10/24/1961
ZCil1.LNU ;\:::;) PLANll1NG il()t\t~Jj
Minutes of the ~oeting, TueadaYJ Octobor 24. 1961.
, - ",. ",.'
, '
",
~ 'rhe meeting was called to oJ.'del' at 3: 00 r.. 1IL by the Vice-
Chl11.rmans Nr. Honda. Preaent ware J.lembuI's '~hElpardl Hrll"rios7 Gatos,
Kennedy, L/lylander 'and Galloway, L.ira l{ettirs of the .3nglneering
.I)epartment) and lo1r.. \/011e. Uha irman Kruse was reported absent
on account of illnas8~
'rhe minutes of the Octi.. 17) 1961, mea ting \'lere approved as reud..
,ZpNn~G BAYSIDE SHOj{~S "':a.91~SB Z::p;",1061, - 'J.'he Planner reported
that this caGe \./us still in the hands of' the Zoning Committee and
that a mee'l;ing of the Commit tiee "lith !Ilro H. H.. Baskin, Sr'. 't Has
Get for Thursday, Uctober 26..
~~~ :.z... g - J d l, /
.90N9~ERNING" ZOUINq CHANGLt R~o.Ui!: ul!,: A Lots ~.4 J ~.21~ and, ~~,J BloE~
2?.;-f .~'~gn.Qli~"Pa~k S~bdiv:is;W1i.(DO,\lth~.~ cornex' Tl!,rner StF~t anq.
Q!:E.!.en'19.o~_.::\Y~Jlj!f:..LE'om H-2", dup,lex, ~}~~U , Bu.sines~ - Hequest
was made in lattel~ dated Octo 1.9, 1961, received from L~irS.. J. E..
,Robison" Hillsboro) Ohio, Ovffior. Applicant states that Lot 14 has
"
."
~:>,
" ,
, "~;"
'M~' i:.
r':.
I ,~. :~
~ i ~;
: "
'.'! ,~'
~ ..'
. ~' ~;
. I,~'
..... :
.L,.1
,~-)
a duplex on it; Lots 15 and 16 are unimprov'ed.. i.tr. \'iolle report.ad
that. he had had several minor inquiries of" cOiooorcial flavor for this
area; he expressed the feeling that Green'~od Ave.. should be kept
residential as much as pro.sible ~ He shO\/ed the land use (ll.3,P of the
area'. pOinting out the consis tent residential use s; that rt.a" ~on-
in~ would be spot zoning; ani that there ''las sufflcient IIBll zoning
wi. thin a block of this arel-lo .He recalled prGvious .alan ton request
'~'4"
\,\:
" ,
:.L ~
rf,~"
:<::!":
^ ,
. ~ ' ,
I',:
:~~. '....:.
\"~ '..,
:~:-,'p
-;"
4:;;
:.'1
for n Bft zoning for the nort,ln'J0st col"'m~I' o:e PrOSp8ct and lful"ner St ~ f
, '"
. "
:(:~..~
for l-41ich H-4 "las approvar!. Ile ant icipat(.:!d tJH~t. G\iGn \-/ith addi.t,ional
traffic, Turner Strs{~ t \IOU Id probably retn:1,n it~) re. sident ial aha re.c-
),.:.
:'::,
. ~ 't
"~ 'j
........'
~"~ ~',.
. '.
','p',
>{:
ter'. Consideration \las ~i'Jen to some land uses in the arca being of
an ll-4 character: l1lBd:tcal offices, church; Lind a conv"alescen 1.;, hOllla
, under construction" i.1r4 Shepm:-d reportsd. the Board o.f l1djtwtruent
J
and Appeal on Zoning had t\u"ned. down ,.'I. raql.lest~ f'Oi' 'J;V .t~e.fJair shops
,.."
,}/~
.,....
, ~'..:~
:~;,:,~:.
I' "
-,
in hOflH3S in this arena Irhe Plannur reCjlle::ited BO:.lrd tlGt10n at t.his
1.....\:
,~ l'
';~,~;:,
':,:,' \ '..': :,'..:.~:,':':':.';' ':'.'<"'~':~":',~.''''!':' ''':j,,';l; ,'L ~l"\"""-:,"':'",,:,~:,,',>,,":"~:"i~"~:"",, ,:,~::,,'I' ~,'I~".;' '~',~l:'~":,:':":':""~,',",~,"::~':':".'~"~',,, ',:""':', ,:':,J:,:,!.'~I':i;,:,",:':',',:,:,:."'~~.:,.':':':
, '
....t"
I.. c':. i' 1,'b"lU L)I..I,;.
