Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.20.94FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR October 14, 1994 4� TO: Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, 7 :00 P.M., Thursday, October 20, 1994, in the City Commission Chaabers, City Hall, Sanford, Florida AGENDA 1. Hold a P ublic Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for the establishment of minimum parcel areas minimum parcel widths at building lines and minimum yards: 50 foot wide residential building lots and a 104 unit Preliminary Subdivision Plan for property located at 4000 Country Club Road in a MR -1, Multiple Family Residential Zoning District. Owner: Mach N. Cleveland and Patricia T. Stenstrom Representative: Udo Garbe 2. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional variance for property located at 4000 Country Club Road in an MR - 1, Multiple Family residential Zoni District for the purpose of rear yard setbacks, 20' proposed, 25 required, a variance of 51. Owner: rack N. Cleveland and Patricia T. Stenstrom Representative: Udo Garbe 3. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional variance for property located at 1 505 W. 1 3th Street in a GC- 2, General Commercial Zoning District, for the reduction of parking space width, 10 required; 9 proposed - a variance of 1 1 . Owner: Rescue Outreach Mission Representative: Bristol C. Conklin 4 . Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional variance f or property located as the SE quadrant of 1-4 and S.R. 4 6 , Seminole Towne C enter, - in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District, for the purpose of the reduction of parking space requirement .25 /seat proposed, 0.3 /seat required; reduction of the minimum parking space width to 9'x181 proposed, 10'x201 required; to increase the number of free standing signs from 1 to 2; and a variance from the required landscape buffer, tree requirements and visual screening. Owner: Seminole Investors Representative: 'Thomas Schneider S. Consider the Site Plan for the Open Door Shelter for women and Children, a residential care facility, for property located at 1505 W. 13th Street in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District. Owner: Rescue Outreach Mission Representative: Bristol C. Conklin 6. Consider the Site Plan for Dot 3, Northstar Business Park, Phase 2, a wholesale storage use located at 511 Central Park Drive in a RI -1, Restricted Industrial Zoning District. Owner: Davis Enterprises, Inc. Representative: Harry Reynolds (Ta bled 10/6/94) AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1994 PAGE 2 7. Consider the Site Plan for Dial Call, Inc., a cellular tower site located at 3141 Narcissus Avenue in a RI -1, Restricted Industrial Zoning District. Owner: Mary Breneman /Dial Call, Inc., lessee Representative: James E. Bennett S. Consider the Site Plan for Parisian Department Store, a commercial use located at 350 Towne Center Circle in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Seminole Towne Center Limited Partnership Representative: Ed Eitzen 9. Consider the Preliminary Plat for Sanford Central Park, Phase 2, Bauerle Place at Sanford Central Park and Sanford Central Park Phase I - Replat, industrial parks, located in a RI -1, Restricted Industrial. Zoning District. Owner: Codisco, CBC Industrial Park, Sanford Central Park Representative: Loren Howard 10. Consider the request for a waiver allowing a chain link fence in the front yard of 128 wax Myrtle Drive, a single family residence, located in a SR-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District. Owner /representatives: Donald & Karen Robinson (Tabled 10/6/94) 11. Consider the request for an exception to the sidewalk requirements along Lake Mary Boulevard for the Seminole County Educational Services Center, located at 400 E Lake Mary Boulevard in a GC-2, General Commercial Zoning District. 12. Consider a request to waiver landscaping requirements for an existing pole sign for property located at 2942 S. Orlando Drive (corner of Airport and 17 -92 -old Zayre Plaza) . Owner: Seminole County Expressway Authority Representative: Marci Carter, Habitat for Humanity 13. Any other business from floor or Commission Members. 14. Reports from Staff. 15. Approval of 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. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1994 7 :00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynn Stogner James Valerino Joe Dennison Hen Dyal Mike Davis Helen Stairs Ross Robert MEMBERS ABSE Leon Brooks Cynthia Holt - Miller OTHERS PRESENT : Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Russ Gibson, Associate Planner Bettie Sonnenberg. -Land Development Coordinator Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. The first item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for the establishment of minimum parcel areas; minimum parcel widths at building lines and minimum yards: 50 foot wide residential building lots and a 104 unit Preliminary Subdivision Plan for property located at 4000 Country Club Road in a MR -1, Multiple Family Residential Zoning District. Owner: Mack N. Cleveland and Patricia T. Stenstromf representative: Udo Garbe. Udo Garbe, Park Avenue Development, 1340 Lakeview Drive, Winter Park, stated that he was the architect and planner for this project. He stated that his firm has completed several quality subdivisions in the Orlando area including Country Club Oaks which is about a mile south of the subject property and developed Meadowbrook which is on Country Club Road. He introduced Randy June of June Engineering and Dr. Storm Richards, the environmentalist for this project. Mr. Garbe stated that they are proposing a 104 single family subdivision with lot sizes of 50 These homes will be in the price range starting at $100,000, and up, and will vary between 1200 to 1600 square feet in size. 