Loading...
10-13-75 177 OCTOBER 13, 1975 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was held in the Council Chambers at 7:30 P.M., Monday, October 13, 1975, with Mayor James H. Scheifley presiding, and City Manager J. Eldon Mariott, City Attorney Roger Saberson, and Council members Andrew M. Gent, Grace S. Krivos, David E. Randolph, and Ron I. Sanson, IV, present. 1. The opening prayer was delivered by Rev. Semmie Taylor. 2. The pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was given. 3. The minutes of the regular meeting of September 22, 1975, were unanimously approved on motion by Mrs. Krivos and seconded by Mr. Ran- dolph. 4.a. Mr. Gent suggested the Council take action thanking Mr. Medlen for his presentation on the pool and tell him Council is not interested in having the pool in the beach area at the proposed location. Mr. Sanson requested Mr. Gent to limit his motion to the Gwynn-Kucera pro- perty. Mr. Gent moved that Council contact Mr. Medlen to inform him Council is not interested in the Gwynn-Kucera property for the pool site, seconded by Mrs. Krivos. Mayor Scheifley stated he had 210 letters and a petition in opposition to the pool location with 30 names; 3 letters were in favor of the location, all of which were desirous of selling equipment for the pool. Mr. Tom Ingersoll, Arvilla Hotel, Delray Beach, spoke on the subject, stating the County's offer to build a smaller pool should be considered. Mr. J. W. Dunbar, 50 East Road, Delray Beach, stated he agreed with Mr. Gent that no pool be built on the ocean. He stated he had 1,500 signatures on a petition and approximately 135 letters objecting to the pool being built on A-1-A. Mr. Gent restated his motion to thank Mr. Medlen for his efforts in regard to the Gwynn-Kucera pro- perty and notify him that the City of Delray Beach is not interested in having a pool on this property, seconded by Mrs. Krivos. The motion passed unanimously. 4.b. Mrs. Krivos requested that she be allowed to make several comments later in the meeting. 4.c. Mr. Sanson stated Mr. Weber had brought to his attention the fact that the City was supposed to execute a 99 year lease with the County to put parking on the Gwynn-Kucera property. Apparently this lease was never executed. The City Manager stated a formal agreement between the City and the County was never completed. He stated this would be checked. 4.d. Mr. Sanson stated he, Mr. Reid and one of his inspectors, had attended a conference on sign legislation given by the Florida'Electrical Sign Association in Hollywood, Florida. He stated he had several books on signs that might be helpful to Council. The conference stressed that ordinances must be enforceable and consistent. He requested Mr. Reid be allowed to offer full input into any ordinance considered by Council. 4.e. Mr. Sanson stated Mrs. Leonard Kline had contacted him con- cerning the required payment of tennis fees'at the City tennis courts. He requested this be discussed at workshop. 4.f. Mr. Sanson requested that Items 8.h., 8.i. and 8.j., Ordinance Numbers 47-75, 48-75 and 49-75, be added to the agenda for coDsideration at t~is meeting. He stated the ordinances had been prepared, but not placed on the agenda. Mr. Sanson further stated according to his inter- pretation of Roberts' Rules of Order, a piece of legislation could be introduced and if members desire to have it discussed at workshop, they would then move to table the item. He said if the City Manager's office had not neglected to put these items on the agenda, they would be on the agenda since any Council member has the right to place legislation on the 178 agenda. The City Manager stated his office did not neglect to put these ordinances on the agenda. He said these ordinances reached his office just prior to making the agenda. According to City policy, ordinances of this type that have not been discussed at workshop or a regular meeting automatically go to workshop. He stated he had no pre- ference as to procedure for handling the ordinances; if Council members wish to draft ordinances and have them appear on the agenda without previous discussion, he will place them on the agenda. Mayor Scheifley asked the City Attorney what the procedure was for adding or deleting items from the agenda. City Attorney Saberson stated each item should be brought up and Council should vote as to whether or not they wish to consider it. Mrs. Krivos stated it has been the policy for six years that she has been on Council that any item to be discussed by any Council member would be brought up at workshop meeting and would be discussed by all Council members. If Council desires an ordinance to be prepared, the City Attorney would be instructed to prepare it. She requested rules of procedure be established at this meeting. She suggested that every item be discussed at workshop meeting and if a majority of Council members deem it advisable, the City Attorney should then be instructed to prepare an ordinance or resolution. Mr. Gent, Mr. Randolph and Mayor Scheifley agreed with Mrs. Krivos. Mayor Scheifley stated he felt the procedure, as established, should be followed; the time of the City Attorney and staff is involved, and all ordinances should be the subject of discussion at workshop prior to appearing on the agenda. Mrs. Krivos moved the three ordinances mentioned be referred to a workshop meeting, seconded by Mr. Gent. Under discussion, Mr. Sanson stated perhaps the procedure has been followed for five years, but in the two and one-half years he has been watching the Council, he has never seen a Council member initiate a piece of legislation. He stated he had tried previously to follow established procedure by going to workshop, and it'was anywhere from four to six weeks before the item would appear on a workshop agenda and then was placed at the end of the agenda after the public and press had left. If it was a controversial item, Council brushed it aside and it was never brought up again for a formal vote. He stated if he did not receive satisfaction in obtaining a fair hearing, quickly, at a workshop meetinq~ he would continue to introduce legislation. Mrs. Krivos stated it should be made clear to the City Attorney whether he is to draft ordinances for individual Council members or at the direction of the Council as a whole in order not to waste his time, energy and money. The motion to table these items passed with ~ vote of 4 to 1, with Mr. Sanson dissenting. Mayor Scheifley obtained a consensus of Council desiring to instruct the City Attorney to prepare ordinances only after an agreement has been reached in workshop then an ordinance should be prepared. 4.g. Mayor Scheifley stated posters would be distributed announcing the State Caravan sponsored by the banks in the area would arrive in Delray Beach next Monday morning and would be open to the public Tuesday at 8:30 A.M. Council has been invited as the first visitors. The exhibit will be open through Friday, October 24th. 5.a. Mr. William J. Kerr, 180 High Point Terrace East, Delray Beach, representing the four sections of High Point, spoke concerning the traffic light that was announced by the media last December. He stated there are approximately 1,000 units in High Point and at the present time, the area is averaging about 600 cars per day. He asked when High Point residents might expect a light to be installed. The City Manager stated he could not give a date for the installation since the agreement with the County is that the City would pay for the installation of the light and the installation of the light itself would be done by the County government. They have not provided an answer as to when they will install it. The city Manager is expecting a letter from the County Engineering Office attempting to provide a date. He suggested residents of High Point also contact the County. Mayor Scheifley suggested Mr. Kerr organ- ize residents of High Point to attend the Palm Beach County Commissioners' meeting and show strong support 'for the installation of the light. 5.b. Mr. Jack Pitts, 237 Seacrest Lane, Delray Beach, asked if Item 6.c. would allow a member of the public to speak. Mayor Scheifley replied the public is invited to speak on any item. -2- 10-13-75. 179 6.a. There were no additional items to be placed on the agenda. 6.b. The City Manager stated it is recommended that the City Clerk be directed to comply with Chapter 15 of the Code of Ordinances, as applicable, to provide for abatement of 'the nuisances in violation of Chapter 15. It was determined Lots 19 and 20 of Delray Beach Shores are now owned by Mr. Glassman. The City Attorney asked Mr. Reid to show pictures of the lots to Council. He stated this property is involved in litigation with the City. The City Attorney stated he would attempt to obtain the cooperation of the County to declare these lots as nuisances because of the litigation. Mr. Reid showed Council pictures taken this morning and stated there are a considerable number of tree stumps, pieces of large trees, much debris and grading that needs to be done on the property. The tree stumps are 8 to 15 feet in diameter and could cause damage i'n the event of a hurricane. Portions of the debris could create a fire hazard. The pictures were given to the City Clerk and made a part of the record of the meeting. Mr. Gent moved to authorize the City Clerk to comply with Chapter 15 of the Code of Ordinances, seconded by Mr. Randolph, said motion passing unanimously. 6.c. The City Manager stated the term of Mr. Ken Jacobson of the Planning and Zoning Board expired on September 28, 1975. The Planning and Zoning Board at a previous meeting has considered recommendations for replacement for Mr. Jacobson. It has been recommended to Council that the names of Mr. Bill Wallace, Mr. Jack Gomery and Mr. Jeff Hill be considered. Council has considered this item at two workshop meetings and one regular meeting. Mayor Scheifley read a letter from Mr. Ken Jacobson in which he withdrew his name for consideration as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Gent moved for the appointment of Mr. Jeff Hill to the Planning and Zoning Board,~ seconded by Mrs. Krivos. Mr. Sanson stated he would support Mr. Gomery. Mr. Gent stated he felt Mr. Hill was very well qualified and he did not want to see any further retirees on the Board. Mrs. Krivos strongly commended Mr. Jacobson for his tireless service for thirty years to the City. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Gent - Yes; Mrs. Krivos - Yes; Mr. Ran- dolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - No; Mayor Scheifiey - No. The motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote. Mayor Scheifley asked the City Attorney to prepare a resolution of commendation for Mr. Jacobson and a certificate of recog- nition for service to the City. Mrs. Krivos moved to instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution acknowledging the years of continuous service by Mr. Kenneth Jacobson to the City of Delray Beach, seconded by Mr. Gent. The motion passed unanimously. 6.d. The City Manager stated Mr. Kelly E. Brown has resigned from the Board of Adjustment. His term expires on March 15, 1977. The Chair- man of the Board of Adjustment has recommended that Mr. Robert Kinkead, an alternate member, be appointed as a regular member, and that Mr. Jay Singer be appointed as an alternate member, both terms expiring March 15, 1977. Mr. Gent moved for the appointment of Mr. Robert Kinkead as a regular member of the Board of Adjustment and Mr. Jay Singer as an alter- nate member of the Board of Adjustment, both terms expiring March 15, 1977, seconded by Mr. Sanson, said motion passing unanimously. 