\. J (; ~r 4
, '
I~th' {.,j.
J '...~II~"-: li"l~
mooting due tu thu i:1ppro.:H~hitlgtleadlinc .1'0t' I~ .forandufIl :ttomn and
"" ntrongly recommended deniul 0 t' buaimws 2',onin2; ~'or th,I1Dt3 three lots..
.t.-11". H~ITie8 ,nay-ed that t,he_ Board recSl~nend. ~?pro-y~C!!. Qf t.hin .!'..Q.-
~q~est for business, ~~oni~ .Jlb.~. motion was .fl9_llil~d by 1.1y~_Gat.e8
o.nd '~1aS P:\S38d una:nimous~~i> C'a" }~.:z-.~;7... /t1d I
.tiiliZO~..Ef~i!!p.:S:r - B.k.OCK, :1;0, PIN;Ec.tw:.~r tfRJ1H>1V1:S10N,1( General
loc,3tion: Eas,t si~~ of' ~:l~tle AV60 bet\'leen !JIaple .St" and Eldrirl~.
, ,
~:t_D Lfrom R-~J. pU'plax~ to IrBt~.;_Bu6ines$!. - l'1r.. \.olle explained that
the Board approved rS4uest through Judge l'larshall for "8u zoning
.('or the wast half of this Block 10 in 1960 and then expanded the
area of request tc? i'nclude all of Block J.O~ He further reported that
, Judge t1arshaLl ad'vised the oi'fice that he ,.,rould resubmit this appli-
cation for rezoning. Mro \,'olle pointed out that there had been an
"
addition in 1961 to the house on th9 east; 1/2 of Lot 8..
1.11'.. Gates
......___...-4 ... _1"
"'-,
'>......
E!Qved tpat the Board recomiaend ~J?proval of rezoning of' BJ:..ock :;&)
Einecrest Subdivisi9l!-\' f1"9ffi 11-2~ to UBt~ His motiof\ "t185, second~d.
~Jlr.. S)l~I?ar~ and \-/as .pas.secL.tlEanimouslr.
The Board ~o~tinued its l'evie!,! of the 1960 Proposed tJrdi~an~
3$2 (ZONING R.~F3~i.ZNDUA IT&.lS) beginning ,.Ii t.h Sec. J.(), Page /14 -
...---_rv ~ I'....d. _____ -..-..~
,r.':
, .
[:\
Seg," 10 ( U:
Page "1-'5
.. ~E!odule oj.' 1Jo:Ll!nd, BUildil)lt Hagula-
tions for all use~istrict5
__...-____1lL _.....~....
('.;
.
"
fJ1.r.!.8 Ple,nnerf s recoillrnen;iation W<.1S for change
:i.n setbaclw as follo\'w:
,"
l.:
\
.......1
..
ROh4 13ui:lcling Setback ~. change to: ' 20 ft.. front
R":,,Ivt Build :l.ng set~bacl{ - change to: 15 ft. front
B Bllilding Setback - cl!lJ.nge Co; J.O ft, Q .front.
except in the Central Busi-
ne ss Dis tl'ic t as defined
by the City Con~issiona
l}:1e go a x:fLyQ.i~l:!..sLJt.2..J!P..p.E.Q.Y e:TO ,t IlG Pl e.imer_~_~_E~.2.911.!-
men g,a tiqn oJ . .
The possible need. to exempt cGrt.ain Beach bus:i.ness zones from the
require rmnt of' the 10 ft ~ sethack "ras discu~30ed. Tho Planner e:,.~..
plained that new structures.!f!.ulcJ. need comply; however} in built...up
"
'. "
" ,,~
, ,',~
, ..
:, :,
,. ,
"'i'
"
'l.
~:,t,:,
;').
:::~:: ~
~j/
,,::';~
\\\'
'Jo5o,
.....'I~
'",.1...;
-:,;:
'~,;; ~:
d,
~r :f:~
'.L...~.
'.' . , :j,'~, ,):~,.i.I";:
"."\,,"..I~"""~/' ..
, ~,'
. ~ . +
: ',v.:.L.~.LlL~ ("I 1:1, '. ~.~'L! . I:L ;JI.11~,ti 1.)
!JI.:t &~J\.iu.1.
l ';.\ r;1:.l II:':>
,lro iJ.S the BOllX'd of Appoalll would ent~tJ. hlinh rulo:; :l.u (JOnaidO},~J.ng hli)"d~.
