10/30/1963
~:..I .: :,' ~ :.:, ,.,... ';', ':,: :.'::. ~ .:' :::, :\\. '. >.' .: "~t 'i ::,: I <. ~~..~t,~', ::: .~~. ,': ;"" <, :>.::~: .I....'~' " ! :.',~ ": ':,. .~.:, ',,~ /:'~. .:. : ~~.':' :'(.:::~:' ~:' '.'! ) :. / :/:., ~ .. " ': '~,:~..' ~.., ~ '~: :'. ~ . ',,' :';' ~l . ',:, :": ':,.' .,: :1~ :'.';:;~' ::', .:: \':'.',~ ,': ',' ',.',,: ';,: <; :,~' ;'. ./ ::: ~':'. ~: ;:.~ '.~:'..: '~'::l."" '; :,' ','.', ',' ':'.', .
1'He PLAHNING ^ND ZONING BOAHD
/~
~i
r1inutcs of the Hectin8, \tJcdnesday,October.' 30, 1963.
The meeting was called to order nt 3: 00 . P. t1. by the Vice Chl-lirrnan,
,Mr. Reade, as Mr. Kruse wac to be detained for a short time beCRUSC of
anothbr meeting. Present were Members Reade, Harries, Mylandcr, Swan
,1nd \oJi lliams, Mr. Retti g of the Engineering Depa rtrl'1ent, and Hr. YlQlle.
T~e miriutcs of the maetinr of October 10, 1963, were approved
as submitted in written summation to each membe~.
.. .
SETBACK RESTRICTIONS FOR OPEN STRUCTURES - LETTER REQUES~ -
Copien of a letter addressed to the Planning and Zoninr Board d2ted
10/25/63 from Douglas ROACh for Imperial Homes Corporation were pre-
sented for Board revieYl (subject of letter: "Rear Yard Setback Require-
ments as they Affect Open Structures"). This letter requested time on
the next Beard agenda for the purpose of discusGinr the captioned
matter and sei forth as reasons for the request contained therein that
, "
,the Board take cognizance of modern trends toward screened areas of
rear yards and reexaTl'ine the rear setback requirements of the ordinance
'as it pertains to screened enclosures for R-lC and R-ID zones.
It VIas
stated in the. content that this matter had been discussed with u num-
bel" of builders in the Clearwater area and that they had all e~libited
concern over this restrictive requirement.. The Vice Glairman advised
that the above letter was received subsequent to discussion at the' last
meeting con cerninp, a s chedu Ip.d" B / AI A Cl'1.se invol vinr r'p.quest foI" vari-
ance in rear setback for lots in Unit 1, Imperial Park. Mr. Rende
.
made reference to Board action at the Oct. 24th mectino in thi~ matter.
Hr. Wolle explainad that the Board Iw.d pr..;!vious ly considered ()f1 1y a
change for rear setbacks as for walled structures dnd this did not
specifically pertain to open ctructurCG'OP swirominp nools as an npen
structure.
\,..../
Mr. Reade defined the matter before the Bo~rd ~n rcqucut for zon-
, )
r & Z Ed. Minutes
10/30/63
P.:\p'C (12
lnp, ordin:mc(l .1ddi tion and J1lod.ifi~a ticn in setbucJ< which Hould ':lpply
.-.....
-to homeG where the.y want to build ~1"dmminp, pools with screened rmclo-
surao. . Mr. Wollci clarified that the applicntion pert~ins to ~ny
screened enclosures; <.1.1so that, according to hi.s infor.ml~tiol1 ~ the Ci.ty
Building Department dGterminad a screened cnclosu~e, whether it has a
roof crnot, as a structure.
Mr. Kruse joined the moeting ~t this time and took over the chair.
There was some further informative discussion of the matter ppior to
meeting with the applicants.
at 3:25 P; H. - Mr. Douglas D. Roach, Rutenbc.t'r. Represent<1tive,
and Mr. Willi8m B. Albracht, Developer's
Engineer, appeared before the Board on behalf
of npplicant.
