Loading...
08-10-64 ~,65 AUGUST 10, 1964. A regular meeting ~f the City Council of D~%ray Beach was held in' the Council cham~ at 8~00 P.M., with M~r Al. C. Avery in the Chair, City AttOr~ John Ross Adams, CitY:~nager Robert J. Holland, and Councilmen ~m6ry J. Barrow, J. LeRoY Croft, Jack L. Saunders and George Talbot, Jr., being present. 1. An opening prayer WaS delivered 'by City ql~kWorthing. 2. The minutes of the regular Council meeting of July 27th, 1964, were unanimously approved on motion by Mr. SaUnders and sec- onded by Mr. Barrow. 3. Mrs. Gertrude H. Cassilly, a broker associate of Realtor W. C. Burton, informed the C~uncil that she had two clients representing a national concern, who w~nted to know if the City ~ounc!l intended to outlaw surfboarding, a~ they would like to establish a business in Delray Beach. Mayor Avery polled the Councilmen on this subject and each expressed the opinion that they would like to go along with permitting surfboarding if it could be regulated properly and would keep an open mind on future developments, but they knew of no definite movement of outlawing surfboarding in Delray Beach. Mayor Avery commented as follows: "I would like to speak for myself. I know of no movement to outlaw surfboarding. It has been my feeling, and I so stated when we approved it, that it can be con- trolled and will be controlled, we had instructed the City Manager to adjust the surfboarding area from time to time where the surf was the best. Z feel*, with a mile of public beach, and trying to serve all people and be fair to everybody, that we should make every at- tempt to keep surfboarding, and I will so conduct myself in the future. Does this answer your question, Mrs. Cassilly?" Mrs. Cassilly advised the Council that her question had been answered, and was the assurance she wa~ted for her clients. 3. Mr. Dave Hoggins informed the Council he had received a notice from City Attorney Adams concerning cancellation of a 99 year lease of property in Block B, Westside Heights, to the Lake View Hospital Association, Inc. Further, he was the president of said Hospital Association and would like more information on this item, and that he was not aware of a provision in the lease that stated if the property was not use& by the Lessee for hospital or other related purposes within two years from date, the lessor could give notice of intention to terminate said lease. Mr. Hoggins reviewed the'activities of said Lake View~o~pital Association, Inc. and stated that most of the money accumulated by them had been donated to the Bethesda Memorial Hospital at the time it was built. At the request of Mayor Avery, City Clerk worthing reviewed the Council comments and action on this item from the July 27th Coun- cil meeting minutes. Following lengthy discussion, Mayor Avery said he thought a conference should be scheduled with Mr. Hoggins and a representative of his group, a member of the Council and a member of the City Admin- istration, to study the merits of a.continued lease, a new lease, or new plans for said grounds, before any further action is taken. Mayor Avery then appointed Mr. Croft ss Chairman of said Committee, Mr. Hoggins and any Other member of said Hospital Association, City Clerk Worthing and City Attorney Adams, to meet and discuss this item and present their recommendations to the Council. During discussion, it was pointed out that the lease had been violated~ 4. There was no Beautificat~n'?~mmit~ee report. 4.a. A roll call showed the following Civic Organizations and re- presentatives to be in attendance: Lions Club Mr. Dave Tyson Jaycees Mr. Charles GWynn Chamber of Commerce Mr. Kenneth Ellingsworth 5. City Clerk Worthing read the following letter from Mr. J. P. vansant, City Engineer of.Boca ~aton, to the BocaRaton City Commis- sioners, dated August 4th: "Subject: Naming of the C-15 Canal' I have been advised by Mr. Robert J. Holland, City Manager of Detray Beach, that the Delray Beach City Commission will take action on the subject by indicating they desire to use the name 'Hidden Valley Canal'. This name has been used by the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District and therefore your City Engineer recommends the City Commission change their original motion for the name of 'Del Raton River' and substitute 'Hidden Valley Canal'". A .letter to City Manager Holland from Mr..Ji~. Vansant was read stating that the City Commission of Boca Raton had acted favor- ably upon the recommendation of the City ~ngineer and had agreed to use the name of "Hidden Valley canal~. Mr. Barrow recommended to Council that the name of "Hidden Valley Canal" be accepted. City Clerk Worthing then read the following letter from the Central and Southern ~loriOa Flood Control District, dated August 7th, 1964: "The newspapers recently have been carrying stories concerning thenaming of the Flood Control District's Canal 15. Before this discussion becomes too involved, I thought it might be wise to advise your Commission that our Governing Board had some time back adopted the name for Canal 15as Hidden Valley Canal' and it is carried this. way in all of our records. It is my opinion that our Board would be responsive to communities suggesting names or changes of names for our facilities as we naturally wish to see that~public opinion is considered in such matters, and I would there- fore be glad to discuss this matter with you at any time you might desire." Mayor Avery said the Chair would entertain a motion endorsing the name "Hidden Valley Canal" with the direction that a copy be sent to the City of Boca Raton and the Central and Southern ~lorida Flood Control District. It was so moved by Mr. Barrow, seconded by Mr. Saunders and unanimously carried. 5.a. Mr. Croft reminded Mayor Avery of a letter.from Mr. JOhn V. Booth of Beach Drive, concerning the drainage condition in tha~ area, which letter Mayor Avery had referred to the City Manager with the understanding that he would have Council assistance if it became necessary. Mr. Croft informed the Council that he and City Engineer Fleming had inspected Beach Drive during the time the sanitary sewer -2-. 8-10-64 line was being installed there; further, that a drainage 9roblem did exist, but he did not .,k~.OW a solution to the problem. =. Croft read following t. legram ,. Mr. F.P. omas: "I am advised ~h~__ -the City is, or is a.b~t to place a sewer line o.~"~a:h orive, zt may be ?'~sible to el.ar up a roblem at same Sara Waley, Mrs' Booth, Mr. ~eorge ~9~n, and in unison, and with your Cit~gnager last year, and were ~sed that these prob~ would be corrected. The ~ a need to remove t~eL~aves On this drive, to puddles created~ lawn sprinkling, and important, to gr~d~ ~e drive so that the be directed to ~e~'~atch basin at the west around and the basig 'in front of the Waley ~nce. Something shog~d .~ done to prevent the ,: Of canal wa~er ~hr6~"'%he catch basin in front s when ~e have ~e~vy ~ains, particularly in the spr~ng and fall during high tide." ~ayor Avery asked if the Cit~ ~anager or hie personnel could give the Council a recommendation as to what should be done to remedy the drainage condition on Beach Drive. City ~anager Holland reported ~at it had been concluded the sewer installation p~ogram could not benefit the drainage situation, and asked City Engineer Fleming to' explain the situation to the Coun- cil, which he did as follows: '!The installation of the sewer only tore up a Small trench, which doesn't even reach either edge of the street, so we couldn't utilize that to any great advantage to effect a change in drainage. There are some depressions and lower spots in the street and we will try to, as far as possible, remove those by the application of additional asphalt. If it requires scarifying and raising of a certain little portion, that we will have to do, but I don't think we can take advantage of the sewer installation to do it. The other problem, the backing up of the high tide water into this area is an extremely difficult one to remedy. The fact that the ground itself is lower than the elevation of th% tide at these high spring tides means that no drainage can be effected between the street' and that point without the tide backing up out of any type structure you would make, unless we put a tide gate, a flap gate, on the outside of the pipe as it goes through the bulkhead walL. It has been very unsuccessful in the past and hard to main- tain, also rather expensive to instead1, so that other than raising the ground itself in that area, there · is very little we can do to keep the high tide from backing in there, except the installation of a pump- ing station such as we have on Basin Drive, which again is very expensive." Mayor'-Avery asked what could and would be done to remedy this drainage problem, and if there was money available to accomplish same. City Engineer Fleming