06/07/1966
:'":I'.'~~~''' .";',: '.lr..:,:.'~:.. ,',.': :\",.p :"(.,,,~, ~:I:...:....i,"..':,I::' t::,.\,:~'r: I~' :'~':.;,'~~ ',:': ",' :....,.'1. ..:.~,l~~'::..::: i':'::',i.~....:.',:.~ :,.~:::.,I:~,...::.,~~, ",~,I:',:.":~~';;~',"";:':~":'" ,~':::,'/:'''',~'::-:,,;'','';.\':'':/:~':;''.''', ..:\ I:":~i':~::':\ \: ;"<,,,..: \~ ",;;~.:_,., :"'_.',.:~
~
J'c
. '
;
~
/'
v/
THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
Minutes of the Meeting, Tuesday, June 7, 1966
c _ ""'-, -.....--...........-....---.-......--
The meeting was called 'to order at 3:30 p~ M~ by the Chairman,
Mr. Kruse~ Present were Members Williams, Mylander, Swan, Butler
and Galloway, Mr. Rettig of the Engineering Department, and Mro Wolle.
The minutes of the meeting of Hay 31, 1966~ were approved as
submitted in written summation to each memberQ
SERVICE STATION ORDINANCE (CONTINUANCE OF REVIEW) -
u...... .-.-..-.-
Commissioner Clifton Stephens was present by invitation to dis-
cuss with the Board the proposed ordinance. Chairman Kruse made an
opening statement, giving as the reason Commissioner Stephens was in-
vited to meet with the Board was that as the oil industry is one that
he represented, it was thought that he is' vitally interested if such
'" an ordinance is to come before the Commission and should be tho'rough-
!
..........
I
'../
"
\'1ol....J
c'
ly familiar with its content. Mr. Kruse explalned,'the jurisdiction
that the City presently has over service stations as a special com-
'mercial type of operation, noting that the final perogative as to dis-
approval or approval has rested with ~he City Commission.
In preliminary remarks, Commissioner Stephens stressed that he'
was here 'as a citizen and as a business ,man who happens to be en-
gaged in this business~ but not as a City Commissioner" In the follow-
ing discussion with the Board, Mr, Stephens expressed his views volun-
~arily and in reply to Board questioning and, in part, offered as
points for consideration:
Oil companies make their own very thorough surveys in which
,they give consideration to factors of location, selection of
sites, size of lotss visibJ.lity" e'tc~ The industry has wopked
out their own formula as to whether the potential is there for
a site.
His own feeling that he couldn't see any need for a service sta-
tion ordinance other than the controls now in effect that would
regulate the si tes. (Iie stated that he t-lould hate to see the City
become involved in regulating free entorprise and that he per-
sonally would be opposed to it,)
That the industry itself is not concerned about distances between
" ,
j
.,
-'
,,'
~ '.~ ~..
tl
..+.........
I,
\
~I
P6Z Bel" Minutes
, 6/7/66
Page #2
stations and does not i tac1f huv(~ any regulatory body in
which there is cooperation as to distance between stationsd
There was no agreement between companies as to proximity to
schools, hospitals, etc~ (He stated he thought a se~vice
station would be no more dangerous than, for instance, a
drive~in window in'a bankn)
A service station with proper installation of tanks, switches,
etc~, and precautions required to be taken, was, not half as much
a fire hazard as some of our other. buildings here in Clearwater.
Approximate.1Y 600 are employed J.n the service station industry
in Cleart-later.
Any representatives of other companies, or members of the trade,
he ha~ ever talked to feel th~re should be no restraint as far
as limitations are concerned and thatseven as competitive as
the business is, they like to feel that they are free to com-
pete..
Mro Mylander pointed out that in practically every state the service
station ordinance has come under scrutiny of the Courts, and in every
instance the Courts have upheld them and have accepted the ordinance
as' long as it has reasonable limitations, He added that he thought the
service .station ordinance would be passed by any municipalities as a
regulatory ordinance under the police power~
Mr.. Stephens made additional comment concerning ~he contribution
of service stations as a tourist contact in supplying mapSj information,
etce for visitors..,
In answer to inquiry made as to the industryis attitude toward a
trend toward the incorporation of requirements on aesthetics in ordi-
nances, as has reportedly.been done in some California communitiest Mr,
'Stephens stated that he did not believe 1:hat we should sacrifice our
competitive business to accomplish aesthetics) bu't he made note of a
trend, particularly among independent stations, to upgrade and improve
I
their buildings~ He did agree that having certain restrictions are fine,
but he didn f t think "one should say Ide hav(~ all t.h8 stati~ms He want
and we don t t want any TTlore II 0 fie addf.d "that he dl dn ' 't th ink any of the
\
"
f'"":
',,-
. ,,)
',. ..,.......t
(~,
P&Z Bdv Hinutes
6/7/66
Page 113 '
companies will have too much opposition to what they will be required,
to do at a certain location, in that oil companies are very public re-
lations conscious 'and want to lIb lend in with the communi tyH J
, ,
Chairman Kruse made comment at this time that one of the problems
constantly being studied in connection with safety hazards was ~he
matter of strip business zoning, and that the Board had tried on US
19 to change that situation to some extent. He further noted that with
high-speedtraffic~ access and exit from individual properties has
become a hazard, not only on US 19 but on other major arterials. Mr.
