32-77:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 14A "GARBAGE AND TRASH" OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH BY AMENDING SECTION 14A-12 TO ADD
A SUBSECTION (d) RELATING TO A SERVICE
CHARGE FOR RETURNED CHECKS; PROVIDING A
SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
(Copy of Ordinance No. 32-77 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.
- 15 - 6/13/77
274
Mr. Sanson moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 32-77
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. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.h. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 33-77,
amending Chapter 29 "Zoning" by amending Section 29-10 (B) (53) CC
District to add cocktail lounges and bars; amending Sections 29-11
(B) GC, 29-12 (B) SC, 28-13 (B) CBD to add medical and dental labora-
tories and medical and dental clinics; amending Sections 29-14 (B) LI
and 29-15 (B) MI to add swimming pool contractors; and amending
Section 29-16 Special Setback Provisions by repealing Subsection (K)
is before Council for passage consideration on Second and FINAL
Reading. This ordinance was passed on First Reading at the May 23,
1977 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. 33-77:
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, FLORIDA,
BY AMENDING SECTION 29-10 CC (COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT SUBSECTION (B) PERMIT-
TED USES (53) TO ADD COCKTAIL LOUNGES AND
BARS; AMENDING SECTION 29-11 GC (GENERAL
COMMERICAL) DISTRICT SUBSECTION (B) PER-
MI'~i]~ED USES; SECTION 29-12 SC (SPECIALIZED
COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT SUBSECTION (B) PER-
-MITTED USES; SECTION 29-13 CBD (CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT) SUBSECTION (B) PER-
MITTED USES BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING, WHICH
SHALL BE INSERTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER
WITH THE OTHER PERMITTED USES AND THE
PERMITTED USES SHALL BE RENUMJERED, AS
REQUIRED, TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE:
MEDICAL AND DENTAL LABORATORIES, MEDICAL
AND DENTAL CLINICS; AMENDING SECTION
29-14 LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT SUB-
SECTION (B) PERMITTED USES; SECTION
29-15 MI (MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT
SUBSECTION (B) PERMITTED USES BY ADDING
THE FOLLOWING, WHICH SHALL BE INSERTED
IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER WITH THE OTHER
PERMITTED USES AND THE PERMITTED USES
SHALL BE RENUMBERED, AS REQUIRED, TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE: SWIMMING POOL
CONTRACTORS; AMENDING SECTION 29-16
S~ECIAL SETBACK PROVISIONS BY REPEALING
SUBSECTION (K) WHICH ESTABLISHES SETBACKS
ALONG LINTON BOULEVARD; PROVIDING A SAVING
CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(Copy of Ordinance No. 33-77 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. Randolph moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 33-77
on Second and FINAL 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. Said
- 16 - 6/13/77
275
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.i. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 36-77,
amending Chapter 29 "Zoning" by amending Section 29-7 (D) RM-10 and
Section 29-8 (D) RM-15 relative to allowing the conveyance of One-
half of a duplex lot is before Council for passage consideration on
Second and FINAL Reading. This ordinance was passed on First Reading
at the May 23, 1977 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. 36-77:
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
AMENDING SECTION 29-7(D) RM-10 (MULTIPLE
FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT AND SECTION
29-8(D) RM-15 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING)
DISTRICT BY ADDING A SUBSECTION (4) TO
PERMIT DUPLEX RESIDENCES ON LOTS WITH
MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 8,000 SQUARE
FEET AND PERMITTING THE CONVEYANCE OF
EACH UNIT AND APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF
OF THE LOT WITHOUT FURTHER PLATTING
REQUIREMENT, PROVIDED THAT EACH ONE-HALF
OF THE LOT CONTAINS NOT LESS THAN 4,000
SQUARE FEET; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(Copy of Ordinance No. 36-77 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. Randolph moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 36-77
on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Chapin. Upon roll call,
Council voted as follows: Mr. Chapin - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes;
Mr. Sanson - No; Mr. Weekes - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. Said
motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote.
Before roll call Mr. Sanson stated he would like the
minutes to reflect that he will be voting against this ordinance and
that his objections were registered in the minutes of the May 23rd
meeting.
8.k. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 39-77,
amending Chapter 29 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances by repealing
Subsection (P) (1) of Sections 29-6 RM-6, 29-7 RM-10 and 29-8 RM-15,
and inserting new Subsection (P) (1); repealing Subsection (P) (7) of
Section 29-17 and inserting a new Subsection (P) (7) is before Council
'for passage consideration on First Reading. This was discussed at
the June 1st Workshop meeting and the amendment is being made at the
suggestion of the City Attorney so that all the multi-family districts
will contain the same language with regard to common areas and/or
facilities.
