06/30/1964
, ,<:,: : "': : ~', : , ",', ,::: "', j , ~ f.'. .',~,',:: I;::', " ~' :, I ~ : ~ ...,::..: ".:' ;:,:' ~ ',:~ j , ~;.. +.,':' ''',' :, ':', :',;.\ :;' ~ '~...'; ,. ... ',~ ".~, : i ,',,', ' ,I~:' ";,:: .',',',:;' .: '. ", ~ '" ' ' ',' ;: \', 1 ; ~:;. : ,::: ,', " : ;.' , ...' :,:~l ': ..I' :':; ::~: /.. : ~ ...: ~; I: , ~ (~", ';'. ;\:, >', ' :' . ',j ~"" ..: I ~ ,", / ,'~ , " .,~:, . ~:'\
~p""
"
'rUE PT.ANNING AND ZONING BOARD
/'
~/
..-\
Minutes of the MeetinE, TucsddY, I.hmp. 30, J.9G4.
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 P. M. by Mr. Reade,
the Vice Chairman. Present were Membt-~t's G,'ltes, Mylander, Swan,
Williams and Logan, Mt'.. Rettig of the EngineeI"ing Dapiu.'tment, and
Mr. Wolle,
The minutes of the meeting of June 16, 1964, were approved c\s
submi tted in written summa-ti on to each member with cOl'rection on Page
#5 of date of deadline for ~eceipt of ~equests fo~ zoning changes to
June 26th. '
'",
CLARIFICATION OF ZONING REQ..UEST Z-11-66lJ - NORTH SIDE OF CO\!BI....
~TRE,ET. ..::':fJ.m:~:.oF H.r~~t,!'l~~lf1.9:Q.k~[v:.-:-".\Fererence1s- ma de to
p & Z Bd~ minutes of 5/16/64) - The Planner clarified for the record
that the copy of petition of adjoining Cl~mers that lttaS attached to the
application filed by Mr. Coleman did not have the status of a co-appli-
cation fo~ change of their respective lots as presented to the Board
at the June 16/64 meeting, even though the owne~s expressed no ob-
jection to the ~equesto The Board was informed that Mr~ Wolle had
.-"
confirmed with the attorney representing Mr. Coleman in this case
that he' did not consider these owners as co-applicants u' It was fur-
thur reported that'zoning recommendation for denial of request for
FRS zoning was forwa~dad solely with reference to the Coleman prop-
erty (w. qO ft. of Lot 6, all of Lot 7, and the E. 30 ft. of Lot 8,
Block K, Bouleva'!ld Heights Subdivi.sion}d
The Board affirmed i~s
_ /;- IIr .A.....-...~. _.all ~...- ....-
!ecomJ!!.e.nda:t"ion for ..d,~nj..o:1;...ot: PRS z,pn~r~ ....<'!f!_,~.ca.PkALso to~
,qboveningJy.id~l~Cq)...ft~l'J E.F..22~t:!Y..
RECOHMENDATION ON EXPANSION OF Z-12 (LIVE OAK ESTATES AND THE
DUNCAi!...P@1'-~r{Tfr-:,,='tQ:JrC~~IT.:gMN~T9Ei g_w:' 'j'Ke"Planner-1:nformed
the Board of the inclusion of the Duncan homesite property to the
.'