~ ships ~
,
j,ll"'. Gates pr'ol'ooed 'chat, lot urea pel' th/elling unit in the it....t.
classifica:tion be changed to 1000 sq. ft.. for 1 to 100 Units n Ifhe
PlaUIHll'" expl.;':ined that the l'eqltirement.f:J. for lot 81"Ca at-1 set out in
.. .
the pro pO.9~d schedule '-tere determined af'tor a study of l.l1ul ti-:family
dwelling units in certain existing structures and various typos built
in tho past few years..
The advj,sability of including a lot area pe r ch.ellin,g uni't re-
quirement in the R-I4 zone and having a minimum floor area per dwell.v
ing unit for the R-4..zone \'/as discu$sedQ l-ir. Uolle recommended that
since the regulations have not included rninimW11 multi-family floor
, areas, be.fore, that it \tlOu1d be well to get approval of the present
lot area proposal before adding nevI. ones.. He pointed out that the
proposed R-4 lot area regulations will control the density of dwell....
ing units on the. lot and that economy generally will dictate the
floor a.rea p-cr unj,t~
1h,e BoG. rd_v_q~..Q}:t t,o ap.Q..;''?Y~ 2..gh.~~~J lJ 'W:i:,t.h nq
qhanp,;e o~heLtl1a:q. "ilOdif:L'?~:!-..9.n ..in R-!t.,1_.R-r.l) nnrt, .
,.\ }r:a1t.;. setJiaCks in accorctanc~ }"':J..:E11..~11~.a..b,QY!t
recommendat.ion oro-:t'he P!anner"
".....J ...___.__ r ""____..._..
")
'........
."
Se~._lQ: Page ,15 (2){J)(lj.){5) - No. objections"
. Sec" 10: Page ~J6 (6) (I4obtle tiome Parks St.9.nda:'ds)
......, ,--..
"
'...J
'rhe Planner~ S 1'\:;com:mmdation '\'nlS for cha:lge in
( 6)( c) ( 3.) h . n "closer than .J) O. fee t from C0.ntel'
line of' Gulf.~to-.Bny H - .~Jy!'!}}?';f;l.~t:.o ~ u2OQ. feet .froHl
cent,er line of Gulfh,co-Bayfl j and wherevel" the
word lftrailf.'rll exists, E.1:!~\>.~ti;:!tr.:..~ lTmobilo hOffietl:,
:rhf3 ?~qe!:9 vp ~~o_.!!.QJd?.Qtc;'.!~_ th e L_P ~~.E ?.:t~2}!~-'
~da~i()n f~!J.:..Ellb~~ctiolLJ.91f c) l:J..J. n 'l'he remaining
3ub3ect~io ns (6){ a) t.hrough (h) W;I'8 accepted Hit.h~.
OU I:, change 'J
~'; ({. .1' dd. lti.m.\liUlJ
Ut:t. ..:/;/0:. j';JJ;;e il"
SeCb 11:
---
Page 116
Page If?
tlago 11,7
Page /17
- Ol'i!\:J.nal.l y in:ltiated b:r Glty 14[tWl(J;(~l"' ...
'110 G~~ conl'irmed with Ci~;y 'lltnn::\gl~l'~
- Aacoptod
~. Ac.:cepli(Hi
- 'l'ha Planner adviaod this wllJ. probably
be eliminatod.>
,.." .
Sac. 12:
"gec. -:cr:
~.9~~ Iii: :
3ec. 15.,
--:-12.LJ.Zi 1.ft:
Pages 11"1 and lIB .. l~o Hoard. action ne Cessl.tt'y"
.............
, .,
.--/
The Planner' a recom:na:ndation was for the follo\'/ing addition
to and/or change - .3ect1\.\1!._'l:::,;1?_....3 ",,:.
In any hotel. motel or apartment buildings contaj.ning 16 or
more hotel units (iuest rooms) business usages shall be-per.-
mitted wi thin said building under the main roo!' thereof to
the extent not to excGed hOP; of' the ground space occupied
by tho stl~cturej provided rurth~r that no street sign may
be displayed for the business use. However, businass identi-
i'icat ion signs may be eructed on the f.ace of. the st.ructure
not to exce~d a surface area of 6 square foat for each
sep;~,rat.e blH3iness unit; iJ'l'ovided .fur ther that. an off stre et
parking area be provided of 300 square feet for each hotel
unit {guest room) and arl additional square footage e qual to
50~~ of th~ fJ.o~l' area devoted to business usagao ,
The Planner stated that in his opinion the present regula-
tions concerning limited busil~SS in the R-M area needed to be
clarified; and fw'ther thD. t he \Jlould no~ favor dro ppi,ng the recom-
mended. parking area requirem:~nt below 250 square fto Mr.:....!i!1.g}J.~r.
made a motiont .8eco.9ded~9:r. iJ~Harrie~ J:.Q-.e..e..ero~~h-e, ~:.2.nne:r' s.
