05/14/1968
~
(~
"THE PLAtHHNG ^tlD ZGrtHtG BO^P,f)
/
Minutes of the Mea tinf,) Tuesdity, Hay Ill, 1968.
The mC(1ting was called to order at 3:30 P. H. by the Chairman, Mr.
Kruse. Present r,lcre Hcmbers 11y1.ander, Butler, Reade," r10rri sand
Galloway, Mr. Rettie of the Engineering Department and Mr. Wolle.
PLAN REVIEW - PUD-R - HENHESRN TR^C~ - (a nart of the ME 1/4 of
Sec. ll-T29S-R15E -
The Planner presented plot plan representative of his revisions
from original plan prepared by Mr. Peterson, project engineer. He
pointed out as major proposed chanees the reduction in number of units
from 238 to 214, the elimination of some off-street 9arking spaces, and
allowance for more open space and recreation nrea. It was reported that
such revised plan, after.s creening Hi th the Subdi vis ion Committee, had
. b~en reviewed with Mr. Herinesen, who was havinc Mr. Peterson draw ~p
a second plan in accordance with these recommended r~visions. Mr.
..-'
\~o11ediscussed with the Board a proble~ which had arisen concerning the
location of an existing 20 inch t.,ater main Hhich mad"e it impossible to
provide a planned 15 ft. setback from Keene Road (~f give 30 ft. riEht-
, .
of-w~y for Keene Road, would be 10 ft. setback).
The Board questioned the advisability of participation of the
plann~ng office in the physical design for PUD-R developments. It was
agreed that it would be helpful if, prior to prepuration of a prelimi-
nary plan, th8 Board could provide some guidelines to the developer;
ie, general design cri~eria to be met in regard to needed access, density,
parking arrangements, set~acks ete. ;'~r. t'1ylander' ;>roposed that a policy
could be established by Boa~d motion and action withou~ the necessity
of an ordinance amendment. This mat~er was lefT for future discussion.
at 3:55 P. .M. Mr. Paul Hennesen, oWne~, and ~r. Dodd, developer,
\ met y/i tll trle BO,?1rcl
Mr. Hennesen submitted a revised p~climinary plan~ p~epared by
Mr. Peterson in,accordance to reco~menrlations of the Plannc~ apPvov8d
P&Z Bd ~linutes
5 / 11, /6 a
Page 112
,
~
,
.by the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Hennescn explained that it was'pl~nned
'to have--
all 2-story buildings
3 Type ^ Bld8s. 93 units
3 Type D Bldgs. 69 "
1 Type B Bldg. 19 "
3 Type C Bldgs. 33 II
Total 2i4 units
Both 1 and 2 bedroom apartments
All rental units
Mr. Hennesen indicated inteht to dedicate access streets, including right-
. r--..
...."'J
,of-way for Keene Boad shown. on plan.
Mr. Wolle displayed a plan of the airpark and vicinity and called
attention to the Northeast-Southeast pattern of flight over this tract.,
He informed the Board of zoning ordinance provision for a height limita-
. tion of 50 feet for structures within 1000 ft. of the boundary or the
~irp~rk; also that, upon his request, Hr. Bickerstaff, airpark operator,
was checki'ng on any C/A/A rules in this respect, bui: that 'he didn't
think he would find any limitation mor~ restrictive. Upon Board in-
quiry, Mr. Wolle stated that the proposed density of this tract of a
little more than 10 acres was around 20 units per acre.
Various questions from members were answered by Mr. Hennesen. The
Planner discussed V1ith Mr. Hennesen steps to be follo\>!e,d in the prepar~-
ticn of and processirig of a final plan.
Applicants were thanked for their attendance and left
the mep.ting at this time.
After some discussion, .!he foll.~~.Tinf! ~motion bv ~1~Je2de 1 seconded
"""..lNt..)
Keene Road riR,ht-of-....luy. II
,.-....
P&Z Bd Minutes
5/1lU68
f'aec 113
REZOfIING REn:RHAL - PIISELL^S COUHTY - C-l Mil) C-? TO C-3 -
NowrHE7\sT COH :-TTLlh.:OLf;S i\!'lD h\L:n~'1"l'-o-'~;T. .
The Chairman read to the Board text of a letter d~tcd May 3, 1968,
from Hr. Gerald Taylor, Planninc Director of Pinellas County, to City
Manager Sticrhcim inviting any comments ol'"'objections he might have to
this proposed zone change (involving approximately 2.5 acres) scheduled
for'hearing on May 20/68. Mr. Wolle reported request for recommendation
to be made to the City Manager concerning such rezoning application.
Land use and zoning in the area ~.,as revieHed and disclJsscd. In ccncur-
renee Hi th recommendation offered by the Planner, the Board, vote,d unani-
mously to state no objection to this'reques~ed rezoning in ~he County.
,
REVIE!'! OF R-4 ORDINNJCE N1E~ID~tENTS - LETTERS AlA -
The Chair~an conducted a Board revieH of a second letter dated
May 2/68 received by City ~anager Stierheim from the ClearWAter Section,
.fla. Chapter, American Institute of Architects (copy of agenda record).
, '
, --.~ ,
~-: Thir4 paragraph of such letter was quoted as follows:
. ,
..,...,..1
'''In order to provide additional flexibility we fe.el that alloHance
should be made f6r providing the required parking, whOlly or in
part', t-1i thin a bui lding area.. This a llowance should be in terms
of a varying percentaee reduction in set back requirements per
percentage of parking located within the building area, and should
be in the range of 10 to 20 percent. This toJould pr'ovide more
open-ness at the ground level.1I
FOU1~th paragraph of such 1e1:1:er \-1a5 quoted as f0110\o18:
IILikewise, alloHance should be 8iven in the same manner for not
utilizing the allowed 20 ft. buildine height at the minimum set
back lines, again to provide more open-ness at the ground level."
Motion was oasscd to penerallv favor the first above recon~cndation and
1 ~_ . _ lldr --
to defer action on the second Dendinp further clarification of the n:ean-
in~ of the fourth ~ara~ra~n.
The meeting VIas adjourned at 5:00 P. H.
l~e;tf~\l~~,~~ltted,
. ,elL t"":-/--C.c C -,_ __
~c ~.~ \'fO'lle, ~rec I 'J
ty Planner
\