The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 39-77:
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
REPEALING SUBSECTION (P) (1) OF SECTIONS
- 1~7 - 6/13/77
276
29-6 RM-6 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING)
DISTRICT, SECTION 29-7 RM-10 (MULTIPLE
FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT, SECTION 29-8
RM-15 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DIS-
TRICT AND INSERTING NEW SUBSECTIONS
(P) (1); REPEALING SUBSECTION (P) (7)
OF SECTION 29-17 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULA-
TIONS PERTAINING TO TOWNHOUSES AND
TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND INSERTING
NEW SUBSECTION (P) (7) REGARDING THE
OWNERSHIP CONTROL, MAINTENANCE, OPERA-
TION AND USE OF COMMON AREAS OR FACILI-
TIES; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance.
The City Attorney stated he would like to get Council's
intention with regards to this ordinance and whether or not Council
would want to exercise authority over common areas such as lawns,
condominiums, exterior condominium buildings, etc., as opposed to
recreation, facilities, streets, utility lines, etc. There has not
been any condominium developments, as yet, processed under this type
of ordinance provision but there has been Mr. Siemen's project, which
is not a condominium project, and in which case they were primarily
concerned with the recreation area only. Last week he met with some-
one who was in the process of processing a condominium development
and when he started looking at his plans and reviewing this provision
that the ordinance proposed, technically the ~City would have the
authority under this ordinance to maintain or require maintenance of
anything that is a common facility or common area.
Mayor Scheifley asked is there any urgency to this Parti-
cular ordinance. The City Attorney answered "yes" that he would like
to get it amended because of the fact that in other respects it
changes the existing provisions; specifically provides that building
permits would not be issued until approval has been given whereas the
current ordinance provides no enforcement provision at all - it is
strictly a "shall be approved" type of thing without fitting it into
any step in the development. As far as Gouncil's intention, he would
like to just work with it as it is for a while but not necessarily go
to the full extent of the ordinance.
The Mayor asked if this is strictly administrativ~ or is
it a subject to be considered by the Planning & Zoning Board. The
City Attorney stated this subject has been considered by the Planning
& Zoning Board but that particular aspect of it has not been.
Mr. Chapin stated that this is a technical qUestion not
involving a Planning & Zoning matter and he for one does not think the
City should get into private development business; he would opt out
for the more limited approach of maintaining only the recreation
areas, the streets and utilities. He does not think the City should
get in the business of improving private dwellings, etc. Mr. Chapin
added Council is plowing new ground by exercising control over common
areas in the event that the developer, and/or after transferring that
development to the Homeowner's Association for~some reason, should not
maintain it, the City would have a right to come in and maintain the
streets and recreation area.
Mr. Chapin suggested, in answer to Mayor Scheifley's
question of what step should be taken, that Council direct the City
Attorney to draft the appropriate language prior to the Second and
-Final reading of this Ordinance No. 39-77 which should be part of the
- 18 - 6/13/77
277
motion in approving the entire ordinance on First Reading.
Mr. Sanson asked is there such a difference with what's
being proposed tonight as to what rights Council has to go on an
individual property owner's lot in the town that is not being kept
properly. The City Attorney replied the City does not have authority
now, if someone is not keeping up their property, simply to go on the
property for aesthetic reasons, clean it up, put a lien on it for the
cost of improvement.
Mr. Sanson asked if what is being proposed is strictly
for aesthetic reasons. The City Attorney stated if someone does not
maintain their property, the grass is brown, the buildinq is not
painted, he would say that is an aesthetic reason and to that extent, it
would be for that. To the extent that involves the maintenance of
something like a broken utility line, that goes directly to the health,
safety, and welfare type of concept rather than aesthetics.
Mr. Sanson asked if, at his condominium complex of Delray
Estates, where all the common ground is presently under the Homeowners'
Association control, that association did. not mow its common area and
it grew to a height sufficient to deem it as a health hazard, does the
City have the right to go in and cut it as it does on any other lot in
town? The City Attorney stated the City has the authority, under
Chapter 15 which is the nuisance abatement provision, to do it when
there is, in fact, a safety hazard but this goes beyond that.
Mr. Sanson questioned if there is an attempt here or was
the reason for this being presented have anything to do with the insur-
ing that a developer would not retain title of all common area in order
~that, at a future date, he might find a sympathetic Council to increase
density on his land and he could use that common area ~o build addi-
tional units. It was stated that %hat has nothing to do with this
ordinance and would not accomplish ~"~at; it is a different matter
entirely.