6.e. Mayor Scheifley stated at the last Council workshop meeting, it was decided to reconstitute the Delray Beach Housing Authority. It was pointed out according to State Statute, the Board would be appointed by the Mayor with the confirmation of Council. Mayor Scheifley stated'he requested each Council member to submit 5 names as candidates for the Board. He received 15 candidates and since the names were not received until Friday afternoon, the candidates have not been contacted to deter- mine whether they would consider serving on the Board. He suggested the matter be deferred and discussed at workshop meeting next Monday night. Mr. Gent moved to'table the item for formal action uDtil October 27, 1975, seconded by Mrs. Krivos, said motion passing unanimously. 7.a. The City Manager reported this item and the fcSlowing three items are all requests for permission from the City for Solicitations approval. This item is from the Delray Beach Public Library Association requesting permission to so].icit funds from March 1st through March 14th 1976. The City's Solicitation Committee has reviewed the request and -3- 10-13-75. 180 recommends approval. Mrs. Krivos moved the Delrsy Beach Public Library Association receive permission to solicit funds from March 1 - 14, 1976, seconded by Mr. Gent, said motion passing unanimously. 7.b. The City Manager reported the American Legion Auxiliaries Nos. 65 and 188 are requesting permission from the City to solicit funds on February 27-28, 1976 and approval has been recommended by the City's Solicitation Committee. Mr. Sanson moved for approval for American Legion Auxiliarias Nos. 65 and 188 to solicit funds on February 27-28, 1976, seconded by Mr. Randolph, said motion passing unanimously. 7.c. The City Manager reported the Daughter of Zion, Seventh Day Adventist Church is requesting permission from the City to solicit funds from November 15th through November 30th, 1975,' approval of which is recommended by the City's Solicitation Committee. Mr. Gent so moved, seconded by Mr. Randolph, said motion passing unanimously. 7.d. The City Manager reported the Delray Beach Community Chest is requesting permission from the City to solicit funds from February 9th through February 23rd, 1975, approval of which is recommended by the City's Solicitation Committee. Mr. Randolph so moved, seconded by Mr. Gent, said motion passing unanimously. 7.e. City Manager Mariott reported Council informally decided at its September 29th workshop meeting to pay the electric expense for Christmas lighting on public streets during the upcoming Christmas season. Repre- sentatives from the Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce and the Merchant's Association appeared before Council to ask the City to pay the electric bill for Christmas lights. The cost is estimated to be $500.00. The funds can be taken from the Parks and Recreation Budget without any additional appropriation. Mrs. Krivos moved that the City pay the elec- tric cost for Christmas lighting on the public streets during the Christmas season in the approximate amount of $500.00, seconded by Mr. Randolph, said motion passing unanimously. 7.f. The City Manager reported a request for a gratis license has been received from Mrs. Mary S. Couhig, 161 N.E. 5th Avenue, Delray Beach. Satisfactory evidence per Section 16-4 of the City Code and Section 205.162 of the Florida Statutes having been submitted, approval is recommended. Mrs. Krivos moved the request be granted, seconded by Mr. Gent, said motion passing unanimously. 7.g. City Manager Mariott stated a request has been received for a gratis license from Mr. Johnnie B. Jones, 20 N.W. 8th Avenue, Delray Beach, for yard work. Satisfactory evidence per Section 16-4 of the City Code and Section 205.162 of the Florida Statutes having been sub- mitted, approval is recommended. Mr~ Randolph so moved, seconded by Mr. Sanson, said motion passing unanimously. 8.a. The City Manager presented Resolution No. 47-75. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA,. APPROVING INDEMNITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DELSEY BEACH AND DELRAY MALL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION. (Copy of Resolution No. 47-75 is attached to the official copy of these minutes.) The City Manager explained this would create an additional precinct (No. 174) in Delray Beach. The office of the Supervisor of Elections has requested that the City execute an indemnity agreement between the City and the Delray Mall, Inc. Mr. Randolph moved for the passage of Resolution No. 47-75, seconded by Mr. Gent. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Gent - Yes; Mrs. Krivos - Yes; Mr. Ran- dolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. -4- 10-13-75. 181 8.b. The City Manager presented Resolution No. 48-75. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION OF A CONTRACT TO FURNISH, HAUL AND SPREAD 19,000 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL AT THE SITE OF SOUTHWEST FOURTH AVENUE PARK, CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA. (Copy of Resolution No. 48-75 is attached to the official copy of these minutes.) The following bids have been received to furnish, haul and spread 19,000 cubic yards of fill at the site of Southwest Fourth Avenue Park: Bidder Bid Sam Pittman Trucking & Excavating Company $27,500 Boca Raton Jay P. Calloway 28,500 Delray Beach It is recommended that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Sam Pittman Trucking & Excavating Company, in the amount of 27,500, with financing to come from Federal Revenue Sharing Funds which have been allocated for this improvement. It was ascertained this was additional fill for the area, and possibly more fill will be required when further grading is done. Mr. Sanson moved for the passage of Resolution No. 48-75 with the award to be given to Sam Pittman Trucking & Excavating Company in the amount of $27,500, with funds to come from Federal Revenue Sharing Fund, seconded by Mr. Gent. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Gent - Yes; Mrs. Krivos - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. -5- 10-13-75. 182 8.c. At the request of the City Attorney, the following is a verbatim excerpt from the tape of the minutes of the October 13, 1975, City Council meeting held at City Hall. Mayor Scheifley: Second and final reading of Ordinance No. 41-75 relative to rezoning the vicinity of U.S. No. 1 and Linton Boulevard. City Manager: Let me ask the Clerk's office to come over and put the zylar on the screen and I'll read the caption of the ordinance while that is being done. This is Ordinance No. 41-75. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 21 AND 28, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, LYING SOUTH OF LEWIS COVE, IF EXTENDED WESTERLY, EAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, NORTH OF MCCLEARY STREET, AND WEST OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY IN RM-15 AND RM-6 MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT, AND R-1AAiSINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT, AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1972". The Planning and Zoning Board at a meeting held on July 15, 1975, recommended by unanimous vote the approval of the rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The RM-20 zoning is too intense a use adjacent to the R-1AAB. 2. Traffic generated by the RM-20 would be detrimental to the promotion of the general welfare and public safety of the City. 3. The building heights allowed under the.RM-20 zoning would have an adverse effect on adjacent properties by reducing light and air, and 4. RM-20 zoning is o~t of scale with the needs of the area and the City. This ordinance w~ passed on first readin~ at the September 8th meeting of the City Council. Now, I th~nk you can all see the map fairly well. I might just rather quickly point out what the ordi- nance would provide if passed on second and final reading. The large area that is marked A be rezoned from -- you want to slide the slide over, a little of it doesn't show, the other way just a little bit, that's fine -- the parcel marked A will be rezoned from RM-20 to RM-15. The parcel marked B with the vertical crosshatching will be rezoned from RM-20 to RM-6 and the C, diagonal crosshatched area, will be rezoned from RM-20 to R-1AA and prior to your consideration of passage of the ordinance on second and final reading, a public hearing has been scheduled to be held on the proposed ordinance at this time, and I might ask, Mr. Mayor, if the City Attorney wishes any other special action to be had at this time or any special testimony to be introduced at this time. City Attorney: Well, before we get started on the public hearing, I'll just make a few comments. I know there's a lot of people here that would like to speak to this tonight. This action of the proposed rezoning that we're discussing tonight was contemplated and was begun by the City Planning and Zoning Board in February of this year. The Planning and Zoning Board set a public hearing for April 15, 1975, at which many of the property owners involved appeared and also neighboring property owners. Many of them requested a delay at that time, feeling that they had not been adequately prepared, that they wanted further opportunity to study the matter, and possibly present site plans or other analysis to the Planning and Zoning Board. Sub- sequently, on May 28th, a workshop meeting was held by.the Planning and Zoning Board which Mr. Bradshaw, who is here tonight, did present a site plan to the Board with regards to the property of Mr. Hoffmann. I don't believe any of the other property owners act,~ally presented a site plan ~lthough Mr. Hollingsworth did come to the Planning and Zoning Board on a couple of occasions asking for interpretations of the possible selling of a portion of his site plan. He had told me at one point in time that he was going to furnish me with some case -6- 10-13-75. 183 law which he thought supported his position. To date, I have never been furnished with that and that's why the Planning and Zoning Board has not given him a definitive answer as to that yet. After the May 28th meeting, subsequently on July 15th, another public h~aring was held by the Planning and Zoning Board at which time they recommended to the City Council that this property be rezoned in accordance with Mr. Mariott's comments, and the ordinance that's before you tonight. The City's planning consultants, Candeub, Fleissig & Associates, have done a study of this property in con- junction with our Planning Department and they will open the meeting this evening with their comments at the Public Hearing if it's in. accordance with Council's wishes and then I suggest that each one of the property owners come up and give whatever comments they'd care to make at this time. That's all I have to say, Your Honor. Mayor Scheifley: All right. I'll now declare the Public Hearing open before the second and final reading of Ordinance No. 41-75 relative to the rezoning in the vicinity of U.S. No. 1 and Linton Boulevard. IS there anyone present here tonight who would like to speak in connection with this ordinance? If so, please raise your hand or - is there anyone here. Yes, sir. City Attorney: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, I suggested as a matter of pro- cedure that the City's planning firm would speak first, then any property owners that are involved specifically with the rezoning - with their property being rezoned would speak, and then any neighboring people would speak after that point. I think that would be the better procedure to follow. Mayor Scheifley: First, the Planning - City Attorney: The City's planning consultants, then the property owners who are actually involved in the rezoning and then any neighboring property owners. Mayor Scheifley: All right. Then, will the planning consultant speak first. City Attorney: This is Mr. Candeub. Mayor Scheifley: Welcome, Mr. Candeub. Please give your name and address for the purposes of the tape. We tape these and - help the typist. City Attorney: I might also state that before we start a copy of the report has been furnished to all members of the Council. Mayor Scheifley: Yes, sir. Mr. Candeub: Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Isadore Candeub and I am the President of Candeub, Fleissig & Associates, the City's planning consultants. We have turned over a report to Mr. Saberson and I think this is the report that he is referring to that has been distributed to the Council tonight. In this report, we comment on the review that we've made of the City's action in connection with this zoning and we strongly recommend it for various reasons which are contained in the report and I would like to just briefly summarize some of the comments in the report and also show some limited number of exhibits that are in the report. As was mentioned, this action is part of the City's action in changing the RM-20 zone to RM-15. Originally, you had 154 acres so zoned. This is the final section and this is 45.9 acres of what was originally the 154. The zoning remains in the same category of use i~ a apartment-develop- ment type and none of the other provisions, to my knowledge, have been changed except for the density. The use of a density of 20 units the acre is on the high side of a reasonable standard for apartment development of the type provided for in your ordinance. 