10/05/1965
::~ .', , ~ "~' \ ,.~ :" I:,'. :: ..: ~;.~ t. "':," . :1, I, ~ \.> 1..; t',. \ : ~ ..} :::...~ ~ ".:'\;,,, :~' ;/ ~.,.:' \ <. '.; ," j' (- ':'~",:~~ \.,.,.,:~:.. ::', .,:,I';~:,"". ~ \. ': ,: _ :"~ >,/:;~ '.: ..:/,',: '>:,;~~' ~. "~'..:'t~i' !:Z::" ',' ,:" ::: ,:::." :... "',:: ':: : ..... ~J ,,"~',' ') ,;' '.: ::} " ,:' '~. ',: ': :,~:' \ :",-, ?"'J" ':,'::', ',': ::::' ~:' <::'
'rHE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
1.,1
.-
H.i.n\]tE~8 of th!; Meeting, Tuesday, October' 5 t 1965.
'I'he meeti.ng \.Ji-1S called to order at 3:00 P_ M. by the Chairman,
HI'u Kruge. Present wel'le Hembet's Mylilnder, Reade t Butler and Swan,
M~. Rettig of the Engineering Dcprirtment, and Mr. Wolle.
The minutes of the rnecrtj.ng of September 21, 1965, were .:lpproved
as submi t1:ed in W'l"i tten summation to each member.
~
The minutes of the meeting of September 28, 1965, were approved
as submitted in written summation to each member, with exception that
on Page 1/3, in numbered pal~agraph 6 II second line , ":realtor sign" be
changed to "real estate sign" and f1bne per street frontagetf be added
after "the t-101~d tI property It .
*gy13S~IQ~ Or_~].2N. -9.~~gE ,P1l9J:Q~LS (~) Items of Change L (b)
~tems to e added. '
...... ........_...-~
The Plt-lnnet' presented i terns listed on sheet entitled SIGN OP,DDtA1fCE-
PROPOSED--RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIONS TO BE MADE (per reference
..-~...,
.copies dis~~ibuted to members).
The Planner presented as a new ~osal the following for identit~
~r R~j;.rectipn~L si.S!1~:
,CAS, involving only an identity and directional function shall
not be subject to the 600 ft. distance requirement but'shall
not exceed 200 sq~. ft~ in surface a'I"ea~ If located within
100' ft. of a corner such sign shall not have any red or green
illuminated or flourescent portions nor be flashing or
activated~
? Planning Board approval of design quality.
The Board approved above proposal with substitu'tion of nSignsU for
nCAsn) change of 200 sq_ ft" to 72 sq. ft., and further clarifi.cation of
"flourescentlf by possibly the substi tuti.on of "flourescent painted'~
tll,'luminous", or othet" appropl"liate term" It '.Nas decided that such signs
would be recomT:lended to be only in bllsine~s zones and that Planning A9a1"'d
approval of design quality shall be required.
Ref~.I2~nce to_Ac:tiya!,od-2I'- Flashing ~i&!H~ - After some preliminary
discussion, it was agreed to defer further consideration un~il the
Board's discussion with the Realtors' COl'nmittee the neXT ~leck.
I
'-'
paz Bd. Minutes
10/5/6&
Pa~o 112
- Area of ourfaco for
_------...~-~..-~
~~&~~.:- -
~.....-.,.,..
. :C1t~_!}.g~llsi..!!~~.....ih,i~~ .!:~~f!teAdA.tj...?~ J2!:.,jJT~~.ms,~ ~.qTL.1!llE_!!l!!..Be a 112m'
Committee.
-iw~-III """""'""1,............".......lI'I
R~iJ1.i..ti,2n, ~..2....Ac1;.ivar!!d .~i~n; - The PlanneI' presented this proposal
as having1:he intent to differentiate the first sti.\tement fNlm defi-
ni ticn of animated _ T.!!.~..J!9..a-rq app.rov~d ~~!~!!..~q,mm.P;)2~C!,ti.o.n. .wi th,_m,i.n9..!...
chf;1n ~e~.~_t.'S9...A1.:tJ~.hLSi..!y: _P1.?n,!l~t t.s ..CO]!y'..::..
