Loading...
Res 54-96 RESOLUTION NO. 54-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE 1996 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, via Ordinance No. 82-89, the City of Delray Beach adopted the document entitled "Comprehensive Plan - Delray Beach, Florida"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the Comprehensive Plan is required to be updated periodically through the preparation of an evaluation and appraisal report and subsequent amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board, as Local Planning Agency, did prepare a report on the Comprehensive Plan entitled "1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report"; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board, as Local Planning Agency, following due public notice, held a public hearing on April 25, 1996, in accordance with the requirements of the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land DeveloI~nent Regulation Act"; and WHEREAS, after the above referenced public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Board, as Local Planning Agency, transmitted the proposed "1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report" to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review, and to the City Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, following due public notice, held a public hearing on July 9, 1996, in accordance with the requirements of the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Develoi~nent Regulation Act" to adopt the "1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOIJJ2~S: Section 1. That the document entitled "1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report" is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Delray Beach will be amended, consistent with the findings and recommendations of the "1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report", within one year of its adoption. Section 3. That this resolution shall become effective upon the date a sufficiency determination is issued by the Florida Department of Community Affairs in accordance with Chapter 163.3191, F.S. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on thins the ~h,day of July, 1996. e±tz -Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: ~ITY MANAGER SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # /OA - MEETING OF JULY 9, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. 54-96 DATE: JULY 5, 1996 This is a public hearing for Resolution 54-96 regarding adoption of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the EAR at three workshops and a public hearing. After lengthy testimony, most of which concerned permitting hotel and motel uses in the RM (Medium Density Residential) district, the Board voted 5-0 to transmit the report, with no substantive changes, to the Florida Depart- ment of Community Affairs (DCA) for review and to the City Commission for adoption. The DCA informally reviewed the report, and there were no adverse comments. The report was reviewed by the City Commission at the workshop meeting of June 11, 1996. Recommend approval of Resolution 54-96 adopting the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the Comprehensive Plan. TO: ~tAVIDT. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER FROM: DIANE DOMI OR OF PLANNING AND ZONING SUBJECT: MEETING OF JULY 9, 1996 ADOPTION OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT The action requested of the City Commission is that of adopting the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Comprehensive Plan. The EAR is a complete review and assessment of the Comprehensive Plan. It includes both accomplishments since the adoption of the Plan in 1989 and identification of issues for the City looking forward to the year 2005. The EAR contains recommendations for Plan Amendments to update the information in the Comprehensive Plan and direction to implement actions to address identified needs. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the EAR and received public comment at a total of three workshops (March 28th, April 8th and April 11th) and one public hearing (April 25th). At the public hearing, comment was received from eight people. Most comments expressed concern over the concept of allowing hotel and motel uses in the RM districts in the beach area. One person made a suggestion for the final route of the "in-town shuttle". One person also suggested that there be a separate economic element in the Comprehensive Plan, and that the Plan specifically prohibit auto dealerships west of 1-95. Under discussion, the Board Members stated that they had no problem with proceeding with a study to determine whether, and under what conditions, hotel and motel uses should be allowed in RM zoning districts. In response to questions, staff noted that the final route of the "in-town shuttle" is outside the scope of the Comprehensive Plan, but would be sensitive to neighborhood needs. Following the discussion, the Board voted 5-0 to transmit the proposed EAR, with no substantive changes, to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), for review, and to the City Commission, for adoption. City Commission Documentation Adoption of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report Page 2 During the DCA review period, staff performed a final edit of the document to correct internal consistency problems, typographical and grammatical errors, and improve the format. The final edit did not result in any substantive changes to the document approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) informally reviewed the proposed EAR. There have been no adverse comments as a result of this review. The EAR was reviewed by the Commission at the special workshop meeting of June 11, 1996. By motion, following a public hearing, adopt the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the Comprehensive Plan via Resolution No. 54-96. Attachments: · Resolution No. 54-96 · Evaluation and Appraisal Report S:\EAR\general\CCadopt2 Mixed Use Categorization: Currently, the descriptions in the FLUE of the Commercial Core, Large Scale Mixed Use, and Other Mixed Use categories do not provide the desired percentages among the mix of uses, nor do they describe the intensity/density of allowable uses. The City will need to articulate policies to ensure that the descriptions of such categories are specific as to the expected mix. Land Use MaD Amendments: There may also be Future Land Use Map amendments requested within the time frame that the E.A.R. amendments are being prepared. The City will transmit those requests as part of the E.A.R. based amendments. LU - 98 ASSOCIATION, INC. , ,:,., - '"~ ~; .... "~' ' DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 TO ~ OUR PO~T IN O~ SENTENCE, ~SDENTS OF T~ BEACH ~A ~ 100% AG~ST ~~G ~Y C~GES IN TH R.M. ~AS FROM NON- CO~O~G STATUS TO A CO~ITION~ USE~ T~ ~SIONS 2005 ASSE~LY ~ENT~D A NEED TO ~ViT~E AS ~LL AS BUND, S~L HOTELS ~ MOTELS EAST OF 1-95, ~CH AS W~TTEN, IN- CLUDES T~ BEACH ~A EAST OF T~ WATERWAY. TI-~ PLYING DEP~T- ~NT IS PROPOSING T~ POSSIBILITY OF ~DING ~D E~DING HOTELS ~D MOTELS WITHIN TF~ R.M. ZO~G DISTICTS ON A CO~ITION~ USE BASIS. T~ ~AS ON T~ BEACH THAT A~ DESIGNATED R.M. ~ NOW OPE~TING ~ER A NON-CO~O~G STATUS,~ IT WORKS. ~ S~Y WE FEEL T}~T ~ING SUCH ACH~GE IN T~ NON-CO~OI~- ~G STATUS WOULD HAVE A TREMENDIOUSLY UNFAVORABLE IMPACT ON T}~ QU~ITY OF LI~ ~ TI~ BEACH ~A THAT GAVE US OUR STATUS AS ~ ~L-~C~ CITY. THE NEIG~O~tOODS ~ ST~LE AND SHOULD BE P~SER~D. ~ILE ~ DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITtt T~ CO~RCb~ ~ITS T~T EXIST, ~ ~ STRONGLY AG~ST ~Y CHANGES T~T WOULD ~TER OR ~C~ASE T~ CO~RCI~ USE OF PROPERTY IN THE R.M. DIST~CTS ON T~ BEACH. T~ ~Y FACTOR THAT HAS ATT~CTED FAMILIES TO BUY OR BUILD HO~S T~ BEACH ~A ~S BEEN T~ M~VELOUS P~STINE BEACH ~D A ~IG~O~OOD THAT IS ~LATI~LY F~E OF CO~RCI~ISM. ~YTH~G ~'...: ~,. - '";~ .~',~ . ..~.~ - 2'~ ,, '.t{~~'~,~GES T~ LOOK ~D FEEL OF OUR QUIET SEASIDE CO--UNITY z.,?, i ~ D~S.~~Y ~EC~ V~UES ~D M~VELOUS ATMOSPHE~ -: ..... ,':-. ............ : ......... ~ A CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT ASSOCIATION, INC ' ' -' ..... P.O. BOX 375 "? '~- '"~ DELRAYBEACH, FLORIDA 33444 THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENJOYS. WE ARE PREPARED TO STAND OUR GROUND ON THIS ISSUE AND FIGHT IT EVERYSTEP OF TIlE WAY SINCE IT WOULD SER- IOSLY DAMAGE THE WAY OF LIFE THAT HAS MADE US MOVE HERE. WE MIGHT ALSO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE VISIONS 2005 ASSEMBLY USES THE WORDS "TO DEVELOP AN INTERGRATED DOWNTOWN PLAN" WHICH CERTAINLY DOESN'T MEAN TI-EE RESIDENTIAL BEACH AREA. TO CLOSE, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND REPEAT, PLEASE DON'T LET ANY ZONING CHANGES SLIP INTO DELRAY'S FUTURE THAT WILL DESTROY THE FEEL AND THE LOOKS OF OUR BEACH AI~d~A. REMEMBER THAT IN THE 1989 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT STATED AND I QUOTE D3.3 "IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING TYPE OF COMNIERC1AL DEVELOPMENT ALONG ATLANTIC AVENUE, THE ONLY OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MAY BE AT TIlE JINCTIONS OF ATLANTIC AVENUE AND OCEAN BLVD., AND IT SHALL BE LIMITED TO TOURIST, RESORT AND RESTAURANT AS OPPOSED TO ANY RETAiL, OFFICE OR CONVENIENT COMMERCIAL USES. WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE THIS!? BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS ASS'N. ............................. ' ~ ~ ~ - - ~'_ 2"~ ~ ' _,. · - ~:,.,< ............ '~ ....... ~ ACORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT TO: Delray Beach City Commissioners FROM: Lynfif'and Kathy~Stokes (1220 Southways) COPY TO: David Harden, City Manager Diane Dominguez, Director, Planning and Zoning Board of Directors, Beach Property Owners' Association RE: Proposed study regarding hotel/motel development in RM zoning included in the Coastal Management Element of the EAR final draft DATE: June 6, 1996 Many beach residents are adamantly opposed to the RM hotel proposal outlined in the Coastal Management Element of the EAR. However, we have been told by the P&Z staff that the study for this proposal will go forward regardless of whether or not it is included in the EAR. Consequently, this memorandum outlines some of the issues that we believe need to be included in the study. Other issues will undoubtedly arise as more information becomes available and the proposal is debated through the public hearings and any subsequent DCA challenge. Purpose and Intent of the R3/I hotel proposal? The goal of the proposal as outlined in the EAR is unclear. In order to evaluate the results of the study, the study must first define the goal(s) of the proposal. The possibilities that have been discussed include the following: 1. Allow existing hotels in RM to repair/improve their properties beyond the current 10% limitation for non-conforming uses in the LDRs. 2. Allow existing hotels in RM to increase their density. 3. Allow existing hotels in RM to have additional uses. 4. Create new hotel sites in RIVI with the 1.5 density ratio and ancillary uses mentioned in the EAR. 5. Some combination of the above. Comprehensive Plan In order to support the proposal outlined in the EAR, the study must explain how the proposal is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan ("Comp Plan") or must provide a rationale for changes in the Comp Plan which allow the proposal to go forward. While the following list may not be exhaustive, these are some of the issues the study must address: 1. Provide the rationale for deleting Policy D-3.3 of the Coastal Management Element which reads: In addition to the existing type of commercial development along Atlantic Avenue, the only other commercial development may be located at the junctions of Ocean Blvd and Atlantic Avenue, and shall be limited to tourist, resort or restaurant as opposed to any retail, office or convenient commercial uses. 2. Resolve the conflict between the RM hotel proposal and Objective C-3 of the Coastal Management Element that there be no change in land use intensity on the barrier island for vacant and undeveloped land? Similarly, a logical extension of Objective C-3 would prohibit changes in land use intensity when existing sites are redeveloped. 3. Describe how hotel development in the Coastal Zone can meet the concurrency requirements which apply to all parts of the City without a conflict with Objective C-3 of the Coastal Management Element which states that new development should not change the residential character, intensity or demand on infrastructure in the Coastal Zone. 4. Explain why the RM hotel proposal is not in conflict with policies in the Housing Element of the Comp Plan which prohibit the City from taking actions that contribute to the destabilization of neighborhoods? 5. If the City's objective is to increase the number of hotel units, would it be more effective to amend the Comp Plan to encourage additional hotel uses in commercial zoning? If such a policy already exists, what measurable targets have been established for the number of rooms, zoning districts and specific locations in the City? Hotel Expansion as a City Goal The EAR mentions inventory data collected for the study, which is reproduced as Exhibit 1. Based on this data and certain supplemental information regarding the Sea-Aire and Waterford Place, the following chart summarizes the number of hotel units in the City by zoning category and location: 2 Hotel Units By Zoning Category and Location ZONING WEST OF TOTAL CATEGORY BEACH ICW CITY Residential 599 84 683 40.82% 5.72% 46.56% Commercial 544 240 784 37.07% 16.35% 53.44% Residential & 1,143 324 1,467 Commercial 77.92% 22.08% 100% Source: Data from Exhibit 1, adjusted to reflect demolition of Sea-Aire (-8) and construction of Waterford Place ( + 78). Exhibit 1 and this chart raise the following issues that need to be addressed in the study: 1. Haven't the RM districts at the beach already done their fair share in meeting the City's hotel goals since they currently support 599 hotel units or 41% of Delray's total hotel units? 