HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.04.91MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1991
7:00 P.M.
CITY COMMISSION CHAFERS
MEMBERS PRESENT
Jerry Johnson
Cathryn Welch
Tom Speer
Joe Dennison
Ben Dyal
Leon Brooks
Helen Stairs
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Eddie Keith
John LeRoy
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jay Marder, City Planner
Bettie Sonnenberg, Land Development Coordinator
Bill Simmons, City Manager
Lon Howell, City Commissioner
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Dennison.
The first item on the Agenda was a Public Hearing to consider a
Conditional Use request for property located at 606 Park Avenue in
a SR -1, Single Family Residential Zoning District for a non-
conforming structure, 6 unit apartment building. Owner: United
Mortgage Company; representative: Helen Stairs.
Ms. Stairs excused herself from the Commission and stated that she
is the broker of record representing the owner and prospective
buyer. Ms. Stairs stated that this property was constructed to be
used as a 6 unit apartment building consisting of 1- bedroom and 1-
bath each.
Ms. Stairs stated that she had met with the City Commission and the
Historic Trust and that they are in agreement with the concept.
Ms. Stairs explained that the City Commission, in their endeavor to
update the area, has ruled that if the structure is vacant for 6-
months it would revert to single family. The structure has been
vacant for 15 to 16- months but it is in extremely good structural
condition.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1991
PAGE 2
Ms. Welch asked if the client had agreed with all conditions and if
he would agree with a non - transferable condition, if sold. Also,
Ms. Welch asked what is the difference between a conditional use
and spot zoning. Ms. Stairs stated that the conditions would go
with the property. One advantage is that the developer has great
experience. The City Attorney has stated that the stipulations or
conditions would stay with the property not with the ownership.
He had lived across the street years ago.
Mr. Speer asked how would the developer handle the parking and what
would be done for 6 additional parking spaces needed when there are
only 3- parking spaces. He stated that two units on Oak Avenue were
required to put parking on -site. Ms. Stairs stated that the
parking would be addressed on the site -plan. Mr. Speer stated that
this structure has a 0 -lot line and that the alley could not be
used to park cars. Mr. Marder stated that the conditional use
recognizes that this is a non - conforming structure and therefore
could not meet all requirements. Mr. Marder suggested that a
developer's agreement would state exactly what the conditions are
if the Commission decided to approve.
Mr. Speer asked if 4 -units could be considered for this structure.
Ms. Stairs stated that the prospective buyer would not buy for 4-
units. Mr. Speer stated that 1- bedroom apartments will not rent
and that it would be better with 4 larger units that would rent.
Mr. Speer stated that this use would not help the City. This
structure was built in 1927. In the 1930's when everyone had one
or no cars. People would walk to church, schools and to
employment. Mr. Speer stated that since the 1960's the area has
been degraded and that he would like to see the area not encourage
any more 1- bedroom units. He would encourage a better apartment
house with a kept exterior. Ms. Stairs noted that this would be
better than a vacant lot.
Ms. Stairs noted that the prospective buyer is taking the biggest
risk. Mr. Speer asked if it would be more feasible to consider a
duplex. Mr. Marder stated that this building is in Code
Enforcement Board process and is in imminent danger of being torn
down. Mr. Speet noted it would be a clean vacant lot with the
possibility of a single family home being constructed. Mr. Marder
noted that this is in the Historic District where there is not a
lot of new structures being built. This structure contributes to
the historical designation and its removal would subtract from the
value of the area. Pockets lead to negative not positive effects.
Mr. Speer generally agreed with Mr. Marder's comments but noted
that specifically in front of the building it was a parking lot for
junk cars with the hoods up, etc.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1991
PAGE 3
Ms. Stairs stated that she agrees with the City Attorney's opinion
that conditions placed would go with the property, that she agrees
with Mr. Marder's comments, and that $50,000 in renovations is not
very much for six units compared to a single family residence.
Mr. Johnson stated that he has concerns relative to the grave
injustice done when the City allowed the Magnolia- Palmetto -Park
Avenue area to become today. He asked how would $350 /month
correspond to the weekly fees next door. Experience came up with
these fees and Ms. Stairs felt he would get it.
Mr. Brooks noted that the Commission did not want to discourage
anyone from coming in and upgrading the neighborhood and commented
that the developer would do what is necessary to get his money out
of it.
Sue Olinger, 910 Elm Avenue, board member speaking on behalf of the
Trust, stated that they had spent a lot of time reviewing the
project. She noted that the Trust agrees with the project and
recommends requiring a one -year lease for tenants. She stated that
the problems come from daily or weekly rentals and where some one
is not policing the structure. As long as there is someone on-
site, there should be no problems with rentals. Ms. Olinger stated
that the Trust definitely supports the renovation as long as the
developer agrees with the conditions.
Jamie Meeks, 621 Park Avenue, stated that she owns the property
next to the two rental units across the street. She bought with
the understanding that everything would remain single family. She
would like to see the historic building preserved but agrees with
Mr. Speer that 6 -units is too much. The unit next door has 4 to 6
cars usually with two in front of the house. The conditions
proposed to go with this conditional use are pretty specific and a
one year lease is very important. Otherwise, people move in and
out in the middle of the night. Ms. Meeks stated that basically
she was not opposed.
Mr. Brooks moved on approval with the stipulations as listed in the
memorandum from City Staff. Mr. Dyal seconded. Mr. Dennison, Mr.
Brooks and Mr. Dyal in favor. Mr. Speer, Ms. Welch, and Mr.
Johnson opposed. Motion tied, therefore did not pass.
The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the Site Plan
for the First Assemblies of God Church, a church use, located at
911 Palmetto Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District.
Owner: First Spanish Assemblies Church of God; representative:
Pastor Augusto Avila.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1991
PAGE 4
Pastor Avila, 2791 Richmond Avenue, was present for representation.
Mr. Speer moved on approval subject to Staff's recommendations.
Mr. Dyal seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of recommending
the draft Development Agreement Ordinance to the City Commission.
Mr. Marder stated that he is researching this with the State and
other local government agencies as to how they handle Development
Agreements. He has run into some confusion and cannot get a
determination from the Department of Community Affairs. Mr. Marder
suggested that the Commission table this item until he could come
back with some type of determination on how to proceed. He stated
that there is no differentiation between small and large
properties. Mr. Marder noted that he needed more time to clarify.
Mr. Dyal moved to table. Mr. Brooks seconded. All in favor.
Motion carried.
Mr. Dyal moved to approve the minutes as circulated. Seconded by
Mr. Brooks. All in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Dyal stated that he has mixed emotions regarding the
conditional use request. He stated that the building was created
for this purpose and that it would be better than a vacant lot. He
would like to see 4 -units in this structure but would probably lose
the buyer. With the cost of remodeling, the buyer could not get
the value out of it. He stated that this may seem cruel and
callous, but the property would be improved, and it might or might
not go through foreclosure. Ms. Stairs said the present owners
will not go to any further expense to save the building.
Mr. Speer stated 915 Park Avenue has 5 -units (3 in front and 2 in
back). All units have a one -year lease with a $200 security
deposit. The joke is the one -year lease and the $200 security
deposit with a $295 monthly rental fee. A single girl, with one
child may move in. At first, there are two people, then two
families. It is a bad situation between 9th and 10th Streets on
Park Avenue and between 6th and 7th Streets. We have to stand up
to our Zoning Regulations. We cannot make any exceptions.
Ms. Welch stated that she is torn with the project. This is a
wonderful building and shows flexibility from the Historic Society.
Mr. Johnson stated that his biggest concern was that he didn't know
of any married couple with less than 2- automobiles. Therefore, the
structure would need 12- parking spaces.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1991
PAGE 5
Mr. Speer stated that it is a problem when people are trying to
upgrade their property in the area, knowing that three apartment
buildings next to them are a problem. Regarding the apartments in
close proximity, there could be 36- units, possibly 72 -cars in the
immediate area, with 2 -cars broken down. Mr. Speer noted that he
was disappointed when the street lights were taken down.
Ms. Stairs stated that she truly believes in this project or else
she would not have put herself on the line. She does not want to
see the building torn down and she believes in Duany.
Chairman Dennison made note that we all care for Sanford.
Meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M.
oe nnison, Chairman
&.
..
1Mti
FROM THE SANFORD CITY PLANNER
March 26, 1991
TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission
SUBJECT: Planning Recommendations for Meeting of April 4, 1991
S TAIRS - Request conditional use approval to . permit the use of a non - conforming
structure for six apartments located at 606 Park Avenue in an SR -1, Single Family
Residential Zone.
1. Site is Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential and includes a two -story building
that appears to have been designed and utilized for apartments. The building
was boarded up at the time of inspection. The City has condemned the building
as part of its code enforcement process.
2. Site is adjacent to various nonconforming multiple family dwellings and several
single family dwellings in an SR -1, Single Family Residential Zoning District
3. The site and surrounding area are part of a nationally recognized and designated
Historic Residential District. in contrast to the recently completed guidelines
prepared for the Downtown Commercial District, the City has not implemented
similar guidelines for property in the Historic Residential District. The building
located on the site is considered to be a "contributing structure" to the Residential
Historic District.
4. in 1983 the City of Sanford rezoned the site and surrounding area from a multiple
family residential zone to a single family residential zone. The basic intent of the
rezoning was to halt the uncontrolled conversion and modification of large homes
into multiple family dwellings and boarding houses and to protect, encourage and
strengthen single family housing and related rehabilitation in the area.
5. Recommend conditional approval of the request to establish six dwelling units at
606 Park Avenue based on similarity of proposed use with immediately adjacent
uses and original design and purpose of the building in question. Recommend
that the following conditions and stipulations be placed on this approval for the
reasons noted.
Planning Recommendations for April 4, 1991
Page 2
a. Review of all wlenior renovation activities by the Q& of Sanford Historic
Preseoffl on Board to insure that historic architectural character and
compatibility with the neighborhood is maintained. Such review,
comments and recommendations shall be provided to the Planning and
Zoning Commission orior to site Alan approval pnless otherwise agreed by
the Planning and Zoning Commission. The national Historic District
designation provides the City with the basis to condition development
approval in a manner that provides appropriate historic preservation
considerations. It should be recognized that the Historic Preservation
Board does not have formal regulatory authority in the Residential Historic
District. Therefore, this condition recommends that the Historic
Preservation Board refer comments or recommendations to the Planning
and Zoning Commission for consideration during site plan review.
b. Lease agreeme between the tenant and landlord shall be required and
shall be for a period of of least one year. In addition. lease agreements
shall prohibit subleasing. reguire a secUft de oslt and Igec& one
' famii ' per unit. It is generally recognized that high quality rental
properties are an asset to the neighborhood and community as a whole.
Conversely, the 1983 rezoning to SR -1 was aimed at curtailing the
proliferation of transient lodging facilities in the area. The requirement for
lease agreements is justified in order to provide greater assurance that the
neighborhood will be populated by a more stable population.
C. Full Site Plan Approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
include Enhanced Landscape. Historic Preservation
Recommendations and Buffer Considerations - Buffering and screening
requirements are particularly important in built up areas such as the
Residential Historic Area. The City's Land Development Regulations
specifically provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with the ability
to require additional landscaping, buffering and screening requirements
beyond the minimum code requirements.
d. Within three months of conditio use permit approval by the Plannin
And Zoning Commission, the owner shall have submitted renovation 121ans.
includino but not limited to a site plan, to the QW. Within one year of this
conditional use permit approval, the owner shall have completed at least
fifty percent of the approved renovations. If these timeframes are not met
the conditional use permit shall expire provided however, that the Planning
and Zonina Commission has the authority to grant extensions at the
request of the owner.