MORNINGSIDE ESTATES (DEFERRED FROM 9/20/65) -
.d y- l "'11 ~. ~ ....f .~"'._.,,"-Il 1"'IlI. 'I I!o... rI""'"---......
(a) Plan - Subdivision Committee - Mr. Reade reported that he'
'f~ ----"4 ~ .... l1'I.I ........
and MI"w ,lley had made a site inspection and recommended fot' the Subdi-
. .h ~ ~ ....-......,......0"11'
,. -'"
yis~ll Co.mm:iJ;t~~t _the Blackburn Bro~",._~anq qe'~l!?_Pl1\~TJ...t_C_om..ei!.ny~..
EI'~liminarY......E.!.~R .i.!:evised-p"l~!ting).J aSJ---..s~b1',!li,!.!-ed ..to tEe B~:?F-d__9.-'l
U?}If?~~ 1!~._a.E!?r..~~~9.:- L'L~-;~on made by Mr~ M~!.an~!'H"_ 9recon--&~~.
~ut:l:-e,r.~r...,~ha1:....!l~C!._~~.!isi~!'!.. ,Cornmi ttee.--'..,s r~cpmmen.qa~i.2n)2.e _aP..J2P~~ed was_
t>assed.
~..,p
Zonin~ C~~~es - Zoning Committee - Zonins Chan~ '
Appi1_cal1~9' 'n}:.-rrtl:-~ 6'5 ~ndZ- !.~Q.-.~ 6, ~ .;:' -(B ~,ackburn IMo~Jl!wstde_
Estates)
Zoni.ng Cammi ttee members present advi.sed 'thatA'tKey felt that
the.y had not had nufficient prior knowledge of this request to offer
(b)
,
an informe.d recommendation v Mr.. \ol011e explained "the extent of areas wi'th-
in the city involved in these changes (yellow shaded portions on sub-
division plan displayed). ~.Ir.. _.But:1~r GtatEL9 thi'!,t he wQl!tc! defer to Ht~.
Reade's opinion as expressed in favor of the zoning changes and-T~m-
!!l,enp (ql?_.!h~Zonil)g.-G9mmi tt~te a.pJr[~o.v9L of ch:l!lg~s_..i!l ~9nJ....n.B.3~, T'eg~:?~ttd
.:!-}l r.e,ZOTl:i;.Y1Jt.JmP-l.iga.ti 9,illL flJ.,-llA-:lli..,Jl.n d .11 kl1&--,jt~ - Y.E.2!!...El2;ri,gn_p"y'
!1r ..__R~a.~:t-.s~ ~..ql] de Q....Py_...MR..:.-.1:!:l1..~ll d~~~ _ ~h,~ ~!9..r.9-.Y.9~~..!..2...act9~J?t ."1;1J2.
E~qqmm~.9J3...!i2,!:- !?_f_ ~!1e ~~lL,S9~~.
I
.~
\' :' ~ '.. : :',', ; ,1/(' " ~ : " : : . ".:.. ".: " '. ".e'::.:::". ,\~i': ': . ~ " ',~. -:: ' " :1 :' , ~':' , :.: ': ':. ',: 'I , \ " 'i, ...: . '. " '~',,~ :-';\.'.' ,,',. .':: .:. , ,:',:. ~ \ ': I' !.J ~. ~ ::,o.\ ; / ',:, \... :,', . :. " :, l.,'. : ',:..' , ':',' .', :.1,':. ',.", : " : .:' '~. :, .:. ': : ;': , :, : . ...:. : ,~. '..; ~ r' ~ ~ :: ~:~. . '/" ,'. .,:. j. r,' ~ : ", ., ~ : . ; ,; ,': t :'~' :";', :: \.,,:,~. ~. ,"
p&Z Bd. Minutes 10/5/65 Page ff3
(c) ~~on~n8 fot' Annexation - reguEl~ t no}: 'ticco:h '!1!d~~
,
The Planner advised that the annexation description had not
........, yet been received i.n the City Attorney's l1ff.i. ce and th a t he ( HI" . Wolle)
had received no official 1"'equest fOl' l:mnexation zoning. However., he
suggested that the Board might take action on that porti.on propoRed fo!'
extension of ~esidential platting up to the boundary of the Florida
P~t...er eusement, as there was nothing in doubt as to that being a p~r1:
of the total plan. He recommended that action on the proposed aI"ea
for which business zoning was to be requested be deferred until his
further consulta-tion \-lith the developers in regaI'd to Parkway Busi.ness
or se, Shoppi.ng Center, zoning foI' that US 19 frontage.
