01/21/1964
. ..'~ ,:,., ',~I.. :: ,'",',':::;': "'".;'", ,'. ",},::;":+~,,,,:,,;:,: .~',.I'::,~.:,",:':""':" ~:'1"':""~'''/'::'<:~I,,=>'>:'',',,'~,l'',~,.''~ :,":.':"i'~I..,'I,.':I(o'i:''''''',,'~'~''''~'::'~''.~l;,_,~,:.
TilE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
/
Minutes of the Heeti.ng} Tuonday,. Jc1nuary 21, 19 61~.
,-...., The meeting was called to order at 3:00 P. r1. by,the Chairman,
Hr. l<ru9c. Present wel"e Members Reade ~ Gates s Harries and Mylander,
MI'. Rettig of the Engineering Departmen1:, and Mr. Wolle"
The minutes of the meetings of Decernbex' 31, 1963, and J,:.muary
7, 1964, were approved as submi.tted i.n \.olritten summation to each
member.
SIGNS ..:. The Flannel" pt'(~sented 4 applications for Commercial
...~ LJ oM
Signs (applicant t Ray Daniel) ~v'i th the infomation that:
All, fouft were submitted wi,th identical construc,tion drawings
and that the si~e of the signs was 9'11" x 39fy
The four applications had been approved by the City Engineer
as to construction.
Three of, the requested locations were on Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.
They ,are panel signs. These are small--330 ft. smallest they go.
1.. - H~dC?!!.J:~!.~t--99..:_...::.~t[t~~tt~9..r...:..J:~~~.!l.1, ~~~Y....J.~!!-e
The Board voted that the application be disapproved as being
in violation of the ordinance defining maximum size.
)
2..
GU1!:,to- ~an~..:. B~.f~~!2.~1~~~g~!J..;_t2-:.B~.:. Ei!!!.! ,of CR..1L-
, The Board voted t' r ,p', application '"'If disapproved as being
'in violation of the ot'dinance def5. ~'
.dximwn size.
3.. - ~a~o-k.!r~l!.!...,;:.....!L~t!L~.L(j..~~li:.:~C?~':J~~Y-:.....llQ.._~. ~~U
of No. Haines Rdy - The Board voted that the application be
.-......." .....- ~ ---.~~ ...
disappftoved as being in vi olat:i 011 of .the ordinance defi"ni ng "
maximum size.
,....t
4. .. J a ~ T~.r ~9t O!'...~l...:.., ,!i 2!'.B~E.~; :-L~...2.f._?B1L..:!~.::!32Z.":,,,J?!1..Q...1"~t..:-~,:i!
of }~C!yvie.w_!tl..Y..c:!:.. - The 8oal:,d voted that the appl ica tion be
" ,
,'J
disapproved as being in violation of the ordintlnce defining
,maximum s-ize.
,I',
, '
p ~ Z Bd4 Minutes
1/21/6~ P~Re fl?
ZONING - IN'l'ENT rOR ANNEXATION ORDINANCE fl996 .. The Planner
-'-"_"'-4~ ..,.. J;I ~ f' ---.... --...WJ............,.,lu...........t...ri M 1...~"7 fA 1.L .t..........,........v pq- ..............._""'~
Approximately 15 acrev in ~he NE 1/4, Sec. 11, TWPb 298, Rge. 15E.
.---...
,
General locat~on was described as ,north of Palmetto Street to the
east of Ridge Ave" (proposed Bi.te of Keritl~dy Jr~ High School).
Mr. Rettig reported thi-lt r'~~queat had been made fo'!" a l~O ft. dedication'
for Palmetto Stt'eet right-.of-way; also that l~O ft. had been dedicated
fot' Palmetto Street in the platting of the adjoining Highland pines
Subdivision unit.. Inquiry was mnde as to existing r:i.ght-of-way for
alignment of Palmetto StreBt in unplatted City-County areas to the
west and south of the pl~oposed annexation. This information was not
determined Q '!!~.!l.~.!?B~ b:t:.~t!E...:~a~~:!~....2-~~_~..Y_l:!!::._~RE-~de, the
~,?_a.!~.~~t,ed; to_..R.~...ms.e.!!9_~~r::"'~~2-.t._~'!!~~.!?..l?~po~~_d' s i~-9L.Jl~e
JS~p.nedYAJr ~.J!.~'.BJl Schw~~.~t2.;:!.Q..e..1..i!2,..1.lltel}.'L!..2.t....a.'1!!~.~ig,lJ. O.ti~.=.'
nance #996.
