Loading...
Minutes 12-13-77MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLA~ING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACE, FLORIDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1977 AT 7:30 P. M. PRESENT Simon Ryder, Chairman Ronald Arena Richard Lambert Mary Schorr Garry Winter Carmen Annunziato, City Planner ABSENT Col. Walter M. Trauger, Vice Chairman Marilyn Huckle (Excused) (Excused) Chairman Ryder called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. and introduced the memberso~f the Board, City Planner, and Record- ing Secretary. He added that Col. Trauger and Mrs. HUckle had contacted him and both are unable to attend and are considered excused. ,MINUTES OF .REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22~ 1977 ~. Lambert made a motion that the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 22, 1977, be approved as presented, seconded by Mr., Winter. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF NOYEMBER 29~. 1977 Mr. Winter made a motion that the minutes of November 29, 1977, be approved as presented, seconded by Mrs. Schorr. Motion carried 5-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Ryder announced that the City Council moved to ad- vance the Recreational Vehicle Proposal towards preparation of an ordinance by a vote of 5-0. He added that the news- papers had given some incorrect information. He also told about making a preliminary statement to the Council in ad- vance of their voting which he thought would be helpful ad- vising of the changes based on the input and that it was the feeling the proposal would receive general acceptance. He heard expressions that it may lay down guidelines for other cities. Chairman Ryder announced that at the same City Council meet- ing, there was discussion about changing the regulations as they apply to the height of antennaes. At our last meeting, we decided the ordinance was recently researched and passed and there was no need to change it and Council was advised. However, they asked whether we had a public hearing recently and the result is that it has been sent back to us for a public hearing. Mr. Annunziato added that this public hear- ing has been scheduled for January ~4. MINUTES PLA~ING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TWO DECEMBER 13, 1 977 OLD BUS l~SS Applicant: David Matson Legal Description: Lots 9,10,1~,14,16 C. W. Copps Addn. Location: 201N. E. 2nd Avenue Project Description: Car Wash Chairman Ryder referred to these plans being discussed at the last meeting, but no representative of the applicant was pre- sent. What seemed to be critical was the use of the two lots recently rezoned and it was decided to have Mr. Annunziato explore this matter further. Mrs. Schorr moved to remove this from the table, seconded by Mr. La~bert. Motion car- ried 5-0. Mr. Annunziato stated that as the Board requested, he explored the use of the C-2 lots as parking in conjunction with the C-4 use. He has spoken to a few people in the planning profession concerning this particular problem~ He has found no reason why the rear two lots cannot be used as parking in con~ction with the C-4 use. Chairman Ryder replied that there was some doubt in his mind, but he suggests hearing from the applicant. Mrs. Schorr asked if the C-2 lots would have ingress and egress as well as parking and Ms. ~AnnUnziato replied affirmatively. Mr. LamBert referred to the staff comments on the site plan and Mr. Annunziato replied that there was only one staff com- ment requiring the sewer connection to be tied into the man- hole at N. E. 1st Street as opposed to as shown on the plan. This is just a minor detail and approval is recommended subject to this. Mr. Arena asked where the ingress and egress was for the C-4 lots and ~. Annunziato replied there was none except through the C-2 lots. Mr. Arena clarified that his question was whether this was going to be a parking lot or C-2 used in conjunction with C-4. A car can only get onto the ~-4 lots by going through the C-2 lots. Chairman Ryder stated that when the matter of the change in zoning was requested,, this Board denied approval; however, the City Council over-ruled our denial. However, apparently they felt rather than going to C-4, they went to C-2 which would give a less obnoxious use. It seems these two lots are being used and are part of this'development. What is anticipated here is C-4 use for these two lots. On the north side of 2nd Avenue, there is a strip zoned C-4; hut in this case, there has been a change affecting several residential properties. On top of that, the compromise of C-2 does not give the residents any change as far as they are concerned. They will be faced with a car wash opera- tion regardless what these lots are called. To his point of ~iew, this cannot be permitted unless the entire area is zoned MINUTES PLAN~I~G & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE DECEMBER 13, 1 977 ~. Lambert stated that he was under the impression that the staff commented that there should not be ingress and egress from 2nd Avenue. The purpose of the public