'....j
west of Spencer Ave~ with the Liveoak Estates area l"lezoning applica-
tion~ The Duncan property is surrounded on 'three sides by proposed
Live 'Oak Esta~es and is ~~esen'tly zoned R-l~. It was learned that a
letter from Gladys Duncan had been received in which she made request
t~
to be considered for the same R-IC zoni.np,. !h2~~.!..cL.'!~t.~.1...:!2-2.l?-
prC?~......t.b!~~.31~~. ·
The Planner. t'ocommcnded th(:tt a 30 ft. st'f'li p imme:r.Ha to 1 y north
of Loto 2A1 2 and 3 and the west 54 f~ct of Lot 4 of Block K, Onk
Acres Addition, Unit 3, and all of Block K, Oak Ac~eG Addition, Unit
3, be considered for a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation
(Z-P-12) for rezoning from R-IB and R-IE to R-IC~ It was explained that:
This 30 ft. strip was annexed with R-IB zoning along with
the area to be platted as ,a portion of Live Oak Estates, but
is not of record on such plat and is owned by abutting property
owners on the south~
All lots in Block K (presently zoned R-IE) conform to an R'MIC
classification and a:r'c adj oining proposed I..i ve Oak Estates area
,that qualifies, for an R-IC zone. This rezoning will make all
the a~ea al'ound the la.ke identical and recognize the consistency
, of lot size and dwelling character.
The' owners in Block K have not been contacted, but will 'I"'e-
cei~e notice of the public hearing and have an opportunity to
,exp~eSG an opiniono
Th~ B.9..~t"J!..:!g,;t~LtQ.~rovs. P,'l;.~Il.11.?:.n..a..~9-Jld ~Ol1i1J.a ~~~JB.1~!l..9~!\..- 'Z.-P-:ll.
~.s reconune.IL~Q. by. th!t...P..1f.lL1.~
Z-13-65~ -'~~EST FOR REZONING - PARCEL APPROX. 165 feet EAST-
\~ST ~--",m..~J:Lj:r..iE$)1J.1~fl .ti!fft~R~~~N.CA'f.5'15R'O)? .,:1.10 nET"'E.&Sji
OF ~I.liraINIb_.LANE..ANQ -9..Q.Q..l'J;]l~mlliJ.H OF J~!Jb.E:-..I.2.::JiALeQULE'll\RD "-WE5.T-Qr
lLl\Q.QKS..mI;....aJ.mlJ.l'iIli..tQ..fi..=.. ,~.~Q11. J~::.i~.-t<LR-:L-:..~ijI.S...i.....GkORGt W" --
,LIijDE8 ~Nn .Jat1J;.~, ..Y~QJLj_L_L.QY~~J~J:I.!L,1I,P~,)-..Ml?I,,-)_- P.r>operty was
legally described in application as:
"The East 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the SW l/~,
Section 13, Township 298, Range 15 E. subject to the ~ight-
of-way of the public thoroughfare known as Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.
over the North 50 feet of said tract, less' and except the north
350 feet of the above described land~"
Chairman Reade read to th~ Board Reason for Request as stuted in
, '
'........J
application as follows:
"Pro~~rty is not suitable for R-l type of construction but is
completely suitable for const:t'uc.tion permitted under R-4" Site
is bounded on three sides 'by residential property and on the
North by business property~ The property is not accessible from
the East, West, 01:' South. The only access is a 20' easement
being reserved on the West side of the business property on the
North boundary and this does not muke'the property very amenable
to the development of an R-l area. TI1is is u portion of a tract
,of land approximately 165' wide nnd running north and south 625',
"
.~,); it
P G Z Bd Minuteo
6-30.-611 PaBe 113
Ito odd ahape. and lOcil'tion wc\.\ld almost neceGBi t8.te its deve.lop-
ment as a mul'ti-dwel.l:l.ng area. II
~ Reference was made by the Chairman to the Board's recommendation of
denial of a pr.evious request for R-4 zoning by the former mmCl'S (The
Shankmans). It was recalled that at the March 30/64 public hearing
the Comrnission upheld the Board's reoommendati.on and voted deniaJ of
the request af.ter a gI'eat deal of protest by nearby ttesi.dents in the
area. ,Upon review and discussion't it was t11e consensus' of opil'lion
that the same reaS01'lU for diaapprova1 as before \o7ere still valId -
genel:'a.lly, that mul'ti-dweJ ling zoning ~las not compatible with the
surrounding R-l area, and mOt'le specifically that:
Substantial homes are located in abutting subdivisions.
Mul ti-farnily s-tructures to the rear of surroundj.ng single-
family developments would devaluate these homes and veduce nor-
mal privacy afforded ,them in their existing zone.