anSwere~: "Since the street has been put back in condition where'we can recheck the elevation, we will run a profile down the street to determine how much it has to be raised to eliminate these annoying little puddles that these people'are com- plaining about. I will, if you like, make'an estimate on a ~Omplete 8-10-64 "storm sewage job for that area, which will be rather expensive and probably will be an assessment job." During discussion, Mayor Avery commented as follows= think the Council should direct the City Administration to proceed · with the straigh~ening out of that street and direct the City Engi- neer to come up with proper plan~'to properly drain this area, to be presented for consideration. We can then discuss it with the property owners because this is an assessment situation. I will entertain a motion to that effect." It was so moved by Mr. Talbot and seconded by Mr. Croft. Mayor Avery explained 'as follows: "It has been moved and seconded that the City Administration be instructed to proceed with straightening out the street, eliminating the aggravating dips, and that the City Engineer be instructed to draw up a comprehensive storm drainage system there with estimates, to present to us for our eration at a future date." City Manager Holland questioned spending the time and money to improve Beach Drive at this time when a large drainage project is contemplated and it would be torn up atthat time. During discussion, Mr. Croft informed the Council the street was in too bad a condition at this time to remain that way until a storm drainage system could be installed. City Engineer ~leming suggested that the council permit a profile to be run on Beach Drive in order to determine how much it would cost to correct the minor irregularities. Mayor Avery asked Mr. Talbot if he would accept that clarification to his motion, and Mr. Talbot said that he would so .long as there was no money involved from the sewer fund. Mr. croft, in seconding the motion, accepted the clarification, and upon call of ro11, the motion carried unanimously. City Manager Holland reminded the Council that Cleary Brothers Construction Company would repair Beach Drive where they had made sewer line installation, which should be done before the City makes any improvement to said street. 5.a. Mayor Avery said he was concerned about the beautification around the Women's Club building as a result of the installation of the sanitary sewer lift station, and suggested that the City Manager schedule a meeting with representatives of the Women's Club, Beautl- fication Committee, the City Manager, ~he Project Manager of Russell & Axon, and himself, as well as any other Councilmen who care to'at- tend, for assurance as to when the Women's Club grounds and land- scaping would be replaced in the proper manner. During discussion, it was pointed out that final payments to contractors on the sewer installation would not be made until satis- factory replacement of streets and landscaping had been taken care of. 6.a. Concerning consideration of Wyatt Company's tabulation and analysis of bads for' funding of the proposed City employees' retire- ment plan, said reports were presented, to the Council and Mayor Avery asked if it was indicated that members of the wyatt Company be heard, or if the report was comprehensive. Mr. Shively of the Wyatt Company replied as follows: "I would like to suggest that the CounciI take the report and read it over, and if you have any questions, I would be glad to come up and answer the questions. Then, at your next meeting, for you to make your decision. This is a very important decision for you to make and I think it would be well that you all read the report over and find out all there is in it and digest what we have put forth in it, then come back at your next Council meeting at the end of this month and make your decision as to which way you would like to go." Mayor Avery said this would have to be studied and also con- sidered as far as the proposed .budget is concerned~ further, he would entertain a motion that the report be received and a study made, with action at a later date. -4- 8-10-64 ~69 It was so moved by Mr. Saunders, seconded by Mr. Croft and unanimously carried. 6.b. Concerning a suFve¥ of lots in violation o~ Sectio~ 15 of the City's Code of Ordina~qeS,'City Clerk Worthing in~0rmed the Council that in compliance with Chapter 15, this survey report is submitted by the City Manager, and the Council may request any desired infor- mation relating thereto ~rom the Chief of the .F~re Department, who created the list, and if!in the opinion of the CO~cil, a prima facie case showing the existe~¢~of such alleged nuisance is established, Council should direct the City Clerk to comply With necessary proce- dure, as set forth in Chapter 15 of the Code of Ordinances, to assure abatement of such nuisancpS. The survey report is as follows: "PROPERTIES IN VIOLATION OP ORDINANCE NO. G-147 AND SECTIONS 15-3 & 15-4 OF THE CITY CODE. CITY OWNER ADDRESS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CODE Robert S. 14 S.W.' 8th St. Overgrown unimproved 15-4 Colman Delray Beach, part of E 22' of Lot 8 Florida & W 43' of Lot 9, Blk. 2 - Belleview Manor Herman, August % August Huber Overgrown unimproved 15-3 & Huber, et al 826 N.W. 5th Ave. part of Lot 9 -Haller 15-4 Delray Beach, & Grootman's S/D Florida Submitted to the City Council by the City Manager, this 10th day of August, 1964." Fire Chief Gregory was questioned about these properties and informed the Council they were overgrown with weeds and vegetation, also had trash on them, and were considered a health hazard and a breeding place for mosquitoes. Mr. Croft said he would like to be assured by the City Attorney that these properties listed weredefinitely a nuisance, and if the Council would be on firm ground in declaring them so. It was pointed out that this was the regular procedurel set up by ordinance, for abatement of nuisances, but City Attorney Adams Said it was not nec- essarily true for improved property. City ClerkWorthing'repOrted ~that one of these properties had been badly neglected, the house vacant for several years, and it was now in the process of foreclosure by a financial institution, and the growth was far in excess of the limited height of vegetation on land ! as set forth and controlled by Chapter 15 of the Code of Ordinances. The other item is also tenantless and'located on N. E. 5th Avenue at 4th Street and the overgrowth is very excessive. Mayor Avery asked City Attorney Adams what action could be taken toward the relief of these nuisances. City Attorney Adams asked if notices had been sent to the property owners, to which City Clerk Worthing said they would be sent tomorrow if the Council acted on this survey report tonight. City Attorney Adams said the Council was within their rights to ~eclare the properties a nuisance and go through with the noted provision. Mayor Avery said the Chair would entertain a motion declaring a nuisance on both these pieces of property and a direction to the City Administration to proceed with the neoessary action for abatement. It was so moved by Mr. Croft, seconded byMr. Saunders and unanimously carried. 6.c. Concerning-lots in violation of Ordinance No. G-560~, pertain- ing to accumulation of spoil and/or debris on lands within the City, City Clerk'Worthing reporte~ this item was placed on the agenda at the request of Council during its last meeting, at which 'time Septem- ber 1st was tentatively mentioned as a possible date for authorizing the administration to comply with said Ordinance No. G-560, as may be determined applicable to any lands within the City, and at present, there are only tWo properties in violation of said Ordinance. Following discussion, Mr. Saunders moved that this item be tabled until the next regular council meeting, the motion being sec- onded by Mr. Talbot and unanimously carried. Mayor Avery said this was instruction that the item be placed on the next agenda if the situation requires it. 6.d. City Clerk Worthing informed the Council that an application for water service had been received from Mr. & Mrs. Frederick W. Smith, owners of Lot 16, 2nd Addition to High Acres, located at 410 N. W. 18th Street, upon which construction of a high grade, single family dwelling is planned. Further, a sufficient supply of water had been determined by the Superintendent of the water Department to exist in the general area, a six-inch main distribution system line being with- in 150 feet of said Lot 16, and that it is recommended this applica- tion be approved. The application for water service to LOt 16, 2nd Addition to High Acres was unanimously approved on motion by Mr. Talbot and sec- onded by Mr. Barrow. 