Mr. Chapin moved that Council adopt Ordinance No. 39-77
on First Reading and in so doing instruct the City Attorney to clari-
fy the provision in this ordinance relating to the City's right to
improve, when it deems necessary for health or aesthetic reasons,
only the recreation areas, streets and utilities in a condominium
complex, as opposed to a broader interpretation that could exist under
the existing ordinances and it would not be limited to condominiums
or projects, seconded 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 discussion was had.
Mr. Sanson asked if the Planning & Zoning Board considered this.
Mr. Weekes stated, as he sees it, it is not really a Planning & Zoning
matter. Mr. Sanson asked what precipitated it.
The City Attorney stated that first of all it is in the
existing Multi-family and Townhouse sections of the ordinances, in a
different form, and it was passed as part of the overrall adoption
of a new Zoning Code last February or March; there has only been one
development processed under it so far. When it did come up at work-
shop, having read it over in the old ordinance provision, he was not
really satisfied with it; he asked Council if he could amend those
provisions as well as the PRD ordinances and permission was given at
the workshop meeting; therefore, it was put in. This is also in all
the PRD ordinances to be considered tonight.
8.j. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 38-77,
repealing Chapter 23A "Subdivisions" of the Code of Ordinances and
substituting a new Chapter 23A "Subdivisions" is before Council for
passage consideration on First Reading. The Planning & Zoning Board,
- 19 - 6/13/77
at a meeting held March 16, 1976, reviewed the proposed draft of
the Subdivision Regulations which was prepared by the Planning Consul-
tants to update the existing ordinance adopted in 1958. Council
discussed the mandatory dedication for Parks & Recreation purposes
in the Subdivision Ordinance at the June 1st Workshop meeting and
it was the consensus of Council to pass the ordinance and within 30
days consider an amendment to this effect.
The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 38-77:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REPEALING
CHAPTER 23A "SUBDIVISIONS" OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
AND SUBSTITUTING IN ITS PLACE A NEW CHAP-
TER 23A ENTITLED "SUBDIVISIONS" REGULATING
THE SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING OF PROPERTY
IN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; PROVIDING A
SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance.
The City Attorney stated the bond provisions of the ordi-
nance currently provides that the bond will be filed with the City
Council and approved by the City Council; he thinks this is probably
a typographical error, not from the City Clerk's office but in the
original draft, that Council has never approved, as such, the form
of a bond or security instrument - it has always been done by the
City Attorney's office and this should be amended. Also, there is
another provision in the ordinance where it says the bond will be filed
with the City Council and it should be filed with the City Clerk.
The City Attorney stated he would like for Council to
consider the provision in the ordinance before it is passed involving
waivers. He stated be has gone over it several times and commented
on it when the original draft was proposed by the consultants and he
has misgivings about a provision being included in the ordiDance
that provides that whenever it's thought inappropriate or un~easonable,
the Planning & Zoning Board may recommend that the City Council waive
virtually any provision in the ordinance. He thinks this is too
broad and it's going to lead to charges that'the ordinance is not
being evenly enforced; there is going to be pressure put on the Planning
& Zoning Board and Council members to waive different provisions in
the ordinance practically every time a subdivision is processed and
therefore, recommends that this be deleted.
Mayor Scheifley questioned if that paragraph would give
Council the same power as the Board of Adjustment; by waiving a re-
quirement of the ordinance would be the same as going to the Board of
Adjustment. The City Attorney stated the Board of Adjustment has -
the authority to waive a requirement of an ordinance but is on a
very strict, very limited criteria; if a waiver was subject to a
legal test, there are a lot of cases established that that is a
bonified, proper criteria and that a distinction could be made on
that basis. But in reviewing what would be construed to be inappro-
priate or unreasonable is too open ended and too broad.
The City Manager stated it seems to him that paragraph
A does not seem self-sufficient and doesn't accomplish that purpose;
it only gives the Planning & Zoning Board the authority to recommend
a waiver but the ordinance does not grant Council the authority to
grant the waiver. The City Attorney stated he thinks it is inferred
that, if Planning & Zoning Board can recommend it to Council, Council
is the final decision maker, but in any event, he recommends that
Council delete paragraph A.
- 20- 6/13/77
279
Mr. Chapin stated he agrees with both comments by the
City Attorney and that if the ordinance is well drafted it should be
enforced and if needs to be amended at sometime, it could be consi-
dered at that time; therefore he recommends that Council adhere to
the City Attorney's two recommendations.
The City Attorney noted that the section requiring manda-
tory dedication in Parks & Recreation is in the current provision and
a proposed amendment will be made at a later time; this is on page 18,
subsection h - the provision as originally proposed by the consultant.