It would be objectionable to have a
a large multi-dwelling development.
MI'a Willial1!.~.~~~h~ Boarg_~r.eco!Q!liend ~enial_ of .t1}!"-:.-suJd~ct
lane as access to
~~~2illl1W_.!l>Q,.j~::~....i.~;J. =!:-..2..6ltLilih.~.9..'! ~i pn t119 t toe
S9Jl.~1~e;c~ .".llVJLtwu.,~~Ji;'~.".m9.:t;.i on., ..l!.E'tcqp~Jir,'~_S~'2n.~..~"
. ~ 'i._ .
-~-
lm.an!J.ItOl1,li1U.
~!!!~~-f~~~!.f~~~j!-!::Q.:!,::~1;1!!!~JJ_O}L.QL1!9..tl..qONFORM;rNG
!1Qp-EL_.HOJjJ:....1W.AGE _ The BOiH"d reviewed copies of Zoning Ordinance pro-
posal submitted by the P13nner, text as follows:
!19d .t.o .~~_c;.-:...J....~..-:~~_..fQt~P.tl}, p.p,ra gr:e..pl!..!..
All nonconforming macel homes., those e,dstlng which hl.lVe
never been processed in accordance to the terms of this
ordinance., shall ter'nd,nate sllch usage (as defi.ned herein)
within nine (9) months of the date of passage of this ordinance
amendm~nt.
The Chairn~n explained the proposal as intended to correct deficiency
'.._j in the existing ordinance which doeR not provide for .termination of
model home use for such homes which were built befo~e date of passage
:: : ~ ,":'" ..; .,". , ':,'.", ~ '., " ':, ,.,;"', ,." ',.lr:, ',: ~: ,:,:.,:''',", i,j "':.' ' I ' '. " '~, ' , " , ~, ~~ ,':', ,~ . , . \ :,",' ", I. ~ '. <..' :'/1" l ': '." ,: ~ ':~.'} , ' ":' .',. '~'.' '~., ", :': ;'.... i.- " :: ..' " . : .:~ :~,: : +, ::' :! ..:' l, ~ . '< / ,: ; . I ,:~I ,: ,:-~:: (t' ',1'..',., '...~,~ ,.' t':'; : '~', .~ ~ : "I", ~ :
p a ~l Bd ~ Min\lt(~S
6- 30-6ll
PEl p,t~ #~ I~
of the amenamen.t whioh (~s.t..lbliGhad .a time limitation fc)'r~ lnodnl hO}lHH;.
:rE~~.!.'9_.~..tg,~L....t.Q._~,gqrnJ~s.n9.....~~2J?J~!~,n4..?.;f-.~!?.2.Y..c......ill!'.~!)!1!.!!.~.D!~k..Q.:~:'.J.l_
fb\
i'W_...~.u1;}.l.D.ittQ.fl,:-
PARKING OF COMl1I:RCI/U., V8iHCLtS !N RESIDENTIAL AHEAS = Copies of
......_..-...~"'.1>11~~... It:. II ...._--,.."... _ .... "''l>'. ...._..............._......".....-.~~~~.._.."-f~_IrI_..J-9t-~"......~...-&..--..._..
