05/06/1965 - Special
I.~'/\I . ~'. ...:'...';.,.:;~ ~::.,.\: 1.1:,I~:..'.::.j'~;-<:.:.',;.: .:..::t.~::.~:: :1:1:\....I..:.~..:~,?::....,~.,.,.'~ ~,.. t~ll:....::~.,~.:..~,:..::..[:.,.:.::.l:~~: ...~!..:...:..:...)'f ,..., '1",1!".\'.:.. ;"~I:,I.,",','::\ '.':':- .....>.I:,....I~~' I.":.jt'.o;,:~'.:(~ 'l,'IJ"': ..';', ":':""':~"I:~:>L~\":"::.:/I"'~"
THE PLANNING ANb ZONING BOARD
/
, ~,
,
Minutes of the Meeting, ~ur9day, Hay G, 1965.
Th~ speoial meeting was called to order at 3:00 P. M. by the
Chairmart, M~.Kruge. Present 'were Members Reade, Har~i~B, Mylander,
Logan and Galloway, and Mr. Wolle.
The minutes of the Apt'lil 21, 1.965, meetlng were approved as
submitted in written summation to each member.
SIGN APPLICATIONS -PRIOR TO 5/5/65
-...,. . .. - . ~~_R Ifevrew 'rn ,i'C"COrdance to Ordinance 6~S.
SIGN APPLICATIONS _ I5i\}llt"CS "brmr' " ...... -- . Tpo- t_.,,~-
. r_'---~- . -.... .." - . _" Review Tn ac~ordance to Ordinance 6llS..
'I rTllr- ... 11"'" r ~-..... .... --...-
Copies were distribu~ed of a stenciled list entitled, "RECORD OF
SIGN PROCESSING - COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING OFF PREMISE (OP)~, con-
taining co1umnar ~eference to:
.'-'" ~
PSZ Office #I
Date Rec'd
Applicant-Owner-Advertiser
Size g Facing & Character ,
Location-Legal E Nearest Intersection
Ref. 1/200 Atlas Page.
Date f~d. with Recommendation (blank column for record of
action)
Such listing included data in regard to a total of 31 pending Com'l
, (A)
(B)
(C)
CD)
(E)
(F)
Adve~ising Sign Applica~ions beginning with CAS-IS received a/10/64
tbrough CAS-S~ reoeived 5/6/65 (copy of office record).
Chairman Kruse informed the Board tha~ the reason for this meet-
ing was that, through the City Manager's office, the Planner was ad-
vised that the Board was now directed to conside~ these pendin~ ap-
plications and make some statement on the basis of the existing sign .
ordinance. Further information was given that it was anticip~ted that
these applications would be on the agenda for the May 17 City, Com-
mission rnee~ing. Mr~ Kruse stated that in his subsequent conversa-
tion with the Manager it was confil~ned that it is desired ~hat the
BoaY'd's recommendations be submitted on the basis of the existing OY'-
dinance. r{r. Kruse stated: that it was his understanding that inas-
-~"
much as there hasn't been a new ordinance adopted, the City is taking
the stand that it is going to have to proceed on the basis of the
P&Z Bd., Minutes
oid ordinClnce.
5/6/65
PaRe {J2
,\
Tho Plant"~e1" reported that in response to a telephone re.quest
~ceived from the Manager that morning, he had 'taken aome sign
materials ove~ to his office conaisting of the above mentioned list
of applications, his 1/200 sign study Atlas, and the sign location
map displayed to the Board at its 'Ap~il 27 meeting. It was learned
'that information was given the manager "that 10 out of thd 31 signs
proposed
would be approved by application of c~iteria in the/new ordinance and
that all 31 would be approved by ~he old ordinance.
Upon inquiry made, Mr. Wolle info~ed the Board ~hat all 31
applications conform according to the p~esent ordinance requirements
(M~~ Wolle read text of reference Sec. III(7)(d)(1 through 6) of
Ordinanoe 6~S). Chairman Kruse expressed the opinion tbat another
question involved is just what authority the City Commission has to
I -accept or reject a sign applied fo~. He stated that he had always
l#ll,\
thought tha~ if they (The Commission) didn't like it they could re-
jec~ it. M~. Mylander agreed that the Board could not make recommen-
aa'tions on the basis of a proposed ol"dinance and stated that acC!ot'din~
to information from Mr. Wolle Mr. Lecou~is had approved all the
applications from a traffic standpoint. The Chairman made reference
''to clause in SEC. III (1) (b) of crodinance 6'45 9 tating, "that no Com-
mercial Advertising Sign 6hall hereafter be constt"ucted in a uB"
Business District as defined in the City Zoning Ordinance~ until a
special permit therefor has been ob~ained from the City Commi8~ion
of said City".......... He offered the interpretation that the language
with reference to a special permit carried with it the implication
of a special authori~y regardless of any specified criteria~
,J
P&Z Bd. Minutes
5/6/65 Page 63
~
l
In the following discunoion, referenc~ was ~ade to me~o~andu~
of Apvil 1/65 from the Board in submittal of a p~oposed sign ordi-
~ancc. and the Boa~d reaffirm~d its opinion as expressed at that time,
and in prior communica~ions during the past yea~.
made a motion a.s follows:
T &..............,. ~ --...,;-. ....._
M1". Mylander
. r.... ~ 1. t
.1'........,..