'there will be an entrance feature on both sides of Country Club Road. He stated that Mayfair Club will be directed to adult homeowners and will be governed by a homeowner's association, and will have an architectural review board which will guarantee the standards of the homes. Mr. Garbe stated that the zoning will allow for 160 units without requiring any variances or any conditional uses. His firm evaluated the situation and determined that it would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood to put in 160 homes. They decided to donsize the units from 160 to 104 homes which will blend in with the neighborhood and be an asset to the community. He stated that they will try to preserve all the oak trees on the property. Mr. Garbe stated that Mayfair Club complies with all rules and regulations of the City and with the Camp Plan. He requested that the Commission grant the conditional use and the variance and approve the preliminary site plan. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1994 PAGE 2 Randy June of June Engineering, 71 E. Church Street, Orlando, stated that they did not have all the available information regarding the drainage but that they have put forth an effort to obtain the soils and the environmental information. With respect to the requirements of the City and St. Johns River water Management District, Mr. June stated that there are guidelines that have to be adhered to and followed. He stated that all guidelines, rules, regulations, and requirements will be strictly adhered to. Mr. June stated that they have developed pre- and post- conditions relative to stormwater. There are concerns with the western tract, regarding flooding. They will create an outfall pipe to the east to relieve this situation. Mr. June stated that the plans are preliminary in design and that they have worked closely with Mr. Holloway of the Engineering Department. He stated that the interior development will have a curb and gutter system and 24' wide streets. They are proposing buffers in the form of walls for the front of the project. There will be a central water, sewer, and a reuse water system that will be extensions of the City systems. Dr. Storm Richards, 1804 Maple Avenue, stated that during his initial investigation, there were 32 tortoise burrows located. He has contacted the Florida Game and Fresh dater Fish Commission for permits to relocate the tortoises. There are a number of bird species that will need to be protected. other protected species are not located on Mr. Garbe's property. There was no one else present to speak in f avor of the request. In opposition was Mr. Charles Joyce of 582 Harday Place, Lake Mary. He entered into the record a petition with approximately 300 signatures of residents of the surrounding community. He also entered into the record a letter from the Sanford Historic Trust, James Straehla, President, which opposes the development. Mr. Joyce stated that procedurally, notices must be mailed 10 days prior to the meeting which in this case was not done and it is substantial prejudicial. He stated that the notices were postmarked on October 11, 1994. The surrounding residents have not had time to do an engineering review. He stated that some of the concerns are that Loch Arbor and Country Club oaks have large lot developments. The houses sell for $150,000 and up. The property values will diminish if this request is approved. Mr. Joyce stated that development of the Crossings looks terrible after only 3 or 4 years. There will be a lot of traffic and a lot of crime. The City Police will have a hard time policing the area. He stated that he and the other residents do not want this type of development in the neighborhood. He stated that there will be no greenbelt.., no tennis courts, and no swimming pool. Kids will come from this development and disrupt the other developments with these amenities. The traffic on the road is very heavy now and with the addition of this development, it will only add to the problem. Mr. Joyce stated that country Club Road is a two lane road with no setbacks. There are drainage issues of jurisdictional wetlands. He asked what will they do with all the water. Mrs. Stairs moved to table until the advice of proper legal council could be obtained. Seconded by Mr. Dyal. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 4000 Country Club Road in an MR -1, Multiple Family Residential Zoning District for the purpose of rear yard setbacks, 20' proposed MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1994 PAGE 3 25' required, a variance of 5 owner: Mack N. Cleveland and Patricia T. Stenstrom; representative: Udo Garbe. Mr. Dyal moved to table. Seconded by Mr. Stogner. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 1605 W. 13th Street in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District, for the reduction of parking space width, 10 required; 9'x20' proposed -- a variance of 1 Owner: Rescue Outreach Mission; representative: Bristol C. Conklin. Mr. B. C. Conklin of Conklin Porter and Holmes Engineers stated that he is on the Board of Trustee of Rescue outreach Mission and was representing the request. He stated that the new building will be a shelter for women and children. There is a real need for a separate shelter. Mr. Conklin stated that the shelter will house 26 women and children, and 4 staff members. The parking space requirement is 6 parking spaces for clients and 2 parking spaces for staff. There will be a separate service entrance which will lessen traffic and ease parking. There is plenty of backing and turning room. Mr. Conklin stated that this project certainly would not be a detraction to the neighborhood. Mrs. Stairs moved to approve. Mr. Dyal seconded. 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 as the SE quadrant of I -4 and S.R. 46, Seminole Towne Center, in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District, for the purpose of the reduction of parking space requirement .25 /seat proposed, 0.3 /seat required; reduction of the minimum parking space width to 9 proposed, 10 required; to increase the number of free standing signs from 1 to 2; and a variance from the required landscape, buffer, tree requirements and visual screening. owner: Seminole Investors; representative: Thomas Schneider. Thomas. Schneider of Simon Property Group stated that they are requesting 1 parking space for every 4 seats. This will be a 2700 seat theater. He stated that they are asking to reduce the parking spaces from 810 to 675 spaces. Mr. Schneider explained that the types of uses at the Mall operate at different peak hours so there would be additional parking. The survey done by United Artists showed what the average peak hours are. There is a 50% occupancy rate at any one time with staggered show times. Peak hours for the theater would be in the evening which typically is not the peak hour for the Mall. He stated that they had checked with other theaters in other areas and .25 ratio for parking spaces is being used. Mr. Dyal asked if 9'x18' parking spaces are allowed for the other uses of the Mall. Mr. Marder stated Byes ". Mr. Schneider stated that they are adhering to extended landscaping requirements but are doing it in more concentrated areas. They plan to keep the design of landscaping for the theater the same as with other areas of the Mall. There will be two entrances to the complex. The landscaped entrances will separate adjoining entities. The signage request was made because of the distance that the building sits off of Towne Center Blvd. He stated that they are requesting two signs but may utilize only one. Mr. Valerino asked if the present requirement is .3 per seat that would amount to 810 parking spaces? Assuming that the 9x18 size is MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1994 PAGE 4 used would it require mor land. Mr. Schneider stated "yes". If the spaces were larger they would need more acreage or asphalt to provide spaces. The drawing is scaled out at 9'x18' parking spaces. Mr. Valerino asked if overflow parking would be an easy access as opposed to walking 5 blocks to get to movie theater. Mr. Schneider stated that the configuration is landscaped curb, so it would be quite easy. The only thing to traverse would be a curb. Mr. Stogner stated that two small cinemas, Litchfield and the Renaissance have matinees on the weekend. It is very difficult to get a parking space. Mr. Schneider explained that the theater is a part of the center. This theater will be using a 4 to 1 ratio that is recognized as being acceptable. Mr. Stogner stated that the daily occupancy rate is less than 50 %. The real problem will be getting parking spaces on the weekends. Mr. Schneider stated that the required ratio for commercial development and retail space, is below what is being provided at the Mall. They are providing 800 to 1000 parking spaces more than what is required by code. The Mall will have about 5500 parking spaces, with a 130 parking space shortfall on the theater. Mr. Dyal moved for approval as presented. Seconded by Mr. Valerino . Mr. Davis asked if something could be done to revise the parking space requirements in the LDR so that the Commission doesn't end up at every meeting discussing the size and number of parking spaces required. Mr. Marder stated that the Commission could come back and look at size requirements. Staff, at one time, did recommend that size requirements be changed but the Commission had decided that was not a good idea. Mr. Marder stated that Planning and Zoning could study the general. standards used that are across the board. Changes can be made at anytime. Mr. Marder stated that the intent and purpose of the request was for the theater only. He explained that the Gateway Development received across the board variances for their development. Mr. Schneider asked that since the legal description for this request included the total M 11 site, if the layout of parking, size of parking, and landscaping was for the total Mall or just the theater. Mr. Dennison st ted "the theater only". All in favor. Motion carried. The next it m on the Agenda was the consideration of the Site Plan for the Op n Door Shelter for women and Children, a residential care facili., y, for property located at 1605 W. 13th Street in a GC- 2, General Commercial Zoning District. owner: Rescue Outreach Mission; representative: Bristol