Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.18.96AGENDA City of Sanford Planning and Zoning mission EMIarly Scheduled M_ eeting 7:00 P.M. Thursday, January 18, 1996 City Commission Chambers, City Hall, Sanford, Florida AGENDA LA. Consider a request for a Small Scale Amendment to the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan amending the Future Land Use Map from MDR -10, Medium Density Residential to NC, Neighborhood Commercial for a 1.5 acre tract located at the northeast corner of E. Lake Mary Blvd. and Mellonville Avenue. Note: The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation will be considered at the City Commission's public hearing on this matter scheduled for February 12, 1996. Owner: Jane C. Chase Representative: Ken Steeves, Conklin Porter and Holmes LB. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request to rezone from SR -1A, Single Family Residential to PD, Planned Development, as set forth on Chase Property Planned Development Master Plan, property located at the northwest corner of East Lake Mary Boulevard and Ohio Avneue and the northeast corner of East Lake Mary Boulevard and Mellonville Avenue. Owner: Jane C. Chase Representative: Ken Steeves, Conklin Porter and Holmes 2. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request to rezone from SC -3, Special Commercial to PD, Planned Development, for First Street Office Center, a Planned Development Project Master Plan, property bounded by Sanford Avenue, Palmetto Avenue, Commercial Street and First Street. (Tabled 12/21195) Owner: Dr. J. W. Hickman, Mr. George A. Brown and Mr. Harry E. Robson Representative: Bruce Andersen 3. Consider the Final Plat for Mayfair Oaks, a 107 lot single family residential subdivision located at 4300 Paola Road (northeast corner of CR46A and Oregon Avenue) in a MR- 1, Multiple Family Residential Zoning District. Owner: Bovis Homes, Inc. Representative: Hugh W. Harling, Jr., P.E. 4. Consider the Site Plan for Sadisco, an auto auction facility located at 3701 Sanford Avenue in a MI-2, Medium Industrial Zoning District. Staff Note: Applicant requested consideration at this meeting. Applicant response to initial staff comments incomplete at date of agenda preparation. Staff review incomplete at date of agenda preparation. 11" x 14" copy of plan not available at date of agenda preparation. Owner: Sadisco of Florida Representative: James T. Melvin, Architect 5. Other business from floor or Commission Members. 6. Reports from Staff. 7. 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 averbatim record of the proceedings including the testimony and evidence, which record is not provided by the City of Sanford (F5 286.0105) Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact the personnel office ADA Coordinator at 330 -5626, 49 hrs in advance of the meeting. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS SANFORD CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynn Stogner Michael Skat Helen Stairs Mac McClanahan Jim Valerino Ross Robert Ben Dyal Mark Platts MEMBERS ABSENT: Leon Brooks OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Russ Gibson, Land Development Coordinator Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary Mrs. Stairs called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Mr. McClanahan moved to amend the Agenda so that Item 2 could be heard first. Mr. Stogner seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Item #2 on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request to Rezone from SC -3, Special Commercial, to PD, Planned Development, for First Street Office Center, a Planned Development Project Master Plan, property bounded by Sanford Avenue, Palmetto Avenue, Commercial Street, and First Street. (Tabled 12/21/95). Owners: Dr. J. W. Hickman, Mr. George A. Brown and Mr. Harry E. Robson; representative: Bruce Andersen. Mr. Dyal moved to remove from the table. Seconded by Mr. Robert. All in favor. Motion carried. Bruce Andersen, Andersen & Associates, 3685 Midiron Drive, Winter Park, stated that they have been working on this process for the past 2 years. Out of the market study came three sections for Downtown Sanford: along Mainstreet, which is secondary retail; between 1st Street and the Waterfront, it is seen more as an office and institutional area; and along the waterfront, heading west, high density housing to provide more people while supporting what might happen along the waterfront. Mr. Andersen stated that the Courthouse is the center of the expansion. The Courthouse might be in the area of 280,000 square feet. One focus of the entire Downtown Plan is the idea of taking the current City Parking Lot and utilizing part of this as the expansion of the Courthouse, and the remainder may be developed into some sort of civic plaza with the focus on the Waterfront. More visual impact will come with the dressing up of the existing bulkhead. Mr. Andersen stated that the proposed project is oriented towards downtown retail. The architectural intention is to have the same facade continue all the way down across this site. The proposed project is 3 stories with the same height and character of the Downtown. Mr. Andersen stated that the Marina project is probably 10 years out. Even the ideas of 2 years ago will take another 3 years to utilize. Mr. Andersen stated that the Historic Preservation Board has reviewed this proposal and there is a note on the Plan that MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 2 stipulates that the actual design will be subject to review by the Historic Preservation Board. Mainstreet 's Design Chairman has also reviewed the proposal and has no problems. Mr. Stogner asked about the shared parking garage with Sun Bank, the Marina Hotel and this property. Mr. Andersen stated that the developer will be responsible for paying for additional off -site parking spaces. Two parking garages are proposed; one at the end of the Courthouse and one at the City Parking Lot. Mr. Stogner stated that when the parking garage is built, he hopes it will not be built to capacity. He is concerned with having enough parking for Downtown. Mr. Robert questioned the 5 year sunset provision attached to an approval of this plan. He asked if this is what is desired. Mr. Andersen stated that 5 years are fair enough and are with the intention that the Courthouse gets underway. Mr. Platts asked if Mr. Andersen thought an L -shape building would be better. Mr. Andersen stated that the pedestrian connection would more than likely occur on the west side of Palmetto not on the east side. He suggested that on the east side some sort of screening be installed. Half of the required parking will be on site. Mr. Andersen stated that the reason they have proposed 3 stories is to match the existing skyline. Mr. Platts asked if Mr. Andersen would you be willing to consider a mid block pedestrian access. Mr. Andersen stated "yes, because there is an alley in the middle of the site." He stated that they are looking to abandon the alley. Mr. Platts stated that he would like to see the through block pedestrian access as a condition of the approval and he is concerned about the connection on Palmetto. Mr. McClanahan stated that the SC -3 zoning that is in place is flexible enough to develop this property. Regarding the parking garage with City financial participation, Mr. McClanahan stated that he did not think the City has this kind of money to support this. This is strictly a speculative request in order to merchandise the property. This is a concept with no reason to believe that it will be close to this when finalized. His biggest concern is the parking. Mr. Skat stated that his concerns are the same as Mr. McClanahan. The SC -3 zoning is adequate. Mr. Robert stated that the lack of binding of the property owners probably means that nothing has happened on this site in all the years that it has been vacant. He stated that he shares the same concerns and that SC -3 is a very generous zoning which gives the developer a lot of latitude. Mr. Stogner asked Mr. Marder that if this property is left as SC -3 how would it limit the building. Mr. Marder stated that it would still have building setback standards, parking requirements, normal building requirements, landscaping, on- street parking, and continuation of street scape regardless of what it is zoned. There are a lot of different ways to look at this. It would have to go through Historic Preservation Board review in terms of architectural characteristics in terms of being compatible with other blocks. This Commission