Loading...
04.20.95FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR April 14, 1995 1 ; a TO: Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission,, :09 P.1111., Thursday, April 20,, 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 4000 Country Club Food in a 11118 -1, Multiple Family Residential Dwelling Zoning District for the purpose of the construction of wastewater and st rm ater related facilities within the secondary protection zone. Own er /representatives: Mack N. Cleveland and Patricia T. Stenstrom Tabled: 4/6/95 2. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request fora Conditional Use for property located at the intersection of Airport Blvd. and Placid Lade Drive in an MR-3,, Multiple Family Residential Zoning District for the purpose of 1 - 4 ' 9bf (3800 S F) single f ami ly lots with 2 0 " front yard setbacks,, 1 5f rear yard setbacks, .` side yard setbacks,, and 15' stretside setbacks. Owners/representative's: W. M. Sanderlin & Associates 3. Consider changes to Sanford Land Development Regulations, Schedule S. H istoric Preservati o n Section 5.0, Signs and Outdoor Sidewalk Display Regulations in the Downtown mmer ial Historic District. 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 (F 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 CWMSSION MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1995 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION MMMEM PRESET Helen Stairs Ross Robert Mac McClanahan Leon Brooks Cynthia Holt- - Miller Ben Dyal Jim Valerino Mark Platts .. MEM ABSEUT : Lynn Stogner CMEMS PRESS: Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Russ Gibson, Land Development Coordinator Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary Clay Simmons, City Attorney The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. The first item on the Agenda,.,, was to 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 District for the purpose of the construction of wastewater and stormwater related facilities withln.the secondary protection zone, Owner /representatives: Mack N. Cleveland and Patricia T. Stenstrom (Tabled 4/6/95). Mr. Robert made a motion to remove from the table. Seconded by Mr. Dyal. All in favor. Motion carried. The Chairman stated that she had received a request from Mr. Cleveland and Ms. Stenstrom requesting to postpone the hearing until the next meeting. She stated that she also had received a request from an opponent to postpone. Mrs. Holt - Miller moved to table until the next meeting.. Seconded by Mr. McClanahan. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a donditional. Use for property located at the intersection of Airports Blvd. and Placid Lake Drive in a MR-3, Multiple Family Residential Zoning District for the purp.oae of 152 - 40 (3800 SF) single family lots with 20' front yard setbacks, 15' rear yard setbacks, 5' side yard setbacks, and 15' streetside setbacks. Owner /representatives: W. M. Sander lin & Associates, Charles Madden, Madden Engineering., 3670 Maguire Blvd., Ste. 105, Orlando, stated that he was representing the developers. He stated that they did not have any problems. with Staff comments except for the one relating to the parti.cipaticm in cost for a traffic. signal at Airport Blvd. Mr. Madden, stated that the developers of the requested parcel are Sandertin and Associates which is buying the. parcel from ZOM. ZOM owns the entire PD. ZOM had ogre -ed that when the traffic light is warranted. in the future, they would participate in the signalization when the entire parcel is developed, Mr. Gibson stated that ZOM will contribute when and if the signalization is warranted. ZOM is aware of this condition being attached to the overall. remaining portion of the. PD. Mr. harder stated that ZOM, its developers. or its successors, is MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1995 PAGE 2 responsible to do the signalization. The signalization isn't triggered by this particular project. The traffic light is not needed at this time. Mr. Marder stated that it is not in writing anywhere at this time, but that it is in the stipulations that ZOM, or the overall developer, is responsible. Mr. McClanahan asked, if the open area that would be available within the development is addressed in this request. He stated that ZOM purchased the additional 3 acres to the east of this area for the purpose of trading it to the City as a trade of f f or the open space that is doing to be required. Mr. Harder stated. that it is not in this request. The City has recreation impact fees that basically covers the impact of development of our parks and recreational facilities. The property on the northside of this project is the Hovnanian Park site which was a dedication to the City prior to the implementation of re.c.reational impact fees for the multiple f amily project nearby. He stated that the City doesn It ask for little park sites that. go with developments at this time. Mr. Platts asked Mr. Madden to review the special conditions. which