Loading...
07.06.95WORKSHOP AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6 1995 6:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION ROOM,_ CITY HALL CITY O F SAN FO RD, FLO R1 DA A. TRANSPORTATION ISSUE BRIEFING 1. Orlando Urban Area 2020 Plan Alternatives Testing 2. 1 -4 Intermodal Master Plan a. 6 + 4 Policy b. Light Rail C. Commuter Rail d. High Speed Rail 3. Seminole County Expressway - Missing Link 4. Orlando Metropolitan Planning Organization Transporation Improvement Progam 5. Sanford -North Seminole Intermodal Transportation Facility Concept 6. Seminole County Road Program 7. LYNX - New Route 50 and Bus Shelters 8. Lake Monroe Riverwaik - ISTEA Enhancement Fund Project Application B. FUTURE LAND USE CHANGES IN AIRPORT AREA BY SEMINOLE C. NEW EX -PARTS COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES NOTE: Copies of the above - described materials will be available for review at the meeting. Such materials are on file and available for review at the Department of Engineering and Planning, Second Floor, City Hall, City of Sanford, Florida. ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC: If a person decides to appeal a decision made with respect to any matter considered at the above meeting of he or the may need a verbatim record of proceedings. Including the testimony and evidence with record is not provided by the City of (F5 288.0105) NTY Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contactthe Personnel Office ADA Coordinetll r at33o- 5828. 48 hours In advance of the meeting. FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR June 28, 1995 ?4 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, 7:00 P.M., Thursday, July 6, 1995, in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, Sanford, Florida. AGENDA 1. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 3301 Rand Yard Road in an AG, Agricultural and MI -2, Medium Industrial Zoning Districts for the purpose of animal raising. Owners: Great Potpourri, Ltd. and Harold H. Kastner Representative: Bruce K. Andersen 2. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 3100 Sanford Avenue in an SR -1, Single Family Dwelling Residential Zoning District for the purpose of a detached sign {75 square feet allowed; 96 square feet proposed; an increase of 21 square feet. Owner: Cumberland Farms, Inc. Representative: Phillip E. Siekiere 3. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request to Rezone property located at 4000/4001 Country Club Road. Rezoning from MR -1, Multiple - Family Dwelling Residential to that of PD, Planned Development. Owner: Mack N. Cleveland and Patricia T. Stenstrom Representative: Udo Garbe 4. Any other business from floor or Commission Members. 5. Reports from Staff. 6. Minutes. ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC. If a person decides to appeal a decision made with respect to any matter considered at the above meeting or 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 in any of these proceedings should contact the personnel office ADA Coordinator at 330 -5626, 48 hrs in advance of the meeting. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSESSION JULY 6, 1995 6:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS MSi.ay'1:)A dRtJ *A - : L 93 Lynn Stogner Mac McClanahan Helen Stairs Mark Platts Leon Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: Cynthia Holt- Miller Ben Dyal Jim Valerino Ross Robert OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Russ Gibson, Land Development Coordinator Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary Mr. Marder noted that transportation issues are important. to the Planning and Zoning Commission because it considers transportation as it relates to a site. There are three major transportation studies taking place. one is the Orlando. Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2020 Update. In the past it was called a Needs Plan, consisting of everything everyone wanted done even though it could not all be done, but put in the plan anyway. Then came the Financial Feasible Plan which is exactly what it sounds like. Now, pursuant to the memo from JHK & Associates, we are coming up early in the computer modal stage. There are three: test cases that are basically outlined in that memorandum taking into consideration the Low Regional Transportation System, existing plus committed which includes consideration of minor improvements to I -4. The Medium Alternative includes some light rail. The High Regional Transportation System includes light rail from Sanford to Kissimmee. The CSX Corridor in Sanford is heavy rail which would give us an opportunity to do something that in transportation circles refer to as commuter rail which is what is down in Miami, Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. It has the old style, MINUTES WORKSESSION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1995 PAGE 2 heavy, rolling stock made for basically long distances. The light rail is a narrower gauge track. It can run up and down, around, make turns and this and that. It is much more f lexible than commuter rail. These are three alternatives which will be presented through the Orlando Metropolitan Planning Organization, a federally mandated group that is in charge of all federal funds or use federal transportation dollars in this state. Mr. Marder stated that the I -4 Master Plan is another study coming, more or less, to a conclusion in the near future. It is a study of different alternatives as to how we are going to invest in I -4. I -4 being our main street in Central Florida. The various alternatives are called Conceptual Mobility Enhancement Alternatives. The State Policy, on interstates, is what is called the 6 +4 Policy. The Secretary of the State Department of Transportation has the authority to make mandates. He has mandated that there will be no more than 6 open, single occupancy type free vehicle lanes along any interstate or state road in this State. There will be up to 4 high occupancy vehicle lanes, which will be separated, i.e. 2 lanes in each direction. There can be no more than a maximum. 