Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.18.99City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission ' Regularly Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. Thursday, NOVEMBER 18, 1999 City Commission Chambers, City Hall, Sanford, Florida AGENDA 1. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request to Rezone property located at 4051 West State Road 46 from PCD and A -1 to PD, Planned Development. Tax Parcel No: 28 -19 -30 -506- 0000 -0170 Owner: Michael S. Murray Representative: Gary Cartamone 2. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request to Rezone property located at 4045 S. Sanford Avenue from AG, Agricultural, to that of PD, Planned Development. Tax Parcel No: 18- 20- 31- 300- 0050/005B/0090 -0000 Representative: Michael Murray 3. Consider the Site Plan for a proposed 10,000 square foot office building and a 4,800 square foot maintenance building for Tailored Foam of Florida, Inc. to be located at 70/80 Coastline Drive. Tax Parcel No: 28- 19- 30- 5NR- 0000 - 01400150 Owner: Tailored Foam of Florida, Inc. Representative: Ronald H. Wilson - R.H. Wilson and Associates 4. Consider the Site Plan for a proposed 5,180 square foot expansion to the Seal Distributers facility located at 200 Tech Drive. Tax Parcel No: 28- 19- 30 -5JB- 0000 -029A Owner: Seal Distributers, Inc. Representative: H. D. Holsombach - Canterbury Concepts, Inc. S. Consider the Site Plan for Stonebrook Apartments Phase II, a proposed 112 unit apartment complex located at 1000 W. Airport Blvd in a MR -3 Zoning District. Tax Parcel No: 02- 20- 30- 519 -0000 -0000 and 02- 20 -30- 519 -0001 -0000 Owner: Aimco Placid Lake LP (Steven D. Ira) Representative: Roderick K. Cashe - Hartman & Associates, Inc. 6. Consider the Site Plan for Storage Plus, a proposed storage facility located at 3750 W. T" Street (NW corner of W. SR 46 and White Cedar Road). Property rezoned to Planned Development pursuant Ordinance #3486 adopted on June 14, 1999. Tax Parcel No: 16- 19- 30 -5AC- 0000 -094A Owner: Lance Renzulli Representative: Bobby VonHerbulis 7. Discussion regarding Rear and Side Utility Drainage Easements. 8. Minutes. 9. Any other business from floor or Commission Members. 10. Reports from Staff. ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC. If a person decides to appeal a decision made with respect to any matter considered at the above meeting or hearing, he may need a verbatim record of the proceedings including the testimony and evidence, which record is not provided by the City of Sanford (FS 286.0105) Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate In any of these proceedings should contact the personnel office ADA Coordinator at 330 -5626, 48 hrs in advance of the meeting. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 2 stated that the fencing consists of wrought iron, chain link and walled. Mr. Murray stated that this project will be very conducive to the market area. They will comply with the new corridor landscaping and buffering re Mr. Skat moved to. recommend approval per Staff's recommendations. Mr. VonHerbulis seconded for discussion. He retested to add to the mQtiQn that this facility be strictly for storage, no business other than storage business. Mr.. Skat amended his motion tQ include_ the limitation that business.. is to be zun out of the office and not out of any storage units. Mr. Robert seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item considered was the Site Plazi fox -a proposed 10,000 square foot office building and a 4,800 square foot maintenance building for Tailored Foam of Florida, Inc. to be located at 70/80 Coastline Drive. Greg Wilson, Sanford, was present. He stated that the site plan is- consieteat. with what is going on in Sanford Central Park Phase 1 and 2. Tailored Foam is a spray on type foam that is sprayed on block walls, boat pontoons, etc. This is not a truck repair shop. Mr. Wilson stated that the facility is actually one story whereas the second story holds biq slabs of foam. Although they have serviced residential homes before, . theys mainly stick to commercial and multi -story buildings. Mr. Skat.questioned the._parkin_g. Mr. Wilson stated that there will be a total of 6 trucks, 15 to 20 footers. The majority of the parking is for the of building. Mr. VonHerbulis moved on approval per Staff's recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Hipes. A11 in favor. Mbt_ion carried. The next item for consideration was the Site Plan for a proposed 5,180 square foot expansion to the Seal _Distributers facility located at 200 Tech Drive. Mr. Marder informed the Commission that the applicant had