Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.03.95FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINA TOR July 27, 1995 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, 7:00 P.M., Thursday, August 3, 1995, in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, Sanford, Florida. AGENDA Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 918 Magnolia Avenue in an SR -1, Single Family Dwelling Residential Zoning District for the purpose of a church /wedding chapel. Owner /representative: Linda Stevens 2. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 1600- 1688 W. Airport Blvd. in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of an additional free standing sign. Owner /representative: James W. Hickman 3. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 1600 -1688 W. Airport Blvd, in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of a detached sign setback (5' required, 0' proposed; a variance of 5'); and also additional sign square footage (100 square feet permitted, 200 square feet proposed; a variance of 100 square feet). Owner /representative: James W. Hickman 4. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 200 Northstar Court in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of a chain link fence in the front yard (25' required, 0 -2' proposed; a variance of 23' -25'). Owner /representative: Tom Ball 5. Consider the site plan for Steak 'N Shake, a proposed restaurant located at 40 Towne Center Circle in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Consolidated Products Steak 'N Shake Representative: Bemmie Eustace - Interplan Practice Ltd. 6. Any other business from floor or Commission Members. 7. Reports from Staff. 8. 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 ADA Coordinator at 330 -5626, 48 hrs in advance of the meeting. FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINA TOR August 2, 1995 Q� TO: Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, 7:00 P.M., Thursday, August 3, 1995, in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, Sanford, Florida. ADDENDUM TO THE AGENDA 1. Consider the Final Plat for Country Club Park, Phase I, a 70 unit, single family residential subdivision located at 500 Upsala Road in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Garard M, Dillard and Barbara A. Dillard Representative: Florida Fine Homes, L.C., Stephen Neveleff 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 IFS 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 firs in advance of the meeting. f MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1995 7 :00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ross Robert Jim Valerino Mark Platts Mac McClanahan Helen Stairs Michael Skat Leon Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynn Stogner Ben Dyal 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. The first item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 918 Magnolia Avenue in an SR -1, Single Family Dwelling Residential Zoning District for the purpose of a church /wedding chapel. Owner /representative: Linda Stevens. Linda Stevens, 918 Magnolia Avenue, stated that she would like to have a wedding chapel at this location. She stated that she is a wedding consultant. Ms. Stevens explained that there are many places for large weddings but nothing for smaller weddings. If someone wanted to get married with a small number of people, they could go to the courthouse but this is not intimate nor romantic. She stated that the wedding parties would be no more than 10 to 12 people in attendance, 15 at the most. Ms. Stevens stated that they have started the renovations on the house. They have started sanding the inside walls for new wallpaper, the floors are being varnished, and also work on the outside has begun. She stated that they will make the property looked like it is loved. They would like for it to be an asset in the Historic District. She explained that one of the Chases lived there and that there was a Judge Henry that used to perform weddings in front of the fire place. She would like to continue this historic tradition. Ms. Stevens stated that she will be looking at people coming into the area, being married at the chapel, staying at one of the bed and breakfasts, taking a cruise, and shopping at the antique stores in downtown Sanford. She hopes that the chapel will bring people into the area. Mr. Valerino asked Ms. Stevens if she will live in the house whether it becomes a wedding chapel or not. She stated "yes ". She explained that they have bought the property, and that this conditional use is not a condition of a sale. She stated that she has talked to some of the neighbors, including the Straehlas, and has had only positive feedback. She stated that most of the concern expressed has been about parking. She explained that she will be providing 8 parking spaces that will be accessed at the rear of the property. There will be no large wedding parties and if it is noticed that guests are parking on the street, she will MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1995 PAGE 2 ask and suggest that they move their cars to her a nearby public parking area. She stated that venture and has never owned a wedding chapel. parking area or to this is her first Mr. Robert asked Ms. Stevens if there is any effective way to control the alcohol. She stated that she will not be applying for a liquor license. Mr. Platts asked if people were to provide their own alcohol, could she control this. Ms. Stevens stated that she would talk with the guests and discourage much more than a champagne toast. She stated that she would explain that this is a residential district and that she could not allow this type of behavior. Mr. Platts