Mr. Chapin moved for the passage on First Reading of
Ordinance No. 38-77 with the proviso that the bond provisions be
approved by the City Attorney and not by the City Council and that
the bond that's approved by the City Attorney be filed with the City
Clerk and not with the City Council and with a further proviso that
Sec%ion 23A-6 waivers be omitted in its entirety and with the further
understanding that "Subsection h" will be revised by the City Attorney
within 16 days, 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. Said motion passed with a
5 to 0 vote.
Before the second was made, the City Attorney stated that
the last part of the motion pertaining to "Subsection h" is not part
and parcel of the ordinance but a direction from Council that an amend-
ment should be proposed.
Mr. Sanson asked Mr. Carey, Chairman of the Planning &
Zoning Board, if this was a unanimous agreement; he answered "yes".
8.1. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 40-77, amending
Chapter 29 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances to create a new zoning
classification to be known as PRD-4 (Planned Residential) District is
before Council for passage consideration on First Reading. The
Planning & Zoning Board at the March 1st meeting unanimously recom-
mended approval of PRD-4.
The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 40-77:
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 PRD-4 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DIS-
TRICT) PERMITTING FOUR (4) RESIDENTIAL
UNITS TO THE ACRE; AND REQUIRING A MINI-
MUM OF SIXTY (60) PERCENT OF TOTAL
ACREAGE TO BE IN SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
UNITS, A MINIMUM OF TEN (10) PERCENT OF
THE TOTAL ACREAGE TO BE IN COMMON OPEN
SPACE AND A MAXIMUM OF THIRTY (30) PER-
CENT OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE TO BE IN MULTI-
FAMILY UNITS; AMENDING SECTION 29-2 (C)
"ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS" TO
INCLUDE THE NEW PRD-4 DISTRICT; PROVIDING
A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance.
The City Attorney stated that the provision on the multi-
family 30% should be maximum not "minimum" and it's that way in the
next two ordinances as well; there is no limitation as far as the
- 21 - 6/13/77
minimum amount, only on the maximum amount. (Fifth (5th) line in
the caption from the bottom.)
Mr. Weekes moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 40-77
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. Said motion passed
with a 5 to 0 vote.
Before roll call the following discussion was had.
Mr. Sanson stated to the City Attorney that he had a fairly detailed
discussion with Mr. Carey on this subject but would like his con-
currence. Mr. Sanson stated he wants to insure everything - that if
he voted to approve this, that there is provision in the PRD structure
that a developer could not retain control of the common area and he
was told by Mr. Carey that this is not possible.
The City Attorney stated that's the ordinance provision
that was just talked about in multi-family; as far as the common
areas that were referred to, the recreation areas, the utility lines,
the streets, that's true.
Mr. Sanson asked is there any possibility that a developer
could use this open ground that he hangs onto in the future for
further development. The City Attorney corrected him in that he did
not say open ground; he stated he specifically said recreation area,
which may not inlcude all the open ground in the development, and the
utility lines and streets. He asked Mr. Sanson if he is concerned
about him having something open and then later on coming back and
developing on it. Mr. Sanson stated he is very concerned about this
and that he thinks in the future there is going to be tremendous
pressure put on South Florida when all the vacant land is developed.
The developers are going to come and they will only have one place to
go and that's to the little bit of land that's been kept through
proper planning for green area; they are going to start using their
money to buy politicians and start using it to create higher densities
than what previous Council has allowed. He is very concerned about
this and a good example of it was in Boca Teeca; however, it was not
a PRD.
The City Attorney advised Council could turn around at
a later date'and rezone the property for 100 units to the acre.
Mr. Sanson stated, if the open ground is not in the hands of the
developer, they would not have any claim to it and he couldn't do
anything with it. The City Attorney stated that suppose a condominium
association decided that they needed the money to finance their opera-
tion or to sell off part of their property and have it developed, it
would be the same thing if the Council, at that time, was willing to
make that kind of a change. Mr. Sanson stated he would speculate
that that would be very unlikely that the residents themselves would
do it.
Mr. Weekes stated Mr. Sanson presents Council with a kind
of a Catch 22; Council wants to maintain open space by reducing den-
sities and having a lot of green area. If you do that, you worry
about the possibility that somebody is going to come in later and get
the zoning changed so you can build more units on it.
Mr. Sanson commented that apparatuses can be set up to
where the developer has no control once he finishes that project;
Mr. Weekes questioned very seriously whether those apparatuses could
be set up and that you cannot pass an ordinance that some future
Council can't change if they decided to do so. Mr. Sanson stated if
the association is given, through law, the ordinance, title to that
property then the developer is out and gone, but if he retains control
over it, then he is going to try to use it at a future date.