requested to table this item because he didn't want to sit MINUTES PLANNING AND ZPNING COWIISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1999 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS CITY HALL TMFORD, FLORIDA bffJIBERS PRESENT Carol Dennison J Valerino 'Bobby VonHerbulis Kevin Hipes Mike Skat Ross Robert Tim Hudson MEMBERS ABSENT: Ito Garrett - excused 'drew Kutz- excused A3THER•C . DRESE1LT .y. a Di al -af -E• nee-ring and Planning Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary Mr. Valerino called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. The first item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a reguest to rezone.,pro pert _y locateud at 4051 W. State Road 46 from PCD and A -1, to PD, Planned Development. Michael Murray, 1399 W. SR 434, Longwood, was prep.ent. He stated. that this project will be a mini- warehouse storage facility. They will comply with all City re -There will be a private entrance structure with a wall as fencing. The project will front on Upsala and S.R. 46. Mr. Murray stated that Penske has asked to work out of their offices and have some rental but the rental -equipment will be placed in.the back. There will be no storage out front. He stated that this facility will for Btorage only. No businesses will be run out of any of the storage units. Mr. Murray noted that they will bring water and sewer from across the street where the Westlake Apartments are going in. Gary Cartamone, also representing this reguesb, stated that access will be controlled through the front door, one way in and one way out. There will be a representative behind the counter on a seven day a week basis, during normal business hours. He MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 3 througY a long meeting. After consideration by the Commission, Mr. Skat moved on approval per Staff's recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Robert. All in favor. lemon carried. The next item was the consideration of the Site Plan for Stonebrook Apartments Phase II, .a_,pxDposed 112 unit apartment complex located at 1000 W. Airport Blvd. in a MR -3 Zoning District. Roderick Cashe, Hartman and_As.soc., 201 E, p Orlando, was present. He stated that this is Phase_ II of the development that was started back in 1992. Phase 1 is cur4ently built out. Basically, it is the same as_ Phase 1. Stormwater will be retained on site and access will be off o Airport Blvd. Mr. Robert moved for approval per Staff's recommendations. Seconded by Ms'. Dennison. All in favor. Motion carried. Next was the consideration of the.Site Plan for Storage Plus, a proposed storage facility located At 5750 Wa _16t Street (NW Corner of W. SR 46 and White Cedar Ro.ad). Pro erty rezoned to Planned Development pursuant to Ordinance #348r adopted on June 14, 1999. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that he is involved in.this project as the general contractor and abstained from voting. David Rodd, 2290 W. Airport Bl., was present. He stated that this will be an up.s.caled mini- storage facilty. 62% of the facility will be climate controlled. They id,ll meet the 46 improvements requirements. The exterior of the building will ..provide about 95% of the „perimeter fencing. There will be a couple of openings that will have to be addressed. Mr. Skat moved on approval.per Staff ' recommxendA� ions. Seconded by Mr. Hipes. Mr. Skat amended his motion so that the business is to be run out of main office building and not out of any of the_ st_orace units. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Hipes. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item considered was to hold a Public.Hearing.to consider a request to rezone property located at 4045 S. Sanford Avenue MINIITE.S- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 4 from AG, Agricultural, to that of PD, Plann d Development. Mirhael- Murray, 1399 W... S.. R.. 4.34,.. Longwood,_ . represented this request. He pointed out that there has been -a change lessening the density to 134_1ots.... Staff has asked for a few minor changes. They have added in 21 75' lots, 67 60.1lots, with the balanc-e. being.. 