hearing was to get ingress and egress off 2nd Avenue and this is what is shown. Mr. Annunziato clarified that it was his recommenda- tion not to have egress and ingress from 2nd Avenue and Chairman Ryder added that it was reco~n, ized it certainly would be objectionable to have an entrance on 2nd Avenue. M~. Arena added that at the public hearing, there was no discussion of a car wash. Chairman Ryder read a note from Col. Trauger advising he would be unable to attend the meeting and stating he objects to Item 5, the car wash on 2nd Avenue. The zoning was changed on the hack two lots to relieve the condition on 2nd Avenue and the side streets and to provide parking for the Davis Architect Building. The front was to be an office or com- mercial building on 2nd Avenue. He feels it is taking advan- tage of the Planning & Zoning Board to put a car wash there and use the lots for parking. It is morally dishonest because they must have thought of a car wash at that time. This points out the danger of spot zoning. Mr. Annunziato added that he thinks the sale of the property was contingent upon the zoning change. Mrs. Schorr asked if a car wash needed ten parking spaces and Mr. Annunziato replied that he would say so with con- sidering the staff and work at a car wash operation and he explained. ME. Lambert stated he was led to believe for years when it com~mgs to the question of zoning, zoning change, etc., C-4 is C-4 and the permitted uses are stated. We have been cautioned not to discuss contract zonim, g when rezoning. ~hy is there a question on this? A car wash is permitted mn the C-4 zone. The front parcel is not under question. It has been zone~ C-4. Chairman Ryder replied that this permissive use has been extended to the north another 50 ft. making it adjacent to residential properties. Mr. Lambert Continued that the majority of the Board saw fit to recom- mend the denial of the rezoning, but the City Council saw fit to change it. A motion was made last week to table this and ~. Annunziato has now stated it is permissable. Chair- man Ryder replied that he has every right to his opinion, but he feels this property rezoned is an intricate part of the car wash. Mr. Lambert clarified that the car wash has nothing to do with it as we are talking about whether these two lots in the rear can be developed for any commercial use. Mr. Arena stated that he was bothered because of the objec- tions from the residents being against the rezoning because a lot of children go by this location every day to school. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR DECEMBER 13, t 977 The applicant commented that it would be used as a parking lot and would not generate in and out traffic. This situa- tion im completely~different with constant traffic. He tends to wonder how this operation would come to be without the back lots. He does not think it would have been recom- mended by the staff with ingress and egress on the 6-4 lots. added that the residents appeared before this Board ~ City Council and he has to assume because of the pleas~ they made, the City Council made the change to 6-2. Mr. Bob Reed, Attorney representing Mr. David Matson, ap- pear~dgbefore the Board. He advised that Mr. Matson is the present owner of the property. As he understands it, M~. Ostrum previously owned the five lots in question. Appar- ently the front three lots facing 2nd Avenue were zoned C-4. Behind these three lots, there are two lots facing east and west, each 25 ft. in width. Formerly, the back two lots were zoned R-2. Mr. 0strum made an application for rezoning at the August 23rd meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board and requested the two lots to the rear to be rezoned from R-2 to C-4o He read from these minutes where Chairm~n Ryder questioned the proposed use and Mr. Ostrum informed him he had a commercial building in mind with the back two lots to be used as parking for the front commercial building. At that meeting, th~ Planning &~Zoning Board denied the request to rezone from R-2 to C-4. The matter then went to the City Council and at their meeting of September 6, Mr. Ostrum re- quested rezoning from R-2 to C-4 and this was discussed in detail. During the discussion, Mr, Ostrum pointed out that the property mn question was in the heart of the downtown area and to the east and south there are large stretches of property zoned C-4. He read from the~minutes where Mayor Zack questioned the intended us~ and Mr. Ostrum said he in- tended to use the back two lots as a driveway and parking facilities and purposes of ingress and egress. He read the discussion regarding the changing of the zoning request and the Council being informed by the Building Official that parking would be permitted in the C-1 or C-2 zone. The Council heard the residents in the area and ultimately made a motion to grant the zoning change on the back two lots chan~ing the zoning from R-2 to C-2. Also, the City Attor- ney suggested tha~ a unity of title agreement be prepared to treat all five lots as one parcel. This suggestion was incorporated into the motion. He