warrants reducing the lots size. Mr. Fadden stated that Craig Rouhier prepared that portion of the submittal and that he had worked with Staff on what was. required. He noted that the special. conditions' justifications were submitted with the application. Mr. Platts asked if this was mainly an. eco,namic argument as to a certain number of lots desired. Mr. Madden stated that he did, not know if it was so much an economic argument in as much as what the market will bear. This size lot and., this location seem to be a good land use, - The site i is approved for 20 units per acre for multi - fancily. He stated that the developer will be doing a quarter of what is allowed. There are obviously good reasons to support the request for 152 single family lots vs. 400+ units for multi. - family. Mr. Madden stated that the price range will be from $80 to $90,000. The square footage will.vary between 1200 to 1800. Mr. Madden stated that the average elevation on the site is 46. Mr. Robert questioned the positive outlet from Reservoir Lake Mr. Madden stated that the stormwater from the retention pond is not actually going into Reservoir Lake. Its going into the ditch which is the discharge for Reservoir Lake. Mr. Madden was: not sure if s to rmwat,er would run into Mill . Creek, but stated that it eventually gets to the St. Johns River. Mr. McClanahan asked if access and egress would be on Placid. Lake Drive. He asked if there is just the one entrance and exit. He also asked if there were any provisions, when further development of the adjacent land, for more entrances and exits. Mr. Marder stated that the area is basically planned much the way it is shown on the plan. There is not a route planned to get to 25th Street. Potentially, there could he another way to get through same- of the other tracts and have an a.c.c.e.as to Airport Blvd. Mr. Robert asked. if the right-of-way was dedicated to the City. Mr. Marder stated "yes". Mr. Robert asked why has it deteriorated. Mr. Madden stated that the reason is- because there has been no development in the area. it was agreed between the City and ZOM that the gate would,be put up to prevent dumping in the. area. The median will be improved as part of this development. Mr. Platts questioned'Tract E. Mr'. Gibson stated that Tract E is a common conservation :area, platted with the PD around the entire lake. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1995 PAGE 3 Mr Robert moved to approve per Staff recommendations, Items A through F (attached). Seconded by Mr. Valerino. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of changes to the Sanford Land Development Regulations, Schedule_ S, Historic Preservation, Section 5. 0, Signs and outdoor Sidewalk Display Regulations in the Downtown Commercial His-toric District. Mr. McClanahan moved to remove from the table. Seconded by Mr. Valerino. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Marder stated that the City Commission has again considered this and there were additional considerations provided by some of the stakeholders in this process. He stated that he has incorporated the additional considerations into this as best he could. Mr. Marder stated that there are. a, few mincer things that weren't quite exactly the way they needed to be. As far as its intents and purposes, it is where it needs_ to be. Mr. Marder stated that he did not have any pros or cons_ other than to say that it is pretty much the way the stakeholders want it to be. Mrs. Stairs asked if it_ has gone before the City Commission and the Historic Preservation Hoard and everything is in keeping with the way that they want it to be. Mr. MArder stated that it is pretty much the wary they want it to be except that there is a teeny glitch that he could not get a copy of to be inserted into this packet. He stated that for the Commission" s purpose, it would be o.k. to send to the City Commission with a recommendation subject to any additional changes they want to make. Mr. Robert stated that he likes it the way it reads and was wondering what change. Mr. Marder stated that he could not get a copy of the change before. the City. Manager left town. There is something different but that it dial not sound like it- was anything significant. Mr . Marder stated that_ this was: generated by the downtown merchants. Mr. Dyal asked. for clarification. as to what exactly is a display. Mr. Marder explained that it is a cluster of objects of some, sort. It could be merchandise for sale. Mr. Valerino asked why the Commission has to send this to the City Cormnissi.on for approval when this is not the final version. He asked if it would be more appropriate to see: the final. version before making a recommendation. Mr. harder stated that this is pretty much it with the caveat that was mentioned. He stated that the Commission is in a position, as the Local Planning: Agency of the Lana. Development Regulation Commission, to review anything of this nature that would effect the Land Development Regulations... There