03/05/1968
~
,'--'
,
THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
~I./
Minutes of the Meetingt Tuesday, March St 1968.
The meeting was ca1.1ed to order at 3:00 P. H. by the Chairman,
Mr. Kruse. Present were ~1embers Harries, Reade, Mylander, Butler, Morris
and Galloway: Mr. Rettig of the Engineering Department, and Mr. Wolle.'
The minutes of the meeti.ng of February 20, 1968, wet"e approved as
submitted in written summation to each member.
REZONING REQUESTS
.Mr. Wolle reported that the three rezoning cases on today's agenda
(which had only been received the day before) made a total of thirteen to
be heard by the City Commission at the Zoning Public Hearing scheduled
for March 25/68. Mr. Wolle further suggested that after his explanation
of these cases, if Zoning Committee members considered that determination
~ould be made without prior review, the Boar? might take action on them
in view of the proximity of the March 25 hearing. It was agreed, upon
recommendation of Mr. Butler, for the Board to act as a committee of the
whole in consideration of these three rezoning requests and to refer any
or all to committee if it was felt more detailed study was necessary.
(a) Z-36-368 - BERNHARDT LOESER - R-2 to "B" - LOT 40, DRE~1 PARK
SUBDIVISION (GENERAL'LOCATION: MYRTLE AND HART STREET) -
. .
The Planner presented application with information that there would
remain an intervening lot adjoining on the south in residential zoning,
but that lot of request was contiguous to Business zoned frontage on
Myrtle Ave. (under same ownership) and was intended to provide an ex-
panded business site. Mr. Wolle read to the Board Reason for Request
stated in application as follows:
"Applicant owns lots 1-3-4 which front on Myrtle and also Lot
2 in Bon Air Subdivision. Applicant also owns 36-37-38-40 in
Drew Park Subdivision. Lots 37 through 45 are land locked lots.
Owner of Lot 39 res ides adj ae,en t thereto and does not obj ect to
a change of zoning. from residential to business which is re-
quested for Lot 40,"
\,~ Land use and zoning of the surrounding area was reviewed and discussed.
Upon motion by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Harries. the Board voted
J
l
I.
\
,
i
1
I
~
t
j~
\
\
I .
j'
I
; ,
c.....-....
. ,
!""'r.Ji
P&Z Bd Ninutes
3/5/68
PaBc 112
1=0. recommend nPDr"ova 1 of reouested ch;mpc to "B" zonin~ fnr Lot. 110 "
prew Park Subdivision (Case Z-36-368). Recommendation was based on tho
considerations that:
Recent rezoning to th~ south provided proper depth for
.business usage with access from Myrtle.
Future contiguous ownership abutting Myrtle, with access to land
locked lots from the west, provides the best use of these lots as
business. This will not deny continued residential usage
o'f lots to the east which have frontage on Vine Ave.
Owner of abutting lot does not object to proposed change ac-
cording to record statement of applicant.
(b) Z~37-368 - ~IDNEY & JENNIE P. SCHUCHAR - R-2 TO R-4 - LOT 12,
BUENA VISTA SUB. - (GENERAL LOCATION: BETWEEN N. OSCEOLA AVt.
AND SUNSET DR., ABOUT 250 FT. NORTH OF ENGMAN ST.-
The Planner presented application with ,information that:
, .
Property about a block north has several nonconforming
residential uses.
It was zoned single family on west side of Sunset Drive to the
rear of Lot 12 and was sinRle family used. To the'north of Lot
12 was a duplex and a nonconforming apartment. Single family
use was to the south and east.
Request for ~hange is for use of the lot for a triplex.
Mr. Wolle reported that prior inquiry had been made to him by fir. Levison
as to whether the Bd. of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning could give ap-
plicant permission for a third unit in, a Duplex zone. The Planner stated
that the proposed use would require rezoning of the property; and also
the Planner advised that he would not recommend approval of the request.
Reason for Request (in ~ull);as stated in application, was read to the
Board.
After further review and discussion of land use and zoning of the
surrounding area\ ~Don motion bv Hr. Reade~ seconded bv Mr. Harries,
the Board voted to recornDend denial of reouested ch~nRe to R-4 zonine
~L_
for Lot 12. Buena Vista Subdivision (Case Z-37-368). Reconmendation
was based on the considerations that:
Area principally is single f~mily. Dup'ex zoning is adequate.