asked if there would be receptions. She stated that there would be cake and coffee. Mr. Platts asked what would happen if someone wanted to have 50 people. Ms. Stevens stated that she is looking at no more than 15 guests, and that she would tell people that she cannot accommodate them. Ms. Stevens explained that there would be a bride's room and a groom's room. She stated that other rooms used would be: the parlor, and if guests wanted cake and coffee, the dining room. Mr. Platts asked why the conditional use application states church. She explained that she had talked with Ms. Sonnenberg at the beginning of the year and that she was told that this is the closest category for the wedding chapel. She stated that she was informed by Ms. Sonnenberg that there would be no problems with her application. Mr. McClanahan asked what would stop the applicant from turning this into a commercial venture. Mr. Marder stated that there are a number of uses in this district. Staff has wrestled with how to permit a number of different uses in SR -1 zone. He explained that the City has gone outside the ordinance and to the City Commission in some cases. After looking at this request, it basically goers with something like churches, but that it is somewhat a business. This service is in some ways similar to a bed and breakfast. Mr. McClanahan stated that if there is food, this commercializes it. There would be a need to upgrade the building to meet the ADA for disability standards and that they would need to upgrade conduits. There are a lot of things that aren't being addressed. If traffic is being generated on the alley, it must be maintained. There can be no positive control on the number of people that will show up, no positive control of the extent of food nor the extent of alcohol. Mr. McClanahan stated that he is uneasy with this being categorized with a church. Ms. Stevens stated that she has applied to become a notary and has been ordained as a minister for a small church. She stated that she has talked to the housing department and that she will have the home wired for fire alarms. There is a space for a handicap ramp and a handicap bathroom on the first floor. Mr. Robert asked Ms. Stevens what did she have in mind for signage. She stated that a small sign with a 45 degree angle at the corner would be installed.. A sign similar to some of the bed and breakfasts. Mr. Valerino asked if services would be performed outside. She stated "yes ". Mr. Valerino asked if it was her intention to do this everyday of the week. She replied "yes, when available." Ms. Stevens explained that she is planning to open by Thanksgiving, if not, at least by Christmas. Mrs. Stairs asked if this property would go on the tax roll as her primary residence and what portion would be used for her residence. Mrs. Stevens stated "yes ". There are three other bedrooms, a kitchen, a butler's pantry and attic. She stated that they would also be using the parlor and dining room as needed. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1995 PAGE 3 Mr. Platts stated that he would like to go back to Mr. McClanahan's point on the commercial aspects of the business. He stated that he felt it is great what they wanted to do with the home as far as fixing it up and making improvements. He is concerned about it as a business use and don't think the request should have come in as a church use. In looking at the code and doing some research, Mr. Platts stated that he did not think it fits the definition of a church. Every use can be classified someway. Traditionally, the Standard Industrial Classification, a professional resource, published by the Federal Government, classifies every use. Wedding chapels are properly classified in this resource manual. A wedding chapel comes under the category of miscellaneous personal services, along with tattoo parlors, massage parlors, dating services and other types of businesses where somebody comes to a site and receives some type of professional service at that site for a fee. He feels that this is what is being talked about here. Mr. Platts stated that the service could have a lot of problems at this location because of the single family houses in a relatively tight configuration. Mr. Platts stated that personal services are classified under retail sales and service and is only permitted in commercial districts. He stated that there are some neighborhoods- in Sanford that have older victori.an homes zoned commercial. He stated there is one home, near the'intersection of 17 -92 and 1st Street. The neighborhood needs help and that there is the opportunity for someone to go in and take advantage of that home for a business use. He stated that he does not feel the Commission should look favorable at the application, although he loves what the applicant is doing with the property as far as fixing it up. Mr. Valerino asked when Ms. Stevens had talked with Bettie Sonnenberg. This bothered him because, in Ms. Stevens letter she had said that Bettie had told. her that it would probably be no problem in obtaining this conditional use. Ms. Stevens said it was around the. first of the year. She stated that. Nettie had talked to several other people and from the feedback that Bettie was receiving, that she felt there wouldn't be a problem. Mr. Valerino asked Ms. Stevens. if Bettie Sonnenberg was referring to that property specifically when she said Bettie made the statement or was Bettie referring to property in general. Ms. Stevens stated that it was one of two properties, the property in question or the house at 812 Magnolia Avenue. Howard Thomas, 918 Magnolia, co- owner, stated that they saw a need and that they are trying to fill that need. They had pulled out the