10 lanes on a road. We will not see anything like I -95 in Dade County. We cannot build ourselves out of congestion with more lanes. A number of alternatives are being studied as to how to put dollars into I -4 from Polk County to Volusia County. Along with this study, the I -4 Multi -Modal Master Plan Study, there are maps that indicate the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, i.e. LYNX Study, which is also taking place at this time, the rail study. The: two studies have been "bridged"; they are being accomplished in a great deal of syncopation such that all the alternatives are concerned with many of the same elements, i.e. how will the rail run. There are three main alternatives that are being studied in the Rail Study. Mr. Marder stated that there are three tiers to the Multi- Modal. Master Plan Study and that we are on Tier 2. There is approximately 12 to 18 alternatives to the first tier and we are down to 6 or 8 of the second tier. There are quite a few measures of rating the different alternatives. Seminole County Road Programs that, are building with different funds includes the four- laning of Airport Blvd. There are a lot of roads in the Sanford area that the County is involved in four - laning. MINUTES WORKSESSION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1995 PAGE 3 One interesting concept that has come up in this area is the North Seminole Sanford Intermodal Transportation HUB Concept. The City thought it was going to lose the Auto Train Terminal. It scared the City and County into taking a proactive approach to transportation. The City is in the process of going into Phase II of that study. As part of the second study, interested parties and stakeholders were interviewed to try to put the City in the forefront of charting it's own destiny. The new bus route out to the Mall will start on September. 1 so that folks who want to work there will have the knowledge of the system. The new route includes new stops at Wal -Mart, several along 17-92 up to 25th Street, and at 1st Street and French Avenue. The City has kept the existing service which is well established, well utilized and has very good fares. Every year the route will have to be reviewed. The Ex -Parte Communication Disclosure Rules gives the Commissioners the opportunity to talk to people about decisions to be made for conditional uses, zoning, variances, on all quasi - judicial matters. A Commissioner can talk to people and can receive and read mail about individual situations but this must be disclosed at the meeting in terms of who you spoke to and the subject matter of the discussion. Site. visits must also be disclosed.. It was unanimously decided to hold a 30 minute worksession on August 3, 1995 to decide procedures. and disposing the information regarding Ex -Parte Disclosures. Mr. Marder suggested that a form be develop for site visits. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1995 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Helen Stairs Lynn Stogner Mark Platts Mac McClanahan Leon Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: Ross Robert Cynthia Holt - Miller Ben Dyal Jim valerino OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Russ Gibson, Land Development Coordinator Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairperson Stairs. The first item heard on the Agenda was a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 3100 Sanford Avenue in an SR -1, Single Family Dwelling Residential Zoning District for the purpose of a detached sign (75 square feet allowed; 96 square feet proposed; an increase of 21 square feet). Owner: Cumberland Farms, Inc.; representative: Phillip E. Siekiera. Rob Roiscam, Cumberland Farms, stated that his company was notified of the road widening project and that it involved some land taking. They were told to move everything out of right -of -way by 4/30/95. He stated that they had applied for sign permits and were denied because of the square footage. He explained that there is an existing sign in the right -of -way. The square footage of that sign, located at the corner of Airport B1. and Sanford Avenue, is 96. There is another free standing sign on the property for the restaurant. Mr. Gibson explained that there are two detached signs on the site. Cumberland Farms will be relocating the sign that is on the corner. He explained that Staff's recommendation is to allow a 75 square foot sign on the site. Mr. Marder explained that the City allows up to 75 square feet, total, for detached signs. There are two detached signs on the property which places it over the maximum square footage for the site. Mr. Roiscam explained that since the land taking will occur and because of the gas tanks, Cumberland Farms will have to do something different. He stated that they have conceptual plans which include demolishing the existing building and rebuilding, with the total building to be housed by Cumberland Farms. There will be no tenants on site. Mr. Stogner moved to deny the 96 square foot