,~
-,;,/
"
Hr. . ROilCh spoke in favor of the requent. Some point~1 presented were:
;,' They are reques ting the Bo~r'd to take cOI~nizan0.~ of trend in
resiqential construction to utilize larpcr area by very open
,type structures (hoth roof and sides) - in most instances to
be attached to the house - and in takinp note of this tendency
to nmend the existinp. R-ID zoning c,lassificC'ltion to allow such
screened enclosures to be conptructed or added to a home beyond
the now established 20 ft. 1 ine for the reclr, but not JnoPC than
10' ft. '
Such sCl'eened one lOSlll"'CS may be with or \-1i thout S'.,,rj mmin? l>clI)l.
'His company never eocs back to Tnude additions once a' home: is
compl~ted, but they feel ONneT'e should be able in the future
to better utilize 'their home by C\ddinp on to it.
The trend is definitely towctrd deeper houses, but par'ticulc\rly
where lots are deeper prc2tcr utilization may be rrade of the
rear yard.
Mr. Albrecht spoke In support of t:he rcquest.. Some views cxpr(~::ised
,were: \,
The screened area still strlndn as an open U~;.8 peI'1:'i tt:i.nr lipht
and air - makes 3 much more? useful back ynrd (he 'questioned
whether it really chanf.?,p.f" t:w ch."1 ractcr of the b,:ICk Ydrd).
t...........-'.
He has discussed thi~j matter' \,Ji th f i VG Or' 5i x bui Idf? rs in tni 5
area.
Ii
I :.., "::.' '. ...:, " .~:: : :, : . ,:': ,~. '. ':: '. .:. . ::~" I' : ~'\~., ,'. ;\:" :~~ ":;,: i"':' . ',:: :: ~ ! "\' .'~' :' < '.',1 ~';:' ..' ;.:. ..' ~ : >'; ,:-::' . .::.:, I, : .", ~ ; '.:' ',~" ~'. ,: '" ',: :~';' \ :,..,:;. +; . ~,I '.:, .) ~ ': ' :' :' .~ ~ :. ~. ~.. ;~:' ,\ { '. i :' ':', = 1 :;':. : , ,: ~ ,\:' .~/; : ~ \~~;.:..' ':; ::>::: ~ :,1 ~' ;:. <.. ~ :,." I :', .:/-: '.: ~~,: : '. .' ,t :,i
P & Z Bd ~Iinutes
10/30/63 Puce #3
~\
Tho request is limited to modific~tion of the R-ID for an
accessory use which in compl~tely 0f an open area (prabnbly
should have somG definition of any Modification th~t could be
mad~ on the bird care und still keep it functional U8C of the
back yard).
Hambers discus sed other details concerninp the T'equ(.!" t t-1i th these
representatives and looked at some photos presented illustrative of
hones with open structures. Upon Board comment that these photos did
'placed
not show, houses/back to back, Mr. Hoach stated they were only intended
to shotoJ the "1ook-throughness" of the bird cage. He exprenscd the
opinion thQt a 5 ft. fence, as compared to a bird cag~ (usually 8 ft.
in height) is far more restrictive. Chairman Kruse broupht up the possi-
bili ty that protective devices such as canvc!s screens might be put up
in these enclosures. ,Nr. Krllse inquired if they should adhere to a
25 ft. front setback, would they still want the 10 ft. rear ne~back
(Mr. Roach replied that 'the 5 ft. additional would help, but rlOt "cure").
Mr. Roach expressed reluctance to change the es~ablished 30 ft. front
.setbacks. Also, he did not think that a change to 15 ft. setback for
all structures would be the answer. Reference was mnde to hcarinc be-
.'. .
fore the B/A/A on Oct. 24th at which time the case was defern~r].
Hr. Roach sumJTled up their request as beinR that "you ChcUlFC 20 ft.
to 10 ft. from the rear line for accessory structures of an open na-
ture". Upon inquiry of Mr. SWRn, it was confirMed bV Mr. Rettiv And
Mr. Wolle that it was agre~d that a screened enclosure is a structure.