- 22 - 6/13/77
Mayor Scheifley asked the City Attorney if this could be
done constitutionally; the City Attorney stated he doubted it very
seriously. Mayor Scheifley stated he thinks there is a legal problem
there under due process, etc., that he does not think you can control
a man's private property to that extent.
Mr. Sanson stated if you give the developer site plan
approval for a PRD, then that's all part of a process where you are
accepting a total package for a development and that's supposed to be
a complete process. He is saying, Council is leaving a loop-hole
there to where it's not going to be finally complete; he is going to
have to maintain control of substantial acreage.
The City Attorney advised Council can regulate, through
site and development plan or conditional use, the land use, but for
Council to control who gets title to that property is another question.
He stated to a certain extent, Mr. Sanson is saying maybe title is
related to land use; he does not think Council can go that far to
require other areas, other than those directly related to service
the development.
Mr. Chapin was of the opinion it would be improper,
imprudent, and unconstitutional for a public body to tell two private
.parties how to structure their contract; we have a freedom of con-
tract in this country, vested rights, rules of law and constitutional
rights of freedom so that the public bodies will not go back and undo
private contracts. He thinks the point is use, approvals and zoning
and not getting into undoing private contracts. Mr. Chapin did not
think Council could tie the hands, iron clad, ,in the private develop-
ment sector; this has never ~been done, to his knowledge, in any
· community. There are some vast new decisions, in zoning, that have
reached the United States Supreme Court and ruled upon, but Mr. Chapin
stated he has never seen one that would approach what Mr. Sanson
suggests.
Mr. Sanson stated that, in other words what he is saying
is a distinct possibility. Mr. Weekes stated he thinks distinct
possibility would be putting words in someone's mouth.
Mayor Scheifley stated he agrees with Mr. Sanson for his
long-term objectives, thoughts and goals and thinks they are admirable
but he does not think they could commit Councils twenty years from
now from rezoning property.
8.m. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 41-77,
amending Chapter 29 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances to create a
new zoning classification to be known as PRD-7 (Planned Residential)
District is~before Council for passage consideration on First Reading.
The Planning & Zoning Board at the March 1st meeting, unanimously
recommended approval of PRD-7. This was discussed at the June 1st
Workshop meeting and contains the same amendments to the ordinance as
Ordinance No. 40-77.
The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 41-77:
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 PRD-7 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT) PERMITTING SEVEN (7) RESIDEN-
TIAL UNITS TO THE ACRE AND REQUIRING A
MINIMUM OF FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL ACREAGE TO BE IN SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED UNITS, A MINIMUM OF FIFTEEN
(15) PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE TO BE
- 23 - 6/13/77
IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AND A MAXIMUM OF
THIRTY-FIVE (35) PERCENT OF TIIE TOTAL
ACREAGE TO BE IN MULTI-FAMILY UNITS;
AMENDING SECTION 29-2(C) "ESTABLISHMENT
OF ZONING DISTRICTS" TO INCLUDE THE NEW
PRD-7 DISTRICT; PROVIDING A SAVING
CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance.
The City Attorney stated if it is alright with Council,
he will make the changes from minimum to maximum in all three PRD
ordinances.
Mr. Chapin moved for passage of Ordinance No. 41-77 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. Said motion passed
.with a 5 to 0 vote.
8.n. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 42-77, amending
Chapter 29 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances to create a new zoning
classification to be known as PRD-10 (Planned Residential) District
is before Council for passage consideration on First Reading. The
Planning & Zoning Board, at the March 1st meeting, unanimously
recommended approval of PRD-10. This was discussed at the June 1st
Workshop meeting and contains the same amendments to the ordinance as
Ordinance No. 40-77.
The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 42-77:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COU~CIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 29 "ZONING" OF THE CODE OF ORDI-
NANCES OF THE CITY OF DELI~AY BEACH BY
CREATING A NEW ZONING DISTRICT TO BE
KNOWN AS PRD-10 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT) PERMITTING TEN (10) RESIDEN-
TIAL UNITS TO THE ACRE AND REQUIRING A
MINIMUM OF FORTY (40) PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL ACREAGE TO BE IN SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED UNITS, A MINIMUM OF TWENTY (20)
PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE TO BE IN
COMMON OPEN SPACE, AND A MAXIMUM OF
FORTY (40) PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE
TO BE IN MULTI-FAMILY UNITS; AMENDING
SECTION 29-2(C) "ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING
DISTRICTS" TO INCLUDE THE NEW PRD-10
DISTRICT; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance.