request and recommended approval of the 75 square foot sign with the condition that landscaping requirements are met. Seconded by Mr. Brooks. Mr. McClanahan stated that the problem was not created by Cumberland Farms but that the problem was created by a governmental entity. He stated that without that problem being created, Cumberland Farms would not be in this position. Mr. McClanahan MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1995 PAGE 2 stated that he has a problem with making Cumberland Farms change the size of the sign. Mr. Stogner, Mr. Platts, and Mr. Brooks in favor to deny. Opposed to the motion was Mr. McClanahan and Mrs. Stairs. Motion carried to approve the variance of up to 75 square feet. The next item heard on the Agenda was a Public Hearing to consider a request to Rezone property located at 4000/4401 Country Club Road. Rezoning from MR -1, Multiple- Family Dwelling Residential to that of PD, Planned Development. Owner: Mack N. Cleveland and Patricia T. Stenstrom; representative: Udo Garbe. Hal Marston, 535 N. Park Ave., Winter Park, stated that he was present representing the owners and the developers. The subject property is controversial. The request to rezone to PD is an effort to accommodate surrounding homeowners to incorporate some type of plan into ultimate development. The plan submitted shows 98 residential units of single family character. It is important to consider the fact that there is a clear choice for the landowners at this time: to develop the property as multi. - family housing or some type of single family housing. Mr. Marston stated that it is very desirable, apartment property. He stated that he and his clients have come back with a compromised plan that represents a 98 lot solution for what was proposed back in January. There are 6 houses less, the retention ponds have been moved further away from the wellfield, and they have agreed to a minimum of 1200 square foot homes. Mr. Marston stated that this is their final effort and that this effort arose out of a request from homeowners after meeting with Staff to fine -tune an apartment plan. He stated that he has met with Staff and that Staff `s recommendation is for approval. Mr. Marston stated that they are prepared to go in either direction. Mrs. Stairs asked if the lift station would be relocated. Mr. Marston stated that the lift station was moved and that there were a number of changes made on the plans. He stated that they would be more than happy to locate the lift station.according to Staff's recommendations. He stated that there also is an open park and a recreation area. Mr. Stogner stated that Mr. Marston has indicated that the owners are willing to go either way and asked what is the desire of the builder. Mr. Marston stated that they have had mixed responses of surrounding property owners. His view is that single family is much more attractive than a multi - family apartment project. He stated that the property has been zoned for apartments for some time, and that there is a definite need for apartments in that area. Mr. Platts asked if the developer would be in agreement with 60 foot and rear yard setbacks of 25 to 36 Mr'. Marston stated that there is a little bit of room but not a lot. The product at 1200 square feet and larger will be $100,000 homes and up. The depth of the lots on the east side reaches 12.0' to accommodate pools. He stated that they have lost 6 lots from what was proposed in January. They are at a point where they have tried to do as much as they can within reason. Some homes would be in excess of 1600 square feet. Charles Choyce, 582 Hardwood Place, Lake Mary, stated that he still represented all the homeowners. He passed out a handout that he would follow during his presentation, attached. He stated that he did not think that the developers are serious about building the MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1995 PAGE 3 multi - family units. He stated that from an economic standpoint, the developers would not make a lot of money on the low income project. The multi - family project was designed to scare the homeowners. Mr. Choyce stated that the Rezoning should be denied. He stated that the developer should propose something that the homeowners would like. He stated that he and the homeowners do not think that this project merits planned development zoning. It is nothing more than an effort to cram through what has been voted down before, in which, based on the Land Development Code, is illegal and for this reason the homeowners adamantly oppose this project. Mr. Choyce stated that he would prefer that the applicant keep the existing zoning because if the applicant is to do anything, the applicant has to come through him to do it. Mr. McClanahan clarified that the conditional use does not apply to the existing MR -1. All it would take is Staff and the approval of the City for site plan.. There is no public hearing on a site plan. Mr. McClanahan stated that he took offense to the document that Mr. Choyce had passed out. It criticized everything that the City has done, is going to do, and the ability of Staff. He stated. to Mr. Choyce that Mr. Choyce has criticized Staff and their ability as limited. Mr. McClanahan stated that he takes offense in trying to be intimidated. He stated.that may be juries are intimidated. Mr. Brooks stated that he also resented Mr. Choyce saying that an apartment development would be crime ridden and asked Mr. Choyce how did he know this. Mr. Choyce stated that this is what the developer had indicated to the homeowners. Mr. Choyce