~
~~'7..)
PSZ Bd Ninutes
3/5/68
Page f/3
-
Rezonine of lot to R-IJ t1ult.iple would be spot zoning. Such
preferenti~l permission would set precednnt and would commit
area to an acce1erated incr~ased density and structural ud-
ditions. It is desired to retain and conserve a Gingle family
character to this neighborhood.
Any spot zoning at this time would interfere with any possible
olanned rezoning of the area.
-
(c) Z-38-368 - GERALD.R. BAGGS (REPT.: STONE REALTY) - R-IE TO
~uD-k -LOTS 1 2, 3. 15, 16 17 & lH, BGOCK A. MCVEIGH SOB-
DIVISION (GENE~AL LOCATrOtI: ~\.) COR. DRUID RD. & S. BE1'1'Y LANE) -
The Planner presented application with information that:
I
,
These 7 lots were opposite an apartment complex on the
north side of Druid Road and were in a block of a de-
veloped single family subdivision with single family
residential developments to the south, east, and west.
A PUD-R develooment (planned to be for apartments) would
mean that owner, Mrs. Chamberlain"would have to remove
the deed restrictions by vacating these lots. Mrs. Chamberlain
had made phone inquiry as to his opinion prior to the filing
of the rezoning ~pplication, and he had told her he was not
in favor of,it. .He would not recommend this change of zoning
to the Board, as he felt extension of mul~iple zoning across
Druid Road <which retains a single family residential
character) would set an undesirable precedent.
Land use and zoning of the surrounding area was further reviewed and dis-
cussed. Mr. Butler reported for the Zoning Coromittee recommendation for
denial of requested change to PUD-R zoning for subject lots in Block A
of McVeigh Subdivision (Case 2-38-368). Uoon motion by Mr. Harries~
seconded by Mr. Mvlander, the Board voted to approve the recommendation
of the Zoning Committee. RecommendatIon was based on the considerations
that:
Area was subdivided and d~veloped for sinBle family usa~e. Inva-
sion of corner for SDot develonment for multi-family usage would
devaluat~ abutting single. famiiy properties on th~ee sides.
Usage wou!d drqw unnecessary traffic into single family subdivi-
sion streets.
. Druid Road is oroner buffer between the medium and low density resi-
dential areas." This natura} boundary should not b~ "jumped" to
satiSfy one specu~ative interest against the real stable qualified
interest of m~ny.
i'
,.
P&Z Bd Minutes
3/5/68
Page H If
"'~
The"filling in" of vacnnt lot packages of single family
subdivisions with apartment zonin~ could as a precedent.
destroy the character, continuity, and stability of many of
our finer establinhed home areas.
ZONING FOR ANtlE:XATIOtrS
The Planner located and dascribed the fOllowing three properties
requested to be annexed and tentatively scheduled for public hearing
before, the Planning and Zoning Board on March 19/68.
(a) To I1B" Zoning - "Careels on US 19 near Harn Boulevard -
- Enaekburn
.....-'"
Some preliminary discussion was held to orient members with
above request and site location, Parcels A, 8, and C as
delineated on annexation drawing submitted (lying between the
Thayer Motor site and Harn Boulevard, and east of the Florida
Power easement). Such area was requested to be annexed to
provide zoning for an anticipated automotive facility and
presently planned apartments.
Zoning was discussed based upon right-af-way setbacks and
planne,d usage. Furt]:ler discussion t-las deferred until after the
Board's Public Hearing.
(b) To SinQle Familv Zoning - Lots J E K, Bavview Bluff Subdivi-
sion - On Tho~as Road, east of
N. Haines Road
,
.............,
Som~ preliminary discussion was 'held to orient members with
above ~equest involving 2 platted lots contiguous to the
southwest corner of Del Orc Estates Subdivision. The Planner
advised that existing County zonine was for single family
residential and that he would confirm with the annllcant croner
R~l classification consistent with lot size as determined: .
Further discussiqn was deferred until after the Boardts Public
Hearing.