tho fol1owi.ng er.c(arpt' fl~CJn the !'-1.:H'l,!Itel~ County 0'] n.) zaninn oJ:"dinilnee
were dist~ibuted:
"Upon p..ati ticn by si 1<ty percent (60~) of tho resid'!lnt home
owners in a given area encompassing at least 100,000 9qua~e feet,
the Boal"d of County Commissioners nrr.iY ~ if they deem apPLlopriate,
adopt a resolution establishing that area as one in which com-
mercial vehicles iu"e pl~ohibi tad from overnight parking, unless
their t'ated capacity i g (,me ton 01" less and they are pal"'lked only
in garages Ol:~ carpor.tes, or unless they are engaged in con-
strudtion or se~vice operation' on the site where they are parked. 11
,.,..-.. \
Mr. Wolle explained that he had happened to run across this in the
Manatee County ordinar:ce mId had sent a copy of the paragraph to the
Ci 1:y Attorney, \<1ho had pr.eviousl)t requesi:ed tha1; he attempt to find
some material for him. Ht?: stated that he was presenting it at this
time for discussion and i.ilfoy'mation only, in that this was 'the only'
example he had seen except in deed restrictions. He pointed out that
, ,
it would give the Board a \:'Ioint of app'roach tL1 the problem. Some mem-
,bers expressed doubt that irl practical applIcation S\1ch n r.egulation
.;
"
would be ~Hot"'kable.. HI' y Hylnnder offered a suggestion to dl'OP out the
.,
requirement as to the. 'perC~1ntage of residential 11Omes, omi'c the rated
capacity of vehicles, and cover pal"'king i.n streets also. Another sug-
"
gestion \lIas made that b05t~3 as Hell as DOmllley'cial vehicles be in-
cluded. Uuon inquiry of M~. Reade, Mr. Wolle confirmed that there was
no urgency for action prior to the July zoni.ng hearing and that tl1:L,l
proposal might be given consideration as a zoning ordinance amendment
or as an amendment to the 'traffic code~ or other city codes. ~€!ip-..~
ReC!d~ _~~h.!j!.!l-;r;~egJ.les:t!ll!~J;bi?-:t.lk:~......!1x.l a.nMr_9r.9.[:!;:_~Q.Yj...Jt:h.gD.~
, ,
'..._/ '\ h fi-.s.9. o"y~ ... STt.1.r.llit~~~.L ,r...it.'L~n~L1;: o..Jl!'~f[C.fb~.Itt~.s.L.Qa~.9-tb.g,.JiQ.aJZ.d....f.m:.'-
f!!1:t.h.fU'--9jJ3~~ ~QD..
; ,
I, .'
J, -: '. ',' '. ': "I ~.,' ',: ,; : :',"" .' : : ': ,'.',: /!:", 't\ : , ' ' I '-," j, .: ,\,': : :'. t :' ':' :' '.' ::.. . " "" .\' ,: : i -: :':, ';.', ; , I :'~ :' .' " ::. :,1:' ',:.':" .~' '1",..... ,:,~' .." '\ I ,~, ~ ;' ,: :. ':-. :::~ ,:" I ", :: ':...: :"~ .. ,~ ,I;".': :~, : ' ',:, I ':'. ~. ~ :\ ~ <t -: I I ' ':\ ,~ ,I ~ '\~ ~ ,'1:':-'l ' " 'j , " :: ~:: :'~'\' : '~, .". " , ",' ~,', , \: . ':"', ,1: '.
P &Z Bd. Minutes
6 I 3 0 161~
Page N5
E~!4~~!i AR U:..A. YOU:;' ;- "~<~QY~.L~~~.~..liLtl9t1.I}, s t.-1~~l~I~!-AQ.} J,r~~,
LAKEVIEW .- Upon roequest of Hr. Williama,. H: WlIS c1.gI'(!ed to take up thls
'l" -.~..
~ Agenda Item 69b next, as it was necessllry thnt Mr. Wi llL,ms leave the
me~ting early. The: Planner' reported on his recent conf.e];:'lenc~ with
out-of-town people concerning preliminary plans for the development
of a tract at the southwest corner of Belcher Road and Lakeview Ex-
tended (presently in the County). Mr. Wolle presented a sketch as
submitted, indicating business zoning on the Belcher Road frontage with
residential area to the rear. He stated that he had advised them that
,
. ~..~,
he did not favor the business on Belcher Road, as 'there were nearby
business zones to the norlth and south. Members present concut'red in
this opinion.
4: 00 P. M. Mr. WilJ.iams lef.t the mee1:ing at this time.
