02/28/1967
. '''ie,
.. ;~~
//'
THE PLANNING AHD Z.ONING BOARD
('.,
Minutes of the Meeting, Tuesday, February 2B, 1967.
The meeting was called to order a~ 3:00 p. M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Kruse. Present were Members Harries, Mylander, Butler, Reade,
Williams and Galloway, Hr. Rettig of the Engineering Department, and
Mr. Wolle. Mrs. Hall was absent because of illness.
The minutes' of the meeting of February 8, 1967, were approved
as submitted in written summation to each member.
AMEND11ENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE - DISCUSSION - SI:TBACK REQUIREt-tEr1TS
R-4 , R-I1 z..;,nes.
The Planner read to the Board memo from the City 11anager request-
ing the Planning and Zoning Board lito consider amendments that would
recognize existing conditions while updating new construction". Mr.
Kruse reported on recent request (appeal) before the Commission con-
cerning erection of a new sign on motel property on the beach. Refer-
'-,
ence was madcl 'co 5 foot setback requirement of" signs when erected in
R-q or R-M area. Discussion followed in regar~ to intent of the new
sign ordinance requirement to start desirable change. The Planne~ in-
dicated that there should be incentive to set signs back from the
right-of-way even if they were permitted to be somewhat larger. Eith~r
way the clutte~ed effect would remain. The Board vot~d to defer anv
action but directed the Planner to prepare recnmrnendation fo~ discus-
sian at the next meetin9.. Mr. Hylander was appointed by the Chairman
1:0 assist Mr. \>1011e in any surveyor study to be ; :...:,".l2!.
Mr. Kruse congratulated Mr. Williams for his election to the City
Commission and then commended him for his contributions while a me~-
ber of the Board. All members wished him enjoyment in his new un0er-
taking and gave him open invitation to attend any and all Planning und
Zoning.Boa~d meetings whenever this might be possible.
,.J
, .
\'
P&Z Bd Hinutcs
2/28/67
Page 11'2
DUPLEX AS A l'or,'INHOUSE TYPF. - OHNERSHIP ',oJ/PLAtt - The Board de-
~, viated from the agenda at this time to hear a request of the Planner
concerning the acceptance of a Duplex structure under Townhouse unit
provisions if each unit was to be sold and separate land area to be
recorded with each unit. Point was brought up by Hr. \'lilliams that
,~j
R-2 zone usage wa~ based on one owner per structure and his opinion
was that with tHO owners there may be split decor, maintenance and
separate landscape treatment. Other discussion followed. ~1otion was
~ade to have the builder oresent at the ne~t meeting and in the in-
,!erilT! per,iod for. the Planner to research the 1ep,al as pect. Notion
was t>a.sse& - ','lilliams and M.vlander voted II NO""
.. J l"l ~
ZONING - REZONIUG REQUEST 2-6-267 R-2 to "B" - LOTS 9 AND 10,
BLOCK B, KE:YSTO~IE NAtJOR SUBDIVISIOU - Aoplicants:
G. Gordon Ber~eson and Elizabeth I. Berp.eson, his wife~
et aI, t-1erY7yn Hassell and i'~arilyn Hassell, hlS H~fe,
et al.
Gen'l Location: S/W cor. Drew St. e Duncan Ave.
Application stated "B" use to be fioHer shop to be relocated fl"om
existing 1736 Drew Street address. The Planner presented request
Z-6-267 t~ the Board, stating that the property (Lot 10) had been pre-
viously considered July 1965 for R-4 zoning to bec~me eligible for
special exception for docror's office (ARONOFF). At that time such
request was recommended for disapproval by the Soard and furthe~ SU?-
ported by Commission action at public hearing of August 9, 1965.
(Mr. Williams left the meeting at this tim~)
Discussion of the zoning request was continued. Drawing was shown in-
dicating negligible change of Land Use in the area. It was pointed
out that the office uses established at the 'northt-:est corner (P.-4 ~one)
and southeast corner (B zone) pro.,icted a natu~al termination of busi-,
ness-type uses and was subr:;tc.ntial anchor for the "8" zone.