2. If expansion is the intent of this proposal, what is the City's planning goal for hotel units? Of these, how many will be in commercial zoning? How many will be in residential zoning? 3. In justifying any expansion goal, the study should explain how the expansion fits into the City's overall future land use plan and identify those areas of the City which need more hotel units. 4. The beach currently has 1,143 hotel units (in both residential and commercial districts), or over three-fourths of the City's hotel units. How much more can the beach support and still maintain its residential character? How many should be in residential zoning? 5. Are there any guidelines (state or national) for determining how many hotel units a residential beach area can support without jeopardizing its residential character? 6. What studies have been completed regarding how many hotel rooms the City needs? What are the results'?. Are hotels needed that are visible from 1-957 Do they need to be close to the Tennis Center and downtown? 3 7. What are the plans for hotel expansion that have been formulated by groups such as the DDA, CRA, Chamber of Commerce, Pineapple Grove, West Atlantic, and other organizations? What are their planning goals in terms of number of units and their locations? Identification of Hotel Sites In order to evaluate the impact of the proposal, the study needs to identify likely sites for hotel expansion and the impact each site or type of site would have on the surrounding neighborhood, including the following concerns: 1. Identify the amount and location of RM acreage citywide in Delray. 2. Which specific RM areas in the City are targeted for hotel/motel expansion? 3. What hotel sites are being targeted west of the Intracoastal for hotel development? What are the zoning districts? How much of the RM zoning west of 1-95 is represented by PUD developments which could not be redeveloped as hotels? 4. What sites at the beach are being specifically targeted for new hotel development? Which are vacant land? Which buildings (either current hotels or buildings currently used for other uses) are targeted for redevelopment? Which buildings are targeted for demolition and subsequent development of the raw land? 5. Are there any small hotels at the beach with historical/architectural value that need protecting? Are there any buildings which could be targeted for possible demolition to build a hotel that need historical/architectural protection? 6. In terms of the real estate market, what is the potential for lots to be assembled at the beach for new hotel sites? Conditional Uses in Residential Zoning in "Neighboring Cities" ..' The EAR suggests that the proposal may have merit because "most of the City's neighbors allow hotel/motel uses as a conditional use in RM districts." In order to properly evaluate this statement, the study needs to expand the scope of the work done to date (see Exhibit 2) to address the following issues: 1. The four cities cited in Exhibit 2 allow hotels as conditional uses in multi-family zoning districts have base densities ranging from 12 to 45 units per acre. Do these cities also allow hotels as conditional uses in multi-family zoning districts with densities as low as Delray's RM base density of 6 units per acre? 2. The survey must be expanded to include other nearby cities such as Ocean Ridge, Palm Beach, Stuart, etc. and determine whether they allow hotels as a conditional use in zoning districts similar to that of Delray's RM zoning? 4. Which cities surveyed have residential zoning comparable to Delray's RM zoning east of the Intracoastal? In other words, is their hotel expansion targeted towards parts of their cities other than the beach? 