Conside~ation was given to the fact that a determination of the Lake-
view extension alignment would be involved in connection with the
proposed development" The Planner expressed the belief ,that the County
plans for this extension in the present alignment. It Was learned
that no formal applicetion fo~ zoning has been made and that no Board
action was required at this time. After some inconclusive discussion,
Mr. ,Sw@ mov~L.th.cl!U.th_s...fLq._::!hElt;l 1!,n a2I?I~_i~!lei ~ed -.i:tJ?,eT-,tu.:r.ne,d
.Q.Yer :t.Q_..the_S.ltll.d.i vj.Ji?,i..9~ol'1lmi t:j;'e~_..~~_~~UQ.l'l..-_JiL~ ....mqtio1J...'L. .
,-,
t?w~Q.9~..cLJ{xJ:!~m l1Y..~!1fL~:l.~t;?~ s, ..P.iW.&~ 9..:.-
SIGN APPLICATIONS - SUNAD (MR. REINFRANK)
iI!~'" ~-.a..I.Jt',I.~...._........__..tP"- 1-.....'W...~-4~.....--....~_
...".~J
Lot 12, Block T, Hibiscus Gardens
Display: Thayer Dodge
Owner: Ho M. Turnburke
Location was generally described as on the East side of
Missouri Ave.. (between Rogers and Turnel.' Stt'eet)" Mr.. \'lolle
noted that sign was to set back 25' from the right-of~way
acco~ding to site sketch submitted and that recommendations
as to construction design and traffic safety would be obtained
f~om the City Engineer and the Traffic Division, respectively.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Reade as to whether the Board had any
grounds for denial, Hr" Holle stated that he had none.
I;
"
,'" , : ': " ~" -; ~ ' : ", '.. ',~ ~: " ':'t', L}.~.'., . ~ ' I ; ",:,: ' '" ,. : ,i"' ',' ~ ". ," ~ I',"'" :,,', :, ~\ , ' ': ,:, ': ',":.', '.'.; "', I ~"... :', ! ':' ,':'," I, ' .tl ' ,~ ',,' " ~',' ,;:' I:" . ,:::'.> : ~,: '(,~ :' I" ',~' ~', ~ ':\ ~,~,: ., ,. :'; ',' ,'.:': ,': .... ' ,: ~', ,I"J ,~:' " ' :' :!',' ,: ": :, +, ": ..": ;. " ;:' , . :',
P & Z Ddw, Hinutea
6/30/6tl
PllgEl 116'
,~
AftCl" I'eview and discussion, ~!l?~f2!l__m.2!..~9E1:..Ug2...<L.!'~L.f!o,co!l~~~...),~ttu!
~!'Jt-Y.JU.f&!_t9J~.s..<?.1D.JU..q,lj.Q.,..0.P..(?..x:.q,Y..c.tL2L,tQJ~_~.ig~.n.nJk{L~iilll.JU!1lj.r&t..L
.:t.Q...gP.P.~-'L~....!2r- -qQIlf:l:t!'.l!.Q~ti9.1l....Q!?!!iJ.tn...21lU..m.fli.s~Jl~f~..t..'l..-
Lot 10~ Block 14, Gould & Ewing, 2nd Addition
Display: Parliam<:!nt Inn
Owner: Paul Johon
,..-..\
l.ocati.on was generally described as .Tt the nOI'thwest cornel"
of. Myrtle Ave v and Cl eveland Street _ The Board ''''as i.nformed
,that this sign was to be SQt back 25 ft. from Cleveland St.
right-of-way and wou1 d be 6 ft. from tJ1E! Am. ^utomobi.le Assn.
building according .to 9.i te sketch submitted. Upon inquiry by
Chairman Reade as to whether the BOBl'd had any g!lounds for
'denial, Mr. Wolle stated that he saw none.