7.a. Concerning a request of Dr. & Mrs. Moore for relocation of cul- de-sac and easements, the City Clerk informed the Council that Attor- ney John Moore is present to discuss with them, on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Moore, specific plans, reflecting certain desired changes con- ~erning the development of the MoOre tract of land lying between Andrews Avenue and the Intracoastal Waterway, immediately north of the Medical Arts Center building. Further, that adjacent property owners and/or their representatives had been notified. Mayor Avery asked that Council action on this item be viewed and City Clerk Worthing informed the Council as follows= "On October 14th, 1963, Council adopte~ Ordinance No. G-508, which provided for annexation of this property involved, subject, in part, to a 10 foot setback from the front property line and to be measured from the north right-of-way line of the-roadway hereinafter provided for through Lots 24 and '251 also, that the owners will dedicate the north twenty-five feet of the south twenty-seven feet of said Lot 25 and Lot 24 for public roadway purposes. The owners will further provide two six foot drainage easements, one over the west six feet of Lot 25 and the-other over the west six feet of LOt 24. The ov~ers con- template construction only on Lot 25 at this time, and agree to con- struct a cul,de-sac at the west line of said Lot 25. Prior to con- struction on ~4~her Lots 24 or 11, the owners agree to improve the roadway through Lot 24 and to further construct a cul-de-sac at the west line of Lot 24. The owners may then abandon the cul-de-sac which was previously constructed at the west line of Lot 25. The location of cul-de-sacs and easements herein described are subject to change upon presentation to the City of specific plans and specifications, drawn in accordance to the building and zoning ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, and with the approval of the City Council following public hearing with notice to contiguous property owners, which no- tices have gone out, declaring that a public hearing will be held at this time." City Clerk Worthing then read letters, dated August 10th, 1964, from Attorney Harry T. Newett, representing Dr. Robert E. Ra- born, and from Mr. Robert B. Gracey, representing the Christenson family. (Copy of each of these two letters is attached to and made s part of the official copy of these minutes.) (See Pages ~82-A thru -6- 8-10-64 Attorney Moore commented as follows: "Gentlemen, you have heard the objections that I have just heard, and I WOuld like to say~ with reference to Dr. Rabo~n's objections, we have no problem with the drainage from his land.going northward along a six foot easement, to be dedicated, to the ~inger canal to the north. We are all in accord on that. We are not in accord, I presume, with Dr. Raborn, and certainly not withMr. Gracey, on the thirty, seven foot setback from the south property line of Lot 24. This property is only one hundred feet in width and.tO require a thirty-seven foot setback or thirty-seven per cent of all the property to be used for nothing is a~ undue penalty on this particular piece of property, and frankly, it just about amounts to the.taking of property without the due pro- cess of law. I would like to emphasize one pOrti0~ and part of this ordinance which says the location of cul-de-sacs and easements are subject to changes upon presentation to the City of specific plans and specifications drawn in accordance to the building and zoning ordinances of the City of Delray Beach. If I am not mistaken, I think all other side setback requirements for R-3 property ~n the City of Delray Beach s~e ten feet and I see no reason why this property should be penalized by almost quadrUPling that figure - thirty-seven rather than the normal ten feet. As to Mr. Gracey's objections to the six foot easement down along Lot 11, that easement was contemplated along with a cul-de-sac there, but I think at this point, and we have engineers~plans and specifications presented here before the Council, the idea is to go only to the existing cul-de-sac and stop there. Obviously, drainage has to be provided for, but until some plan for some building comes along the west end, I think it is premature to require a drainage easement to be given there. Mayor Avery asked if future drainage easements could be re- quired as future building develops, and City Attorney Adams said he thought it would be better to have the drainage easements dedicated originally and then abandoned and changed, which would be the best assurance of obtaining an easement. During discussion of setbacks, Attorney Moore said there was only a ten foot setback required on Lot 11 and that he sees no dis- tinction between Lot 11 and .Lot 24 in that.regard, and asked if City Engineer Fleming felt the present plan was adequate for the City for fire, and garbage and trash pickup. City Engineer Fleming answered: "If the verbal agreement I had from Mrs. Moore and Attorney. Moore that garbage and rubbish would be delivered to the southwest corner of the present cul-de-sac for the future buildings that are constructed on this other-property to the west of the cul-de-sac, then the City would have no need for a right-of-way going across this private property. As a matter of fact, it would serve nothing but the people here and the City would take on the maintenance of an additional street which could only ser. ve one person. That, I would not recommend. If the right,of-way is not dedicated here, then these easements are of no value .to the City be- cause most certainly the City willnot go down here on private prop- erty and construct a drainage facility. ~f it needs draining, the private owner will have to be the one that originates and installs the drainage, and presumably, at that time they would want to give an easement to the City." Mayor Avery stated that after inspection of the drainage of the Medical Arts Building with Dr. Raborn, the owner, it appeared that a catch basin with an underground pipe, rather than surface drainage, was the answer to that problem. Attorney Moore said, to his knowledge, there was no conflict on that, and starting with the south side of the cul-de-sac, there would be anunderground drainage pipe running into the finge=canal. City Engineer Fleming asked if the.plans cou~.d, l be competed to show the underground drainage structure, and Ma~=Avery said the plans could be ordered submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. -7- 8-10-64 During comments,'Dr. Raborn said he did not wishto make any decisions.tonight without consulting his Counsellor in the matter, and continued: "The point that Attorney Moore brings up here about a six foot drainage easement ~hich is provided in Ordinance No. G-508, lying at the west boundary of Lot25, I told him that I had no ob- jection to moving the cul~e-sac at all, that all ! wanted was an equivalent six foot easement dedicated to the City,allowing the engi- neers to later go in and draw up whatever is necessary. As I recall, almost a year ago, it was specified that the six foot drainage ease- ment would be dedicated. The deeds would be transferred to the City. That six foot strip of land running north and south would then become City property. To my knowledge, almost a year has passedand this has not taken place. Once that has taken place and this strip becomes City property, I believe that an engineer could draw up specification~ etc., and set up the drainage on that. That is my understanding. At present, the Moo=es wish to move the cul-de-sac approximately eighty feet westwardly. As far as I am uoncerned, if they will simply give me the six foot drainage easement, the same as before, only at the westward boundary of the cul-de-sac, running straight throug~ north and south, in which there would be no question in the future as to who holds title to that property. I think that the deeds should be trans- ferred to the City and that strip of land should belong to the City of Del=ay Beach, so that the City can provide the necessary drainage. I have seen the present plans. It is my understanding that this really wouldn't change anything. It would Just move everything eighty feet west. I am in perfect agreement with that. I am perfectly in accord with the Ordinance as passed a year ago. It was settled amicably after much discussion. If there are going to be continued changes, I would like to have two things guaranteed to me by the City, and I don't believe that this would be any special request, one is, I would like for the City to provide adequate drainage for the property. I am not telling them how to do it. No. 2, I would like the City to guarantee adequate setbacks of proposed property buildings, etc., as compared to this commercial building which now exists. That is~all Irequest. If the ordinance is going to be changed, I would like to have time enough to counsel with mY ow~ attorney, if there is going to be any- thing beyond