10/12/1965
;',': :", .~. .". ~: : ;:.):"" :,'.: '.: .t:~::1 :.....:..:. :', :",:;,;;' ::', ';~ +" :(.; .... '~f~;1 ~':';'::. ,~" ::~: ;:;: \.\ t.: ';'/..:,." ~....:: ':,..~.:-..... :,' 'I : ~.'~" ':~ ;.'/ ,:.~ ':.'':. :'/'/.~: .:'::, ::,~:: : ': I,.) :"::,:/.':: ~ ' ': ,;. :.~. I,'.,.., ; ~, : ::.:\ ,'. ~.:~ :i:: ::: ".:'.:..~':: ~'.' ~: ,":,;~ :., .: ""': ,:.~ ~,~~.:, ,':~" ':i~ ::; ~.' .~")i: :~.::: ,:,'~,::'
.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
J'
,............
Minutes of the Meating, Tuesday, October 12, 1965.
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 P. M. by the Chairman,
Hl"'. Kruse. Present were Members Mylander, Reade, Iley, Butler,
Williams, Gallo\-Jay and Swan ~ Mr. Rettig of the Engineet"ing Department..
and Mr. Wolle. '
The minutes of the meeting of October 5, 1965, were approved
as submitted in written summation to each mambeI'.
DISCUSSION OF SIGN ORDINANCE PROPOSALS WITH COMMITTEE OF
~LEARWATER':LARGO BOARD OF REALTORS - . --., . -,...-
I.~..r~t."~mB or ~6iange ..n~) Items"to be .".ad~eq .-
Mr., Shafer~ Committee Chairman, MY'.., Art Hall, and MI". Herb
Mayers were present at this time for a continued discussion 6f
sign proposals.
Chairman Kruse expressed the Board's pleasure in having the
realtors meet for these renewed consultations and recognized the atten-
,
dance of HI'.. Hall',WhO was not present at the first meeting_ The _ .~
Commi ttee and membe 1'9 had 1'ecei ved 1'efe1'en ce . ~.~1?i.,,"...?.!...-~!t~ili_'.!.-~
list... ..~~:m" i zing,__ ~~~~~~.~.s_,.~~,~~~e~~ ,1, through 9 to be, fUI'~h,~~" ,~~.~.:~~S,~d.~~~ .~~
,--.... ' ~'" ,-, .~. ~ ~
,..-..... for the purpose of resolving any differences and reaching a common --.J
........,...
concurrence as to recommendations to be madew
Prior to consideration of this agenda list~ Mr. Mayers proposed
foI' discussion a question previously discussed individually with Mr.
Kruse. This involved the possible future contingent liability to the
city in ~le cuvrent p~actice of issuance of permits for the erection of
signs within the building setback area en certain specified streets
established by zoning amending ordinance No. 98S, Section 4, and No.
1050, Section 8. He pointed out that it could cost B1e city sub-
.'
stantial sums if the municipality wel"e required to undertake the ex-
pense of removal of costly sign structures in the process of the ac-
offered
quirement of necessary rights-of-way parcelsv Hel 'as one sug-
gestion some 'zoning amendment with the intent to i.mpose some limi ta-
<.,.) tien (such as cost or physical structure) for signs in such areas.
P&Z Bd. Minutes
10/12/65
PlIr.e #2
After a lengthy aiscussiont and upon advice from the Board.o legal
membel" 'that, in his opi nion, to set up a cost distinction of signs
~
allowed or not allowed in this zone would be an
'a~bitrary classifiM
cation and would not be upheld, a consensus was reached that possibly
the best approach would be an added provision to require that erec-
tion of signs in these building setback zones be at the owners. risk
I
in the event thei~ removal became neces9ary~ With the Committee.s con-
curl"ence, Chairman Kruse recommended that the Plan,nel" be directed to
dr~ft a proposal for its'approval.
Review was then made of the agenda list:
Qh~~se ~ - p~fin~~ion of activated - No objections.
Ch~r~~~ - Real Estate Sign.... - Was approved as a regulation
applicaole in ~eaidential zones for copy type:
"for salell, "for leasell, "for rent".
.-,
r ,
,
Discussion followed of various proposals for practi-
cal restrictions fa!' real estate signs in other than residential
zones and for temporary signa to be allowed during construction,
development, and sales activity pe~iods for new subdivisions,
apartment buildings, etc. Inasmuch as the discussion showed a
divergence of opinion, and time was limited, it was agreed to
pass over this question for more study and to have the Planner pl~e-
pare a revised draft for discussion with the Realto~ Committee~
p~ange .~3 - No objections
Cha~&~ #~ - re han~i?a marg~~e s~a~ - Mr. Shafer thought The added
eligibility for a hanging sign covered this problem adequately.
He did question whether there might not be opposition to a prohi-
hi ti.on of activated signs on marquees. He inquired as to wl1ethel'
. " . j; f 1 Old" H
s~gns would be permJ. tted to be proJec;"ng rom a )UJ.. l.ng. e was
refer'red to the proposed ordinance restriction on signs not to
\
,J
project over the public !light-of-\.:ay moI'~ than 3-1/2 feet.
PEZ Bd. l1in'utcs
10/12/65
PaRe "3
1~
Chanqe #5 - no questions
~h~""8e U6' - no questions
~.!!B~JLI - approved
.t;..han,S~!LQ. - rf~ OADOP IdentJ-tt ,a~ndT Di rec~tiory~l on~~ - Hr. Kruse
'explained this as an added new classification which had not been
previous ly discussed with the committee. TI1e intent of such
change was to set up regulation of the covered directional signs
unde~ a different category than a regular commercial biIlboard~
and wiT.h specification of a lesser maximum area (72 sq. ft., as
for a permanent subdivision type sign).
Chifnge fl!I - Regulations ,governing the use of activated ~iJ'.Jl.l!"
Mr. Shafer recommended that the Board give further consideration
to the proposed restriction on activated signs other than on the
face of the building in the business areas, particula~ly as to
be applied to the downtown business district, some other more
important business st~eets, and Mandalay on the Beach, and offer
a further revision. Both he and Mr. Hall expressed the feeling
that, while the current proposal was desirable, seme compromise
as regards this limitation would be more acceptable to business in-
terests and have a greater chance of ~ain~ng the support of the
Merchants Division of the, Chamber. After some discussion, it was
agreed with Chairman Kruse that a compromise p1"oposal would be
drafted for further discussion with the Committee.
Mr. Shafer and Mr. Hall left the meeting at this time.
".
MOBILE HOME ZONING FOR WIGHTMAN ANNEXATION (PETITION) - 64 FOOT
STRIP NORTH OF SKY j'IARBQ1L-rne'I~1anner presented p~ti ticn '0'/ ' ~ .
applicant and offered his recommendation for mobile home park CMH) zon-
ing a~ requested, inasmuch as the strip abuts the MH zoning under the
, ,
,',
",
: ~
l-
'~
.,.:
~~
>'...
. ,
same ownership to the south and access will be proviaed by an existing
",UJ roadway conn'ec.tion to Gulf-to-l3ay Blvd~ Reason gi yen for the request
to/as to permit addi. tional lnobi Ie home lots to be developed at this -time.
.\~
1.:
, ,
o
,
'"
~I~.
..~: I
, ':1
, .
~
-,
~':
.'\~
~ '
.;i,
..~'~'
\\.:.