15 units the acre is a much more reasonable standard of density. -7- 10-13-75. Mr. Candeub: The City has to be concerned with the neighborhood; it has to be concerned with the utilization of the site and how it will be today, tomorrow, 10 years from today as a livable site, as a quality site, as a site that takes advantage of the present trees, the topography, the scenic aspects, the overall quality of the environment, as a site that provides for a good quality of living in the buildings that are built upon it. With regard to all of these factcrs, with regard to the impact on the surrounding streets, on the use of City facilities, a lower rather than a higher standard of density, is more desirable. Under ordinary circumstances, we, as planners, would recon~end the 15 units rather than 20, except where there are certain situations; those situations would be an overwhelming demand and need for housing space, would be a possibly unique location within the City in terms of the neighborhood in which it was located, would be a land shortage where there's possible shortage of space and you want to provide for a fullest utilization at a high level of intensity of a given site, and where you've got extensive supporting facilities such as an adjacent park, schools, new sewer plants, extra capacity in your sewer system and a wide boulevard, major traffic facilities that are not being fully utilized. Now, those four conditions are conditions that we addressed ourselves to in our report. With regard to the demand for housing within the County as a whole, there is to our knowledge in the order of 10 to 15% vacancies in multi-family units. There- fore, it cannot be assumed that there is an overriding demand for housing units of this type that has to be met and that therefore you should go to a higher standard of intensity in the development of the site. With regard to the question of availability of land, here in Delray Beach, 49% of the residential areas are zoned for RM zones. Approximately half of this zoned area is presently vacant, so there is no overrriding shortage of land and, in fact, you have a very large percentage of residential area zoned for apartments by comparison with other communities. Coral Gables, for instance, has somewhat over 10% of the residential land areas zoned for apartments. North Miami, somewhat over !3~; Nap!es~ ~omewbat over 19%, so that by comparison to the 49%, roughly, that you have hare in Delray Beach, obviously, you've got an enormously large percentage zoned for apartment use. With regard to the site itself, you're basically at a triangle where you've got the waterway on the eastern side, the Linton Boulevard to be connected up to A-1-A on the southern side of the proposed reduced apartment site, and you've got U.S. 1 on the western side of your triangle with both 5 and 6 - Fifth and Sixth avenue connecting up above as you can somewhat see in that diagram, so that you've got a very important traffic intersection. You've got single-family residential on the southern and on the eastern side. You've got the major corridor of the road on the opposite side. This is, by any account, a very low density overall residential area and that triangle is very much a part of that single family district which-is its neighbors to the south and to the east. The question of finally support facilities, the major and most obvious support facility that would be affected by the development of the site is your road system. Now, when Linton Boulevard goes through to A-l-A, you will have, in combination with the fact that 5 - Fifth and Sixth avenue combined somewhat north of the site, and the fact that you will have an interchange, I believe, with 95, you will have a very important road, a very heavily trafficked road. You will have at this interchange a lot of move- ments and it will not be one where we feel there should be any ad- ditional burden other than a minimal burden placed because you'll have severe traffic congestion ensuing. (At this point, the City Clerk's office changed the tape.) ... been explained and I'll go on to a few more. City Manager: Oh, you must have a zylar. Do you have a zylar? Well, it takes a transparency to show on that. Mayor Scheifley: You could just explain them, Mr. Candeub. Can you just explain what the --- -8- 10-13-75. 185 Mr. Candeub: I'm sorry. The machine that we're accustomed to in our office uses these maps as they are. The exhibit B contained in our report shows the distribution of the RM zone relative to the site in question. The RM zone is has - is liberally distributed in virtually all parts of the City and particularly to the western portion of the City on the opposite side of 1-95 where there is an enormous amount of land relative to the size of the City available for apartment development. The exhibit C refers to another question that we reviewed in this brief report which is the question of appropriateness of commercial zoning. Route 1 has currently very substantial areas, both north and south of Atlantic Avenue and also on Atlantic Avenue, there's a substantial amount of commercial zone, and then there is the automobile row - both the shopping center and the automobile row, that is the Delray Mall and the uses further south contained in this zoning pattern. We have reviewed the frontage presently zoned. We don't have exact statistics on it excepting that there is a very substantial amount of land within the City currently zoned for commercial on Route 1 which is unutilized and there does not seem to be any need in any absolute sense for commercial zoning to be increased at this time. We feel, from the point of view of the traffic comments that I made previously that this site would be a wrong site in any event to rezone for commercial use. In Exhibit D, we show in somewhat greater detail the existing land development with regard to the site and I think that you can see better in Exhibit D than in the other ones, the degree to which this triangle of land is surrounded by single family use and the fact that Route 1 corridor separates out for practical purposes this segment of land so that it becomes part of the residential area lying between Route 1 and Route A-1-A and should be considered as part of it and therefore directly affecting it and affected by it. And a high density develop- ment of the type that was previously permitted would, in our opinion, be in conflict with the type of zoning that - and the type of land development that is presently there. Thank you. Mayor Scheifley: Any questions. I think we're all pretty familiar with this property. Mr. Sanson: I have one. Just from what you're saying, sir, could it be interpreted in a general sense, and then also a specific sense, to just this piece of property, that even RM-15 and all the density we're having - that we have at RM-15 should be considered to be rezoned on a downward level. Is that correct? Mr. Candeub: We're not - we haven't reviewed the question of rezoning the site to less than RM-15. We do feel very strongly that you have an excess of apartment zoning presently in the City and would seriously suggest some very substantial review of the amounts and reduction of it. Now, as far as reducing this site to less than 15 - as I say, we really haven't reviewed it. We think that 20 is an excessive burden on the site. We feel that the site can be developed at 15. Frankly, we would prefer - - Mayor Scheifley: Mr. Candeub, I don't think that you understood his question as I understand it. He wasn't asking about this particular piece of property - you were asking - - Mr. Sanson: No, I was saying both. Mr. Candeub: We feel that the site can be developed at a lower density so that it can be attractive and can make proper use of the qualities of the site and relate to the neighborhood. Now, this is really the extent to which we have reviewed this. But we do feel the City has considerable excess of land zoned for apartments. Mayor Scheifley: Any other questions for Mr. Candeub? City Attorney: I don't have a question. I'd just like a copy of that report to be in the record - the City's record - for the meeting and for this rezoning. -9- 10-13-75. 186 Mayor Scheifley: All right, now, we'd like to hear - thank you, sir. Are there any representatives of the property owners present who would like to speak? Yes, sir. Mr. Baner. Following the sequence ' that the City Attorney suggested, we're now listening to representa- tives of the property owners. Mr. Baner: My name is Bill Baner and I'm a real estate agent, Baner Realty, representing Harry Reigler of Slim's Radiator. Now, Slim's Radiator is located on the very northern boundary of Section A up there on the map. It would be, I believe - - Mayor Scheifley: You want to point it out, Bill, just for clarification and simplification. Mr. Baner: That's it, right there. It's a piece of property approximately !00 x 200 - it's a little bit smaller than that, ~ut for sure it's not even a half an acre. At this juncture, all I can recommend - I'll make it brief - is that there are maybe five to six parcels of land within this section A, and, of these five to six, I would say, maybe two to three are represented by one major land holder, and the balance, my parcel being amongst the balance, are smaller parcels. In fact, my particular parcel is the smallest of all of them. The reason I'm up here tonight is to only recommend that each parcel of land be judged and based upon its own particular merits as to what should be done with it, especially when it comes to a - down zoning it to a lower level. So all I can say is to please keep in mind that each parcel of land can be affected sub- stantially differently based on its particular size. Mayor Scheifley: Mr. Baner, is the land you repreSent in the City? Mr. Baner: Yes, it is. Mayor Scheifley: It is in the City? Mr. Baner: Sure is. Absolutely. He annexed to get a water line about two years ago and he went from commercial to RM-20. Mayor Scheifley: Are these other three or four small owners that you alluded to - are they-in the City? Mr. Baner: Yes. Mayor Scheifley: They're all in the City. Mr. Baner: They're in the City, too. I'm sure you'll be hearing from them. But I just wanted to go on record as far as Mr. Reigler's piece is