Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.03.93FROM THE LAID DEVELOPMENT �C CORD 2 NATOR May 28 , 1993 �p�� ldr� TO: Planning and Zoning Co mission SUBJECT: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Coit4 fissi 7:00 P.M. Thursd June 3, 1993, in the City Commission chambers City Hall, Sanford, Florida AGENDA 1. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request to Rezone property located at 2352 E. State Road 46 from SR -1, Single Family Dwelling Residential, to that of PD, Planned Development. Owner: BGM Mining, Inc. Representative: Ted Dewitt (Tabled: 5- 20 -93) 2. Hold a Public Hearing to consider an application for a Dimensional Variance for property located at the southeast quadrant of I -4 and S.R. 46 in a Planned Development Zoning District, for multi - purpose commercial uses. Owner: Seminole Towne Center, Limited Partnership Representative: Thomas Schneider 3. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 2002 French Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District, for an addition to a non- conforming structure (existing restaurant, no change in use). Owner: Donald and Gertrude Roger Representative: Interplan Practice, Ltd. 4. consider the Site Plan Plan for for an addition to Pizza Hut r nd a parking lot expansion for Pizza Hut, a restaurant use, located at 2002 French Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial .Zoning District. Owner: Donald and Gertrude Royer Repre-sentative: Gil Faucher 5. Consider the request for an extension of the site plan approval for Beardall Industrial Park, located at 2511 Beardall Avenue in a RI - Restricted Industrial Zoning District. Owner: Theodore & Ann Takvorian Represettative: Michael J. Napolitan (6 month's extension of the approval of the revised site plan until 6/4/93) 6. Any other business from floor or Commission Members. 7. Reports from Staff. ° Barrow Pit - Mining Regulations ° Attendance Information S. 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)0 PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES NEEDING ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD CONTACT THE PERSONNEL OFFICE ADA COORDINATOR AT 330 - 5625 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3p 1993 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAFERS MEFERS PRESENT: John LeRoy Cathryn Welch Leon Brooks Ben Dyal Helen Stairs Cynthia Holt - Miller MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Dennison Tom Speer Mike Davis (excused) OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Bettie Sonnenberg, Land Development Coordinator Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary Acting Chairman 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 to Rezone property located at 2352 E. State Road 46 from SR -1, Single Family Dwelling Residential, to that of PD, Planned Development. owner: BGM Mining, Inc.; representative: Ted DeWitt. (Tabled: 5- 20 -93). Mrs. welch made a motion to remove from the table. Seconded by Ms. Holt- Miller. All in favor. Motion carried. Ken Wright with Shutts & Bowen stated that he was present to represent the applicant. He stated that he would address any concerns and assist as much as possible in the presentation. Mr. Wright introduced Steve Helle, the Civil Engineer responsible for design and permitting; Mr. Pete Kelley, the operations Manager for DeWitt Excavation, and Dr. Devose Sererum, hydrogeologist. Mr. Wright explained that this project is the Club II Borrow Pit, east of town on S.R. 4 6 . He stated that there are, presently under excavation, 80 acres in Seminole County. Excavation has been permitted through Seminole County, DER and SJRWMD. He stated that DeWitt Excavating thought that the 21+ acres are being requesting to be rezoned, were also in Seminole County. The application being considered is the zoning change for the 21 acres contiguous to the existing excavation. Mr. Wright stated that he had learned that there was some confusion and misunderstanding, particularly with residents and with Staff; they felt it was somewhat better to table the request at the previous meeting and to meet with residents to answer questions and to show them photographs to see if they could come to some common ground and to show what is beneficial to the residents. He stated that they had a productive and lengthy meeting. At that meeting, manly residents expressed concerns regarding borrow pit /lake excavation. He stated that because of the demands the County and State have for fill, there has been somewhat of a proliferation of borrow pits. It is cost prohibitive to bring material in from a great distance. There are many misconceptions on the part of residents and city officials regarding lake excavations. The meeting was to answer those misconceptions and Mr. Wright stated that 80 acres being excavated will become a lake. Mr. Wright stated that they are trying to minimize and not have any significantly, permanent negative impacts on the land. If there are to be any negative impacts, they are occurring now. Anything that would have an impact will be within a couple of hundred feet of what is being proposed. He stated that many residents are concerned about water well drawdon. There is a positive water MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1993 PAGE 2 flow to the surface which will create a lake and not have a negative effect on the existing wells. The residents thought that the hole is dug, water would rush in and their well water would drop no longer serving their needs. Mr. Aright explained that when you dig a lake in this area there is a positive water flow coming to the surface. As the sand comes out, the water fills in and is left. He stated that in phase one, the lake has been sealed off, ducks are there, and the water is up to the level that has been permitted. Another-concern that comes with borrow pits, which don't help, is the accessibility to younger people. The owner will be responsible, but the lake will be an attraction to people. Mr. Wright stated that they are not looking at bringing a borrow pit into a residential area, surrounded by residents, as if to bring in something that does not exists. A borrow pit is already under construction. The owner can make concessions providing conditions to the approval, and leave it as an asset to the neighborhood and the City of Sanford. Mr. Wright stated that the design and master plan that was approved by the SJRWMD and DER has a 50' setback with an hourglass configuration. The existing ditch drains into a wetland system. The ditch picks up drainage off 46 and runs generally along the property line. He stated that they propose to reroute the drainage, not through the existing ditch which is functioning poorly, but to divert the flow from the existing ditch and route it into a swale, which can be mowed and walked across. The path may cause some resistance to the flow of water. Mr. Wright stated that at the meeting with the neighbors, he realized they were asking that if the lake continued into the neighborhood, what concessions would be made to make it less accessible. Mr. Wright stated a second plan had been devised as recently as within the last 24 hours. It was presented to some of the neighbors this afternoon. The second plan shows rerouting the ditch into a drainage swale to the west, eliminating the serpentine path of the drainage swale. It has a practical pragmatic effect of shaping these two pieces of property into an hourglass shape design. He stated that this would include the donation of the area cut off from the lake, to the City or County or an association to be used in any way desired. This could be a great recreational park used in conjunction with access to the lake. Mr. Aright stated that grassing, seeding, and mulching of the lake banks would include the placement of trees in.50' increments, and enhance the pedestrian access to the lake. A general commitment from the owner has been obtained to guarantee the enhancement for public use. There will be 85 -86+ acres of lake. Mr. Wright stated that the plan speaks well of what can come from communication with the neighborhood. The plan addressed concerns of the city regarding adequate rerouting of drainage. The drainage would be tipped towards the lake so the neighborhood would not have flood configuration. other conditions beyond requirements of permits and requirements of the City of Sanford would enhance the shoreline with trees and the promulgation of aquatic plants. Also, the owner is committed to coordinate with the Game and Fish Commission for the stocking of the lake with fish when completed. Mr. Wright concluded that it would be completed in less than a year. What would be left would be a lake integrated best into the community and would be better than what would be if a pit were left. He stated that he welcomed all concerns that the neighbors have. Mr. LeRoy asked Mr. Simmons if staff had looked at the latest proposal, stating that staff's comment is from the original proposal and the rim ditch. Mr. Marder stated that Staff has not seen the latest proposal and that comments have not been developed. It has not been reviewed. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1993 PAGE 3 Mr. Brooks asked Mr. Marder, notwithstanding this presentation, what current setbacks would be achieved and if they would still be less than 100 Mr. Marder stated that it does not appear to have the 100' setbacks. Mr. Aright stated that the plan does not include the 100' setback, but rather the plan shows 50' setbacks. He stated that in trying to meet the demands of the neighborhood, it was no small task to meet the demands of the loss of the excavation area that the 100' setbacks would impose. Being able to retain the 50' setback would be better for the owner to handle the loss from the excavation in that area. Mr. Aright showed photographs that was taken within the last couple of weeks showing a lake area being excavated. The water quality in Florida is good and this area is excellent. Mrs. Stairs questioned the very deep hole and its slope. She asked how deep would it be and for the slope elevation. Mr. Wright stated that the regulation scheme for borrow pits is very regulated. The permit that has allowed this design has met the requirements of SJRWMD and DER. He stated that the depth is the maximum appropriate for the hydrogeology in the area with the slope and the shoreline to promote human safety. The lake