are 30 days to act on something like this. I f the Comm - s-gion does not make a recommendation or response, the City Commission can bas 11y do whatever they want to do. Mr. Valerino stated that there are certain things that need to be included in this and that it seems sloppy to recommend this when the City Commis can add whatever they want. Mr. Marder stated that the City Commission can change whatever they want at any time they want to. There will be same minor change but he was not certain what.. Mr. Robert stated that he likes it the way it is written And moved to recommend approval to the City Cori_ zian without any changes or additions. Mr. Dyal seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Mrs. Stairs welcomed Mr. McClanahan as a new member on the Commission. She informed everyone that Mr. Dennison had resigned MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING of APRIL 20, 19 9 5 PAGE 4 and stated that she would be serving as Chairman until Mr.. Dennison's term expires, 6/30/95. She stated that it was necessary to elect a Vice Chairman. Her term expires 6/30/96. Mr. Robert moved to nominate Mr. Valerino. as Vice. Chairman.. Seconded by Mr. Platt.s. All in favor. Motion carried. Discussion ensued regarding recognition of Mr. Dennison. It was decided to pass this to the City Commission. Mr. Valerino moved to approve- the Minutes as circulated.. Seconded. by Mr. Robert. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Valerino asked if the Commission... needed to start all over again with the information presented for item #1, since some of the members were absent and make a gate just on what is heard at that particular time as opposed to taking into consideration evidence that was presented at the previous hearing. Mr. Clay Simmons stated that this is a new request. Since there are new board members, they obviously will have to hear the evidence to vote on it or they would have to refuse themselves and not vote because they haven't heard all. of the evidence. This is a procedural matter. If the Chair decides to reopen it for all evidence, start afresh, it would bring everyone up to speed and everyone can vote:. Mr. Valerino suggested that the Commis.sian hear: all evidence,, from the beginning, so that the entire Corm s -sign could make a decision.. Mr . S unm ans expl ained. that this item was noticed to a time certain for the original hearing. Then. ti for a time certain which meets the public's notice requirement. If. it is treated. as a trial de novo, start. over, it should be re.not.i.ced.. Mr. Simmons explained that the applicant is asking for a conditional use which is really a special exception. It is a permitted special exception in the zoning. district for this property. The law says if the applicant comes in and puts on a prima facie case establishing through competent substantial evidence on the record that their proposed use meets the codes,, and it does and Staff has recommended it, and that_ it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the trends, of the neighborhood, the Commission must vote in favor. That is, whether or not it would be damaging to the environment. St. Johns and DE.P has both blessed this because in their opinion its not going to he damaging to the environment. If the applicant puts, on a prima facie case., they are entitled to the special exception. The only way it can be denied_ is if competent substantial evidence that would. be persuasive and, counter the, applicant's, evidence is put on by some other per-son, or by Staff if Staff opposed it. The Commission cannot be swayed by public opinion. If the Commission. determines that the information submitted. by the applicant is insufficient, theky mus vote against the request. The case law says it is a very light burden; "an exception bears legislative: sanction and the burden on the. applicant is much lighter than if he seeks. a variance". All the applicant has to show is by some substantial evidence, an the record, that they meet the requirements. of the code. Mr. Simmons stated th.a_t it was to his understand that the applicant has an engineering study that says this will, not damage: the aquifer or the we l if ield. If the applicant. puts this into evidence, they have met their. burden. The burden then. shifts to the opponent to put on competent substant evidence to rebuit. this. showing. If this. is done, the Commission can vote against it. If the opponent does not do this, then the Commi s.sion is obligated, by law, to gate in favor of the application... Mr. Platts explained that at the last. meeting., his main. point was that the, applicant had no_ site plan or plans for the drainage facilities as to where the f acili.t.ies would be MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 20, 1995 PAGE 5 located, designed, or anything like this. Mr. Simmons explained that the engineer had stated that it did not matter where they install the facilities in the area, it would not be damaging. Mr. McClanahan asked if this request is to design the drainage system subject to all controls of the Water Management District and any other agencies that have any control with the project. Mr. Simmons stated "yes". Mr. McClanahan stated that in order to develop the property for any use whatsoever, to build. any structure of any description on the property, you have to go through this procedure. Mr. McClanahan stated that.he could. not see, how this: request could be denied b cause this. is a request only to design the system which has to m et all criteria for all agencies. Its not the construction of any buildings. whatsoever . The Commission agreed that. this item, would be treated as every other tabled item had been treated in the past. Mr. Dyal asked. Staff to check the block, between 14th Street and Celery Avenue for automobile repair work. He stated. that there were auto parts. and two or three semi - tractors: al.l over the road. Mrs. Stairs requested that Staff check the outside storage at The Depot. Mr. Gibson stated that they have been cited by Cade Enforcement. Mr. Brooks requested that Staff check. with the State to install a traffic light at Mellonville and 46. There being no further: business, the. meeting adjourned at 8:00 P . M . Helen 5ta rs, Chairman 9 From the Director Planning SUBJECT: Recommendations for Meeting of April 20, 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. 1. 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. W.M. SANDERLIN & ASSOCIATES - Request for conditional use approval to approve a single family dwelling preliminary subdivision plan with associates dimensional variances for property Zoned MR -3, Multiple Family Residential, located at Airport Boulevard and Placid Lake Drive. The site is Zoned MR -3, Multiple Family Residential which permits a maximum density of up to twenty (20) dwelling units per acre. The site is basically vacant at the present time and includes approximately 29 acres. 2. The site is a tract within the Placid Lake subdivision. It is adjacent to Reservoir Lake, vacant land, an undeveloped city park (Hovnanian Park), and an abandoned railroad right -of -way owned by the city with major city utility lines. Adjacent Zoning includes MR -3, and MR -2, Multiple Family Residential and AG, Agriculture, all of which are vacant at the present time. 3. The proposed preliminary subdivision plan, entitled Placid Woods, reflects a 152 lot single family development with a typical lot size of 40' x 95' or 4,275 square feet. 4. The proposed development complies with the Comprehensive Plan (MDR -20). Regarding concurrency, Information submitted by the applicant compiled by Transportation Consulting Group reflects that the anticipated impact upon Airport Boulevard, Old Lake Mary Road and U.S. Highway 17 & 92 will continue to maintain a Level of Service of "D" which is acceptable on those roadways. The development is projected to generate 1,216 vehicle trips per Planning Recommendations - Page 2 day based on 8 trips per day. While the traffic projections need to be revised to reflect the City's standard of 10 trips per day, the small change will be the same result. At the date of this writing, the applicant has not yet submitted required LOS data for facility and service requirements for potable water, sanitary sewer, and solid waste, and parks; while there is ample available capacity to serve the proposed development for those services, the required information must be submitted prior to final approval. Stormwater /drainage LOS criteria will need to be met prior to final engineering and improvement plans. 5. The applicant has submitted a letter dated March 24, 1995 that outlines applicant's justification for granting a dimensional variance that appears to address the six criteria required for Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of a dimensional variance as part of process of a conditional use request in conjunction with preliminary subdivision plan approval. 6. Recommend that the request for conditional use approval in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan entitled Placid Woods be approved based on the accuracy of plans, data and information provided by the applicant, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and justification for the request provided by the applicant subject to the following stipulations: a. All general requirements of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met. b. The proposed development meets minimum vehicular criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. C. Setbacks and buffers reflected on the Placid Woods preliminary subdivision plan are adequate to protect adjacent properties and streets. d. Signs identifying the use of the site shall be subject to the review of the Planning and Zoning Commission. e. A completed concurrency form required by the City shall be provided by the applicant within ten (10) working days of approval of this conditional use. f. All final engineering shall be subject to City approval. Planning Recommendations - Page 3