concerned because it is only about 17 to 18,000 square feet and down zoning could severely affect this property. It already is affected drastically now. Mayor Scheifley: Mr. Baner, on your use of terms - a lot of people wouldn't agree with you that it's down zoning. It's a question of whether - you know - whether up or down. I mean, that's a moot question, whether it's Up or down. Mr. Baner: Well, I'm not going to argue that at this point. But, anyway, all I'm suggesting at this point is that please take each parcel of land under its own merits and its own considerations and go from there. Okay? Mayor Scheifley: Thank you, Mr. Baner. Is there any other representative of the property owners who'd like to be heard tonight? Yes, sir. Mr. Slinkman: Mr. Mayor, I'm Kendall Slinkman with the law firm of Farish and Farish representing Oliver Hoffmann Corporation. Mayor Scheifley: Sir, will you please spell your name for the benefit of the typist? -10- 10-13-75. Mr. Slinkman: SLINKMAN. Mayor Scheifley: Thank you. Mr. Slinkman: I think you all know where our parcel of land is located. We are the largest parcel involved in this rezoning. We have had studies made. Mr. Taft Bradshaw presented a study to the Planning and Zoning Board and also Mr. Jim Smoot is here prepared to speak on behalf of the corporation relative to this proposed rezoning. I think it's unfortunate that this proposed ordinance was drafted in such a manner as the only thing before the Council now is the - this proposed rezoning, and that, as I understand your procedure, then you can't even hear Mr. Taft Bradshaw's proposal which was made before the Planning and Zoning Board Board since that is not really relevant to this proposed rezoning. This rezoning is either this way or it's not rezoned this way, as I understand it. I would point out to the Council as I pointed out the last time that Oliver Hoffmann Corporation took this particular piece of property with the understanding that he was - that it was going to be granted a conditional use - it obtained an option - it exercised it's option after a conditional use was granted to it so that it could construct a project in accordance with the RM-20 zoning and the conditional use. For various reasons, the project did not go forward immediately; partly because of a lack of sewerage and treat- ment facilities and so forth. But I think the planners could speak to this better than I can and this proposed rezoning - I ask the Council to take a look at it and see what benefit it's going to do the City as far as my client's parcel of land because you're looking at, as far as rezoning RM-20 to RM-15 which is above the boulevard parcel that's going through there. You're talking about possibly, I sat down and figured it out with the planners, about 128 units less. You've got a proposed project, a proposed project before you is on file in your City Commission chambers, proposes a site plan with 518 units. Now, that's at the RM-20 rezoning above Linton Boulevards You re~one it ~own t© RM-!5 - you're going to be saving approximately 128 units. Now, that's something your own planner here didn't tell you. You're talking about maybe, maybe, 200, 250 people, out of a population in this town, as I understand it, of about 24,000. Now, look at the benefit that that's going to provide for the City of Delray Beach and I submit it's not very much. On the other hand, look at the detriment that it's causing my client who has expended substantial sums of money and took this property in the first place based on the understanding that it was going to go forward with this project as contemplated. Your zoner who - your planner who came in here, I believe, about 10 days ago and first took a look at this thing apparently has not done a land use plan, has not done an extensive study, and I submit that before you act on such an important thing as this that you have a proposed study - Mr. Kotulla, who's head of your Planning and Zoning Board, I believe, and - or represents them - and supposedly did a study is not here tonight to speak. I think that you ought to have someone here who has done an extensive study and speak in behalf of this thing. If you're going to rezone in accordance with this proposal, you should have a real study on it and can give you some facts. With regard to the trees and topography which this gentleman, Mr..Candeub, made reference to, I think you're going to find that if you rezone down to RM-15, you're actually going to be creating less green space because you're going to have to spread out. As far as height re- striction, the ~-20 does not have any height restriction, as I understand it, in your code, but that you do have a plan on record from Oliver Hoffmann Corporation with reference to our particular parcel of land. It talks about 8 stories. Now, RM-15 puts a limit of 7, so you're only talking about 1 story. As far as the intensity of the use of the property and the access as far as traffic arteries, as I understand it, Linton Boulevard is proposed to be six lanes going across that bridge there. And I can't think of a more perfect access for an RM-20 parcel of property. I can't think of anything more susceptible to RM-20. I understand and I realize quite well that this is the last piece of ~4-20 in the City and I realize that the City has determined that it has a desire to do away with all of -11- 10-13-75. 188 Mr. Slinkman: the RM-20s, but as I understand, the City is in the process of drawing ancw comprehensive zoning plan and I submit to Your Honor and the rest of the Council members that that is the p~oper way to do away with RM-20 if you deem it improper designation or if you don't necessarily deem R~-20 improper, but you feel that the height - some sort of a height restriction should be placed on it - I think that would be the proper way to do it. Through a comprehensive zoning plan. But not to pick out parcels of RM-20 throughout the City and rezone down. I would like Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Smoot to speak as experts on this matter because I'm not an expert and I don't claim to be, but I would like them to speak and discuss it in a little more detail with you why this is not a good use of the land'and why it does not fit your own definition of RM-15. Mayor Scheifley: Thank you, Mr. Slinkman. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in behalf of the property owners? City Attorney: Mr. Bradshaw. Mr. Bradshaw: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is - for the record, my name is Taft Bradshaw of Walter Taft Bradshaw & Associates, planners and landscape architects with offices in Ft. Lauderdale. City Attorney: Mr. Bradshaw, before you start, Mr. Slinkman has raised the question of some unique qualities of this land that it should be used for RM-20 as opposed to RM-15; that there is some unique char- acteristic that connotates an RM-20 as. opposed to an RM-15 use. I wonder if you could address yourself to that point before you begin your - the rest of your presentation. Mr. Bradshaw: Well, I'm not making a full presentation as opposed to the concept plan which we had presented. I am responding to the planner's recomme~tio~ that he just presented. I feel that I can answer that question, but I would like to see it in its total concept of how it not only applies to this property, but you're speaking now entirely of the zoning category and not just two parcels of land. I will address myself - - City Attorney: Is there or is there not a unique quality to the land that makes it RM-20 as opposed to RM-15? Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, there is. Very much so. And I'll address myself to that now if you wish. City Attorney: Yeh, I'd like to - - Mr~ Bradshaw: Okay. In order - your RM-20 is a perfectly good zoning category. It occupies, as the planner just previously acknowledged, approximately 157 total acres out of the total area of the City. RM-15 is in much - excess of that. The RM-20 was originally placed. _ into the adopted land use plan which you have now - the City planned for two purposes. One - to create a vertical density and to allow this space to be penetrated as far as air currents, movement and opening of more green space, and also for a variety of character , another character to the City as opposed to a horizontal character. Now, that is what the intent - that is what it says in your zoning categories. That's as of prior to this ordinance. Now, I feel that those - the criteria for that is still valid. They are valid for this particular piece of property for several reasons. Number 1 - Linton Boulevard, as iL is explained on - in this diagram here - this piece of demographics here - will be projecsed as according to the Department of Transportation, State of Florida has been funded, all the drawings have been completed, the contract documents have been completed, and it was funded subject to approval by the County Commission. The funding of Linton Boulevard extension bridge, the linking 1-95, has a future capacity, according to the Department of Transportation in all their studies, of 17,000 trip counts per day at the intersection of U.S. 1 and Linton Boulevard. This is -12- 10-13-75. 189 Mr. Bradshaw: the criteria in which the State designed and acquired the necessary right-of-way for the construction of this bridge. This also links into your total transportation plan, not only for the City, but as for a regional collector. Now, there's the reason - there's one of the prime reasons that it should be maintained as RM-20. The character of the site, which was an excellent point, and a point which we responded to in our studies and in previous presentations to your workshop meeting; I am very familiar with this property, have been familiar with this property, have been familiar with this property for over twenty - will soon be twenty years when it was used as a nursery site. The site was - has excellent vegeta- tion character on the site now and should be preserved. The greatest way of the preservation of that character is by vertical growth. If you go with horizontal growth on the site, as far as the type of units, you will obliterate more area of the site, so therefore, the landscape character of the site should be kept and with RM-20, you have the best vehicle for keeping that. Also, the access for Linton Boulevard, with the Department of Transportation, you are limited with your access. Now, we're speaking of Mr. Hoffmann's parcel - is A and B. Now, these two parcels have two unique characteristics. One - the large parcel is in the use of the nursery and should be used as RM-20 as I just mentioned; the parcel to the South of Linton Boulevard with the new criteria, the new road design, will lend the access and the serviceability of the area B. So therefore, by the physical constraints of not necessarily what the property is today, but what the constraints would be on it for development makes the property very narrow and limits the vertical growth - I mean, it limits the type of access to it and therefore is - should not be used in the category of RM-6. Now, RM-6 is one of your lowest forms of residential zoning. Now, I can't conceivably see where you put RM-6, which is primarily a residential use, that will primarily be catering to people with families and children, next to 17,000 trip counts a day at U.S. 1. Now, that's a very poor use of the land in my opinion. As one planner as opposed to another planner. That is my opinion based on the fact, based on the criteria and based on the information that has been generated by the Department of Transporta- tion. Secondly, I feel that it's not in keeping with the character of the land that's around it. You have a busy highway, you have commercial zoning across the street, so therefore, that zoning - that land use should