Mr. Chapin moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 42-77
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. Said motion passed
with a 5 to 0 vote.
Before roll call Mr. Weekes stated to the City Attorney
that he noticed in all three of the PRD ordinances, reference is made
to maintenance of the common areas by the City and asked isn't that the
same thing that Council amended earlier out of a previous ordinance.
The City Attorney stated that is the same, exact provision
and he will change it in all the ordinances to reflect what Council
had intended before and that would be the way it is on Second Reading.
- 24 - 6/13/77
283
8.o. The City Manager reported that Ordinance No. 43-77,
amending Chapter 29 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances by amending
Section 29-8 RM-15 to add a new Subsection (Q) to allow Hotels and
Motels as a conditional use; amending Section 29-10 (C) CC to add
Hotels and Motels as a conditional use and amending Section 29-17
Supplemental Regulations to add a new Subsection pertaining t~ Hotels
and Motels is before Council for passage consideration on First·
Reading. The Planning & Zoning Board, at the March 15th meeting,
unanimously recommended the amendment to Section 29-8 RM-15 and
Section 29-17 be approved. At the meeting of May 31st, the Board
unanimously recommended the amendment of Section 29-10 (C) CC. This
was discussed at the June 1st Workshop meeting.
The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 43-77:
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
AMENDING SECTION 29-8 RM-15 (MULTIPLE
FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT BY ADDING A
NEW SUBSECTION (Q) SPECIAL USES, ALLOWING
HOTELS AND MOTELS AS A CONDITIONAL USE
IN A LIMITED GEOGRAPHICAL AREA; AMENDING
SECTION 29-10 (C) CC (COMMUNITY COMMER-
CIAL) DISTRICT BY ADDING HOTELS AND .
MOTELS AS A CONDITIONAL USE; AMENDING
SECTION 29-17, SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO HOTELS AND MOTELS; PROVIDING
A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance.
Mr. Weekes moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 43-77
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. Said motion passed witk
a 5 to 0 vote.
8.p. The City Manager reported ti~at Ordinance No. 44-77,
amending Chapter 2, Article III, "Financial Advisory Board" by amending
Section 2-41 (C) to add "or Ad Valorem Taxpayers" is before Council
for passage consideration on First Reading. This was discussed at the
June 6th Workshop meeting.
The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 44-77:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE III "FINANCIAL ADVISORY
BOARD" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BY AMENDING SECTION
2-41(C) TO ADD "OR AD VALOREM TAXPAYERS";
PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance.
Mr. Sanson moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 44-77
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. Said motion passed
with a 5 to 0 vote.
9.a. The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning Board
at a meeting held on May 24th, recommended by unanimous vote that the
site plan modification request from Greensward Village (Hamlet - Phase
- 25 - 6/13/77
I) to allow a swimming pool and an addition to the club house faci-
lity be approved.
Mr. Weekes moved that Council sustain the recommendations
of the Planning & Zoning .Board, item 9.a., seconded by Mr. Randolph.
Said motion passed unanimously.
9.b. The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning Board,
at a meeting held on May 24th, recommended by unanimous vote that the
site plan modification request from Jardin Del Mar, located at the
southwest corner of the intersection of A1A and Ingraham Avenue, of
adding stairways leading from the balconies down to the patios be
approved.
The Mayor stated he did not recall this coming to work-
shop; the City Manager stated he thought it did but was not sure.
Mayor Scheifley asked Mr. Carey if these stairways would be enclosed;
he answered "no" and that the Fire'Marshall raised the question
.about whether they will be legal. ~Mr. Carey stated he never heard
what the final determination was. Mayor Scheifley suggested that
this item be tabled until everything is investigated and cleared up.
Mr. Chapin moved that Council table this site plan modi-
fication for Jardin Del Mar, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Said motion
passed unanimously.
Mr. Sanson asked that along with that development he would
like'to request the City Administration check and see whether or not
all the signs, flags, etc., with Jardin Del Mar are legal and if not
have them removed.
9.c. The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning
Board, at a meeting held on May 24th, recommended by unanimous vote
that the site plan modification request for a Dental Office Building
for Dr. Wuebbenhorst, located in Section 9-46-43 at the northwest
corner of the intersection of N. E. 8th Street and Dixie Boulevard
and zoned RM-10 ~(Multiple Family Dwelling) District be approved
subject to recommendation of the Community Appearance Board, that the
amount of asphalt parking be reduced from 20 feet to 18 feet, with
two feet of rock beds for recycling rain water. This was discussed
at the June 1st Workshop meeting.