that." Attorney Moore said he saw no disagreement with the proposed drainage, and the thing to be considered was the Setback on Lot 24. Following general discussion of thedrainage, setbacks, gar- bage and trash pickup, distance of dedicated road right-of-way, etc., Mr. Barrow commented and moved as follows: "over a year ago I thought this item was ali settled. Itwas referred back to the interested parties to get them to work out a congenial agreement and come back to us, which I thought they did, and we a~proved. I move that it be referred back to.them to work out an agreement among themselves and then come back to us with what they propose." The motion was sec- onded by Mr. Talbot. Attorney Moore said he did not think they could come to an agreement on the setback of Lot 24 from what had been said this eve- ning, but that Ordinance No. G~508 had contemplated that the easements and cul.de-sacs would bechanged and subject to change. Mayor Avery asked the City Clerk if this was true and City Clerk Worthing co~mente~ as follows: "Attorney Moore's last statement is correct. I would like to remind Council, and I feel obligated to do so, if I may read section 3 of that Ordinance as follows~ eThat the tracts of land hereinabove described are hereby declared to be in zoning District R-3 as define~ by existing ordinances and subject to a ten foo~ setback from the front property line, measured from the north right-of-way line of the roadway hereinafter provided for, through Lots 24 and 25 and at .least ten feet from the south property line of Lot 11.'" It was pointed out by Council thatthey did not, according to Ordinance No. G-~08, think thesetback agreement was subject to change only the cul-de-sacs and drainage easements were subject to change. -8- 8-10-64 Mrs. Robemt Moore~commented as follows: '!When I made a re- quest to come into the City~ my original desire was to locate the cul- de-sac behind Dr. Rabor~'s building. That wasmyoriginal request. I was informed at a very late date, at the last minute, because Lot 11 was a lot of record, it would become landlocked; therefore, I had to extend the cul-de-sacan additional three hundred feet to'serve Lot 11. That was much further than I expected to ever extend the road. i agreed to do so because they said when the plans became formulated, I could abandon that cul-de-sac and abandon everything and go back to where I originally intended it. That is the only reason ~I agreed to everything,because it was all subject to change. The only reason was because Lot 11 was landlocked. I ne~er expectedto build on Lot 11. I expected to combine Lot 11 and 24, .and make it one lot in my original plans. Because it was brough~ before the Council, I had to agree to go along with you, subject to, at a later date when I replotted it and made it one lot. ~ I agreed, because that was what you told me. You also told me I could change when I desired to. Now, I so desire to change and make it the way I wanted to do it originally. It was due to just this little regulation that Lot 11 was a lot of record,which no one had advised me that it was, and I would have to bring my road dow~ to it. Now I am making it so I don't have to bring the road down there." City Attorney Adams said there were changes contemplated for the cul-de-sacs and easements, but no changes contemplated for the road. Further, that the roadway could be changedin the future, but it was not contemplated at the time the Ordinance was drawn. Attorney Moore replied: "The reason that the right-of-way was specified there, to the second cul-de-sac on the west, was be- cause you have to get to the cul-de-sac some way, and the only way is through a right-of-way. The Ordinance still~says that the cul-de-sac may still be changed around or abandoned, and so therefore,~ if you abandon thew est cul-de-sac, there would be no purpose in having a right-of-way going nowhere, as Mr. Fleming brought-out." Mr. Robert Gracey commented as follows: "X would like to emphasize what the City Attorney has just pointed out, and which Mr. Talbot has, but I think it is worth reemphasizing because apparently it is not clear. There is an old saying in law--I think Mr. Moore knows it~.- ,'He who comes in equity should~ come with clean hands.' This Ordinance states that the owner will dedicate the north 25 feet of the south twenty-seven feet of Lots 25, and 24 for public roadway purposes. .Thatwas promised a year ago and it has not been done.' I wonder why. Is~it'because this was contemplated at thetime the ordi- nance was passed? If it wasn't, contemplated to come up like this, why wasn't it done in good faith? .Then it goes on to say the location of the cul-de-sacs and easements are subject to change, and atthat time it was explained quite, clearl¥,~ and ! think the tapes would show it, that it was stated quite publicly that the road would be built part way down at first, some units started from Andrews Avenue, and as the building extended w~stward, the road would be extended westward, the east cul-de-sac.would, be abandoned and a.newcul-de-sac built at the western extremity of Lot 4. ~That was the contemplated change in cul- de-sacs. Burst no time was it ever suggestedthat theroad_~right-of- way would be abandoned at all. That was promised a year ago. I don't think these peopleare coming with clean hands. They have not per- formed. If they will. not perform to that, what is coming next2 I agree withMr. Moore.~hls is coming peace meal and is going to con- tinue to come. We agreed to-,a ten foot setback from the road in an area that the. Cityordinance provides for~a twenty-five foot setback. we agreed, in a friendly way, to a fifteen foot deviation, to. a ten foot setback from a road adjoining commercial property, where the City ordinance states quite clearly the setback to be twenty-fiVe feet. That was a considerable concession, with :the promise that a roadway would be dedicated, which would give assurance as to other setbacks. -9- 8-10-64 "It would not be encroached upon further. In conversation with Mrs. Moore this morning, ! said= 'Why aren't building plans here? We are discussing the drainage, the driveways." She stated it was her intent to have the driveways to these properties on the south side of the land adjoining the Christenson property. I sai~'Whereare the plans as to how you are going to do this, how you are going to drain 'Well, I don't know.' 'When do you plan to build~' 'It may not be for as much as ten years.' So we don't have. any plans0 we don't have any- thing. I finally, Just today, came to the conclusion that these people have come into the City, gotten all the concessions they could at the time they came in, failed to dedicate the roadway, and I am led to suspect, ! hate to say it, 'and it-is the first time ! have ever said it, for the specific purpose of coming back later and working the Council down point by point and there are no plans to build anything except in the remote future, if at all. If this is going to continue, let us get that roadway dedicated and then take it up if something good is going to be built, to fill in honestly and not just a sketch. I am sure the C~ristensons: will work amicably with anybody. It is my desire to do so. I want that land developed properly, but where are we going? Next year there will be another concession,until it is just what they originally wanted when they decided to come in. The sole reason this property came into the City was because the County zoning was far more strict than this. They got more out of the City than they could out of the County. I think it is time to put a stop to it and come in equity with clean hands, and do what they said they were going to do and stop this eroding. This plan was given to me this morning and there is not time for adequate hearings. There is not time for me to reach the Christensons'- in New York, consider this, consult engineers, and this thing is Just going to creep on and on and on. Let's get this roadway dedicated, and if somebody later has a sincere plan to develop this property, let's talk about it then, rather than Just trying to increase the property value by gaining more and more favorable setbacks. They have already got the ten feet from you, they don't want to relinq~ish that, when it ought to be twenty- five feet, they just want more. The Christensonpropertywas in the City limits, commercially sorted. Dr. Reborn was there. I don't think I need to say again how ~ncompatible these two types of property are without great care as to how'they are treated at the time of develop- ment. we are not asking that the Christensons' property be drained through the 'Moore property. The Christensons~ will attend to their own drainage. We are asking nothing of Mrs. Moore. We are just ask- ing reasonable protection, and the following of this Ordinance,which went through the Planning/Zoning Board, Engineering, and