Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.20.98co t i y of Sanford Planni and Zoning Commission Re rly Sc edufed 1eetir 7:00 P.M. Thursday, August 2 , 1998 City Commission Chambers, City HA, Sanford, Flotida .AGENDA + 1. Hold a Public Hearing to c onsider the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford. Representative: Jay R. Marder, AICP, Director of Planning and Development 2. Hold a Public Hearing to consider proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Representative: Jay R. Marder, AICP, Dire tor.of Planning and Development . Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request to Rezone from PD, Planned Development to GC -2, General Commercial for property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Lake Mary Boulevard and County Road 427. Tax Panel Number: 12-20-30-300-019E-0000 Property owner. Baker Farms, Inc. Representative: Steven Stuebs, P.E. - Avid Engineering, Inc. 4. Any other business from floor or Commission Members. 5. Reports from Staff. 6. Minutes. 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 ADS# Coordinator at 330 -5626, 48 hrs in advance of the meeting. AIINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING CON U SSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20. 1998 7:00 P.M. CITY CO3OUSSION CHAMBERS CITY HALL, SANFORD, FLORIDA MENMBERS PRESENT: Otto Garrett Bobby VonHerbuhs Kew Hip es James Valerino Ross Robert Andrew Kutz Timothy Hudson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mac McClanahan Mike Skat OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Russ Gibson., Land Development Coordinator The meeting was called to order at 7:40 PAL by Chairman Valerino. The first hem heard on the Agenda was to hold a Public Bearing to consider a request to Rezone from PD, Planned Development, to GC -2, General Commercial, for property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Lake Mary Boulevard and County road 427. Joel Arnold of Avid Engineering, 7575 Dr. Phillips Blvd., Suite 245, Orlando, was present. He noted that the proposed use is for a convenience store and that he did not know what the rest of the property would be used for. Mr. Robert moved on approval per Staff s recommendations. Seconded by Mr. VonHerbuhs. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item to be heard was to hold a Public Hearing to consider the Evaluation and Appraisal. Report of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford. Jay Marder, City Hal, City of Sanford was present. He stated that the City has been working on this for the past two years. He noted two changes in the wording to the Vision: the Evaluation and Appraisal Report provides recommendations to change the Comprehensive Plan, it does not change the Comprehensive Plan in and ofitseK it lust basically points the way. The term Sanfordite was changed to Sanford resident and referencing the community pool at Seminole High School is accessible to all community residents as opposed City residents. Mr. Marder stated that this Report does not change any land uses, it basically looks at the goals, objectives, and policies contained in the Plan; it looks at the data inventory analysis upon which the plan is based; it tries to identify different conditions and make recommendations as to things that need to be changed to update the overall plan for the City; it covers future land use, housing, transportation and infirastructure such as water and sewer, drainage, reclaimed water, well field protection, recreation and open space, conservation, intergovernmental coordination and capital improvements. Mr. Marder stated that there are quite a few groups of people on various commhtees and boards that have been involved in this. 'Where was a series of meetings that hundreds of people were involved in reviewing this Evaluation and Appraisal Report. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMNIISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1998 PAGE 2 Mr. Marder stated that some of the acreage was revised in the community parks because several parks have been developed since 1991. we also recognized that the Stadium, which was a leased privately run baseball school, had changed to a City run facility that is serving regional and community events. Mark Platts, 1300 Magnolia Avenue, Sanford was present and in opposition. He handed out a copy of the materials that he would be presenting. He submitted into the record documentary evidence, "Exhibit A ", entitled: City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal, Report, Citizens Comments and Objections, August 1995. Along with Exhibit A there is a map showing City Parks. He stated that the Public Participation Process was severely flawed. There wasn't any general co effort to get people involved in this process. He stated that it looks like about 100 people in the comraunity participated in this process. Most of the citizens weren't even aware of what was going on. This process should have included a lot of workshops, specifically to talk about the future and how the City is planned. Mr. Platts stated that he is here tonight because of Ft Mellon Park. Every plan before specifically and consistenly cited the co value of Ft. Mellon Park and called for enhancing the Park in its entirety. This should be reflected in the vision of our city. Ft. Mellon Park serves as our front porch and it should be kept open for all citizens to use. On the Comprehensive Plan Conditions Matrix, Mr. Plans stated that the Recreation and Open Space Element talks about the level of service of community parks and documents the properties that mane up our