C. Conklin. Mr. Conklin' explained that this project is a labor of love as far as Conklin Porter and Holmes Engineers are concerned. He stated that several of the individuals who worked on the project did not charge the Mission f or services. Mr. Dyal moved for approval. Mr . Stogner seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the Site Plan for Lot 3, Northstar Business Park, Phase 2, a wholesale storage use located at 611 Central Park Drive in a RI -1, Restricted Industrial Zoning District. Owner: Davis Enterprises, Inc.; representative: Harry Reynolds. (Tabled 10/6/94). Mr. Dyal moved to remove from the table. Mrs. Stairs seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Dick Holsombach, 452 Valley Terrace, Deltona, was present for representation. Mr. Robert questioned the retention pond MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1994 PAGE 5 traversing adjacent land to the north and asked if a retention pond could be created on -site. Mr. Holsombach stated that the retention will be contiguous along all the lots in the rear. Mr. Robert moved to approve per Staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Dyal. Mr. Davis opposed. All others in favor. The next item for consideration was the Site Plan for Dial Call, Inc., a cellular tower site located at 3141 Narcissus Avenue in a RI -1, Restricted Industrial Zoning District. owner: Mary Breneman /Dial Call, Inc., lessee; representative: James E. Bennett. Mr. Dyal moved to table due to lack of representation. Seconded by Mr. Robert. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the Site Plan for Parisian Department Store, a commercial use, located at 350 Towne Center Circle in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Seminole Towne Center Limited Partnership; representative: Ed Eitzen. Due to lack of representation, Mr. Dyal moved to table. Seconded by Mr. Stogner. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item for consideration was the Preliminary Plat for Sanford Central Park, Phase 2, Bauerle Place at Sanford Central Park and Sanford Central Park Phase I - Replat, industrial parks, located in a RI -1, Restricted Industrial Zoning District. owner: Codisco, CBC Industrial Park, Sanford Central Park; representative: Loren Howard. Loren Howard, 903 W. 3rd Street, was present to represent the developers. He asked if the Commission would approve the preliminary plat subject to the engineering being worked out with Mr. Holloway of City Staff. Mrs. Sonnenberg noted that Staff is recommending preliminary plat approval. Mr. Robert moved for approval per Staff's recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Stogner. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item for consideration was the request for a waiver allowing a chain link fence in the front yard of 128 flax Myrtle Drive, a single family residence, located in a SR -1, Single Family Residential Zoning District. Owner /representatives: Donald & Karen Robinson. (Tabled 10 /6 /94). Mr Dyal moved to remove from the table. Seconded by Mrs. Stairs. All in favor. Motion carried. Karen Robinson of 128 Wax Myrtle Drive stated that the fence has existed for a year and a half. She stated that she had phoned the City and someone told her that she did not need a permit to install the fence. She stated that she would rather not have to take the fence down. Mrs. Stairs asked if there was a homeowner's association where she resides. Mrs. Robinson stated that the third phase of Hidden Lake does not have an existing homeowner's association. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that a complaint was called in and code enforcement sent a letter. When there was no action taken, it went to code enforcement. It was then Ms. Robinson put in her request for a waiver. Mr. Davis asked if at the time when the fence was put in, was it in accordance with code regulations. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated "no ". Mr. Marder explained that a person does not need a building permit to put in a fence but per the LDR, does need Planning and Zoning approval. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1994 PAGE 6 Mrs. Robinson explained the reasons for the fence stating that she has small animals and that teens have ran motorized vehicles in her yard. She stated that her attorney advised them that if one of the teens gets hurt on her property that she could be liable. He advised her to put up a fence. Mr. Robert asked where is fence in relation to property line. Ms. Robinson stated that it is 10' off the proposed property line. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated it appears that the fence is right on the property line. John Koshel, 135 wax Myrtle Drive, Sanford, and 849 Turtle Mound Drive, Casselberry, stated that this is the only fence of this type that exists in the development. There are deed restrictions that prohibits this type of fencing. Mr. Koshel noted that in Plat Book 1475 Page 81 of the 'Public Records, it specifically make reference that no fence or wall shall be erected, without a minimum building setback line of 25' from the front lot line. He stated that in the 1988 zoning regulations of this area, that chain link fencing specifically cannot be within 25' of the front lot line. Mrs. Stairs. noted that this is a homeowner's association violation. Mr. Koshel stated that every property owner must subscribe to the deed restrictions. Mr. Dennison