everything else, and theyhave not kept a single promise that has been made." Mrs. Moore commented= "The reason nothing was done was be- cause they said I could wait until I came in w£th a definite plan, because the road was not ever to end at Lot 11. That was only because you asked me to put it down there indefinitely and temp~rarily until I had a definite plan. I was in a hurry to come into the City so i could get my little model house built. I made anapplication to come into the City. Everybody had a whole month to study it. The last day, they decided to throw a monkey wrench into it. The result ks that .my model home was not finished until the middle of April. They had plenty of time to do it and it haa~been a delaying action right along by my neighbors, for their own monetary value, might I add. Dr. Reborn, through improper engineering, is dumping two thirds of his parking lot on my land, and it was because of this he wanted to get his land drain- ed, and dragged it on and on. ! am making a request,' I entered the City with the idea that I could put the road, with the cul~e-sac be- hind his building, and leaving a. lot from there on to the Xntracoastal waterway. BeCause Lot 11 was a lot of record, t~o hundred feet beyond, they said I had to bring the road down there, but then I could'change it when I had proper plans. Now I have proper plans. There will be no further changes., no delay, and I am very sorry there has been this lay." -10- 8-10-64 4 75 following discussion, Mr. Gracey commented as follows: "Gentlemen, what we ask is good faith by perfo~9~e of the year old obligations of the Moore$ to dedicate the road~9'~' cul-de-sacs and drainage easements as pFovSded in Ordinance No~'~%508, subject only to the relocation of th' cci-de-.ad eight further to the west, to which we agree~ provided the other de4~ions have first been given." '- i'~ ' Mr. Barrow and Mr% Talbot withdrew the%~tion and second that had'previously beea ~ade on this item, ann'S,' Barrow said he would like to hear fro~ Dr. Raborn concerning ~h~'and Mayor Avery commented as follows: that this · plan, as presented, be app=oved, with the stipulati~nthat the roadway Dr. Raborn said!':~'' was not familiar wi~!-~e present plan, · and that he had no point?in committing himself ~9 a plan, and con- tinued: The only poin~ I wish to make is this~ , Ordinance No. G-508 as previously passed wa~ Sn complete accord wi~ ~eryone a yearago. It was requested by the~ C~Y that the Moores ~qate this property to the City at that time, including drainage easements and road right- of-ways. I would like to request, as a private citizen, that the City make no further concession to the Moores until the Moores deliver the documents dedicatingthe easements and road right-of-ways to ~he City, as specified in the Ordinance almost one year ago. Mrs. Moore came to me today at noon. showed me this drawing and asked me if I had any personal objections, and ~ said I had none at all. As a friendly neighbor, I said: 'Mrs. Moore,. you and I should always be good friends, we are neighbors here and we want to work together. If you wish to move the cul, de-sac eighty feet westwardly from its presen~ location, I am in full agreement with that, provided that you also move the six foot drainage easement which is shown in the previous Ordinance No. G-508~' All I am requesting of the City is not to ac- cept this plan in any regard except the relocation of the cul-de-sac as requested, and the location of the drainage easement, and that all further-stipulations of Ordinance No~ G-508 stand as theyhave been, and should stand until these things are satisfied as agreed.to a year ago. In other words, deeds'should be made now. They should have been a year ago."- Mayor Avery said that the remarks of Dr. Raborn w~re in effect the same as made by Mr. ~ra~ey, to which Mr. Gracey~agreed. City Attorney'Adams suggested that any changes be made by Ordinance so that some future Council would have a record of the changes that are made. Mr. Talbot said he would like for.th® City Attorney to phrase a motion incorporating Mr. Gracey's specific recommendations. City Attorney Adams suggested that the City Attorney be authorized to draw up and present an Ordinance at the next meeting, incorporating Dr.Rmborn'Sand Mr. Gracey's acceptable amendments to Ordinance No. G-508. Mr. Talbot then moved that the City Attorney be directed to draw up an Ordinance as has been discussed tonight by. Mr~ Gracey and Dr. Raborn, and it be presented to Council at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Barrow and ca~ried..unani~ously. 7.b. Concerning a request of the License Department for appointment of a committee to review occupational license scheduleS, City Clerk Worthing reported to Council as follows: "Section 16 of the Code of Ordinances concerns occupational license procedure in all of its phases, and believing the present schedules~ in part, are outdated and inneed of revision, it is requested that a committee of three be appointed and directed to review Section 16, with the assistance of the -11- 8-10264 "City Attorney, and-submit to Council at the earliest possible date an ordinance reflecting the Committee t s recommended changes." Mayor A%ery recommended that a coa~nittee of five persons, consisting of City Clerk Worthing as Chairman, Ralph Hughson, Buck ward, Tom Weber and the City Attorney., be appointed to perform said requested work on the license schedule. It was so moved by Mr. Talbot~ seconded by Mr. Saunders and unanimously carried. 8.a. City Clerk Worthing presented ORDINANCE NO. G-554. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SUB-SECTION {E), SECTION 29-7, CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THIS CITY ~ERTAI~NG TO BUILDING SITE AREA MENTS IN THE R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT. (Copy of Ordinance No. G-554 is attached to and made a part of the official copy of these minutes.) (See Page There being no objection to Ordinance No. G-554, said nance was unanimously passed and'adopted on second-.and final reading, on motion by Mr. 'Saunders and seconded by Mr. Talbot. 8.b. The City Clerk presented ORDINANCE NO. G-$61. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH CERTAIN LAND, NAMELY LOT 18, LAKE SHORE ESTATES, ~HICH LAND IS CONTIGUOUS TO EX- ISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SALD CITY~ REDEFIN- ING TH~ BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY TO INCLUDE SAID LAND~ PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SAID ~AND~ AND PROVIDIN~ ~OR THE ZONING TH~.REOF. (Copy of Ordinance No. G-$61 is attached to and made a part of the official copy of these minutes.) (See Page There being no objection to Ordinance No. G-561, said Ordi- nance was unanimously passed and 'adopted on -second and final reading on motion by Mr. Talbot and seconded by Mr. Croft. 8.c. City Clerk Worthtng presented ORDINANCE NO. G-562. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST~ WHICH LANDS ARE CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL L~MITS OF SA~D CITY~ REDEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF' SAID CITY TO INCLUDE SAID LANDS~ PROVIDING FOR THE R~GHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SAID LANDS~ AND PRO- VIDING FOR THE ZONING THEREOF. (Lot Delray Beach Shores, & Brooks Lane & part of Lewis Cove) (Copy of Ordinance No. G-562 ie attached .tO and ~ade a part of the official copy of these minutes.) '(See Pa~eS'~8~-P & City Clerk Worthing read letters from Mrs. F. A. Terry, Mr. Theodore B. Bleeker, and Mr. C. D. Russell, objecting to the annex- ation of Brooks Lane to the City'-l--2 8-10-64 47.7 Mr. George D.. Wall of Brooks Lane also objected to the annex- ation of Brooks Lane to the city of Delray Beach. It was pointed Out that many residents OW ~rooks Lane were being furnished City wat~=~ .even though sOme of~ ~9~ were not within the City. It was also__ _.POin~ed out that a water ~i~ existed on Brooks ~ne and ~at a 9ro~rtY'~er at the ~St end o~ ~aid street con- templated building, which~ has resulted in an ap~i¢ation for water service and annexation tO the City. City Attorney Ad~mS explained that' the 99~ation of Brooks Lane would not affect ~e ~butting property o~9~~, ~'now outside the City, in any way other ~an~'that the street woui~'~be wi~in the City Ordinance No. G-56~ was unanimously pas~Pd and adopted on Barrow. 8.d. City Clerk worthi~g presented O~I~E ~O. G,563. AN O~I~NCE OF ~ CITY CO~cIL OF ~-CI~ OF DE~Y B~, F~RIDA, A~NG TO CITY OF DE~Y B~ CERTAIN ~ LO~TED IN SE~ION 21, ~SHIP 46 SO~, ~NGE 43 ~ST, ~I~ ~ IS ~I~UOUS TO EXIST- I~ ~CIPAL LIMITS OF ~ID CITY; ~DEFIN- ING ~ BOU~ARIES O~ ~ID CITY TO INCLUDE ~ID ~; PRO~DIN~ FOR ~ RIGHTS A~ OBLI~TIONS OF ~ID ~; A~ PRO~DING FOR T~ ZONX~ ~OF. (~e Horizon of ~lray Beach, Inc. ) (Copy of Ordinance No. G-563 is attached to and made a part of the official copy of these minutes. ) (See' PaEes ~ere being no objection to Ordinance ~. G-563, said. Ordi- nance was unanimously passed and adopted on second and final reading, on motion by ~. Croft and seconded by ~. Talbot. 