parks inventory. Changes and the change in how our community park acreage is documented in this inventory is the basis for the initiation of this part of the current Future Land Use Map Amendment to allow commercial zoning in Ft Mellon Park. He feels these revisions are solely intended to justify the reduction in size of Ft. Mellon Park to accommodate the proposed hotel and convention center. Mr. Plaits stated that the hotel/conference center will be in the middle of the parr. The part that will actually be a park according to the proposal will consist of about 4.3 acres of the existing park plus 1.3 acres of the Seminole Blvd. right -of- -way. This results in the actin park size of about 5.6 acres. This will reduce the park below the threshhold of the classification of a community park. It will be reduced to a neighborhood park in see and scope of facilities. Mr. Platts stated that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report along with the inventory information should be revised to accurately reflect the true nature of our City parrs before this is approved. Regarding the Objectives, Mr. Plaits stated that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report recommends revising the level of service policy for all parks of 4 acres per 1000 persons. He stated that the co wants a balance of neighborhood parks and community parks. Mr. Plaits stated that the report on the Open Space evaluation ofprojectives, recommends revising the protection of our open space to allow existing park lands to be converted to another use provided that the fades located within that parr can be provided at another park in the City. He stated that access to Lake Monroe and its tributaries is intended to preserve public access to Lake onroe's shoreline and preserve public open space systems that are adjacent to the lakefront. Mr. VonHerbulis pointed out the number, the name of each group, and the dates of each meeting for persons that were interviewed. He stated that there were a little over 400 instead of 25. He commented on the verbiage as far as co parks vs. neighborhood parks and the definitions of the individual parks. He understands the slant in which Mr. Platts wants to preserve R. Mellon Park. He stated that Pinehurst and Chase has park area but that it has ballfields as well. Ft. Mellon has ballfields that take up half ofthe square footage of the park. There are items that are actuaby and do meet the criteria. MEN 1 ES PLANWING AND ZONING CONMSSION MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 1998 PAGE 3 Mr. Hudson pointed out that ofthe 18 acres of Fort Mellon Park, the Engineering and Planning Department is recommending to rezone 9 acres to commerciallmdustrial. Mr. Kutz pointed out that if anybody designs, You have to start somewhere. There nmst be a face and a core, you can grow from that, you can adjust from that, but the core must be retained. Where there is so much at stake, our co , we can't afford to make many more mistakes, we have to look closely at the ndstakes we have made and from that try to determine where we will start and grow from. Doug Groseclose, 444 S. Elliott Ave., Sanford was present and in opposition. He submitted that we do have that vision with a core. It was written in 1992 by Andres Duany. It is a good start for the City. He commented on the citizens participation. we need to think of new ways to coram scate with people about things that are going on, possibly a calendar on the water bin. Regarding Open Space, the philosophy that a park is a park is one of the most objectionable things in the proposed changes. He stated that we are left with only one true community park, which is Fort Mellon Park. Lydia Godwin, 1001 Grove Manor Drive, was in opposition. She stated that this park should not be taken away and that it should be preserved. Becky McKinnis, 1315 E. 20 Street, Sanford, was in opposition. She objected to the changes of neighborhood parks to co parks. Barbara Chapman, 121 Kaywood Drive, Sanford, was in opposition and questioned whether the EAR was in compliance with State lave regarding the acreage ofparks. Mr. Marder stated that the EAR does comply with the State law and the citizens participation process. The cities and counties of the State have the opportunity to establish their own level of service for all different types of facilities. The City set the standards. She stated that Derby Park should not be included in this Plan because it is down a dirt road, there is water standing in the road most of the time, there are no sidewalks, people travel this road to the Mall as fast as they can. This is not a park, it is a place to ride a go -cart. It is for one purpose. Mr. Marder stated that the parks and classifications thereof, over the past eight years, have changed. They are berg used differently. we went way beyond the one public hearing that is required. Mr. Kutz moved to recommend approval with a proviso that the Vision Statement be readdressed to clarify the fundamental generator to be used for the development and continued growth of the co . Seconded by Mr. VonHerbulis. All in favor. Motion carried. Next on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Marder stated that the proposal has changed so that only up to 4 acres of Ft. Mellon Park site would be changed from public/semi-public to central business district. 