would have the opportunity, no matter what it is zoned, to review. The City has a built in requirement in the Historic District that the Historic Preservation Board reviews and comments upon all developments in those areas. Bess Simons, 101 W. Ist St, representing Sanford Mainstreet, stated that Mainstreet is concerned about this project because it is on 1st St. Mainstreet would like to see frontage on Palmetto and MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 3 understood that it may not be economical feasible because of the parking requirements. They have agreed to create a low wall surrounding the parking area, to street edge, along Palmetto, Sanford and Commercial. A wall that one can see through so it is safe but provides an image of a solid or built edge along the street. It is important that the site relates to its surroundings. The Design Committee will have a chance to review the project. Barbara Farrell, 109 S. Palmetto Ave., stated that she feels the SC -3 zoning is more than generous for this project. It takes creativity. Her concern is that there is no living space designated in the proposed block as well as the Welaka building. Sanford will be viable when people are in the area after 5:00. The letter from Lisa G. Nason was read into the record, attached. Mr. Andersen stated that the existing zoning needs to be addressed. The existing zoning allows this property to be divided into three pieces, which each one may have a small building. To bring this property into one piece is the purpose of the PD. SC -3 does not work because of the parking, the property would be cut in half. Mr. Marder, Director of Planning and Development, read into the record Staff recommendations, attached. Mr. Valerino asked. Mr. Marder what the applicant could do if this was rezoned to PD that they couldn't do if the parties entered into. a three way agreement and stayed with SC -3. Mr. Marder stated that there is no substantial differences for the uses permitted in the SC -3 zone than what is proposed on the PD Master Plan at this time. Mr. Skat asked if relief of parking requirements comes under PD zoning. Mr. Marder stated that this Commission would have the opportunity to provide any conditions, stipulations, or any reasonable exceptions that it desires. More control could be exercised with the PD Zoning. Mr. Platts moved to approve with the following conditions: the building frontage is required on 1st Street and Palmetto Avenue, it could be 2 or 3 stories, mid block pedestrian. access be provided through the building from 1st Street to the parking area behind it, a wall around the parking area be provided that meets crime prevention through environmental design, that the wall be designed to meet CPTED principles, and that the necessary parking be required on -site or off -site in a manner similar to the manner that the applicant has proposed using parking garages or other sites, except that the parking spaces that would be eliminated, from this plan by the requirement of having building frontage on Palmetto would be waived, would not be required to be provided, and including staff's recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Skat. Mr. Robert stated that he has a problem with approving this even with the stipulations. He feels that the SC -3 zoning is adequate and that what is here is a potential increase in intensity of use because there are some off-site parking available that could still come under SC -3 zoning and could be taken advantage of. Mr. Platts stated that PD is unusual in Downtown but it does provide for the control and ability to direct what happens on this site to a greater degree and the advantage to the applicants is that they are able to have a little more flexibility in parking. In favor of the motion was Mr. Valerino, Mr. Skat, Mr. Dyal, Mr. Platts, and Stairs. In opposition were Mr. Stogner, Mr. Robert, and Mr. McClanahan. All others in favor. Motion carried. Item #lA on the Agenda was to consider a request for a Small Scale Amendment to the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan amending the Future Land Use Map from MDR -10, Medium Density Residential to NC, MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 4 Neighborhood Commercial for a 1.5 acre tract located at the northeast corner of E. Lake. Mary Blvd. and Mellonville Avenue. Note: The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation will be considered at the City Commission's public hearing on this matter scheduled for February 12, 1996. Owner: Jane C. Chase; representative: Ken Steeves, Conklin, Porter and Holmes. Jay Marder stated that he is the Director of Planning and Development with the City of Sanford, member of American Institute of Certified Planners, member of the American Planning Association, Florida resident for over 20 years, received the George W. Simons, Jr. Memorial Award in Oct. 1992 from the Florida Planning and Zoning Association for contributions to the planning profession in Florida and to the association, worked for the City of San Jose, Ca. as a planning intern, City of Leesburg, Marian County Government as well as a planning consultant in Orlando, has published numerous articles in various urban planning publications on various subjects, recently published a redevelopment and economic development article in Quality Cities the Florida League of Cities Magazine, plus numerous articles about streetscape design and geographic information systems in professional magazines such as City and State and Overview, received a Masters in Urban Planning from San.Jose State University and is currently enrolled in a Masters of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. Mr. Marder read into the record #5 and #6 of Staff's Recommendations, attached. He also read from the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Policy 1- 2.2.2, entitled Neighborhood Commercial Development, states that such development is allocated and is accessible to major thoroughfares near residential neighborhoods, the maximum intensity is .35 per area ratio. The CN designation is not intended to accommodate residential development except on a limited conditional basis. However, duly approved residential uses existing on the effective date of Comprehensive Plan shall be deemed permitted uses. Neighborhood Commercial activities shall include shops catering to the following markets: neighborhood residential markets in the immediate vicinity as opposed to community wide or regional markets; specialized markets with customized market demands. Commercial development within the neighborhood commercial district shall generally be restricted of the fallowing uses: business and professional offices, neighborhood convenience stores, small item shops and stores restricted to retail stores of convenience items and services including barber and beauty care and, other personal services, drug stores, laundry, dry cleaning, pick -up stations and specialty shops. Areas designated for neighborhood commercial development shall generally include areas where individual properties and uses are located on sites less than 3 acres. Uses which are not intended to be accommodated within.the neighborhood commercial area includes the following: large scale discount . stores, full service department stores, hardware stores, large wholesale and warehousing activities, etc. Thomas A. Cloud, partner in the Orlando Law Firm of Gray, Harris & Robinson, stated that he was here tonight representing Jane Chase and with him were Mr. Whit Chase and Ken Steeves, professional planner and expert. He stated that as a small scale amendment, this proceeding is subject to rules related to a quasi judicial proceeding. Small Scale Comp Plan Amendments are in fact subject to the Schneider rule. The Schneider rule states that once the initial burden is met, showing that a comp plan amendment is in compliance with State law, then the burden shifts to those complaining to show by competent and substantial evidence why the proposed is wrong. Mr. Cloud stated that evidence has been put MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 5 into the record as to the compliance of this request by an expert, the Planning Director. He stated that he has certain rights, rights of cross examination under oath, and that he had talked with the attorney for the residents, and that the residents' attorney did not plan on calling any witnesses. Jim Hattaway, attorney for the Law Firm of Hutchison Mamele and Coover, 230 N. Park Ave., stated that he had no expert witnesses tonight that he would be