06/28/1956
'. '.' . : I " . I I j ...": ;". '. I . ; " . \ '.. I .'. I , ~ ~ '. ,I~ .'. . I" . ' . . ~ , . '\'
~
..~~
" '
" "\'<U)
"
\, I'
Minutes of meeting Thursday June 28) 1956 in Planning Board Office
Present were members Kruse, Reade, Norton, Levison, City Commissioners
Insco and Bohannon, Nick Rompon of the City Engineer's Office and Chuck
Albury of the St. Petersburg Times.
Chairman Kruse called the meeting to order at ):30 P.M.
Commissioner Insco announced that after exhaustive investigations
that he had found an excellent location for the proposed new fire station
on City owned property at the corner of Drew Street and \'1hat is nm., Keene
Road, formerly known-as Webber Road. The members of the Board Who were
present expressed approval of this location for it filled specifications
which the Board felt were important for a fire station, inasmuch as it is
,on a corner location with direct access to arterial roadways with lOa feet
right-o.f;..way, as ShO\ffi on Planning Board map lfM R 1", running east and west
and north and south.
The park area provided by the Stevenson Creek fill was discussed next.
Commissioner Insco, in answer to a question, stated that he did not believe
the Commission would vdsh to make an expenditure for tennis courts in that
area but that they would be considered at the present location at the foot
of Cleveland Street after the Elks Nursery building is moved. Mr. Insco
expressed opposition to giving land to the Garden Club or other organ-
" izat10ns i.n the Stevenson Creek fill but instead feels that in general
park areas should be o\'med and maintained by the City.. He requested that
the plan which the Board prepared for Stevenson Creek fill be submitted
to the City Commission. Thereupon Mr. Levison moved that the plan pre-
pared by the Board entitled "Proposed Development of a Park at the Mouth
.
of' Stevenson Creek" be forwarded to the City Commission with the recom-
1\
mendation that it be adopted and that it be accompanied by a letter from
the Garden Club dated May 7, 1956. Mr. Reade seconded the motion which
,"
,-
June 28, 1956 Page 2
~ passed unanimously. Mr. Insco expressed his feelin8 that the City should
be very ca~tious about excepting dedications of areas for parks. He stated
that there are now over 20 "so called" parks which have been deeded to
the City by property owners and which are of little use as parks but re-
quire ,expensive maintainance by the City. Mr. Insco feels that plans for
parks at the present time should be limited to Creat Lake on the east,
Coachman Park and the Causeway on the west, Stevenson Creek on the north
and possibly a new park on the south side of Clearwater.
Commissioner Bohannon next introduced the problem of providing a
residentual district for the colored people in Clearwater. In the dis-
cussion it was pointed out that the Court Street, Greenwood Avenue,
Missouri Avenue distric'~ was rapidly being taken over for 9usiness purposes
and that the Greenwood Apts. district is hemmed in on all sides with 110
room for expansion. He also pointed out that conditions of much of the
housing in that area is deploralbe.
, ; ,~......
. , 1
,. , }
--'
..
".
, '
Mr. Kruse announced that in the new City budget, Miss Dobson would be
~n t.hecEngineering Department payroll but w:luld continue to serve the
. .. " t
"
Board as usual. Commissioner Insco said that it is the policy of the City
to have employees on the payroll of operating departments only and not
charged to advisory groups such as the Planning Board.
Mr. Kruse next brought up the Coachman Park Parking Lot for which a
contract has been let. He urged that construction be postponed until the
City Engineer's plan can be changed so as to retain the palms and other
attractive featUres of the bay front park. Both commissioners suggested
that the Board write the City Commission a recommendation that construction
be postponed until this can be done.
Commissioners Insco and Bohp.nnon then left, in order to keep another
" .i
1 .~~
appointment.
~'.. . II. I . '. . I.. ". '. '. : ~".' ., . I'. '." + . . - ..: ",' , . . . ". 'i . : . '. .
",..,
" :J
June 26, 1956 Page 3
"':~
/J
Mr. Reade brought up the question of Planning Board functions as they
are to be included in the revision of Ordinance 632. He pointed out that
with the Board constituted as it is at present, having no paid starr and
with only two members who can devote a good deal of time to Board activitie
I
,
it would be inadvisable to delegate responsibilities greater than the
Board now has. Under the revised ordinance as no\'l drafted, it would be
necessary for the Board to devote a great deal of time to the study of
each subdivision plat submitted by developers. Mr. Reade suggested that
this had better be left to the City Engineer and that the City Engineer's
authority and requirements should be broadened under the revised ordinance.
Mr. Rompon pointed out that the City Commission has indicated that the
City Engineer should administer the present Ordinance 632. Mr. Levison
exp~essed the belief that the revision of the ordinance should anticipate
increased importance of the Planning Board and that the ordinance as
" revised should not limit the Board to its present activities. No formal
" ,
',: conclusion of the discussion resulted but it was the consensus of the
;,
-',
"
"
~::~ '
,;
c;
i' "
'. '
q \1tlJ)
:: ~
"
meeting that a clause should be included which would permit the City
"
Commission considerable latitude in the delegation, of responsibility'for
study and approval of plats of new SUbdivisions.
,
The m~eting adjourned at 5:00 P.M.
Res~c:rUIIY s~bmitted ~
.~~~~~~s~~~ ~
, :