Mr. Weekes moved that Council sustain the recommendation
of the Planning & Zoning Board with regard to site plan modification
for the dental office building for Dr. Wuebbenhorst, seconded by
Mr. Chapin. Said motion passed unanimously.
9.d. The City Manager reported that the Planning & Zoning
Board, at a meeting held on May 17th, recommended by a vote of 6 to
0 (Wallin abstaining) that the site and development plan for Martell
Arms, located in Section 9-46-43 on the west side of N. E. 8th Avenue
between N. E. 8th Street and Bond Way to allow a 50 unit Multiple _
Family Development be approved subject to compliance with the City
Engineer's memorandum of April 19th; compliance with the Director of
Public Utilities' memorandum of March 15th; and a time limitation of
18 months be set for development of the project.
This was discussed at the workshop meeting on June 1st,
at which time Council agreed to consider approval at the June 13th
Council meeting, prior to which time Council stated it wished the
developer and Mr. Jeffrey Thistle, 911 N. E. 7~h Avenue to come to
agreement regarding the developer placing a separator between the
proposed development and Mr. Thistle's property. This agreement
was to be reached prior to tonight's meeting and committed to writing.
The City Manager reported he made the request at the meeting that he
be furnished a copy of their executed agreement prior to tonight's
meeting; however, he was shown a copy of a proposed agreement by the
- 26 - 6/13/77
2S5
Planning Director that was submitted to him by the developer. That
particular agreement which was not fully executed, did not bear the
signature of Mr. Thistle. He stated that, it seemed to him, that the
written agreement proposal was not firm enough to satisfy.~ouncil,
if Council indeed does want to be insured that the developer will
install a separator that will reasonably satisfy Mr. Thistle.
At the workshop meeting, Mr. Thistle made several references
to the fact that he had been told by the City Manager's office and
the City Administration that nothing was planned at that location.
The City Manager stated he did not have his papers with him regarding
that particular point at the time but he thinks Mr. Thistle was in
error on that. The City told Mr. Thistle and his office specifically,
that reading from the CR form that was sent to him, there has been no
construction at this location and no building permits have been
issued and that Mr. Thistle had been contacted by the Building
Inspection Department. The City Manager stated that just because the
City or any particular agency of the City doesn't happen to know
about a planned action to be taken some place, does not necessarily
mean that no action is in the works or that someone is not planning
to take some action.
Mr. Sanson advised he talked with Mr. Thistle this evening
and could speak for him.
Mayor Scheifley stated if a person buys a property that
is non-conforming, he does not see why that property should inter-
fere with the rights of a man next door. As long as the man next
door is building according to the ordinances, and everything is correct,
Council has no obligation to correct an error that was made 20 to
30 years ago. When Mr. Thistle bought the property, hJ.~ lawyer or
whoever was advising him should have told him that he was only four
feet from the setback line and Council has no obligation to correct
that mistake.
Mr. Sanson stated that first of all, he understood that
the developer has agreed to try to work it ou~. Secondly, he thinks
that the Mayor is wrong to the extent that part of what he was saying
has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Council is authorized,
by law to review site plans and give approval. Along with that, there
are certain criteria that are supposed to be considered by the Council
and the Planning & Zoning Board before that approval is given.
Criteria No. 5 states "screens and buffers" - the determination of
the sufficiency of screens and buffers to preserve internal and
external harmony in compatibility with uses inside and outside for
proPosed developments are to be considered. Regardless of the fact
that Mr. Thistle presently has a non-conforming house, does not have
anything to do with whether or not Council has an obligation to see
that he can live in harmony and compatibility with the proposed
development. To stick a multiple family development of the nature
of 15 units per acre right next to him was poor planning in the past,
when that zoning was allowed; it should have had a buffer zone and
it doesn't and for that reason he sees no problem.
Mr. Martin Price, 3841 N. E.. 6th Drive, Boca Raton,
stated he has no objections to putting up a fence and would like
to do it because he feels it will enhance the betterment and value
of both properties concerned. His only objection, which he explained
to Mr. Thistle, was that he wanted the fence put up before any
construction; however, he explained to Mr. Thistle that there pro-
bably wouldn't be any construction there until~sometime next year
because he is only getting 20 sewer taps this year. Mr. Price
stated they are only allowed the three buildings and they will be
on 8th Avenue and Mr. Thistle's property is on 7th. He stated he
explained this to Mr. Thistle and he agreed that this would be no
problem; he just wants privacy to which he is entitled to.
- 27 - 6/13/77
255
Mayor Scheifley suggested approving this on the basis
that they are both men of good faith and they will work out the
problem. Mr. Sanson stated he would like to approve it contingent
with that stipulation being firmly established because Mr. Thistle
requested that because something could happen to Mr. Price and some-
one could take over the project who might not agree to it.