,
Wolle pointed out here that, although the focus in the discussion so
far had been on access of vehicular traffic) the focus should also be
on pedestrian traffic~ in that it was recognized that in a normal
retail area service stations and driveways cause unsafe situations for
the walking pedestrian shopper~ There was some discussion with Hr~
Stephens as to a suggestion that other businesses, such as drive-in
restaurants, should possibly also be further regulatedv
Mr~ Wolle asked Mro Stephens if in relation to the 6i1 industry
he thought the spacing requirement would have the most objection, call-
ing attention to the fact that Sec. 3 of the proposal covers other than.
location requirementso In reply Mr. Stephens again affirmed his
opinion that the retention of the present system of control was ade-
quate.
.1;1
, Chair.man Kruse made suggestion~ subject to Board approval, that
Commissioner Stephens take a copy of draft of the proposed ordinance
for review and perhaps meet with the Berard again in a week or two~ He
clarified that the draft had not been finalized.
Mr~ Stephens noted thaT sites for the major 6il companies are
seldom less than 125Y square, usually 150~ x 1501, and that now they
t""
,...-.......
LI"..~)
P&Z Bd Minutes
6/7/66 Pt1ge Hl~
are looking At 20Qv square sites; that they nee.d larp,cr Areas of opera-
tion, but that the independent stations don't need all this area. ,He
inquired if a service station ordinance had been requested. It was
reported to him that there have been comments made over the years at
various Commission meetings (when the Planner or Board members were
present) regarding the spacing or aesthetics of service stations; al-
so that similar comment at Board meetings had focused attention on
the question as to whether there were not too ,many stations coming
into Clearwater. He was fUI"ther informed that it was thought that
Clearwater was 'the only municipality in the immedia'te area that doesn v t
have a service station ordinance. It was further pointed out that it
.,was not always a question of the people working in a field request-
ing such regulations.
Mr. Stephens suggested that perhaps more deliberate discussion
should begin with a Commission wo~k session to determine the extent
of this need. He also advised that during the two years he was Chair-
man of the Service Station Committee of the Chamber of Commerce that
there was never one single member on that committee that would not
have been opposed to a limitation on the number of service stations;
I,
that not one member was in favor of passing a resolution to ask the
.
City Commission to put any more restrictions on the number of stations
or to impose any further control of s~ations.
In summary, Chairman Kruse expressed that the Board.s intent was
to consolidate criteria, some of which is already used as points of
consideration, into some kind of document as a more specific basis for
review; in other words, to codify the materinl. It was then agreed
with Mr. Stephens that he would meet with the Board again for further
discussion in two weeks, or whenever a convenient time might be arranged.
, ~
c"-'\
\--,
P&Z Bd. Minutes
rage #5
6/7/66
Listed alternate amendments (a)~ (b), and (c)--prepared "by the
Planner--were distributed as agenda attachments.
As requested, Mr. Kilgore, City Refuse Superintendent, appeared
before the Board and gave a repor~ concerning the use of a trash dis-
posal container frame called Litter--Castles of America. He advised
the Board that containers used by the City were very adequate and
were efficiently maintained in all public areas and that he was not
aware of any ~rivate areas, that were not given adequate 'service by
the ci ty ~
MrD tvilliams was called from the meeting at this time.
After Mr. Kilgore retired from the meeting, the Board further dis-
cussed request made by Hrs~ Fae McDonald~ representing Litter-Castles
of America, to consider a proposal to permit commercial advertising on
standard panels and/or screen structures for trash disposal containers.
"
The Board unanimously reaffirmed the intent of the sign ordinance to
prohibit off-premise type siens other than the accepted billboard and
outdoor advertising structures as outlined
IV. of Ordinance
. .....
~n ;::lee.
1077. It further agreed that any proliferation of signs of the sand-
wich and sidewalk and/or snipe type, even ~f applied against the ~otal
'"
sign eligibility factor~ would still CalJSe di~trac~ion, and unneces-
sary as well as undesirable (Coney Island) character to the City's busi-
ness areas. The submitted possible amendments (as detailed in agenda
attachments) were discussed, as well as the statement of the Planner
r",
.' ,
rf.Z Bd. Minutea
6/7/66
Page 1/6
\
l~.-i
(as recorded in P&Z Bd. minutes 5/17/6ri Pge.3) that unde~ the existing
ordinan6e the proposed type sign would be illegal.
The Boar,d then voted unanim9us1y to recommend denial at the.,re-
g~est gf Litter-Castles of America~ Inc. based onwthe above Board
actions and_on the following considerations:,
1. The sign, structure as it would be defined under'
Ordinance 1077 (Sec. VI. A 3) wou]d be illegal
as an OP sign or P sign.
2. The effect such sign would have on the appearance and
normal function or the business area it may serve,
and as it would affect the general welfare of the city.
3D The extent of the need for structures of this type to
. provide services to1hich the City of Clearwater may
reasonably extend. without any advertising media attached.
II
AGENDA ITfMS #)~ PUDJ and #5 (a), PROGRESS REPORT FPZA CONFER-
ENCE PROGRAM~ were not covered due to a time limitation.
Planning lite~ature was distributed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 P. M.
Respectfully submitted,
~,w~
I~ Wol1e~ See y
Planner