Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.07.86MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 7, 1986 7:00 P.M. Members Present: John Morris, Chairman John LeRoy Dr. Hortense Evans Eddie Keith Gary L. Davidson Jay Malone Brent Carli Members Absent: Sheila Roberts Lon Howell Others Present: Bettie Sonnenberg, Zoning Inspector Bill Simmons, Director of Engineering & Planning Jay Marder, City Planner The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the Chairman, John Morris. The first item on the agenda was a continued Public Hearing to consider the request for rezoning from SR -1 to MR -1, that property located at 2601, 2603 thru 2609 Myrtle Avenue for the purpose of multiple family units, represented by Bob Siegler. Mr. Siegler stated that the present zoning does permit duplexes as a conditional use, but they decided to apply for rezoning. They want to take the existing 50 ft. lot width and change it to 75 ft. lot width to build duplexes. The property is bounded by a mobile home park, commercial and multiple family. There was no one present to speak in opposition. There was question about a previous site that was approved for this area for single family. Mrs. Sonnenberg checked the previous minutes and informed the board that it was about 1 year ago. Mr. Morris stated that the land use reflects medium density. Mr. Carli moved to deny the request based on the water problem and that duplexes are permitted in the SR -1 zone under conditional uses. Mr. Keith seconded. Motion carried. The next item was a Public Hearing to consider the request for rezoning from MR -1 to MR -2, that property located at 700 Lake Minnie Drive for the purpose of multiple family units, represented by John Seitz. Mr. Seitz stated that there are 2 phases, with phase one developed with 112 units and the second phase under develgpment with 116 units. The area to rezone is approximately 15.5 acres. The zoning would allow 20 units per acre. The property is adjacent to commercial and industrial. Mr. Carli questioned if the property is heavily wooded or not? Mr.Seitz stated that it is generally wooded. Based on the first two phases, the soil is very good. Staff has not looked at the impact on the intersection at 17 -92. The traffic impact would be handled at site plan review. Present to speak in opposition were: Barbara Long, Leonard Smith, Brenda Lopez. Their concerns were traffic, drainage and the existing number of people for the recreational area. Mrs. Long stated that she has had water in her apartment 3 times and her neighbor has had water in his apartment 10 time. She stated that a site inspection would be good after a rain. Mr. Smith stated that there is approximately 400 people living there now with a pool that has a capacity of 28. They were concerned about the traffic at the intersection at 17 -92 and a traffic signal should be considered. MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION— August 7, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. Page 2 The City Planner stated that the existing Future Land Use Plan Map reflects medium density residential land use which provides a density of 6 to 13 units per acre and the proposed Future Land Use Plan Map reflects a high density which provides for 13 or more units per acre. Mr. Malone stated that the peoples concerns would be handled at site plan review. Mr. Morris stated that the drainage problems could be caused by the development. Mr. Carli questioned if the board could ask that another pool and tennis court be built. The Chairman stated that he didn't feel they could that they are mostly concerned with the health, safety and welfare of the prople. Mr. Simmons stated that they have to give land (600 sq. ft. per unit) or pay $150.00 per unit for the open space fee that is required. Dr. Evans understands the public's concern and feels that Planning and Zoning can handle the problems at site plan and moved to approve the rezone request. The motion died due to a lack of a second. Mr. Keith moved to deny the request due to density and drainage. Mr. Davidson seconded. Motion carried over the dissenting vote of Dr. Evans. The next item was a Public Hearing to consider the request for rezoning from MR -1 and SR -1 to RI -1, that property located E. of Airport Blvd., S. of McCracken Road and N. of Academy Manor for the purpose of restricted industrial, represented by David Speer, Director of Planning Construction. Mr. Speer stated that the City, the School Board and the Academy Manor Residents would benefit from the zoning change. The School Board would be able to get more money for the land, the taxes would be increased for the city and the citizens of the area would benefit because it would be more compatible. There would be a deed restriction so no building would be contructed on the property near the residents, that only parking or landscaping would be located there. Due to the strange shape of Block 98, it is only accessible 2 ways and if it remained residential zone, it would be hard to develop. They have a buyer with no specific use stated. Present to speak in opposition were: Do that it is not the best interest of the in by industrial on the north and south the buyer cannot state what he plans to change until he finds out what is going residence. cis Thomas and Evans Barnes. residents and was concerned and the traffic. They were do. Mr. Barnes also stated to be there and would rathe Mrs. Thomas stated about being blocked also concerned because he was against the r see single family Mr. Carli moved to approve the rezone on block 88 from MR -1 to RI -1 and deny the rezone on block 89 from SR -1 to RI -1 to allow a buffer area between industrial use and the residents. Mr. Davidson seconded. Dr. Evans and Mr. LeRoy abstained from voting. Motion carried. The next item was a Public Hearing to consider the request for a conditional use in a SR -1 zone, that property located at 2530 Orange Avenue for the purpose of a duplex, represented by Joseph Dennison. Mr. Dennison stated he was the owner of the property and