AftsI' review and discussicH1 \.....'!P.2!l._~l~!l:~r:.....9).1J;,.'l_mag,e ..an,sl.~~~.9!!~d,) ~M
BoC\ rd......~..9.....:t9_.t.~UJ1~."~.P.E.E.Q.Y.a;L,.2..L.:~J.!i e.....!?ifID-.s2P.J,j.S~.!.i2n-Jill.b.j~.G.t A --
!,o,,_u pl?F..9~a!~_c.9.Jl2..~.Q1iQU-..gs:..~iIm-9.llQ...;t.r..si~fj...~..ltil-Wx.
~UBDIYI ~.l91! :..-1.2~~NJ?-'!;2!.~g2.t.Jllll.U:::A
Plat APpro~1~8~}DG~~~~~.~ The Board reviewed the 'plat,
, original master plan, and master plan submitted with this particula~
unit. The Plannel"J l"eported as a change from the original master plan
an increase in the nUJober of lots from 30 to 1~6 M MI". Rettig noted that
lot size is 60t instead of the ,previous 75 or 80'. Hr. Reade reported
that he and Hr. Gates had studied 'the pInt and vis i,ted the site. The
Planner repo~ted that in his disoussion with Mr. ~kinner, he had
brought to his at1:ention i1 possible mixed motel 01" dur-1ex use for 60 r
,lots in the Business zone" ThE! Planner presented 1 etter (dE'lted 6/24/
61~) from the North Bay Cori.pany in \'Jhich r.equest was made that Unit 5-A
be zoned as follows:
Lots 1_1l1
Lots 42-46
RM
Business
1V1lis
Mru Wolle further reporteo thatr~u Haley had brought in a statement
l...._r
that morning from the only OHnet' of property "li.thin 200 ft. that they
did not object to the use requested. It was learned that area of the
proposed plat, was within the city limits and heretofore has not been
': . \ ",.' <.:: : " ':'. :,.", " 1. j,::.," I .:' ',: .~;. ~', \ I :.'1 ',." . l.' I..: ,:' I'. .: ~ : .,:'.. ,.' I', . :,'.:, ': ':., ~ .: I : ' ': ' ..'~:. : '.: ~, :,', : . \ I:; .': ....., . I), ' . '. /',., . :.~ < ;',' ,:' ',I. .'1;' , . ..,'':\:, ~ :: "~.' /. '; ~ .I: ~'.,}.' .:, ~:, I: ;',', ~I"! ' t:, >,;,: : ': " ,---., :.(,.., , "', :~'
P & Z nd Minutos
6- 30- 6'f
Pag~ 67
7.onad~
Y.P..9..Q....;~~ ~9. o'!'!!1~mt.~.t.'Lq!2.....9.f_.!.h.~~1~~1~~l.ti.'2!LQ Ol~ 'TItt1:!~..l1llL!-!.~." p.] ?!.L.
,~ a e _i!Jm~o.y~.~t.l1.~..J},99t9-Yl?~t ~_:t.9J..~.s.Qmm~J2.Q-en(ll~~tl.....E!K_thg_ t?L'!..t ./.2f -Uuit.-
~6.aJ.UsnsUw.!.~~
!ll~ l!Q~!.g_'!.2..~.t.?~E..~S!~~J11~.~J?J?!:.22.L.2~f...!2~Lu.r.Li9EJ.l~L2i.-
tpi",t ~5-~"H~S lalld ~~t~~!t~..2_,~~..,E.~.9,~~~t~,1~",9...J.L\'_'?L,lli.2~.z&nl.~~a_~pPl~.c~n
oJ: ~ ~h~..Ji.~c!y"~g.ro.l?.illlY.: ~
The BoaT'd was infor:m~r.1 that C.i:2!:~~_~~lLe_~_~p~~...4 to ~
.t!!!..uo "C~C!:r\v~-9.m!!_~h-!.ll....l.!i.t1".t.-
Ml"l.. Wolle repor-ted that according to latest information from Mayor
Weathel"ly, the ~~EL.E~Ji.s...l!~2Ei.n.s. would be held on !~~~d_tllI.~
beginning at 1: 30 P ~ 1-1.. Ch.'3.iI"l1\an Reade urged all members to try to
The
G..i.:i:eno"'<} PlanneI" made refel'ence to the Board 1"'ecornmenda'tion of PRS
.-,
zoning for the ,k?!E~~~t, ,9.~..2~a~~t.ope .tBr~nd..~bep'r'y anne.xat:iQUJ...1..
