07/08/1965
I'~
..-.......
;
-.
THE P~INI~G AND ZONING BOARD
v/
Minu1.;eo of the Meetinp" ThuredilY, .TulY 8~ 1965.
The meeting was called to o~der at:3:00 P. M. by the Chairman,
Mr. KrusQ. Present w~re Members Reade, Butler, Mylander, Iley and
Galloway, and Mr. Wolle.
The minutes of the meeting of ,June 15, 1965, we~e approved ~s
submitted in written summation to each member~
ZO~ING ~HANGE RE:UEst_~-~-665 - Review Of.~v~~~e~dati~u
!1X1:iiis:roi::Q1.::!.~ rQ,l)."i ~!..tai:fii :mi.d..ll~..t~Qnj;S-t\\Ut.;Lf~m 6/J 5 ~ut -
The Planne1" repo'flted in regard 'to his contact with Mr.. Roach of
Ru~enberg, Incu, concerning ~he Board's suggestion that applican~'s zon-
ing request be changed to SC zoning for 'the 50 ft.. R-4 strip of cUT'rent
request and to include the e~isting "B" zoned adjoining p~operty in
such request for SC zoning~ It was lea~ned that an obstacle to obtain-
ing his agreement to this was that a portion of the sign section under
the SC classification was considered too restrictive by prospective
tenants for the development as planned. Mr. Wolle read to the Board a
letter dated June 28/65 from Mr. Roach, representing Rutenberg, Inc.,
confirming their present applica~ion for change of zoning of only 50 ft.
from R-4 to "Bu. Mr.. Wolle advised that Mr, Roach had indicated to him
the probable inten~ to provide screening for the ~esidential prope~ty
the proposed center would abu'\:" t1~4. ~~l~)! _~~ve~ ..t.o ap'P!,ov.e t'e.9ue~"t
Z-S.-.6_65 .f.~r;-~cha.nge.. fro.m R.-4 t<l B !..or :t:ho_ s_uJ>ject SO ft. .s:triR:.. Mr.
Wolle stated that he would still like to see SC zoning, but hesitated
to recommend it for the reason that he recognized the impractical re-
quirements for this operation in thp. present ordinancev Upon his sug-
gestion '.~ ~ge,nda.~I,te_m )1):_O(~~~~iLt.~!!.S!!~e~i,si,o~s, t1tCl~TificntiCln
~ian ,i,n SG. .Zq,!!.'tn, was taken up next pt'ioT' to fu~the!" considera't"i on of
Mra Iley's motion.. The Planner pt'esent:l~d l"'evision to Sec. 26-5F.(6)&(7)
Shopping Center District as follows:
P&Z Bd. Minutes
1/8/65
Page n?
r\
(6) Point of purch~ge signs and identification signs to be
permitted flush with the building" However one additional
identification for each plac~ of business may be hanging if
less than 6 square feet and under marque~ o~ orcede. No
sign shall be activated.
(7) Addition of: One prime identification sign is permitted
for each street frontage. .
Explanation was given as to ambiguity of the existing section and of
verbal interpretation obtained from AS9T~ City Attorney Kennedy that
as written 1:11ere would be no lirni tation on the size of a sign on the face
of a building, but that the size of a hanging projection sign would be
res~ric~ed to 6 sq. ft.; fu~ther that Mr. Kennedy had brought up the
floating
point that the se Dist~ict, as ,it is described, is ai' zone availa-
ble upon request and had ruled that the Boa~d would not have the au-
thority to require that the applicant accept SC zoning on the tract~
The Plannel' pointed out that 'the existing r'estriction on the size of
a prime center sign (pole sign) is 300 sq~ ft. (one such sign permitted
not ~o go along with the request for the B zoning since the adjoining
property is already B zoned and recommended approval at This time of
tho proposed revision to the sign section~ with further study of SC
signs to be scheduled in connection with sign regulations to be incor-
po~ated in the new sign ordinance.
Mr. .R.e~de ~ov.ed tha.t t.he ch!l,ng~~ ,f,~!:..j_ec_.~ .1;..6-5E. (6J....~!~A ..c"j). ~~. ..
E!.opo.s.e.? b.e pe~c_~mmen_ded to be ..aP..P.To.v.ed~ ^m~~.!2'~f! offe:r,er;JJ?y Mr.
ButJ.e'I' anc!~. _My'l~nd.e~~ .an_d ~~.Eept,ed. by Mr., .~ea~~ .to i.~~:r.! in
, i
~~1'('~~,J
~~.. ,(~ >, ..atf_t~.x: Howe.ve~, ."f.2!:~2.!l.~.1:~e~,:t.......t):',o.l'!-'t9_g~~ ~
. ame_nded., w.as. se_co.nded,....b~.. t1~.., r1Y:l.a,n,~.~.~nd, Pf~~E-~~
Hr..~1yla_n.9..e.r-. .se..9.2n.Q..ed.. Mr. I,~~...2.!'~is.~._.E'~...!() ~EJ"',~ve' ~pnl 1-
Motion,.as
.
cation Z-5-665 as reauested. SURgeation bV th~ Pl~nner th~~ in memn
_----..II~_---...-........I...-I~~----
~I ,
p . Z Bd. Minutes
7/B/65
Page "3
~
,
fOt"\olarding tho Board' 8 recommendation cOmment be made J,n 1""1!p,<<']rd to
GCfe~Jling of the residential area met ~'Ii th Bbnrd approval. r11'. GnJ low;,y
stated that since it was the case that the Board did not hnva tht.! nU-
thori ty to require shopplng center zoning e:.ccept \lpOn requcs t, he would
have ~o go along with the "B" zoninR requested. The Chairman suggosted
that future study be given for a possible change in this provision that
SC zoning be l'<!quested.. lli?-on,......-t~C!.~~~e ~~e... .:t,a&k.en" M~. ,Il!?"y'~. .mo:tiorL
'iC!~ t!.as_s~
, ZONING CHANGE REqUEST -
f~:'~S?:'-(a)' 1!ity'-R'equest Lots 1-9 incl., 37-39 incl.
.. MEADOWS SUBDIVISION - R-IE to R-IC
Z-6-665 (b) City Request Lots 1-8 incl.,
MORNINGSIDE ESTATES, UNIT 1,
R-IE to R-1D '
Explanation was made that the Belcher Road frontage of these sub-
divisions was already in the City as acreage and zoned R-IE at the
time the additional acreage to be platted was annexed with R-IC
and R-ID zoning, and that zoning change co~rects zone line present-
ly dividing single family Iota of reco~d and makes the zoning con-
fo~m to the existing higher Bingle family usage and deed restric~
tions.. Mr. vk'1~ <! reported that Mr. Cummings of the Meadows and
','
.:: ~~.
'",
','
, '
" ~ .
'....
.~ i (
,I,;.
"..
"
",I"
,,\~
~ .' .
~...
."1
Mr. Bill BL
~I.'n of Morningeide Estates had expressed themselves
, ,
",{:
!:-:.
,',
as being dgreeable to this change~
~:~s:B'~l~niO'~::.d{~:~S~~~~~:x~~tr~s~.O~~~~~€~ J~~l ~.~l:d~~t:~l~
R-IE to R-ID
-
e ~_a, op'te<1.
City Request - Lots 20-23 incl., Block C; Lots 1-5 incl.,
Block E; Lots 1-8 inol~~ Block F - FAIRMONT SUBDIVISION.
'.?~
~ .,..
':\.:
:.,~)
:0::.
.,' ~
..... "
.' .
",I."
~ . : ; ';
Z-7-G65
; - .....,-
" '
'.-.
,'"
Lots 1-5 inc19 & Lot 8~ Block C Fulton St~ (formerly
., E 2St Lot 5 and W 35' of Lot 6); Lot 6, Block D; 1.0 ft.
R/W between BlOCKS C & D - NORWOOD fIRST ADDITION..
All above R-2 to R-IE
,:!.;
I '~.
~\::',
~(,~:
:-1.
"1"1
I..,
~~:;;,
:t:,
':-;,
';':.,1.
.....,)
Proper'ty was described and located as on the north side of
Marshall St. to the west of Harbor Drive (all owned by the City).
. "
",. I
,"'(.'
.: :
~::.~
Note WA5 made th~t appli~ation W~B f51~d bV th~ City C]e~k per
"
'.; ., ~
..
, '
P&Z Bd. Minutes
7/0/65 Page fft~
~
in9truction9 from the City riAnne'.!!". Informntion from the PlfllnrieT'
was that the City.s intent io to mak~ the prnperty aingla-familY
and that the platting problem will come up late~. It was recog-
nized tllt'lt: this would provide additional single family housing
sites in the area nnd that higher R-l zoninn was selected princi-
pally 'for new platting~ Attcmtion was called to an existing or-
dinance provision for single family residences ~o be constructed
in an R-2 zone if they meet the requirements of the R-IE zone.
Z-S-66.S
City Request - Lots 16 S 17, Block H; Lots ~-a incl.,
Block J, FAIRMONT SUB~
From R_lJ to R-IE
--
Property was dGscribed and located as at the northwest cor-
new of Russell St. and Harbor Dr. and on the south side
of Russell St. opposite the end of Harbo~ Drive.
Explanation of request - the same as for Z-7 above.
Afte~ review and diBcuBaion~ ~n m~~ion bY_Mrt GaJLl9~~,~~~
~ ....Mr.... Re~~I".<..,.iT. H.WL~Yot~.d, :to, ~~cortn'Jl!t1)d app;r9'lal..-9.!--xqq.~at fot" ~rm.i.n.2-
.~hi!IUtC1 to' R-'JE '(in-lW_Q.Y~ CqS(!S_Z~l~~nd'VZ-)!.>.2.. it" tq pe record~.9 that ,
tb~ Uoar~j, ze!;i thA,t'"\ it is, ,an, lmusual-!!, tuation ~n.E "that-;t.~e.~
~oa~ft. sJQ~~ly 1"'eco~1\Jqendt R--;lE as ~ a _n.!t~ z.qrlng clas_sJfi9.2..u,pn.
Z-9-6~~ - Lot 10 less wast 9 feet of Lot 10, Block B.
Keys'tono Manor SUbD (southwest comer of
Drew St" and Duncan AveD)
A~~i~~~: Gordon and Elizabeth Bergeson (Aronoff) -
R-2 to R-4
......"
Hra , Wolle presented the application and explained as the ~eaBon
for request to make the property eligible fo~ special exception
use (doctor's office)~ He pointed out land uscs in the block as
all single family residential facing into duplex usage to the
north on Drew" Hr,,__ ~allC?.~~ .:re.P.2!:!~2...!he.:L.!hLZ~qtt~1)JL.qQIDlT1~.t:.:t.fJ!l
'E.l..a 1T!~!.~.tY_'2h 3. !oR 1 .r'~Q.Q.DJll1el)d~_qj.s~.tmr.9~~--.2fJ!.l1Qj ec:t...iJJ?.PJ..kq-
~_:th~~~as1o.lL.t-h~ t:
The property abuts a single family area to th(~ west and
south and fnces duplexes to the northu
)
.....~"J
P&Z Bd.. Minute!-l
7/0/65
Page tiS
. ~~
Such zoning would be spot' zoni.nR and would lead to , ,
further multi-family uaage in an e',cisting si,ngle-fClmily block.
Plan of Business usage (along Drew) was thnt it bo
anchored at Duncan.
Aftcl' -revi ew and discussion, ~e~~rd voted ,~~O qI?pr'{Y..~ 'the_
!oJliD.g-C.9-'lVTlj.~tt~~_rp'por:t,,"J!D.d~..n!l~g \ta nt :th et...P~ to.4>-...rw.e.~QmID~_
~11-~q_~-: 9,":-6J?~,.
ZONING DIS'l'RICT CHANGES - PLANNING BOARD PROPOSAl,S ...
-......-....""""'--".......~ ""'...... ....... . Do' ~ "'".. ~""',. ~ ~-~ y.. ... ..... ~ ..A...-..r
ZP-10
.... My..
AHBLESIDE SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1 -
R-IE to R-ID (continued from 6/15/65) -
....>..c
The Plannel" e,xplained as reason for -the proposal - to bring the
Zoning Map into conformance wi~h new subdivision development and
use of nigher single family. classification. Mr. Wolle submitte4
lette'I' dated June '26/65 from ,Black &. ASBOS.., Developerts Engi-
neers, stating that t~e owners of Ambleside Subdivision are agree-
able to Ambleeide, First Addition, being zoned "R-IDtt. After
review and discussion, !he Board vqted to recommenE-apErova!-Qf
2roRoli..~ezgninR __of .~mb,lesJd~.", ..~i l"s"t_A9...di.t.~n.., to -B-1-l!:..
.-..,
ZP-l1 a.
L ~
BRENTWOOD ERTATES, nB" TO R-ID -
(Southwest of.. Highland 8 Sunset Pt. Hoad)
(continued fI"om 6/15/65)
'J
Property was desc~ibed as "B" zoned area of
Brentwood Estates as platted.
The Planner explained as r~a90n for the proposal - to correct
zoning map to subdivision platted and actual usage existing and
proposed in accordance to new single family zoning classification.
. J
........
Mr. Wolle further reported that he was sure that Mry Kent, Br~nt-
wood Estates representative, was agreeable to this change, but that
they are not sure about the R-~ areaM After review and discussion,
!!llt.l!ca rJ:1_~..:t~Jt..!=JL.~~~J).d a P'J2t"o'y~~~s1 _r~.z,!mi}']E-.Q f _1:ha~
J2!2I!.tj,m!...Alf..-th e-.~l:.~~.stJ.'&l.:t.a t!:.s -1U.a:L.n..Q~_Z.Qlltui~_.,,-.autinasn...-1';!J,
R.~i.ng.l.~....EID.D..UY---.
P&Z lld~ Hinutes
7/8/65
Page 06
ZP-ll b~
-............-......................
BREwrWOOD ESTATES R_l. to R-l D -
~""'.
It was ~r~e~d .!9-jet:E!~ Agenda Item fl9 ZP-_:l;,l, ~ pending
the Plannet"a confirmation of agreement with the subdivision's
representative as to the R-q area.
ORDINANCE REVISIONS -
.. ... - ~.~ 'I "I ...............................".. ~ ~
(b) '2 Clarification of uses permitted in PRS.
.. 1 rr.,,4t__ ~ ~-I" ~ ,..~ _ I . . '''' 1 ~_
:'...........
The Planner presented a p~opoBad revision in the text of Sec. 26-
~(D)(~) of the City Code which was explained as having the purpose
of showing more specifically in the Zoning Ordinance the intent
to prohibit separate related uses. After review and discussion,
~on Tmot~on bY,~.Mr.. ~y.la..llder.,,, ~econded ~y Ml'i.-?a,l);.o-!"JlX, th.~ Board
vo.t?-d to a-ep..!"ov.e" a.~~~i8ed R.t'o3?osal as '..fo])ow~:
, "To restrict retail within st~otux~ (Paragraph (~(b) to 25\ of
ground floor area or lsi of total floor area whichever is g~eatestw
"To eliminate from PRS Item Cq)(c). Personal within Structure,
and all of Item (S) and substitute in lieu the~eof as new Item
(5) the wording ;i Church Buildings for Religious and Educational
Purposes'.."
4:25 P. M. Mr. 11ey was excused from the meeting during
discussion of above agenda item.
(c) {a Proviq,e be,ttel' _f!..creenin~ of ~ .use,~ ...C!.bu,tt~.ng re_si_de~tia~
.E.x:.o"p'e~ty.. "
The Planner presented the following proposal for
addition to Sec. 26-11 (6):
"Fences and walls may exceed (~) six fee~ when
abutting a use zone other than residential."
'111e ~~~.rd, voi:_ed _to all~T'Ove tJ1e ~l.e.nn,e~' s. .propq~!,)~
fo~ the above addition ~ega~ding fencesw
__ ....... & ~. ~ & ..... ~ I ~ 'I ....4~..---...-
. -
CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS:
(ffii'J."rnan Kruse-rnfoT'rned members that because of 'the summer- vacation
.......~t'
period he did not anticipate thai: any action would be 'taken in. regard
to tne proposed sign ordinance until Septw when all Commissioners could
be pY'esent. Mr.. Kruse announced that he H'ould be away (')n a vacation
trip beginning the m{ddle of t.Tuly and requested that Hr. My] ilnder be
:,~: I. ..,'., ,':.', I" ".: ' : :::' " ' ,,', ',' ."., .".::. ~' " :' :.~: .' ..~ ~ ;': o',:.....:: " + .. .. ",' ,~ ' ,". '. . ,. ~ ,'... I " > .:' . \: ': :, ,:'F -: . ': +,~ '. ~ ,: ',1 ~ : . ~ -:. ,~~', ': I: >:',: ~ ~:: ":", ,,; ~.., ,.~,." :__:.,". -: ..; I :: ~ . :.. . :', . ': ,t'. \.,,',,':. ~ ".,/, . ,-' ,,' ;'",:",' :,... ~ ,;, ,~
,..;:.'....
~
+ y:-.,,)
. '
PEZ Bd. Mihutes' 7/9/65 Page "
,
on~ to I'/lpresent the ~oar~at ~he Zonin~ phb~iCHiaring on August 9~h
(wti~h date he thoughi:,had been approved)., kr.. M~lande~ confirmed
\ ' ,'; , ,.' " , ,
that he would be bacx'frbm vaca~ion in time to be present at this hear-
ingD, : The Chairman stated that he hoped that any othe~ members who
could do so would attend the hea~ing~
The meeting was adJourned at 5~15 P. M.
ReBpec~fully submitted,
'~' ~cJuI!te-
~ -iIJF t
,<II o11e', See, y ,
y Plannel'
",
"
" c,
, ,
, ,.
'L". '
f.:
" ~,
, '" ;.
" __..~f-"
" ,
.
"
, '
,\
:' ~ :~
"
"
'I
'.
,) ,
"
,,'v'
, '
;'~" ,', '
. ~..
l",' . .
f'T(' .
,'.
'.~:~ ,
::~. .