bringing before the Commission. Mr. Cloud stated that he did not need to cross examine anyone tonight. Bill Reischmann, Assistant City Attorney, of Stenstrom Macintosh Law Firm, stated that the first hearing is to determine the appropriateness of a Small Scale Comp Plan Amendment. There is case law that has ruled that these types of small scaled site specific amendments to the comprehensive plan follow the Schneider Ruling. It is entirely appropriate to treat this hearing as quasi judicial. The Schneider Ruling creates the initial burden on the landowner who is seeking the rezoning to show that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and complies with all procedural requirements of the zoning ordinance. If the burden is met by the landowner, then the burden shifts to the governmental board for those. opposing the application to establish that the maintenance of the existing zoning classification accomplishes a legitimate public purpose. The governmental board has to show that the status quo serves some legitimate public purpose. substantial competent evidence means that valid evidence has to be presented to support a finding of status quo meeting some important city need, governmental need, or public need. If this burden could not be found by substantial competent evidence showing that maintaining a competent status quo accomplishes a legitimate public purpose, then to deny the application would be deemed to be arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable subject to review and reversal. Mr. Reischmann stated that the case that stands most clearly for what this Commission has to do is the case of Jennings vs. Dade County. This case states that in quasi judicial hearings, parties have to be provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard. The parties must be able to present evidence, and an opportunity to present their full side of the case, parties must have the right to cross examine witnesses, and they have the right to be informed of all facts upon which the Commission acts. Ex parte communications means everything has to be out and on the table. Mr. McClanahan asked if it is the presumption that in any residential neighborhood that someone could request that a property be zoned for neighborhood commercial and that it rests on the Board to prove that it is not needed. Mr. Reischmann stated that the applicant would have the initial burden to est ablish that the request was consistent with that jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Mr. McClanahan asked if there was any residential area that is safe from this type of convenience application. Mr. Reischmann. stated that the test is this application, an amendment to the comp plan, consistent or not with the comprehensive plan. This is the first test, the limit of the scope of the initial investigation. If by substantial competent evidence, thereafter even if the Commission finds that it is consistent with maintaining the status quo and supports the legitimate private purpose, then the application can be denied. Mr. Dyal asked why was the Commission addressing Item lA first rather than Item 1B. Mr. Marder stated that lA is a change in policy and whatever is done here is going to be a prerequisite to MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 6 the accompanying plan development master plan which includes the very scenario being changed in so far as the zoning. The first thing that has to happen is that the Comprehensive Plan has to have a certain policy or land use or on the map, then the zoning will follow. Mr. Hattaway explained that he had no expert witnesses to bring in, not that there would be no cross examination. Since we're going into such great detail for the quasi judicial process and since Mr. Cloud will be calling witnesses, Mr. Hattaway would like to cross examine those witnesses. He stated that Mr. Marder had spoken and that he has not had a chance to cross examine him. Mr. Platts stated that the Commission has a standard procedure that it uses in public hearings, procedures that have been upheld, and recommended that the Commission continue with its procedure, let the applicant fulfill the requirements of the Commission's agenda; and if they have legal issues that they want to deal with, then they can do that in court. Mr. Cloud introduced into the record an aerial of the property in question. He stated that E. Lake Mary Blvd.. has a substantial amount of office and industrial uses. The largest industrial park in Sanford is located directly across from his client's property, together with the City of Sanford's water tower. Adjacent to the site that is proposed for commercial are two warehouses and an industrial facility. In the area, there is also a substantial borrow pit operation. Ken Steeves, Conklin, Porter & Holmes Engineering, 500 W. Fulton Ave. was present for representation. He stated that the judgement is based on the change of character of the area with the extension, additional traffic on Mellonville, and the opening of the Greenway. He stated that the comp plan change request does make since. The character of the area has changed since the current use of 10 to the acre was established. This property is at the intersection of a major collector which is soon to be major arterial. The property has existing industrial uses on both sides. The site is concurrent with city services and the development meets all city neighborhood commercial requirements. Based on this information, it is consistent to change the Comp Plan from 10 to the acre to neighborhood commercial. Mr. Dyal noted that the property was not a mile from the nearest commercial. Mr. Platts asked if any market studies have been done. Mr. Steeves stated "no, that it was determined through land use judgement with industrial across the street in both directions with a four lane road in front of the property and a major collector on the side of it that it is a logical decision for neighborhood commercial. Mr. Cloud stated that he believes the evidence supports the change. The existing non- residential uses are adjacent to the property on three sides. The spacing of existing and potential neighborhood commercial uses are appropriate according to the Planning Director. The ability to provide for the impact of development of facilities and services halve been found to be appropriate by your Staff. Mr. Skat asked what is the impact of this property as far as widening Lake Mary Blvd. Mr. Marder stated that the E. Lake Mary Blvd. expansion will have a significant impact on this property and the neighborhood. It is proposed to be continued to the east all the way around to the Airport up to the State Road 46/415 intersection, and the section from Sanford Avenue into the Airport entry will be four -laned as part of the Airport entry road. This is a County project. The extension is part of 1 -cent optional gas. tax. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 7 Mrs. Stairs reported that the Commissioners have received many letters. She disclosed that she has seen the letters and Ms. Jane Chase came into her office and that she was unaware that Mrs. Stairs was unable to talk to her because of the Sunshin Law. She stated that they chatted about the downtown, but at n� time did they talk about the project. Mrs. Stairs stated that she had talked to Dr. Beverly Booth on the phone and that she told her the exact same thing that she had. told Mrs. Chase. Mrs. Stairs entered into the record letters. from Mrs. Martha Wright, Karen Ratcliff- McNeil, Art Woodruff, and Joyce M. Hetzel. The other Commissioners reported that they had received the same letters. Jim Hattaway, attorney with Hutchinson, Mamele & Cooper., 230 N. Park Ave., Sanford, stated that he was present on behalf of a group of homeowners who are adjacent to the proposed project, and have property surrounding Silver Lake. An issue of great importance is the issue of notice. He stated that since this item has become a public hearing by both sides presenting arguments and both sides presenting persons, there was no notice. He stated that he had talked with Staff earlier in the morning and that Staff had said that they did not place an ad in the newspaper what so ever because this was not a public hearing and that they had no duty to place notice. He suggested and requested that this item be tabled until the next meeting so that the proper notice requirements can be met. He reminded the Commission that the initial burden is on applicant. At this point, Mrs. Stairs requested a ruling as to the notice. Mr. Marder