noted that residential waivers and exemptions may be sought to the Planning & Zoning Commission for approval. He asked Mr. Koshel what was his real objection. Mr. Koshel stated that this was inappropriate in the neighborhood and that there is no rationalization for the fence. He stated that front line fencing is not permitted according to the deed restrictions. Mr. Dyal asked if the Commission allows t e waiver for the fence and it is in violation with the deed restri tions, then what? Mrs. Stairs stated that the Commission could not override the deed restrictions. Mr. Dyal noted the final app oval would have to come from the homeowner's association and if any action taken here, it would have to be taken up with the homeowners association. Mr. Marder noted that the city does not enforce deed restrictions. Mr. Dyal moved for approval as presented. Seconded by Mr. Stogner. . Mr. Robert asked if the motion included that the homeowner move the fence off City property. Mr. Dyal stated that the motion is to leave the fence as is. Mrs. Robinson stated that she had the fence put in G" of concrete so that it would not sag or become unsightly over time and it will be very hard to move the fence. Mrs. Stairs abstained. All others in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the request for an exception to the sidewalk requirements along Lake Mary Boulevard for the Seminole county Educational Services Center, located at 400 E Lake nary Boulevard in a GC-2, General Commercial Zoning District. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that the applicant withdrew consideration of the request at this time because the issue is in negotiation with Seminole County. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of a request to waiver landscaping requirements for an existing pole sign for property located at 2942 S. Orlando Drive (corner of Airport and 17 -92 -old Zayre Plaza).Owner: Seminole County Expressway Authority; representative: Marci Carter, Habitat for Humanity. There was no one present for representation. Mr. Dennison noted that this would be a temporary sign. Mrs. Sonnenberg explained MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1994 PAGE 7 that Habitat for Humanity wants to put a sign on the existing pole advertising the Habitat for Humanity Thrift Store. She stated that this is a charitable organization. Mr. Robert moved to approve subject to Staff's recommendations. Seconded Mr. Valerino. Mr. Dyal stated that he was concerned when the Commission votes and do not have representation for a request. Mr. Valerino agreed with Mr. Dyal noting that it may be setting a precedent. Mr. Robert withdrew his motion. Mr. Dyal moved to table. Seconded by Mrs. Stairs. Mr. Davis opposed. All others in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Marder noted that because of the concern on the part of the Commission regarding floor elevations, staff has implemented a procedure whereby a developer must place the building 16" above the crown of the road or they must provide sealed engineering proof with data proving it can actually work and proof of liability insurance. Mr. Robert moved to approve the minutes as circulated. Mr. Dyal seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Dennison asked Staff to plan a workshop regarding parking. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 P . M. Ct Joe OWennison, = Chairman FORM 86 MEMOPIkNDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FAR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCALF JBLIC � LAST N ME— �IR51' NAME! � DU E NAME N OF BOARD. COUNCIL, C M15SION. AU ORITI', OR C()MMITTfE' T BOARD. C )U CIL. C'OMMISSIO '7FIORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON MAILING AUDRC5 WHlC SERVO S A UNIT OF. I . {'ff!' .: COUNTY OTHER IAC'At AGENCY C'IT1 L1ATE ON v�'HI� VC)�1' 6 16 ;� 'ou 'rl" 4NA L' PoLITI Bf # Fob: MY PLA&M10 '15: ..; ELECTIVE ' ' A PP01h1T1 E WHO MAST FILE FORM This four, i for use b y an person s rving at the county, ci ty, o r other local lewf of gove rnment on are appointed or elected board, ouni! co mmission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of adviso and non bodies w ho are presented with a otin eonfliot of` interest under edit l l l , Fl tatutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; althou g the � use of this articular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. p Your re s p onsibilities under the la w when faced with a measure in which you have a con flict'of interest will vary greatly depending y o n whether u hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay cl attention to the i nstruc tions on this f orm before completing the reverse side and filing 'the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 142,34 3, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A erson holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures p a meas i r i p rohibited from knowingly voti rs ure which inures to the special to his special p gain. Each local officer also �� p � g g o gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either rase, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from vofin ; a WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this four: with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in. the minutes. APPOINTED T OFFICERS: ' person hold ing appointive unl municipal, or other local public o office MUST T ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which p inures to his special private gain. Each local offi er also i s prohibited i from kno ingl y vot ing on a measur e w h ic h inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whoffi he is retained. person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which h he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influerice the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. l K ANY ATT EMPT T INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR T TIME I i TII AT WHICH IF Y IfT T' y . THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . • You should complete and file this form (before making a ny attempt to influence the decision) with the p erson resp onsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. a A c pv of the form should be provided immediatel y to the other members of the agency. • The form should b e read publicly at t meeting prior to consideration o the matter in which you have conflict of interest. IF YOU M AR `N �A7I' 11rIPT TO I FLUENCE THE DtC I ION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION, AT THE MEETI NG You should disclose orally the nature of - your conflict in the measure before participating. • Y ou should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minute ` of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. ' } 5 DISCLOSURE of LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST . hereby disclose that on a) A measure 'carne or will come before mfr agency which check one) V nured to my special private gain; or 1 inured t the special gain of , b Thorn 1 any retained. N The measure before tiny agency and the na ture of mfr interest in the measure is as follows: D o?� Date Filed 'i qr Signaturc NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS O FLORIDA STATISTS §112.317 (1985), A FAIWRE TO MAKE ANY REQUIR Lf DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE O THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR S USPENSION FROM OFFICE OIL EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION., REDUCTION INT SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIV IL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED 55,000. FORM 86 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER'LOCAL LAST P4AME —rikST ArL , M1DL)Lk NAM A i MAILING , 1. DRE ' ' 2v) / 0, 4V 'ITS' _f�0.4 Lo DATE ON W HICH I A 40 _11 C'OU 'ry I \ICCURRIE CONFLICT FOR i JBLIC OFFICERS I N (lr !K LUU Nt- IL, 1- %RM PW L RVKI 1 1. LJ1% k.. %ymnr11 5 1 G L 1 100 THE BOARD. C'OUNC'IL, OOMMIS, 103 . Z'fHORITY. oR COMMITTEE CAN WHICH I SERVE: IS A i. NIT F; ('j - r Y , , C'oLlwry 1 ` OTHER LOCAL AG NAME F PC)LIT C'++ L SUBUIVISIo 0 000 V/ '01 S. MY POSITION IS. ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FIU FORK! 8 T'hts form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed Gr elected board, commission authority, or committee, 11 applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented c ouncil, � , with a votin conflict of interest under a tion 11.1 , Florida Statutes. The req uirements of this law are nmandator ;although t � he use of this articular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the lam when faced with a measure in Which you h ave a conflict . of inte rest wi ll va greatly depending on whether Y ou hold are elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this f orm before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112,3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: p erson holding .elective county, municipal, or other Iocal public office l iUST AE 'T`AI N from voting ors a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures t the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO T14E VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on whi you are abstaining from voting; are W ITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER TIME MOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting„ w ho should incorporate the form in the minuses. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive edunty, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingl y voting on a measure which inures to the special gain o a principal (other than a government agency) by whore he is retained. person holding an appointive local office otherwise ma y participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before reaping an y attempt to influence the decision b y oral or written communication, whether inade by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MATE AN ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE CE THE. DECISION P TO THE MEETING T W HICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You should complete and file this form (bef= rn king any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. • A cop of t he form should be provided iminediatel , to the other member of the agency. e The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. IF YOU DARE NO ATTEMPT TO I- FLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: * You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. r • Y ou should complete the f orm and f it wit hin 15 days after t he vote occurs with the person responsible f or r ecording the minute ' of the mceli , who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE O F LOCAL OFFICER'S INTER hereby disclose that on. 19 7 a measure tame or will come before my a w hich (chee one 4 . inured to tiny s privatc gain; or t� s pecial gain of 4 by whom I am retained. inured to the p (b ) The measure before mfr agency and the nature of my interest in the 'measure is as follows: 1 /0 aw �5CM 4, e9jo O'f, AOO AP 1 C 04 P, d.. mk-.. , M.