(c) TRACT A to SC(B) - Barber Tract - @ Southeast cor. Belcher Rd
and Druid Road Extended
TRACT B to R-4
\..)
.Some preliminary discussion was held to orient members with
above request and site Ideation as delineated on annexation
drawing submitted. Such are~ was requested to be annexed to
provide zoning for an anticipaterl commllnity type shopping"
center (exoected to contain a service station site) and a
proposed a~artment development. It was l~arnccl th~t total
tract to be developed contained approxi~ately 411 acres in-
volved in annexation request and R-IE parcel at the northwest
.,.."
{"\
\~
P&Z Bd Hinutes
3/5/68
Page #5
corner of the site, now within the city, 'and requested to
be.re~oned to SC (B).
The Planner related background of his prior discussions with
.
deve!opers and his understanding that developers would provide for
the extension of'Druid Road up to the boundary of their ownership
and for Magnolia Drive if it goes through. Mr. Wolle also reported
on his ini tia 1 recommendation to the Managerl on this tract that
there should not be a service station at this site and his sugges-
tion for possibl~ Professional and Related Services usage at the
Belcher-Druid intersection, with consideration to be given to
Planned Unit Develop~ent type zoning for the tract. Zoning was dis-
cussed based upon planned usage and p~oximity to single family subdi-
visions to the south, east, and west, whose residents it was felt
should be protected. Further discussion was deferred until after
the Board's Public Hearing, at which opportunity would be afforded
to hear expressions of surrounding residents.
CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS:
Mr. Kruse reported that in conversation with Mr. Swan that day he
had learned with regret that Mr. Swa~ would not be able to continue as
a Board member because of the increasing demands of business on his
time. He said that one comment made to him by Mr. Swan was that the
Board should do more 1n the way of planning. In the following discussion,
the consensus was in favor of a suggestion made by Mr. Kruse that possi-
bly some meetings to be devoted to planning agenda items only could be
interposed in the scheduled meetings. Because of office preparation
necessary for the pending zonin~ hearings before the Commission, deci-
sion as to calling a meeting for ~he following Tuesday was left up to
the Chairman.
:~..,'" ~ j, : oi:.. ~ : '.:r o' : " ": .: r.. . . , 0,. . :.~'.' '. .... "r 0.'.,' .',...," "'+'. . /: .:: .' .oq.'" ::....... '. '...' . : : ' . .': ; 0 "': 0 :' ..' '."':.::' :, '~. j ""':','''',''' ~.~. ::_ ~:.... /.', , .:: (-. " : '. ~ : " ,- ":. 4 ~. .:' .r : .' . : .' ' ~. ;', '... '. '. ..... ,:. '. "',r.., I '. ": : .':'
, .
0" .......
P&Z Bd Minutes
3/5/6B
Page #6
~,,' ,
Upon request of the Chairman, Mr. Reade agreed to accept an in-
terim' 3ppointment as a member of the ZoninR Committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 P. M.
Re~p~ctf~lly submitted~
&uJ&
f)
. ~' " ~
.~/.,
.;':
~
See y
:('.
.. .
l, ~ '. "
. .' ~
'I
i/
.),1 .
, .
, "
.:~', .
.'
.~/~l'. L
~:~,
J: '. :' :,~
~t..i.::':';',\"
~\~ ;<.,,>: r';L\
"~~ r'.' ,l >,' ,.' ,
'.. ,
"',"
, ,.
.' ,\
','
1,' ,
,.,
.,.......
? .~~ ~':..
~,/ " ,.
J,~,; .' '.
.tt.,.... " :
,J..:..'. ~ .' T .
..
, .
'....
. "
',C.
, .'(
. ,
/.: >
-:>. .
,. .-
/,;/y'
,'t.
."
>.....
!', .'.' ..; ~'<.
. ,~. .;
:'
"
.
;\
\, .
"
,.
"
.~,l
"
, "
;~.... '
I.
!'.:". .
. ., o.
',':. .;
!e:v:':""'.:.
..\!:, '
" , f" ~~. .
i '
\:- \ .
, '
,I '.
. ': '. I ~
.:' f, .
,$..; j~: I <' .
1 ~.
. ~ .~. ~: I ,
\: , .... :. '.' . . .~
~~S.~'~~-.,..-:..;..~- . q , u