The City Attorney stated if Council is going to make it
part of the approval they should know what kind of fence it is going
to be, how high and how lonq it is qoinq to be. Mr. Price stated'
he is qoing to put the fence in the full length of Mr. Thistle's
property, approximately 185 feet. Upon question as to whether or
not Mr. Thistle is agreeable to a wooden fence, Mr. Price answered
"yes". Mr. Price stated he submitted a letter with the information
concerning the fence.
Mr. Chapin moved that Council sustain the report of the
Planning & Zoning Board relative to the site plan approval for
Mr. Price for the development known as Martell Arms, subject to
(1) compliance with the City Engineer's comments as stated in his
memorandum dated April 19th, (2) compliance with the Director of
Public Utilities' comments as stated in his March 15th memorandum,
(3) a time limitation of 18 months be set for the development of the
project and (4) that this approval be subject to Mr. Price's letter
directed to this City Council dated June 3rd regarding buffering
and screening of his property with that owned by Mr. Thistle, seconded
by Mr. Weekes. Said motion passed unanimously.
Before the second to the motion was made, the following
discussion waa had. Mr. Sanson stated that just so that there is no
conflict between Mr. Price and Mr. Thistle he thinks that one other
stipulation should be clarified and this is when Mr. Price has to
erect that fence. In that regard he offered the suggestion that
when construction starts within 200 feet of Mr. Thistle's property.
Mayor Scheifley asked Mr. Sanson to put his comments in
the form of a suggestion to the amendment so that he can accept it.
Mr. Sanson stated that a time limitation be established
when the screen needs to be erected and he suggests that it be when
Mr. Price starts construction within 200 feet of Mr. Thistle's pro-
perty line.
Mr. Price stated he has to put a street in there and it
will probably be within 200 feet of Mr. Thistle's property. He stated
the only reason he objects to a fence going in now is because if he
puts it in now and then when he get his grade stakes they might be
in the hole; he does not want to have to put up two fences. He
stated he explained this to Mr. Thistle and he agrees with him.
Mr. Chapin stated he was pleased that the City Manager
had provided him with all the pertinent data relating to the site
plan approval.
Mr. Randolph told Mr. Price that it is noted that One
of the stipulations that was read by Mr. Chapin was that he has 18
months for the completion of the project and asked if he plans this
as a continuous project from start to finish; Mr. Price stated the~
work will progress as fast as he can get the permits for the sewer.
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. Sanson. Said motion passed unanimously.
- 28 - 6/13/77
287
General Fund (6/08/77) ....... $645,434.43
General Fund (6/09/77) ....... 22,267.93
Water & Sewer Fund ......... 791,800.98
Utility Tax Fund .......... 6,075.85
Special Projects Fund ....... 2,853.00
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund .... 2,317.00
11. Mr. Weekes stated he was surprised to learn that the
Community Appearance Board does not tape their meetings. Since it
could be very important in the event of a law suit, he felt all
Boards should be required to keep tapes of their meetings.
Mr. Chapin stated he finds, personally, the Housing
Authority is an embarrassment to the City and something should be
done.
Mayor Scheifley asked the City Attorney if Council has
the authority to require that the Housing Authority tape their
meetings? The City Attorney stated that they are an independent
Board but Council can request them to tape their meetings.
The City Manager asked'if Council, as a matter of procedure,
wants to request that all City Boards tape their meetings and then
a standard request be sent to all Boards.
Mr. Weekes moved that Council request all its Boards to
tape their meetings, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Said mo~ion passed
unanimously.
The City Manager asked if this is 3ust for Boards and
does not apply to any of the committees; it was answered, this is
correct.
Mr. Sanson stated he thought Council might want to make
sure they set some ground rules for the next regular meeting on the
final public hearing for adoption of the Land Use Plan.
A questio~ was asked from the floor as to the length bf
time the tape~ will have to be retained and who is to keep them.
The City Attorney suggested that, for keeping them for record of
what actually transpired at the meeting, they be kept for at lease:
two years by the Board.
Mr. Weekes moved for the adjournment of the meeting,
seconded by Mr. Chapin. Said motion passed unanimously. The meeting
adjourned at 9:35 P. M.
City Clerk
The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray
Beach and that the information provided herein Us the minutes of the
meeting of said City Council for June 13, 1977 which minutes were
formally approved and adopted by the City Council on /~c,~ 7.~/~.7~ ....
City Clerk
NOTE TO READER: If the minutes that you have received are not completed
as indicated above, then this means that these are not
the official minutes of the 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- 6/13/77