Loading...
08-23-49 AUGUST 23RD, 1949 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Delray Beach was held in the Council Chambers at 7:30 p. r~. with }layor J. L. Saunders in the Chair, and City Attorney _John }loore, City Manager Charles E. Olack, and the follo~¢ing Co,mcilmen present: John N. Kabler and Walter a. goth, a quorum bein~ present. }ir. John Thieme, representing the Contractor's Association, addressed the Council, submitting a form of Ordinance which had been prepared by a 0ommittee from this aSsociation to control the licens- ing of building contractors, and superintendents of buildings of certain sizes, so that only competent men will handle such work. Ile explained that the Committee had studied Ordinances from nearby towns, and felt that this proposed Ordinance would be o~ benefit to Delray Beach, and would improve building conditions, so that all buildings will be constructed by responsible people. }Ir. Thieme asked that the Council, or the City Attorney go over the essential parts of the proposed Ordinance with their Committee at a later meeting. City attorney }loore agreed to send a copy of the 0r~dinance to each member of the Council for study, and a special meeting was scheduled to be held Tuesday, August 30th, at 7:30 p. m. to go over the Ordinance with the Contractor's Association Committee . }Ir. ~Iack ]{ellons, proprietor of Dress Shops in Ft. Lauderdale and Pompano, appeared before the Council, requesting an occupational license to solicit business in the colored section only, deliveries to be made from Pompano. He filed two letters of reference as re- quired. The license was approved, upon payment of fee of ~ 125.00 per year, as required by the License Ordinance. Dr. Y. C. Williams o~ ~est Palm Beach, again appeared be~ore the Council with reference to the construction of the contemplated bridge over the I~tracoastal Canal at Atlantic Avenue. He produced a letter from the U. S. Army Engineers stating that they had no re- quirements as to the height of a bridge except that when the bridge is closed it must be 5' above the high water level. It may be built as much higher as the owner desires. City Attorney Soore advised Dr. ](illiams that he had contac(ed J. }~. Boyd, County Engineer, who explained to him that by building a four lane bridge, and a longer bridge, the girders must be much larger and much heavier, therefore it must be built higher to keep. machinery out of the water at high tide. This explains why the new bridge must be raised, as planned. Dr. Williams agreed with this inf,,rmation, but c~ntended that the bridge could be built for two lanes of traffic instead of fo,~r, and c~uld then be built 3' lower and not destroy his, and other, property, as well as the beauty of Atlantic avenue. He asked the Council to have the bridge lowered by making it a two lane bridge, in consideration for taxpayers of the City and property owners along Atlantic Avenue. lie stated that the floodin~ of atlantic avenue was due to lack of drainage, but there was no reason for raisin~ the Street, that more bridges are needed and not hi~her ones, in his opinion. AUGUST 23~D, 1949 Councilman Kabler stated that he believed the height of the bridge had been held to a minimum to provide safety. As far as reducing the width of the bridge to a two lane bridge, he would not agree to that, in fairness to the future development of the Uity. tie stated that Dr. Williams could recover damages for the loss of any of his property through the Courts. Councilmen i~oth and Saunders were of this same opinion, an~] no action was taken on the request. In a motion by Councilman Kabler, seconded by Councilman Roth, and unanimously carried, a request for a Special Permit, filed by A. George, to build an addition on the rear of existing ~,~ilding located on Lot 3, Block 93, 38' south of and adjoining this build- lng, was referred to the Zonin;~ Board at a special meeting, for recommendation back to the Council. The existing building and the plans for this addition do not conform to set-back requiremonts on side streets in business areas. Proposed amendments to the Build:lng Gode, as prepared by the Code Committee, were presented by the City Manager, as follows: "23 '~ugust, 1949 The City Council Delray Beach, Florida Gentlement: lle submit herewith for your approval certain proposed amendments and supplements to the existin~ City Buildin~ and Plumbing 6odes. Buildin~ Code Committee, (Signed) Kenneth Jacobson, Cha i rman Kenneth Jacobssn, A~'c[:itec t F. J. Schrader, Building Insp. .... ,..,..,..,..,...., ..... ,. ;:~ :'~ ::~ ::~ ;:.