Loading...
05.04.95FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR April 27, 1995 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, 7:00 P.M., Thursday, May 4, 1995, in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, Sanford, Florida. AGENDA Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 4000 Country Club Road in a MR -1, Multiple Family Residential Dwelling Zoning District for the purpose of the construction of wastewater and stormwater related facilities within the secondary protection zone. Owners/representatives- Mack N. Cleveland and Patricia T. Stenstrom Tabled: 4120195 2. Consider the Seminole Towne Center Replat No. 2, replatting portions of Seminole Towne Center Replat PB 47, PGS 8 -10, Tracts 6, 10, 14 and 15 located in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Seminole Towne Center Limited Partnership Representative: Thomas J. Schneider 1 Engineer: Richard D. Merkel, P.E. 3. Consider the Site Plan for Seminole Towne Center - United Artists Theatre, a movie theatre located along Towne Center Boulevard in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Seminole Towne Center Limited Partnership Representative: Thomas J. Schneider 1 Engineer: Richard D. Merkel, P.E. 4. Consider the Site Plan for Lot 29, Sanford Commerce Park, Thomas Sweet's Ice Cream, an off icelwarehouse use located at 104 Commerce Way in a RI -1, Restricted Industrial Zoning District. Owner: Thomas Sweet Representative: H.D. Holsombach 5. Consider the request to allow chain link fencing within a required front yard setback for Dick's Trucking & Leasing, Inc. located at 301 Northstar Court in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District. Owner: Richard B. Cardegnio Representative: H.D. Holsombach 6. Consider the request for an extension of the approval date for the Southridge Planned Development located at 5000 CR 46A in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Harold G. Hartsock, Trustee Representative: Bruce Andersen 7. Consider a resolution supporting the Lake Monroe Riverwalk project grant application. 8. Any other business from floor or Commission Members. 9. Reports from Staff. 10. 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 IFS 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 MEETING OF MAY 4, 1995 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Helen Stairs Lynn Stogner Mac McClanahan Mark Platts Ben Dyal Ross Robert James Valerino Leon Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: Cynthia Holt - Miller OTHERS PRESENT: Clay Simmons, City Attorney Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Russ Gibson, Land Development Coordinator Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary Mrs. Stairs called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. The first item on the Agenda was a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 4000 Country Club Road in a MR -1, Multiple Family Residential Dwelling Zoning District for the purpose of the construction of wastewater and stormwater related facilities within the secondary protection zone. Owners /representatives: Mack N. Cleveland and Patricia T. Stenstrom. (Tabled 4/20/95). Mr. Robert made a motion to remove from the table. Seconded by Mr. Dyal. All in favor. Motion carried. Hal Marston, 535 N. Park Ave., Winter Park, stated that he was representing the owners: Mack Cleveland and Pat Stenstrom. Mrs. Stairs asked that people speaking in favor of or in opposition to this request at this time present only new facts . Mr. Marston read into the records, to be considered, a letter (copy attached) from Yovaish Engineering Sciences, Inc. . Mr. Platts asked if the revised report and the original report were based on site development plans. Mr. Marston stated that the letter reflects, in the last paragraph, that there could be 160 units built on the property that will not present any undue hazards or intrusion upon the safety and water quality in the area. He stated that the owners have presented primafacie evidence that this request does not constitute a hazard to the City of Sanford. Charles Choyce, representative for Loch Arbor Homeowners Association, 582 Hardway Place, Lake Mary, spoke in opposition to the request. He entered into the record a 7 page report titled "The Homeowners Position", attached. He stated that this report basically sums up what has been previously discussed. He stated that the report cites procedural problems, i.e. a 10 day notice was not given of this hearing. The second procedural problem relates to the application being denied, a new application needs to be submitted. Clay Simmons, City Attorney stated that the issue of notice was adequately given because the request was tabled to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Simmons stated that the request was tabled and properly removed from the table tonight. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MEETING OF MAY 4, 1995 PAGE 2 Mr. Simmons stated that the action was cured because it was tabled. It remains an open, active item to be voted on by this Board. He stated that since this Board has not formerly adopted rules, the rules of the Chair presides. Charles Choyce stated that the developers must have a site plan.. The site plan submitted earlier was voted down. If someone is going to ask for a conditional use, he must have a site plan. Mr. Marder stated that, on the record, there is substantial information. that provides the basis for making a decision on this question. Mr_ Choyce disagreed with Mr. Marder, stating that the City shall review all site plans and subdivision plans. A conditional use cannot be approved unless there is a site plan. Mr. Robert stated that in the letter from Dean Barber, attached, of the Department of Environmental Protection, Mr. Barber indicates that with no new development a fix is needed. Mr. Choyce stated that there is no discharge and no turn over of water. This applicant wants to add to the pollution.of the lake. Mr. Robert stated that regarding the oak trees, there is a large number of laurel oaks nearing the end of their life. He asked why Mr. Choyce thinks the sewer lines would damage the trees. Mr. Choyce stated that in order to protect the wellfields when the sewer pipe leaks, the only logical location for placement of the sewer lines will be along the road where the trees are. This would be signing the death warrant for the trees. Mr. Robert asked Mr. Choyce if he had indicated that the City apparently has refused to review the subdivision. plans. Mr. Choyce stated that he was going by what Mr. Marder had said that this conditional use could be approved without reviewing a site plan. Mr. Choyce stated that he has a !letter from Utilities, Inc. of Florida advising the developer tha4 Retention Pond B is adjacent to their wellsite. It requires a minimum setback. distance of 100 Mr. Stogner stated that in the information Mr. Choyce presented to the Commission, the applicant was sent a copy and have been asked to respond to your concerns. Mr. Choyce stated that Mr. Cleveland has not met with owners. He stated that he had met with Mr. Garbe and he has indicated that his attorney is very expensive and not in a position to meet with them. Mr. Valerino stated that even with the granting of a conditional use, all such facilities must be inspected by FDEP and SJRWMD. If SJRWMD had problems with the way things were being done, they wouldn't issue any permits. Development must comply with the SJRWMD. Mr.. Choyce stated that a permit application is at the SJRWMD. It was put in. with the original site plan. In February or March the developer asked for a 60 day permitting extension. The developer has since asked for an additional 60 day extension. Mr. Choyce stated that the problem is don't worry because St. Johns is going to address these issues. Its one of these intergovermental things. Gary Exner, 393 Whooping Loop, Altamonte Springs, stated that he was contracted by Mr. Choyce and the Homeowners Association.to do water quality concentrations. A sample was collected near the proposed discharge area of this development. He stated that the sample as a sediment sample. It was found that nitrogen is 439 milligrams per kilogram. It was found that Phosphorous is below the technical limits. Nitrogen is indicative of fertilizer concentrations and certain runoff constituents. Comer is 1.5 milligrams per kilogram. He stated that cadmium, lead zinc and potassium were measured. Potassium was measured to determine a MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1995 PAGE 3 mixture of fertilizer. Zinc was found to be in a detectable range at 5 milligrams per kilogram. The Ph was within normal range. The water quality was measured and found that the BOD was at 2.8. The Chloraphyls were low. Total nitrogen was high. Concentrations indicate that there is a considerable amount of loading constituencies coming from other areas. There is a potential for a relatively high impervious surface area that would drain through the wastewater system and contribute pesticides, etc. He stated that he is concerned that the retention for wet detention areas would probably be insufficient to handle the amount of loading coming from a residential area and draining into Crystal Lake. Mr. Valerino asked if the things Mr. Exner had discussed would be concerns of the FDEP. Mr. Exner stated "yes ". The FDOT has been experiencing staffing problems. Mr. Exner stated that he was aware that many of these things go on in a relative unnoticed position as far as water quality is concerned. Mr. Valerino asked if a person would have the chance to report to the FDEP Board before a permit is issued to voice concerns. Mr. Exner stated that he believes this to be true. A person has the right to appear before them and also the SJRWMD. Mr. McClanahan asked if the runoff being generated at this time goes directly into the lake. Mr. Exner stated that it depends on the age and design of a development. Mr. McClanahan asked if the runoff going into the lake now is being treated in any way. Mr. Exner caution that there is a volume of water that you must be prepared to put more pollution into it. Mr. McClanahan stated that any development comes under the requirements which have been put in place that requires all runoff to be