stated that the Code requires that the backside of the buildings on Country Club Road can only be 75' from the center of the right -of -way. The right -of -way doesn't change whether its 50 or 80 The buildings along the backside of the buildings along Country Club Road is a 60' distance. It doesn't matter which right -of -way distance the developer is using, they are 15' short. This is a heavily traveled road. Mr. Marder explained that the base building li.ne.setbaek has been met because the County has basically signed off on that right -of- way. The developer won't need the 100' right -of -way that was originally planned for, they would only need may be 80 The right -of -way is basically sufficient, it meets the intents and purposes. Linda Manning, 207 Lake View Ave., was present for opposition. She stated that she is a certified residential appraiser. She stated . that by comparing factors and whatever to justify a point of view is not a rational, logical point, and this is not the way the Code and the Comprehensive Plan is written. If we do not understand and operate on that level, we're making major mistakes. She stated that 98, 5000 square foot lots, about 1/3 of the existing homes in the area, would glut the market and. change the entire level of the balance of economy in the area. She stated that if the Commission did not care about the economy, it was not following the guidelines of the Plan. Ms. Manning stated that the Commission must take into account the effect on the housing supply and demand; and it must take into account existing lot sizes and the neighborhood around it. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1995 PAGE 4 Phillip Lee, 411 Lake Blvd., Loch Arbor, stated that the neighborhood association was formed in 1973 over this piece of property. The Comprehensive Plan showed that the entire area should be 4 units per acre, and no more than that. He feels that it was a mistake for this planning board to change the zoning to MR -1 in the first place. He stated that at the present time the Comprehensive Plan shows that it should be R1 -AA. Overcrowding of this property is the wrong thing to do. Christine Adcock, 420 W. Crystal Drive, stated that they are brand new homeowners. She stated that her and her husband bought into this area because they love it. Their rear yard abuts the property in question. She stated that it would be a mistake to put in high density homes. Jane Winner, 303 Fairway Rd., stated that Loch Arbor is one of the nicest, prettiest neighborhoods in Sanford.. The intent of inviting the developers to her home was to help share with them the visions that the homeowners has for the neighborhood. She stated that this development would be a crime against Sanford. Hal Marston stated that the developer nor the owners have not utilized any type of racism to try to correct the progress of this development. He stated that what he had said at the beginning of this project and at the beginning of the public hearing is that the developers are more than happy to proceed with the multi- family development.. Mr. Marston stated . that he can identify with the fact that when someone begins in life, many start with rental units. There is no great detriment associated with rental units. He stated that he has never threatened anyone. Mr. Marston stated that City Staff adequately reviewed all plans including the multi- family site plan. The issue of the road right - of -way is something that the County signed off on and was agreed to. Mr. Marston stated that they will abide by the regulations within the St. Johns River Water Management District, the City of Sanford and all other governmental agencies that have jurisdiction over this project. The developer and owners have quite a bit of faith in the ability and in the experience in the Staff that reviewed the plans. Mr. Marston pointed out that it has also somehow been used as a slur, that they considered affordable housing in the context of multi - family development on this property. He pointed out that the regulations within the City of Sanford allow for much higher densities in affordable housing projects than the 160 units proposed. The intent is not to maximize this project to get every nickel out of it. Mr. Marston stated that it is appalling to raise the issue of racism. It is appalling to attach a stigma to affordable housing. He stated that the only reason he is here tonight is to try to do something that the residents in the area would be happy with. The single family plan can die if this is the case. The developer is willing to look at a minimum threshold of 1200 square feet on the homes as a condition of the approval.. However, the PD would be tied to a maximum ceiling of 98 Lots. He stated that they would not be comfortable with a tremendous lost of lots.. Mr. Marder stated that within the context of the City's overall Future Land Use Plan, one could look at the City as a big, mixed use development. There is a lot of different housing types, many of which abut one another. There is a significant amount of multiple family zoning in the City. Much of it abuts single family zoning. There are quite a few different types of land uses that take place over a period of time. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1995 PAGE 5 Bill Edwards, Country Club Road, stated that this was County property in 1972 or 1973. Sanford annexed property across Upsala Road and came in through what is now known as Mayfair Villas, then came across and annexed this property with the specific purpose of zoning it MR -1. There was no thought process other than there was a developer who wanted to construct apartments on that property. MR -1 zoning was done to accomplish this. At that time, the homeowners hired an attorney to try to help to get this zoning changed. The homeowners were unsuccessful. It was a bad project then and it will be a bad project under PD zoning. Gary Winner, 303 Fairway, stated that communities that have old types of housing are very successful, reproductive communities. This property is one of the few, beautiful pieces of property left in the City. He stated that when the developer was invited to his home, the developer gave them 2 choices, apartments or homes. This is not a fair tactic. Mr. Winner stated that he is very much against the PD. Mr. McClanahan stated that, for the record, in defense of Staff, he has worked with Staff for 23 years, 15 years he was considered a boss. All through the 23 years, including the 8 years he was out of office, he worked as a builder, contractor and developer. He has never found anything but a courteous., competent and efficient staff. Mr. McClanahan.stated that he has the utmost confident in Staff that signed off on this application. He stated that he did not feel Staff rated the comments that were made by the two people in the audience. He feels the comments were unwarranted, unprofes- sional, and the comment& had no place in this hearing. Mrs. Stairs asked that correspondence from Kathy Shaw, and all information received by the Commission be entered into the record. Linda Manning stated that this vote needs not to be made on emotional grounds. Competence is not the issue. We're all human and we all make mistakes. Mr. Platts stated that this is a very difficult decision. In looking at this alternate process, he has come to the conclusion that the single family is the appropriate development for this site. Personal property and investment is the best way to insure that the property is maintained and enhanced over the years. Differences in housing types and size and lot sizes are good. It provides a variety of housing opportunities and options for people of different incomes to live in close proximity to each other. This helps break down barriers. Things cannot happen if separated by income. Mr. Platts stated that he feels this plan could be designed better. Encouragement should. be geared toward new development in older neighborhoods. The developer needs to compromise and insure that the lots that are adjacent to other properties should be larger with a larger setback. Mr. Stogner explained that this Commission is quasi judicial, which means that decisions are based on fact, and must adhere only to fact. There are a lot of opinions, statements and rebuttal. He stated that the Commission. must hold it to the issue that it is here for. Mr. Platts moved to approve the PD Rezoning with conditions as stated on the plan, plus a minimum of 1200 square feet for homes, and, also, that for all, lots that are adjacent to the east and south property lines be a minimum of 60' in width and that the minimum rear yard setbacks be 25' from the property line, and with the maximum number of lots to be 95. Seconded for discussion by Mr. McClanahan. Mr. McClanahan moved to amend the motion to make MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1995 PAGE 6 a minimum of 50' for all lots, because 50' frontage and 60' frontage does not make that much difference. The plan has been drawn and the original motion would kill it. Mr. McClanahan stated that he did not have a problem with restricting it to 95 lots, but he would like to make the motion to amend to change to a minimum of 50' lots. Mr. Brooks agreed with Mr. McClanahan and seconded the amendment. Mr. Brooks commented that people are in business to make a profit. He stated that he did not see that much of a difference between 50' and 60' lots. Mr. Brooks agreed that 50' is quite sufficient. Mr. Platts stated that he suggested the 60' on the south and east to provide a transition from the wider lots to the adjacent. 10' can make a difference in the perspective of a lot in the way a home is situated. He stated that he feels it is a fair compromise because it would only result in the loss of three lots. It won't economically impact the developers in any bad way. It is a fair compromise, it eases some concerns of adjacent property owners, but it allows everyone to have some middle ground. Mr. McClanahan stated that in comparison to this development, he didn't think there was anymore of a restrictive community in the world than Boca.Raton, Florida. The area has 45' lots, 80' deep, zero lot lines, homeowner associations and the houses are selling for $169.000. Mr. Marston stated that the developer could take the width of three lots and distribute. the width across the width of those lots that lie along the south and east side. Mr. Marston stated that they are willing to work the compromise that is being asked for and requested that the maximum number of lots. be 95. Mr . Brooks withdrew his second. Mr. McClanahan withdrew the original amendment. Mr. McClanahan moved to amend and approve the original motion with the condition that the development be no more than 95 building sites, that. the 3 lots that will be deleted will be spread along the lots that the original motion has addressed. Seconded by Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks, Mc McClanahan, and Mrs. Stairs in favor of the amendment. Opposed were Mr. Stogner and Mr. Platts. 13 lots will be affected by the 150' of the three lots that will be lost. Mr. Platts and Mr. Stogner in opposition. Mrs. Stairs, Mr. McClanahan and Mr. Brooks in favor of the motion. Motion carried. The next item considered was a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 3301 Rand Yard Road in an AG, Agricultural and MI -2, Medium Industrial Zoning Districts for the purpose of animal raising. Owners: Great Potpourri, Ltd. and Harold H. Kastner; representative: Bruce K. Andersen. Bruce Andersen, 3685 Midiron Dr., Winter Park, was present for representation. He stated that the owners would be raising cattle. Mr. McClanahan asked if it would be a problem for the applicant if the Commission limited the animal raising to cattle or to exempt hogs. Mr. Andersen stated that this would be perfect. Mr. McClanahan moved to approve on the condition that there be no hogs raised. Seconded by Mr. Stogner. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Brooks moved to approve the Minutes as circulated. Seconded by Mr. Platts. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Gibson reported that he had received a report regarding a traffic signal at Mellonville and 46. The report came back negative, there was no justification based on FDOT's review. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. s .U���[M1 ✓dCC Clfrh �t,4 -N From the Director of Planning and Development June 30, 1995 TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Recommendations for Meeting of July 6, 1995 SIEKIERABOONE /CUMBERLAND FARMS - Request for a dimensional variance to permit 96 square feet sign surface area compared to 75 square feet sign surface area permitted for property Zoned RC -1, Restricted Commercial located at the southwest corner of Airport Boulevard and Sanford Avenue. 1. The site includes a small strip center with a convenience store with gas pumps, a hardware store and a restaurant. A portion of the property appears to be in the process of being taken as part of a county road widening project. 2. Inspection of the site's existing detached signage revealed two free - standing signs. The main existing sign located at the corner of Airport Boulevard and Sanford Avenue advertises the convenience store and hardware store with fuel prices. The main sign appears to be in a moderate state of disrepair. It includes three separate sign -faces with the lower two appearing to be add -ons from the original convenience store sign face on top. Based on information provided by the applicant, the main sign's surface area is approximately 96 square feet. The second detached sign is located on the south side of the site facing Sanford Avenue and advertises the restaurant with a reader board. The second sign appears to be approximately 32 to 45 square feet. 3. The City's Land Development Regulations (Schedule K, Signs) permits a total of 75 square feet of detached sign surface area for a commercial development of up to 24,999 square feet with three or more separate stores or businesses. The LDR permits two detached signs by conditional use for sites with more than one frontage. However, the total sign surface area does not increase with the addition of a second detached sign. Therefore, the site is limited to a total of 75 square feet. It is estimated that the site may presently reflect up to two times the amount of allowed sign surface area. 4. Recommend denial of the request for up to 96 square feet of signage for the main sign because the existing signage already significantly exceeds the allowable sign surface area permitted on the site. Recommend approval of a dimensional variance to permit up to 75 square feet for the main sign based on the need to move the sign being caused by a public agency for road widening coupled with the fact that 75 square feet is the normal maximum Planning Recommendations - Page 1 sign surface area permitted for the site. Also recommend the approval be conditioned upon the stipulation that both detached signs on site comply with the City's landscape requirements for signage. ANDERSENIKELLEY - Request for conditional use approval to permit animal raising and tree farming for property Zoned AG, Agricultural and MI -2, Medium Industrial located between Narcissus Road and Rand Yard. Site includes approximately 54 acres and is basically vacant at the present time. The site appears to have been utilized recently for watermelon production. 2. Uses adjacent to site include various agricultural uses, several single family dwellings, an active railroad switching yard and vacant land. Several industrial uses are located in the general vicinity of the site. 3. Recommend approval of a conditional use permit to establish animal raising and tree farming based on similarity with existing uses already established in the immediate area. PARK AVENUE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Request to rezone from MR -1, Multiple Family Residential to PD, Planned Development to permit single family residential development for property Zoned MR -1, Multiple Family Residential located on Country Club Road. 1. Site is Zoned MR -1, Multiple Family Residential and includes approximately 20 acres. Site is basically vacant at the present time. Proposed use is 98 single family residential dwellings according to a master plan entitled, "Planned Development Project Plan for Mayfair Club Estates." MR -1, Multiple Family Residential Zoning permits up to eight (8) dwelling units per acre or 160 dwelling units for the site. 2. Site is adjacent to various single family dwellings and a golf course. 