Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.18.85MINUTES Planning and Zoning July 18, 1985 7:00 P.M. Members Present: John Morris, Chairman Jay Malone Brent Carli Eddie Keith Dr. Hortense Evans John LeRoy Members Absent: Darrell Grieme Gary L. Davidson Sheila Roberts Others Present: Bettie Sonnenberg, Zoning Inspector Rick Brunson, Evening Herald The meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M. by the Chairman, John Morris. The first item on the agenda was a Public Hearing to consider a request for rezoning from SR -lA zone to SR -1 and GC -2 zones, that property located S. of 15th St., N. of 18th St., E. of French Ave. and W. of Elm Ave. for the purpose of duplexes, a commercial retail service center, and 2 parks, represented by W. E. Knowles. Mr. Knowles stated it would be a service center commercial development buffered from the S/F Residential homes by a park on the south and 10 duplexes on the E. side. There would be no traffic entering onto Elm Ave. from the duplexes. Their access would be from an alley entrance on 15th St. The commercial development would not have a theater, bars, or game rooms to encourage minors. French Ave. curbcuts would have to comply with DOT regulations which would require acceler- ation and deceleration lanes, signalization, crosswalks, etc. There would be a 7 ft. deco- rative wall to separate the commercial and parks from the residential area. The duplexes will be sold separately. Mr. Bob Hattaway was present to speak in favor of the request. He stated this was an ex- cellent piece of property and this project would be a big asset to the City. Present to speak in opposition were Dot Young, William Cagle and Sylvia Smith. Their concerns were keeping the green areas and retaining the trees, reducing the living area size and the future use of the commercial property. Mr. Cagle was concerned about when the duplexes were sold, who would keep the people from making curbcuts on Elm Ave. Sylvia Smith reintroduced her petition from the APril meeting when it was denied. Mr. Carli moved to recommend denial for rezone. Mr. Malone seconded and the item was open for discussion. Mr. Malone felt that the traffic would be a problem for the children. Mr. Keith stated the land would be used eventually and this proposal was a very good one. Mr. Morris stated to the prople that someone could come in and build single- family homes on the land without any problems. Those voting for the motion to deny: Carli and Malone. Those voting against the motion: Keith, LeRoy and Morris. Dr. Evans abstained from voting. (The signed form attached) The motion failed. Mr. Keith moved to recommend approval to the City Commission. Mr. LeRoy seconded. Motion carried with a vote of three to two. Voting for: Keith, LeRoy and Moris. Voting against: Carli and Malone. Dr. Evans abstained from voting. The next item was a public to consider a requewt for a conditional use in a SR -1 zone, that property located at 807 Willow Avenue for the purpose of a duplex, represented by Willie Williams, Jr. Mr. Williams stated he wanted to put one duplex on the property. MINUTES - Planning & Zoning - July 18, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. Page 2 Presnet to speak in opposition were Joe Reagan, Mr. Brown, Theodore Marting and K. C. Forrest. Their concerns were the quietness of the neighborhood, police problems, and the character of the area. After discussion, Mr. Keith moved to deny the conditional use. Dr. Evans seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The next item was a public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use in a GC -2 zone, that property located at 2858 S. Sanford Avenue for the purpose of limited manu- facturing represented by Joseph Kona. He stated there would be very little odor, if any, and their working hours would not be late. They would be melting down lead to make lead products. The lead would be brought in by people in small quantities and the product would be delivered to the customer. Present to speak in opposition were A.A. McClanahan, Lloyd Johnson and Charlene Seig. Their concerns were the noise, the odor, the working hours and the traffic. After dis- cussion, Mr. Malone moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. Carli seconded. Motion failed to carry due to a tie vote. Those voting for the motion to approve: Carli, Malone and Evans. Those voting against the motion: LeRoy, Keith and Morris. The next item was a public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use in a SC -3 zone, that property located at 107 W. 1st St. for the purpose of sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, represented by Amanda Cranias. She stated that they are presently serving beer and wine and people would like to have cocktails before dinner. There would be no lounge in the restaurant. Mr. Cranias was present to speak in favor of the re- quest. He operates the business and feels the alcoholic beverages would enhances sales. Present to speak in opposition was Frank Noell. He feels that the community does not need this. After discussion, Mr. Carli moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. Malone seconded. The motion carried over the dissenting votes of Mr. LeRoy and Mr. Keith. The next item was a public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use in a SR -1 zone, that property located at 1100 Santa Barbara Drive for the purpose of two duplexes represented by Ray Crank. Mr. Crank stated that the duplexes would upgrade the neighbor- hood. It would be possible that his mother would live in one and the other one would be sole. Present to speak in opposition was Mrs. Williams. She staed there was too many duplexes already in the area. There would be more traffic and concerned about the safety of the children. Afte discussion, Mr. Carli moved to deny the conditional use due to so many duplexes being allowed in SR -1 zones that it is becoming multi- family instead of single - family. Dr. Evans seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The next item was a public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use in a SC -3 zone, that property located at 112 E. 1st St. for the purpose of sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, represented by Joe Pertz. Mr. Pertz stated that they were requesting to sell beer and wine for consumption on the premises to round up the menu. He said through poles that the waitresses were doing with the customers, they would like to see them sell the beer and wine. They would check with the state in reference to selling the beer and wine outside under the bridge. Present to speak in favor of the request was the owner of the building, Gerald Gross. Mr. Gross stated that he has a first class operation. He has turned down several other restaurants because they would not fit in with the downtown area. If the beer and wine would hurt the business, it would be possible to stop selling it. Present to speak in opposition were J. Q. Galloway, Frank Noell, Joe Garrett, Mary Ann Cameron. Mr. Galloway feels it would cause problems and the police would have to come and pick up the problem people it would bring in. Mr. Noell stated that the community does not MINUTES - Planning and Zoning - July 18, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. Page 3 need the beer and wine. Mrs. Cameron stated that she likes the atmosphere that the restau- rant had now without the beer and wine. After discussion, Mr. Keith moved to deny the request. Mr. LeRoy seconded. Those voting for the motion: Keith, LeRoy and Evans. Those voting against the motion: Carli, Malone and Morris. Motion failes. Mr. Malone moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. Carli seconded. Motion carried over the dissenting votes of Keith and LeRoy. The next item was a public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use in a SR -1 zone, that property located at 2408, 2410, 2412 and 2414 Lake Avenue for the purpose of two duplexes, represented by Don Paskoski. He stated they would have 700 sq. ft. of living area and they would be constructed to look like single - family residences instead of duplexes. They ould try to save as many of the trees as possible. Present to speak in opposition was Pam Whitehead, as the representative for the neighborhood. She presented the board with a petition with approximately 55 signatures. Their concerns were: drainage and sewer problems, increase in crime rate, noise, traffic problems and the devaluation of their property. After discussion, Mr. LeRoy moved to deny the request for the conditional use. Mr. Keith seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The next item was a public hearing toconsider changes to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. V, Sec. 5, Multiple - Family Residential Dwelling District, Sec. 6: Multiple - Family Residential Dwelling District, Sec. 7: Multiple- Family Residential, Office and Institutional District, Sec. 14: Multiple - Family Residential Limited Dwelling District under minimum required living area for efficiency and 1 bedroom apartments and Sec. 8: Restricted Commercial District under Conditional Uses Permitted. Jim Crouse, Cardinal Industries, was present to speak in favor of the change to the multi- family zoning. He stated that it was consistant with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Keith moved to recommend the change to City Commission. Dr. Evans seconded and the item was open for discussion. The board felt that there should not be smaller units than what is allowed now in the city. Those voting for the motion: Keith and Morris. Those voting against the motion: LeRoy, Evans, Malone and Carli. Motion failed to carry. Mr. Carli moved to recommend the change to item 8: Restricted Commercial. Mr. Keith seconded. Motion carried unanimously to add the density requirements of SR -1 zoning to single - family residences in RC -1 zone. The next item was to consider a site plan for 8 single - family residences located in a SR -1 zone at 2601 -2610 Myrtle Avenue represented by Sam Gabbai. Mr. Gabbai stated that all he wants to do is put in fill to make the land higher and install the street. He wil sell the lots to other builders. He would have to strip the land i order to put in the fill. After discussion, Mr. Keith moved to approve the site plan with the stipulation of the DER permits. Dr. Evans seconded. Those voting for the motion: Keith, Evans and Morris. Those voting against the motion: Carli, LeRoy and Malone. The motion was denied due to a tie vote. The Chairman remided the board that they sould vote according to the codes and not towards personal preference. The next item was to consider a revised site plan for Chevron located in a GC -2 zone at 3001 Orlando Drive, represented by Clayton Jackson. Mr. Jackson stated thatthe building would be 150 ft. from the corner. The curbcut will be on Airport Blvd. with the necessary dedicated footage if Airport is widened. Afte discussion, Mr. LeRoy moved to approve the site plan with the stipulations of Seminole County health department permit for the septic drainage and Seminole County and DOT permits for curbcuts. Dr. Evans seconded. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES - Planning & Zoning - July 18, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. Page 4 The next item was to consider a site plan for an addition to Howe Industries located in a MI -2 zone at 905 Airport Blvd., represented by Junior Carter. The board asked Mr. Carter to address the future bay on the east side of the addition and to consider a deceleration lane for their driveways. After discussion, Mr. Carli moved to table the item till the next meeting so staff can review the changes. Mr. Keith seconded. Motion carried over the dissenting vote of Mr. Morris. The next item was a request for an opinion by Mrs. Sonnenberg for Mel Martin if a "to go" sub and hot dog shop would be allowed in a RC -1 zone at 2109 French Ave. After discussion, the board unanimously agreed for it not to be considered due to the traffic problems it would cause. The next item was a request for clarification of the definition for adult congregate living facility in MR -1, MR -2 and RMOI zonings represented by Charles Cameron. Mr. Cameron feels that the City is not following what the state says for congregate living facilities. In MR -1 and MR -2 zones, people do not need immediate supervision and the RMOI zone would be for people who need supervision. After discussion, the board asked Mrs. Sonnenberg to ask the City Attorney for a clarification on adult congregate living facility definition as to whether the City is being discrimitory by being more restrictive in some zones than in other and in the state definition. The next item was an addendum to the agenda for an opinion on the possibility of commercial zoning on a site contemplating annexation located on Paola Road represented by Bruce WHite. After discussion, the board would not consider commercial zoning on Paola Road because it would be spot zoning, but they would consider multi - family. The board welcomed Mr. John LeRoy and Dr. Hortense Evans as new members on the board. The Minutes of the previous meeting were approved. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. U Moiris,)Qhairman FORM 4 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT LAST NAME —FIRST NAME— MIDDLE NAME Evans Dr. Hortense MAILING ADDRESS 1211 Mellonville Avenue CITY COUNTY Sanford Seminole DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED 7 -18 -85 THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CYCITY D COUNTY 13 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY D STATE NAME OF POLMCAL SUBDIVISION OR STATE AGENCY City of Sanford kME 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 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 oMcW 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 1] 2.312(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 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 must be made. 1, the undersigned local public officer, hereby disclose that on .19 (a)1 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 PAGE I (b) The measure on which 1 abstained and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Business relationship with the sellers ry �• Date Fide �C! w Signature Please see PART C for instructions on when and where to file this form. PART 0 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 H below within 15 days after the vote occurs. I, the undersigned officer of a state agency, hereby disclose that on (a) I voted on a matter which (check one): inured to my special private gain; or ,19 inured to the special gain of , by whom 1 am retained. (b) The measure on which 1 voted and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: . Date Filed 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 (I5) 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 #112.317 (1993L 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 SSAW. CE FORM 4 - REV. 10.8-4 PAGE 2 DORM 4 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT LAST NAME —FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NAME THE BOARD. COUNCIL,COMMISSION, AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE 15 A UNIT OF. MAILING ADDRESS CITY COUNTY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED 7 -18 -85 lil CITY D COUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY D STATE y NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR STATE AGENCY City of Sanford 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 elected 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. 1994).] 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 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. 1994), 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 must be made. 1, the undersigned local public officer, hereby disclose that on (a)1 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. ,19 , CE FORM 4 - REV. 1044 PAGE 1 (b) The measure an which I abstained and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Business relationship with the sellers r G "-A� V Signature Please see PART C for instructions on when and where to file this form. PART 9 VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR STATE OFFICERS [Required by Section 112.3143(2), Florida Statutes (Sapp. 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 On 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 B below within 15 days after the vote occurs. 1, 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 , by whom I am retained. (b) The measure on which 1 voted and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed Signature Please see PART C below for instructions on when and where to file this form. PART C FILING INSTRUCTIONS This memorandum must be filed within fifteen (15) 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 FLORIDA STATUTES0111317 (1983). A FAI LU RE TO M AXE 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 35,000. CE FORM 4 - REV, 1044 PACE 2