8.e. City Clerk Worthing presented O~I~N~ NO. G-564. AN O~I~N~ OF T~ CITY ~CIL OF T~ CITY OF DE~Y B~, P~RIDA, A~XXNG TO THE CITY CERTAIN ~ LO~ED IN SE~ION 28, T~SHIP 46 SOU~, ~NGE 43 ~ST, ~ICH ~ IS CONTIGU- OUS TO E~STIN~ ~CIPAL LIMITS OF ~ID CITY; ~FI~NG ~ BO~ARIES O~ SAID CITY TO IN- CLUE ~ID ~; PRO~DXNG FOR O~I~TIONS OF ~ID ~; A~ PRO~DI~ FOR T~ ~O~NG ~OF. (South AIA--Stewart, Stoll & Stilz) (Copy of Ordinance No. G-564 is attached to and made a part of the officiaX copy of ~ese minutes~)~ (See..PaEes ~8~-J There being no objectipn to Ordinance No. G-564, said Ordi- nance ~s unanim°usly passe~ 'a'nd adopted on. second and final reading, on motion by ~. Saunders and seconded by ~. ~rrow. 8.f. City Clerk Worthing presented O~I~NCE NO. G-565. AN O~I~NCE OF ~ :CI~ OF ~DE~Y B~CH, A~ING ~PT~ I5 OF ~ ~DE OF O~I- ~NCES PERTAI~NG ~ A~~, ~C~D ~D ~X~S AND PROHIBITI~ S~GE -1'3- 8-10,~ THEREOF ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTy; AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. WHEREAS, the accumulation and storage of abandoned, wrecked or junked vehicles on public and private property, which vehicles are in the nature of rubbish and unsightly debris, vio- lates, in many instances, the zoning code of the City of Delray Beach and constitutes a nuisance detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community; and, WHARF. S, the City Council desires to adopt an emergency ordinance to provide forthe removal of such vehicles either by the land owner where the vehicle is stored or by the owner of the vehi- cle~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL O~ THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Chapter 15 of the Code of Ordinances of the City'of DelrayBeach, Florida, is amended by adding thereto a new Article III as follows: " ARTICLE III Abandoned, Wrecked or Junked Vehicles Sec. 15-25 Abandoned, wrecked or junked vehicles; unlawful to leave on public or private property. A. It shall be unlawful to park, store, or leave or permit parking or storing of any-licensed or unlicensed motor vehicle of any kind, for a period of time in excess of 72 hours which is in rusted, wrecked, junked, partially dismantled or inoperative, or abandoned condition, whether attended or not, upon any public or private property within the ~city limits, unless same is completely enclosed within a building, or unless it is in connection with a business enterprise lawfully situated and licensed for same. B. The accumulation and storage of one or more of such vehicles as hereinbefore defined, on public or private property shall constitute a nuisance, detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of inhabitants of the~city, and it shall be the duty of the regis- tered owner of such vehicle and it shall alsobe the duty of the owner of the private property, or lessee or other person in possession of private property uponwhich such vehicle tslocated, to remove same from the city limits, or to have the same. housed in a building where it will not be visible from the street. C. It shall.be the duty of the City.Manager, or his designee, to give written notice to the registered owner of any motor vehicle which is in violation of this ordinanceas described above, or to give such notice to the owner or less.ce of private land upon Which said motor vehicle is~ situated, .giving notice that Said vehicle violates this ordinance, and demanding that said'motor Vehicle be re- moved from the city limits within 72 hours, or that within 72 hours same may be housed in a building where it will not be visible from the street. Said notice may be given by personal service, or by registered mail, with a return receipt requested. Sec. 15-26 Penalty. Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate the provisions of Sec. 15-25 of this article shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as provided in Section 1-6 of the Code of :~ -14- 8-10~64 479 Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach. Provided, however, if the person, firm or corporation r~ceiving the noti~ ~rovided for in subsection (C) above eXeP,~es an agreement in ~: ~=m similar to that attached to this ordina~ the city will remo~9 ~e vehicle at no cost to the person rec~g said notice, andU '''~ w~rrant for arrest will be issued." Section 2. ~ld any section or pFov~ion of this ordinance or any portio~",_~ereof, or any parag~a~ sentence or word be declared by a o~,~ of competent jurisdiction to be in- mainder hereof as a who~ ~r any part hereof, O~h~r than the Dart declared to be invalid. PASSED AND ADO~TED,~ this day ~.., , , 1964. City Clerk Worrying informed the Council ~hat said Ordinance the City Manager and provides means by which uns£g~tly abandoned, wrecked or junked motor vehicles may be disposed of. Further, the immediate need of such jurisdiction warrants this to be considered as an emergency Ordinance, this to be its first and final reading. Mayor Avery stated that since the caption of Ordinance No. G-555 did not mention that it was an emergency ordinance, and neither did the preface item state that it was of an emergency nature, he would question the need for same to be an emergency ordinance, and asked the pleasure of the Council in this matter. City Manager Holland informed the Council he had been working toward this end for two years and that it was his desire to have it finalized. City Attorney Adams informed the Council that said ordinance could be considered on an emergency basis, as such abandoned vehicles could be ~onsidered a hurricane hazard, or a hazard where the safety of children is concerned. Mr. Talbot moved that Ordinance No. G-565 be passed and a- dopted as an emergency ordinance on this first and final reading, the motion being seconded by Mr. Barrow. Upon call of roll, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Croft, Mr. Talbot and Mayor Avery voted in favor of the motion, and Mr. Saunders was opposed. Mr. Saunders said that he had no ob- _ jection to the ordinance, he just did not think it was an emergency. Mayor Avery requested that in the future, when any emergency ordinance is presented to the Council, it will be so stated in the Agenda and Preface, in order that the public and Council will know that it is an emergency ordinance. Further, he would like to have a motion that this be the procedure in the future. It was so moved by Mr. Saunders, seconded by Mr. Talbot and unanimously carried. 10.x. Mrs. Helen Voit of Miramar Drive aske~ the City Manager if he had an answer for her concerning the condition of her sidewalk, which resulted from sanitary sewer installation. City Manager H011and reported that he had referred.this item to Mr. Daniel Neff, Project Manager for Russell & Axon, who had assured the City Manager same would be taken care of~ further, that he would follow through with Mr. Neff on this item. 10.x. Mrs..Voit menti6ned the propose~ City employees'retirement plan, and asked that each Councilman carefully study each proposal and recommend the plan that would be!best for the City of Delray Beach. 10.a. Regarding advertisement of the City of Delray Beach in the Florida Municipal Record, Mr. Talbot moved that the Council authorize a one time insertion of a one-fourth page advertisement in the special convention issue of the Florida Municipal RecOrd, at a cost of ~72.00. Mr. Talbot suggested that Mayor Avery contact Mr. Andrew Gent, Chair- man of the Advertis~ng Committee, for preparation of said advertisement. ~15- 8-10-64 and same be submitted to'Council for approval, informally, if necessary. The motio~ was seconded by Mr. Barrow and carried unanimously. 10.x. Mr. Croft moved that the $72.00 for eaid advertisement in the Florida Municipal Record be paid from the City Council Account, the motion being seconded by Mr. Barrow and unanlmously carried. 10.x. C~ncerning appropriation transfers, Finance Director Weber reported to Council as follows= "The City Manager desires to request the Council to make ~ transfer of moneys as follows= To replace panel truck No. 99 - City Hall Maintenance, a re- quest that funds be transferred from the Catherine E. Strong Community Center Account No. 910 765 102 to City Hall Account No. 910 351 621, in the amount of $850.00, and from Account No. 910 765 650 to Account No. 910 351 621, in the amount of ~850.00, for a total of $1,?00.00. To replace a station wagon, No. 91 in the Engineering Depart ment with a panel truck, it is requested that a transfer of funds from the ~layground and Playfield Account No. 910'720 $08 be made to the Engineering Department No. 910 310 621, in the amount of $1,500.00. For the purchase of broom wire for the Street sweeper, from the ContingencyAccount Ncc 910 858 800 to the Street Cleaning Account No. 910 332 508, in the amount of $640.00. For repair to the Allis Chalmers Sanitary Land Fill equipment, from the Contingency Account No. 910 858 800 to the Waste Disposal Account No. 910 335 421, in the amount of $1,800.00." The requested appropriation transfers,as requested by the City Manager and read by Mr. Weber, were unanimously approved, on motion by Mr. Barrow and seconded by Mr. Croft. 