numbers 10, 12, and 15 for the number of guests because they were trying to draw a limit for the City's rules. He stated that they were just throwing a number out as far as limitation. Mr. Thomas stated that they weren't planning on receptions. There are plenty of facilities around for receptions. If there is some kind of wine or alcoholic beverage in the ceremony, then they would look at that or maybe a ceremonial toast, otherwise there would be no alcohol. Mrs. Stairs asked if the property was purchased specifically for this use or as a home. Mr. Thomas stated "both ". Mr. Thomas explained that he may or may not be able to move into the home by Thanksgiving because of his job. He stated that they are renovating this house in Sanford first, then they will sell the house in Altamonte. Mrs. Stevens will move in by Thanksgiving. Mr. Skat asked Mr. Thomas how would he feel if something like this was coming in next to him where he is now and how would it affect . his property value. Mr. Thomas stated that he would be concerned as to how it would impact his family and lifestyles. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING OF AUGUST 3, PAGE 4 COMMISSION 1995 Mr. McClanahan explained that a notary fee is very minimal as to what someone can charge. He asked how would it be a revenue. Mr. Thomas stated that basically, cost would be the timeframe, 1 or 2 hours for use of the facilities. Lisa Nason, 900 magnolia Avenue, stated that everything she had heard discourages her. She is concerned about enforcement of the Conditional Use. She stated that clearly, there will be a reception, refreshments or something. She is also concerned about noise. She asked how would they keep the quality of the residential neighborhood in tact. She has no idea how eight - 10x20 parking spaces will be put on the property. The commercial nature of the use should be very strict. It is not compatible and she is not in favor. Lane Wood, 918 Palmetto Avenue, stated that times for ceremonies . had been discussed and she asked what about the time for rehearsals and bridal consultants. She asked if people would be coming over two three days ahead of time. She stated that she did not want that kind of traffic in the neighborhood. Mrs. Stevens stated that there would be no showers or receptions or rehearsal diners. she stated that people could run through the ceremony just before time. Joe Forbes, 209 Palmetto Avenue, stated that he had not been approached regarding this request. His concern is that it will open up a can of worms as to letting commercial come into a residential area. Sabrina Armstrong, E. 10th Street, stated that this opens up the opportunity for someone to snatch children. she is against the request. Susan Owens 919 Magnolia Avenue, stated that she performed an informal case study on an Orlando Chapel. It is a converted house with a wrapped around porch. She stated that it is roughly the same size as the property in question. The outdoor wedding location can accommodate up to 150 guests. The most busiest time for business is Friday nights. They have been in business for 4 years. Ms. Owens stated that her concern. is for her child. Within a 200' radius, there are approximately 12 children. The combination of caterers and bringing in alcohol is of utmost concern. Boyd Walker, 101 E. 10th Street, stated that the parking is a big thing. He asked what is required for security. He stated that he is concerned about lighting, noise, and music. Weddings should be a happy time and wedding people are expected to be happy. He stated that he did not feel a commercial sign across the street from him would do anything for his property. Cathryn Welch, 801 S. Park, stated that the wedding chapel that Ms.. Owens had talked about is off I -4 and would not be categorized as a residential use. Mrs. Stevens stated that she would encourage people to park in the rear. She stated that there would not be any catering trucks. Mrs. Stairs stated that she had received a letter from Mary Collins. at 907 Magnolia Avenue expressing many of the same concerns and Bob Cassels bought in some information as to how to control some of the problems. Mrs. Stairs requested that these two items be made a part of records. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1995 PAGE 5 Mr. McClanahan stated that the Police Department could not control the parking situation because this is a public street. Based on all the variables that has been discussed, Mr. McClanahan moved to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Robert. Mr. Platts asked if the application fee could be refunded because the request came in for a church. Mr. McClanahan stated that the applicant could request to the City Commission for a refund. Mr. Valerino stated that the area is not compatible for this use. He stated that he is not against the concept but that he is against where they want to open it. Mr. Robert stated that this is too intense a use for this residential neighborhood. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 1600 -1688 W. Airport Blvd. in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of an additional free standing sign. Owner /representative: James W. Hickman. James Hickman, 203 Riverb.end Ct., Longwood, stated that this property fronts on two streets. He would like to have two signs. Mr. Robert asked Mr. Hickman when did his corporation purchase the property. Mr. Hickman stated in 1992. Mr. Platts asked if there is an existing sign. Mr. Hickman stated that there are no signs at all. The only signage on the property is where a tenant has a sign on his end of the building. Mr. Robert asked if there is only a few square feet shy of where he wouldn't have had to come here. Mr. Hickman stated "yes ". He stated that he needs 65,000 square feet and that he has 63,000 square feet. Mr. Robert asked if the request is for Airport Blvd. only. Mr. Hickman stated "yes ". George, owner of Amoco Station, asked how would the request impact his sign on Airport Blvd. Mr. Gibson explained that a detached sign is required to be 15' from adjacent property lines. George stated that he did not have any problems with the request. Mr. Robert moved to approve the second sign. Mr. McClanahan seconded for discussion. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request . for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 1600 -1688 W. Airport Blvd. in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of a detached sign setback (5' required, 0' proposed; a variance of 5'); and also additional sign square footage (100 square feet permitted, 200 square feet proposed; a variance of 100 square feet). Owner /representative: James W. Hickman. Mr. James W. Hickman, 203 Riverbend Court, Longwood, stated that the first sign will be 10x1.0, a list of tenants sign, that would. be two sided. The request to not set it back is caused by the existing parking lot. The original developer gave 10' to Seminole County on both streets. The parking lot curb is right on the property line. Mr. Hickman stated that in essence, he would have to put the sign in the parking lot. He is asking to bring the edge of the sign to the curb. He stated that this is a very minor request. He is asking to set the sign at the property line for the one street only. Mr. Robert asked Mr. Hickman if the Commission was to deny the request and. he had to set the sign back 5', would there be anything to block the view. Mr. Hickman stated that the cars, in essence, would, and that the buildings would tend to hide it as well. He stated that they would like to install the sign in the shrub area. Mr. Platt asked if he could design the area so that he could set it back. Mr. Hickman stated that there is also a fire hydrant there. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1995 PAGE 6 Mr. McClanahan moved to approve. Seconded by Mr. Brooks. Mrs. Stairs, Mr. Brooks, and Mr. McClanahan in favor. In opposition were Mr. Robert, Mr. Valerino, Mr. Skat, and Mr. Platts. Motion failed. Mr. Hickman asked if the variance request could be separated. If the setback and additional square footage could be separated. Mr. Platts moved to reconsider the item. Mr. Roberts seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Platts moved deny the setback. Seconded by Mr. Skat. In favor were Mr. McClanahan, Mr. Valerine, Mr. Robert, and Mr. Platts. Motion carried. Mr. McClanahan moved for approval of the additional square footage. Seconded by Mr. Skat. Mr. Platts opposed. All others in favor. Motion carried. The next item was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 200 Northstar Court in a GC-2, General Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of a chain link fence in the front yard (25" required, 0 -2" proposed; a variance of 23" -25 Owner /representative: Tom Ball. Tom Ball, 683 Morning Dove Circle, Lake Mary, stated that this is a warehouse facility in the Northstar Business Park. The fence will encompass the required retention area. The request for the fence is because of two main items: safety and security. Mrs. Stairs asked if the fence was a part of the site plan. Mr. Ball stated "no". The tenant has a lot of high dollar vehicles. The fence is in place and the landscape is on the inside. Laurel Oak Trees every 25 The fence has been up since July 7 and is barbed. Mr. Ball stated that he came in prior to installation and hoped that the fence would get approval. Mr. Robert moved to approve. Mr. McClanahan seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.. The next item was the consideration of the site plan for Steak 'N Shake, a proposed restaurant located at 40 Towne Center Circle in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Consolidated Products Steak 'N Shake; representative: Bemmie Eustace - Interplan Practice Ltd. Bemmie Eustace, Interplan Practice Ltd., stated that she is representing Steak and Shake. She stated that all comments have been addressed and there are no outstanding issues. Mr. Platts moved to approve subject to staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Valerino. All in favor. Motion carried. On the Addendum to the Agenda was the consideration of the Final Plat for Country Club Park, Phase 1, a 70 unit, single family residential subdivision located at 500 Upsala Road in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Garard M. Dillard and Barbara A. Dillard; representative: Florida Fine Homes, Steven Neveleff. Steve Neveleff, Florida Fine Homes, was present for representation. Mr. Robert asked about Fossit Groundwork. Mr. Neveleff stated they are not located on this site, they are adjacent. Mr. Neveleff stated that he has no problems with Staff's recommendations. Mr. Robert moved to approve subject to Staff's recommendations.. Seconded.by Mr. McClanahan. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Brooks stated that this Body is suppose to be an objective Body. We are here to listen to testimony and to hear what is being proposed and decide accordingly. He stated that what makes him most MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1995 PAGE 7 uncomfortable is when persons have a tendency to produce commentary rather than report on facts. He stated that if he was a person applying for a request he did not need to know personal feelings concerning what it is that he is proposing. He stated that he needs to know that this Board is structurally sound and it is in accordance with what is usually done and proceed accordingly. As long as it is factual and concerning reviewing what staff has recommended as it applies with the applicant, that is fine with him. Mr. Brooks stated that when it goes overboard and there is talk of personal opinions and what is and where it is more appropriate, then he has a problem with that. Mr. Robert stated that the only time for commentary from the Board membe is after everything has been heard and before the motion, during discussion time. During testimony, the Commission needs to limit discussion to questions. Mr. Valerino stated that the Commission can express personal opinion in the form of questions. Mrs. Stairs stated that the Commission should hold personal comments until discussion. time. Mr. McClanahan stated that he is serious when he says that it would be hard for the members that live in the Historic District to be objective. It will.be har.d.to stay objective on anything dealing in the district but members will be under scrutiny. Mr. Brooks stated that he was very encouraged by the information given in the packet regarding Item 1. He stated that the Commission had two options, two sets of criteria., to approve or deny. All he is asking is that the Commission. look at what Staff has recommended and make those facts known to the applicant. Mr. Robert stated that the Commission tends to lose its objectivity. Clay Simmons has instructed the Commission to remain objective such that the Members do not influence each other. Up until the time for discussion. on the motion, the members should not tip their hands to each other or to the public as to how they side. The Commission. is to be objective. It is a quasi-judicial. body and is to weigh evidence. Mr. Marder stated that he is concerned that there weren't any findings of denial on the first issue. He stated, regarding Mr. Platts comment about a refund, that the applicant chose to apply for a church with the recognition that it really didn't fit the mold. She has a right, as anyone else does, to apply for a conditional use in any SR -1 zone in the City. She placed herself at your mercy. She had the right to chose, there was really no other way other than rezoning. Mr. Marder stated that she was never told that this was guaranteed. She mentioned that there was discussion with a previous staff member, that this was something that was going to be easy, this was never done.. She heard what she wanted to hear at the time. Certainly, there was no indication that this was a shoe -in. Staff is quite guarded in its responses. Mr. Robert moved to approve the Minutes. Seconded by Mr. McClanahan. All in favor. Motion carried. rRd1�J Helen Stairs, Chairperson From the Director July 28, 1995 of Planning and Devebpment TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Recommendations for Meeting of August 3, 1995 STEVENS - Request conditional use approval to permit a church /wedding chapel for property Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential at 918 South Magnolia Avenue. 1. Site is Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential and includes a two -story single family dwelling with a two -car garage. Site is approximately 132 feet in width along Magnolia Avenue and approximately 117 feet in depth. Total land area is approximately 15,444 square feet or .356 acres. 2. Various single family dwellings are located in the general vicinity of site. 3. The applicant proposes to establish a church. The Land Development Regulations define "Church" as "a premises, or portion of a premises, occupied by a religious organization operated primarily for worship and related activities. The term church does not include day care facilities or educational facilities." Churches are permitted as a conditional use in residential zoning districts. The applicant clearly notes that while the request is for a church, the principal motivation for the request is to establish a wedding chapel which would be considered to be a church- related activity. A sketch plan submitted by the applicant reflects eight on -site parking spaces to be located adjacent to the alley on the west side of the site. The applicant also notes that the proposed wedding services will be attended by no more than 12 people. If there are more people, the applicant has recommended that participants carpool from a public place. The applicant proposes that ceremonies be allowed until 10:00 P.M. on Sundays through Thursdays and until 11:00 P.M. on Fridays and Saturdays. There will be no beer or wine. 4. Question is one of policy regarding whether to permit a church, i.e., a wedding chapel, to be located in this neighborhood. The Planning and Zoning Commission has considered several "alternative" uses within the SR -1 Zoned area including bed and breakfast establishments, churches and related expansions, two - family dwellings and multiple family dwellings. This request appears to be a unique one. As such, the following alternative recommendations are provided for the Planning and Zoning Commission's consideration as appropriate: Planning Recommendations - Page 1 A. If the Commission desires to approve the conditional use permit to allow a church with the primary activity being a wedding chapel, the following conditions and stipulations may be considered: Approval is subject to annual review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, as needed 2. All parking related to the proposed use shall be on -site; 3. Site plan as well as all exterior changes to the building and premises shall be subject to and required to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historical Preservation Board as well as approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 4. The time frames for conducting wedding ceremonies shall be as set forth in applicant's letter attached to application (or as may otherwise be deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission ). 