-...~ ~
ZONING - INTENT FOR AllNEXATION ORDINANCE 11995 -.BMG INC ~ -
~"""""""'f....c""""""''''___''''!I,I;I.,:.I'''~'''''~4'.n..vt..ur,'''I''''~~'''''''~ ~--...yll-~ ~ ~~
The Planner pointed out th~ location of the following property ~e-
quested ,to be annexed:
Acreage in Sec. 21f, 1';-Jp. 298, Rge. 15E~
General ~o~ation was described as south of the 3rd. Addition to Fair
"
\;-)
Oaks Subdivision. Mr. Rettig repo]~ted that engineering plans in
connection with a p1.~oposed pl-Rtting had been submi ttl~d to the Engineer-
ing Dept. Mr.. Wolle reported that he had not oeen any propose.d plat.
Refel~ence was made to the n-1E zoning of the subdivision adjoining
to the north (size. of f1:ca1~';nt.!rl loots platted falls into the R-1C
c las s ifi cat ion ) ~ QE~2.!~ 2!Lkl....!:.t~:.._.13.~9-.9~~L,.~.9.E..t1.c!!=..9.JJ.:L_t~r.,.:..~~'-
,!=,l\e v-~oa!.LY.2:.!~_ t 0__ ~~s~eR~J3,.:.1~_.9..~,.B. - ~12.~...~...P~.fl__!2.mD.Y_~_..?n5W i n K...f.E.r.
th i~ _P2,:rc~l.. ,~q~t2.,.!hL~.~L~m~Ili~1~..!2r.~~~t.11~ ~~~t9_}llf....~~_!.~E!!,li.D.~Q.
Ei'"-,,, con t~~!."pf.~..!Q~, Pl.e.~~.!.'- ~ i!h_.!!l~~Rr:..~U~l.?g~~E.~~.~8.gt~~!.L.
,~ .
"
:".' ',:,;:,:,;'::"::', ~,~"\:,;,,",\",,,. ",': f':.,,~,:~\,,:'::';:'''''<~ ....":'......\:,,.':'.',,: ;.'(,:.t"".I.~"",',~~::'~~ ",'; ,~';. ',:,' ;~'",.;:.~,.~~;,,',' ,':.,~, '. ".' ",' ",::. ':',~".+~;.'.',:,': ::".."..:.'.,Ii..,: ':'~',",~'-:',".',
P & Z Bd Minutes
, 1/211 G If
Pf1ge #I 3
MYRTLE AVE. ZONIUG ~ I.Al<EVIEW TO CHESTNUT - 'l'hr.t [\OllT'd dis-
_....~~........~.......-......,......~......_..........._I,....._..1-..~k'_..........ON/WI.................__..............,I........__.........
t~
cussed in nome detai 1 "the land U1.H! ilnd zoni.ng alc.:mg Uy:rtlc Ave.,
.
south of Drew Street, vJ:i.th pa'rticul::n~ <9mphd.si,g on tho Lakeview to
Chestnut se.gmen t. The Planner pointed out use~ f;H3 indicflted in co'lor
code on a strip land uo~map diflplayed~ Mr. Wol1~ ~ecommended:
That the R-4- zoning orl th(! ear.lt tmd w~st side between
Lakeview and Jeffc:n"ds be ret:ainedu
That no zoning, chunge. be reconlmended foT' the east
side south of D~uid Road~
That if a pl'oposal ft)Y.' a Hec1,VY Bm., in~s$ zoni ng classification
(unde~ study) is approved, such zoning would be adaptable to
SOIne portions of 1:he HEost Bide of Nyx'1:1e now zonad uHf', 11fg.,
in a depth tQ b~ reco~nended upon his fu~ther study and to a
pOI'tion of the East 9 ide of Gt'eenwood Ave. bet~Jcen Court and
Cleveland (ncnoJ prm;en'tly zone "11").
"
Mr~ Holle'detailed for the Doard'a list of uses included in a
:;, :,,-"\
", ~,t / . ,_..I
preliminary HB s.tudy Pl"Op03aL. Thut'e \iaS some discussion of the
p'ossible provision for some. ligh't lr,anufal':turing uses in an HB zone
based on performance.