thinks this is indicative of the understanding and intention of the City Council that these five lots would be used in conjunction with one another. The City Council was familiar with the front lots being zoned ~-4 and the permitted uses allowed. He thinks it is fair to say the Council was aware of the fact that any permitted use in C-4 would be u~ed o~ the front three lots and the parking lot would permit ingress and egress would be the intended use of the back tWo lots, which is exactly the situation MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE F~E DECEMBER 13, 1 977 shown on the site plan. His client wishes to use the front three lots £or a C'4 use, a car wash° These lots have always b. een zoned C-4 and have not been subjected to any zoning change. Any review of the City Council minutes of September 6 would come up with the undeniable conclusion that the City COuncil understood the back two lots would be parking with ingress and egress used in conjunction with the front three lots. That is why they incorporated into the motion that the owner would submit a unity of title. He has been unable to determine whether a unit of title was signed, but the present owner is willing to sign a unity of title. It seems what they have been discussing is the fact that since these back two lots zoned C-2 will be used in conjunction with the front three lots which are C-4, that is tantamount to using the hack two as C-4 uses and he disagrees. If they were going to do that, the car wash fac~ would be©on the back two lots. He thinks this was ~d at the last meeting to re- quest a recommendation ~rom the City Planner as to his feel- ings whether ~the C-2 lots could be used in conjunction with the C-4 lots as a paring lot and and egress and the answer tonight is Mr no reason for prohibit~ing the use of the C-4 lots. City Council. the front three lots zoned C-4 means on the front three lots. The fact his allowing ingress has found conjunction with intended by the point out the fact use is allowable intends to build a car wash should not color their determination of approval or rejection. He thinks the City Planner will agree there is no le irement on the five lots being in the same zoning tion to use the front three as a car wash and the back two as paring and driveway. Nothing in the code specifically indicates all five lots must be in the same zoning classi£ication to permit this type of use. The only other point he wants to emphasize is the fact the C-2 lots are goinE to be used in con~nction with the C-4 lots and does not mean the two C-2 lots are being used for C-4 use. He suggests reviewing the other aspects of the site plan before recommendation to the City Council. It is his .ng the TSchnical Review Board has ap- pro~ed the s~te plan with no objectionable suggestions. He thinks the imDression he has been given is that this Board's approval of the site plan really hangs on the deter- these C-2 lots can be used in a proper and legal fash- ion and he su~mits they can and should. Chairman Eyder stated that the Board had to either approve or disapprove. If it is approved, the consideration is that the carwash is in C-4 and the parking is C-2~ He thinks it would be remiss in doing thati~ It would be admitting that all five lots are one parcel and how can this be with both C-2 and C-4 zoning? He thinks the entire parcel should be zoned C-4. This is one site and one developer. He agrees MINUTES PLA~NG & ZONINO BOARD PAGE SIX DECEMBER 13, 1 977 the City Council changed it to C-2 for parking, but this it not just for parking but moving ~ehicles in and out of a car Wash. He feels the only solution is to rezone the entire area to C-4. Mrs. Schoor asked where the ingress and egress is going to he and Chairman Ryder replied on 1st and 2nd Streets. Mr. Lambert stated that this Board may be somewhat prejudice since they turned down the rezoning~ It may not be fair to pass on the site plan. He suggests reviewing the site plan and Passing it onto the City Council and indicat~nE the mem- b.ers, feelings in the discussion. Chairman Ryder then referred to the traffic flow and the~ studied the plan. Mr. Reed stated he did not think there was any particular recommendation from the Technical Review Board regarding the t=affic flow. There are several alternative ways. The initial intention o!f his client from the traffic flow standpoint is to have the entrance on N. E. 2nd Street, cars would proceed west, turn south through the car wash, turn and proceed back north, a~d exit ento N. E. 1st Street. Of course,~ there are other alternatives he would be willing to entertain. He pointed out ~hat the driveway and entrance would be at the north end of the car wash and the car wash itself would be on the C-4 front three lots. Chairman Ryder asked how leng the entire operation would take and Mr. Matson informed him that from the time it goes into the building until it leaves, it would take about-1½ to 2 minutes. Mr. Arena asked if the cars would be dried down on the south side and Mr. Matson replied affirmatively. Mr. Reed added that he thinks it was set up