5. There shall be no beer or wine. 6. Other conditions or stipulations that may be deemed appropriate, i.e., a reasonable time limit within which construction or occupancy shall begin or been completed, or both. B. If the Commission desires to deny the conditional use permit to allow a church with the primary activity being a wedding chapel, the following reasons may be considered: 1. While the proposed use as a wedding chapel is customarily associated with the principle use of a church, the character of the actual proposed use as a wedding chapel appears to be primarily a retail service that should be located in a commercial area designed and Zoned for such activities, not within the neighborhood in question. 2. Given the existing building and its configuration upon the site, there is insufficient depth to provide a sufficient buffer along parcel lines and along streets to protect the surrounding single family residential uses from potential adverse impact of the proposed conditional use. 3. Since rezoning the area from multiple family residential to SR -1, Single Family Residential in 1983, the City of Sanford has maintained a policy of encouraging single family residential development within the neighborhood in question. The proposed use is an inappropriate one which could adversely affect the public interest and is not compatible with the nature of single family residential development surrounding the premises proposed for change. HICKMAN - Request for conditional use approval to permit a second detached sign for a property with two frontages in a GC -2, General Commercial Zone located at Planning Recommendations - Page 2 1600 West Airport Boulevard. 1. The site is Zoned GC -2, General Commercial and includes an approximately 63,000 square foot shopping center. The site fronts two arterial roads, 25th Street and Airport Boulevard and is generally located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of those roadways. At present there are no existing detached signs located on the site. 2. A convenience store is located at the southeast corner of 25th Street and Airport Boulevard and includes one detached sign. A shopping center north of site has two detached signs, one for the center and its main tenants and another for a bank. Other existing commercial uses in the vicinity of site have one detached sign per site. 3. The applicant requests permission to locate two detached signs on the site. 4. Recommend that the request to permit two detached signs be granted because the site is not actually located at the corner of the two frontage streets and therefore does not have the ability to utilize the corner for a single sign visible from both roadways. HICKMAN - Request for a dimensional variance to sign requirements for property Zoned GC -2, General Commercial located at 1600 Airport Boulevard. 1. The applicant requests two dimensional variances: A) Request to permit signage to be located on the property line instead of a five (5) foot setback from the property line for sign adjacent to Airport Boulevard The requirement for a five foot setback for signage is a standard requirement that has been adhered to by commercial establishments since 1988. There has never before been a variance request for this requirement which has been applied to existing as well as new development projects. The request has never been conferred upon other properties within the GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District and does not appear to constitute an undue hardship on the applicant. Therefore, recommend denial of the request to vary the required five foot sign setback because the request does not meet the City's criteria for granting a dimensional variance. B) To permit a detached sign surface area to be 200 square feet instead of 100 square feet, the maximum permitted by the ordinance for shopping centers of under 65,000 square feet. Subject to the above request to place two detached signs on the site, the shopping center in question could have one detached sign with a maximum of one hundred square feet of sign surface area. Recommend that the request for a dimensional variance subject to the condition that neither sign will have a sign surface area of greater than one hundred (100) square feet and subject to the approval of a second detached sign as a conditional use. This recommendation is based on the configuration of the existing buildings on the site and the access from two major roadways. Planning Recommendations - Page 3 BALL - Request for a dimensional variance to permit a chain link fence to be located within the front yard for property Zoned GC -2, General Commercial located at 200 North Star Court. 1. The site is Zoned GC -2, General Commercial and includes an existing building utilized in the retrofitting of customized emergency vehicles. 2. Applicant requests permission to locate chain link fence within a portion of the required front yard in order to surround a drainage retention facility located within the required front yard. The requested chain link fence is in place; City staff allowed the applicant to complete the fencing of the retention area subject to approval of a dimensional variance by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Recommend approval of the request to allow a chain link fence in the front yard setback because it is a minimal variance to reasonably use the land which is adjacent to a minor street in an industrial area that will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public interest or welfare. Planning Recommendations - Page 4