Loading...
08.05.99pity of Sanford Planning and zoning Commission Regularly Scheduled Meeting, 7:00 P.M. Thursday, AUGUST 5,1999 Citv Commission Chambers. Citv Hall. Sanford, Florida AGENDA 1. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Planned Development Rezone for property located at 4045 Sanford Avenue from County A -1 to PIS, Planned Development. Tax Parcel No: 18-20-31-300-0050/005B/0090-0000 Owner/representative: Neal B. Hiler 2. Hold a Public Hearing to consider amending Ordinance No. 3117, Land Development Regulations, including changing Schedule A, Schedule B, and changing Schedule E. Representative: Jay R. Mard r, Director of Engineering and Planning 3. Hold 'a Public Hearing to consider a request for a proposed change to a previously approved Seminole Properties DRI. Owner: Seminole Investors Representative: Jaynes G. Willard 4. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 1300 East ' Street for the purpose of a fuel f arm. Tax Parcel No: 06-20-31-300-0010-0000 Owner: Sanford Airport Authority Representative: jean LeMoi n , Sanford Airport Authority 5. Consider the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for the Dakotas, a proposed 24 lot single family residential subdivision located at 600 Upsala load. Tax Parcel Number: -19- - AF- 0000 -0300 Property Owner: Shoemaker Construction, Inc. A. K. Shoemaker) Representative: Donald Denson, P.E. - Design Service Group 6. Consider the Site flan for the Grove Counseling Center, a proposed residential care facility located at 402 Pecan Avenue. Tax Parcel No: - 19- -AG- 1 - 1 Property Owner: Grove Counseling Center, Inc. (Larry iss r Representative: Charles E. "j. R." Ball III, P.E. 7. Minutes. 8. Any other business from floor or Commission Members. 9. Reports from Staff. ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC. If a person decides to appeal a decision made with respect to any matter considered at the above meeting o hearing, he may need a verbatim record of the proceedings including the testimony and evidence, which record Is not provided by the City of Sanford FS 286.0105) Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate to any of these proceedings should contact the personnel office ADA Coordinator at 330 -5626, 48 hrs in advance of the meeting ES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1999 7:OOP.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS CITY HALL SANFORD, FLORIDA MEMBERS PRESENT; Otto Garrett Carol Dennison Bobby VonHerbulis Michael Skat Andrew Kutz Ross Robert Kevin des James Valerino Timothy Hudson STAFF: Jay Marder Eileen McDowell The first item considered was a Public Hearing for a proposed change to the previously approved Seminole Properties DRI. Representative: James G. Willard. James G. Wivard, Shutts & Bowen, 20 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Fl., was present. He stated that the change requires submitting the request to the State, the Regional Planning Council, as well as to the City. DOT, the Regional Planning Council, and the Department of Community Affairs have commented on the request. All comments basically goes toward the form of the equivalency matrix. They have requested a better traffic study. Instead of average daily trips, they would like to see peak hour trips for the different types of land uses. Also they have requested different language in the development order amendment. Mr. Willard stated that they have agreed to make those changes and have engaged a traffic consultant for the additional work. They expect to incorporate those changes to the satisfaction of the other agencies prior to the City Commission Meeting of August 23'. He asked that the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approve the proposed amendment subject to the Planning Director's review of'the final development order Language which will be amended to be consistent with and address the concerns raised in the letters from the other government agencies. Mr. Marder stated that what the applicant has proposed is acceptable. It is anticipated that the matrix will be developed to the satisfaction of all other review agencies by August 23'. Mr. Skat moved to conditionally approve subject to resolution of those issues by Staff. Seconded by Mr. VonHerbulis. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item considered was a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 1300 East 30' Street for the purpose of a fuel farm. Karl Geibel, Director of Engineering at the Airport, was present. Mr. VonHerbulis abstained because he is the general contractor for this project. Mr. Geibel stated that when Sun Jet constructed the fuel farm, the City recommended that they make application for the entire block which consists of several fuel farms. Mr. VonHerbulis explained that this is a city block which has four existing fuel s on it. In the past, fuel farms did not require a conditional use or they never went to the City to get a conditional use. The existing fuel farms have, serviced the Airport for a number of years. It is to clean up the entire block that has never come before the Board to get conditional use approval MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1999 PAGF. 2 Mr. Robert moved for approval per Staff s recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Kum All in favor. Motion carried. The next consideration was a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Planned Development Rezone for property located at 4045 Sanford Avenue from County Ar 1 to PD, Planned Development. Owner /representative: Neal E. Hiler. Neal Idler, Engineer, 1415 W. S.R. 434, Ungwood, was present. He stated that he has had meetings with City Staff as well as Seminole County. A traffic study 11as been completed. He stated that they are in agreement with StafFs recommendations. He noted that the allowed density is 6 units per acre and that they would be developing 4.5 unit ; per acre. The developer will agree to dedicate the right -of -way on Sanford Avenue from what is there to So' to the centerline, and also 44' on the north- side of Pineay. Michael Murray, developer of Westlake Plantations, Ltd., was also present. He stated that the property is approximately 72 acres, contiguous with the City of Sanford. All City services are provided to this property. The Comprehensive Plan is in agreement with this property. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that he has a problem with the 50' lot widths. T" a area being developed is very rural to extend in and brim in SY lot widths. If the lot sizes are equated at 50' wide and the paperwork says that the size is 5,250 square feet per lot, that comes out to 5.29 lots per acre, Chats each lot. Not considering the overall entire density, the roads, retention ponds, tennis courts, and the actual lots. If anything under 114 acre lots comes in, it is not doing the City any justice. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that he is opposed to the lot sizes and the number that is going an. Mr. Murray stated that there is a subdivision with 50' lots right beside this that the City has approved. In the Comp Plan, this property is under the program to do a PD to meet requirements. He stated that he is not against having nicer, sized lots, bpt they did this in a nice array with the subdivision next door. This is not sham housing. He is not opposed to coming up with a program that mares everyone happy. He stated that they are not aging for something that is not there nova. He suggested that they continue on as the Comp Plan says. He is willing to make concessions to make this work for everyone. Mr. VonHerbuhs stated that the overall aspect is that this is a rural area, whether the Comprehensive Plan says that in the future this is what Seminole County has designated it for or whether the City of Sanford decides to annex it and allow it to be a Planned Development, are totally different. This is very much a rural and transitional area. This is an area that you don't bring out. Rose M is the only subdivision that abuts this property that already has 6 units per acre. That is the only thing in close proximity to this that is even close tai what is being proposed to be brought in. That one item, just because it was, just because its been, doesn't mean that is the w its always going to be. Mr. Murray stated that their plan is to keep the woods and do an amenity program. _ They plan on putting in tennis courts, a ' g pool, club house, play area, park benches, and make it compatible to bring quality people into the area. Mr. Kutz stated that there is a very serious concern with the transition from rural to urban. He thinks that this project is in the wrong location. Mr. Murray stated that he is for what is best. If the Commission deems its appropriate, then the deal is dead, then he will do what he gotta do. His comment is, he doesn't think it is. He thinks it's a nice neighborhood. There are units out there, there are absorptions out there, the people that live in this new subdivision are good,. quality people. The ones that will be coming in are good, quality People. If its proving itself through supply and demand, they are not asking to MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMZNIISSIOH MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1999 PAGE 3 experiment, they are not pioneering. If it means some kind of consideration to drop the density a little or something that makes economic sense, he is not against it. He stated that they have gone out of their way to please the City of Sanford. This is a beautiful parr th r are putting in a half a million donar park. The tax revenue and income generated for the City, the conduciveness to the neighborhood are important to the homeowners. This will clean up the neighborhood and will continue to bring value to the neighborhood, not devaluation. Mr. Robert stated that if the lots were 50% bigger, they would fit a lot better. He noted that the traffic is a little tight now for the people in the neighborhood. It is very popular to live in that area. we will see more increase in density, subdivisions such as this anti industrial uses. In this case, many of the Commissioners here have a problem mainly with the density. Mr. Marder explained that when a developer proposes a planned development, he has the opportunity to set a ' ' standard, in this case 50' in width for a lot. SR 1 Zoning requires a 60' lot width. Our actual minimum, access is a somewhat- lekser requirement. Mr. Hipes stated that he did not want to be misleading for folks that come in assuming that 40 or 50' lots are acceptable. This is not acceptable and it shouldn't be. Aft. Murray stated that if it would make the Ciaty,comfortable, they could comply 60'x110' lot. His ultimate objective was to submit this based on what was next door, the success of next dogr and the concept. Mr. Murray stated that he would recommend to change to the 60'x110' lots. The density would be less than 4 units per acre. This would reduce it significantly, probably 60 to 70 lots. Mr. Murray stated that there are 2.55 acres of wetlands in mitigation. Mr. Idler stated that they have a little over 7 acres of wetlands. They are proposing an encroachment of about 2 Y2 acres. They have met with the St. Johns River Water Management District and reviewed the wetland lines, which they have concurred with. They discussed the possible encro #chments and SJRWMD requested that they remove some of the encroachment. The total encroachment now is less than 2 acres. There is a large drainage area north of the project that the City ano County have asked them to study. The study is near completion and they have come up with the amount of flaw that occurs during a 25 to a 100 year storm. The water will be transported in the 72" pipe that is alon& the east side of the development. The retention ponds will meet the requirements of the City and the water Management District as far as pollution abatement a#d the attenuation ofthe 25 year storm. Mr. Murray stated that the purpose of the City Engineer is to determine vvhat has to be captured on site for a_ 100 year flood. plain to be diffused into the normal flaw. It has to be contained in our awn water flow. You have to diffuse or contain it. There was no one else present to speak in favor of the request. In opposition was Kathy Vugrincic, 1305 Palm way. She stated that many ofthe neighbors met and they are concerned with high density... Most homeowners have homes on 2 to 10 acres and sometimes more. Most homes range in value from 125 to $600,000. The rural roads are adequate now and with more traffic this will not afford the neighbors the quality of life that they have been used to over the last 10 years. There are concerns over the natural wetlands and natural wildlife in the area. She stated that they are not apposed to development but rather to get it more contiguous with what is already out there and not to over impact the area. They are also concern9d with the flooding and what type of sewage will be placed out there. The population density in this area for Central Florida is the third highest in the State of Florida and continues to get more and more dense. Several schools, Midway and Pinecrest, are presently overcrowded. One major concern is property value. Regarding the flooding issue, the Lake Jessup area is q natural wetland. It has been under St. Johns water Management. They recently, over the last two to three years, eliminated the levies so that the water would go back to its natural level and to bring back the natural habitat of that land. Ms. Vugxincic requested that the Commission look at this very MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COT 1MSISGN MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1999 PAGE 4 closely and try to see it in its heart to do what is -right for everyone. Maril yn.whitmer, in opposition, submitted pictures. She spoke in opposition. She stated that the pictures, March 24, 1998, are of her property and are a direct result of*e retention pond that is just north of Pineway. The pictures were taken 6 hours after they called the County which pumped the water out from the road. She stated that the County shows 4 units per net acre and this developer is talking_ about 4 Y2 units per acre that is gross, that includes the roads, the retention ponds, and all of the area that -cannot be utffized. Mel Freeman, opposed, stated the reason he bought, his lot, on Plato Avenue very close to Sanford Avenue, Olympic Village, is because of all the