*:. ::~.,. ............ .,..,. -,- ::~ ::~ :'.. ::.' * Robert F. ~lake, Architect ;',~ :~.: ::;, .~i~.: ~ ..................... R. C. Lawson, Contractor .,..,.., ..... ,..,. -,..,..,..,..,..,. * .~ :,,~ :,,~ .~,,~ :',~ .. :',~ :~ * * :',~ Fred Beever, Plumbing, Contr. R. C. Keen, Electrical Contr. John Gregory, Fire Chief ,~UGUgT 23P~D, 1949 "PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING CODE Delray Beach, Florida 22 August 1949 MINIMUM Compressive strength: REQUIRE- The average compressive strength of concret block ME~TS units laid up in the wall shall be 600 lb, per square inch' of gross area. Absorbsion: Concrete block exposed to weather shall have a maximum absorbsion of 15 lbs. of water per cubic foot of concrete. ALLOWABLE Compression: UNIT STi(ESSES In concrete block walls and piers subject to IN ~L~SONtIY axial loads the average unit compressive stress shall n~t exceed 100 lbs. per sq. in for lime-cement mortar 150 lbs. per sq. in. for cement mortar Shear: The unit shear in concrete .block masonry shall not exceed one-tenth (1/10) the allow- able unit compresive stress. Bearing: The unit bearinl; stress in concrete block masonary supporting beams, colums, and other concentrations, and the maximum stress in masonry walls and piers, includin~ stress due to calculated bending and eccentric loading, shall not exceed by more than twen- ty-five (25) percent, the allowable average stress given in this Section. Concentrations: In concrete block walls, reinforced concrete supporting members shall be pro- vided under all load concentrations, which when calculated over a length of wall not ~bre than the actual bearing or more than twice the wall thJckre?~ ~.t~d comb~n~-d ,.zfth other loads would otherwise exceed the all- owable compressive stresses of this Section. Thickness: Concrete block walls shall have a least thickness as specified elsewhe,-e in this Section. The minimum thickness for masonry bearing walls shall be eight (~) inches and for masonry .piers shall be not less than one-tenth (1/10) of the uns,~pDorted height. MASONRY Load bearing masonry arches in wall or floor construct- ~CI{ES ion shall not be permitted except with the special per- mission of the Building Inspector and then shall be subject to such requirements as he may prescribe. /~UGU.~T 23~D, 1949 REINFOi{CED Such types of reinforced lintel and pier block construct- ~ASONi{Y ion as have been acre?ted by the City may he pe~mitted in lieu of the poured horizontal and. vertical reinforcement specified in this section, but its use shall be limited to one-story residential constr~,.ction, conforming with the general spacing requiroments noted below, and s~bject to such fnrther restrictions as the Building Inspector may require. Other reinforced unit masonry shall not be allowed except with the special permission of the BuildJnZ Inspector. SECOND- Second-hand brick, stone, block and other masonry units IiAND shall not be used in m~sonry unless they conform to the M~SONiiY requirements of this Code, are sound and clean, and NAT~{IALS approved for use by the Building Inspector. EXTEH IOl{ General: ~{~LS, LOAD- Masonry walls constructed of solid or hollow units BEA[IING AND or of poured concrete and used for all exterior and FIRE WALLS load-bearing or fire-separation purposes, shall com- ply wit~ the requirements of this section, shall have a minimum thickness o~ eight (8) inches and shall be reinforced with a reinforced concrete frame- work in the wall so that there shall be not more than eighteen (18) times the wall thickness between any two horizontal members nor more than twenty- two (22) times the wall thickness between any two vertical members. No roof or other members shall be so placed as to develop an'ydirect th~st against walls. Restrictions: Load-bearing masonry walls shall not exceed a total height above grade of forty (40) feet, exclusive of parapet walls, and such wails which are forty (40) feet or less in height shall be considered as load-bearing unless specifically designed and con- strutted as part of a skeleton frame. Reinforced Concrete Framework: Ilorizontal Members: IIorizontal reinforced concrete members, as part of the framework required in this Section, shall be located