Mr. Reade
.
mov~~-spat the Boa~~,r~~ommend appro~al_gf the Rlan for ~~n~xa~iRn
~.smin~1.qr_~-M.~.' R:-~..2-<m2.-E.::.!!? areas 1I as J'Jres..ented q,1J~ .:the _fI\ast!t~an
~b~tited by Bl-.a"ckburon Bros. Devel~pment .~oro.~any. Hi-J! rnotiQJ;l.was.~
duly seconde9" a~"ld ~asse<!w: . y
COM'L ADVERTISING SIGN APPLICATION (deferred from 9/28/65) -
.L - "-I ~ ....... .1..11 ~ "
NW Cor. Nursery and proposed Stewart Blvd.
160 Sq." Ft. - double faced - top 12 ft. above grade
Display: JIMMY HALL'S AT MORNINGSIDE
Owner: Blackburn Bros. Land Development Co.
After review and discussion, the B~arq voted to recommend iis~
~prq.y'al q.~<rtl'!e abqye sjZI\ ap.PwliClC!.tion for , the ~arne r,easqns as s.\lb...~
~; tt~d ..f.9..t:_dj.s~p"~.C?yal. of Co~~!~Aal "'T~.-rJv~er.ti.~ing si ~n_~J.l.ct:!,t.io~.
num~e~~S_-:.5~.thT'qugh~_~~1L 7,1~ The Planner made reference to 1:he fact
that this sign is not a billboard type and inquired if he should offer
anything as a followup letter to the effect that it is reccg\)ized tha"t.
an identification-directional sign would be 'ih this category. The
Chairman informed him th,:it if he w'lshed, he mi gh t discuss this with
the applicants informallyu
. ,
,'.....1
PS.Z ad. Minutes
10/5/65
Page f1l~
rJIAI.m~--'I.IEl1lL.~J;\~8.'l'~R DBIYt..JiIUDX - HI'. Kl\USC reported that
infoI"mnlly the Managet" had re1.nted to him that the Edgawater Drive Study
.,:-. would be referl"'cd to the Planning and Zrming Doard. The Chaj,rman fur-
ther cotT'u~ented that guch study would possibly involve:
1. Status of Alt. 19 following EdRewater Drive ao a route.
2. Collaboration with Dunedin.
3.. Impact of a Sunset Point Road extension and causeway.
~. A study design - beautification project, shore preservation-
bulkhead line and seawall.
Upon some discussion, .tl:te Boa_rd fa,vorad in5 ti.a).1Y~<: s~~<;i.al'..E.2!l1!!Li ttee.
~~o~ph in rege~d to t~~~qa~~~ter Drive~S~u~~.
PLANNER'S ITEMS - FPZA CONFERENCE 1966 OR 1967 - The Planner re-
~-..... -- -.17 17-4 ~ l..<b.....
quested that the Board consider the possibility of Clearwater being the
site for the 1966 or 1967 FPZA Conference.. He outlined some of the
/-.
~esponsibilities of the host city for such a meeting, and emphasized
that the 1966 selection of a west coast 01"1 central Florida city was
due; since the 1965 site will be Cocoa Beach (Clearwater had the meet
in 1956 - and Tampa, Lake1and and Sarasota had been hosts since then).
The Planner further indicated that such a request should be supported
by a resolution from the City Commission and should be in the hands of
the FPZA Site 'Committ~e by the last week in November. 1be Chairman~
~~.!e,d J;.h,at ~Q~..r~T T!!e"1bers Bive i t s~T.e~ th~our1!.!.::....-
The meeting wa"s adjourned at 4:50 P. M.
Respectfully submitted.,
_}uAF) uJ~:~
Ja~k I~ Wolle, Seely
CiTY Planner
. ~
"''Qo ~..;