would become a natural body of water with expectations of the lake looking as the photographs depicted. Mr. Wright stated that the developer has agreed to construct an 8' minimum berm around the portion of property that backs up to the property owners. The 8' berm would be stabilized and maintained to provide a deterrent to the pit itself and to provide somewhat of a sound buffer. He stated that the developer represented himself to the homeowners to exercise and is bound by the practice of management. He stated that this is the only opportunity that will allow this much fill to be taken with minimum impact to the city itself. Mrs. Stairs asked Mr. Wright if he was aware that the City Commission is putting a moratorium on all borrow pits and that staff has recommended denial. She also cautioned the Board that these were things that they needed to be considered. Mr. Wright stated that he was aware in some part of the city Commission's consideration of a moratorium. Mrs. Stairs stated that the Board is a little apprehensive of a second plan because staff has not reviewed it. Mr. Wright stated that whatever the decision is, he could live with it. He stated that they have made every attempt to work with the residents to calm some of their concerns. Therefore, he has been unable to get with City staff. Mrs. Stairs stated that it put the Board at a disadvantage with staff not having reviewed the second plan and suggested that the Board table this until the seconded plan could be reviewed by staff. Mr. Marder stated that since the Board has gone this far in discussing this item, that it should continue and have a full discussion. Bobby Rushing, 122 Drew Ave, stated that some of his concerns deal with no clear statement about who will retain ownership of lake and who will maintain the lake. He has concerns about environment and who would limit access. He stated that there would have to be a moratorium to give the fish and plant life time to seed and grog. He proposed that ownership of the lake be given to the association of Washington oaks and the Midway community to insure that the impacts on the homeowners have no grave effect and that the lake benefit the community. He stated that the lake has to be maintained, weeds have to be mowed, and trash has to be picked up. He stated that the surrounding residents needed clear ownership to establish maintenance for the lake and to make sure that this project would last. He stated that this could be an asset or a liability. Mr. Brooks asked Mr. Rushing if he was in favor of the applicant digging a borrow pit within 50' of his home. Mr. Rushing stated "yes ". Mr. Brooks stated that the Board's decision is whether or MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3 1993 PAGE 4 not they be allowed to do in the City of Sanford what they have been permitted to do in Seminole County. Mr. Brooks stated that the applicant did not anticipate coming here to get permission to do what they are doing in the County. Mr. Brooks stated that he was confused with Mr. Rushing's comments. Mr. Rushing stated that the lake will have impact regardless. If it is to be there, let it be an asset rather than a liability. Mr. Brooks stated that this is the City of Sanford and that right now they do not have permission to do anything within the City and the only control is within the City. Ms. Holt - biller stated that the Board is working under too many assumptions. She asked if the park would be viable to the City and stated that Board needed to hear from the residents with some time limit as to their comments. Janet Bell, 134 Drew Ave., asked that since the Airport is across the street from the project would it benefit the Airport. Mr. Aright stated "yes, that the lake that is existing now, would benefit the Airport." Ms. Bell stated that a 50' setback would not be enough. she asked Mr. Wright if a street could be put it into the rear of the Drew Avenue residents. Mr. Wright stated that this is not a possibility. Ms. Bell stated that she is not in favor of this borrow pit. Sally Sherman, Roseland Park County resident, stated that plans submitted to Seminole County will show that there was not only one borrow pit approved by Seminole County but also a second borrow pit. She stated that this will create a number of lakes around the Roseland Park Community. There are many issues regarding the water flow. She asked if there had been any types of surveys done regarding the drainage ditch. She stated that County CDBG funds have been spent to improve the drainage ditch which lies within Seminole County and not City of Sanford. she stated that she was opposed to this proposal and i ariy proposals that may come to this Commission regarding borrow pits n this area. Ms. Sherman stated that any improvements are being done under code requirements and not for community enhancement. If approved could the applicant post a $100,000 reclamation Fond so if proposals are not met, they could be followed through. James Davis, Drew Ave., stated that the majority of the Washington Oaks residents did not want this borrow pit in their backyards. He asked if this was denied, could the applicants reapply. Mr. Marder stated that they could after one year, unless they submit for special permission, to ask again. Mr. Davis asked if they did reapply, would the City go through the same procedures. Mr. Marder stated "yes ". Mrs. Stairs stated that staff has recommended denial and that the City Commission was doing some investigation into a moratorium. Mr. Davis asked if this Commission could recommend to the City Commission to ban borrow pits within the City forever. He stated that this was what the residents wanted and that they did not want these people coming back asking for this again. Johnell Jackson, 161 Bethune Circle, Sanford, 2371 Water Street in Midway, and a home in Casselberry, asked that this project be disapproved until more investigation is done. He stated that he had invited a congressman to walk through the Midway area to show the areas that need improvements. He stated that they presently have contract approval for property awaiting new homes. The Federal Government helping with the funding for new homes. Mr. Jackson stated that contracts are in the making for developing this area for homes. Mr. Wright stated that if the do not get approval, it would not be catastrophic. This is an opportunity for the landowners to be provided with a lake. He stated that there will be a lake there and asked why not provide the access, the amenities, and the resources for the Washington Oaks residents. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1993 PAGE 5 Mr. Wright stated that this lake would be a little less than two football fields in width. It would accommodate 55 to 60 residents. Only a limited number of lots will have access to the lake. Mr. Dyal noted the Plans Review Committee had .found the plan unacceptable based on negative impacts. He asked Mr. Marder what were the negative impacts. Mr. Marder stated that the negative impacts consisted of the proximity of the mining activity to the homes. The 50' buffer or setback from the property line to the beginning of the slope down to the borrow pit was not sufficient to protect adjacent residential land. The circuitous routing of the ditch is an unacceptable in the resident's backyard. These are two of the main negative impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Marder stated that the applicant looked at and the ignored the City's drainage ditch coming in from the west. Mr. Dyal questioned the water flow and closeness to the lake. Mr. Marder stated that it was not so much as being close to the lake, but the disruption of the neighborhood. Mr. Dyal commented that the water has flowed wrong for years. The Airport flow is wrong. Mr. Dyal asked what buffer was required for a lake? Mr. Marder stated that the buffer was not for the lake but from the mining activity. He stated that there would be several years of the mining activity before a lake was completed. The basic character of the neighborhood was residential. There is a street layout that has a certain plan. Mr. Dyal stated that most of this was marsh and wetlands and is relatively low. Mr. Marder stated that there was quite a bit of land there that would be developable. Mr. Dyal stated that if someone builds on the land they would be next to the county lake. Mr. Marder stated that "yes this is true ", but the area was planned as a residential neighborhood. It has a street plan and it is platted. Mr. Dyal stated therefore it may be o.k. for someone else's home to be built on the lake. He asked, if the Comp Plan allows homes to be built next to a lake. Mr. Marder stated the Comp Plan does not address homes next to a lake. Mr. Brooks moved to deny based on Staff's recommendations; a; that mining uses are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation of low density residential - single family as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and, b; the proposed mining activity is incompatible with the residential land uses already established in the immediate area. It would be difficult to provide sufficient distance for buffers and separation of the borrow pit /mining activity from existing single family dwellings adjacent to the site without disrupting the general welfare of the residents in Washington oaks and Roseland Park. Seconded by Ms. Holt - Miller. Ms. Welch asked if the Commission was comfortable with not having staff's recommendations on the second proposal. She asked if this could be tabled. Mr. Marder stated that there could be complications for the City because of the concept of having the potential of having a dedicated park facility in that location in terms of maintenance responsibility. Five in favor of the motion. Mr. Dyal opposed. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider an application for a Dimensional variance for property located at the southeast quadrant of I -4 and S.R. 46 in a Planned Development Zoning District, for multi- purpose commercial uses. Owner: Seminole Towne Center, Limited Partnership; representative: Thomas Schneider. Tom Schneider, Melvin Simons Associates, Indianapolis Ind., was present representing Seminole Towne Center. Mr. Schneider stated that they had completed the conceptual schematic design phase and are now in design development. He showed some slides and stated that each interior seating area would be landscaped. Mr. Schneider stated that the first variance request was to reduce the open space requirements to that of 21 %. At this stage, it was very difficult to determine open space and they are asking for consideration to be given which would allow them to continue planning engineering in a timely manner. He stated that they will likely exceed the 21% but are comfortable with asking for this MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1993 PAGE 6 reduction. Mr. Schneider also stated that when this project was being planned this open space requirement was not in place. He stated that Towne center Blvd. will be a dedicated street with divided landscaping. He stated that the north connector road would also be dedicated. Mr. Schneider stated that they have completed the east west connector and that 4.5 acres of the area has been dedicated. Mr. Schneider stated that open space requirements for other malls in the area have an open space requirement of 2.5 to 20 %. The second variance setback request of 100 effects only lots 9 and 10. These two tracts have frontage along Towne Center Blvd. although they have no access on Towne Center Blvd. Mr. Schneider stated that they tried to move the ball as far north and as far east as possible. These parcels are required to have a 120' setback. Buildings that will occur on these two tracts will access from the Mall. He stated that they are requesting a variance from 120' to 100'. The grade separation will be sloped and landscaped. Mr. Schneider stated that the third request was signage as it relates to specific lots. He stated that they are requesting that their sign criteria be substituted for the City's sign regulations. He stated that they have not finished, architecturally, the Mall signage. This request only addresses the signage on the peripheral parcels outparcels 8 through 13. The sign criteria is more restrictive that the City's sign regulations. Mr. LeRoy asked if a parcel fronting on two public streets would be allowed two signs. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated "yes ". Mrs. Welch moved to recommend approval based on Staff's recommendations. Seconded by Holt - Miller. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 2002 French Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District, for an addition to a non - conforming structure (existing restaurant, no change in use). owner: Donald and Gertrude Royer; representative: Interplan Practice, Ltd. Gil Faucher, Wellington, Florida, was present for representation. He explained that the existing Pizza Hut is non - conforming because of the setback on the side street. Ms. Holt - Miller stated that the Engineering Department has recommended paving the alley. Mr. Faucher stated that the site plan shows pavement of the alley up to the property line. The alleyway is mostly paved now except for the zone between the property line and the alley. Mr. LeRoy asked where was the addition to the building. Mr. Faucher stated that the addition would be on the southside of the building. A kitchen area will be added for a carryout and delivery business. 2' will be added to the walk -in cooler. There will not be any changes to the dining room. Mr. LeRoy asked if there was any problem with making the one way exit a right turn only. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that there had been no decision on this one way exit although there had been some discussion. Mr. Faucher stated that there was no problem with making this a right turn only. Mr. LeRoy moved to approve. Seconded by Mrs. Welch. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the Site Plan for an addition to Pizza Hut and a parking lot expansion for Pizza ?1INUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 'MEETING OF JUNE 3, 19 PAGE 7 Hut, a restaurant use, located at 2002 French Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District. owner: Donald and Gertrude Roger; representative: Gil Faucher. Mr. LeRoy asked again if there had been any consideration given to making this right hand turn only. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that it had carne up for discussion but no action was taken on it. Mrs. Holt Mi ller stated that Sanford Middle School had required, this, but legally it does not stand. It helps with the flow of traffic, Mr. Faucher stated that they would be adding parking spaces in the back with paving and striping but that the site would basically remain the same. He stated that they will be defining the parking lot. There will be an entrance from the front and from the alley. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that a cross access easement with - adjacent property owner to the south it to be accomplished. Ms. welch moved to approve based on Staff's recommendations of a cross access easement and paving of the alley to the south property line. Ms. Holt- Miller seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the request for an extension of the site plan approval for Beardall Industrial Park, located at 2511 Beardall Avenue in a RI - Restricted Industrial Zoning District. owner: Theodore & Ann Takvorian; representative: Michael J. Napolitan. (6 month's extension of the approval of the revised site plan until 6/4/93). Michael Napolitan, representing the owner, stated that they had not properly anticipated enough time to revise the architectural drawings. The original submission was revised because of the zoning and the airport location. The design of each structure had to be changed to accommodate the unbuildable portion of the project. Mr Napolitan stated that his client is fully prepared to proceed with the project. He believes that they will be able to start within 90 days and stated that a 90 day extension would be acceptable. Mr. Dyal asked how many extensions have they had. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that she believed, 4. Mrs. welch moved to approve the request for the extension of the site plan for 6 months. Seconded by Mr. Brooks. All in favor. Motion carried. Regarding the attendance information included in the agenda package, Mr. Marder stated that the City Commission wanted to find out about the attendance records of all persons being considered for reappointment for Boards - The concern about this Commission was that someone had said there were three meetings that could not be held because of a lack of a quorum. Mr. Marder stated that he could not recall anything recently to this effect. The Commission wanted clarification as to what constitutes an excused absence. Mrs. Stairs stated that she had talked with Mr. McClanahan and that he had said that the only excused absences are those due to illness. Mr. Dyal moved, to approve the minutes as circulated. Mr. Brooks seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P . M . V z V a NIBCOV4.0 ,Oek� Helen Stairs Acting Chairman From the Director of Planning and Development May 28, 1993 TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Recommendations for Meeting of June 3, 1993 DEWITT EXCAVATING. INC. - Request to rezone from SR -1, Single Family Residential to from PD, Planned Development for the purpose of mining for property located south of North Street and north of East 24th Street in the eastern area of the City of Sanford. 1. Site is Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential and is vacant at the present time. Site was originally planned as part of the Washington Oaks subdivision and has access to several stub streets into the developed portion of that development. 2. A large drainage ditch runs along the site's easterly property boundary and appears to be partially located on site. The ditch is part of a system that eventually drains into Lake Monroe. The applicant initially proposed that the ditch be rerouted in a manner that would straddle the western edge of the property adjacent to existing residential development. This method was reviewed by the Plans Review Committee and found to be unacceptable based on its negative impact upon adjacent homes and its questionable feasibility /workability. The applicant then submitted a proposal that showed the drainage flowing directly into the lake /pond area that would be created by the borrow pit. That solution was unacceptable to the St. Johns River Water Management District because the drainage ditch waters are waters of the state and may not be mixed with the waters from the borrow pit. Also, a solution to rerouting the City ditch coming from Washington Oaks, Section 2 and connecting into the main drainage ditch had not been resolved at the date of this writing. 3a. Adjacent land uses include single family dwelling located in the Washington Oaks subdivision Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential and the Roseland Park subdivision Zoned R -1, Single Family Residential located in the unincorporated area adjacent to the site. 3b. The site is also adjacent to land Zoned A -1, Agriculture in the unincorporated area which is presently being utilized for mining. The proposed mining use is basically an extension of the existing mining adjacent to the site. 3c. A small City park is located adjacent to the site. 4. The City's requirements for mining are set forth as follows: "All mining and resource extraction such as but not limited to sand and peat excavation shall be conducted according to an excavation and reclamation plan approved by the Administrative Official. Because of the high potential for surface and groundwater contamination associated with mining and extraction activities, a horizontal impervious layer (possibly including a portion of the extracted resource) shall, if feasible, be left undisturbed and unpenetrated beneath all excavated areas. The amount and location of the impervious layer to remain intact, if any, will be determined by soil surveys prior to excavation. The mining operator or owner shall submit to the Administrative Official said excavation and reclamation plan which shall include the following information: A. Quantity of material to be mined or extracted. B. Scaled plans and drawings that indicate area and dimensions of proposed mining. C. Timeframe, dates and phasing of each increment of mining or extraction activity. D. Soil survey prepared by a geotechnical engineer registered in the State of Florida depicting the feasibility of retaining an impervious layer of material and amount and location of such impervious layer. E. Restoration and reclamation plan including scaled drawings and plans that indicate restored elevations, restoration materials, landscape, revegetation, structures and uses after mining or each phase or increment thereof has been completed. F. Setbacks, buffers, fencing, landscaping and other methods of protecting adjacent land from adverse impact of proposed mining activities. G. Hydrologic survey prepared by hydrology engineer registered in the State of Florida depicting the ground water conditions and impact of the mining and excavation activity on same." Plans submitted by the applicant appear to generally comply with the intent and purpose of information required above. However the 50 foot buffer or setback from the property line to the beginning of the slope down to the Planning Recommendations, May 28, 1993, Page 2 borrow pit is not sufficient to protect adjacent residential land. Any buffer would need to be a minimum of 100 feet in similarity to the buffer that appears to be provided on the north side of the previously permitted borrow pit adjacent to residential development in Roseland Park in the unincorporated area. Also, it is noted that the proposed borrow pit is proposed to be 50 feet deep. As such, the pit would unquestionably hold standing water at all times. 5. Comprehensive Plan The Future Land Use Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Low Density Residential - Single Family. The Plan includes goals, objectives and policies that prevent incompatible land uses from intruding upon residential neighborhoods. The proposed mining activity would be an intrusion into an established single family area. The Comprehensive Plan permits several zoning districts within the Low Density Residential - Single Family designation, including PD, Planned Development. However the basic intent and purpose of the Low Density Residential - Single Family land use designation must be maintained. 6. Zoning The Zoning Ordinance (Land Development Regulations) provides flexibility to the applicant by permitting a PD rezone request to include all land uses categories. This flexibility recognizes that just because the applicant is permitted to request a particular use, it is not necessarily compatible or appropriate within a given location or neighborhood. The Future Land Use Plan Map provides direction regarding the particular uses, densities and /or intensities that would be appropriate and compatible. The proposed mining use for the site under consideration does not meet the intent and purpose of the residential designation set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Proposed Planned Development Project Plan At the date of this writing the proposed Planned Development Project Plan is considered to be incomplete because of the lack of numerous items and information necessary to be contained in the Master Plan. 8. Recommendation Recommend that the request to rezone from SR -1, Single Family Residential to PD, Planning Development for the purpose of mining uses be denied based on the following findings: a. Mining uses are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation of Low Density Residential - Single Family set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed mining activity is incompatible with the residential land uses already established in the immediate area. It would be difficult to provide sufficient distance for buffers and separation of the borrow pit /mining activity from existing single family dwellings adjacent to the site without disrupting the general welfare of the residents in Washington Oaks and Roseland Park. C. The information submitted to date does not complete nor does it Planning Recommendations, May 28, 1993, Page 3 provide an acceptable method to resolve several technical development problems, especially with regards to routing the main drainage flow through the property. NOTE: This is the same recommendation provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 20, 1993. TOM SCHNEIDER /MELVIN SIMON AND ASSOCIATES /SEMINOLE TOWNE CENTER - Request to vary required open space, base building line setbacks, and sign regulations for property Zoned PD, Seminole Properties Planned Development generally located in the southeast quadrant of Interstate 4 and State Road 46. 1. The Site is Zoned PD, Planned Development pursuant to the Seminole Properties Planned Development Project Master Plan. The request regards that portion of the site that is proposed for a regional shopping center and parcels that will be immediately adjacent to the center. 2. The site is basically vacant at the present time. Several nonconforming billboards and a single family dwelling are located on the site. 3. Earlier in 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted dimensional variances for parking drive aisle width, landscape, buffer and tree requirements for off - street parking and vehicular circulation areas and landscape adjacent to streets and parcels. With regards to landscaping, the Commission approved the applicant's proposal that fewer but larger landscape areas be provided rather than the many 100 square foot landscape areas that would otherwise be required in off - street parking and circulation areas. Findings cited by the Commission generally reflected the relatively large scale of the proposed development and the associated difficulty /expense of maintaining, i.e., irrigating, a landscape area between every 10 parking spaces for sites with thousands of parking spaces. The applicant agreed to maintain a minimum 5% landscaped area overall. In addition, the developer agreed to the following: a. That landscape be provided immediately adjacent to each department store and that such landscape be provided by each department store developer. It was noted that the City does not require landscaping adjacent to buildings. b. A five foot landscape strip along the proposed mall ring road and between other adjacent parcels. Final landscape design adjacent to 1 -4 will be dictated by sight line visibility and anticipated embankments. 4. The applicant has submitted a document attached to the application entitled "Land Development Regulations, City of Sanford, Florida, Variance Request for Seminole Towne Center." The applicant proposes the following variances: a. That 21 % open space be provided rather than the required 25 % required per Schedule C, Area and Dimensional Requirements. Planning Recommendations, May 28, 1993, Page 4 b. That the Base Building Line Setback from Towne Center Boulevard (Oregon Avenue Realigned) be 100 feet from the center line rather than 120 feet as required by Schedule I. C. That, as applicable, the City's sign regulations be replaced by the applicant's sign criteria. 5. Based on the previous approval and findings by the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding modification of the City's landscape requirements, the regional mall is in fact a unique project with special conditions not normally encountered. The large interior open areas within the mall building are unique to regional malls; similar areas in typical unenclosed shopping centers could be included in open space calculations. Also, the variance for landscape requirements already approved has some relationship to the open space requirement in that the City has, in essence, already approved a modification in the amount of open area to be provided. 6. The applicant's request to decrease the minimum building setback from Towne Center Boulevard cites the constraints of locating Towne Center Boulevard because of the Florida Power Corporation power lines, constraints caused by anticipated expansion of 1 -4 right of way, ground water conditions and the fact that both tracts 9 and 10 have double frontage with no access from Towne Center Boulevard. 7. With regards to signage, the applicant has in essence proposed to utilize an alternative sign criteria for individual uses. The request does not deal with billboards and project signage. The applicant's transmittal identifies how the proposed sign criteria, "except for very small uses," are generally more restrictive that the City's Sign Regulations. Also, the proposed sign criteria impose standards for quality and design not provided in City requirements. 8. Recommend approval of the proposed dimensional variances for open space, setbacks on Towne Center Boulevard and individual use signage for tracts 8 through 13 based on the above findings, submittals by the applicant and the generally unique nature and scale of the proposed regional mall. The City's open space requirements would be unreasonable and excessive due to the size of the parcel and development in question in comparison to similar uses. The setback requirements for Towne Center Boulevard generally envision direct access to the major street of frontage. The proposed sign criteria for the mall generally meet the intent and purpose of the City's signage requirements for individual uses and are generally more restrictive that the City's criteria. This recommendation is conditioned upon the accuracy of the applicant's submittals and, in particular, compliance with the open space, setback and sign criteria and data set forth therein. PIZZA HUT OF FLORIDA, INCANTERPLAN PRACTICE LTD. - Request conditional use approval to expand and modify a nonconforming structure located in an existing GC- 2, General Commercial Zone at the southwest corner of French Avenue and 20th Planning Recommendations, May 28, 1993, Page 5 Street. 1. Site is Zoned GC -2, General Commercial and includes a restaurant with parking. Site is approximately 18,200 square feet. Site includes a nonconforming structure which does not meet existing building setbacks from streets. 2. The applicant proposes minor expansion to the building to the rear which will not increase the nonconformity with setbacks. The applicant also proposes to rearrange the vehicular circulation and parking areas in order to provide improved circulation utilizing the alley on the west side of the site and, to the extent feasible, provide landscape to the City's requirements. 3. Recommend approval of the expansion and medications of the site in question because the proposed improvements will not increase the nonconformity, will not provide any advantage over similar nonconforming uses in the immediate area and will generally improve the appearance and functionality of the use. Planning Recommendations, May 28, 1993, Page 6