Mr. Roach confirmed to Hr. Hylander thut requGst as set forth in letter
was amended and that they were dropp1nr chanpc in the R-IC requirement
from their request.
'"V
Hr'. Roach and Mr. Albrecht w~rt: thank..::d for' th(:ir iltt:endancc Clnd
',',' left the meeting at this time. They were rldviscd by tho? ChtLirPlfll1
that the Board vTould considQr thoi r' rrJ1uest .:1nd come to .'1
decision.
, ,
..
~:' ':: , ,.' ': :. :' ,': ' , .: ,,:;':: :.,:. ,J, '.', ::. ',=," " ':< ": ' . ", \ .:.:': ... ~':,:;",': ~ ~l' .~. " '. :'. ',.,:. . :'- I .': ".': ~ " .: .'t ...,,',:..' '" ,; , .: 'I . : ::,~::.., \ \ ,I. ,.:.1 ",..:' . . '~~"'. ,~' ;::,...., ~ -;. .,,:' ~ ~', ' ..' ".,>:::". 'i :,', I ,: ':.' '.i.::' " l. ,;, . ~ . , . ,." ". ! I' ; I ; : ,\ <~' : \ : I, I . " .' , , ..' : I. " . ~':' < ..' , ::::
P & Z Bd. Minut~s
10/30/63
r\'l no '/I-t
~
flftOl" some. further di~ cust.don, .!bSLJtoard pi15scd ,1 1i',ot ion by Mr'. r{carle:,
~ond(::!d by Mr. Hc\rt:.~cs, that requeo't for chanfZ'e in the zoni.n~~ ordi-
nance to permit 10 ft. setbacks from tho rear lot lines for 5u~h
8 tructurcs as the upplicant has pl'opoood be denied rind tha, t the Planner
infC'))"mally ~1uflrcst tt.") the applicantf3 thrlt th(lY g0 to the Board of Ad-
justm~nt and Appeal on Zoninp with Applications for individual exceptions.
SUBDIVISiONS - DUNCAN COURT - SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REPORT
(GENERAL LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER KINGSLEY AND MADISON) -(continued
from Oct. 24/63) - t1r ~ 'Reade reported that ,3.11 three membcrs of the
COmI:1i ttee had made an on si to inspection and "that consideration had
becn ~iven to Board approval 6r n similar type subdivision i~ this Madi-
sCJn Ave. neighborhood within the past tHO years Hith u. like street ar-
, ;
ranRcrnen't and 40 ft. right-of-way. He observed that n~ce home~ have
".........., been constructed in this formerly cteveloped subdivision. The Subdivision
'"""",1
Committee recommended approvnl of the plat of Duncan Court as sub-
mitted. ChaiT'man Kruse inquired 'as to the possibility of havinv an ilL"
shaped street rather than the cul-de-sac. Mr. Wolle advised thntthe
Engineerine Dept. had reviewed both proposals and approved the cul-de-
sac design. He further noted that R-2, Duplex, zoninr of the plat
are~ has require~ent for 25 ft. front setback. Upcn Motion by Mr.
t1ylander, seconded by Mr. SHan, The BOurn voted to r:tccept the recommcnda-
ticn of the Subdivisiori Committee ~nd approve the l)l~t of Duncan Court.
Bcff.n-'e the vote HClS tilken Chairman Kruse questioned \olhcther the Bo,:n'd
would be criticized for permittinp such reducerl rirht-of-w~y ~nJ clll-
dc-sac radius in the design of ~hi~ subdivi~ion.