would like to build a duplex. A home is located on lot 9 and part of lot 10 and the duplex would be on lot 11 and part of lot 10. There was no one present to speak in opposition. Mr. Malone moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. LeRoy seconded. Motion carried with a vote 4 to 3 with Mr. Davidson, Mr. Keith and Dr. Evans voting against the motion. The next item was a Public Hearing to consider the request for a conditional use in a GC -2 zone, that property located at 1512 W. 13th Place for the purpose of a church building, represented by Edward Ings. MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - August 7, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. Page 3 Mr. Ings stated that they are presently having services in a home. The church building could be used in the community for other services. The building would be located on lot 16 and the parking would be provided on lots 19 and 36. There are approximately 30 people in the congregation. They would like to purchase lots 14 & 15, but the present owner are snot ready to sell at this time. Mr. Carli asked Mr. ings if he would be willing to wait till he could purchase the two lots adjacent before he got the conditional use? Mr. Ings stated it would be alright. The board agreed to wait on the conditional use until the two lots adjacent to lot 16 were purchased and the fee would be waived when the request came back to Planning & Zoning. The Chairman asked Mrs. Sonnenberg to send a letter to Mr. Ings stating the reason why the board is not voting on the conditional use at this time and that their fee would be waived when they came back in front of the board. The next item was a Public Hearing to consider the request for a conditional use in a GC -2 zone, that property located at 900 French Avenue for the purpose of auto repair, represented by Anthony Panzino. Mr. Panzino stated that they would be taking off alternators and starters, rebuilding them and putting them back on. There would be no body repair or painting done. They would be working only on electrical things and there would be no outside storage. There was no one present to speak in opposition. Mr. Malone moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. LeRoy seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The next item was a Public Hearing to consider a change in land use in the Future Land Use Plan Map of Element One of the Comprehensive Development Plan. Jay Marder, City Planner, represented the Public Hearing for the City. Mr. Marder stated that this was the new version of the map and the shaded areas are newly annexed areas. There is one annexation located on 18th Street, W. of Goldsboro Elementary that needs to be taken off the map because City Commission denied the request. He also stated that Northlake Village might need to be changed from high density to medium density. Mr. Morris stated he did not feel it would have to be changed since the board denied the rezone request. Mr. Marder said it might only take 45 days instead of 90 to 100 to get the map approved. Patrick Drake was present to request an additional area to be added to the map. The property is 135 acres located north of 46A, between Oregon Avnenue and Upsala Road. They would like to be annexed into the city with the propoosal of medium density residential. The property would be for mixed uses such as zero lot lines, townhouses, villas, etc. Mr. Simmons stated that Jay and himself had met with Mr. Drake.;and said it has a lot of potential, but he is concerned about the City placing it on the land use map without the City having the annexation papers. The board might consider holding submission of the map for approximately 30 days to allow the annexation request. Mr. Morris stated that it could be included on the interm map and give him time for the next amendment in April. Mr. Marder said if the annexation goes thru and the zoning changotts, it would take a lot of time and technical work. Mr. Carli said he has something good and he should be put on the interm map. Mr. Drake said the 5 property owners he is working with require that the proposal track through the proper procedures. Mr. Simmons said if he could provide the annexation requests before the City Commission meeting on Monday, that it could be included on the land use map. Mr. Drake agreed to try. Gifford Anglim was present to thank the board for placing a commercial land use on the property south of 25th St. and W. of Old Lake Mary Road. MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - August 7, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. Page 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Mr. Carli moved to include the property if the annexation request is brought in by Friday or Monday. Mr. Keith seconded. Motion carried. Mr. Malone moved to recommend as amended. Mr. Carli seconded. Motion carried. The next item was to consider the conceptual site plan for Lake Monroe Apts., a 256 unit apartment development, located at Terwilliger Lane and US 17 -92 in a MR -2 zone, represented by Bob Koch. Mr. Koch stated the site plan addressed the concerns of the staff by: 1) agreeing to abide by the conditions placed by the city at the rezoning, 2) the density was not too great for property located on a major highway, there would only be a limited amount of traffic on 17 -92 and the future right -of -way, 3) the major entrance is distanced from proposed Terwilliger Lane as required by DOT, 4) although the Terwilliger Lane right -of -way is historical, but not recorded, the developer will agree to an additional 15 ft., 5) the DER has identified the property to the east as wetlands, and 6) the owner will participate to a reasonable extent in the development of Terwilliger Lane. Mr. Simmons stated the city needs to provide north /south circulation between US 17 -92 and SR 46. We have a 60 ft. right -of -way south of Narcissus Avenue and need an indication of 4 of the right -of -way or 30 ft. from the developer. He agreed with DOT that it was not wise to cluster curbcuts. The board was in agreement to approve the conceptual plans. The next item was to consider the site plan for Johnson's Mansion, a conversion to an office and a single- family residence, property located at 2724 Orlando Drive in a GC -2 zone, represented by Andrew Kutz. Mr. Kutz stated that the building is over 40 years old and the residence will be on top floor and the commercial use on the bottom floor. The parking is figured on the square footage of the commercial use. Staff has approved the site plan. The board would like to see the floor plan of the bottom floor. The board asked the staff to have the materials present as listed in the zoning book under site plan. Mr. Carli moved to approve the site plan. Mr. Keith seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The next item was to consider the revised site plan for a retail meat market located at 2397 French Avenue in a GC -2 zone, represented by Bob McKee. Mr. McKee stated that the existing structure on the previously approved site plan was demolished because when they got involved with renovating the building, they found it to be unstructually safe. It would be a more desirable building and there is no change to the site as previously approved. mr. Simmons stated that it is an unchanged site plan and sinces it was approved it meets the basic code. Mr. Carli moved to approve the site plan with the conditions that Mr. McKee is a respectfully known contractor and with little information before the board. Mr. Keith seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The next item was to consider the revision to the buffer wall of the site plan for Sanford Town Square, a shopping center, located at 1500 French Avenue in a GC -2 zone, represented by Lonnie Peterson. Mr. Peterson stated that the reasons for the request to change is 1) economics, 2) feel it Is difficult to justify block structure compared to wood, 3) feel wood fence with proper staining would be more appealing. There is a $20,000 difference between the block structure and the wood structure. They would be willing to maintain the wood structure. Mr. Marder recommended that they put up the block wall. Mr. Carli stated that the guarantee of MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - August 7, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. Page 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- maintenance falls on the individual tenants. They should live up to what was approved earlier. Mr. Malone moved to deny the revision to the buffer wall. Mr. Davidson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Peterson asked if he could submit a permanent alternative to block if one is available. Mr. Simmons asked the board what they are looking for in a site plan and Mr. Carli stated that the items listed in the zoning book should be met with. Mrs. Sonnenberg presented a site plan that was approved by staff for Ace Hardware. The area is going to be used for material storage and plant display. There will be no parking on the unpaved area. They are also moving the propane tanks out further from the building. Mr. Carli stated that the site plan for Sanford Motor Company is not being complied with and Bob's Used Furniture Store needs to be checked out. The Minutes of the previous meeting were approved. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. K F FORM 4 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT LAST NAME —FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NAME LeRoy John THE BOARD, COUNCIL,COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF. MAILING ADDRESS 1401 E. 2nd Street ?aCITY D COUNTY D OTHER LOCAL AGENCY D STATE I CITY COUNTY Sanford Seminole NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR STATE AGENCY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED 8 -7--86 City of Sanford NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Planning & Zoning Commission WHO MUST FILE FORM d This form is for use by any person'serving on either an appointed or eleited board, council. commission. authority, or committee, whether state or local, and it applies equally to members of advisory'and non - advisory bodies who are faced with a voting conflict of interest. As the voting conflict requirements for public officers at the local level differ from the requirements for state officers. this form is divided into two parts: PART A is for use by persons serving on local boards (municipal, county, special tax districts, etc.), while PART B is prescribed for all other boards, i.e., those at the state level. PART C of the form contains instructions as to when and where this form must be filed. PART A VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS (Required by Section 112.3143(3). Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984).] The Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees PROHIBITS each municipal, county, and other local public officer FROM VOTING in an official capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to the special gain of any principal (other than a government agency as defined in Section 112.312(2), Florida Statutes) by whom he is retained. In any such case a local public officer must disclose the conflict: (a) PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of his interest in the matter on which he is abstaining from voting; and (b) WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by descFibing the nature of his interest as a public record in this part below. NOTE: Commissioners of a Community Redevelopment Agency ted or designated pursuant to Section 163.356 or Section 163.357, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984). or officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting. In such cases, however, the oral and written disclosure of Iiiii, part must be made. 1, the undersigned focal public officer, hereby disclose that on .19 (a) I abstained from voting on a matter which (check one): inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of , by whom 1 am retained. CE FORM 4- REV. 3044 PAGE 1 L. (b) The measure on which I abstained and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Employed_ by the applicant Date Fded Please we PART C for instructions on when and where to file this form. PART S VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR STATE OFFICERS [Required by Section 112.3143(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984).] Each state public officer is permitted to vote in his official capacity on any matter. However, any state officer who votes in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain or the special gain of any principal by whom he is retained is required to disclose the nature,of his interest as a public record in Part R below within 15 days after the vote occurs. I, the undersigned officer of a state agency, hereby disclose that on , 19 . (a) I voted on a matter which (check one): inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of (b) The measure on which 1 voted and the tlature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed . by whom I am retained. Signature Please we PART C below for instructions on when and where to file this form. PART C FILING INSTRUCTIONS This memorandum must be filed within fifteen (13) days following the meeting during which the voting conflict occurred with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the meeting minutes. This form need not be filed merely to indicate the absence of a voting conflict. NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDASTATUTEs f 112.7174 I a1S), A FAILURE TO MARE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURECONSTITUTESGROUNDS 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 CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED 55AW. arc a FORM 4 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT LAST NAME —FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME Ev Dr. Hortense THE HOARD, COUNCIL,COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH !SERVE 15 A UNIT OF: MAILING ADDRESS 1211 Mellonville Avenue QTY COUNTY Sanford Seminole DATE ON wmiCH VOTE OCCURRED 8 -7 -86 OaTY O COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY C STATE NAME OF POU77CAL SUBDIVISION OR STATE AGENCY City of Sanford NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Planning & Zoning Commission WHO MUST FILE FORM 4 This form is for use by any person . serving on either an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee, whether state or local, and it applies equally to members of advisorytnd non- advisory bodies who are faced with a voting conflict of interest. As the voting conflict requirements for public officers at the local level differ from the requirements for state officers, this form is divided into two parts: PART A is for use by persons serving on local boards (municipal, county, special tax districts, etc.), while PART B is prescribed for all other boards. i.e., those at the state kvel. PART C of the form contains instructions as to when and where this form must be filed. PART A VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS [Required by Section 1123143(3), Florida Statutes (Sapp. 1964).] The Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees PROHIBITS each municipal, county, and other local public officer FROM VOTING in an official capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to the special gain of any principal (other than a government agency as defined in Section 112312(2), Florida Statutes) by whom he is retained. In any such case a local public officer must disclose the conflict: (a) PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of his interest in the matter on which he is abstaining from voting; and (b) WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by describing the nature of his interest as a public record in this part below. NOTE: Commissioners of a Community Redevelopment Agency created or designated pursuant to Section 163.356 or Section 163.357, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), or officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting. In such cases, however, the oral and written disclosure of this. part trust be made. 1, the undersigned local public officer, hereby disclose that on , 19 . (a) I abstained from voting on a matter which (check one): inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of • , by whom I am retained. _ _CE FORM 4 - REV. 1044 P AGE I (b) The measure on which I abstained and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Employed by the applicant CLA I & Date hei i� Signature Please tae PART C for instructions on when and where to file this form. PART 9 VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR STATE OFFICERS [Required by Section 1123143(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. '19f14).] Each state public officer is permitted to vote in his official capacity on any matter. However, any state officer who votes in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain or the special On of any principal by whom he is retained is required to disclose the nature of his interest as a public record in Part 8 below within IS days after the vote occurs. 1, the undersigned officer of a state agency, hereby disclose that on . 19 (a)1 voted on a matter which (check one): inured to my special private pin; or inured to the special gain of (b) The measure on which 1 voted and the tlature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed . by whom 1 am retained. Signature Please we PART C below for instructions on when and where to file this form. PART C FILING INSTRUCTIONS This memorandum must be filed within fifteen ( l S) days following the meeting during which the voting conflict occurred with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the meeting minutes. This form need not be Bled merely to indicate the absence of a voting conflict» NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES/ 111317(19931 A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED 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 CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED SS 0W.