at each floor and roof level and at such intermediate levels as may be re- quired to comply with the maximum spacing of eight- een (18) times the wall thickness. Such members shall be continuous in all exterior load~bearin~ and fire-~alls and shall comply ~ith the require- merits below as to minimum dimensions, areas and reinforcing. The reinforcing shall be divided to four (4) bars and shall be located in the corners two (2) inches from each face. Reinforcing bars shall be securely held in place by apnroved suspen- sion wires. S~lices shall not be le~s ~an forty (40) diameters. Changes in the level of horizontal members, with- in the allowed limits, shall be made at' vertical members and no inclined member shall be considered as replacing a horizontal one. Vertical Members: In onemstory concrete block residential con- struction, w!lere the total wall height does not exceed l0 feet between the top o£ the faotin~ and the bo*tom of the.tie beam, the distance between vertical reinforced concrete members may be in- crea. sed to thirty (30) times the wall thickness, except at points of concentrated loads as provided above, and except that 8" x 12" poured jambs shall be required for all openings wider than 61 feet, and for all corner openings. Building walls which have a height exceeding ten (10) feet shall have vertical reinforced concrete members at such points as may be necessary to comply with the maximum spacing of twenty-two (22) times the wall thick- ness. In all cases where corner openings are used without corner support, vertical members shall be provided adjacent to each such opening jamb. Such members shall be continuous from the found- ation through the full height of the wall exclusive of any parapet wall and they shall conform in dimensions, area and reinforcing to the requirements below. The reinforcing shall be divided to not less than four (4) bars for wall colums, all of the bars in one (1) colum to be uniform in size and to be located at the corners two (2) inches from each face. Reinforcing bars shall be bel(l in place by not less than one-fourth (1/4) inch hoops spaced not over two (2) feet. Splices shall be not less than twenty-four (24) diameters and all such members shall be dowelled to the foundations with a number and area of dowels at least equal to the reinforcing req~ir- ed for the colum. ~4hen necessary, such vertical members may be offset at horizontal members to avoid openings, but the minimum spacing shall noi be e~6eeded'~nor shall any such offset member be located over an opening, in a load-bearing wall below. Exceptions: Bonded corner block construction, or a~proved corner pipe colums continuous from footing to tie beam, will be accepted as required vertical reinforcing. Sixes of Nembers~ Horizontal and vertical me,bets of the frame- work shall at least comply with the requirements of the following table: REINFORCED CONCRETE FRA~IE~¢ORK Total Wall Horizontal }lembers Vertical }iembers Ileight }linimum Maximum ~laximum Nin~mu]fi'~':~}lin. Min. Exclusive Oimen- Cross ~ein- Dimen- Cross Rein- of Parpet sion Area forcing sion Area forcing (inches) (sq.in.) (sq.in) (inches)(Sq.in)(Sfi.in.) ~imum 8 96 0.98 8 96' '1.0 Up to 20' 8 96 ~.98 8 96 1.0 Over 20' 8 128 1.2 8 144 1.2 /tUgU~T 23Itl), 1949 Ilorizontal members shall be considered adequate to support normal loads over wall ocenings not exceeding 6{ Feet, and corner openings not exceeding 4 Ft. provided that the top steel reinforcing area in cantilevered corner members shall be a minimum of 0.50 sq. in. Where openings greater than above mentioned are to be used, 'the horizontal member shall be investigated as a beam. Where, For architoct~,~ral reasons or otherwise, it is de- sirable to reduce the area of any member of the framework below the req,tire~-ents, the Building Inspector may grant such reduction, provided that the area of concrete omitted shall be replaced by reinforcing or structural steel in the ration 1: (n-l). Piers: When openings in walls are so arr::nged as to leave sec- tions of wall which are less titan two (2) times the wall thickness, such sections shall be of reinforced conceete, constructed as req.