BRENTWOOD1 UNIT #2 - SUBDIVISION COHI-HT'l'EE'S HEPOHT - (t.~LNERbL
'.J LOCATION: ON EAST SIDE OF HIGHLAND ^\'C '.' NORTI! OJ' Sf\~~J,^NE) -
:I,"~,>~, .:.,:',:).:'I~'.';;", \"',.l,';'\'::: ::::'1 ,.~' ~l:~ ~~', ~:.,'",; :.'~~' ':':'~"":"""'\'''+;'.:;',.;>.',~'.;. ",:, 'i' :..-:.::,,~:(":';.' ".': ;:'l:~':;''''..: :.:.;.:. '. ::.:'::..:~ :,:,(:~~ :'~..~,::I"""/"::,~, .::;':;;~::' '.',~, ..:"'I.':~:'I..I.,'(..:'. ~:. '.';"'~:'r":.:,:.'.',:;'.:;_:.:,:;': '.:::1, .:i.~'.,;\'i:
P f. Z Bd Minutes
lO/30/G3
r."\ f.O II 5
t........
.
,
The BO':lt"d l't:!viewed 1/200 scale Prhpooed Preliminary PL'\n Ely 'J'l"'rlCt in
the North 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Sec. 2-298-
1Sr: (.J^\40 1/615-C-I03I110 indicated as Brentwood Add'n No.2, rlubmittcd
by Mnrshall Kent. Mr. Reade repo~tad thaL he, Mr. HDrries and Mr. Gutes
h~d made an on site inspection. He stated that all the minimum require-
menta for thn subdivision have been met in the plan so far RS he knew;
further that the streets have 60 ft. right-of-way, interior lots are
GO ft. and corner lots are 80 or 85ft. HI'. tvolle advised that-the
Board could request a larger scale plan; however, that the developer
the
prcnentcd this with sufficient data for/Board's consideration. The
loop was a chanpe from the ori~inal owner's master plan (for Highland
~
.
Estates of Clearwater, 1st. ^dd'n as reviewed by the Board). Mr.
Harries indicated the Committee would recommend that the developer re-
move a lot on the south to tie into the platted spur of Rosemont Drive,
a 60 'ft. street extension, which is in the 100 ft. platted strip of
Hir,h1an4 Estates of Clearwater, 1st. Addition. Mr. Rettie questioned
the non conformance to the orir.:inal tlaster' Plan. Mr. Wolle .;1[!t'ced
'..,"",
, .
that this area was a part of a previously approved MRster Plan but be-
cause of owner chan~e that a proposed deviation from the orinin~l plan
could be considered and accepted. Mr. Reade reported that the Sub-
division Committee recommended that the Proposed Pre1in1inaI'Y PI-1n indi-
cated as Brentwood, Add'n No.2, bc apflravcd with the l"cqUiI'CPlCllt that
this dedicated right-af-Hay (J.j.nka~}c) be cxtendnd thr(lu~'h ft'0f-l S.=mdy
Lc1ne to the. nex.t East-~lcst str>eet to the north. Hr. nyl:'1nder r:\oved
that the Board approve the Subdivisi0n Committee's report. His motion
was seconded by Mr. Swan. The Enpineerinp RepresentatJve ~aiscd the
"<"",..f
question of the rossible extension of Greenlea Street. The Pl~nner
stated that this matter had been discussed once before and, in his
'.: .:',J: '~.':.' :1 ',:;,.' ~' ~.~:."., :':.:,", :.l~'. :;'. ':.">':~"': .:,.:.r.:,.~';....\:,I~"I""':,.~:':'~~:: ::.>.:, f:\ '""L:'~",~:'.::\..: ..'".,,": .;..'.:,'1 :'':.'':<,~, ::.:...,....'.~....: :~,':\"'. .;1..:.,:..... :'l':.~: ;'. ':J~:' "-~;..I;. "'."t":'~"'::: .:;' ',,~ ...:....1.: ::.:~.;'.,:::(',.:~t:..:
p t; Z Bel Hi nutl~lJ
10/30/63
Page #6
f"'*'
opJnJ.cJn lIt \\foulrI be difficult to try to tie in Greenlea. ^ftcr sOfTIe
rtincunoion concerning the layout of su~roundine subdivisions and proper-
tieD, Mr._~ylandor's motion ~as passed unanimously.
srRVICE STATION - NORTHWEST CORNER BELCHER RD. AND GULF-TO- BAY -
'rho Bonrd roviewed the site: 'plan for thin AMOCO station (an cxistinc
ntation which is to undergo al tel'ations). The Planner recommended ap-
proval with relocation of the southerlymost driveway on Belcher Rd. an
addition~l distance from the intersection and with provision for a 50
ft. 1/2 rieht-of-way for Belcher ROrtd. The Board voted to approve the
Planner's recommendations on plan as submitted.