"In regard to the 31 commercial advertising sign applications,
although the applicants have satisfied the requirements of the
present Sign Ordinance and the Board has no other recourse than
to recommend approval, the Boa~d reaffirms ita opinion that
some action should be initiated to control (or even forbid)
the erection of commercial advertising signs by the adoption
of the proposed new sign ordinance submitted fop your con-
sideraTion. We call to you~ atten~ion that there a~e now 31
applications for which City Commission approval is being re-
quested, and we point out tha't 31 additional billboards in
the City of Clearwater will do much to crea~e a blot on the ap-
pearance of ou~ business streets_"
His _l1!.o1:ion, .se<;onded by ~I''''' Ha:rriesl . ~as J2..as.s~Lunani..mousl~
Mr. Wolle pointed out tha~ 10 of tho pending signs we~ non-
committed. Suggestion was made of the possibility that this fact
might give the Commission a basis for not approving these 10 signs.
With rega~d to action at the April 27/65 meeting, the Board
approved tcxt of an insertion to 1:he proposed sj,gn ordi.nance,. pre-
sented by the Planner, as follows:
uThere shall be no sign facing into traffic from the opposite
side of the roadway., even though it may be locateq gt"cater
than the required minimum distance from an existing sign on
eithcr' side of the roadwaY4"
The Board also agreed that the Plannel" 'Would clarify 'the status
double
of ai' faced sign by the following insertion in text of the
proposed sign ordinance:
~ ..._ f
~~)
P&Z Bd. Minutes
5/6/65
Pnge 'I,
flA~
~C~~.!lK-,t~l.&-e..c~~iE~ b
~nere Bha~~ oe no oOU le faced sign (bnck-to-back O~ V sign)
~.~o.rt, on ~ne~atiol1s '.an.tt ..e.~:ming,...- Chairman Kruse made report
concerning ordinance that was passed at the May 3 Ci~y Commission
moeting for zoning of newly annexed properties included in a recently
pas90d State legislative bill redefining the city limits. He further
stated that he had brought to 'the attention of the Commission the fact
that,'the Board did not have opportunity to review and offer l"ecommen-
dation on the zoning fov these properties so described in the ordjnance~
The Planner ,enumerated 3eve~al of thesepay.ccls and explained that ~l-
though most of them We1"e wit-hout con'trove1"sy, one in pa1"'t'iculo1r in-
,eluded B zoning for 6 lots on the west side of Highland~ south of
Bel1eair.
CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS:
(a) ~eB1Jentfa:r-- Business - Ba~iera Between - In discussion
,- - ~ J7 ~ - .... ilV - - JllIlr-- ~....~~~ - ~ """1' .---.......-
,r'-, continued from the previous meeting, it was the conset\BUS of opinion
tha~ a proposal ~o permit 'occupants of residential areas to erect
highe~ fences between thei~ properties and business areas might pro-
vide an acceptable solution. It was thought that to impose a requi~-
ment on existing businesses 'so located to erect screening ba~iers
might be considered unreasonableft The Planner suggested that some
c~iteria might be considered in the nature of a requirement for new
businesses to provide ad~quate visual barriersn Inasmuch as the
Board had received no direct request as yet for recommendations, no
formal Board aotion was taken at 'this 'ti.me.
.) ,
~.."",. ~'.
~:~5 P. Mo Mr. Logan left the meeting at this time.
PLANNER'S ITEMS:
-rafT' 15enG.i ~y. ~StUdie;s - Hei.glLt .~e.strictions
Upon suggestion of the Planner, Chairman Kruse appointed Mrw
Williams, Mr~ Hylandor, and Mr~ Galloway to serve as a committee to
.'
: ~, '"
,,'
, , ~ > I ,
, ,L.
,<'
p~z ad.. Minutes
5/6/65
PafOte tiS
:!
, ,
, ,
~
", ;.t~
I t
oontinue the study of ,Height Restrictions. Mr. Wolle's further
\,
I
suggestion that an outside adviser be appointed to work on thJ.s
prOject, with the committee was not approved.
(b) Planning literature was distributed.
The Chai~man announced that Membe~ Harries would be le8v~ng
the, fOllowing day for his summel' home in the north.
The meeting was' adjourned Cl.'t If: 50 P. M.
Respectfully s~bmitted,
~"r
-
'n "
.'
:; "/1'--'\
. "
,
i
j
" I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
\
" . 'j
. .
,;,
,>
: ";
;,
',i,'. ',~ \
" ' .....".,
C J .:
'!", .
_:\,c, c',
r ~ :~,
:~:..:, . r "
~.!'/