be compatible with the use of this land. It's also - it will also reduce the total impact of the City by not encouraging this as a core area to the City. Atlantic Boulevard to the north cannot carry anymore traffic on its - Atlantic Boulevard. The zoning and development of Atlantic Boulevard is congested and in no way can it be expanded in - as far as acquisition of right-of-ways. So the new town, the new core in your expansion of Delray is right here. You're talking about one of those critical pieces of real estate in the City of Delray. It not only has the service capabili- ties of transportation; it also has accessability to the total community and will reduce the impact throughout the total City traffic-wise. It will also reduce the total impact of the character of the City. I believe that the character of this site will be better preserved, make a more significant contribution to the development and the character of this City by allowing it to be developed in a vertical fashion as opposed to a horizontal growth. As far as the livability of the site, you'll be able to maintain a more livable character, reduce the impact, reduce the traffic, and the outflow that's generated from the site within it. It's bound on the east by the Intracoastal at one of its widest points as it passes through the City. It is severed by the largest right-of-way that will penetrate the City and it has existing traffic configura- tions in carriers to the west, and it's compatible zoning to the north. So its physically bound and it's got the necessary support facilities to encourage the type of vertical growth which your existing code now lacks. So, in my opinion, I think it would be the opposite use of the land. This is the area which you want to encourage. You don't want to scatter your zoning in strip zoning out the Linton Boulevard - all the way out to 1-95. You want to concentrate this so that the trip count will be minimized throughout the whole City. We're just looking at one small blowup of the City -13- 10-13-75. 190 Mr. Bradshaw: right here, but if you take this into total context of the City plan, you will see that the vertical growth, the multi- ple use of the site and since the B parcel does not have access to a City street except the Linton Boulevard, and since the configura- tion and the airborne ramps that's necessary to span the river - I mean the Intracoastal - as opposed to the design criteria set by the state, you've cut this piece of land off. And to say that that intersection should be R-6 is ridiculous. I think it should be developed in a vertical growth. I think the existing pattern - the existing zoning that is on it made good sense when it was put there. I think it's good zoning now. I think it should be upheld. And I think it's a people plan. And I think that's what you need. I think that's what the City of Delray needs. I don't feel like that this is discriminatory spot zoning. If you're going to elimin- ate RM-20, well, let's go to RM-20. Let's go to RM-15. Let's go to RM-1. Let's take RM-1 and just say, hey, it'd be nice to have farms out there. All right, let's dig up some subdivisions. Let's just don't take one type of zoning, one spot, and say RM-20 won't work there. You're talking about a zoning category and not neces- sarily a density number. You're talking about a 25% reduction in one category which makes up less than 2% of the total zoned land in the City of Delray. Now, I find this completely not in keeping with the development of a good plan and what's projected for the area by the regional transportation. City Attorney: Well, I think - two points I'd like to ask you about. Two things that you seem to consider very important are the vertical development as opposed to spreading it out, and the traffic problem. The vertical problem really seems to me to be a question of the uniqueness of the ordinance as opposed'to the land, and something that could be cured by a change in k~-15. Wouldn't that be a correct statement? Mr. Bradshaw: Not necessarily. Not at all. Because I think the uniqueness of the ordinance becomes a design challenge and by using it, you are able to preserve the more open space as opposed to the RM-15o City Attorney: But if there were no vertical limitations in RM-15, then you would have the same design capability, wouldn't you? Mr. Bradshaw: You'd have the same design capability on a limited capacity. City Attorney: On the traffic - it seems to me, both from your pre- sentation tonight and the other comments I've heard you make before the Planning and Zoning Board, that this is going to be a tremendously travelled area - Route 1 and Linton Boulevard. Mr. Bradshaw: There's no doubt about that. City Attorney: It would seem to me that you would want to have a use on that property that limited the traffic as much as possible. And - wouldn't, just as a general proposition, a reduction in the density, which is what we're talking about really, result in a reduction in the traffic and the trip counts if you assume the same design plan? Mr. Bradshaw: Not necessarily at all. Because I think the trip count - that if you have, for example, if you have a residential unit here and you have to get in your car to leave that particular unit to go buy a loaf of bread, then the trip count to get out of there all the way back across to come baqk in - the trip count of that one resi- dential unit would be approximately 7 trips per day that would originate from that one particular unit. But if a portion of the site was - had dual services to it, you would never have to get into that automobile. It would reduce the impact on the rest of the City. It would also reduce the impact that would be coming up A-l-A, taking a westward direction coming into the City. Why make it more congested? -14- 10-13-75. 1§1 City Attorney: You're talking about on-site commercial as opposed - Mr. Bradshaw: I'm saying it is a solution. That a portion of it should be considered. It's not necessarily even to be construed that the whole sites A and sites B should be considered as all residential. I don't consider site B as a residential site. It should be a non-residential use which, under your past ordinance in its special exception, in the RM-6, would allow you to do. But you're saying to put residential units out here and the figures I gave on the traffic - they're the Department of Transportation's criteria - they're not figures we generated ourselves. This is the criteria that was used in funding - it's part of the documenta- tion that's on record here in the City. And I feel that this approach makes the best sense for this piece of property. Now, you can have your Levittowns and you can start spreading your density out all over and you're going to destroy the character of the City. And I think that there's about 8 sites that's left with RM-20 that you should - to ba the very opposite of the intent of this ordinance. It should be to encourage that and then reduce the density. If you're going to reduce the density in a comprehensive plan, do it on a City-wide plan, but don't start taking one little zone here and one little zone there and consider each parcel, parcel by parcel by parcel. You'll wind up with a patch quilt. Don't repeat - don't decide to make the same mistake that's being perpetua- ted all up and down U.S. 1. City Attorney: This is the last ~-20 in the City. There's not 8 parcels of RM-20 in the City. Mr. Bradshaw: No, but 8 parcels in your ordinance that would reduce from RM-20 to RM-15 involves approximately 8 parcels. City Attorney: If you have - Mayor Scheifley: i'm sorry, ~ didn't catch your address. What is your address? Mr. Bradshaw: My address is 4322 East Tradewinds Avenue, Lauderdale- by-the-Sea, Florida. Mayor Scheifley: Thank you very much. City Attorney: Mr. Bradshaw, if you have anything further you'd like to present to the Council, why don't you go ahead and do it. Mr. Slinkman made a reference to your plan. If you think that's per- tinent, why don't you bring it up before the Council? Mr. Bradshaw: Well, just for the Council's edification, and for the record, at when Mr. Hoffmann's extension, which y'all granted in the City Commission - we were employed to make a study and come up with concepts. We then presented those concepts and those studies to the workshop meetings and the Planning Department and was well received at the workshop meeting in its concept form. And then it was denied - and then it's never been had the opportunity to bring before this committee. I mean the City Council. And I think that's procedure that the Planning Department - we just did exactly what' we were asked to do. We've shown spirit of cooperation from the beginning. And we feel like that we came up with a unique plan that not only helped develop this particular area the way it should be developed and to preserve as much of the character as possible on this site, but also helped the total development of the City. Now, I realize that the City Commission here has not seen that presentation because we didn't - it was cut off before we had the opportunity to present it to you. City Attorney: Well, did Mr. Hoffmann apply for a conditional use that would invoke the hearing process - that would bring it before City Council? Mr. Bradshaw: You'll have to ask Council on that. -15- 10'13-75. City. Attorney: Did he? Mr. Sanson: What was your question, Roger? City Attorney: Whether or not Mr. Hoffmann made application for a conditional use and site plan approval, which, under our ordinance, would invoke the hearing processes and bring the actual site plan before the City Council. Mr. Slinkman: It is my understanding that Mr. Hoffmann, or Oliver Hoffmann Corporation, made an application for an extension of the already existing conditional use which was denied. They could be rather foolish to make an application for a new conditional use which would have been the exact same application as was made for the extension of the already existing conditional use. I think you are well aware that this is in litigation right now. City Attorney: What Mr. Bradshaw is saying is that he came up with a new plan, a new concept, and I asked if that new site plan has been applied through the conditional use process, and I guess the answer is no. Mr. Slinkman: We followed the procedures that was - that we were advised to follow. It was taken through the Planning and Zoning Board Commission and it was cut off at that point, and we have never had the opportunity to get it before this Council. We thought that the procedure would be for the Council to take a look at the two alternate plans. Of course, that wasn't done. They - it was cut off at the Planning and Zoning Board level and this particular rezoning was proposed and that's the only thing before this Council at this meeting. And Mr. Bradshaw's not prepared to make a pre- sentation nor am I. Because -- brought before this Council -- we couldn't get it before this Council. City Attorney: That's not true. You never applied for a conditional use and that's why it's not here and that's why it's never been here. Mr. Slinkman: We applied for an extension of the already existing conditional use which - which - - City Attorney: Which is different than this site plan. Mr. Slinkman: We got a site plan on file with this Council and it would certainly meet the requirements that you're looking for - it's talking about 8 stories as opposed to 7. You're talking about saving maybe 128 units by going to an RM-15 above Linton Boulevard here. You're talking about putting RM-6 out there on the corner of Linton Boulevard and U.S. 1, and I think if the Council wants to do that, perhaps they ought to at least set aside a little money and put up a fence for the - whoever moves in there, if they got any little kids, then maybe they'd better put a policeman there to drag them out of U.S. 1 and Linton Boulevard. That's all I have to tell you. Mayor Scheifley: Is there any - - Mr. Sanson: Mr. Bradshaw, can I just clarify one thing? Mr. Bradshaw: Sure. Mr. Sanson: Were your comments directed just for Parcel B or were you talking about everything? Mr. Bradshaw: I was talking about - Mr. Councilman, parcels A and parcel B, but I was also addressing my remarks to the RM-20, to the RM-15, as an ordinance. Mr. Sanson: Okay. But, I mean, you were - your remarks about vertical development and so forth were basically concerning also parcel A. -16- 10-13-75. 