10.x. City Manager Holland presented the Mayor and Councilmen with copies of the proposed 1964-6~ .Budget. Finance D~=ector Weber read the Budget letter of transmittal from the City Manager to the Council. Mayor Avery asked that copies of said letter of transmittal be made available to the press, but the proposed budget would not be a- vailable to them at this time. Mayor Avery announced that the Council would have private work sessions on the proposed budget each evening this week, and that they had agreed there would be a meeting on Monday evening, August 17th, where the press and public would be welcome. 10.x. City Clerk Worthing reported to Council as follows: "Con- cerning alley i~provement desired by the City Manager, he acquired the west twenty feet of Lots i through 10, Block 97, which run down on the east side of the F.E.C. Railroad, from Northeast 4th Street toward Street. He lacked that pie shaped strip of land at 3rd Street, which this Council receDtly directed that efforts be made to negotiate with the property owners for the acquisition of that pie shaped piece of land adjacent to and East of the F. E. C. right-of-way, with a front- age of forty feet on N. E. 3rd Street and extending northward for approximately three hundred forty feet, to a point. Only today I re- ceived the following letter under date of August 7th, from Fritz Kahlert and Heinz Kahlert." "UpOn your request in regard to that parcel of land, in Block 89, East of F.E.C. Railroad RW., we offer above mentioned parcel to the City of Delray Beach for the total sum of $8,000.00 net to us. (1) This offer shall be valid only for I month, from above date. (2) If th~s offer is accepted, a 10% Escrow Payment shall be made. -16- 8-19-64 "(3) Date of Closing shall be made not later than 30 days, after Escr6w payment had been made. (4) This is not an exclusive Offer to the City of Delray Beach. We reserve the right to Sell this abov~ property to the first party that makes the necessary Escrow paym ment on the first come first serve basis." The Council questioned the tax assessed valuation on this triangular strip of ground being at $660.00 when the owners were asking $8,000.00 for said land. City Clerk Worthing informed the Cbuncil as follows: "On Tuesday, June 12th, 1962, the second day of the annual meeting of the Board of Equalization, these same two gentlemen, Messrs. Fritz and Heinz Kahlert, appeared before the Board of Equalization and objected to the alleged high valuation of said parcel of land, at whiuh time your Tax Assessor had valued said property at $2,950.00. Following lengthy discussion between the Board and property owners, the Board of Equalization directed the Tax Assessor to 91ace a valuation of $660.00 thereon, for taxation purposes." Mr. Talbot asked when the valuation of said triangular strip of property could be changed, and was informed that property valuations could be changed as of January 1, 1965. City Clerk Worthing, also the Tax Assessor, informed the Council that it is his intention to assess this subject property for 1965 the same as it was presented on the Tax Assessment Roll in 1962, prior to the Boar~ of Equalization reduction of same, that assessed valuation being $2,950.00. Following discussion, Mr. Croft moved that the council receive the offer of Messrs. Fritz and Heinz Kahlert, and that no action there- on be taken. The motion was seconded by Mr. Talbot and carried unani- mously. 10.a. City Clerk Worthtng presented Bills for Approval as follows: General Fund $65,047.'60 Water Fund-Operating Fun~ 3,663.59 Improvement Fund ]9.00 Special Trust Account - First National Bank of Delray Beach 139,209.54 The bills were unanimously ordered paid, on motion by Mr. Barrow and seconded by Mr. Croft. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.M., by order of Mayor Avery. R~ ~. W_ORTHING. . City Cl~rk APPROVED = -17- 8-10-64 48~-A ........ ..... August 10, 1964 ~ray Plorida Re~ Application of ~rt E. ~re a~ wife for '~' ~ntative A~rov~ of ~ification of ~di~e ~508 ~ntle~n~ It is our u~erst~ ~at a f~er applica~on is ~ing presen~ to ~u tonight ~ ~e ~e ~tter. ~ ~half of ~. ~r~ ~. ~, ~o is ~e ~r of the Delray ~ical ~ts ~l~g ~at lies {--~ately Sou~ of and adjacent ~ ~e ~re ~roperty, I wish to ~e it ve~ clear ~at ~ere is ~ intention to place a~ o~tacle in ~eir way to ~de ~e p~r develo~nt of ~eir pro~rty. ~ ~e o~er h~, it ~uld ap~ar ~at ~e procedure ~i~ foll~ed ia s~at unusual ~ ~ presentation of partial pla~ fr~ t~ to t~e. It is o~ ~sition ~at it is ~e City's res~ibility to see ~at ~e ~re p~rty is pro. fly drained to the Nor~ as ~nt~plat~, ~d ~at ~ ~p~v~ts ~at ~y be co~ struct~ will ~ pro~r!y set back in relation to ~isting We shall ~t atte~ ~e ~eti~ ~is evening for ~e reason it only see~ tentative app~val, a~ ~e City is res~ible to c~ out its ordinates to assure ~ai~e, set-~c~ a~ o~er phases in ~e ge~r~ ~lf~e. ~ ~is res~ct, it is su~itted ~e City shoed r~ir~ dedication of road ~ drai~e easing, ~nd or o~er ~ar~t~, ~e drat~ge pi~s, etc., Will ~ ~tall~ in 'ac~a~e wi~ Ci~y~peci- ficatio~, provision ~ere will ~ no l~locked are~~. At su~ t~ ~ any final a~plica~on is su~itted for action that ~y ~y ~din~ ~5~, ~ desire proper ~tice ~ provided by said ~d~ce. Yours ve~ t~ly, ~-- H~:I~ 482-0 ORDINANCE NO, G-55¢. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, PLORIDA, AMENDXNG SUB-SECTION (E), SECTION 29-7, CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THIS CITY PERTAINING TO BUILDIN~ SITE AREA REQUIRE- MENTS IN THE R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT. NOW, BE ZT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, PLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: 8ect£on 1. That Sub-section {E), Section ~-? of the Code of Ordinances of the City be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 29-7, R-3 Multiple family dwel:ling district. "(E) BUILDING SITE AREA REOUIRED "Every building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall provide a lot area per family of not less than the following= For one family dwelling structure 6,000 square feet For two family dwelling structure 3,500 square feet Forthree or more family dwelling structure there shall be provided 1,200 square feet per family unit. "The lot width for a one or two family dwelling shall be not less than sixty (60) feet measured at the building line. "Where a lot or parcel of land 'has an area or width less than the above and was a lot of record at the time of the effective date of this ordinance, (Sections 29-1 - 29-7.10) said lot may be used for a one and two family dwelling provided the minimum side, front and rear yards requirements as set forth herein are conformed with." PASSED On second and final reading in regular session on this the ..~ day of August 1964. M A y O R ATTEST: /S/ R. D. W0RTHING City Clerk First Reading ... June 8t 1964.. Second Reading August ORDINANCE NO. G-561. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO TH~ CITY OF DELRAy BEACH CERTAIN LAND, NAMELY LOT 18, LAKE SHORE ESTATES, WHICH LAND IS CONTIGUOUS TO EX- ISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SAID CITY~ REDEFIN- ING THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY TO INCLUDE SAID LAND~ PROVIDIN~ FOR THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SAID LAND~ AND PROVIDING FOR THE ZONING THEREOF. WHEREAS, FRANK E. KUCERA, is the fee simple owner of the property hereinafter described, and WHEREAS, FRANK E. KUCERA, by his petition, has consented and given permission for the annexation of said property by the City of Delray Beach, an~ WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach has heretofore been au- thorized to annex lands in accordance with Section 185.1 of the City Charter of said City granted to it by the State of Florida: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS= ~E~CTION. 