- 4 i@w, 10 mb � N OTICE: UNDER PROV OF FLORIDA STATUTES §11 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY RE U IREIf DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIV IL PENALTY ' NOT TO EXCEED $59000. From the Director Planning SUBJECT: Recommendations for Meeting of October 20, 1994 PARK AVENUE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Request conditional use approval of a preliminary subdivision plan to permit a single family residential subdivision with fifty foot wide lots for property Zoned MR -1, Multiple Family Residential located on Country Club Road. 1. Site is Zoned MR -1, Multiple Family Residential and includes approximately 20 acres. Site is basically vacant at the present time. Proposed use is 104 single family residential dwellings pursuant to a preliminary subdivision plan submitted with the application. 2. Site is adjacent to various single family dwellings and a golf course. 3. Recommend approval of the request to establish 104 dwellings on site based on similar residential character of adjacent area. PARK AVENUE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Request a dimensional variance for rear yard building setbacks and retention pond fence requirement for property located on Country Club Road. 1. Site is Zoned MR -1, Multiple Family Residential and includes approximately 20 acres. Site is basically vacant at the present time. Proposed use is 104 single family residential dwellings pursuant to a preliminary subdivision plan submitted with the application. 2. Site is adjacent to various single family dwellings and a golf course. 3. The applicant requests a dimensional variance to the rear building setback from Country Club Road from 25 to 20 feet. This variance is actually being requested due to the City's base building line setback from the centerline of the road right -of -way. Future right -of -way needs for county- maintained Country Club Road have been met in an 80' wide proposed right -of -way shown on the preliminary subdivision plan. Therefore, the intent and purpose of the City's LDR has been met. 4. Recommend approval of the setback variance based on compliance with the Planning Recommendations - Page 1 TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission intent and purpose of the City's Land Development Regulations which is intended to provide for future right -of -way needs for major roadways. NOTE: The request to vary the fence requirement around retention ponds is not considered in the dimensional variance process. CONKLIN PORTER & HOLMES/OPEN DOOR SHELTER FOR WOMEN & CHILDREN - RESCUE OUTREACH MISSION - Request a dimensional variance to permit a reduced parking space size for property Zoned GC -2, General Commercial located on the south side of West 13th Street. The site is Zoned GC -2, General Commercial and is basically vacant at the present time. 2. Site fronts West 13th Street which is part of a historic neighborhood business district. A number of the buildings do not have adequate off - street parking. Also, a number of the buildings are not set back from the right -of -way. 3. The applicant has submitted justification for the parking space size variance requested from 10' x 20' to 9' x 20'. The applicant cites the special nature of the use (a shelter from women and children) and other on -site vehicular circulation considerations. 4. Recommend that the request for a dimensional variance of parking space size be approved as requested based on existing character of the immediate area and justification submitted by the applicant. SCHNEIDER /SEMINOLE INVESTORS - Request a dimensional variance for visual screen, parking size and number of parking space requirements for property Zoned PD, Planned Development located at Seminole Towne Center. Site includes Tract 15 of the Seminole Towne Center Replat. The site is vacant and is proposed to be utilized as a cinema. 2. Regarding the reduction of the parking space size, the request to provide a 9' x 18' space instead of the required 10' x 20' space is similar to the dimensional variance granted for the adjacent mall site. 3. Regarding the reduction of the number of required parking spaces from .3 spaces per seat to .25 spaces per seat as requested, the applicant sites various "per seat" ratios and parking demand statistics from other cinemas with similar requirements. In general the applicant claims that, due the large number of screens the parking requirements are lower than the City requirement and there are many similar multiple screen cinemas that provide similar parking ratio's to that proposed by the applicant. 4. The applicant proposes that there be two signs rather than one. This is normally requested as a conditional use. However, since it is a dimensional requirement within a PD, Planned Development project, it is recommended for Planning Recommendations - Page 2 consideration as a dimensional variance. The applicant justifies the request for an additional sign because the cinema is to be located over 800 feet from a public road (Towne Center Boulevard). 