Loading...
03/21/1967 . 'I'ffE PLANNING AUD 7.0tIIHG ROAIW / V' to ~ ~ ~'... ~ Minutes of tho Mcctinc, Tuesday, Mnrch 21, 1907. Tho meeting was called to order at 3:00 P. M. by the Chairman, Mr. Kruse. Present wer~ Members Butler, tlay, Mylander, Harries and Reade, Mr. Rettig of the Engineering Department, and Hr. Wolle. The minutes of the meeting of March 7, 1961, were approved as submitted in written summation to each member. Agenda HI - ZONING REQUEST - 2-8-367 - FROM R-IE TO R-q - ALL Of LOT 6, PART or ,LOT 5, BLOCK A, JOS. J. ELDRIDGES SUBDIVISION - APPLICANT: DAVID E. & GWEN S. WADDELL - ~genda #2 - ZONING AND LAND USE No. Osceola - Palm Bluff Area - James Robbins The Planner requested that Agenda Items No. 1 and No. 2 be consl- . dered jointly, as the R~lE pocket south of Palm Bluff to Cedar should, in his opinion, be treated as one area. The Chairman read for the , ,." ,. ;", record letter from Hr. Galloway, Chairman of the Zoning Commi ttee, con- ~ ." taining his recommendation) and such letter is so made a part of these I .......-. minutes. Mr. Butler's summary of his field inspection agreed with Mr. J, Galloway's report. In preliminary discussion with the Planner and the Chairman, the Board was briefed on the background of these items and '" ,\ H advised of the expected filing of an application for R-q zoning on the southeast corner of Osceola and Palm Bluff following a ruling by the . Assistant City Attorney that a request to the Board of Adjustment and, Ap- .1, . peal on Zoning for erecting an additional apartment structure would re- quire rezoning of the property. Area drawing was displayed, color coded to show nonconforminB multiple family properties in red. Hap drawings were distributed for reference. Some information brought out was that Mr. Robbins owns 4 lots ~n the west side of Osceola and was brought in- . ;...,...) to the picture originallY through contact made by the other two appli- cants in regard to his having any objection to their requests. Mr. Robbins application for R-4 zoning had been received just prior to the meeting. ," "' l:~ .,.. .I. ~~ ::/ !, .' i:. ,::'~~~,"..':\;::jol,I" .~.: :;:;.'.: ;:J,. ....:,.:.'; ,....;",.: .J.,' .....:,~\.\....: /'.>.'.;:',' ''.+: ...../4..'..Z...;.,j... .~../:~' ,'.:~.~ :"~~' ';:"':':"~"'I~{"~'~":"';' ':,'~',,~, ::j.:'A.....:~..~ ':,::C', :':'~~""<":I:l , ". .' .~:- ~,''l,<; : ;:".::.' '~.:~." .1 ':""\;1". ':'.:;.::. '" clr...M P&Z Ild. Hinutcs 3/21/61 Paga #2 At 3:25 P. M. Mr. James Robbins met with t~c Ooard upon the Plannerts requcst--Mr. Robbins appeared to inform ~hc Board of the f\ character of the area, as he was familiar with the neighborhood and, and further to explain his application. Mr. Robbins expressed his opinion that this R-IE area would not now attract single family owners and that he was concerned with the future potential for its development. Within the scope of the discussion the follot-Jing points were per- tinent to the limited use within th~ area as a family neighborhood: 1. Information concerning the number of property owners 2. Type of rental facilities (obsoletion of structures and poor maintenance) 3~ School districtinB problems 4. Tax increase 5. Proximity to business district The Planner discu,ssed the,'possibili ty of planned development for large ,properties on the west side of Osceola. Mr. Robbins was receptive to I) ,( F......."" ) this possibility and assured the Board that his interest would be shared \ with his abutting neighbors. The Board encouraged this approach and in~ dicated that after his investigation that he consult with'the Planning Office. Mr. Robbins indicated Know~edge of other applications in prep- aration. The Board made inquiry into the Palm Bluff developments. , There being no more questions of Mr. Robbins, ~e was excused at 4:20 P.M. With the expectation of receipt of further applications from this area, the Planner recommended that the Board consider the pending appli~ cations (Robbins and Waddell) at the next mcetine, at which time it was expected full informa~ion would have been received. ^ccordin~lv, the Board voted to table Apenda Items No. 1 and 2 until the next meetine. \ . .> .... ,-: . ,", '. SIGN ORDINANCE APPEALS - nrsCUSSrOH & RECOMt'!END.^.TIONS - tcontinued from 3/7/67) 'In follow up of ~equest at the March 7 neetinp" the Chairman made 'V report to the Board of discussion behlcen himself and the Planner as to.the possibility of settine up a board to hear appeals on sign vari- 'j, P&Z Bd. l1inutes 3/21/67 PilgC H 3 I . I ' I anccs which would be composed of - I \ Chairman of the Buildinr. Boapd of Adjustment and APPCr1],9, Ch~irman of the Board of Adjustment & Appeal on Zoninn, One othc~ member, and One Commissioner (ex-officio-non voting) as Chnirman In continued Board discussion, it was the consensus of Board opinion that: ., 1"-' ~l) The ordinance intent, in time, is to brirg about a change to satisfactory standards and ultimate more desirable anpearance to all R-4, R-M areas. To do this the existing 6rdi~ance should not be amended. : . J' (2) Separat~ sets of standards for old, and for new areas based upon age and extent of development would defeat the purpose of the ordinance. Areas would be difficult to define, and as well the separate standards establiShed probably could not be administered with any ease or effectiveness. (3) For use in making decisions, appeal limitations could be out- lined (even adopted) as a guide to promote consistent fairness .' in review of simi lor cases. Sign Ord~nance Amendment Study, outlined on chart presented by the Planner, could serve as a recommended set of criteria to be followed by any board of' , appeals when considering appeals for setback reduction or size of sign increases. Such criteria would permit compensa- ,ticn (increase) in size of sign for voluntary additional set- back, or conversely through recognizing the undesirability of signs to be erected right on the right-of-way, to penalize this practice by lowering the permitted size of sign. (4) Exceptions to the ordinance, which it was granted are inevita~ ble, should be handled by an appeal process. In consideration of Point (It) above, the Bo~rd recognized The desirability of keeping the number of board of the city to a minimum. " The fact that some sign appeals would be advanced beyond any hearing board and ultirr.ately (if str.one enough) would end up on the Commission agenda. '. , '" The possibility that a preliMinary investip.ativc body may ex- pedite case handling, remove long discussions from the regu- lar Cowmission meetings, and should per~it more impersonal decisions. The following' suggestion by the Planner and the Chairman was offered to possible solution to the appeal problem: that an advisory comreittee could be formed with l\ members as first proposed for an appeal board, i . ~ ~ to hear sign appeals and recommend to the Commission, through its chair- man, action in each case. ;',.:.:.!~: ':;". :L..,. ...:':...:. ;'::. :.,".:.... .....\...~:;..:.:.:r..<~.:.:~..: .1;-:':, -...:'r~"~,-:',,:"'" .:. ":::.~':..:.;y:.:'>':~':'.":":",\,::",.':.:..I:..~;:~;.::.:....:;.: ..:.:.:....\...;.: ;.': ":":'..::;'..' ~:". :.,:~.';_;..: ':,:,-.,~,\::,~,),":'}~':<;.~l:. .::.'.:. ...".::":"~":"'~ ..:.<.... .':',,:: P&Z Bd. Minutes 3/21/67 Puce H II '( In final ~ctJon, the Ho~rd unanimously votdd to recommend: (1) to maka no Chil12.8CS in ,~!O cxiGtinr sir.n ol"dinilnce; (2 )_.!hat tlD. tld- yisor~ c~mmi t tee! as propos ed be cstab'l ished, pos~H hI y \oIi th the II ~ember composition as outlin~d; (3) that if such body is cretlted~ consideration be given to a set of criteria to be followed as su~- gested in the Planner's proposed schedule as revicwe~. ~. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS: ( a:-) RI:.:POH'l'S FKOM COmITY - (b) caD COHHITTEE PROGRESS - ;< The Chairman reported that the County was becoming interested in ,the southwest portion of the central business district due to the traffic and parking in the area and' the location of County buildings in the Chestnut-Haven-Bay Ave. area. Because of this it could be ex- pected that ther~ would be an attempt to coordinate city and county planning and some development controls' in this area. " , , .. ..... .~. c P6Z CONFERENCE TAMPA APRIL 13-15 - Mr. vl011e announced this an- " , nual conference at the Causeway Inn sponsored by the State Association of County Planning and Zoning Directors of Fla. and solicitedattcn- dance by any interested members. Planning literature was distributed~ The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P. M. '!. 1 l' ~ < . .... '. Respectfully submitted, " . I. \1011e, See y Planner :~I ~ ~ ~ ~ . , .,. ~ .' ( " c , ' "