~ired for vertical members. Chases: The maximum allowable depth for pipe chases in concrete block walls shall be one inch (1"). Wall Additions: lCnere new walls are connected to existing walls, such connections shall be by means o£ a vertical reinforced concrete member. Proper provisions shall be made For possible settlement and For latop;~l at:;d~ility of the wall. PANEL Exterior concrete'block panel walls in buildings of skeleton WALLS frame construction shall not exceed eighteen (1S) times the wall thickness in height nor thirty (30) times the wall thickness in length, and shall be bonded to the frame members by one inch (1") deep by three inch (3") mortar kegs provided in these members or by two one-quarter inch (1~4") dowels every thir'd course. PARPET Masonry parpet walls shall be not less than eifht (8) inches WALLS thick and if over 36" above the tie beam, shall be reinforced with vertical reinforced concrete members as required For building walls w%ich are less than twenty(20) Feet high as spoc- tried in this Section and shall be coped with a reinforced con- crete member not less than thirty-two (32) square inches in cross-sectional area, which coping shall be reinforced with not less than two (2) one-half ({) inch round bars placed at'the mid-height and two (2) inches From each side. The reinforcing of the vertical members shall be well anchored in the coping. GABLE Gable Walls, which have an area in excess of Fifty square feet WALLS shall have inclined members at the top of 64 sq. in. minJm]lm area, with two {" bars." 242 AUGusT 23RD, 1949 Fir. Kenneth Jacobsen, a member of the Code Co~mittee, explain-- ed that this was the result of their work in preparing a concrete block construction code; and it is practically the same ~:~ the ~liami Beach cod~ in regard to bearing walls. It allows the u~e of U-Blocks on the basis of the merit of each particular man,,Fact- urer. There are no standard specifications on U-Blocks, ]~ explained, as there are so many different types, therefore each one must be approvod by the Committee. At this time only the U- ~locks, made b2 the'i{inker Materials Corporation have come to their attention, which have been approved. Mr. Jacobsen believed this to be one of the best concrete block codes in this section. a motion was made by Councilman Kabler, seconded by Council- man ~{oth, that the City Attorney be authorized to prepare the necessary Ordinances to amend the Building Code according to the above reconm:endations submitted by the Code Committee, and upon call of roll the motion carried unanimously. 5ir. Jacobsen also advised the Council that certain amendments to the Plumbing Code had been discussed and approved by the Commit- tee, but due to the absence of }Ir. Fred Beever from the City, the recommendations were not ready to be presented at this ti~e. A letter from the Acting Chairman of the Zoning Board ~¢as ~ . then read as follows: "August 1, 1949 Honorable Nayor and Nembers of the City Council Delray Beach, Florida. Gentlemen: Your Planning and Zoning Board met at 10:00 A. N., July 30, 1949, with the following members present: R. Bruce Puckett, Kenneth Jacobsen and Garland Thayer. The following items in regard to zonning were considered: 1. The request for 5 foot minimum side setbacks for the proposed Hotel Building for John N. Kabler, Jr., on Lots 6, 7, $, 9 and 10, ~lock 1, Ocean Park, would violate the minimum setbacks for Special Hotels. The minimum combined sideyard setbacks for 100 foot width lots is 25 feet. In this case~ the proposed buildings are located on Separate lots. It is reco~,'~ended, that as long as these buildings are not connected, that the minimum l0 foot side- yard setback be adhered to for proper light and v~ntilation. ~lso 'the zoning Board recommendes that the minimum setbacks from the streets be adhered to. AUGusT 23qD, 1949 Attention is called to the fact that the applicant might at some future date, plan to add additional rooms. At that time he may find it diffic,~l~t to provide the necessary parking. It is suggested that coati, ration for this additional parking be given at this time. 2. The request of adjoining property owners to change the zoning of Muck Lots 140 and 148 from Apartments to Residential was not considered for a chan~e in zoning. Reference is made to Section IV, Ordinance Number 365, covering changes in zoning. It was the understanding of the zoning Board that a change of this character has to be submitted by the owner of the property, or changed in an overall comprehensive zoning change. ~.