50' lots. They have..changed roads to meet staff's recommendations. They have changed the opening and on Pineway they.have changed to put in a 6' masonry.wall the entire length of the with a 25' buffer and landscaping. The entrances on Pineway have--be-en eliminated.. The lift station will be on a private road on the backside of the retention,-as well as a Park. They have added significant buffering on Mellonville Avenue. Mr. Murray stated that they have eliminated and made roads more in compliance. Issues of transportation are being addressed. He stated that they have determined to keep the_l"ift station away trom rest of project having its own road for access and maintenance by the City and.yet keep it buffered away_f_rom everything else. Neal Hiler, 1415 W. S . R� 434, stated that they _hale done quite an extensive_basin s-tudy. They plan to put in a 60" pipe in the Mellonville right -of -way. A separate control Structure would dis_charsge underneath Pineway_.over to the ditch on the west side of Mellonville, A certain amount of drainage -wi ll be stored in the park area. The wetlands area is the overflow, if drainage backs up this is where it wi11, back up to. Mr. Murray stated that the market range for the homes will range from 130 to $150,000 and up. The square footagBk of the homes will be approximately-1600 to 1700 square feet in size, probably more. On the southerly portion of the entrance, natural density, i_f possible, and maybe a cypress fence between the trees will be used to shield those homes outside of this project. T-r git Dervieh,- 535 Wayside Dr. Maitland,- Traffic Engineering and Design, was present to answer ,questions regarding the traffic study. Nlr- Skat stated..that he is r_oncerned with the ..Hanford Avenue /Lake Mary junction,. particularly the calculation at that intersection. Does this include other committed developments. Mr. Dervish stated that it does include other developments. MINUTES ALANNTNCt-AND Z.ONING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 5 -Mr, _Mauler ata±ed that Staff had -met jai th z.ounty engineers and they are leaving.this open. Mr. Dervish stated that the County is willing to participate in -some p-art -of -A traffic light there. Mr. Marder noted that other approaches to some sort of . solution .would be .te Add a stipvlatinn ho this approval so that they participate in a_fair share.of improvements to the intersacti-on, whether it is .signalized, adding turn lanes, etc. Mr. Dervish noted that the traffic problem is not the traffic so much as it .is the stop ..sign.. _A.-real _sang ta= solution is signal - zation or realignment. Mr.. Murray stated that they are for whatever makes .-it nicer Sur there, He _= that it is only fair that they pay a portion for the improvements. Bryan Flynn, 775 Pineway., stat-ed that _he lives _immediately across from this location),. He stated that he is_ a licensed engineer and general contractor, At the time the traffic s "dy was done originally, the intersection of S. Sanford Ave. and E. Lake Mary Blvd.. was not included in that study: The distance between CR 42.7 and S__.Sanford Ave... is approximately 3 or, 400'. The problem with putting a light in there is hecause it -is too short. The problem at this intersection is that you can't get out. This area is essentially rural. This proje _ct _is _nflt in keeping with the area.. Most_of_the.area corresponds with two, three, five to ten acre sites. He is concerned that.the -Reveloper has not looked at this hard enough. The developer has basically 250 units sandwiched in there. The sideyaxd -s.etbacks are 5'. This is not in_ beeping. with what..is . gQing on out there. He would like to see something that all of the neighbors . could live with. He stated that half of the park area the developer is showing is wetlands, that would .probably .be. ; nAr- - e - ssi b e . _Pge is concerned that. other, subdivisions._ will follow suit.. The fact of the natter is, is that the .developer is looking at maybe _an eighth of an acre, 50,60, 75' lots, the lots are small. This is not what they ant in the area. Mr. Flynn stated that the traffic study is - f- Lawed. It doesn't deal_ with the..reality of the situation. What is being proposed will significantly impact everyone in the area. The 12 1 '1 acres be-ing.proposed_for.the park is not usable property. It surrounds the wetlands area. He stated that .if the.developer puts in 250 hQmes_it would bring down his property value. If the developer puts in $150,000 home, he could live with that. Otherwise, the lower_. pried homes-.would . bring dawn his__ property value. Half acre lots or third acre lots would not hurt him as much. MThMTF.a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 6 Kathleen Clark, 5950 S. Sanford Avenue, was present and in opposition. She is not opposed to development but would like it consistent. There is.plenty of other land in Sanford with a higher density that. could be. developed more. suitably other than this property. There is another development going,in on Myrtle that will also.add to the traffic problems.. The developer could drop the density to less than what he