After c011sider<'1.tion of 'the existing uses and potential develop-
ment or the east side of Myrtle St. no~th of D~uid Road to Chestnut~
!ir..,.,.B.!!_~..!l~!i;~.~tC?.,!:.,t;8.2!'E.!i~R~~..shE})~~.!?_'E~_tr.2f~~n.?~g,
13.21A ~ d--.: S e 1:''''y'j;.Q..~?w_~2DJ.nr;:...i~:!...1h.~.wC:}~~!04E!t4~__9J.....t!lE.!..~.~y.,?~...~.?U!:!l.tti.~
,:\
from the rear lo.t line of lots fronting ~.:outh on TUl'ner Street to
~'-~~-l '"1;-""'I_..~~....-..u:'-'-"'_;\,o,.....u_......caoo...._..........,.~_........................._.....~r-~llo..l:;lftO.~. "1,.IW___~4'J1f~"""","",-Pil.~..-....a~_~_y~..............'
.1lmE:.~~~ ( a Pl?F.2.:.:cJ,~~!l}:1;.~_~:-,!L~t..l2.:J:g.s.t~L~~!?".~,.,.9,~.E.~"",9L~~~'.t~!~..;......_.!!i s
~9:.t;l2!}.l,._~_e E2~!L1?~.Jir":ft~~~~;!.L~:::'~~. J~?-,~~~~.,,~~E..~~r.! ~E.!2Y,~!:Y~_
The Planner raqucs-ted thn t memb/.;!t'H fiiWi1 .i.Cll"'i Z8 1:herns~ 1 ve:3 \Vi th
the land uses, in segmm-..t of l1y!:'tl!~ Ave. from Ches-tml't to Drew fOT'
discussion at the ney.t Jfleet'in eO,
SUBDI1.~~li.? ::...J.t!f~!Q~:I!.....f:{l~l~~~.,Yji.!.Ik.~.f.~I:_~- Location of llr.i t II was
, ,
described BB adj oining the pJ.a"t 01' Urli t I' on the south, bounded by th~.
..~)
, ,
R-4 zone line on the nOl:'th~ The P1.unn~T.' l'CpClT'ted that the \nattel'" of
providing a right-of-way or a pedestrian way from Eas.tfi F.dd Drive to
" ,
.:;
P & Z Bd Minutes
1/21/64
Page #4
HerculuD Ave.. in alignment with the eastern torminUD of Stnncel Drive
W119 under discussion with tho developer of Tmpor-.i.a 1 Park.. '!'hi,s would
, ~ involve the acquisition of .1 right-of'-way or easement within an 00 ft.
'unplatted strip (owned by a ~fr~ HcPherson) at the eaat~rn end of
Stancel Drive. (in the County Subdivision, Douglas Hanor).. (reference
is made to Planning and Zoning BOa.l"d minute9 of 1/8/63 and 12110/62)
It was reported tha.t Stanc'e.l Drive 1 if extended, would be in line with
Lot 29 of Unit II. Information obtained from Mr. Jacobsen of the
County's Planning and Zoning Department indicated that" there might
be a saving in s'chool bus trunsportation to the School Board if this
access we~e to be p~ovidedM
It was decided to defe~ action on this
........,....~.~............-...... P-';::"'T~- 1 ~ --..~
!Renda i~m pe.ndin.~..:..~!.~;L!1.~ae.t!.~t1!.2!L~!..th_t..be -?~llQO~ .-~L!o
~~~e I'lI1_~l!eth eJ..~_j:.,n ttre~t..!!l2..J?..~~S?..~..E.~~9S19J~f- n ~M!!i l!! T! ~ _th} s.
street extension '.
~ ...w____~~
HOUSING STUDY REPORT - Each member was distributed a copy of
.rr.........-..........-4 ,. ~~ s v--
,-
, ,
, ,
......,..
UA Progress Report" dated DeeM 15, 1963, submitted by the Chairman
of the Civic Planning Committee of the Cleal"water-1.aI'go Board of Real-
tors~ Inc~.. concerning its survey of the Colored Housing Situati.on.
Subject report was re.ferred to the Planning and Zoning Board fOl~ ap-
propriate study and recommendation by memol"andum from th e City Mana-
ge'!' da1:ed 1/21/64. in accoY1dance with request of the City Commission.
After a brief informal discussion, the ChaiI'rnan reouested -that members
.........__..~..'--'"--.....-~IIm~ - -A__ ........-.. ... .-----.. - ~.
, .
,"
~~_:t!t.e L':.P..9..tlp...lli.9-E!L.P_~ P.?!~...(.L_~_~.ll&~_.:.::-..u~~ll...~~..!iJl$-t~~...
pos.!!..~M~,.i ty ~~9.2[1,.f!l~n_da;~~ En~ h 3ll.'!.:t.~2. .?g.S!~g~iEl2!,..Jn~.
Planning literature was dist~i~,ted_
'rhe meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p, !-L
...~
II