5. The applicant requests that parking landscape requirements be varied in a manner that is similar to the main mall site. Specifically, due to the large number of individual landscape areas required (one every 10 spaces), the applicant requests that an equivalent amount of landscape be provided in larger landscaped strips every third bay rather than numerous smaller areas. 6. Recommend that the requested dimensional variances for parking space size, number of required parking spaces, additional free standing sign and alternative landscape provisions be approved based on similar variances already provided in the immediate area and based on justification submitted by applicant. Planning Recommendations - Page 3 Ock 20, «aq PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR -IAA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and i therefore adversely affect the health safety and welfare of�propeLty owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. °l�lon e 2 S �yo7 32s L�6 /� ?WS3a -5677 to r r 4 [ c �i 8�f5 Y ?7 -7 (zy 32 "7y1� aZ ql (P g7 V6 —V4 of r � 0'f to fly 6 7 1A. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the proposed plat for the following reasons; 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods ; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan ; and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR -IAA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and therefore adversely affect the health, sgft and welfare of property owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS P(I o n Q- PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals. objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR -IAA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and therefore adversely affect the health safety and welfare of property owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. KA+l t F I T fy PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the, proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals, objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan ; and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR -1 AA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and therefore adversely affect the health_, safety and welfare of property owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. 3� PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS f �1 o m e— PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals, objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR - lAA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and therefore adversely affect the health safety and welfare of property owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS V6 �y6 f6 - `P 144 q tn) k*7 >93 4zs9 P73 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR -IAA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and therefore adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of property owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR -IAA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and therefore a dversely affect the health, safety and welfare of property owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS / 0irL- PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods ; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR -IAA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and therefore adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of property owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS N 7 but 0 "A PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR -IAA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and therefore adversely affect the health safety and welfare of property owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS 7 ?73 77"3 L-77 j 7 >_ 7 '3 73 I Y' l Q jf� .� a -;" -/I `I PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) tv. OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR -IAA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and therefore adversely affect the health safety and welfare of property owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS Q. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods ; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR -IAA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and therefore adversely affect the health safety and welfare of property owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. KA +l-J 3 c2 74 ` `151 a3 -6oq� y'S099 PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS i4�D2�s s /ZZ + +t scv� 04t, U[,�j / —E — 3-21 1 1 - XI � 6 � (Z' PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PARK AVENUE PLAT (proposed location on both sides of Country Club Rd., south of Mayfair Golf Course) OCTOBER, 1994 We, the undersigned property owners are in opposition to the proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density, lot and house sizes are incompatible with the densities, lot sizes and house sizes in the areas adjacent to the proposed development site and within the surrounding neighborhoods; and 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with numerous goals objectives and policies adopted in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and 3. The approval of the proposed development at densities greater than those allowed under the SR -lAA Zoning Classification will adversely affect surrounding property values and therefore adversely affect the health safety an welfare of property owners adjacent to the site and within surrounding neighborhoods. > 7) 7'73 773 7 J �3 c_ PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS