04/05/1966
TH1~ PLANNING ^t~n ZONING lJOARD
vl/
("""'.
Minutes of the MeetinR, TuoGday~ April 5, 19GG~
" '
The meeting was called to order at 3=30 r. M. by the Chairman,
Hr. Kruseg ,Present were Members 11arries, Mylandev, Butler, Reade, 11ey
and Williams, Mr. Rettig ,of the Engineering Department, and Mr. Wolleg
Approval of the minutes of th~meetinG of March 29/66 was de-
ferred until the next meeting.
REVISION or DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR FORD DEVELOPMENT ON NORTH
HIGHlAND - ARCHI1rECT ~ l"'oR1~?:l\ QA'l'S0N. (CbNTflNUElJ"fJ~O!1 371t 5) 6~)
Ther~ was some p~eliminarydi5cussion of the property and'
reference was made to circumstances of thB oriEinal contractural ar-
rangement made by the City with Mr. ro~d, the developc('. Mr. Wolle
read for the record copy of letter submitted by Nr. John IL Ford to
Asst,. City Attorney Kennedy Febl'uary 21st of this year' and memorandum
. of: Febi'luary 24/66 from MI' u Kennerly to the Planner asking for his: recom-
mendations. Members reviewed reference copies of the City Planner's
''-'i 'memorandum'to the Asst.. City Attorney dated March 39 1966, in which
~- "",'
he submitted his detailed recommenda~ions concerning revision of the
original deed rCGtrictionsu The Planner. advised that subseque~t di-
, '
rection from the Asst~ City 'Attorney was to also bring the matter
before the 'Planning and Zoning Board.
At 3:45 Pu M. Mr.~ Watson, project architect, nppeared before the
Board and presented a proposed plan of development involved in the re-
quest for revised restrictions.. Reference copies of a preliminary
plan sheet were passed to members by the ~rchitect. These were illus-
trative of:
Plan shown top of sheet - deveJ,opment as might be executed under
present restrictionsu
, .
Scheme #2 on sheet - ^ development unrler proposed revised r~stric-
tions, placing 2-story buildings at rear
(east end of pl'opcrty, away f:rom l!igh1anc)
", )
.......
Scheme #3 on sheet - A development under proposed revised re-
strictions, placinR ?-sto~y buildinB3 at
Highland Aveg ent:rance.
:... '...'.' ',< ..... ~'. ':\: .:::~ ~ " .:. '.' '. ' . .'1" ',~.. :, ., ..../: ~ ': ~ '.:\ ~ :'.' ~'. ", \. "',: ~.. :+, ': ;'j::: .: :; , '.. ':" .::::" ":;::", ~ " ; ',:.', ....~ ~,:;....., ~.,:": ,I:>, y;~ >:. ~ ;" :.~, ':-, ":':'.~ ,';. .::: i. .....,':::: ':.:" '~:~."','~":; .~. .:. ..~;~, ~,:~'~:':r :\:;, ~'.' :,...'. :,' ,'/'.~' ~':.' :.f~' ,"'. ": . :,:':. ;" " ' '; :~::: ',:
~
,",
"I
.:)'
:",,' ..::)
.'
., .
:.c I'"
:;. ~. .
,-'
'<i'i
,\: .
'"
\
-......../
pez Dd~ Hlnutes
II /5 16 (l
Page !12
Among some details given w~s that;
Roadways would be private ones (20 ft, pavement for 2-way t~affic~
12 ft~ pavement for l-way traffic.
S 7. ,1.lni ts are pt'oposcd in ,311-.., the exact nUmbl~I' of each type uni t
ha9 not been fi~mly fixed~
Scheme 1 and? anticipate 10 buildings.' 4 of which would be 2~'story"
The darker buildings on the plan represent 2~,stoI''y st1'1uctures.
The ligh tel' bui 1 dings represen t l-otory structures. It was in-.
< tended that 32 of the 52 \lnfts wouln bo 1 bedroom apartments. They
were planning on floor area of 640 sq. ft. for I-bedroom units,
500 sq.. ft. for efficiency units, 7110 sq,. ft. for 2-beclroom units
(~hich he thought generally yeu would classify,as average
apartment size). ' ,
He favored either Scheme I or 2~
In summary. Mr. Hatson cited as the benefits that the proposed re-
strictions would Bi~c them would be:
More open area~
Less density of buildings.
More variety in structures~
More opportunity to provide a more extensive recreational f~cility,
or possibly two within the project rather than one large one.