~e suggest that this be referred, to the City Attorney for instruct- ions on the proper method of a change in zoning for a particular owner. Very truly yours, DEL}L~Y BEACH PLANNING AND ZONING BOAI{D (Signed) Kenneth Jacobsont Kenneth Jacobson, Acting Chairman" !^'ith reference'.to %h~ second paragraph of the letter, referring to a request for ,zoning change affecting Nuck Lots 140 and 148, the City Attorney advised that the request had not been filed by the owner of the property, nor by the City, as required by the Zoning OrdJ. nr. nae, and it seemed apparent that this property had not been zoned in error, as the owner had bought it beIieving it was an apartment zone. ,{ motion was then made by Councilman Kabler, that the first recommendation of the Zoning Ooard be accepted, and the second rocom-- mendation be tabled. The motion was seconded by Councilman l{oth, and upon call of roll carried unanimously. City Manager Black presented a communication from Attorney C. Y. Byrd, together with Right-of-~ay deeds referred to, which letter was read as follows: "August 10, 1949 Honorable Mayor and City Council, Delray Beach, Florida. Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith are two executed and recorded Right-of-Vay Deeds coveying to the City a fifty-foot right-of-way f-r street purposes, extending from Swinton Avenue westward approximately 1320 feet to the ~,fest City limits. I have discussed With previous Councils, and with former City Manager Edmond, the acquiring of this right-of-way for the City, in order to open two long strips of land which for all practical purp- oses are of no value without proper access to a through street. '244 ,~UGUST 23RD, 1949 }irs. Noore has finally agreed to convey the North 25 feet of this street, and }irs. Byrd has agreed to convey the South 25 feet of said street. In order to forestall the conveyance of either of these tracts of land before the deeds could be recorded I took it upon myself to have the deeds recorded so that the sale of either tract of land could be consummated subject to the street right-of-way. I tender herewith to the City of Delray Beach the enclosed recorded deeds conveying to the City, for right-of-way purposes, said fifty-foot strip of land. I sincerely trust that the deeds will be accepted and filed with the City's papers so that in the fu%ure the owners of' said land can develop a paved street along said right-of-way in accord- ance with the City's specifications for const, r~ction of such a street. Very truly yours, (Signed) C. Y. Byrd CYB:H encls. Cc: ~rs. flint Noore, St., North Swinton ~venue, Delray Beach, Florida" Upon motion of Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kabler, unanimously carried, the deeds were accepted and ordered filed. The City Hanager advised the Council that the Delray Beach News was planning to publish its annual Invitation Issue, and had asked if the City Council wo~ld care to participate in taking an Ad. The cost would be 85¢ an inch, or a page Ad of 160" at a cost of abo~t ~141.00. 105 discount would be allowed for cash payment in advance. After discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Roth, that the City }la~mger be authorized to subscribe for a page Ad as out- lined by him, in this Invitation I~sue of the local newspaper. The motion was seconded by Councilman Kabler, and upnn call of roll carried unan±mously. With reference to the g~'anting of beach cnncessions to ~r. Luke W~lson, in exchange for the cleaning of the beach, and the furnishing of four Life Guards, which was referred to the City Attorney at a previous meeting, City Attorney ~oore advised that be had found nothing in the City Charter which would require a referendum vote of the people to allow th~s, but since it would be an exclusive concession, ~e thought the City would be required to ask for bids. ~r. ~ilson, being present in the audience, stated that he his offer would be advantageous to t~· City, as it would amount to AUgusT 23RD, 1949 more than the City would receive in license fees, that he would furnish two extra. Life Guards, and he was willing to work with the City Nanager at all times, tie also felt that a bid from the un- desirable party milht be received, which it wo~ld not be Dossible to reject. }Ir. Wilson stated, however, that he planned, to clean the entire beach during the season, but only the portion in frnnt of the pavilion and the part used by the public, durina tho summer months. After further consid.eration by the Council, it was decided to reject Mr. Wilson's