5. What studies have been completed regarding hotels and hotel units in neighboring cities? What are the results? How does the count of hotel units in other beach communities compare with Delray's - citywide? beach only? 6. Are these other cities allowing timeshares as a conditional use? Density Issues RM has a base density of 6 units per acre. Up to 12 may be approved if "the resulting development is harmonious with adjacent properties and does not adversely affect areas of environmental significance or sensitivity," pursuant to a special regulation (LDR Sec 4.4.6(1-1)(1)). The study needs to address the following questions: 1. How would the RM hotel proposal handle a developer's request for a density of 18 hotel units/acm when the finding made pursuant to the special regulation is for a density of less than 12 residential units/acre? In other words, would the maximum of 12 residential units/acre always be assumed for hotel uses? 2. During the last 5 years, how many applications for development in RM were submitted for densities which were at or close to 12 residential units/acre? How many were approved? How many of these were located east of the Intracoastal? 3. Since the ratio of 1.5 means that the density for a hotel-type development could be 18 units/acre, what will prevent a developer from building 18 efficiency apartments that are rented seasonally? What will be the permitted length of stay? It appears that in the LDRs only bed and breakfast inns limit the length of stay (see LDR Sec. 4.3.3. (Y)(4)(a)). What will be the mechanism to assure hotel units are not occupied as rental apartments? Reconcile this with ads by current non-conforming hotels that advertise apartments (see Exhibit 3). 4. What safeguards will be included in the RM hotel proposal to protect the stability of the surrounding beach neighborhoods? 5. Will the proposal establish a threshold for determining when a traffic study is required since development in the Coastal Zone must still meet the concurrency requirements even though the infrastructure in the Coastal High Hazard Zone cannot be expanded? 6. What buffers will be provided for R-I-AAA properties when the change to RM zoning occurs mid-block (such as Southways) or on the other side of a residential side street (such as Bucida)? 7. Would the hotels/motels with existing densities in excess of 1.5 ratio (i.e., a maximum of 18 hotel units/acre) remain nonconforming uses? Would they get to rebuild after a hurricane at their current densities or would they be limited to a maximum of 18 hotel units/acre? Non-Conforming Uses 1. If the intent is to "do away" with non-conforming hotel uses in RM, explain why under the RM hotel proposal a vast majority of the existing hotels in RM would exceed the proposed maximum density of 18 units per acre? 2. What effect, if any, would the RM proposal have on the existing non-conforming hotel uses in residential zoning districts other than RM (i.e., the Hampton Apartments in R-l- AA and La France Hotel in R-l-A). 3. Some of the non-conforming uses in RM are not hotel uses. For example, the Seagate Club operates a private club in addition to the hotel; the Delray Beach Club is a private club; and the Colony Cabana Club is a hotel facility for a hotel in the CBD but also operates as a private cabana club. How will this proposal address these other non- conforming uses? 4. If the goal of this RM hotel proposal is to permit the existing hotels to repair their properties more extensively, the study should evaluate whether it would be more efficient to address the problem by amending the LDRs for non-conforming uses. Potential for Another Zoning Category ..' Based on the density of the existing hotels in RM zoning at the beach (see Exhibit 1), two-thirds of the hotels exceed the proposed maximum hotel unit density of 18 units/acre. The densities of the existing hotels are as high as 41.2 units per acre. Since 16 of the 23 hotels (the total excludes the Sea-Aire) would remain non-conforming uses under this proposal, one suggestion for handling these properties has been to create a separate zoning category for them. However, the creation of a separate zoning category raises the 6 following issues for the study: 1. Since the beach neighborhoods are identified as "stable" on the Residential Neighborhood Categorization Map, explain why the creation of a separate zoning category for existing hotels which are non-conforming uses in RM would not be in conflict with Policy A-1.4 of the Housing Element which reads: That these neighborhoods be identified as "stable residential" on the Housing Map, that the most restrictive residential zoning district which is applicable is affixed on the zoning map, and that requests for rezoning to a different zone designation, other than Community Facilities and Open Space be denied," and LDR Sec. 3.3.2(A), "That a rezoning to other than CF within stable residential area shall be denied.' 