3. The City's Comprehensive Plan reflects a Medium Density Residential future land use designation of up to ten 0 0) dwelling units per acre as set forth on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed development is approximately five (5) dwelling units per acre. 4. A preliminary analysis of anticipated facility impacts is provided below. Final review of impacts is based on information provided by the applicant and is required prior to approval of the preliminary subdivision plan, final plat and subdivision improvement plan plus issuance of a site development permit. a. Traffic: As set forth in the City's Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, County Road 46A would be the road tested for concurrency, i.e., adequacy of facility capacity for the proposed development. The City has adopted a Level of Service "E" for CR 46A Planning Recommendations - Page 2 which equates to 16,100 trips per day at present two lane capacity according to standards set forth in the Data, Inventory and Analysis section of the Traffic Circulation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Per Seminole County Traffic Counts, in 1994 there were 9,494 daily trips west of Country Club Road and 11,273 daily trips east of Country Club Road. Within five years Seminole County will have completed an expansion of CR 46A from two to four lanes between Rinehart Road and Old Lake Mary Road which will provide for a capacity of 34,000 vehicles per day. The proposed 98 single family dwelling units would generate up to 980 daily trips at 10 trips per single family dwelling. Therefore, additional traffic volume generated by the proposed development could be accommodated by existing capacity on County Road 46A in its present or anticipated capacity. Since the proposed development is immediately adjacent to Country Club Road, the following information is also provided for information purposes. Country Club Road is a Seminole County facility that is part of County Road 15 which also includes Upsala Road. According to Seminole County Traffic Segment Counts, traffic volume has decreased slightly on Country Club Road between CR 46A and Lake Mary Boulevard in recent years. Specifically, the daily volumes for the segment of Country Club Road adjacent to the site (between CR 46A and Linda Lane (near the curve south of site)) were 3,678 in 1992, 3,585 in 1993 and 3,350 in 1994. As contained in the 1994 Capital Improvements Element Update to the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, May 1994 Draft, the 1993 Level of Service (LOS) for Country Club Road between CR 46A and Lake Mary Boulevard was LOS "A" with current excess capacity at 13,408 trips per day. It should also be noted that the County adopted a LOS of "E" for this and other similar facilities which provides for up to 19,360 daily trips. b. Drainage: The applicant proposes two drainage retention areas, one on either side of Country Club Road. A note on the Planned Development Project Plan notes that retention /detention will be provided on -site per the City's subdivision regulations. The City's Level of Service for drainage is to provide retention /detention for parcels with positive outfall to accommodate a 25 year, 24 hour storm event. Retention for parcels without positive outf all are required to accommodate a 25 year, 96 hour storm event. C. Sanitary Sewer: The City's LOS for sanitary sewer is 147 gallons per capita per day. The project would generate up to 33,710 gallons per day (2.34 persons times 147 gallons /person /day times 98 dwelling units). There are 7.3 million gallons per day of permitted capacity in the City's wastewater treatment plant. Currently, the average flow is 6.1 million gallons per day. The Planned Development Project Plan notes sewer flow estimated at 29,400 gallons per day. Planning Recommendations - Page 3 d. Potable Water: The City's LOS for potable water is 161 gallons per capita per day. The project would generate up to 36,921 gallons per day (2.34 persons times 161 gallons /person /day times 104 dwelling units). There are 5.866 million gallons per day storage capacity in the City's potable water treatment system. The average flow is 5.23 million gallons per day for treated water. The City's wellfields have several million gallons per day of additional capacity for future expansion. The Planned Development Project Plan notes water needs estimated at 34,400 gallons per day. e. Recreation: The City LOS for park land is 3 acres for every 1,000 persons. The proposed project would generate the need for .69 acres of park land. There are currently 107.624 acres of excess park land capacity available in the City of Sanford. The Planned Development Project Plan proposes a recreation area of approximately one acre to be maintained by a homeowners association. f. Based on the above information it would appear that the proposed development is capable of meeting concurrency requirements subject to compliance with the City's regulations and other applicable agency requirements. 5. Recommend approval to rezone from MR -1, Multiple Family Residential to PD, Planned Development as set forth on the Planned Development Project Plan for Mayfair Club Estates, a 98 unit single family dwelling subdivision development based on consistency with the Future Land Use Plan Element of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and similar single family residential character already established in the adjacent area and subject to compliance with City Land Development Regulation requirements and the requirements of all other applicable permitting agencies. Planning Recommendations - Page 4