Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.21.65ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MIN MS Regular Meeting, October 21, 1965 8:00 P.M. - City Commission Room City Hall Members present: Chairman Clifford W. McKibbin, Jr. William Bush Donald Bishop, Jr. A. W. Lee, Jr. Dr. Brooke Smith Mason H. Wharton City Manager: W. E. Knowles Building and Pla nning Official: Linvel Risner Absent: S. Joe Davis Art Harris Robert E. Karns Chairman McKibbin called the meeting to order. The Chairman then called a Public Hearing into session as advertised in the local Sanford Herald on Qctober 21, 1965, on the rezoning application submitted by C. Vernon Mize, Jr., Attorney for the Estate of Walter Fallen, for the property at the southwest corner of Poinsetta Avenue and 25th Street. Said property being described as Lots 16 and 17, Block 3, Palm Terrace, recorded in Plat Book 4, Pages 82 and 83, Public Records of Seminole County, Florida. Requesting rezoning from that of R-1, One Family Dwelling District to C -1, Neighbor- hood- Commercial. Mr. Mize explained that the property, with a small frame garage apartment thereon and now in an estate, had been condemned by the City on July 29, 1965, with a 90 -day period to demolish or repair, and that Mr. John Sauls was negotiating for a possible sale. Mr. John Sauls outlined that he had made an appraisal of this property, including the abutting property owned by the County and had appraised it as commercial with his buyer proposing the construction of a laundromat and a grocery store. Z & P "minutes" 10/21/65 -2- Appearing in behalf of the request, were the following property owners of the immediate area and were heard as follows: Mr. Jack Wood, speaking in behalf of his mother Mrs. Ola A. Wood of 605 E. 25th Street and now in South Carolina and also speaking for Mr. Richard Chandler of 2438 Poinsetta Avenue and Mr. Abner Thompson of 500 E. 25th Street, who authorized him to say that they are in favor of the rezoning to commercial. However, they were not in favor if the C -1 zoning allowed any type of a bar operation. The Board explained to Mr. Wood that once the zoning is legally changed to C -1, if the applicant wished to change the use from a laundromat and grocery store, he could do so as long as the business complied with the uses as allowed in a C -1 zoning and further pointed out that restaurants were an allowed use whereby the possibility existed that it could be a restaurant - cocktail lounge operation. Mr. J. W. Knight, 2437 Poinsetta Avenue registered objection. Mrs. G. A. Maffett, speaking in her and her husband's behalf and abutting the property of 2439 Poinsetta Avenue registered objection; stating that they had lived there for years and that is their home; would not appreciate looking out during the day and facing this type of commercial operation and it was not needed in the area. B. H. Williams, 2513 Poinsetta Avenue registered objection. Mrs. B. H. Williams, 2513 Poinsetta Avenue registered objection. Fred Readen, 2439 Poinsetta Avenue registered objection. In Executive Session under discussion, it was noted that the property in question is not contigious to commercial property to the west whereby this would constitute spot zoning, and the immediate abutting property owner to the west and also situated in the R -1 zoning, had not registered any reaction to the rezoning notification. ME 0 M Lei o� W 0 to Z & P "minutes" 10/21/65 -3- Also, the Board observing that it was becoming apparant that proposed commercial interest was proceeding to purchase residentially zoned property at a much lower cost and then requesting that it be rezoned to commercial. Thus, existing commercially zoned property being overlooked. It was moved by Mr. Wharton, seconded by Dr. Smith and carried that the request for the rezoning to commercial as set forth in the foregoing paragraph be denied. The Board then went into a lengthy discussion on fencing requirements under the Zoning Ordinance whereby the City Commission.had previously requested that Zoning and Planning Commission review the requirements for further recommendations in particular where a commercial and residential zoning either abutt or are separated by a public way. Article XV, sub- paragraph (g), FENCES AND WALLS, Item (3) was referred to whereby it requires: - When a lot in the C -1 District is occupied by a permitted use other than one or two family dwellings and abutts a lot in a residential district, it shall be separated therefrom by a wall or fence not less than five feet nor more than six feet above average ground level and shall be so designed as to be both sight and light proof and shall not project closer to the street right -of -sway line than 20 feet (the word "abutts" is construed to mean a "common property line ") . The Building Official reported that he had been checking the zoning ordinances of the cities of Orlando, Winter Park, Lakeland, Gainesville, plus several others and had found that they are the same as Sanford in that they do not have a general ordinance on fence requirements, but do have the stipulation on fencing that Sanford has where residential and commercial property abutt. Lights not being the prime consideration, such nuisance as trash and other elements that make up a commercial venture could be controlled by the sanitation ordinance. The discussion included an observation that an entire block could become fenced -in Z & P "minutes" 10/21165 _4.. and be a detriment to light and air circulation instead of an asset. After due diliberation, it was moved by Dr. Smith that the Zoning and Planning Commission recommend that no further action be taken to revise the Zoning Ordinance on fencing requirements. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. 1 c ��,H