2. The 16 existing hotels whose density would exceed the 18 hotel units/acre are sprinkled throughout the beach (see Exhibit 4), and any effort to provide a separate zoning category for them would be tantamount to spot zoning. 3. If a new zoning category is created, can the 7 hotels which would be conforming under the RM hotel proposal apply for rezoning to the new category and thereby obtain a higher density? 4. If a new zoning category is designed to accommodate the maximum density of the existing properties which is 41.2 units/acre, can the existing hotels with less than 41.2 units/acre be expanded to that density? 5. If a new zoning category is created to accommodate the existing properties, how will the City handle applications for rezoning of properties not currently used as hotels into this category? 6. Would the new zoning category contain the same ancillary uses envisioned by the RM hotel proposal? Expansion of Uses The recommendations for ancillary uses as described in the EAR raise the following issues: 1. What would be the enforcement mechanism "to limit food and bar service to a scale that would serve only hotel guests"? Could guests of guests be served? 2. Which meals could be served? Would breakfast be the only meal served since the EAR states the hotel facilities would be operating with impacts similar to a bed and breakfast? Would a facility such as the Seagate be non-conforming based on its food and bar service? 3. Would the bar service be limited to complimentary drinks since the sale of alcoholic beverages as an accessory use is limited to chartered private clubs and golf courses (LDR Sec. 4.3.3(V)(2))? 4. Would an existing hotel which would remain non-conforming because its density exceeded 18 units/acre be allowed to add the proposed RM hotel ancillary uses? 5. The recommendations regarding ancillary facilities are to prohibit meeting rooms and conference facilities. Would existing hotels with these facilities remain non-conforming? Timeshares A number of the properties which would be effected by the RM hotel proposal are timeshares. The study should address the following issues: 1. Where are timeshares currently allowed in the LDRs? 2. Will this proposal result in timeshares being made a conditional use? If so, will timeshare conversions of existing hotels or other RM properties be allowed? 3. According to the DCA, the trend in Florida is not to permit timeshares because of ownership issues and the difficulty of placing liens. What is the rationale for legitimizing them in the RM zoning district? 4. If timeshares are allowed in residential zoning, would there be potential for timeshares to then be allowed in commercial zoning? Reconciling with Current Provisions in the LDRs Any LDRs which result from the adoption of the RM hotel proposal must be consistent with other aspects of the City's LDRs. This raises the following issues: 1. What other zoning districts allow hotels, motels, residence inns, timeshares, and bed and breakfasts? Are they permitted or conditional uses in those districts? Are there any applicable special regulations for those districts? 8 2. Reconcile applicable special requirements in LDR Sec. 4.3.3. with the RM hotel proposal. For example: a. Hotels and Motels (LDR Sec. 4.3.3.(M)): - Uses include lounges, limo service and car rental b. Residence Inns (LDR Sec. 4.3.3.(X)): - Must be located with frontage or access from at least one arterial or collector street Must be located in proximity to office, industrial and business uses Shall be used as a transitional or buffer area between residential uses and office uses Minimum floor area of 500 sq. ft Maximum density of 20 units/acre Can have meeting rooms Meeting catering and complimentary room service may be provided c. Bed & Breakfast Inns (LDR Sec. 4.3.3.(Y)): - Geared to historic properties - No cooking or food storage facilities in any rental room - Breakfast only for paying guests and their guests - Length of stay regulations 2. Reconcile these definitions in the LDRs with the RM hotel proposal: a. Hotel - no provision may be made for cooking in any individual room. b. Efficiency - located in a multiple family dwelling and which consists of combined sleeping and living facilities for occupancy by permanent residents (emphasis added). c. Motel - no provision may be made for cooking in any individual room, but motels may have one (1) or more dining rooms, restaurants or cafes as accessory uses. e. Resort - a building or group of buildings in which any combination of rooms or complete dwelling units are available for habitation on a rental or ownership basis (emphasis added). 