this way, so the cars would not come in from 2nd Avenue which is more travel- led thah~the~other two streets. Mrs. Schorr stated she could not see anything wrong with it. She referred to there being one on U. S. 1 next to Harbor Estates, one of the better subdivisions, and not much traffic is generated. Chairman Ryder clarified that his question Was the improper zoning and Mrs° Schorr replied that the zoning was okay and Chairman Ryder disagreed. Mrs. Scho~r pointed out that C-4 would be used for C-4 ~ud Chairman Ryder disagreed. N~. Lambert added that the Council chose to zone it this way and he thinks they are in full understanding of C-4 and C-2 zoning and he feels this site plan is acceptable. Mr. Winter asked for N~. Annunziato's opinion legally and Mr. Annunziato replied that to deny it on sp~it use would be a tough argument to sustain. MINUTES PLANFING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SEVEN DECEF~ER 13, 1 977 Mr. Lambert made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend to the City Council the approval of the site plan subject to the Technical Review Board comments and recommen- dations of the David Matson project. Mr. Annunziato advised that the unity of title has not been provided and Mr. Lambert made the addition that approval be subject to comments by the Utilities Department and unity of title. ~s. Scherr seconded the motion. NO discussion. As requested, ~s. Kruse took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mr. Arena Mr. Lambert Mrs. Schorr Mr. Ryder Mr. Winter - No - Yes - Yes - Ne - He also requested to add Col. Trauger,s objection and Mr. Lambert replied this could not be counted as a vote since Col. Trauger was not present. - Yes Motion carried 3-2. NEW BUS IB~SS Site Plan Approv.al Applicant: B. R. Caskey, Jr. & C. E. Waldner, Jr. Legal Description: Lots 12, 13, part 14, School Road Section 33, Twp. 45 South, Range 43 East Location: Se. Seacrest Blvd., (east side) between Sea- crest Pharmacy and the doctors offices of Spencer & Shepard Project Description: Medical Professional Building Mr. Annunziato explained that the plans were for a medical professional building in the C-1 zone. The building height is 28 ft. which may be altered somewhat. There are two means of ingress and egress, both on Seacrest. Parking is to the rear w~i~h a wall to separate it from the residential zones. He read the techhical comments with the Engineering Department requiring paving and drainage plans, the Utility Department requesting a s~wer tap and explained, He has requested the pass-thru to the north be eliminated since the applicant has not. been able to receive approval for this from the adjoining property owner but the potential should be provided if an agreement is reached, the Public Works Department has recom- mended the roof height to have 14 ft. clearance so the garbage packers can go under the building and the dumpsters to be on a concrete pad. The staff recommendation is to approve the plan subject to these comments. He believes it is good use of the land and the proper location. The members then studied the plan. MINUTES PLANNING~ & ZONING BOARD PAGE EIGHT DECEMBER 13, 1 977 Chairman Ryder asked if anyone was present to speak on behalf of the application and Mr. Mark Weiner, Architect, appeared before the Board. He adviSed that he has,adjusted the site plan for the connection between the two parking lots and has eliminated the emergency access, although it will be possible to connect it if sometime in the future approval is obtained. Also, he will adjust the grades to obtain the 14 ft, clearance height needed~ Mr. Arena ~eferred to the sewer connection and Mr. Annunziato clarified that the applicant must deter- mine whether he can make that connection-or use an alterna- tive sewer connec~ion.~ Mr, Wieiner added that they are aware o£ this. ~sted that the County would be helpful and re there was no problem. Mr. Weiner stated that before proceeding, they wanted to know how they stood with this Board. The Commmnity Appearance Board was pleased with the building and their only recommenda- tion was to possibly eliminate the 6 ft. masonry wall and plant a landsca buffer instead. Chairman Ryder replied that he had read minutes and is aware the Community Ap- pearance Board is not happy with the wall~ ~. Lambert added that the Planning & Zoning Board has nothing to do with that requirement and a ~ariance would have, to be obtained from the Board o£ AdjUstment to eliminate it. Mr. Wein~r stated they would like to start working and then apply for a variance. Chairman Ryder referred to the widening of Seacrest Blvd. and Mr. Annunziato informed him that 40 £t.