"
.'
te,9.9aunemi~tim-1'.2r Seg...ti.Q.11 V:1Ll ,'ritp Barki!1E.~~..1:e guirpJUst,n.t. at
?-5Q' i~~d of'_l9Q aq!!arp :t;e~" Board. discussion i.ndicated that
some members were concerned chat the off-stroet parking prov.tsioll
might be a contl'ovei"s5.al refe!.:"enuum it(lCn and result. in unfavorable
react.ion to other R.-M proprX.1a:Ls.. It was pointed out that most. re-
mainj.ng R~.rJI area Has on the South ,{i'irlger of tho Beach., i4.~::.J1'tJ:~,ll.q~~:r.
am~n da~d_~!t.! s,..Q!~!l_t.2.LQ...~~. .~_tL~ the ~.f.f:~i. ~r:-l.?~.!?.f:t-~2.2.~.12.n....Q~
le1:it. sy.E.Jec,t ~o _~~~copt~.!lg.~.Ef ~.trL~...f<2.~.~_EE~~ee_\1i!Jl~Ll1!~
. ,
__) fl.~kin. .th~. !'o}.lo~~_~h..l.?-rsdC!d'.'.__l!l~. E~~l5!.!!.L. a? n_m4(~~r;~._}~._E..~~~,':::~
~).~,}.1r Q,- ~H.~:~~~!1J J,as P?~j. "
Detailed record of the above changes and/or- addit,j.OllS haa been
made on the office 3ecretr.l.ry t ~ rIB ster copy of thi.s PI'or.lOsed 1960
:;"," :',,',' ': ',: ".I\,~'>,) ,':,' "';"'::, ,:" t""t: ;" ,~:~', , ': ,: ',,'.,.. ".,', :', ::':',; : ~: ~\:,,:J ',II,:' ,",\l.'".~l:" t""~'" !':.'",'.~: :~..",'" " \,,~,,',', ,T"
'.\ ..,'
,. )',
,,' "
Z & 11 Oct.. 1.11 nt1~un
Oct~ 24/61 Pae~ #~
, <'<
,',
:.:~
:; , <; '! ::
Ordinance ,1862..'
DISCUSSION OF FJ\LLOUT 3H&:l/rEH - AVul'rrONS 'ro ZONING ORDINANCE -
_ A ...d. J n 1r 1 n . -.4..4>,. 1'1 '-'J'<I".. r _ ......~ L .,....,...~... --...
.'
This Agenda Item III.. was not . cove~ed due to lack of time 0
",,' ,
..
Final copies of tho lt1obi+o Home l~rks. 5urve~ R~'pprt \'1Bl'tf.l p,.i6-.
, tributed to i~embar8.
'r.. T ~
. ,
. '
,
Planning literature was distributedo
. The meeting adjourlled a~ 5:00 Po. 14..
,: " H
..,
.,
I" "
!tespactfully' 5 ubmi.tted,
,". ;, ~ '
I'. "
:,";,' ,I,
"
't'.' > I,
I, ,~
,() < ',/1
. I; .'../~ ......
/"...r..~,. :..A/. . "--
Jack I. \'/o11e, Sec'Y~
City Planner
,1< "
'"
, ~ : ,<
..~:',
, ,~ ::" '
, ~:. ..
" '
.",' < ,
" ,
, ,. '.l j'
" .
-" , , '
'L" '. "
~~:'::::;~ ""',' :
~ ,L .,' ,...;...,;,I, ' ' "
V(:. ,', ':.
:t~~,::,~~. " '
~'.,-' v'': ' "
tl, ;~~: . .\ . ' : ' ~
...., ..',;, 'I "
~,\::{:','!';" ,.:':." .
:.:.::'.'
~: 1 : .',- ~ <.-
~;,~:' :. ,,~ : \ ,
, . ~ '
,,)
.\'1
, ;::f
-1
;.~,
,", '
';
,;, '
. ' ' , ,
'.
, .'
~.J
. {:,' '..<' \
'. ,
, '.\
. "
,.']
" ,\
'.
.'
: \' "
~ .. I' , '
~:: "
,', .
Ii', ~L ' ,', "',
,I,. ,
. ,
, 'I
~
.{
!