As information. Mr.. Holle reported receip.t of a call t:.t:ol1l~a p2..ten1:i~!.
ownet' of one, of the lots making inquiry as to i 1:8 use, foT' a rug clean-
-.-....--*-..d v... ~1oII- "I. ~~..,..,..
.~ ...>
ing establishment, Which the ca l1er was, infot'med h'Quld have to fall
in the general business ciStegory" It was fUI'ther' reported that the
applicant might not go through "lith the am1exation unless he was given
business zoning~
The Planner advised "that c.. ,P'~.~,!!l~ ,~~.!l~"Ch2..!!~_~9.!!est f2I'-t.hr.
E..r~~!~eld_~op'e!:!:t on' IJady Mary Dl'ive ~ north of Cleveland St., might
necessitate a Board meetinB on July 7th. A poll indicated a quorum
would be available for .th.:!t date.
CAR RENTAL' - SERVICE STATIONS .. The Planner reqnested Board
""'" ,.. WIll! r- ~'I'f1r"P'1' ~ ~.....__ .....Jr.-w.-...._..,w..._.......-..
",-,"
opinion X'egarding an 5. nquj ry reee i vf:!d a s to whether a e;:l1~ l\enta 1. ser-
vice out of service stati.ons Hould be permi t1:ed. Boaru opin ion 'o1q.S
that this use was not objecti onable and tha't such a servi ~e nOf'ma'ly
,.,ould be permitted to oper~Te from servi.ce station sites.
: :.:" ' 1- .,.:.' . ..:,.. ~ I . .... ~'. " ' , , . , ~'.' ,~, .", :',,:"',' ',' 'r :. '. ' .'" :: ..' 'J' '..,,:,,: I, ::.: ': . \, ':' : ~ ..:: + ' ':: ,".::':: ,," :' ~ ':' I ",' ',.:,;':: ~ ' ': " I . ::....,' ~; " 1 j. '~,' :'.' : ',' . , ~I;' 'I' ':" -::' '. , .: ,'.,:" .: :, " ,~ , "'~ I,' \ ',' l : '. ~ .,.' ,
" 'c,'.:. I ~ .
~" ',' .
'~~~ (~i,;~~,'~~"
, '
p e:Z'J3d Hinutea
6/30/64
Page ,,~
"-"J
Att,nched to agenda ... List, of Publicaticms received Plannfng
Offioe Hay-June, 1964.
, ,
','fhe me'eting' was adjm.\x,'ned at 4: lJS ,P. M~
"
I.,'
Respectfully ,sub~itted,
. ~ " "
Resp~ctfullY submitted,
I,
.~ ' :
. -',
~.LJ~.
. ~ ~ .
s-e"c.f");-
" 'I.
"
, t,
,t"
~ :
,I
"
'>' ,
1,1"
, '
:, :/
".
~ ". I
. :~
'". 1..
i; I '
" ,'" . , ,
, "
"
"
" "
. .:.
" ',I
". I '. "
L'
" , ............
..t 1<:"
~"::. ~~l...,
"
, I'
:"~c"i: "
:) .'
:', I
" . .
.<, . '.;
" ~ l .
., .. '- ~
0<1_
" ,
.....
,,":'.' .
,.,> ,
'," '
'\
( ,
.1,:
: ,.' ,
'I- .'
I\',I'} .
',','
'"
"
;( ", ,;
, '
"
t. 1~ "
..:,
,':
",
, ~..
~, ','
"j.
\.,
, ,
, ,
'"
f. '. ,
"
{'"
, : ~ :~,~;.).
i.~l ~:: .
t ,; ~
" ~ c
;i(',:; ,,: ~ ' '