'There are some other changes that have been reviewed that reflect some of the new recreational facilities that have been added in such as Derby Park and the Stadium we have sufficient recreational lands in both co ------- * and neighborhood parks for the future as well as for the present. Mr. Tony VanDerworp, City Manager, stated that his purpose was to inform the Commission of another forum that may be happening with respect to one particular parcel and that is Ft. Mellon Park. This is intended to be information only. He stated that on Monday the City Commission will hear on first reading for an ordinance to place language on the ballot with respect to developing a hotel conference center and park complex on the Ft. Mellon property. The language ES PLANNING AND ZONING CO MSSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1998 PAGE 4 for the proposed ordinance was developed initially by the attorney's office. He recently met with the preservation of Ft. Mellon Park representatives to work on joint language and changed the language to meet some of their requirements. There is one amendment to the language that has to occur to make sure that we get the title down to fifteen words. The City Commission may also institute another forum which is a very specific ballot on this particular piece of property. Mark Platts, 1300 Magnolia Ave., Sanford, submitted written information. He stated that `Exhibit B" is titled `City of Sanford Proposed Hotel and Convention Center Project, Consistency Review of Proposed Ft. Mellon Park Future Land Use Plan Amendment, August 1998 ". Mr. Platts stated that he was concerned about the issue of public notice. It is unfortunate that we don't defer things if there is a lot of different information coming our way. Exhibit B identifies 21 specific inconsistencies between the proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment for R. Mellon Park, for the hotel convention center and the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies. A few of the most inconsistencies include Policy 1- 2.2.5, Central Business District. The proposal for developing a hotel/conference center at Ft. Mellon Park originally started out as a proposal to develop the entire property. It is now being proposed to develop a portion of the Park. In any form, it is an expansion of our central business district. The intent of this policy was to encourage inf Il redevelopment within the existing commercial and governmental core area. Expanding the Central Business District to include all or a portion of Ft. Mellon Park will only dilute the current and future initiatives to concentrate redevelopment within the commercial core. We need to have a concentration of development that creates a strong commercial area. Ft. Mellon Park will be reduced to a neighborhood park status and it is clearly not consistent with the policy's stated intent to promote development of recreational attractions. He stated that this amendment is based on a specific project for a hotel/convention center. There has not been a feasibility study. An economic impact study of possible jabs and things has been performed, but thats not the same as a feasa`blity study as to whether this is a viable project. W. Plans stated that another item that concerned him was Policy 1- 2.5.1, Public and Semi -Public Land Use Designation. Ft. Mellon Park is currently designated as publiclsemi- public and actually has a zoning of residential nndti- family office. The proposed amendment would change the designation of a substantial portion of the Park. If this amendment is approved, it will set a precedent for aiming over public lands in the City to private developers. Policy 1 -3.3, Redevelopment and Renewal concerned Mr. Platts. He stated that it concerns implementing programs for redevelopment, rehabilitation and renewal. Expanding the Central Business District to include all or a portion of the park will dilute our efforts to concentrate in the downtown and encourage the Central Business District to sprawl into adjacent districts of the City. The proposed hotel/convention center project is in complete conflict with the vision for Ft. Mellon Park as it is articulated in the numerous plans and studies for the future of Sanford's Downtown. and Waterfront. Mr. Platts stated that the next item regarding Policy 5- 1.4.1, wetland Development Restrictions, was of concern because one issue is that Lake Corolla, bend the Museum, is not designated publclsemi -public but rather resource protection on our Future Land Use Map. It is a water body that is protected as a natural resource in our co . Lake Corolla serves wetland functions and is protected as a resource protection area. The amendment that is being proposed is not only a change to publict -public areas of the Park to Central Business District, but it is a change of resource protection area to Central Business District. The plans clearly stated that Lake Corolla will be gone with this project. Lake Corolla enhances the Museum and it needs to be preserved. The next Policy of concern to Mr. Platts was 5- 1.11.2, regarding protecting sites as historic or ecological significance. He stated that the intent of this objective and policy is clearly to preserve the City's historic buildings and sites. The fact that the City's government has neglected to provide formal protection of Ft. Mellon Park by ordinance does not lessen the historic value. This MMUTES PLANNING AND ZONING CONMSSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1998 PAGE 5 is a historic park. Mr. Plans stated that this park was secured and developed by the City as the City's premiere parkland in 1937 -38. It was named after a 19' century military fort which led Sanford to original settlement as a town, and it was developed as a federal works process administration project, a WPA project out of the depression. Ft. Mellon Park is the front porch of