"I
, 'I'
,\ "
r::,,~', , ',~ . ' i ,
',.;
.-,
:,i
" '
,tl:,',:'
. "
:', ',. ~"\~1>
. ,:-"
"
'\
.,
...
t,', '
~; :;,' ': ~ :
:1' ,
i ,~, , > '
"
:t' " ,
, ,
, .'
. ,
, .
~ ~. . '
, ' J~""',
L-. ,t 1 (. '~ ".~., ';.~:!:' ~.\ r:':~:'!'1r
, ,
.
Propol!ul I ... A:rgulIlon t II'or (cnn t inw,)d )
Page 1~2
t". of Adju:;\tme1'lt fmd ApPl"1aJ. (1) "1iO ndjunt. i~he tlt,rict provisions of
tiha ordina nee so aEl to permi t "Jhat~ \'lD.S intended ~ but, not fOl"enenn by
the drafters of tha o1"d:lJ1.nnce".. 'l'he Board's purpose is to apply' the
discretion of experts t.o exceptional instances \'Jhere permits are de-
sired, not strictly conforming to zoning reguJ.ations., The Board of Ad-
justment and Appeal is .:;iven no power by State statute to establish
'policy by luling on matters which ~nount to a change of zonou Such
authority, is granted only to the municipal legislative body. the City.
Commission, which is elected to off:i.ce I)
60 A ~oning cb~ge under Proposal I will be accomplished the same
as any other: general law by a municipal ordinance which becomes effec-
tive immediately-. provides flexibility in zoning changes and adequate
methods of speed,eto.., to meet. modern times and conditionso
~ ~, '
~--...
"
...~.."
, 7 c
Ordinance 642, Chapters 12-53, authorizes the City Commission'
',', ,
I
to zone all newly annexed property as it deems appropriate without any
'. provision for a p.ubltc hearing or a referendum. Under this ordinance
/1'
the City Commission is curren tly accing under the lfIichigan rule cit.ed
in No.4 above where the courts have hold that the democratic process
of' a public reforendum is not applicable to general lcivTS such as zoning B
, "
.l1rgum~nt Af'i~in~~:
1 B Voices of tihe people are denied" a final yet.() over City
"
Commission .In adopting zoning chnngf3s.,
,\
'"
\ ': i'::;
l".;'
I
., ,
z&P 8-15-61
.
~ ',~ ..' ~, " ' ,'~ ."." ":": I I \, '.'~':' \ i ,:: : -; ..' : ,,:..; ", . ,.' :~.,' ..~'::" ,'\ :::' . ' " ;: ;,: ,.'.: : '" ., : ': .',> ..~: :.', I: :, ",; :: ; ;:: ' , 't.~ > . 1\,.:.:" :1:'-, ' ',:-:, ': -t, .'.- ~ }',: I, ,'; ~: " ; ..' '.., ': ': . ~ " ."" : ',', "; '" : ' ' .,.' ,..' . :,',
Ii
.
.'~
, "
"
'. ; ...-.",'
:, j,
, '.._r'
" ,
I.
",
"I..:)
PHOPOSi\L II. .... }tiINAl, ZONING D&CIGION BY nJ~li';:~ttlHHHII'~
l~rgllftlen1t ,~:ox::
10 01"igin~ll authorlty for a zoning o).~clina nee in t.ho Clt.y of
Clenr\'rater lias the Special Jl.ct of the l~lorid1.1 Legislature 1931, Chapt.er
. 15671, obta~lled bY' the city officials, and. 't,'Ihich act 1'e questod by ou~
city officials provided for a referendum on zoning changos, thereby
v~st'ing final decision on all zon:J.ng changes in the people. The free-
hold voters were here given e. veto over tho City Gommis sion regarding
zoning changes 0 Our existing zoning ordinance passed in 1952. continued
,
this yeto powfir in the people. By long established practice and prece-
dent this should be continued..
2. City Commission can stiJlkeep any zoning changes it objcc~6
to' from 'going to the referenduma
. Argwrien ts Against :...
1. City Oommiss~on is authorized to zone all annexed property
as it deems, appropriate. (OrdtOance 642, Chapters 12 to 53)~ ,This
method of zoning j.B not in harmony '\tlith the enabling act, as it does
not provide ~or a public hearing or a referendwn~
2~All ar~lment8 in favor of P~)posal I {Final Zoning Decision
in City Commission) are also arguments against Proposal II (Final
Zoning Decision by Refarendlli~)~
J"
Inflexible and inadequate to meet mode:C'n times and condi-
Too 810\-1 a process to accomplish the desi.r6d'rasultso
tions ..
.q
Z& P 8/15/61 '