~ has been pro~ided at this location. Mr. Lambert explained how there was a problem o£ drainage in this area with the homes being lower than Seacrest. Mr. Weiner explained how the grade would be adjusted and stated it would be studied by the engineers and there would be no problem with water running of~ onto the adjacent property. Mr. ~nnunziato added that no plans would be approved allowing water to run off the site. Mr. Lambert referred to the re- taining wall and 8 ft. difference and ~. Weiner replied that the property to the rear follows the same grade and explained how the 8 ft. drop occurred from the front of their property to the rear. He added that it would not be a retaining wall, but a masonry wall as required for screen- ingo Mr. Annu~ziato ~urther explained how the staff would study this problem. Chairman Ryder re£erred to having rec~nt requests £or C-1 rezoning along Seacrest and stated in each instance, the Eoard took the stand that there was adequately zoned commer- cial property for this and apparently this has been ~orn out. Also, the trend is to professional plazas and he is pleased to see this is being de~eloped in that trend. There is land on both sides of Seacrest suitable for this type of operation and he is pleased with the fact it is proceeding in the proper manner. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE NINE DECE~ER 13, 1 977 ~o Wein~ then submitted revised plans for the Board's review. Mr. Lmmbert re£erred to the dumpster location possi- bly not being appropriate since it was within a few feet of a residence and Mr. Weiner replied they did not want to put it in front of the building. There are residential areas adjacent to the property on three sides and they could not get aw~ from residences. This is placed close to the exist- ing dumpster on the adjacent plaza which will make pickup easier. Chairman Ryder asked where the home was located in relation to the dumDster and Mr. Weiner informed him there would be about 25 ft. in between plus the wall and landscap- Mr. Winter stated he would like to see that dum~ster and they mowe it.~ Mr. problem and if they can f±nd another pla~ will build a ss about where it could gested a different and'City Planner~ dumpster and pointed was close to the other for the drivers.~ ~. woul~ Be possible to id not think it was a major is that important, he is sure it and if~necessary, they There was further disc~sion · be mo~ed and Mr~ Lambert sug- by the applicants it being a clean it ~d here because it provide eas~~ access ow far it was from the other dumpster .and Mr. Weiner replied that it was adjacent, approximately 6 to they tried to get as close as ~ible to it. ~sted recommending a more isfactory location if Mr~ Annunziato con£er with the applicant. Mr. Lambert made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend to the City Council the approval of this site plan subject to the Technical Review Board's comments and recom- mendations and the further recommendation that the northeast ingress as shown on the plan be eliminated and also the City Planner, Architect and Deyeloper at the City Planner's dis- cretion come up with a better location for the dumpster. Mr. Annunziato added that on the removal of the ingress and egress, he would like to provide the potential for the deve- loper that he would not have to come back through the process if he could obtain the ad owner's permission, he could have this potential. He it would be a good use. ~ Lambert ~larified that his motion woul~ stand as is with the addition to allow the alternative if the adjoining pro- · s moved and Mr. Annmnzia· were required and there carried 5-0. that 144 parking spaces a surplus of 4. Motion Applicant: Richard Bonvie, Bon Vale Realty, Inc. Legal Description: ~creage Location: Congress Avenue, adjacent to Ranch House Project Description: Shopping Center MINUTES PLA~NING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TEN DECEMBER 13, 1 977 Mr. Amnunziato explained that this would be located behind the Ranch House, but does not go all the way to Ocean Avenue on the south. Ingress and egress will be from Congress Ave.. The project incorporates 16,140 square feetoof retail area less a certain portion for'storage and rest rooms. Ample parking has been provided.. Ne explained how there was a problem initially with the disposition of the traffic in and out of the project not lining up with the Boynton Plaza across Congress Avenue and the staff request an impact analysis be performed, is was done and is submitted with the plan. He then read th with the Fire Department re- water line to be extended and the fire hydrant to be ~ed in the entranCe me drant noted as existing; the Uti and dumpsters requested a 10 the the neer be ilt. Thc approved subject to of the provide a fire by- Department has re- and no C/O Ocean Avenue and it property extend the ~ld al area be changed ss Avenue be raised has noted the Planner has Congress Ave.; [ded and ~affic engi- is it be Mr. Lambert questioned about the medians being raised versus being Mr. Annunziato replied that it has to do with the c movements generated and it~ would be a physical barrier as opposed to a painted barrier. Chairman Ryder referred to the access being close to the shopping center and Mr. Annunziato explained how he did not think there would be any problems. F~. Bill Peck, Architect, appeared before the Board~and ex- plained how they thought this access would help the traffic flow. Chairman Ryder referred to the preference of having less curb cuts