Some members questioned whether the provision of off-street parking
.
at the ratio of one space ,for each unit would prove adequate to
'take. care of bo.th residents and visitors to such a development) in that
street parki,ng \~ouldnot be available., Comment was made that thi.s
situation would probably result in the need for future conversion of
some of the intended open space or recreational area to parking. In-
quiry was made as to the availability of sewer to the tract. Informa-
"
tion from Mr. Rettig was that sewer lines are installed in PinebT'ook
Drive and in Overlea Street and that the more f~asible connection
would probably be to sewer lines on Kings Highway, \>lhlch would neces-
sitate a utility easement through the Di Paolo property to the west
of the subject tract.
Afier further exchange of information, Mr. Watson left the
meeting at 4~20 P. Mo, leaving study plans with the Board.
In the following discussion~ preference was expressed for Scheme
112 \od th 1"e 10ea tion of square structure at the Hi ghJ and Ave _ cn-tr'i'lnce
complex to the rear of the property and in its place location of one
~
1
'J uJ?on~rnotion bi!: r1r~ Hutlct'i seconded by ~~, RCfid74Lit was, vot~d that
I
1 ~~heme #2 unde~ proE~sed restrictions as recommended,in herin~efore
>,
"
",
',)
~, ,f'-",
~
1",,,,...1
"
, !
'-~
',..... ,..:
..'. '.'.;,,"
<I:: ;.::;..;".:./. :~::.;:; ..f:':<.,:~:
I....
". ,~ :, ~.+ .: .
,,>.:, ~ .,,:.'.! :~:;~' .~: .~' ,:..:< .,<.:- ::.:.:" :'/":,:. ~.' \ :11.: :-.:: : I:' ~.: (,,' ".:: " ,~ ~.: ':/:. ~.>~. .: ~. .:/ ':.. ::i .<,.: :~. ~ : '.:::
:~.::' :'
,';':<.\;
P&2 nd~ Mi.nutes
/:.,
,'.\:,:
" . ,. ~.
>i(
.~.~~.~ ..
11/5/66 Page. 113
other long north-south oriented 2-story structured In final action,
:/;:
"'l. .
.'!- .'
'. "
, .
L....I
, .
>i:
p OJ'"
r:~fel"red to memorandum dated t1al~ 3/66 ?!:!2.t to the Asst. City Attol"ne)!,
are acc~ted suhject to approved modifica'tions indicated on ~i ty
planner I s ,copy of arqh_i teet's plan submitted and subj ect to ade-
quate parking for residents and visitors and access to City sewers_
Mr. Williams was excused from the meeting at l~~30 P. M. and was
not present at time of this final Board action~
:'<.::'l;
.; I.~:~;
,,::",
-,". .
" .
'."
,"
," .. I
.~. .
. :;~ .... ,
. ~ '.
:'......
.. I! . ~
~::~', :.~
:;~:. ~::' "
<', .
't.\:'.
~. ~.'
CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS:
(8) Report on sign Ordinance - Chail:\man Kruse reported ,concern-
ing the passage of Sign Ordinance #1077 on i~s third reading at the
CityCommission"meetine of April 4, 1966u
(b) Referral'of Service S~ation Ordinance to Committee (reference
lS made to p~z ~a. m~nutes of 3/2~)6bJ -
.;:;'.~\
','\:'..
, "
0.'.... .
'.. .
',.1'
J ,,',
)\
,:_',
.1:::
,"',
<-. .' ~
t--' .." ~
.~, ,;:
~ "' ;;. ~
.. .
",
~ . . c
'The Chairman ~l?:eointed the following as a Committee to work with the
Plannev to review and recommend to rhe Hoard revisions in the Service
"
..... ."
. ,
." '~ .
"... ~
..,.
" '
"
. LJ ~ t.
Station ordinance previously proposed to the City Commission: Mr.
"~' "~.
):",.
, '
_il
::\i.
Mxlander, Mr. Butlcr~ and Mr. Reade~ Mr. Reade made request that rhe
Planner supply Committee members with copies of the previously pro-
'.':~;::
.,
...:
posed ordinance and copies of ordinances of any other municipalities
. ..'
'.
available for reference.
"
;~ ;'.1
"
", ","
." t'
( c)
minded
.':,
...:.
- Members were re-
Jawing Monday.
~' .~
, .
" <
Planning liter~ture was distributed.
The m~eting was adjourned ~t 5:05 P. M_
Respectfully submitted,
'g.vJ~
y