~ ' I' I ~ ~. \ ," : , , ' , " '.,.. ~ : ',: ~ ~' ~ . ,.:, ~:' , ,':,',.: :', + ; " 'I: ": I . :. : :,,', ,,!', " :: 1:;'\' ::+' :': ':. I." , ;', ',' " ,'",;' ~ ',, ': "l' I I : ': ",' ,~', '.,',":' ", J> 'it, \ ,: ',', :' ",,[,' " ,", ,',:: . I' :: 't : :', .: ;'~ ,: '~', ", :, ~ 'I ':::' :'.." \ ':., \ ~' '.. ~ ,":' , ,"': ,:, " ,,' :'. ~,' ; . " :' I "':.', ',\ ')
paz Bd. Minutes
10/12/65
PlI gt'! '"
~
Hr.. llp~de" )nov~4 tha.t tl).e Board ~econ\ment~ upproval,gf .J~H Mob!~.e.. HO,mo
pa-:r.k 1!Cl!U:.tlg J'lS re9.u~~~1;fl.d, ,fo~...t1;l,ia Wightmml,.1!!llli!x~.t,iO~t~.._ 1-1,15 ntg.llg.n. ,W8€i...
~.....eQ.ol}9.!llLb~ M;::'M]}Itle~ ..~~.P ~a.s_ pass.E.9 ",
SOUTHRIDGE SUBDIVISION' (RUSSELL A. BROWN) - between Highl;md and
!!fl.:[s.~~:f ~Y.:~. , "_~rouiL?:t: BeLIJea1.~~Ro~2.::':.,)Jl~,t' t\EPX.9.iffiL =- ' ,---
The Planner presented this plat with recommendation for approval~
inasmuch as the aren of the plat was previously annexed with R-ln
z.oning and the lots as platted conformed to the established zoning
(refe~ence is made, to paz Bd" l1inutes of Jan 12/65). It '''as learned
that applicant app~~ean~ was requesting that the item of 'plat approval
be placed on the agenda for the City Commission meeting the following
Monday. After review and discussion, the Board~~~ed to reco~end
~qvC!L...6l s'4bj~pt P~i1;t o:f.,.Southridge Sl1bMy"i,~,.Jo!l as submi tt_ed~
l'p~AJlD ESTbTED'l ,..U_l!!.!..?-~
(a)
(b)
Plat A~oval
'l~:m i n!L..:' rc--
The Planner presented this plat with recommendation for approval,
inasmuch as it conformed,to the master plan~ It was learned that ap-
plicant was requesting that the item of plat approval be placed on
the agenda for the, City Commission meeting for the fallowing Monday.
Afte}::\ revie~l and discussion, ~ the BoaI'd voted 'to recommend approval of
....... .& 1 ~
the P-1p.:t,~ql.,,"Is l~nc:I fs~a..te~ ,~Uni t 6-B ,~ ~~_ submi. tte~. a~?,uto :.ecommend
SI?~trr'.Q.~a]._,_o,f.. zp~l]i.nK a..~~~,es~,~ (R-IC, .Sin[:1.=. .F~~milY) f~~. pl~~~~~.
In discussion of the last three agenda items, protests were made
that in these. instances, and on several other recent occasions, a
specified time limit for Board action was insuffici.ent for proper in-
vestigation and considerationH I't was recommended by MI". Galloway
that! the Chairman forward a memorandum to the City t1anagcr advising,
tha't a period of ten days is required fOl:~ appropriate Board r:'eview and
_,J
, '
, '
.<' . '..,.
;,
, , ,
PSZ Bd. Minutes 10/12165 Page 115
decision with ~egard to most cases. ' Mr. K~uae concurred with this
recommendation..
"
. ' '
~
~~J2Ja) t ~P~A4-..qONFERtNCE 19~6. O~ )96?, ",as not covered due
to a time limitation.
Planning literatu~e was distrib~ted.
"
'The'meeting was adjourned at'5:20'P. M.
RespectfuIIY,subrnitted,
I . . .
S>.w~- ,
k I."'\loll-ei, tfec'y-:-
y,Planner .
\,
. , ..-..'
, " ~., ~"
~', ""...,.J
J.'.,
;-". \
, '
, ,
..,:',.'
",
, '
'"
\'
" ,
'I
"
.!
~~:;;, c
, ,
, .
Jj ..
'.', '
. "/
". /rO.
. .,....
. "
'........
.'
" '.:'
~: .
/.~." .
~~~:<T.. .
..~ "