3. How will the RM proposal handle the square footage minimums for the following: Hotel or motel (i.e., sleeping room) - 325 sq.ft Residence inn (i.e., suite) - 500 sq.ft. Efficiency or studio apartment - 400 sq.ft. 9 Real Estate Tax Issues At the P&Z workshop where the board sat as the Land Planning Agency and discussed the Coastal Management portion of the EAR, one rationale for the adoption of the RM hotel proposal was that it would support the tax base in the CBD by increasing the number of visitors available to patronize downtown businesses. This argument cannot be evaluated unless the following information is gathered: 1. What percentage of the CBD's existing customer base is made up of hotel guests? 2. What is the relative contribution of each of the following property types to the City's tax base: a. CBD b. Beach single family residential c. Beach multi-family residential d. Beach non-conforming uses 3. What has been the trend for total valuation in each category in Item 2 above over the last 5 years? 4. Have those cities which permit hotels as a conditional use in residential zoning districts with densities comparable to Delray's RM zoning seen an increase in CBD tax valuations as a result of the change? 5. Have those cities which permit hotels as a conditional use in residential zoning districts with densities comparable to Delray's RM zoning seen a decrease in the tax valuations of residential properties in those districts as a result of the change? Attachments (4) 10 EXHIBIT I iow EXHIBIT 2 Hotels and.Motels :;!n:R . ~d, ,.Btl.a!:~,',ZQ~.lng Districts "~,~., .~.~.'~,ec~":a Eocal G'°V~:~'~ts:':::"~::" '::' July 1995 ;;!::,ii~:~ :::::::::::::::::::::: ..::.: :.:.i::: ' ' t Boca Raton R4 i Conditional 15/acre No limit R-5 I..Conditional 20/acre 30/acre R-5A Conditional 20/acre 30/acre Deerfield Beach RM-25 Conditional 25 d.u./acre 38 d.u./acre Pompano Beach MF-12 Special Ex. 12 d.u./acre 24 d.u./acre MF-20 Special Ex. 20 d.u./acre 40 d.u./acre MF-30 Special Ex. 30 d.u./acre 60 d.u./acre MF-45 Special Ex. 45 d.u./acre 90 d.u./acre Lake Worth MF-20 Conditional 20/acre 40/acre MF-30 Conditional 30/acre 40/acre , MF-40 Conditional 40/acre 40/acre Boynton Beach I None n/a n/a n/a Palm Bch. Gdns. I None n/a n/a n/a West Palm Beach t None n/a n/a n/a Palm Beach Cry." None n/a N/A n/a 'Noto: PBC, Boca, and, Jupi .~J~rr~zi~Bed and Breakfasts in some residential districts EXHIBIT 3 S£A A~L V~L,.~S GROVE CON00MINIUM RENTAL APARTMENTS~ WALK TO BEACH OPEN YEAR ROUND ~ FURNISHED STUDIOS · 1 & 2 BEDROOM Da,~r · Weekly . Mommy APARTMENTS Open Year RounO EFFICIENCIES, SI,UOIO APTS Dady . Weekly I & 2 8EOROOM APTS Monthly . Seasonal HeateU Pool , Color Tv . Cable · HeateO Pool A,r Cond,t,onecl . Heat · A~r Condlt~oneO MalO Serwce · Cable/Color TV's SEASONAL. RATES ' ~o ~.',~,','~,, A· o,,, u¢. .............. 276-772~ SEA AIR[ VILLAS , I: S ', ~,ean ~IIvO Uc- 6(r, 276- 749 I SEABREEZE OF OELRAY BEACH Sea Breeze Kesorr Sy 7'he Ocean & Surrounded By 8eauh/ul l'cop,ca/ LUXURIOUS STUDIOS ! 8, 2 BEDROOM APTS · ltea~e<~ Pool · Colo¢ CaOle TV ON-THE-OCEAN .............. ~ ...... A limeshara Resort /Rantals & Resales .... AIR CONDITIONED FURNISHED APTS. Private Beach, Heated Pool' Cabanas, Cable TV . Putting Green, Shuffleboard 272-11 OD 1775 $. Ocean Blvd.- Oolray Beach Linton Bird & A-1-A ~.~ ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As required by Chapter 163.3191 of the Florida Statutes, the City of Delray Beach is preparing to adopt an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and submit it to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The EAR is an assessment and evaluation of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The City Commission will hold a Public Hearing on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report and its adoption by Resolution No. 54-96 on TUESDAY, JULY 9, .1996 AT 7:00 P.M. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting and/or provide written or verbal comments on the EAR. Written comments may be sent to the Planning and Zoning Department, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444. A draft of the proposed report is on file in the Planning and Zoning Department and the City Clerk's Office and is available to the public for review. The back-up data and analysis is available in the Planning and Zoning Department. Further information concerning the EAR can be obtained from the Planning and Zoning Department, City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray. Beach, Florida 33444 or by calling 561/243-7040 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this hearing, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Pursuant to F.S. 286.0105. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Alison MacGregor Harty PUBLISH: July 1, 1996 City Clerk The News Boca Raton~Delray Beach Ad #717827 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA EVALUATIQN AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As required by Chapter 163.3191 of the Florida Statutes, the City of Delray Beach is preparing to adopt an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and su~t it to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The EAR is an assessment and evaluation of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The City Commission will hold a Public Hearing on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report and its adoption by Resolution No. 54-96 on TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1996, AT 7:00 P.M. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting and/or provide written or verbal comments on the EAR. Written comments may be sent to the Planning and Zoning Department, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444. A draft of the proposed report in on file in the Planning and Zoning Department and the City Clerk's Office and is available to the public for review. The back-up data and analysis is available in the Planning and Zoning Department. Further information concerning the EAR can be obtained from the Planning and Zoning Department, City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 or by calling 561/243-7040 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City commission with respect to any matter considered at this hearing, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Pursuant to F.S. 286.0105. PUBLISH: The News CITY OF DELRAY BEACH July 1, 1996 Alison MacGregor Harty City Clerk *************************************************************************** Instructions to Newspaper: This is to be a one-quarter (1/4) page ad, with the headline [NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN] to be in a type no smaller than 18 point. The ad is not to be placed in the legal/classified section. Thank you. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the City of Delray Beach is preparing to adopt and submit an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Comprehensive Plan to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The EAR is an assessment and evaluation of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The City Commission will conduct a Public Hearing on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (Resolution No 96-. ...... ) on TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1996, AT 7:00 P.M. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall, 100 N. W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. All interested parties are invited to attend this meeting and/or provide written or verbal comments on the EAR. Written comments may be sent to the Planning and Zoning Department 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444. A draft of the proposed report is on file in the office of the City Clerk and in the Planning and Zoning Department and is available to the public for review and comment. The back-up data and analysis is available in the Planning and Zoning Department. Further information concerning the EAR can be obtained from the Planning and Zoning Department, City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 or by calling 407/243-7040, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need a record of the proceedings, and for this purpose such person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record pursuant to F.S. 286.0105. Published: Delray News CITY OF DELRAY BEACH July 1, 1996 Alison MacGregor Harty City Clerk Instruction~ to the Newspaper: This ad is not to be placed in the legal ads/classified section of the newspaper. The ad shall be 1/4 page. The entire headline [CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA/ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING/EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN] must be an 18 point bold headline. Thank you.