offer and accept applications at $ 2,000.00 each from anyone desiring to file same, to he considered October 1st when licenses become due. Mr. C. D. Cook, operator of the Acme Taxi Cab Co. filed a petition signed by his Company, the Flamingo Taxi Co., the Service Taxi Co. and the Atlantic Cab Co., asking the City Council to adopt an Ordinance similar to Ordinances passed by other Cities in the State, to control and regulate the number of licenses grated for the operation of Taxi Cabs. The Petition was referred to the City Attorney for study and recommendation at a later meeting. The petition read as follows] "Delray Beach, Florida August 11, 1949 City Council Delray Beach, Fla. Honorable Council: The undersigned, being all of the authorized taxi companies, now operating and doing business in Delray have. always prided themselves on their civic interest in this City. With this thought in mind it has been brought to their attention that in most of the other cities of Florida, including West Palm Beach, the taxi business is well re- gulated. This is as it should be as we recongnized the fact that we are in direct contact with the public and can effect the public's health, general welfare, and safety. We believe that we have operated our business in a manner which has generally met with public approval. We shall continue to strive to maintain this high standard. We feel that an ordinance should be adopted similar to those in other cities requiring certain standards to be met both as to existing businesses and those which may apply in the future. We further be- lieve that before any further companies are licensed to do business the council issue a certificate of necessity to do business only when it is apparent that such a need exists. This is in conformity with the generally recognized practices, including West Palm Beach. We therefore petition the council to adopt a similar ordinance such as is in effect in West Palm Beach, and that no further licenses be ~ran~ed to operate a taxi business in Delray until such ordinance is passed and tha applicant considered thereunder. Respectfully, AUGUST 23RD, 1949 (Signed) C. D. Cook (Sig~ed) C. L. Chancellor For Acme"Taxl uo. For ~'lamingo Taxl ..~ (Signed) Collman Goodvin (Si~ned) Freddie Honroe ' For Service Taxi For Atlantic Cab. Co," In a motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kabler, and unanimously carried, the following recommendation from the Code Committee to the Building Inspector, concerning the use of "U" Blocks and "H" Blocks, was accepted by the Council. "Hay 23, 1949 Hr. F. J. Schrader Building Inspector City Hall Delray Beach, Florida Dear Hr. Schrader: This Committee recommends that the Building Department accepts the 'U" Block and "H" Block tie beam pier construction, as specified on the enclosed sheets submitted by the Rinker Haterials Corporation, for single story resident£al work and considers cush construction acceptable under the scope of the present Building Code. Very truly yours, (Signed) Kenneth Jacobson Chairman Code Committee Encl. - 2 sheets" Two bids received in response to notice calling for bids on furnishing One Crawler Type Diesel powered Tractor with Dozer- Shovel, were ordered returned unopened, as the Council had decided not to purchase this equipment at the present time. City Hanager Black advised the Council that a situation had come up where new buildings had been erected in business districts, and owners had put in sidewalks and curbs on set-backs to the prop- erty line; as to ~ho vas to pay for the widening of the Street up to the curb line. He stated that the City had been asked to pave up to the curbs by some property owners, City Attorney Hoore e~plained that it would be a soecial be- nefit to the property abutlng, and must be assessed against the property. Hr. Ben Adams, from the audience, complained that City taxes were raised to pay for such improvements, and he did not understand why a property o~ner should be expected to pave, and put the side- walks and curbs on City property. AUGUST 2311D, 1949 The Council discussed the matter further, and a motion was made by Councilman Kabler that the City Hanager be instructed to deny all similar req~ests, as no funds are set up in the budget for such im- provements. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roth, and upon call of roll carried unauimously. The meeting the ad journedo ~C~1~~~ ATTEST: