Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.16.89MINUTES PLANNING AMID ZONING COMMISSION Meeting of February 16, 1989 7:00 P.M. City Commission Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Brent Carli Eddie Keith Joe Dennison John Morris Gary Davidson John LeRoy Jay Malone Leon Brooks Tom Speer i p Jay Marder, City Planner Bettie Sonnenberg, Principal Deputy Administrative Official Bill Simmons, Director of Engineering and Planning The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Carli. The first item on the agenda was a Public Hearing to consider the following change and amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Sanford, Seminole County Florida. Chairman Carli stated that the Board will be recommending to the City Commission the square footage for four different zones: SR -1 - 700 square feet; SR-1A - 1200 square feet; SR -lAA - 1500 square feet; and MR -1, MR -2, MR -3, and RMOI - 700 square feet. Mr. Marder stated that these are minimum living areas and that the City Commission acted upon them pursuant to an emergency ordinance. The City Commission changed the minimum living area in a SR -1 zone from Planning and Zoning's recommendation from 900 to 800 square feet and in the SR-1A zone from 1300 to 1200 square feet. There were no changes to the SR -lAA and multi - family zones. Johnny Noles, 119 Maplewood Drive, spoke in opposition to the change. He stated that he was opposed to SR -1, SR-1A and SR -IAA zoning because they were much too low. This is absolutely minimum housing. Gary Williams stated that MGIC and Fanny May look very dimly on financing a 700 squar foot building. He stated that 450 square foot for an efficiency is an absolute mini- mum. Mr. Williams stated that for a 750 square foot horse, it would take quite a bit of confrontations to get it passed by HUD. For a two bedrom one would need 800 to 900 square feet and for a one bedroom you would need 650 to 700 square feet. Mr. Morris stated that when this Board visited the Comprehensive Plan, the South Standard Building Codes were involved giving our minimum. Inadvertently, they allowed the opportunity to arise for individuals to go in and construct homes of smaller square footage than currently exist in a neighborhood. Planning and Zoning is not really MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 16, 1989 Page 2 that concerned with how many bedrooms a home has as long as the minimum square footage of that house is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is going to be built. The point is to modify the ordinance on the books now to allow for the continued com- patible existence of neighborhoods as they are now known. Bill Hoenig of 125 Maplewood, Matthew Burke of Oregon Avenue, Bill Bernosky of 1011 Vihlen Road, and Ron Jones of 108 Brierwrood Drive spoke in opposition to the changes. Mr. Morris stated that he would like to see 900 square feet in the SR--1 zone and that he had no problem with the 1200 square feet in the SR-ILA zone. Mr. Dennison stated that he did not want to cut out the young people, just starting out from having a home. A 700 square foot house can be one that is 28 foot square. We don't want to cut out the elderly or the young people starting out, they must have sane place to go. SR -1A and the SR--IAA can be protected by having the larger square footage. Mr. Brooks stated these are new homes coming on line, basically starter hares. With the 700 square feet in a SR -1 zone we are really talking about affordability. Mr. Malone stated that may be the square footages should be as they have been over the past several years with a conditional use to come in with a minimum of 1200 and 700 square feet. Perhaps a recommended conditional use to came down to what the City wants to do vs. what is already there would satisfy both parties. Mr. Malone made a motion to restore the minimum living area to what was in the prior code, SR -IAA at 1500 square feet, SR -lA at 1200 square feet, SR -1, MR -1, MR -2, MR -3, RMOI, RC -1, GC -2 and SC -3 at 900 square feet and to have a conditional use request with a public hearing to reduce SR -lA to 1200 square feet and SR -1, MR -1, MR -2, MR -3, RMOI, RC -1, GC -2 and SC -3 to 700 square feet. Mr. Keith seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the consideration of a request to rezone from AG to that of SR -1 and MR -1 for residential development for property located north of SR 46A, west of Upsala Road and east of Oregon Avenue. Owners /representatives: Russell & James Sepielli and Donald and Frank Davis. Mr. Russell Sepielli stated that he is the owner representative of the property. They will be developing a for sale residential cammunity. Homes will be single family detached and two -story town -homes with 2, 3, and 4 bedrooms ranging in price from $75,000 to $130,000. Homes being built in this c inanity will not be starter or first time homes. Along Upsala Road and along Oregon Avenue there will be an entry feature with a wall similar to the wall at the Hills of Lake Mary. SR -1 zoning was requested because there will be a deed restriction placed on the property restricting the minimum living area to 1200 square feet. The reason SR--1 zoning is being requested as opposed to SR -lA is that with the cost of land to develop today, they need the flexibility to go to a smaller lot while at the same time keeping the minimum square footages com- patable with the present neighborhood. With regards to the MR -1 zone, it allows for townhouses, to build 0 -lot line as well as being able to build single family detached MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 16, 1989 Pa ge 3 hones. Another reason MR -1 zoning was considered was there is an area presently zoned industrial north of the property. Mr. Sepielli stated that they would like to revise their request for the easterly por- tion of the MR -1 request to a depth of 634 feet, to change that fran MR -1 to SR -1. This would give a buffer or transitional zone between the SR -lA and the MR -1. All MR -1 zoning would be to the rear. There is MR -1 and MR -2 zoning adjacent to the property on the south. Mr. Sepielli stated that they will not be building the homes. Their expertise is taking it to the point where they put in the streets, water and sewer, drainage, etc. They are already into serious negotition with some of the finer builders within the area. Mr. Sepielli stated that an architectural review committee has been set up con- sisting of himself, a representative of the staff of Davis & Associates Landscape, Architects and Planners, and a representative of an engineering firm. Their respon- sibility will be to review plans submitted by the builders to make sure that they will be putting up something in keeping with the standards that will be set for the can - munity. Single family homes in the SR -1 zone, will have a minimum lot size of 6000 square feet. Mr. Dennison asked if Mr. Sepielli would be willing to make a concession to have SR -lAA along Upsala Road because of the SR -lAA zoning immediately to the east. Mr. Sepielli stated "no ", not for the entire 634 feet but would be willing to go 1 row deep, lots. Mr. Dennison stated that he felt a buffer zone will be needed. Mr. Sepielli stated that the reason they did not ask for SR -IAA zoning is because of the comments he received from the builders. He wanted to market a home that would be between $150,000 and $200,000, just below the single family homes at Timacuan. Mr. Sepielli stated that he could not get one builder interested in building this priced range hone simply because of the school district, specifically because of the high school. Mr. Donald Davis, 408 Upsala Road, stated that he feels this will be an asset to the community. chairman Carli asked Mr. Sepielli why not Planned Development zoning. Mr. Sepielli stated that as it applies to the western part of the property, the site is so narrow and has so many easements that with the 25 -foot landscaping setback in a PD they would have lost 5 acres. Mr. Sepielli stated he would have no problems with keeping the west portion for SR -1 and doing the parcel to the east as PD. Mr. Carli stated that PD would allow for Mr. Sepielli to have flexibility and for the Commission to have more control over what is going on. There was considerable discussion from adjacent property owners who objected to: Potential development of small h omes devaluating the existing neighborhood; rental pro- perties, traffic increase and overload and overcrowding of schools. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 16, 1989 Page 4 Mr. Morris made motion to approve the request to rezone the property located north of 46A, west of Upsala Road and east of Oregon Avenue fran AG to SR -1 on the west side as requested and to a PD, instead of MR -1, on the east side with the following conditions for the PD: the overall density cannot exceed 8 units an acre; a brick or solid masonry wall be built on the Upsala Road frontage; the easterly 635 feet of the pro- perty be developed as single family hones with the east 110 feet of property adjacent to Upsala Road to have a minimum of 10,000 square feet lots and 1500 square feet of living area, comparable to SR -lAA zoning. Mr. Dennison seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the consideration of a request to rezone from AG tc that of RC -1 for commercial proposes, that property located at 2588 Sanford Avenue. Owners /representatives: Jesus Ortiz and Alberto Rodriguez. For lack of representation, Mr. Norris moved to table the request. Mr. Dennison seconded. All in favor. Mr. Malone opposed. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the consideration of the overall site plan for Phase 1, Phase 2 and Future Phases for the New Tribes Mission Hcmes, a mixed use planned deve- lopment located at 1701 E. Celery Avenue in a Planned Development zone. Owners: News Tribes Mission, Inc.; representative: Daniel E. Taube. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that the Fire Department would like to have an additional hydrant that would be placed in the center complex for the commercial buildings, E, F, and G. Mr. Taube stated that they would have no problem with an additional hydrant to cover this area and marked it on the site plan. Also, Mrs. Sonnenberg stated the buffer area on a Planned Development is a required 50 -feet when it abuts the street side, 35 -feet on the adjacent parcel side. They can not put a chain link fence within the buffer area; so, the chain link fence will have to be relocated. Mr. Markowitz of Conklin, Porter & Holmes has agreed to relocate the fence and provide a Type II vegeta- tive buffer. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that she would need details on the landscaping buffer and the berm which can coone in later with the engineering plans. Mr. Simmons stated that the layout of the sewer will be handled in the engineering plans. Mr. Taube stated that berms and a brick wall is planned on Celery Avenue. Mr. Keith moved on approval subject to an additional fire hydrant to cover Buildings E, F, G and H; relocation of the chain link fence; submittal of landscape plans for screening the recreation vehicle facility and the buffer berm adjacent to RC -1 zoning; and providing an easement for the drainage ditch maintenance on the west. Mr. Dennison seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the consideration of the site plan for Randolph Court, a 44 unit multi- family residential use, located at 96 Hidden Lake Drive in a MR -3 zone. Owner: Bruce Tuttle, Tr.; representative: Kim Townsend. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 16, 1989 Page 5 Mr. Townsend with Engineering Services, 601 E. 25th Street, stated that there was some concern between Randolph Court Phase II and the existing Arbors. There will be no interaction between the individual developments. On the plans it shows a traffic ease - ment to facilitate movement of vehicles. They have re- engineered the replacement of Building G, Phase II. The pool will be fenced with a locked gate. Mr. Morris moved on approval of the site plan subject to the developer living up to the code requirements and providing engineering plans. Mr. Dennison seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. On the Addendum to the Agenda was the consideration of the site plan for a change of use to a personal use establishment (Beauty shop) for Lara Walker, 2520 Elm Avenue in a GC -2 zone. Owner: Lara Walker; Representative: Albert Jamieson Mr. Jamieson stated that there are four parking spaces and would like to remove the existing wall which is now a screened -in porch. Ms. Walker stated that she sees about 8 people a day and will be opened 6 days a week. Mr. Dennison made motion to approve subject to any requirements from staff regarding retention or engineering requirements. Mr. Brooks seconded. All in favor. Mr. Carli in opposition. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:45. ent Carli, Chairman TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jay R. Marder, City Planner DATE: February 10, 1989 SUBJECT: Planning Recommendations for February 16, 1989 SEPIELLI /DAVIS - Request to rezone from AG, Agricultural to SR -1, Single - Family Residential and MR -1, Multiple- Family Residential property located between Upsala Road and Oregon Avenue, north of County Road 46A. I. The site is Zoned AG, Agricultural and includes several dwellings and various vegetative communities including wetlands, groves and vacant land. West half of site is proposed to be Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential which has a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for an overall maximum density of approximately seven (7) dwelling units per acre. East half of site is proposed to be Zoned MR -1, Multiple Family Residential which has a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a maximum density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. 2. Site is adjacent to AG & A -1, Agricultural in City and unincorporated area, respectively, which includes the City's Oregon Avenue wellfield, the county's solid waste transfer station, groves, a nursery and various one - family dwellings. 3. Site is adjacent to existing MR -1 Zone which includes various one- and multiple- family dwellings (Mayfair Meadows) and vacant land. site is also adjacent to SR -1, SR -1AA and MR -2 Zones which contain various one- family dwellings. A convenience store with gas pumps is located in an existing RC -1, Restricted Commercial Zone adjacent to the site's southeast corner. 4. The proposed zoning classifications are consistent with the City's Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan which designates the site and vicinity south of the abandoned railroad /expressway right -of -way as a Neighborhood Area suitable for low and medium density residential development. Uses permitted within the proposed zoning districts are otherwise consistent with other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. Recommend that the request to rezone to SR -1 and MR -1 be approved as requested based on consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and similarity with existing uses already established in the immediate area of site. PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEBRUARY 16, 1989 FROM CITY PLANNER - PAGE 2 RODRIGUEZ - Request to rezone from MR -2, Multiple Family Residential to RC -1, Neighborhood Commercial for property located on the west side of Sanford Avenue between 25th and 26th Streets. 1. Site is Zoned MR -2, consists of platted lots fronting Sanford Avenue and includes an existing one - family dwelling. 2. various one - family dwellings are located adjacent to site in area Zoned MR -2. A church is located east of site in an SR -1 Zone. 3. A small strip commercial center is located southeast of site in an RC -1 Zone. 4. Question is one of policy regarding development in immediate area of Sanford Avenue. 5. Future Land Use Plan Element of Comprehensive Plan designates site and surrounding area as a Neighborhood Area suitable for small -scale nonresidential uses in selected areas. 6. Recommend approval of RMOI, Multiple - Family Residential - Office- Institutional Zoning rather than RC -1, Restricted Commercial because nonresidential activities permitted in RMOI Zoning such as offices are compatible with the immediate area and because the existing development of site and adjacent properties are not suitable for uses permitted in RC -1 Zoning such as are located in the existing RC -1 Zone opposite site.