Members of the Zoning committee reported that they had again
: ',:. '. ,;" ,;. :..'. l.= .... ~": ~.! r:~': ". '. <> ,~:. .:'.'..~ ::: '+' ~'.: '~.".:-: ",: :,\".,.. '.'1 ,1 :-.':::;.' :"..,:.I~'",::, j.' ~:- ~',~,.":'''>.1 ': ""~ . :. '::;" ;.::: .':1' ~.~/. ::: ~. ~',~' :', ' ';:' ": ',... :. ~:: ,',: .... '. : ;': :,,,,:'. ~~>: 'I. ..;.~ '.~'<~:;'- .~. \1,' :,,' ,.:',:~,,~: :~, ':':'; .<l....~..: .: ~ ~:;./' '.~ ..:.:.... "..,<: ~ ::':.t~ :>',' :.' ;.,
P&Z Bd. Hinutes
2/28/67
Page fl3
visited the area and each recolMlended denial of the application based
r\ on the following:
~.-/It is undesirable to extend strip zoning on Drew Street
.- frontage t...i th business. useS fronting into and abutted by
single family and duplex homes.
2. There is sufficient B zoning available for this purpose lttith-
in reasonable distance of the site.
3. Land Use and Zoning Plan for Drew Street is now serving this
section of the city well and should not be deviated from.
Motion to recommend denial of ~he annlication was oassed unanimouslv.
.
CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS:
COHMDNITY DEVELOPMElJT DISCUSSION fROt1 PUBLIC MEETING - The Chair-
,
man reported on the response and subjective coverage of the Congress
for Community Development. held by the Chamber of Commerce at theJack
Tar Hotel, Monday night, February 27, 1967. Five members of the Board,
, )
Mr. Wolle~ and Mr. Rettig attended. Other members were informed that
-~ principal discussion included irrprovement of downtown, traffic and
transportation needs, and reference to a cultural complex including a
convention facility. Interest also included improved housing; addi-
tional beaches; improving marina for stopover accommodations for pri-
vate yachts; I-75 connection. Mr. Kruse reemphasized the need for
the Chestnut Street extension as it would be a prerequisite to the
traffic problem approach and downtown redevelopMent. The Board
agreed that this downtown loop completion should take priority.
LIAISON COt1iUTTEE OUESTIOIINAIRE - Becaus e of interes t in a hOllS ing
.
program and publicity given the survey being conducted by the Liaison
Committee, copies of the questionnaire submitted the community were
shown the Board members. The Planner summarized its intent. Some dis-
cussion followed; questions being answered by the Chair~an and the
",
.,__,J Planner.
Agenda Item # 3 (c), Items of Study fot' Commission, !""as de ferred
for later discussion.
,':, ( :. : ".,: L . , ': .' ~. .:. ~.'.:': \.' ..,.:. "'1-, ;:..:'. : ' "'. ~ . " . J ....' ~ ~...:' ~ :. . :< : . ',' '::.:,':,'. .'. '.' ':, '. :"~' '., ::,; ;. ,,:....: ,;';' ,'.:'., ': '.'. : ,~ :.' . .", ~ ~" .' ...... "..: '. ' ,\,.',': .::':';. . ~ ,'.., : ': :' " ',' ",::: ~ :, ~:..:: : ~:' :' ~ ,', .' L":.' ,:' ~, ' . ~:,', . , . . =' ."'..., ~;." ';., " ',.. : . : :. i . ' ';' ",,' I" " .', " ' '.:
P&Z Bd. Hinutes
2/28/67
Page II '.
PLANNER'S ITEMS:
r\ PROPOSED HOUSING CODE COVERAGE - CHANGES - The Planner passed
'lout drawings showing the propos~d changes in the housing code under
review. He stated that standards were not changed but verified and
clarified only. The revised procedure for appeals .was explained, as
well as the procedure for cost ,estimating and th~ appraisal determina-
., .
tion procedure. It was fu~ther stated that the changes were to satis-
fy. (I) criticisms of the City Engineer, (2) simplification of the ad-
ministrative responsibility of the Building Official, and (3) the
minimum standards of.the housing code requirement as a .part of the
Wor~able Program corrmitment.
. Current pl~nning literature was distributed.
" .
j" "
~ ~:
I.
...-......... .
..
Board members were reminded of the new Commission taking oath.
on March 6th. They were encouraged to attend, especially, in honor
to Don \'lilliar.\s.
l : .'
'.:.
,.
, .
,
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 P. M.
Respectfully submitted,
~CtcJc S; Gl) ~~
.,
See y
, I
~ .......,)
p ~ '
. ,
). .
\~