SERVICE STATION - SOUTHEAST CORNER BELCHER & GULF-TO-BAY - Location
,..-.
I '
',_rlJ
was further described as in the Gulf-to-Bay Plaza Shoppinr Center. The
Planner recommended approval with relocation of approach drives on
Belcher Road 'extending the distance from the intersection and with pro-
vision for 50 ft. 1/2 right-of-way for Belcher Road and relocation of
other facilities, as required in relation to this rig;lrt-of-Nay. Mr.
Wolle indicated that he would make notations of such changes on the
plan. The Board voted to approve the plan \.,ri th the Planner r s above
recommended additions and corrections:j Mr. Reade inquired as to the
status of the Fillinr.Station Ordinance Proposal that has been under
~XXN~XX consideration. Mr. Wolle reported that it would re~cive fur-
ther study by the Zoning Committee.
I~ETING DAYS - ,It was learned that a WednesdRY meetinr rlay re-
suIted in a conflict \>1i th other regularly schp.duled meetinr.s vlhich rc-
quired the attendance of o~e B02trd mcmbel'. The Board voted to hold
regular Board meetinrs on Tuesdays ~vhen required.
-..,../
CBn (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) MODEL - Mr. Wolle reported that
he would talk with Mr. Harries and Mr. Williams on the model.
, ";'.' . : "" , ,',:.', ,';.: ..' ;:, ' .' : ,', ; ~.' : ,'. , " '. j ,j, " . ',.. :":'. ',', ': ~.,:'''..:,: :" .~. \ ,r..' ': : ':", ~.. " , " , ., ";;.. ': . .' .'~ " . ,'.: ,I".... . '.' :'" , :,:;': : "1>' . I" .', ',.',.,. : .:. I ~':" ~ . '; ',:.', .: : "\ :.',' ~, ',: ' ~ =: ~ i t I ~ '., .':' ,',; j' '. ":'" ~\.: ;. . ',".' I 'I ::, ",', ", 'I :, .~,: ~
:,~,
P 6 Z 8d Minutes
10/30/63 Page #7
The Board discussed some suggested names to fill theexistinr,
Board vacancy and areas of service that might be desirable to have
represented. Mr. Williams agr~ed to,investigate the 'possible in-
~ . '.' '. '
~.~ tcrestof a prospective civic~minded citizen whom the Board had oon-
r'
c! ' ~ '. .' ~ I,' :
. ' . ~ ~
:." ,
~. ;.' " .
t, '<l : .
......"
, '
\,' ).."....'
, . <, ~ .
", .'
;~II.f " '<
\.' :.
f~::. I
~!:;:>.
~~.
;~~/: '
;,~',\ J. .
~:~.;
~""',- ,
1! '
t'
"-t'
':"/"",,,",
~;' . I \ '
\.'~. ,\--:.....'
:":.',. .' .
". '
',ll '.
. ~ I '
.'
>
ij. '.
~ :
". I,'
,'. .,
" "V.
f."r '
, ,
:, '
},! ".
:('"
sidered~
AGENDA ITEM S(b), SLIDE PRESENTATION EUROPEAN TOUR - was not
cQveved due to lack of time.
The meeting 'was adjourned at 5:00 P. M~
Respectfully subrnitteds
. 9a.ck,'Jt Lj~
rfftc'K T..-Wolle7 sec'Y
City Planner
~ ~ "
1)
.,