on Congress Avenue and Mr. Peck replied that they thought this is almost a necessity. Mr. Annunziato added that given the improvements shown in the traffic im- pact analysis, he thinks it will be safer. Mr. Peck stated they would comply with all the staff require- ments. Mr. Lambert asked if any of the other buildings' parking area would be interfered with by this improvement and ~. Annunziato replied that it was not included in the analysis, but it will result in non-conformity being placed on the Leisureville Canter. Mr. Lambert clarified that the parking places are MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE ELEVEN DECE~BER 13, 1 977 there, but the ownership is switched around. M~. Annunziato added that it may interfere with expansion of the existing shoppingcenter because it would be predicated on the parking available. M~. Annunziato then showed the survey and Mr. P~ck showed pictures of buildings similar to what was proposed. Mr. Peck referred to the request to move the £ire hydrant out to the entrance and stated it was not quite as conven- ient to their project, but would serve others. Mr. Annun- ziato agreed this was partially correct, but advised that the Fire Marshall felt a fire hydrant in this location would be easier accessible to the pumper trucks and explained. He felt it was unused coverage by locating two fire hydrants together. Mr. Peck then agreed. Mr. Peck then advised that Mr. Lassiter would receive a letter requesting the 8' line to be looped as required since he owns the other property. Mr. Annunziato explained how working drawings must be submitted together with a h.ond. He then referred to another manhole being shown on the plan and not Being noted whether it was public or private and Mr. Peck replied this would be worked out. Chairman Ryder asked if these conditions would be cited when application for a permit is made and Mr. Annunziato replied that these conditions should be relieved before applying for the permit. They have been clarified for the developer. ~. Peck replied they were in agreement. Mr. Lambert asked whether unity of title should be requested and referred to this project taking parking spaces away from the shopping center and Mr. Annunziato explained how proce- dures guaranteed certain things. Mr. Lambert clarified that this was not likely to happen in the future and Mr. Annunziato agreed. Mr. Winter made a motion that the request of F~. Richard Bonnie, Bon Vale Realty, IncA, for the Congress Avenue Shop- ping Center adjacent to the Ranch House, be approved with the stafl recommendations as listed. Mr. Arena seconded the motion. No discussion. Motion carried 5-0. 0 THEIR BUSINESS Chairman Ryder reminded the BOard members of the dinner Be[~ held on Thursday night. ~M. Lambert referred to the masonry wall and asked if a person with a decent sized parcel of commercial land could have a sur~ey made of his property 5 it. away from the platted lot line and say it does not abut and Mr. Annunziato explained how they would have to make an interpretation of intent, however, in this case, there was no physical intent to violate it. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TWELVE DECEMBER 13 , 1977 Mr. Lambert, Mr. Winter, and Mrs. Schorr stated they would not be able to attend the next meeting on December 27. Chairman Ryder referred to possibly not having a quorum and Mr. Annunziato replied that the meeting would have to be cancelled then and he would have to have Mrs. Padgett re- schedule the public hearing. Chairman Ryder suggested check- night and Mr. Annunziato agreed to hold off Friday morning. Mr. Lambert questioned the intentions of the City Council re- garding the appointment of new Board members and this was discussed. Chairman Ryder referred to everyone being ap- pointed fOr a one year term with the term expiring at the end of the year, but suggests until being notified they should continue. He added that he did not think resigna- tions were necessary since the appointments were for one year. ADJOURNP~NT Mr. Winter made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Schorr. Motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 9:25 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne M. Kruse Recording Secretary (Two Tapes) AGENDA Date: December 13th~ 197..7 Time: 7:30 Place: ODuncil Chambers - City ~all ..... 1. Acknowledge~_nt of M~mbers and Visitors. 2. R~B~ng and App--.of Minutes. 5. Old Business: Applicant: David Matson Legal Description: Lots 9,10,11,14,16 C.W. Copps Addition Location: 201 N.E. 2nd Avenue ' Project Description: Car Wash 6. New Business: A. Site Plan Approval Applicant: B. R. Caskey Jr., & C.E. Waldner Jr.. Legal Description: Lots 12,13 part 14 School Road Section 33, Twp 45 South, Range 43 East Location: So. Seacrest Blvd., (east side) between Seacrest Pharmacy and the doctors offices of Spencer"& Shephard Project Description: Medical Professional BUilding Applicant: -Richard Bonnie, Bon Vale Realty, Inc'.~' Legal.Description: Acreage Location: Cong.ress Avenue, adjacent to Ranch HouSe Proj. ect~.Descripti~n: ShopRing.~Center .