193 Mr. Bradshaw: Parcel A, that's correct. Mr. Sanson: Okay. Because what I'm just trying to understand is - I don't quite understand your reasoning because I don't see how the going down to RM-15 in any way affects your vertical development. Basically, ~4-15 and RM-20 requirements are the same for permitted uses, conditional uses, exceptions; basically they're the same floor area requirements, building setbacks, maximum ground floor building area, maximum total floor area. The only thing's that different is that you can't have two stories and you have a lower density. But I don't see how it affects, in any way, you developing that land vertically the same exact way you would have done it on RM-20. Mr. Bradshaw: You're talking about a 25% less reduction in units. Mr. Sanson: That's right. But you can still go vertical. I mean, it's no effect there. You just can't go 2 stories higher, that's all. Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, but I think the 2 stories with the configuration and the physical limits of the property, due to the accessability off of Linton Boulevard, becomes a very definitive limitation. In my opinion, that's - Mr. Sanson: Well, as I say, I don't quite understand your reasoning, but that's fine. Mayor Scheifley: Well, Mr. Sanson, I could sit here for half an hour and take as long as he did and refute every argument he gave, right down the line. I disagree with him 100% in the use of terms and what - he hasn't considered what the public wants, what the character of the town, the surveys, what we're trying to accomplish. But I listened to him, but I just don't think we should take the time here to answer each one because you can shoot down everything he says. Mr. Sanson: I was just thinking, maybe I had missed something on that argument, but - thank you, Mr. Bradshaw. Mayor Scheifley: Okay. Who else would like to speak in behalf of the private owners? Mr. Smoot: Jim Smoot, Planning and Zoning Consultant, Delray Beach. As is usually the case, you find the most difficult item on your agenda and I'm usually here. I would like to speak about what the public wanted at one time some four years ago when a resemblance to that land use plan was adopted. With due respect to Mr. Candeub and Mr. Leal, who are excellent planners and I'm sure they've done a lot of zoning codes and land use plans through- out the country. I would disagree with what Mr. Candeub has indicated. One - no comprehensive study has been done by them that the public has seen as the public saw and adopted essentially that. Now that plan hangs on a wall and shows the subject property in a medium-high classification of land use - residential. Has a zoning range of 16 to 25. As you'll recall, when the plan was originally presented by me with the Planning and Zoning Board and the people in attend- ance here and some of you in attendance at that - both those meetings, we talked about the elements in the land use plan. We talked about the commercial, the industrial, the residential, the single family and the recreation, and all those things put together make a plan. The - how they work and why they were located in certain areas. Now, refer to the 16 and 25 medium high designation. The way it was applied to the land use plan - it was applied spar- ingly. There are only 5 sites. They only constitute 154 acres. In 17 square miles of the City, I think that is rather judicious handling of that kind of a density. You'll also recall there was a density show on that plan as it contained 25 and 30. Now, the Council elected to eliminate the 30 and 25 and impose RM-20, trans- lating all those areas shown on the land use plan at greater densities into an RM-20 or RM-15 classification. The use of the medium high was placed in three specific areas - at entrances to the City, in the core area of the City and at bridge locations. -17- 10-13-75. Mr. Smoot: The old zoning map that originally enacted the land use plan has those. Two on the south - Treaty Point, Dr. Cusumano's site, the subject site - Oliver Itoffmann ownership; one downtown area of Delray Beach; and one at 8th Street. That subject probably was never zoned because it was annexed into the City on RM-15 classification - I'm speaking of Mr. Bach's property. You speak of a vertical solution and you talk about 20 versus 15 and I will offer the following. You may disagree. If you have 20 units per acre, the ability, economically, to rise above, in a vertical consideration, is easier. You can build a bigger building as it relates to a skinnier building. Your building is less costly. YOu can operate better - competitively better unit. You can't build something that is not competitive. It just simply doesn't work. And I realize that you people will say - well, economics is not our bag. Fine. But it is the primary concern of many people in this country today. Where does it come from. The site access - .if anybody in any land use plan - Mr. Candeub would be the first to admit, this as he did tonight - one of the first considerations you would have in placing multiple family at a higher density ratio - designation in any city - is where access affords the greatest degree of --- one point to another with the least amount of marginal friction and the least amount of adverse affect on adjacent pro- perties. We have U.S. 1 that is four lanes and as Mr. Bradshaw indicated, according to DOT standards, it is capable of handling it. We have the proposed Linton Boulevard bridge which was funded, but was jerked from the funding for another project. Sooner or later, it will be funded. The population that exists on this site, at 20 units per acre, will be able to gain ingress and egress to that site from either the Linton Boulevard bridge approach or U.S. 1. Linton Boulevard connects with, 3/4's of a mile to the west, 1-95, a controlled access freeway. Hopefully that will be completed, according to DOT, in April, this coming year, and communication, north and south, will be very easy, as it is becoming easier now. Linton Boulevard will provide access to the south City beach, if that'~ ever ~eve!oped, hopefully, and you may be able to walk there, as many people walk to Spanish River Park who live 'in Boca Raton. I think the vertical highrises in this community, as Mr. Gent and I am sure Mr. Scheifley, is well aware, have been handled in a very graceful, sensitive manner. Our highrises are spaced apart, they are not the Galt Ocean Mile, they're not Miami Beach, they're not Ft. Lauderdale, they're not New York City, they're Delray Beach and I think they're handled rather uniquely. And I would suggest to you that if.a vertical element were to occur on this site, it would hurt nobody. The light and the air aspect about going 13 stories in the air - upon whom would the shadow fall. How many people are going to be affected by this. On the north side, there is a mixed use -'there's county commercial, there's Harbour- side, there's the Coast Guard Station, there's a marina - and there's Slim's Radiator - a variety of mixed uses in there. And on the west, we have the Intracoastal. On the south we have a four-lane facility, and on the west, we have a four-lane facility. Single- family - where's the single family. It's either in the County at the intersection of 10th and 5th, or it's in the City above the marina, above the park. Too far distant for us to even consider what effect our buildings would have on them. Tropic Isle people are removed by 300 feet of right-of-way for Linton Boulevard bridge and by other ownerships besides their own to the first street - McCleary Street. I doubt very seriously a vertical solution would have any effect on them. The problem that I see is that we're talking about 154 acres in the City zoned muntiple, zoned RM-20. The difference, the difference between RM-20 and RM-15 on all that property is only 770 units. Multiply i-t by 2 people per unit. I'll multiply it by 2½. You wind up with what - 1500, 2000 people, over a projected population - of the total reserve area - of the total City - of 55,000. Come now. I really can't see how that's signi- ficant. Thank you. Mayor Scheifley: Thank you, Mr. Smoot. -18- 10-13-75. 195 The City Clerk's office changed the tape at this point. Mayor Scheifley: Please give your name and address for the purpose of the tape. Mr. Wilcke: My name is Ralph Wilcke, 113 N.E. 4th Avenue. Mayor Scheifley: How do you spell that? Mr. Wilcke: WILCKE. And I'm here to speak on behalf of E. Gene Moody and Daniel J. Gibson, co-owners of a 3.7 acre parcel located at designation A to be changed from RM-20 to RM-15. We would like to thank Mr. Smoot for his comments because we do agree with him wholeheartedly. We would also - a suggestion was made by the counseling planner that the property is surrounded by residential - we question that. This particular parcel was brought into the City in May of 1973 from the County. It is now bordered on the north and west by CG zoning in the County and the rest of the parcels, parcel A being Mr. Hoffmann's. We're located in a small notch right at the location where it says U.S. 1. We don't feel this is detri- mental to any of our neighbors. We were brought into the City with hopes of having sewer and water facilities, for our protection, so forth. Our tax has been increased about 33% and, unfortunately, at this date and nowhere in the foreseeable future, do we see any additional benefits derived from being in the City. We respectfully request that you consider the change of zoning and make an official objection to the change at this time. Thank you. Mayor Scheifley: Thank you, Mr. Wilcke. Are there any other representa- tives of the property owners who'd like to speak? Please come forward and give your name and address for the purpose of the tape. Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman and members of the Council, my name is Don Reid and I'm an attorney. Mayor Scheif!ey: Excuse me, Don. I didn't recognize you. Mr. Reid: My offices are at 555 South Federal Highway in Boca Raton~ I represent the owners, Mr. Sommers and Messmer, of the parcel designated on the map as parcel C. I only have a few comments to make in this particular forum, so I'll attempt to be very brief. One of the things which we would hope that the Council would weigh in its decision as it applies to my client's property is - it comes dangerously close to the time for you to determine whether you are going to adopt this or not - is that it's our understanding, at least, that the benefit to be derived to the City should be weighed against the detriment that may be visited upon the property owner. And I mean the benefit to the City as a whole. Obviously, the residents of the property immediately south of McCleary Street would benefit to the extent that they would have, instead of RM-20 across from them, R-1AA zoned property. I'd like to point out, though, in that regard, that that property was zoned for a higher density than it presently is, as I understand it, for a period of time a lot longer than there were any existent single family residential dwelling units south of McCleary Street. That is to say, if you move to the end of a runway at the airport, it's sorta hard to hear you complain about the noise of the airplanes. As it pertains to my client's specific property. At the present time, under RM-20, my client, with 3 acres of ground, could maximum develop 60 dwelling units on that location. With your proposed R-1AA zoning, he would be able, at 78 feet wide lots, to develop 12 dwelling units. From 60 to 12. In addition to that, he is going to be backed up to at least RM-6. Now, I really don't know what kind of a market there is for 78 foot frontage lots backed up to RM-6 property which then abuts a major east-west artery across the Intracoastal. I doubt that there is much. So the detriment to my particular client is severe with the type zoning that you have proposed in this particu- lar proposition. To go from 20 units - 60 units total on that tract to no more than 12, in our opinion, is a substantial detriment to the benefit that the City can possibly gain, and we would hope that the Council would, as it pertains to our property, consider not approving the ordinance before you. -19- 10-13-75. 