stated that City Staff, in preparing for this meeting, did a through research including, but not limited to, discussions, at length, with the Department of Community Affairs. The reason Staff did this is because the legislature has changed procedures for Small Scale Comprehensive Plans and it is hard to keep track with the requirements. Staff is very confident that it has, in fact, conducted the procedures that have led up to this meeting in an appropriate fashion that it does not require an advertisement in the paper for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan by the Local Planning Agency. It does require, and there is being published an advertisement by the Elected Body, which. is the City Commission. All procedures that are being conducted by the City are meeting the statutory requirements. Mrs. Stairs stated that the argument was that because we proceeded on as though this were a public hearing, that we have indeed made it, so therefor it should have been noticed. Mr. Reischmann stated that this Board, in the manner that it has proceeded, does not change the statute. The statute will control. This evening is a recommendation. The Commission is not voting on an ordinance, and therefore this is not technically a public hearing. When the matter comes before the City Commission, it will require a notice of a public hearing. The notice is legally sufficient. Mr. McClanahan stated that by allowing public input, it does not automatically make it a public hearing. Tabling it is not going to change the outcome. The same people that are here tonight will be at the next meeting. Mr. Robert stated that the Commission has not heard any testimony from the opposition and moved to recommend denial to the City Commission. Seconded by Mr. Dyal. Mr. Robert stated that he doesn't think it is a legitimate public purpose. He stated that the Commission should send along with the recommendation that it would be granting special privileges. Mr. Stogner asked how can the Commission deny this if it hasn't heard the opposition. Mr. Dyal stated that the question is do you feel that adequate evidence was presented in favor of it. Mr. Reischmann stated that the Commission needs to establish a record of substantial confident MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 8 evidence. He stated that there is a question, there is an issue of whether or not the record has been established for substantial confident evidence. Mr. Robert withdrew his motion. Mr. Platts stated that before Mr. Robert withdrew his motion, there are some policies in the Comprehensive Plan that needed to be referenced that would provide substantial confident evidence that this isn't appropriate. Mr. Robert left his motion in place. Mr. Platts referenced from the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan on Page 1 -1, Policy 1 -1.1, entitled "Provide Access to Goods and Services and Protect Residential Areas from the Adverse Impacts of Transition in Land Use ", he noted: "Stable residential areas and projected future residential areas as delineated on the Future Land Use Map shall be protected from encroachment by incompatible nonresidential development ". This gives the Commission something to stand on. He referenced on Page 1. -3, Policy 1- 1.1.2, entitled: "Promote Orderly Land Use Transition ", he noted: "Where it is infeasible to separate residential. from nonresidential land uses, buffering shall be required to promote a smooth land use transition. Buffering make take the form of some physical separation and /or the development of a transitional use between the incompatible uses, such as low intensity office development between general retail commercial centers and residential areas ". He stated that this clearly points out the fact that retail commercial center land uses should not be adjacent to residential. Mr. Platts referenced that on Page 3 -9, Policy 3- 1.7.3, entitled: "Minimize Potential Blighting Influences", he noted: "Potential blighting influences within residential areas shall be minimized by promoting use of best management principles and practices of land use planning, urban design and landscaping in development and site plan review ". Mr. Platts stated that further evidence could be provided that neighborhood commercial immediately adjacent to residential does present a blighting influence. Mr. Dyal stated that it is important to note that there are some industrial uses that are adjacent to this property but the area surrounding the Lake has been residential a lot longer than it ever was industrial. Mr. McClanahan stated that the need for commercial at this location is premature. There is not enough residences to justify another convenience store within a short distance of the one that exists and it is a definite reason for denying the request at this time. Mr. Skat. stated. because E. Lake Mary Blvd. is involved in four - laning, the use is inappropriate at this time. Mr. Valerino stated that by voting against the motion, he is not inferring that he is either for or against the request because he feels the Commission needed to consider more evidence before making a decision. Opposed to the motion was Mr. Valerino. All others in favor. Motion carried. Next on the Agenda, Item 1.B was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request to rezone from SR -1A, Single Family Residential to PD, Planned Development, as set forth on Chase Property Planned Development Master Plan, property located at the northwest corner of East Lake Mary Boulevard and Ohio Avenue and the northeast corner of East Lake Mary Boulevard and Mellonville Avenue. Owner Jane C. Chase; representative: Ken Steeves, Conklin, Porter and Holmes. Thomas Cloud, stated that he was representing Jane Chase. He notified the Commission that they were modifying their request to delete the request for commercial from the rezoning application. He stated that they were requesting all residential in the Planned Development rezoning request at this time. They are deleting commercial and adding 9 units of residential to the PD. Mr. McClanahan asked how does the change reflect the advertisement. Mr. Reischmann stated that the ad requested rezoning of the existing zoning to residential for all but 1.5 acres. The residential zoning sought, as amended., is an included use within the commercial. It is a lesser intensive use. Because of this, MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 9 there is no need to readvertise, and there is no need not to continue. It is highly appropriate, for the applicant at this time, to request an amendment of this lesser included zoning. Mr. McClanahan stated that without legally describing the 1.5 acres in the ad, it would be appropriate for the opposition's attorney to be heard from and that we get it into the record that it is acceptable to do it this way. Mr. Hattaway stated that they have no objection to continuing at this time. Mr. Cloud entered into to the record an aerial, a bird's eye view of the property, planned development map, staff's report, and Mr. Steeves' resume. Mr. Valerino asked if a reduction in lot sizes was all that was being asked for. Mr. Steeves, 500 W. Fulton, stated that the existing zoning does allow up to 6 units per acre. The existing zoning which allows for 70' lots, could be developed with no restrictions. There is a better market for 50' lots. In planning for the 50' lots, they have retained 25% open space and have made commitments that there would be no motor boat access to the Lake, and they have additional setbacks along property lines. Mr. Steeves stated that they would comply with City requirements for stormwater and so on. With the PD Zoning, additional open space, additional setbacks and commitments are being created to protect the Lake. Mr. Valerino asked if they were asking for lots to be 5,000 square feet vs. 7,500, 50' widths vs. 70' widths, at 6 units per acre. Mr. Steeves stated that this is correct, but that in either layout they wouldn't quite be able to get the 5 units per acre but that it would be closer to 5. He stated that they are increasing the setbacks slightly. Under the current zoning, the setbacks are 20 and they are proposing 25' on the edge and 50' from the Lake. They are planning on having 12 to 15 lake front lots. He stated that with the PD Zoning, it can restrict boat ramps but under SR-1A Zoning there is no way boat ramps can be restricted. Mr. Cloud stated that regarding boat ramps, one would have to deal with riparian rights. Riparian rights doe.s.n't give you the right to put in boat ramps without having to obtain permits from the appropriate agencies. Mr. Robert asked what is to prevent the development from installing little tail lots. Mr. Steeves stated that they would have to come up with some wording in the PD. He stated that he doesn't think there is any regulation restricting lakefront widths on platted lakefront lots. With the 70' SR-1A Zoning, there are no restrictions. Mr. Robert asked if the PD conditions and restrictions were completed. Mr. Steeves stated "no." Mr. Steeves stated that there was input from several real estate agencies that are familiar with the area, indicating that there is a strong market for 50' lot sizes. Mr. McClanahan asked if zero lot lines are being proposed.. Mr. Steeves stated that the lots would be zero on one side and 10' between units. Mr. McClanahan asked how many units would fit per acre. He stated that he was concerned because the applicant came in for a particular zoning and with the 246 units, the density allowed, and numbers haven't been run to see if it was economically feasible under the current zoning as opposed to the proposed zoning. He would like to know how many lots. Mr. Steeves stated that the real estate input shows 50' lots are more feasible. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 10 Mr. Stogner read into the record a portion of Staff's recommendations regarding sewer; "The project will generate 37,662 gallons per day in potable water use including both residential and commercial proposed uses. The City has approximately two million gallons of sanitary sewer capacity available. However, the City's transmission capacity for sanitary sewer in this area is extremely limited and will not accommodate the impact of the proposed development at this time. The City had prepared water and wastewater plans for the Southeast Airport area that envision an additional wastewater treatment plant on the Airport property ". Mr. Stogner asked Mr. Marder if this was approved, where would the sewage be pumped. Mr. Marder stated that the City has considered the issue and has worked out an interlocal agreement that basically establishes the area around the Airport as unincorporated and as a City service area. He stated that the City is working with the Airport to establish a site at the Airport. Developments will not be allowed to be placed on the ground until impacts can be accommodated. Mr. Marder stated that the City has to get some users before it can bank on the infrastructure costs that will be necessary to accommodate that growth. There are no specific dates set for facilities because actual users are needed. This is planning ahead. A substantial amount of technical work has been accomplished to project the land uses.. Mr. Valerino questioned the number of dwellings. Mr. Steeves stated that the request is for 255 units. He stated that he was suggesting that it will not be 6 to an acre with either 50 or 70' lots. The 6 to an acre s a maximum guideline. Mr. Steeves guessed that may be they co ld construct anywhere from 160 to 180 Homes. Mr. Skat asked what was thelproximity of the site to the 100 acres. of surplus and asked if a study was done to determine the impact on the Lake. Mr. Steeves stated that the surplus acres are not in proximity to this site. He stated that they have allocated 25% of open space so that as many trees as possible could be saved. Mr. Dyal. asked Mr. Marder if he could recall when the Commission has allowed 50' lots when adjacent to properties where some are substantially more than 1 acre. Mr. Marder stated that he could not recall any. Mr. Marder read a portion of Staff's recommendation into the record, attached. At this point, Mrs. Stairs presented boycotts that were placed on every car in the parking lot. She stated that if this is how everyone in the audience felt, that they felt that she had not honored this chair in chairing these proceedings, she would like to know now. She requested that the people, or person, who felt this way, come forward and pickup the boycott flyers. Mr. Jim Hattaway, 230 N. Park Avenue, stated that he had never heard a discouraging word about her or any other member of this Commission. He stated that they are pleased with the work she was doing, she has done nothing for them to complain about and that they have no contemplation of a complaint against what she has done by any means. Mr. Hattaway stated that he was honest to goodness shocked at what he has seen. Mr. Hattaway stated that he represents a group of homeowners who have property adjacent to the proposal and around Lake Silver. These people are concerned that the community that they live in, the investments they have made and the environment in which they live is about to be radically altered and changed. They feel they have been left out of decision making processes. These people are not members of any governmental movement. His clients are not MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 11 opposed to growth and development per se. However, they are opposed to the wrong kind of development, they are opposed to changes in the status quo which would radically and permanently change the nature and flavor of their community. Mr. Hattaway stated that this change is inappropriate for this community. Some concerns deals with environment. This area is home to distinct species: red belly woodpecker, fox squirrel, american bald eagle, and eastern indigo snake. Should this zoning be approved, not only will many of these creatures be killed but those that survive will lose their habitat and ecosystem support. There exists no study of anykind re: to Silver Lake. The plat as it has evolved, shows a disregard for environmental matters. His clients do not want the zoning change. He stated that if the Commission approves the request, it is requested that the City place iron -clad restrictions on any developments associated with this zoning change. The average size lot around Silver Lake is 5.16 acres and the average value of each lot is $381,400. Mr. Hattaway stated that the impact of such repugnancy is so great that the residents will have no other option but to go forward with a Harris Act Suit should the Commission and the City approve this change. This change will render his clients unable to obtain the reasonable investment back expectations for the existing use of their real property. It is poor situations such as this that the Harris Act was created. It created a new cause of action to provide compensation to land owners when the actions of a governmental entity impose an inordinate burden on his or her real property. He asked that the Commission deny the approval of the proposed change in zoning. If approved, he asked that the Commission attach the following stipulations: 1) requirement to control and prevent run -off into the Lake; 2) requirement to control and prevent seepage of wastes and contaminants into the wells around the homes; 3) mandate that the PD never have a density greater than 6 dwelling units per acre; 4) return the 100' buffers on the Lake and adjacent properties; 5) return the landscape buffers; and 6) prevent access to the Lake by anyone other than the 15 or so lakefront owners. Mr. Platts asked if the current zoning is acceptable development standards to the residents around the lake. Mr. Hattaway stated that where his clients stand on the status quo, he honestly didn't know but that they are opposed to this change. Mr. McClanahan pointed out that threats to a volunteer body usually have a negative impact. He didn't think it was necessary for lawyers on either side to voice a threat of a lawsuit prior to a decision. He stated that he has seen a case turned around because someone threatened a lawsuit. Mr. Platts concurred with Mr. McClanahan. Mr. Hattaway stated that it was not a threat, but believed he had an obligation to tell the Commission where they are, and if this is approved, where they will have to go so that if they had to take action such as this it wouldn't come out of the blue with everyone being surprised. He stated that it was to show the Commission how serious they are and how concerned they are. Mr. McClanahan stated that they all realize how serious this is, but threats bothers him. Richard Fowler, 3400 Whitner Way, was present and in opposition. He distributed copies of an aerial which shows Silver Lake and the surrounding neighborhood as it looked in 1965. He stated that many homes around Lake measures in acres not feet. Many homes were built before there was a Sanford. In the mid 80 the City permitted and help finance an aluminum smelter in this area. He stated that they do not oppose development but ask that it be at least equal to the existing character and quality of the community. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 12 William Wight, 3113 Ohio. Avenue, was present and in opposition. He stated that homes in the area have significant historical value. Some homes were built in the early 1800's. He stated that all of the homes in the area are well maintained. Lance Abney, 2200 E. Lake Mary Blvd., was in opposition to the request. He stated that the problem is a trend to continue to plan and build small homes on small lots. This is a viable real estate market for executive housing. Ryan Driscoll, 3435 Mellonville Ave., was present and spoke in opposition to the request. Alvin Barber, 223 E. Winter Park Street, Orlando, was present and spoke in opposition. Christina White, 3113 Ohio Ave., spoke in opposition to the request. She submitted photos of homes on the Lake to be entered into the record stating that each res'iden'ce has a personal history. Art Woodruff, 214 S. Summerlin Ave., spoke in opposition stating that the precedent that the zoning would set would allow 19 more homes on the entire lakefront than can currently be built. This proposal would lead to 36 homes on the lakefront in addition to the 20 that are already there. Beverly Booth, 3358 Whitne.r Way, stated that they were concerned and upset that they even had to be at this hearing. She summarized the feelings of the area residents. Sharon Sullivan, 2160 Marquette Ave., addressed the Airport traffic stating that since the E. Lake Mary Blvd. extension a lot of the traffic has been diverted to that new road widening project. The traffic is much better than what it was. Mr. Cloud stated that comments have been made as to people being left out of the process. This is not true. Meetings have been held, letters sent, and they have had full access to Staff. The area residents have had the same ability to input on Staff's recommendations. This request is not a radical change. There have been some wild accusations about the killing of threatened and endangered species. These accusations are not true:. There is no proof that the endangered species exist out there, and if they did exist, the laws of this State and the Government require that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Game and Fish Commission be notified of the existence of these species. Mr. Cloud stated that with the multi- family, 100' buffers would be required. He stated that his clients are proposing to go by buffers that are wider than what is existing under the existing zoning. SR-1A requires zero requirement for open space. There is a benefit to the residents in term of buffering open space. With respect to control of run -off, the applicant's do not have any problems with this condition.. St. Johns River Water Management District and the City's requirements will have to be met. With respect to seepage, similar requirements will have to be meat. Mr. Cloud stated that there are no problems with exceeding the 6 units per acre condition. With PD, the area residents will get more buffering and open space. Mr. Cloud encouraged the Commission to approve this request stating that they have listened to the neighbors, dropped the request for apartments, providing a 6' wall, agreed that there will be no public boat access, stormwat.er will meet State and City standards, and the applicants will meet concurrency before building permits are issued. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 13 Mr. valerino asked why the applicants couldn't live with the way the property is zoned now. Mr. Cloud stated that his clients have been advised by a number of realtors in the area that the market recognizes a higher ability to sell 50' lots. Mr. Steeves stated that 50' lots gives more flexibility of the layout and does increase the number of units by 20 %. Mr. Stogner moved to deny the request based on the following reasons: 1) it is a hammock area, 2) no studies have been done for endangered species, 3) the average lot size around the Lake is 5.6 acres, 4) the average price of the homes is $381, 000, 5) 20 homes around Lake, 6) 6 homes built in the 1800's which would make it a historic type area, and 7) density does not justify putting 246 homes on this property. Seconded by Mr. McClanahan. Mr. McClanahan included that based on fact that it is presently zoned for the same number of units that is being requested per acre, that it is not justified in rezoning. Mr. Platts stated that the proposal is incompatible with surrounding land uses. Mr. Robert stated that the increase of intensity of use is not a good trade off for what we get out of it. Mr. Skat stated that his concerns involve the environmental impact. Mr. valerino stated that the representative had no idea of how many homes will be placed on property, and the evidence appears to be based on Staff's report for transmission capacity for sanitary sewer which is limited and would not accommodate this project at this time. All in favor. Motion carried. Item 3 on the Agenda was the consideration of the Final Plat for Mayfair Oaks, a 107 single family residential subdivision located at 4300 Paola Road (northeast corner of CR46A and Oregon Avenue) in a MR -1, Multiple Family Residential Zoning District. Owner: Bovis Homes, Inc.; representative: Hugh W. Harking, Jr., P.E. Larry Dale, 120 Kaywood Drive, developer for Bovis Homes, was present for representation. He stated that the Final Plat is prepared for approval. He stated that they had installed the portion of chain link fence for the retention pond. The slope on the other side is so shallow that it doesn't require fencing. Seminole County is doing a joint project with City for drainage: off of Upsala Road. Construction is almost complete by the County. All water will be released through the Lockhart Smith Canal that will eventually flow into the St. Johns River. Mr. McClanahan moved on approval. Seconded by Mr. Robert. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the Site Plan for Sadisco, an auto auction facility located at 3701 Sanford Avenue in a MI -2, Medium Industrial Zoning District. Staff Note: Applicant requested consideration at this meeting. Applicant response to initial Staff comments incomplete at date of agenda preparation. Staff review incomplete at date of agenda. preparation. 11 "x14" copy of plan not available at date of agenda preparation. Owner: Sadisco of Florida; representative: James T. Melvin, Architect. Mr. Marder stated that Staff had received a plan today and that it hasn't been staffed. The Commission tabled consideration of this item so that the applicant could get with Staff and prepare materials that are necessary to come before this commission. Walker Powers, 1410 DeBary Blvd., Florence, S.C. was present. He stated that they had made an effort to address Staff's concerns. He stated that Staff had told their architect that they didn't care MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1996 PAGE 14 what he put on the plans. The architect didn't receive any instructions and was told essentially to put whatever he wanted to on the plan. Mr. Marder stated that City Staff received the site plan today. He stated that he has to take issue with what the gentleman has said. He knows there has been a lack of communication on this project in terms of the applicant who is responsible for keeping up with where the application is in the process. The applicant has received comments that the Commission has been provided with. In glancing at the plan, there has been an effort to respond to comments that were discussed. Mr. Marder stated that Staff doesn't notify applicants of the scheduling of their projects. Applicants have the responsibility of tracking their projects. Mr. Dyal asked why was this item placed on the agenda. Mr. Marder stated that Staff was discussing this with.the applicant and they basically pressed Staff to put it on the agenda. Staff felt there was insufficient information. To try to be accommodating, Staff placed it on the agenda. The initial reaction of Staff was to not place this on the agenda and also discussed it with the City Manager. There has been a lot of background information on this project, its been a little bit contentious. This Staff felt that this was classified as a junk yard. There has been quite a bit of correspondence between City Staff, City Attorney and attorneys for the applicant. After careful consideration by the City Attorney, it was determined that a Conditional Use would not be required. There was argument that it would not be considered a junkyard. The Commission unanimously approved the Minutes of December 21, 1995 as circulated. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. elen airs, Chairperson From the Director of Planning and Developmen ; /7///t-1 January 12, 1996 TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Recommendations for Meeting of January 18, 1996 CHASE PROPERTY - SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - Request to amend the Future Land Use Plan Map of the Future Land Use Element of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan from Medium Density Residential (MDR -10) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) for 1.5 acres located at the North East corner of Mellonville Avenue and East Lake Mary Drive (formally Silver Lake Drive). 1 . The site is designated Medium Density Residential - 10 on the Future Land Use Map and is basically vacant at the present time. The applicant requests that one and a half (1.5) acres located at the northeast corner of East Lake Mary Boulevard and South Mellonville Avenue be designated Neighborhood Commercial. East Lake Mary Boulevard is currently a county- maintained two lane minor collector. Mellonville Avenue is a two -laned county - maintained local street. 2. The requested Plan amendment site is part of a 41 acre planned development project rezoning request known as the "Chase Property Planned Development." In addition to 1.5 acres of requested Neighborhood. Commercial use, the Plan proposes single family residential uses at a density of six dwelling units per acre for a total of 246 dwellings. Neighborhood Commercial use is proposed to include those uses permitted within the City's RC -1, Restricted Commercial zoning district. Up to 15,000 square feet of building area is proposed. 3. To the south and west, the site is adjacent to existing industrial development designated Industrial on the City's Future Land Use Map. To the north and east, the site is adjacent to vacant land designated Medium Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map. 4. Public facilities and services impact are evaluated as follows: a) Transportation. Transportation impact will be 1,737 trips per day Planning Recommendations - Page L based on 151.8 trips per 1,000 gross square feet of shopping center space (15,000_sq. ft. max.). The road segment of East Lake Mary Blvd. from Sanford Avenue to Ohio Avenue operates at a level of service C with a current daily volume of approximately 2,100 and capacity of 12,900. The total daily volume, with the development, would be 3,837 trips per day. Seminole County Public Works Department plans to expand East Lake Mary Boulevard from Sanford Avenue to the Airport Entrance Road beginning in May, 1998 and scheduled for completion by 2000. The expansion is planned to provide four (4) traffic lanes, a center median and left turn lanes. Therefore, both existing and additional capacity are adequate to provide for the impact of the proposed development. in addition, it must be noted that the process to extend East Lake Mary Boulevard to State Road 46 and County Road 415 is already underway and is progressing as part of the additional one cent sales tax passed in Seminole County in 1991. East Lake Mary Boulevard was classified as a Minor Collector but will likely be classified as a Minor Arterial roadway based on the connection to the Airport International Terminal and eventual connection to State Road 46 East. b) Water and Sewer. Sanitary sewer capacity needs will be 1,500 GPD (gallons per day) based on .1 GPD per square foot of building space (15,000 sq. ft. max.). Current wastewater service available is approximately 47,075 GPD. Potable Water capacity needs will be 1,500 GPD based on .1 GPD per square foot of building space (15,000 sq. ft. max.). Current potable water service available is approximately 5 MGD (million gallons per day). As a result of the planned expansion of East Lake Mary Boulevard, the City of Sanford will be required to relocate the water line and force sewer main which are located in the road right -of -way. The relocation work will provide the opportunity to expand the existing facilities and increase capacity. According to the City's Utility Director, preliminary plans include upsizing the existing 6" sanitary sewer force main to a 12 force main and upsizing the existing 8" potable water main to a 12" water main. c) Solid Waste. Seminole County's landfill has available capacity for up to twenty years. Available capacity is over 300,000 tons per year. The impact upon solid waste disposal capacity from a potential 15,000 square foot commercial development is anticipated to be insignificant. d) Stormwater. Drainage must adhere to the City's 25 year, 96 hour level of service unless a positive out -fall is provided. Planning Reconunendations - Page 2 5. The closest existing small -scale commercial use to the site includes a convenience store located approximately one mile west of the site at the corner of East Lake Mary Boulevard /Sanford Avenue and County Road 427. The potential for similar uses could be located approximately three quarters of a. mile north of site at the intersection of Mellonville Avenue and Airport Boulevard. 6. Recommend that the request to amend the Future Land Use Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan from Medium Density Residential (MDR -10) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) be approved based on: existing nonresidential uses already located adjacent to property, spacing of existing and potential neighborhood commercial uses, ability to provide for impact of development upon facilities and services, and the increasing importance and function of East Lake Mary Boulevard in the immediate area. CHASE PROPERTY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE - Request to rezone from SR- 1 A, Single Family Residential to PD, Planned Development for property located at the northeast corner of Mellonville Avenue and East Lake Mary Boulevard and property located at the northwest corner of Ohio Avenue and East Lake Mary Boulevard. 1. Site is Zoned SR-1A, Single Family Residential, encompasses approximately 41 acres and is basically vacant at the present time. SR -1 A Zoning permits a gross residential density of up to six dwelling units per acre. Minimum lot size is 7,500 square feet with a minimum lot width of 70 feet. The applicant requests a gross residential density of up to six dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 50 feet. In addition, the applicant requests that 1.5 acres located in the northeast corner of East Lake Mary Boulevard and Mellonville Avenue be designated Commercial, specifically neighborhood - oriented commercial uses as permitted within the City's RC -1, Restricted Commercial Zoning District including gas pumps. 2. The Master Plan proposes to construct a six foot masonry wall adjacent to existing residential development. This feature is interpreted to mean that such walls will, at minimum, be located along all property lines except the lakefront and adjacent to roadways. In addition, the Master Plan proposes that motorboat use on the Silver Lake be limited to lakefront lots. 3. The Future Land Use Designation of the site is Medium Density Residential - 10 which provides for residential use with a gross residential density of up to 10 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the proposed residential use contained within the Chase Property Planned Development master plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed Neighborhood Commercial use requires an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the policy of whether to permit neighborhood commercial use in Planning Recommendations - Page 3 that location is contingent upon and deferred to the above - described small - scale comprehensive plan amendment. 4. Existing uses adjacent to the site include industrial uses located on the south side of East Lake Mary Boulevard and west of Mellonville Avenue within an MI -2, Medium Industrial Zone. The as -yet undeveloped but platted Silver Lake Industrial Park is located adjacent to the site on the south side of East Lake Mary Boulevard. That industrial park is the single largest such development in Seminole County with 46 lots and 247 acres. Various single family dwellings are located adjacent to the site on scattered acreage Zoned R -1 AA in unincorporated Seminole County. 