things Ms. Wgrincic talked about. He stated that he made a road survey.. F is wife is a school teacher and right now it takes her about 8 minutes to get close to Hamilton Elementary from Myrtle Avenue, if you're lucky, and there is not a whole lot of traffic. When coming in this afternoon about 5:30 P.M., he drove from one end all the way down to the public ramp that is exactly 2.3 miles. His conton is that the traffic will be unbelievable because down on the other end of Myrtle, which someone is budding another development and those people have cars also. If there is an average oft gars per home, arming that the figures are correct, thats 668 automobiles on 2.3 miles of road. Ifyou assume that there is 2 minutes per light and 5 cars per light change, if you are at the boat r#np, if this was his wife, instead of it taking 8 minutes, it would take her 2 Vz hours to make that turn. Shannon Flynn, 775 Pineway, spoke in opposition. She asked if there would be a wall separation and if there would be fill for the area. Flooding is an issue because this is pasture land. As the land is raised, even though there are retention ponds that will be iq the northern part of the development, it will flood more to the south. The runoff will come onto Pineway. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that the developer will have to retain its own drainage. Right now, you get . 1 Do% of any, rain that gets onto the pasture land which goes to the south. Now, any rain that hits on the pasture Land footprint area has to go into the developer's retention pond. They have to then treat it and trickle it out the ditch. It will slow down what is coming there now. Ms. Flynn stated that we can control growth today and in the future as lo4g as we all stand up for what a believe is right and put in place the controls that it takes to control development. She feels that everyone in the Cornnission Chambers would agree that evep 4 units per acre is too much for that area because it goes against what is already there.. She believes that the area that she lives in is zoned currently as 1 unit per 5 acres which is directly across the street from this development. She stated that if a poll was taken of the area residents, there would be a different feel from them regarding Rose Idill. She doesn't think that it would be fapnd that they would express feelings .of success and satisfaction. She certainly would not. The houses are nice, but, as it is she doesn't lie seeing 6 units per acre. She lies the quietness of the area. The traffic has increased significantly in the last 6 years. Laverne Cox, opposed, stated that she lures next to Rose Hill, one house on seven acres. She has experienced what has been happening next to her. Speaking of the flooding, it runs down her driveway and swirls around in front of her house. She stated that she was two feet higher than Rose FM before it was built. Now she is two feet lower than Rose link. She stated that she did a gentleman's agreement with Mr. Baker that she would not drive through his property. She has had a lot of problems with ingress/egress to her property. Ms. Cox stated that sewage doesn't run uphill and there are pumps running all the time to pump the sewage . out of Rose Hill, What will happen when the sewage_ starts to back up? There are just too many houses proposed here. Ms. Cox requested that a 6 buffer wall be put up in back also. Homer Caldwell, 905 Pineway, in opposition, stated that he has owned his property for 12 years. He stated that his property has a 200' setback from the street, and a road frontage of 300'. Igis NEN-LJT PLANNIN AND ZONING CON[ MISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1999 PAGE 5 property value will hit rock bottom with the development being proposed to have 50' setbacks. He suggested that the project be cut in half and have two homes per acre. He is also concerned shout the flooding. Kathleen Clark, 5950 S. Sanford Avenue, spoke in opposition. She stated that Rose Hill has been in development for two years and half the homes haven't sold because of promises that were made. On Sanford Avenge and Myrtle Avenue, right side, from Lake Mary Blvd. to the Lake, the drainage canals are full because of the new development. She stated that FEMA declared her property a disaster area in February of 1995 for about a month. The water will have no where to go. Ms. dark stated that both main acesses into the area cannot be widened. Kathy vugrincic, 1305 Fain Way, reemphasized the impact on the school system. The middle school, Midway and Pinecrest are overcrowded. The only high school is Seminole for the County and there are major concerns with this school. Another concern is the cne rate and what impact it would have. There are concerns regarding people buying starter homes and eventually ending up renting homes out. There are major concerns regarding crime rates because of the shortness of police officers in the County area. Where will the fertilizers on the lawns run off? She stated that she can't see how retention ponds can take care of what God - has. put on this earth. Marilyn Thompson, 1505 Pine Way, opposed, stated that she is very, very upset. She stated that this was the most beautiful piece ofproperty she and her husband have ever seen in their lives. It was their dream place to retire. The tornado destroyed their home and beautiful trees. The trees and animals are coming back. She loves the clean air, hearing the roos(ers crow, and the neighbors. Its wonderful. She is upset that the developers are going to build a project with zero lot lines to make money. She stated that progress will come and asked that these homes not be piled up in this area. She asked that if one home per two acres was approved, then not any allow access on Pineway. Marilyn Whitmer stated that when she called the City Clerks Office there was confusion as to when the City Commission would vote on this and the annexation. There was confusion as to YAwther or not it would be on August 9 or August 27� - She asked ifit would be for sure- on August 23r Julie Swifi, in opposition, lives at the end ofellonville, stated that she knew ever since the Greeneway went through., properties like this wouldn't be able to be developed because every single one of the roads, the two lane narrow country roads, dead ends aVLd go into each other. There is no traffic flow whatsoever, no traffic plan for future development. She stated that since the Greeneay was put in and there is no overall traffic flow, we need to rethink all of the zoning that was put in there before the Greeneay was put . Wanda Culpepper, Myrtle Avenue, spoke in opposition.. She stated that there are two homes on her 9 acres. When she bought her property, - she was only allowed to put one home per acre. She asked wa ats fair and stated that it is not equal treatment under the law. Linda Johnson, 1700 Pineway, in oppositiom, stated that if the developer is interested in doing something that would accommodate her neighborhood, to do somed&g for the City and County, they need to put in projects that people have to be able to afford to live in, not bond loans. Mi. Murray stated that he is not a wicked developer and that he wants to make money. He appreciates all of the concerns. As government gets tougher, bringing in laws and regulations on flows of water and drainage, the St. Johns and Army Corp of Engineers, and as a developer, money malting developer, costs rises and have to be paid. Developers pay the cost and p t of bringing this in. Ultimately, everyone pays for that. Whee these things are tighter and more stringent, as lawyers and bankers and developers, we all pay for those things.. We can't stop growth, we can control growth. Regarding sewer, the City of Samford will provide sewer NHNUTES PLANNING AND ZONING CQ1VMSSIGN MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1999 PAGE 6 and water. It will be self contained, taken into the sewer from the home, not in a septic tank that runoff with the flow. This sewage will be pumped with a lift station at the developer's expense and it will be sent to everyone in the locations that the City has designated for refurbishment. The water and sewer are available to anyone Who wants to annex into the City. The City is next door to this particular property. He did not develop Rose I ll, he bought 1ose The City is contiguous to the property now and Dose Hill was not developed by his entity, he inherited it. The lake that was there was used for landfill for the Beltway as it developed around the area. This is not a bond program, there is no bond money mailable. There will be restrictions in the subdivision that will keep owners from renting their home. This is not rental property. Impact fees are paid to the City and the County and those fees are used to cover growth. The F s that developers and builders have paid, all over the nation, has been for this usage. Local, State and Federal government delegate through all permits and costs, how they want these monies spent. Mr. Murray stated that traffic, with the center road all the way out to the front, they are not going to be running a major thoroughfare through there. when there is traffic exiting into the project, there will be lanes for that, traffic will not be hacked up there. Imagine building a $114 million in beautiful entry features as you go . into this double barred entry with a fountain, wet fountain. This is not entry level housing, it is detailed home lining. There is no rentalyroperty. There wffi be tough restrictions. Two Sheriff Deputies have bought into the property and will live there. The property, itself; will meet and exceed any requirements that the City would put on there to meet local standard development. He stated that the entry to the project will be all boulevard and fenced and if it really bothers Ms. Cox on the back side of the property,. he has no problem with putting a fence there to mAe it attractive. Mr. Murray stated that a professional traffic study was done and it came back showing the traffic flow would not have any impact at all on the property. By self containment of water, the drainage on this property will be better after it is developed. He pointed out that ey don't want to hurt the value, they don't want slum housing, they don't want bond housing. This particular project is very conducive to growth there. He suggested that he voluntarily drop down to 60' lots, not exceed 4 units per acre, and fmish the project. Mr. VonHerbulis asked Mr. Murray if he had taken his project to Seminole County Traffic Engineering - with his traffic study or any comments. Mr. Murray Mated that unfortunately, Seminole County controls Pineway and Sanford Avenue. This is a *uatign that will. ultimately be controlled as to whether they allow driveways or widening, put a light, or whatever. He stated that Seminole County has seen plans. In this particular case, the reason they are annc)dng into the City is because the City_ is already servicing the area with fire, water and sewer and all other amenitaies. The purpose of going out over there was a request of the County for traffic diffusing. DOT, all departments of Seminole County, State and Local Governments have to approve all of these things. Mr. BRer stated that the Traffic Engineer submitted a congwency application with Seminole County. They gave ,him the criteria on which roadways and intersections to study. They not only did the ADT but they did the peak hours also and found that at the end, at the time that the Traffic Engineer at Transportation Planning and Design did the study, considering more lots than what is being proposed now and even with the extra lots, he said that the egg roadway system would be at an acceptable level. Mr. VonHerbulis asked if the study or any applications had been brought to Seminole County, Randy Williams' office, to see if any improvements to these roads needed to be done. Mr. Iller stated that the final construction plans aren't completed, but they have looked at the concurrency Issue. W. Murray stated that they- are willing to meet some concessions. Not everybody can afford estate homes. The medium income justifies the market. These aren't affordable houses, these aren't entry level. This area doesn't dictate 5 acre estates, $200 homes. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMNUS SION MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1999 PAGE 7 Mr. VonHerbulis made the motion that this Board deny the project at this time to give the developer an opportunity to redo the subdivision with a maxinmm of net units per acre, which are 114 lots, not 4 units per acre gross, with a ' ' of G0' frontages. Seconded by Mr. ITipes for discussion. Mr. Kutz stated that he would like to see some type of schematic that shoves the existing density of housing all around this project and the proposed density to see how this will blend in. Mr. Marder stated that the County's Future Land Use Plan Map has shown this property, at least since 1991, as low density residential development. Nor. Robert stated that the lots should be 10,000' which would make it much less dense, but he thinks the Board should recommend approval to the Commission, not disapprove. Mr. VonHerbuJis stated that there is no proof that they can make it happen. To approve it nova, how do yqu undo it. He stated that he would say to take no action and let them redo it, or disapprove it. Mr. Lutz stated that he likes the idea of tabling fl*,thing to get some additional information so the Board would have a better criteria. So wet can better evaluate what seems like a reasonable density in the area. Mr. Robert stated that we don't need more data, we each have a knowledge of what is out there, we can do it tonight. Mr. Hudson asked if Mr. VonHerbulis would consider restating his motion to include a schematic for 64' lots and also for 1 acre lots. Mr. VonHedyuhs stated that we could adjust this how we need to. Mr. Kutz stated that we have heard a lot of stories okvvhat is around this property but haven't seen it on paper. He is not interested in having_more people march through here and he would like to see what is around it. Mr. Valerino stated that be agrees with Mr. Kutz because how can we arbitrarily say it should be this or it should be that. Mr. Skat stated that he feels it would be jumping from way to a lower density to a high density. Mr. vpnHerbulis withdrew his motion. Mr. Ilipes withdrew his second and moved to recommend denial. Seconded by Mr. Skat. r. Hipes stated that he moved to deny because the proposed is not consistent with the surrounding_property. Mr. Skat stated that he disagrees with Staff because there is one development that abuts this property that is a dense development but the rest of the properties surrounding this is high densky.. Mr. Hipes stated that Staff is saying that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but we are saying that it is not consistent with the existing conditions. Mr. Valerino stated that at the present time, the way the property is zoned, is one unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan may envision something different, but fight now it is not consistent. Mr. ffVes stated that another concern is that although the future Comprehensive Plan doesn't really address the traffic spilling out. ontq Pineway. Without the County saying that they absolutely got this under control, they are going to widen that road, it will not be dangerous, it is a little early for us to bless the plan. Mr. Marder stated that from a traffic standpoint, as far as the road capacity is concerned, this development is not likely to cause the capacity of the roads. to go over an acceptable level of service. All in favor of the motion. Motion carried. The nen item considered was the Prehmhuwy Subdivision for the Dakotas, a proposed 24 lot single family residential subdivision located at 600 Upsala Road. Ronald Henson, representing Shoemaker Construction, was present. He Mated that the request is for preliminary subdivision approval for 24 single family lots. The home size will be approximately 1 800 square feet. Along Upsala Road there will be a decorative fence with cohumns, smear to an aluminum fence with a wrought _iron appearance; and on the three other sides a chain link fence that will be black, vinyl coated, will be install d for security purposes. Mr. Robert moved for approval. Seconded by Mr. Lutz, All in favor. Motion carried. Nexi was the consideration of the Site Plan for the Grove Counseling Center, a proposed residential care facility located at 402 Pecan Avenue. Larry Visser of the Grove Counseling Center was present. He stated that they are taking an exd tug vacant warehouse and cleaning it up and building it out into a 32 bed residential facility for youths. They are making some significant improvements to the appearance to the property as RMU1 E P G AND ZONING COAOUSSION MEETING OF AUGUST S, 1999 PAGE S well as the functionality. The front portion ofthe chain link fence will be taken down to blend in with the co . . From about the half way point ofthe build to the -back clown 4`h Street, the fence will be replaced with an ornamental block and wrought iron fence. The chain link fence along Poplar will remain with some built in shrubbery. A block wall will be installed because the propry abuts the residential. Mr. Visser stated that they are trying to reserve the back area for a recre4tional area. 'There will be approximately _3 D boys, age range of 13 to 17, living here and they will need a play area, some exercise area. The reason for the three entrances is to be able to secure the back part ofthe parking lot so that there i secure parking for night staff It will be gated and will allow the visiting staff drive in and exit without having to go through the gated system. Yang hours in this facRy are limited to once or twice a weep, during structured hour time. There will be minimal ' act from visiting traffic. J. R. Ball, Civil Engineer, stated that this site used to be a sewing factory. There was a parking lot on the side where parking is now, there are drainage issues. It is a natter of paving now where there wasn't paving before. There is no asphalt there. There is a hard compacted ground over most of the site. What they are going to do on part ofthe site is put in concrete pavement and the rest will be taken up and put back down, to loosen it up to allow it to be more permeable. M r. Ball stated that the Water Management District has been on -site and has agreed not to enforce permit action if they just pave where it is shown on the plans. M r. Skat m o v e d to approve. Seconded by Aft. V o n H e r b u l i . s . All in favor. Motion carried. The next item was a Public Hearing to consider amending Ordinance No. 3117, Land Developt Regulations, including changing Schedule A, Schedule B, and changing Schedule E. Jay Marder, Director of Engineering and Planning was present. He stated that this proposal was initiated by the . City Commi lion in its concern about such uses as soup kitchens, homeless shelters, food distribution activities, and temporary day labor employmept services. What has been done is those uses have been defined as social benefit service facilities. These facilities will need to be conditional use type permitting in our commercial zones, especially the SC -3. Standards have been developed for reviewing these uses including a 150O' buffer between similar types of uses. Mr. VonHerbulis moved to approve as printed per StaTs recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Skat. Mr. 14cs, Mr. Hudson and Mr. Kutz in opposition. An others in favor. Motion carried. M r. Skat mentioned that he had counted. 32 cars on the lot on 17 -92 at East Ocean. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 P. Q4A� J .,2 bs Valerina, Chairman FORM 8B ME OF VOTINCv COUNTY, MUNICWAL, AND OTHER LOCAL LAST �1I E —T RST No I1ill)l)1.L 1�+I E r MAILIN(I .xL)D ESrs 7:� a ITT r LATE ON WHICH ()1'L 1 CONFLICT rQit PUBLIC OFFICERS { ;. N AM E 01 )I R.D. COLI NCI L. IL OM M INNI N. AU 1 1'IUK I J 1. UK UOM PA I 1 1 r- [ i 1 i T BOAR U, COO N C IE. (}MMI SS ION. AUI HOkITY. 0K COM MITTEL () N i WHICH I BERYL 15 A NIY OE' " _C( �(ITII�Ell 1�.IX'A�IA�GEN�CY LA?L! hl Tl Ir1AML OF POLITICA SUSUIVISiON. X4u r ., E � � Jrjz MY POS11 ION Is: r_' ELECTIVE Ad APPOINTIVE W HO MUST FILE FOR r l Th is farm �� for use � , an • erson servin at t h county; chy, or other Iocal level of government on n appointed o r elected boa rd, p • rit committee. !x a pplies equally to rnerr�bers of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented council, commission, autho y, or r� with a voting ' eons ct of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular ular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. . under the law'when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict f interest will irary greatly depending Your respor�stb�ltttes on whether you h o l d - d an elective or appointive position. or.this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this roan before completing the reverse side and fitting the form. INSTRUCMONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SIECTION 1123 FLORIDA STATUTES E LECTED CEO. ldin -elective ouniy, municipal, or other local public' o ffice MUST` ABSTAIN from voting n a me .sure which inures A person by . s pecial private airs. Each local officer also is prohibited from know in ly voting on P. measure which inures to the special �� �x �pec g gain of a principal of her than a government agency) by whom he, is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: P R 10 R TO THE VOTE BE N G TAKEN by publ16y stating to the assembly the nature of your interest In -the measure on - }rich you are abstaining from voting; and . W IT H I N 15 DAYS AFT THE VOTE OCCURS by. completing and filing this form m , ith the person responsible for recording the minutes o the meeting, wh o s hould incorporate the roan in the minutes. A PPOINTED OFI S: per holding appo�nt�appointive ourti� p p f , p munici l , d r other local �' ublic offic � e MU T B T:� I from voting on. . measure �hi h . ,. .. inures to his s special p rivate gain. Each local officer also is prolilbhed from knowingly voting on a measure which. inures to-.the special gain of a principal (other than a government a g en cy) by whom b e is retained. A person holding an appointiye local office otherwise i rria , participate in a matter in' +hi h ale' has a onflict of irirerest, blut. Must disclose the nature of the conflict before nrn ing any att rhpt to influence the decisian b yoral or written co rrimendeation, 'ivhe er inade b y the officer or at -ais direction. IF YOU INT ND T O MAKE ANY ATTE 4PT TO INFWEI THE. E IS1 .'? 1 - 7 THE &4EETl AT' WHFCH THE VOTE W1LL BE TAKEN: . • You : s'' Id complete and file this form (before - making an y attempt do influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who `ill incorporate the form in the minutes. * A cop) of the fo rm should be provided immediately do th other member member. of the ae n-C '. • The i'orm should be read publiclY at the meeting prior' to consideration of the matte, ire which you have a conflict of interest. n IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING- of your cor�f�tict in the measure before parti .�� ou s h o uld disclose o r a lly the - • 'ou should complete the form and file it within 15 day s aftcr the vot occurs with the person responsible For recording the. s of the rx eti �rh should incorporate the form in the minutes. D IS C L O S U RE F LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST �rs 1 hereby disclose t hat o � measure ca or will corns before rn a genc y a) inured t My special priva[c gain; or r by whom l am retained. inured to the special gaits of The measure bcforc my a a nd the n of my interest in the measure - is as follow: t S ""T Date Filed 7ia t u . .� TES 12 317 {]985), FAILURE T MAb�r ANY REQUIRE'. ,NOT ICE - 'ER PROVISIONS F FL ORIDA F RI A STATUTES R ONE OR NJOR O T F T&.L0%1I ISHEOD DI CO N S TIT U TES R � � � EM D RL.�T�1 I 'i� T REMOV R SPt I} FRONT OFFICE R r. . %. - r r, n I� A * N 1 n X13? ❑ (-" ? v j j PENALTY O T TO E X E E. D . O .