196 Mayor Scheifley: Thank you, Mr. Reid. Are there any other representa- tives of property owners here who'd like to speak? Mr. Hollingsworth, please give your name and address for the purpose of the tape. Mr. Hollingsworth: Frederick Hollingsworth. I'm an attorney and my offices are 247 Royal Palm Way, Palm Beach. I'm here on behalf of all the interested parties as to Harbourside, the extreme north end of this. The last time I spoke in regard to this property, I was a bit more concerned than I am now because we've worked out some problems we thought we had as to unity of title. As it turned out, there're aren't going to be problems. I would point out that two of the four buildings that my clients contemplate putting on their parcel are now in existence. Certificates of occupancy, I believe, were issued on them today. They plan to go ahead and complete the entire development in accordance with the approved site plan which will give them a total of 186 units on their property. Gentlemen, you've probably heard me say this on occasion before. I've been before you so many times, but I question the wisdom of a zoning change that will make brand new buildings, and in fact, some non- existent buildings, non-conforming from the day of their birth or before it. I think that nobody benefits much from that. It makes problems for the developers as to the - perhaps as to marketability - it's at least a question that's going to have to be disposed of as to potential purchases. I think it makes problems as to - just the day to day maintenance of any project when you've got a non-conforming use situation facing you and potentially, it could be a serious problem in the future. And I don't see that the City can benefit one bit by reducing the theoretical density as to this property when the actual density is going to stay exactly the same, and the only thing that can happen is some potential annoyance, and I can't put it more strongly than that, because I can't really represent it as a serious problem, but some potential annoyance to my clients, some potential and I think needless problems as to marketing of units in these buildings, and I think we all know that people selling condominiums right now have got enough problems w~thout artificia]!y created ones, and I would just ask that the Council seriously consider whether it wouldn't be better to let the RM-20 remain in effect in this area where we know what we're faced with, we know it's going in anyway, and keep the thing legally clean and don't clutter it up unnecessarily. Thank you. Mayor Scheifley: Thank you, Mr. Hollingsworth. Is there anyone else who'd like to appear in behalf of the property owners? There being none, now I'd like to ask if there's anyone here who are in the neighborhood who have an interest in this who'd like to speak or appear. Yes, Mr. Jarvis, please come forward and give your name and address for the purpose of the tape. Mr. Jarvis: My name is, my name is Jack Jarvis, I live at 908 Cypress Drive, 908 Cypress Drive in Delray Beach. I'm here this evening as President of Tropic Isle Homeowners' Association, an association which represents the people of Tropic Isle, a subdivision which is located immediately to the south of the property under discussion. I, along with a number of our directors and a number of our residents at Tropic Isle and attended all the Planning Board and Zoning - Planning and Zoning Board meetings, including a workshop meeting relating to the proposed zoning of this property. We have heard nothing. We have heard all the arguments for and against this proposed planning and we've heard nothing tonight that's different. In our opinion, we feel unanimous that the zoning of the property under discussion as proposed by the Planning and Zoning Board is in the best interest of the people in Delray Beach and the families at Tropic Isle. For these reasons, we urge you to vote in favor of the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation. Mayor Scheifley: Thank you, Mr. ~arvis. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak on this question who has not spoken? Please come forward and give your name and address for the purpose of the tape. 10-13-75. 197 Mr. Kromer: My name is Ed Kromer. I live at 952 McCleary in Tropic Isle. I come forward with mixed emotion, as a builder- developer and as a resideDt of the area. I've listened to these arguments and presented them in the past - of traffic counts, residential use, buffer zones, of vertical density, horizontal density, etc. And I come back to the adage that many of us have in the business - if you laid all the planners end to end, you'd come to no conclusion. I say that, not degradingly, but the conclu- sion rests with you who represent the people. There's no assurance that a vertical or horizontal density. The plan that Mr. Bradshaw spoke of varies from what was shown to the residents. Mr. Smoot blithely moved us to the County from the City with no impact - depends upon where you live. Mr. Reid made the most sense that the piece of property directly across the street from me does serve - does suffer an economic hardship. It amounts to - tantamount to inverse condemnation. That's a problem that all of us in this business face. It's not with much relish, but I'm sure that whatever the Council does here - this will probably be not be the last that you hear of it. As I say, the conclusion to be reached is yours and I think that over the period of time that many of us have come and attended the workshop sessions and prior planning meetings, and zoning meetings; there has been much rhetoric, including my own, at all these meetings and you've heard all the arguments and that's what you're elected to do - to weigh them and evaluate them. Thank you. Mayor Scheifley: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? I declare the Public Hearing closed. What is your pleasure, Council? Mr. Gent: Mr. Mayor, I move for the' adoption of Ordinance No. 41-75 on second and final reading. Mr. Sanson: Second. Mayor Scheifley: Any discussion? Please call the roll. City Clerk: Mr. Gent. Mr. Gent: Yes. City Clerk: Mrs. Krivos. Mrs. Krivos: Yes. City Clerk: Mr. Randolph. Mr. Randolph: Yes. City Clerk: Mr. Sanson. Mr. Sanson: Yes. City Clerk: Mayor Scheifley. Mayor Scheifley: Yes. -21- 10-13-75. 8.d. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 42-75. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING SOUTH 58 FEET OF LOT 6 AND ALL OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 78, DELPCAY BEACH, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTHEAST 2ND STREET AND SOUTHEAST 1ST AVENUE IN "C-1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT" AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1972". (Copy of Ordinance No. 42-75 is attached to the official copy of these minutes.) The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. A sketch was shown depicting the location of the property involved. 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. There being no objections, the Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Krivos moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 42-75 on second and final reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call, Council voted as .follows: Mr. Gent - Yes; Mrs. Krivos - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.e. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 44-75. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 16-4 OF CHAPTER 16 "LICENSES" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TRANSFERRING AUTHORITY FOR GRANTING GRATIS LICENSES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. The City Manager stated Council recently authorized the City Attorney to draft this ordinance. The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Randolph moved for the passage of Ordinance No. 44-75 on first reading, seconded by Mr. Gent. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Gent - Yes; Mrs. Krivos - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mayor Scheifiey - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.f. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 45-75. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REPEALING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 22 "POLICE POWERS" OF THE CODE OF ORDI- NANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. City Manager Mariott stated Council has authorized the City Attorney to draft this ordinance. The City Manager read the caption of the ordinance. This ordinance will repeal the requirement for employee I.D. cards to be issued by the Police Department. Mr. Sanson moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 45-75, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Gent - Yes; Mrs. Krivos - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8.g. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 46-75. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, RESTRICTING THE H~URS OF PARKING ALONG STATE ROAD A-1-A BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 12:00 A.M. AND 7:00 A.M. TO ONE-HOUR PARKING BETWEEN THE CENTERLINE OF CASUARINA ROAD DECIGNATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AS SLD MP 9.328 ON THE SOUTH TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BEACH DRIVE DESIGNATED AS SLD MP 10.358 AND TO PROHIBIT DURING ALL HOURS THE PARKING OF VEHICLES BETWEEN SAID BOUNDARIES ALONG STATE ROAD A-1-A WHICH HAVE A GROSS WEIGHT OF OVER ~,000 POUNDS; PROVIDING PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF. -22- 10-13-75. 199 Mayor Scheifley questioned the time of 12:00 A.M. as the hour for restriction of parking to begin. He suggested changing the hour to 1:00 A.M., which would allow people to park across from legiti- mate places of business until 2:00 A.M. He stated this would facilitate the enforcement of the ordinance for the Police Department. Mr. Sanson agreed with this suggestion, stating it would eliminate noise and confu- sion. The City Attorney stated this was a minor change in the ordinance. The City Manager stated the ordinance could be administered with either hour in the ordinance. It was pointed out the ordinance prohibits the parking of any vehicle over 8,000 pounds, which would include campers, at any time. Mr. Gent moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 46-75 on first reading with the caption and Section 1 being amended to read "1:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M.", seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Gent - Yes; Mrs. Krivos - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.a. The City Manager stated the Planning and Zoning Board at a meeting held on September 16th, recommended by unanimous vote that the site plan for a Dental Office on the east side of Bronson Street between East Atlantic Avenue and Miramar, 65 Bronson Avenue, be approved. The site plan was reviewed by Council at the last workshop meeting at which time no objections were voiced to it. Mr. Gent moved for approval of the site plan for a dental clinic at 65 Bronson Avenue, seconded by Mr. Sanson. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Gent - Yes; Mrs. Krivos - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Sanson - Yes; Mayor Scheifley - Yes. The motion passed with a vote of 5 to 0. 10. The following Bills for Approval were approved on motion by Mr. ~ent and seconded by Mr. Randolph, with Mrs. Krivos abstaining. General Fund .............. $430,258.23 Water and Sewer Fund .......... 27,842.34 Cigarette Tax Fund ........... 6,000.00 Utility Tax Fund ............ 52,882.08 Beach Restoration Fund ......... 9,102.98 Federal Revenue Sharing Fund ...... 72,834.00 Lowson Blvd. W&S Project Fund ..... 75,000.00 Mayor Scheifley announced a workshop meeting would be held Tuesday, October 14th, at 7:00 P.M. concerning the zoning ordinance. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. City Clerk -23- 10-13-75. 200 RESOLUTION NO. 48-75. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION OF A CONTRACT 'TO FURNISH, HAUL AND SPREAD 19,000 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL AT THE SITE OF SOUTH WEST FOURTH AVENUE PARK, CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the Council, ~ting by authority of provisions of Section 78 of the City's Charter, 'ard a contract to furnish, haul and spread 19,000 cubic yards of fill at · une site of South West Fourth Avenue Park, City of Delray Beach, Florida. WHEREAS, of the two quotations requested, two quotations were submitted in the amounts of: Jay P. Calloway $28,500.00 Delray Beach, Florida Sam Pittman Trucking & Excavating Co. $27,550.00 Boca Raton, Florida WHEREAS, Arthur V. Strock & Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers for the City of Delray Beach, Florida, for developing South West Fourth Avenue Park, City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the Engineering Office of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, certifies the quoted prices to be reasonable and the City Manager recommends that the City of Delray Beach enter into a contract with Sam Pittman Trucking & Excavating Company, Boca Raton, Florida, to furnish, haul and spread 19,000 cubic yards of fill at site of South West Fourth Avenue Park, City of Delray Beach, Florida, which com- pany submitted the lowest quotation in the amount of $27,550.00 and, WHEREAS, it is the Council's opinion that the award of the contract would be in the.best interest of the CitY, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION'i. That said contract to furnish, haul and spread 19,000 cubic yards of fill at site of South West Fourth Avenue Park, City of Delray Beach, Florida, in the amount'of $27,550.00, be awarded to Sam Pittman Trucking & Excavating Company, Boca Raton, Florida. SECTION 2. That this improvement shall be funded with money from the ~ederal Revenue Sharing Fund. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this.the 13th day )f October , 1975. ATTEST: CITY CLERK 200B ORDIN32q'C~ NO. 41-7 5, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 21 AND 28, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, LYING SOUTH OF LEWIS COVE IF EXTENDED WESTERLY, EAST OF U. S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, NORTH OF MC CLEARY STREET, AND WEST OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY IN "RM-15 AND RM-6 MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT," AND "R1-AA SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT" AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1972." WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has recommended rezoning and ~,~iacing land presently zoned RM-20 Multiple Family Dwelling District in "~-15 and RM-6 Multiple Family Dwelling District," and "R1-AA Single Family ~elling District;" and, WHEREAS, the City Administration concurs in said recommendation; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, has .~etermined that such change should be made, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~LRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Tha~ the following described property in the City of ~elray Beach, Florida, is hereby rezoned4and placed in the "RM-15 Multiple ~mily Dwelling District" as defined by Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordi- nances of the City of Delray Beach, to-wit: Parcel A A parcel of land in Section 21, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, also being portions of Model Land Company's Subdivision of Section 21 accord- ing to the plat thereof recorded'in Plat Book 1, Page 128 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 21; thence run N 89°47'57"E 589.26 feet along the south line of said Section 21 to a point of intersection with the centerline of State Road No. 5 (U.S. ~1) said point also being the point of beginning. Thence continue N89°47'57"E 1976.79 feet along said south line to a point of inter- section with the centerline of the Intracoastal Waterway according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 17B of the Public Records of Palm Beach County; thence run N 1°20'38"E 1654.05 feet more or less along said center- line to a point of intersection with the easterly extension of the north line of lots 28 and 12, B]cck 2 MODEL LAND COMPANY'S SUBDIVISION of Section 21; thence run N 89°58'18"W 694.90 feet more or less along said north line of lots 28 and 12 to the northwest corner of said lot 28; thence run N 0°22'25"E 84.83 feet along the east line of Block 1 of said MODEL LAND COMPANY'S SUBDIVISION to a point; thence run N 89°58'18"W 236.90 feet to a point of intersection with said centerline of State Road No. 5; thence run S 32°02'09"W 490.60 feet more or less along said centerline to a point of intersection with the westerly extension of the north line of lots 13 and 29 of said Block 2; thence run S 89°56'38"E -2C0C 494.40 feet more or less along said westerly extension to the northwest corner of said lot 29; thence run S 0°22'25"W 331.18 feet more or less along the west line of said lot 29 to the southwest corner thereof; thence run N 89°54'50"W 493.03 feet more or less along the westerly extension of the south line of said lot 29 to a point; thence run S 0o22'45"W 331.15 feet more or less along'a line 82.62 feet east of and parallel to the west line of lot 11, Block 1 ~to a point on the westerly extension of the north line of lot 31, Block 2; thence run N 89°51'05"W 413.48 feet more or less along said westerly extension to a point of inter- section with said centerline of State Road No. 5; thence run S 32°02'09"W 595.54 feet along said centerline to a point of curvature of a curve to the left having for its elements a radius of 1910.08 feet and a central angle of 5038'27"; thence run southwesterly 188.05 feet along the arc of said curve and along said centerline to the point of beginning. Section 2. That the following described property in the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby rezoned and placed in the "RM-6 Multiple Family Dwelling District" as defined by Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordi- nances of the City of Delray Beach, to-wit: Parcel B A parcel of land in Section 28, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 28; 'thence run N89o47'57"E 589.26 feet along the north line of said Section 28 to a point of intersection with the center- line of State Road No. 5 (U.S. 1), said point also being the point of beginning; thence continue N 89o47'57"E 1308.9~ feet along said north line to a point of intersection with the southerly extension of the east line of Block 2 of MODEL LAND COMPANY'S SUBDIVISION of Section 21 according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 128 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence run S 0°49'23"E 206.19 feet along said line to a point; thence run S 88°35'44"W 934.13 feet to a point; thence run S 1°24'16"E 140.00 feet to a point;, thence run S 88°35'44"W 505.54 feet to a point of intersection with said centerline of State Road No. 5, said point also being a point on a · curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 1910.08 feet; a central angle of 11°07'51'' and a chord bearing of I~20°50'11"E thence run northeasterly 371.07 feet along the arc of said curve and along said centerline to the point of beg inn lng. Section 3. That the fol~owing' described property in the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby rezoned and placed in the "R1-AA Single Family Dwelling District" as defimed by Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordi- nances of the City of Delray Beach, to-wit: Parcel C A parcel of land in Section 28, Township 46 South, Range - 9 - Ord. No. 41-75. 200D 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, being more particular- ly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 28; thence run N 89°47'57"E 1898.22 feet along the north line of said Section 28, to a point of intersection with the southerly extension of the east line of Block 2 of MODEL LAND COMPANY'S SUBDIVISION of Section 21 according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 128 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence run S 0°49'23"E 206.19 feet along said line to the point of beginning; thence run S 88°35'44"W 934.13 feet to a point; thence run S lO24'16"E 140.00 feet to a point; thence run N 88°35'44"E 932.72 feet to a point; thence run N 0°49'23"W 140.00 feet to the point of beginning. Section 4. That the Planning Directors of said City shall, upon the effective date of this ordinance, change the Zoning Map of Delray Beach, Florida, to conform with the provisions of Sections 1, 2 and 3 hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the 13th day of October , 1975. ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading... September 8, 1975 Second Reading October 13, 1975 200E 200F ORDINANCE NO. 42"75 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING SOUTH 58 FEET OF LOT 6 AND ALL OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 78, DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE I~TTERSECTION OF SOUTHEAST 2ND STREET AND SOUTH- EAST lST AVENUE IN "C-1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT" AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1972." WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has recommended rezoning and placing land presently zoned RM-15 Multiple Family Dwelling District in "C-1 Limited Commercial District;" and, WI{EREAS, the City Administration concurs in said recommendation; and, Wq{EREAS, the City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, has determined that such change should be made, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following described proPerty in the City of Delray Beach,Florida, is hereby ~ezoned and pl=ced in the "C-1 Limited Commercial District" as defined by Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, to-wit: The South 58 feet of Lot 6, and all of Lots 7 and 8, Block 78, Delray Beach, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 3, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. This property is located at 135 SE 1st Avenue and 145 SE 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. Section 2. That the Planning Directors of said City shall, upon the effective date of this ordinance, change the Zoning Map of Delray Beach, Florida, to conform with the provisions of Section 1 hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading ~n this the 13th day of . October , 1975. ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading September 8, 1975 Second Reading October 13. 1975 2