5. Regarding facilities and services, the City's Comprehensive Plan has been designed to anticipate and provide for the impact of Medium Density Residential development at a density of ten dwelling units per acre. The following impacts are noted: a. Transportation - The residential portion of the project will generate 2,460 trips per day based on 10 trips per day per dwelling unit. In addition, 1,737 dtrips per day will be generated by the commercial site for a total of 4,197 daily trips for the entire project. Traffic carrying capacity of East Lake Mary Boulevard, Ohio Avenue and Mellonville Avenue are 12,900 trips per day for each road. Present daily volume is ranges from 2,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day on these roadways based on Seminole County Traffic Counts. Traffic volumes will increase when the Orlando- Sanford Airport terminal becomes active with charter passenger service in 1996. b. Water - The project will generate 93,242 gallons per day in potable water use including both commercial and residential uses. The City has over five million gallons of potable water capacity available. c. Sewer - The project will generate 37,662 gallons per day in potable water use including both residential and commercial proposed uses. The City has approximately two million gallons of sanitary sewer capacity available. However, the City's transmission capacity for sanitary sewer in this area is extremely limited and will not accommodate the impact of the proposed development at this time. The City had prepared water and wastewater plans for the Southeast Airport area that envision an additional wastewater treatment plant on the Airport property. The Chase Property, planned industrial development located south of the site and other anticipated development in the area will be served by the planned wastewater treatment facility to be located at the Airport. It is also noted that, as a result of the planned expansion of East Lake Mary Boulevard, the City of Sanford will upsize the existing 6" sanitary sewer force main to a 12" force main and upsize the existing 8" potable water main to a 12" water main. Planning Recommendations - Page 4 d. Drainage - If there is no positive out -fall, the project must adhere to the City's 25 year, 96 hour retention standard. e. Recreation - The project will generate the need for 1.722 acres of open space /park land. The City now has approximately 100 acres of "surplus" open space land capacity. f. Solid Waste - The project might generate the demand for up to 1,722 pounds of solid waste per day. The Seminole County Landfill has available tonnage in excess of 300,000 tons per year. 6. Development in the Airport environs is in a state of transition. The Orlando Sanford Airport is undergoing a transformation into a major regional facility with international connections. At the date of this writing, several hundred thousand square feet of terminal and related buildings are under construction. Commencement of international charter service is scheduled for April, 1996. A new FAA - manned control tower is funded. The airport is located less than one mile from the Chase Property. a. The City, County and Airport Authority have cooperated to insure that East Lake Mary Boulevard was extended easterly in order to provide a major entrance into the new airport terminal facilities. In addition to a planned widening of existing East Lake Mary Boulevard facilities in the immediate area of the site, the process to extend the road easterly to connect with State Road 46 and County Road 415 is funded by the optional one cent sales tax. This will create a major loop or bypass around the southeastern airport area and provide accessibility to the area for intensive urban development. The new road will also provide an appropriate location for the City's water and sewer lines. b. In 1991 the City and Seminole County adopted an interlocal planning agreement that considered the Airport environs. The agreement specifically identified the unincorporated land between the two parcels that comprise the Chase Property Planned Development (excerpt attached, see site No. 4) and provided that such land be designated MDR -10 upon annexation into the City of Sanford. As a further extension of the Joint Planning Agreement, Seminole County, with City involvement, has initiated a proposal to change the Future Land Use Designation of areas east of the site (see area No.'s 2 and 3 on attached map) from Suburban Estates to High Intensity Airport and Industrial. While these changes have not been adopted due to additional studies necessary to insure adequate infrastructure, they are anticipated to be approved when acceptable support documents are completed. c. In summary, coordinated governmental planning efforts in the area surrounding the site reflect a recognition that additional urban type development is desirable and appropriate and that adequate and necessary facilities and services will be provided to accommodate such development. 7. Recommend approval of the Chase Property Planned Development based on Planning Recommendations - Page 5 consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, residential density similar to existing Zoning District already applied to the site in question and existing and planned character of the immediate area at the present time. The proposed 1.5 acre commercial site is recommended for approval subject to approval of and based upon findings and recommendations contained in the small scale comprehensive plan amendment for same (immediately above ). Also recommend that the following stipulations and conditions be placed upon the project: 1. All recitals and information contained on the Chase Property Planned Development master plan received by the City of Sanford Department of Engineering and Planning on January 5, 1996 are true and correct. 2. The project and all portions thereof shall comply with the City of Sanford Land Development Regulations. 3. All stipulations and conditions contained on the Chase Property Master Plan shall be enforced and, when appropriate, reflected in deed restrictions of successors. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES - Request to rezone from SC -3, Special Commercial to PD, Planned Development for property bounded by Sanford Avenue, Palmetto Avenue, Commercial Street and First Street. 1. Site is Zoned SC -3, Special Commercial and is vacant at the present time. 2. Site is located in Sanford's Historic Commercial District. Sanborn Maps from 1950 depict 100% building coverage over the entire block with the exception of the existing north -south alley. Uses included automotive sales and service and furniture sales. 3. Site is adjacent to various commercial uses Zoned SC -3 that include retail sales and service, offices as well as a library. Site is also adjacent to public and semi - public uses Zoned RMOI, Multiple Family Residential, Office and Institutional including the Greater Sanford Chamber of Commerce and the Sanford Civic Center. Further, the site is located near a neighborhood shopping center Zoned GC -2, General Commercial. 4. The Master Plan entitled "First Street Office Center," reflects a proposed three story building of 46,000 square feet adjacent to First. Street with parking to be located on the north side of the site. On street parking is proposed to be utilized to accommodate the building as well as additional public parking facilities in an as -yet undetermined manner. 5. The site was already fully developed. Urban services and facilities are considered adequate to support redevelopment of the site. 6. Recommend approval of the request to rezone from SC -3, Special Commercial Planning Recommendations - Page 6 to PD, Planned Development based on similarity with existing permitted uses. Also, the following stipulations and conditions are recommended: a. Development shall comply with information and notes depicted on the First Street Office Center Master Plan. b. Exterior building plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Sanford Historic Preservation Board. C. Development shall comply with the City's parking requirements unless otherwise excepted by the City through due process. d. Developer shall design and construct on- street parking facilities immediately adjacent to site pursuant to plans reviewed and approved by the City. e. First floor uses shall face First Street. Such uses shall include store fronts that include retail sales and service uses. f. Prior to development all matters related the north -south alley that bisects the property shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the City. Planning Recommendations - Page 7