Sanford. This development will close off our front porch. Mr. Platts stated that concerning Policy 6- 1.1.1, the Level of Service for Parks and Recreation Facilities. Mr. Platts stated that Ft. Melon Park is the only park that truly acts as a c i ` park. Regarding Policy 6- 1.2.1, Protect Open Space Systems, Mr. Platts stated that the purpose is to achieve preservation of scenic or passive open spaces as well as areas accommodating more active recreation activities. He stated that the proposed plan is encroaching upon two types of open space systems, an active and passive co park and Lake Corolla, a resource protection area. The project is clearly not consistent with the intent to preserve our park and public lands for recreational uses. The citizens ofthe community should have a reasonable expectation of their City Government and City Officials will be good stewards of the public lands that are placed in their trust. Mr. Plaits stated that the proposed land use amendment and hotellconvention center project would place commercial development on 38% of Fort Mellon's Park total area which includes the Civic Center, and would encroach upon 59% of the Park's actual recreation area. These changes will effectively eliminate Ft. Mellon Park, the City's largest true community park. Mr. Plans Mated that Policy 6-1.4.1 requiring access points to be provided as needed, this policy is intended to preserve public access to Lake Monroe and it cites the 1.9 miles of shoreline that are under public jurisdiction including parks, as evidence ofthe high public accessibility of our waterfront. This policy also requires that the City shall provide both visual and physical access to Lake Monroe by preventing the walling off of the Lakefront and preserving public open space systems adjacent thereto. The only public open space systems adjacent to Lake Monroe are Ft. Mellon Park and Memorial Park. The hotellconvention center will wall off the waterfiont with over 800 linear feet, approximately 3 blocks, of large multi -story buildings on currently open space. Mr. Plaits stated that when the future land use change is approved, it is a license to go ahead with the project. Steven Myers, 718 Oak Avenue, was present and in opposition. He stated that he has been a resident of Sanford for approximately 8 years. He stated that he has yet to see one good reason why this hotel should be built at this site. Carem Gager, 1209 W. 19 Court spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that he has lived at this address for 37 years and in Sanford 40 years. He stated that enough is enough. Becky McGinnis, 1315 E. 24"' Street, spoke in opposition. She asked that this proposal is studied a bit more and alternatives considered. Henry Sweet, 2300 Oak Avenue, spoke in opposition. He asked what could be expected from the Commission tonight. He asked that if it is already determined that the Commission is going to vote for the change, what is the purpose of this hearing. Lydia Gotham, 1001 Grove Manor Drive, asked that this not be done to the citizens of Sanford. Dell Snow, 176 Woodridge Trail, stated that what the Commission does tonight will effect our lives for the rest of our lives. Millard Crump, 801 E. 2 Street, stated that his house will become part ofthe Central Business MENUTE S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1995 PAGE 6 District. He feels that his property value will go down and his taxes would go up. He strongly suggested that some different arrangement be considered in the Future Land Use Plan regarding the Museum plus reconsider this proposed development in the parr. He stated that he does not want to see any part of the land in the park given up for commercial development. Georgia Stubbs, 618 S. Oak Avenue, stated that although she is not opposed to a hotellconference center downtown, she does not want to see it in Fort Mellon Park. Arthur Haynes, 810 S. Scott Avenue, stated that he is opposed to the development because he feels the Park is important Mr. Marder stated that this is a policy process. The ca either wants this project or doesn't. This is one of the steps in changing the land use policy. It will eventually go to the City Commission. He stated that he does not think it could be tied to a specific project. The Commission could make recommendations of stipulations on a particular project. Mr. Kutz moved to table consideration of the Ft. Mellon Comprehensive Plan Amendment subject to the impending City Commission action on a public vote, that approval is recommended ofthe other 51 Cornp Plan Amendments and that all subject land owners be advised by mail The motion died for a lack of a second. Mr. Hipes moved on approval subject to the hotel project being successfully approved on referendum. Mr. Robert seconded for discussion purposes. Mr. Marder stated that it will go to the City Commission, then the State. The Department of Co Affairs will look at it along with other agencies such as the Department of Transportation, the Regional Planning Council, and the County. The project will then came back to the City some time probably in November for an opportunity for the City Commission to take a look at all the comments. The City Cammssian will then have the opportunity to hold a second public hearing and then adopt an ordinance which may put some stipulations on this or may not. Mr. Kutz in opposition to the motion.. All others in favor. Motion carried. M r. Robert moved to approve the Minutes as circulated. Seconded by Mr. onHerbuii.s,� -. All. in favor. Motion carried. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m PC ? 1 7 ' S R- Vaierin❑ , Chairman