kept on the property until it settles and have a pop -over, then runs over into the system. The runoff generated here would be relatively safe with a much higher quality than what is going in there at this time. Mr. Exner stated that this particular parcel of land does not have any parked vehicles on it that would leak oil and grease. Mr. McClanahan asked Mr. Exner if he agreed that the water must be initially retained on the property. Mr. Exner stated "yes ". Mrs. Stairs stated that in the engineering study there may be a possibility that some of the homesites that are on septic tanks could tie into this system and asked if this would make it better for the runoff. Mr. Exner stated that if there are sufficient cleaning systems, this would be the case. Mrs. Stairs stated that there are septic tanks within 75' of the wellfield. Could this not be a good thing in the long run if the septic tank users tie into the sewer system. Mr. Exner stated that there would be concern if there is adverse runoff that would go into the lake. Mr. Brooks stated that he could not believe that reasonable experts on both sides of this issue, could not come to a decision as to whether or not this is harmful or positive. He stated that he feels that with all of the protection in place with the City and other resources, the experts and the people who are presenting this for approval, have not checked into the tact that this would be endangering the lives of others. Mr. Exner stated that this data is the first data. There was no data available to DEP. Mr. Robert stated that the Commission does not have anything to do with retention ponds concerns, it is with the protection of the wellfield. Any construction of wastewater and stormwater facilities does not hazard our well.field. Mr. Exner stated that there just isn't enough facts. The water quality would change in the lake. The lake contributes to the wellfield.. Mr. Stogner asked if Crystal Lake could take any more loading or is it at a MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1995 PAGE 4 maximum capacity. Mr. Exner stated that at a risk of loosing all credibility, one sample is never enough. Requirements would be for more than one sample on at least two occasions. From the one sample, he stated that he could say that it would be able to take another 50 pounds of total nitrogen before it goes into a euphoric state. One event, one time, does not show it is going into a euphoric state. Mr. Simmons stated that the conditional use's entire site falls within the second protection area. To build anything requires a conditional use. The conditional use is being considered because there are drainage considerations and proposed underground facilities. The Commission is not approving any facilities tonight. If this Board grants a conditional use, this simply allows the applicant to go forward with a site plan with actual designs of pipes and transmission lines. The conditions could then be placed on the site plan. The testimony about the lake has no bearing on what is being considered tonight. A conditional use is a legislative use of approval with conditions attached. If there is evidence on the record that supports the conditional use that is being requested, i.e. no harm to the wellfield, then the applicant has met his burden.. This board has no evidence to deny this application. In order to deny the request, someone has to provide information that must prove that sewer pipes cannot be installed safely within the wellfield protection zone. The Planning and Zoning Commission has evidence from a engineer that says this can be accomplished safely. The applicant has done this through the engineering report. Mr. Platts asked what if the Commission determines that the information provided is insufficient. Mr. Simmons stated that the applicant has shifted to this Board or Staff to disprove his evidence. Mr. Simmons advised the Commission that the applicant is entitled to the use of his property. The City will wind up buying his property if he cannot use it. Carolyn Bingham, 101 Crystal View East., stated that the SJRWMD had denied the developer's permit due to lack of information. She stated that the structure presently on the Lake is presenting a problem. This is an environmentally sensitive lake. Mr. Marston stated that the SJRWMD's letter indicated that if their regulations are satisfied, that they would not have a problem with this development. The permit that was originally submitted expired because a number of extensions in time. This rejection is a technical procedural issue based on time. Mr. valerino asked what takes place so that these people concerns can be reviewed by SJRWMD or FDEP. Mr. Marston stated that this is a land use issue, whether or not the owners can develop their property. An approval of the conditional use tonight is not a blanket for any site plan. He stated that approval of this request is needed from this Commission. Mr. Marston stated that the State does monitor water quality on an annual basis. The issue tonight is not a site plan and not a development requirement. Mr. valerino asked Mr. Marston if he knew that Mr. Garbe would not talk to adjacent property owners and why. Mr. Marston stated that a letter dated April 20 was a letter from Mr. Garbe requesting a meeting to discuss this issue. The letter was returned to Mr. Garbe and received yesterday. Mr. Garbe has met before with Mr. Choyce and made an attempt through phone calls to try to set up a meeting. He stated that he anticipates a meeting will occur. Mr. Marston stated that Dr. Edward's return letter indicates that there are concerns for drainage on his property that exists now. Mr. Garbe's piece could contribute better quality to surrounding lands. Mr. valerino asked if site plans are submitted to FDEP and SJRWMD before coming to the City. Mr. Marder stated that the processes MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1995 P AGE 5 take place simultaneously. The City has written assurance that FDEP and SJRWMD permits are in hand before issuing a site development permit. Mr. Platts moved to deny based on the insufficiency of evidence submitted by applicant. Mr. Dyal seconded for discussion. Mr. Robert disagreed with the motion to deny because the applicant has presented sufficient evidence. He stated that the homeowners have legitimate concerns. There will be site plans. Mr. Robert stated that the developer has to jump a lot of hurdles before they build. anything. Mr. Stogner stated that he has concerns regarding the lake and the secondary wellfield zone. He stated that the Commission needed. to stick to the facts. There are a lot of issues. These people will come before this Board again. This is not carte blanche, this is a hurdle. Mr. Valerino stated that he feels the same as Mr. Stogner and Mr. Roberts. Mr. Platts stated that this step should be later in the process. Mr. Valeri.no stated that he would rather look at it step by step. The best interest of th community can be looked after in doing it one step at a time. Mr. Platts in favor of the motion. All others opposed. Motion de ied. Mr. Robert moved to approve based on findings, both pro and con, Staff's input, and subject to the conditions of Staff's re commendat ions, Items A through D. Seconded by Mr. Valerin.o. Mr. Platts opposed to the motion. All others in favor. Motion. carried. Th next item on the Agenda was the consideration.of the Seminole Towne Center Replat No. 2, replatting portions of Seminole Towne Ce ter Replat PB 47, PGS 8 -10, Tracts 6, 10, 14 and 15 located in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Seminole Towne Ce ter Limited Partnership; representative: Thomas J. Schneider, En ineer; Richard D. Merkel, P.E. Chick Schneider, P. 0. Box 7033, Indianapolis, stated that he was re , resenting Seminole Towne Center and the Limited Investors. He stated that on the second page of plat, it shows where United Ar ist Cinema will be located on Tract 21. Tract 23 is for st rmwater ponding areas. The reason for replatting is at the Ci yes request and to establish a tract for United Artist. Mr. Robert questioned Tract 9. Mr. Schneider stated that what is currently shown on Tract 9 is Sears Tire and Auto Center. It is a separate structure from the Mall. Tract 21 is where United Artist is going in. Mr. Platts asked if Tract 24 is for future development. Mr. Schneider stated that that area is contemplated to be condemned by DOT for I -4 interchange. Mr. Robert questioned Tract 23 as to the existing dry or 'wet weather ponding and asked if anything would change. Mr. Schneider stated that it would be redesigned to accommodate runoff from United Artist Theater. Mr Robert Robert moved for approual. Seconded by Mr. Brooks. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the Site Plan. for Seminole Towne Center - united artists Theater, a movie theater located along Towne Center ;Limited Partnership. Representative: Thomas J. Schneider, Engine6r; Richard. D. Merkel, P.E. Chuck Schneider was present for representation. He stated that the site plan is similar to what was submitted before. There is very little difference. The actual engineering design was put in. Mr. Schneider stated that he has reviewed staffs comments and has no objections. Schneider stated that there is ongoing grading only. Landscating will have to be approved at a later date. Mr. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1995 PAGE 6 Gibson noted that the landscaping will be in accord with the Mall itself. Mr. Schneider stated that the landscaping will continue the same as for the entire Mall. The isles will be the same. Mr. Robert moved to approve subject to final engineering. Mr. Platts seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the Site Plan for Lot 29, Sanford commerce Park, Thomas Sweet's Ice Cream, an office /warehouse use located at 104 Commerce Way in a RI -1, Restricted Industrial. zoning District. Owner: Thomas Sweet; representative: H.D. Holsombach. Dick Holsombach, 1218 E. Langley Ct., Lake Mary, stated that he had addressed the comments of the Plans Review Committee of 4/25. He stated that he has subsequently returned plans complying with all the comments. This will be a distribution facility for ice cream. There will be a half dozen freezers. He stated that Thomas Sweet's is the premier ice cream manufacturer in the U.S. from a quality standpoint. Mr. McClanahan moved to approve subject to staff's recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Valerino. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the request to allow chain link fencing within a required front yard setback for Dick's Trucking & Leasing, Inc., located at 301 Northstar Court in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning district. Owner: Richard B. Cardegnio; representative: H.D. Holsombach. Dick Holsombach, Lake Mary, was present for representation. He stated that Dick's Trucking has made this application. He stated that a drawing of the site plan outlining the fence was submitted. He is requesting a fence because this property is at the end of the cul -de -sac. Mr. Holsombach entered into the record two letters from the neighbors to the north and east' stating that they have no objection to this request. Mr. Holsombach explained that MCT Depot, Consolidated and K & W Trucking companies' have found it necessary to,install fences because of the value of the trucks. He stated that in reviewing the standards for variances that special conditions and circumstances do exist. Such granting to allow the fence will not be injurious to anyone. The owner will install a complete and comprehensive landscaping plan that will encompass this property. Mr. Holsombach stated that it is in complete conformance with the City's landscaping code. Landscaping will be on the outside of the easterly fence and the inside of the northerly fence. This will be a 6' fence with barbed wire on top. Mr. Holsombach stated that the City has been generous to issue a certificate of occupancy for the building before putting in landscaping because when the buildings are unoccupied, people take out shrubs_ Richard Cardegnio, 14.29 Nailpoint Road in Longwood, stated that he is asking for the fence because of pilferage and vandalism. He stated that he will be hauling imported fish and plants. Occasionally, he may haul 6lothing which may sit overnight in a trailer. There is not a security system in the building now. He is contemplating on installing one. Mr. Stogner stated that he has a concern for safety in case of fire. It Appears to be a small gate. Can a fire truck get in? Mr. Cardegnio stated that the front gate is 30' and rear gate is 15' wide and that the Fire Department should not have any problems. He stated that essentially, he does not store anything inside the building. Mr. Robert asked if there is a fence to go on either MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1995 PAGE 7 side of the truck well. Mr. Cardegnio stated that it would be fenced on one side and the other side would be covered by a canopy. Mr. Robert moved to approve. Seconded by Mr. McClanahan.. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item was the consideration of the request for an extension of the approval date for the Southridge Planned Development located at 5000 CR 46A in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Harold G. Hartsock, Trustee; representative: Bruce Andersen. Bruce Andersen, 3685 Mid Iron Dr., Winter Park, stated that he was representing Eoghan Kelly. Mr. Kelly is requesting a five year extension because of the Beltway and because of several parties potentially interested in the property. Mr. Marder stated that the Commission would not be changing anything that has been approved, just extending it. All conditions were reviewed by Planning and Zoning at that time. It originated here then went to the City Commission. The conditions were very well discussed at some length. Mr. Dyal moved to recommend approval as presented for the extension. Seconded by Mr. McClanahan. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of a resolution . supporting the Lake Monroe Riverwalk project grant application. Mr. McClanahan moved to support the resolution. Seconded by Mr. Stogner. Mr. Dyal stated moved to table. Mr. Valerino seconded. In favor of the motion was Mr. Dyal, Mr. Valerino, and Mr. Platts. Opposed was Mr. Stogner, Mr. Robert, Mr. McClanahan, Mr. Brooks, and Mrs. Stairs. Motion failed. Mr. Marder stated that this is in relationship to showing support for various bodies in favor of a grant application to the Orlando Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization which has federal funds for enhancement projects for bicycle and pedestrian ways as well as environmental enhancement projects. Last year when we applied we were No. 7. There were two projects ahead of us in qualifying. we apply every year. This is basically a riverwalk project along the lake. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Robert moved to approve the Minutes as circulated. Seconded by Mr. Dyal. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Platts moved to adopt Roberts Rules of Order as the official rules of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Valerino seconded for discussion. Mr. McClanahan stated that in 1972 the City Commission got a motion through to adopt Roberts Rules which lasted about 3 months. It was found that it was very difficult to operate under those rules. Mr. Simmons stated that if the Commission does not adopt Roberts Rules or some other rules, then its the rule of the Chair. This gives the Board a lot of latitude you don't have if rigid rules are adopted. If the rigid rules are not abided by, this could be a reason why someone can appeal. Mr. Dyal stated that as long as the Commission behaves in an orderly fashion and recognize motions and procedures and try to abide in best interest of everyone, there should be no problems. Mr. Valerino stated that after discussion, he favors the rules of chair. Mr. Platts withdrew his motion. I Mr. Dyal asked Staff why place an item such as Item 1 as the first item and place other requests at the end. Mr. Simmons stated that the Chairman can shuffle the agenda at any time. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1995 PAGE 8 Mr. Dyal asked if the trucks on 12 St. had been investigated. Mr. Marder reported that it was sent to Code Enforcement. Mr. Gibson reported that there is a warrant study ongoing for the traffic signal at Mellonville and 25th. Mr. McClanahan reported that at the northeast corner of 5th and Elm, there is a boat trailer between the sidewalk and the street. It needs to be moved. Mr. Platts stated that the fence at the park at Southside School has been taken down. Mr. Marder stated that there is a right -of- way in front of building there. He will look into this. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. f Helen SItairs, Chairperson i� �� '� 1 � 1� •� I rfj I Planning SUBJECT: Recommendations for Meeting of May 4, 1995 CLEVELAND AND STENSTROM - Request conditional use approval to permit the construction of wastewater and stormwater related facilities within a secondary wellfield protection zone for property Zoned MR -1, Multiple Family Residential located on Country Club Road. Site is Zoned MR -1, Multiple Family Residential and includes approximately 20 acres. Site is basically vacant at the present time. 2. Site is adjacent to various single family dwellings and a golf course. 3. The site and surrounding area are included in a secondary wellfield protection zone associated with City of Sanford's Wellfield Number 2. Wellfield Number 2 includes four active potable water wells located on the west side of the Mayfair Golf Course. Open drainage cuts below the seasonal high water table are permitted as conditional uses. There are several drainage ponds located within the vicinity of the site including several on the golf course property itself as well as drainage retention ponds serving nearby single family subdivision developments. These existing facilities serve existing adjacent recreational and residential development. Proposed drainage retention ponds associated with the proposed development are similar to drainage retention areas and ponds already established in the immediate area. 4. The applicant has submitted a list of justifications entitled "Section 6.0, Wellfield Protection" intended to indicate reasons that the conditional use request should be approved. The list references a study prepared by Yovaish Engineering Sciences, Inc. dated January 5, 1995. That study concludes that development of the site "will not pose an undue hazard or intrusion on the safety and water quality within this area." The study states that a stormwater management system of wet ponds would be at or above the normal seasonal high groundwater table level and would as such not constitute an "open drainage cut below the seasonal high water table" as noted for Secondary Protection Zones defined in Schedule M of the Land Development Regulations. The study provides further detail regarding potential hazard posed by sanitary sewer lines, noting that deeper casing depths for Wellfield No. 2 provides a higher than normal degree of certainty that water quality will not be affected Planning Recommendations - Page 1 TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission than shallower casing depths typical of shallow well construction. 5. The two parcels constituting the site have sufficient frontage on a public street based on 400 plus and 500 plus feet frontage upon Country Club Road. 6. Recommend approval of the request to establish stormwater and wastewater facilities within a secondary wellfield protection zone based findings and engineering data provided by the applicant subject to the following conditions and standards: a. All general requirements of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met during the development of the site. b. All parcels or subdivision of the site into parcels, tracts or lots shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance in terms of street frontage, spacing of access points and other vehicular requirements. C. All proposed buildings or structures shall be located an adequate distance from all parcel lines in compliance with the City of Sanford Zoning Ordinance, including buffer depths and visual screens. d. Signs identifying the use of the site shall be subject to the review of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Planning Recommendations - Page 2