is-proposing and some of the problems could..be alleviated. They are not planning on doing anything on South Sanford Avenue. The property could be developed in a way.that it stays with the-flavor of the area. This development will cause severe..proble ms to-those who are out there now. Susan Danza, was in opposition. She stated tlhat the entire proposed park area are wetlands. The 60' pipe being proposed will be replacing a 12" culvert. This development will devalue her property. Joseph Rodgers, 108 Winding Ridge Drive San-�ord, was in opposition. He.stated that he is-.concerned with the traffic and the environment. They are not looking to stop development.but . to. control it. Suzy Chenette, 1200 Pineway, was in opposition. She stated that she is. concerned about her land. She does not want to be a part of this neighborhood, And she would be.because. her house is next to the tree line. Marilyn Witner, 1805 Pineway Drive, was in opposition. She s-t.ated that they live in a rural area and asked the Commissioners not to approve t4i:s request. Homer Caldwell,_ 905 Pineway,, was in opposition. He stated that he is concerned with flooding and traffic. He stated that the existing property owners in the area will get screwed if the 50' lots are allowed to.go in. The personality of the neighborhood cannot afford to be changed. Laverne Cox, 145 Rose Hill Trail, was in opposition. She stated that- QAe of- the- proposed homes. will be about. 5' from her electric fence. She has three horses there and asked if there would be a wall constructed. Maxine McDonald, 1545 Palm Way, was in opposition and stated that MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 7 she is worried .about the drainage, The huge ditch that runs along Pa.lmway QverflQws at. times.. If the retention pond from this development becomes full, this ditch will not be able to handle the water. Others in opposition included Russ Sipley., 666 Oak .Wa►.y-; . Susan Crump.; Craig Damon;,. and Stan Reynolds., 142 Rose Hill Trail. Mr. Reynolds stated that the existing neighbors are being misled and requested that this item be tabled until someone can come up with a plan that satis-f�i everyone. Michael Murray stated that Kirk Dervish did two traffic studies. The park area, an actual retention observation area dictated by the government was-.5.66 acres, there is actually 13 acres of green being proposed. They have compensated for- the.proj ect_to handle. all the_f1Qw of water on the entire site to the retention area. They are not changing what is there. ThVy will not be paieoning the- a Any additional flog will not be created. As far as the ingress / egress to the front of the-property, 250 homes will not.. cause that- much traffic. They are proposing a 25' buffer with trees on the south side of`-the property. Ms. Dennison asked if any provisions were made for fencing along Ms. Cox.property. Mr. Murray stated that they.have not made any provisions but if Ms. Cox wants a nice fence installed, that is no problem. Mr. VonHerbulis asked if the perimert.er houses sgould all be one story. Mr. Murray stated that more than likely they will all be single story. Mr. Robert moved to recommend approval of this rezone request, it is. consistent with the_ Comprehensive Plan,, and the City government has approved, -all of staff's re-commendations to be a part of the motion and in addition, #.5 that the developer would agree to participate in a fair share of the impnovements for the signalization Qf the intersection of E. Lake Mar Blvd. and Sanford Avenue, at some point in the future, and in addition that h. r_nmmi .to a_ reaI bri c] Q enApx - fence_ among pyneway. Mr. Hudson seconded for Mr. Robert to amend his motion to include Ms. Cox's fence. and other fencing and make certain that lots 113 to 126 has grade elevations of the max 18" Above the centor of the road. Mr. Hip.es cQnunented that the intersection may require something other than signalization. He asked that it not be limited to MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 8 signalization, but improvements to that interser-tion. Mr. Robert amended his motion to recommend approval per Staff's recommendations items 1 thru 4, no. 5 is that the developer agrees. to participate in, his fair share of the potential improvements to be made-at the intersecti.on_o-f East Lake Mary alvd. and Sanford Avenue, no. 6 is_that.the developer agrees to put up a brick veneer, concrete block of genuizAe brick, fence alQng_Piaeway.and no.. 7,, that there be some wood fencing placed along the property line at the north boundary where the horses are and 5- acre_ parcel of Ms_. Cox, and. no.. 8 that the property, 5.75 acre parcel of the northwest corner have aoiequate, similar wood fencing. Seconded by-Mr.. Hudson,_ Mr. Skat stated that he thinks we are putting the cart before the horse_, The area is not p� narpr] f t b i c _t ype_ _of- de-u ment- _ a±- t4is point in time. A lot needs to be done to this area infrastructure wise. The people that are already out there are being burdened. Mr. Valerino agreed with Mr. Skat.. In opposition were Mr. Skat and Mr. Valerino. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was discussion regarding and side utility drainage easements. Mr. Marder stated that this came out of discussion at the City QQmmi,ss.ion level,. It will be a change to the Land Development Regulations. It has generally been agreed to };ky all parties that �, c i „d ems. _ staff review that. we- don' t.. need to. have_ side/rear lot easements on all lots in all subdivisions. In some..cases. will need tho-se_tyge of easements where we have drainageways next to where there needs to be something in the form of a significant easement. We are. recommending that that part of the Land Development Code be amended, yet still „provid-e for front yard easements. All exiating easements will remain. Mr. Robert moved to recommend approval. Seconded by Mr. Vonherbulis. Motion carried. Mr. Von.Herbulis requested that someone check on the landscaping_ and the.front fenGe.at Paul's Truck Repair Service on 46, and on the signage size for Tom Ball's building on 46. There being.no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10.20 P.M. C144,,- VA.” J es Valerino, Chairman FC ,fiA 8B A EMORANDUM OF VOTING COt�FL� OFFS RS 4 COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC NAME Of W&RU. COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITS, OR COMM1TTtt LAST NA E P1R51' NAM1 — A91llDLk NAME 1Hr HOARD. COUNCIL. CO ISSION. AL; 'rH it1T1, OR COMMITTEL ON MAILING ADDRESS WHICH I SERVL 1S A UNn Ot•: /f L rL ( : ('OUNTY ` OTHER LOCAf AGENCY tlr COUl�fr1 / I r NAML OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: 1 � � t 4 I MY PLTSlIioN 15: i DATE ON ►THIGH V( i O C'URREU ELECTIVE ; APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by an) person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, c ommission, authority, or committee. 11 applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest ullder Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. conflict of interest wll vary greaty depening Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in Which Y` a5 aV a a ciose attention to the this fo m on' whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, p pay before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: ve county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures A person holding electi l officer also is prohibited w is retained. voting on a measure which inures to rite special to his special private gain. Each loca gain of a principal (other than a government agency) y In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and W ITHIN 15 DAN'S AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive eQUna); municipal, or other local Public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on 3 - measure which, inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. al office otherwise �rha' y participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, buL must A person holding an appointive loc disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral'or written cort mitnication; made by the officer or at ais direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE. DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE, VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, A will incorporate the form in the minutes. • A copy of the farm should be pro�'ided immediately to the other members of the agency. • Tne form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest- IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISIONEXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • l'ou should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I v�cc W VI > hereby disclose that on (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of _Q" 60 0.sfrJ 'J" by whom I am retained. (5) The measure beforc my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: � r P/ S 2�� S;A S Date Filed gnature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRE' DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOL.LO'XINC IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SU'SP FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION I _.., — ,n t � n nF A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED 55.007.