1.L That the City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, hereby annexes to said City the following described tract of land located in Palm 'Beach County, Florida, which lies contiguous to said City, to-wit: That tract of land, namely Lot 18, Lake Shore Estates, per Plat Book 25, page 26, Public ~Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. S~C~..ION 2. That the boundaries of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, are hereby redefined so as to include therein the above described tract of land and said land is'hereby declared to be within the corporate limits of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. SECTION 3. That the tract of land hereinabove described is hereby declared to be in Zoning District R-1AA, as defined by existing ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. SECTION 4. That the land hereinabove described shall mediately become subject to all of the franchises~ privileges, munities, ~ebts, obligations, liabilities, ordinances and laws to which lands in the City of Delray Beach are now or may be, and persons residing thereon shall be deemed citizens of the City of Delray Beach. SECTION 5. That if any word, ~hrase, clause, sentence or part of this ordinance shall be declared illegal by a court of com- petent jurisdiction, such record of illegality shall in no way affect the remaining portion. PASSED in regular session on the second and final reading on the 10th day of August , 1964. ATTEST: M A Y O R .Is./ ~. D., WORTHING ........ City Clerk First Reading ...July .27, 196~. . Second Reading August 10, 1964 O~7~T~ ~ NO. D~L~Y ~ ~RTAIN ~S LO~T~ IN SE~ION A~ ~I~UOUS TO ~STIN~ ~CIPAL L~TS OF ~ID CI~ ~EFI~N~ T~ BO~RIES OF ~ID CITY TO INCLUDE ~ID ~S= PRO~DIN~ FOR RI~S A~ OBLI~TIONS OF ~ID ~S~ A~ PRO- WHEREAS, EVANS R. HALL, JR., and JAKETM. HALL (hi~ wife) are the fee simple owners of the property hereinafter first scribed,and WHEREAS, EVANS R. HALL, JR., and JANET M. HALL (his wife), by their petition, have consented and given permission for the annexation of said property by the City of Delray Beach, and WHEREAS, the Ci'ty of Delray Beech has heretofore been authorized to ennex lands in accordance with Section 185.1 of the City Charter of seid City granted to it by the state of Florida~ ~NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS' FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, hereby annexes to eaid City the following described trects of land located in Palm Beach County, Florids, which lie contiguous to said City, to-wit: Those trects of lend in Section 21, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, described as follows~ Lot 49, Delray Beach Shores, per plat Book 23, Pege 167, as eppearing in the Public Records of Palm Beach. County, Florida. That part of "LEWIS COVE" and "BROOKS LANE" as ~hown on Plat of DELRAY BEACH SHORES per Plat Book 23, Pege 167, as eppearing in the Public Records of Palm Beech County, Florida. SECTION 2. That the boundaries of the City of Delrey Beach, Florida, are hereby redefined so as to include therein the above described tracts and parcels of land, and said lands are hereby declared to be within the corporate limits of the City of Delray Beech, Florida. SECT~O~ ~. That the tract of land hereinabove first described is hereby declared to be in Zoning District R-1AA, as defined by existing ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Page 2. Ordinance No. ~-562. S~CTION 4. ~lat the lands hereinabove described shall immediately become subject to all of'the franchises, privileges, immunities, debts (except the existing'bonded indebtedness), obligations, liabilities, ordinances and laws.to which lands in the City of Delray Beach are now or maybe, and persons residing thereon shall be deemed citizens of the City of Delray Beach. SECTION 5. That if any word, phrase, clause, sentence or part of this ordinance shall be declared illegal by a court of competent Jurisdiction, such record of illegality shall in no way affect the remaining portion. PASSED in regular session on the second and final read- ing on_this the 10th day of August , 1964. /S/ AL. C. AVERY ~ A Y'O R .... ATTEST: City Clerk Second Reading August 10, 1964 ORDINANCE NO. G-563o AN ORDINANCE OF 'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH CERTAIN LAND' LOCATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST,' WHICH LAND IS - CONTIGUOUS TO EXIST- ING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SAID CITY~ REDEFIN- ING THE EOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY TO INCLUDE · SAID LAND~ PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SAID LAND! AND PROVIDING FOR THE ZONING THEREOF. WHEREAS, THE HORIZON OF DELRAY BEACH, INC., a Corporation, is the fee simple owner of the property hereinafter described, and WHEREAS, THE HORIZON OF DELRAY BEACH, INC., has peti- tioned, consented and given permission for the annexation of said property by the City of Delray Beach, and WHEREAS, the city of Delray Beach has heretofore been authorized to annex lands in accordance with Section 185.1 of the City Charter of said City granted to it by the State of Florida~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COtr~CIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the 'City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, hereby annexes to said City the following described tract of land located in Palm Beach County, Florida,which' lies contiguous to said City, to-wit: That part of the South 120 feet of the North 1160 feet of Gov't. Lot 4, lying East of State Road AIA, Section 21, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. Section 2. 'That the boUndaries of the City of Delray Beach, Florida0 are hereby redefined so ss to include therein the above described tract of land, and said land is hereby de- clared to be within the corporate limi'ts of the City of Delray Beach~ Florida. Section 3. That the tract of land hersinabove scribed is hereby declared to be in Zoning District R-3 (Multi- ple Family Dwelling District) SUBJECT to a Height Limitation of Two (2) Stories. Section 4. That the land hereinabove described shall immediately become subject to all of the franchises, privileges, immunities, debts (except the existing bonded indebtedness), obligations, liabilities, ordinances and laws to which lands in the City of Delray Beach are now or may be, and persons residing thereon shall be deemed citizens o5 the City of Delray Beach. Page 2. Ordinance No. G-563. Septto9~5... That i~ any word, phrase, clause, sentence or part of this ordinance shall be declared illegal byacourt of =ompetent Jurts~iction, such record of illegality shall in no way affect the remaining portion. PASSED in regular session On th® second and final read- ing on the 10th day of August , 1964. /S/ AL. C. AVERY .............. ¥o'R ATTEST /S/ R. D. WORTHING First Reading July 2?, 1964 Second Reading _August 10, 1964 482-J OltDZN~N~J~ NO. AN ORDINANC~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH~ FLORIDA, ~~ ~ ~ ~RTAXN ~ L~TSD IN SK~XON 28, ~S~P ~S ~ ~STI~ ~CZPAL L~TS OP ~ O~X~ONS OF ~ID ~ A~ PRO~DI~ ~R ~S, D~N S. S~RT and ~T~ K. STE~ (h~s wi~e), ~NIA D. S~ (w~dow), and RO~RT C. ~ILZ K. ST~ (h~s wife) are the fee sidle o~ers of the pro~r~ hereiqa~ter described, and ~S, sa~d ~. and ~. ~N S~RT, ~S. ~GI~A STOLL, ~. a~d ~. R. C, STI~, by their petition, have consented and given pe~ssion for ~e annexation of said property by City of ~lray ~ach, and ~S. ~e City of ~Zray Bea~ has heretofore autho=ized to annex lands in ac~rdance with Section 185.1 of the City ~arter of said City granted to it by the Sta~ of Florida; ~ ~FO~. ~ IT O~I~D BY T~ CI~ ~CZL 0F ~ CITY OF DS~Y ~, ~O~, AS ~O~S: ~ZON ~. ~at the City CoUncil of the City of Delray Beach, Palm ~ach ~unty, Florida, hereby annexes to sa~d City the following desc=i~d ~zcel o~ land located in Palm Beach Co~ty, Flor~da, which l~es contiguous to said City, to-w~t: ~at tract of land in Section 28, To~sh~p 46 South, ~nge 43 East, Palm ~ach County, Florida, described as followst ~t part of the North 100 feet of the Sou~ 2520 ~eet of Government Lot i, Section 28-46-43, lyi,ng East of ~e Easterly r~ght-of-way l~ne of State R~d A~ (~. 140). SE~ZON, 2. ~at ~e boundaries of ~e City of ~lray Beach, Flo=ida, are hereby redefi~d so as to include there~n ~e abo~ descried parcel of land, and said land is hereby clared to ~ within the cozporate li~its of the City of ~ach, Florida. SE~ZON 3. ~at the tract of land hereinabove descried is hereby decla=ed to ~ in Zoning D~strict R-3, a~ defined by existing ordi~n~s of the City o~ ~lray Beach, FIorida. ~82-K Page 2. Ordinance No. G-564. SECTION 4. That the land hereinabove deac=ibe~ shall immediately become subject ~o ali Of the franchises, privileges, immunities, debts (except the existing bonded indebtedness), obligations, liabilities, ordinance~and laws t~ which lands in the City of Delray Beaoh are now Or may be, a~d persons re- siding thereon shall be deemed citizens of th· City of Delray Beach. SECTION. 5.. That if any word, phrase0 clause, sentence or part of this Ordinance aha11 be declared illegal by a court ~ of competent Jurisdiction, such record of illegality shall in no way affect the remaining portion. ' PASSED in regular session on the second and final reading on th'ia the 10thday of AuEust , 1964. c. MAYOR ATTEST ~ /S/.R. D, WORTHING .~ ~ , , ; City Clerk ' Pirst Reading July.~. 2~, 196~ Second Reading Augus~ ,lO; 196~.~._