Loading...
02.16.95WORKSHOP AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 16. 1995 6.00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA 1. Chain Link Fences in Front Yards and Associated Regulations - Memorandum randur from staff . 2. Parking Space Size and Related Requirements - Memorandum from staff. 3. Reprised Standards for Conditional Uses and Variances - Excerpts from Land Development Regulations NOTE: Copies of the abovemdescribed 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 or hearing, he or she may need a verbatim record of proceedings, including the testimony and evidence with record is not provided by the City of Sanford. (FS 288.0108) Persons with disabilities needing assistance to parrtialpate in any of these proceedings shoo ld contact the Personnel Office ADA Coordinator at 33 5626, 48 hours in advance of the meeting. FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR February 10, 1995 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission,, 7:00 P.M., Thursday, February 16, 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 1 801 Maple Avenue in an RC-1,, Restricted Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of a duplex. Owner/representatives: ,Joaquin & Sonja Rodriguez 2. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 500 Upsala Road in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District for the purpose of locating st rmwater facilities within a secondary well field protection zone. Owner: G arard M. & Barbara A. Dillard Representative: Steve Neveleff, Florida Fine Homes Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 1 120 S. Palmetto Avenue in a R -1, Single Family Dwelling Residential Zoning District for the purpose of an accessory dwelling unit. Own erlrepre entati e: Lynette Woodward dward 4. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 400 -448 Towne Center Circle in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District, for the purpose of signage for a cinema f height: 25" allowed, ' proposed - a variance request of '; total square footage: 525 sq ft. allowed,, 901 sq ft. proposed - a variance request of 376 sq ft.; free- standing si nage: 100 sq ft. allowed, 3 51 proposed - a variance request of 2 51 sq ft.). Owner: Seminole Investors Representative: Thomas Schneider Consider a 202 lot Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Country Club Park located at 500 Up ala Road in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Garard M. & Barbara A. Dillard Representative: Steve i e eleff, Florida Fine Homes 6 Consider the Site Flan for Toys "R" CJs, a commercial use, located at 101 Towne Center Boulevard in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Faison Capital Develop ment/T ys "R" CJs, lessee Representative: Jerry Orf,, CASCO 7. Any other business from floor or C ommission Members. 8 Reports from Staff. 9. Minutes. ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC. if a person decides to appeal a decision made with respect to any matter considered at the above meeting o r gearing, 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 CO-IMSSION WORKS ION MEETING OF FEBRUARYC 1 , 1 0 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS XEMBER PRE Lynn Stogner Ross Robert Jim Valerino Mike Davis rnthia molt- Miller Helen Stairs XMMERS AB KUT Joe Dennison Ben Dal Leon Brooks OTHERS PRESENT: jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Bettie Sonnenberg, Land Development Coordinator Russ Gibson, Land Development Coordinator Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary The first item on the Worksession Agenda was the discussion of chain link fences in front yards and associated regulations. Mr. Marder stated that at the time when the ordinance was being considered for adoption, it was noted that chain link fences, in front yards, appeared to rake homes look like prisons, unfriendly. It was as much of an aesthetic question as it was a behavioral q uestion. It was to discourage chain link fences in residential as well as non- residential areas. It was also recognized that an escape valve was needed and the escape valve was the Planning Zoning Corrxrission. He stated that standards, as to whir chain link fences would not be allowed, were not included. If approval was given f- r a chain link fence, the Commission wanted to see that there were o ther fences In the neighborhood. In areas where there were no fences, the Commission would tend to discourage. Mr. Marder stated that one person called him today and wanted chain -link fen a p 'in the h area. Th Historic Preservation Board turne d down the FINA station for a chain link fence and the City Commission backed them up. Planning and Zoning is concerned with the overall City. Mr. M as ked the Comm what it w to do rega chain link fencing. If it wanted to keep the policy in the ordinance, or prohibit the fences for residential areas. He stated MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING WORKSESSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY .16, I VAr-P that this is the first time that this group has had to _deal with s i nale- T y houses. The Board of Adj u s a d eals with single-family hordes whereas this group deals with commercial and multi hou ■ Mr. l Tin a ske d if i1i .is i voted for no chain link fences, co she a pplicant go to the Boar of Adjustment. Mr. a r d er state that JOE woul req the ordinance an the sche in the Land Development Regulations to be changed. The intent would be to prohibit chain link f-enes in the front yard of residential areas, or any areas. Single and two-family requests would go to the Board of Adjustment, and commercial requests would core to this Roard. Mr. Stogner asked would applicants have to pay an application fee if this Commission recommended ed changing the requests to be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Marder stated that if they go for a dimensional variance they would have to pair an application fee. This Commission does not have a fee for this particular type of question. In the case of single-family dwellings, a variance fee of $75.00 is a lot of money just to put a fence in. Mr. Stogner stated that the problem would not be solved if the Commission transferred consideration of chain link fences to the Board of Adjustment. This is a problem's that exists and its just going to get worst. Mr. Ross asked would the Board of Adjustment have the requisite knowledge of chain link fencing the knowledge of how this Board feels, and would they accept this willingly, if this Board made the decision to give the consideration of chain link fencing to them. Mr. Marder stated that he did not }snow because he hadnrt talked to them* He stated that one thing to do would be to provide some standards or guidelines, i.e. located in a neighborhood with a preponderance of established chain link. fences. These could be documented. Mr. Robert stated that the def lnit Ton of neighborhood is always hard to establish or pin down. Mr. Mar'der stated that it is an immediate area. Mr. Robert asked if the Historic District would be separately addressed. He stated that there are many 50 lots and many chain link fences. Mr. rder stated that that area is specifically regulated through the Historic Preservation Board and any appearance change has to g o through that Board. There are strong feelings as to how things should be dome in the Historic District. Mr. Gibson stated that currently, the Historic Regulations allow wood, iron, metal, and masonry fences in some areas. 54 1 ' is the allotted height for fencing the front yard. . Mr. Robert asked how high is allotted outside of the Historic District for a wood fence. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated 8 high. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION W RKSESS Io EETIEN of FEBRUARY 16, i PAGE Mr. alerino stated that the issue appears to be more complicated because it allows other fences to be installed in the front yard with a height of 8 ' Mr. Sto asked if residents in other cities could go before a board and ask for a variance or permission to erect a chain lire} fence. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that this question was not asked when the surrey was done. Matt West with the City of Lake Mary, stated that Lake Nary residents have to go before the Board Of Adjustment and ask for a variance but that Lake Mary has a $150.00 application fee. This fee usually discourages people. There have been enough complaints regarding the fee that it has become a topic. Mr. West stated that residents could install a decorative fence which could be split rail or picket, not chain link, with a height li mit a t i on. M a l.er i no s that ch li nk fence be prohi w que Re wou sti have another avenue, the Board Of Adjustment. They would be required to pay the $75.00 application fee. fir. Robert stated that he feels likewise and that the Board Of Adjustment has the single-family knowledge. Mr. Davis stated that he would not rind requests going to the Board Of Adjustment for consideration since that Board works with s i 1. - farily lots. He stated that he is not against chain link fences in front yards. People have the right to put them up. In the past, this Commission has approved the fences, but today this is a different group of people that do not want them. Mr. Marder stated that he would go ahead with the process to be in line with chain link fencing to be considered by the Board Of Adjustment. It was decided that the other two items on the Agenda would be discussed in a worksession on 2.6, 1995. Wor session adjourned at P.M. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16 1995 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS MEMERS P Ben Dyal Cynthia Holt - Miller Lynn Stogner Ross Robert Jim Valerino Helen Stairs Mike Davis MEMBERS ABSENT Joe Dennison Leon Brooks PREBENT: Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Bettie Sonnenberg, Land Development Coordinator Russell Gibson, Land Development Coordinator Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary Due to the absence of the Chairman, Mrs. Stairs called the meeting 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 1801 Maple Avenue in an RC -1, Restricted Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of a duplex. Darner /representatives: Joaquin & Sonja Rodriguez. Joaquin Rodriguez, 508 Sweet Water Circle, Longwood, stated that when he purchased the property, he was made to understand that it was a duplex. During the process of renovation, he stated that City inspectors informed him that he would need permission to use the property as a duplex. Mr. Stogner asked if a two family residence could share one meter. Mr. Marder stated that there is no requirement one way or the other. Most buildings built as a two family residence would have separate meters. The electric meters are usually separate but often times the water meters are shared. Mr. Robert asked Mr. Rodriguez if he was aware that City Staff was recommending approval of his request with requirements that include meeting all setbacks of property limes. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he was not fully aware of everything because the manager of the property usually handles everything. Mr. Rodriguez assured the Commission that any requirements of the City would be met. Mr. Valerino asked the applicant when did he buy the property. Mr. Rodriguez stated a year and a half ago. He stated that he owns the convenience store and the gas station also. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he only recently decided to convert the property into a duplex. Each side is self contained. There is no one living on the premises now, except that, on occasion, the people doing work on the property stays over. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that this property was utilized by a mother and her daughter and family because the mother needed assistance. It was only one family under a one family use. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that this property never has had a duplex use specifically given. Mr. Stogner requested clarification as to Staff's recommendation No. 3 and asked if some of the structures in the area were not in compliance. Mr. Marder stated that his observation was that some of the buildings south of the site have different uses. They are not all single family. There are mixed - uses, some commercial and some residential. Mr. Robert move to approve with Staff's recommendations with the exception of Recommendation No. 3, "all buildings and structures shall be located an adequate distance from all parcel lines ". MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PA R! 2 Seconded by Mr. Dyal. Mr. Dyal asked What is the purpose in changing Staff's recommendations. Mr. Robert stated that it is to make sure that City codes are followed. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 500 Upsa.la Road in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District for the purpose of locating stormwater facilities within a secondary well field protection zone. owner: Garard M. & Barbara A. Dillard; representative: Steve Neveleff, Florida Fine Homes. Steve Neveleff, , 220 Lucian Way, Maitland, stated that. they plan to abide by all regulations. Mr. Robert asked Mr. Marder if Wellfield No. 4 is the only one that overlaps. Mr. Marder stated "no ". It is actually Wellfield No. 3. Mr. Robert asked if Wellfield No. 3 provides water basically for that area and the Mall. Mr. Marder stated that it provides water for the entire City. Written justification for the wellfield conditional use by Ivey Harris Walls, Inc. was entered into the record. Mrs. Holt - Miller moved for approval based on Staff's recommendations. seconded by Mr. Robert. Mr. Dyal opposed. All others in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 1120 S. Palmetto Avenue in a SR -1, Single Family Dwelling Residential Zoning District for the purpose of an accessory dwelling unit. Owner /representative: Lynette Woodward. Lynette Woodward, 1120 S. Palmetto Avenue, stated that she has a very nice garage apartment and would like to rent it to her cousin. There are other garage apartments in the immediate area. She stated that because the tenant would be a relative and it is on her property; and she occupies the primary residence, she could keep an eye on things. Access is from the alleyway with plenty of parking. She stated that she had talked with some of the neighbors and that they are in support of the request. She stated that Mark Platts and Bess Simons have written a letter of approval. Also the president of the Historic Trust was in approval of her request. At this time, Ms. Woodward passed around some photos of the garage apartment. Mrs. Stairs requested that the letters be made part of the minutes. Mr. Dyal asked when did the property lose the conditional use. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated 6 months afterwards because it was never occupied. Ms. Woodward stated that she would rather rent to relatives. If the relative moved out in 5 months, she would not consider renting it to just anyone, but may be to close friends. Ms. Woodward stated that she had started fixing the garage apartment because she wanted to upgrade the electric. Mr. Davis stated that there appears to be other apartments like this in the area. Some have been approved and some have not.. Mr. Valerino stated that it Mould be an asset to the area. Laura Straehla, 815 Magnolia Ave., was present to speak in favor of the request. She stated that the Andres Duany codes recommended garage apartments. Mr. Dyal asked her if she thought anyone should rent garage apartments in the area. She stated that this is an appropriate use. Mr. Robert asked if ownership should change, is there any way that this can come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Marder stated that a conditional use runs with the land, but that the Commissioners could put a time: limit on the conditional use. Toby Troutman, 900 S. Palmetto, spoke in favor of the request. She stated that her only reservation was who might purchase the property if Ms. Woodward decided to sell.. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 1595 PAGE 3 A letter from Dottie Dings, in favor of the request, was read into the record. Mr. Robert recommended approval of the request to include a biannual review every two years based on the support of the Historic Trust's letter, the neighbors and the lack of opposition and with the provisal that the owner occupy one of the units and that all licensing and city inspections prevail. Seconded by Mr. Dyal. Mr. Marder stated that he was. uncomfortable with taking opposition or support from the audience into the recommendation to approve. He stated-that the recommendations needed to be based on findings that are related to the neighborhood and adjacent uses being compatible with other information, i.e. buildings that are already there, being rented to relatives; and being in compliance with minimum housing codes, etc. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that opinions from neighbors are not findings of fact. Mr . Robert withdrew his recommendation and moved for approval based on existing uses in neighborhood, compatibility, condition of property and with adjacent properties having similar uses already established in the area, with the proviso that one of the units be owner occupied and a review every two bears by the Planning and Zoning Commission for licensing and any other requirements. Mrs. Sonnenberg noted that there is not a license required for duplex. Seconded by Mr. Dyal. Mr. Valerino asked if it should be in the motion to have it to be rented only to family. Mrs. Holt - Miller asked how could the relative portion of the motion be policed. Mrs. Stairs stated that it would make it more restricted with a relative renting it. lair. Robert amended the motion to include the rentals be restricted to family members only. Mr. Stogner and Mr. Valerino in opposition. All others in favor. Motion carried. The next item was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 440 -445 Towne Center Circle in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District, for the purpose of signage for a cinema (height: 25' allowed, 30' proposed - a variance request of 5 ; total Square footage: 525 sq ft. allowed, 901 sq ft. proposed - a variance request of 376 sq ft.; free-standing signage: 100 sq ft. allowed, 351 proposed - a variance request of 251 sq ft.). owner : Seminole Investors; representative: Thomas Schneider. Chuck Schneider, was present representing Simon Property Group. He stated that the freestanding sign will be a reader board for the Cinema. In order to get ten movies listed on the sign that can be read from I -4, the sign needed to be increased. The requested size is the standard size for a reader board. He stated that they are asking for a 5 variance for the height of the sign. Mr. Schneider stated that the letters on the building sign is actually separate letters. The signage is calculated by City code. The free standing sign will be located south of the building, on the west end of a landscape island. He. explai that they are proposing a maximum limit of 30' from the bottom of the sign. to the ground. This is a typical marquee board. There will be no ground mounted lights. He stated that they are requesting an increase in the freestanding sign and the building mounted sign. Mr. Robert moved to approve based on special conditions peculiar to the land and based on Staff' s recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Stogner. All in favor. Motion carried.. The next item. was the consideration of a 202 lot Prelim Subdivision Plan for Country Club Park located at 500 Upsala Road in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. owner: G.arard M. & Barbara A. Dillard; representative: Steve Neve-leff, Florida Fine Homes. Steve Neveleff, 2200 Lucian way, was present for representation. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 4 Mr. Dyal asked if he had any problems with the installation of sidewalks. Mr. Ne.velef f stated "no." Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that the common areas, i.e. the retention areas, lift station and various tracts will need sidewalks. lair. Davis stated that Tract A, B, and C will need sidewalks. Mr. Stogner asked how much dirt will be brought in. Mr. Neveleff stated that there are good soils on site and that they will not be bringing in much dirt. Mr. Robert moved for approval per Staff ' s recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Dyal. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item was the consideration of the Site Plan for Toys "R" Us, a commercial use, located at 101 Towne venter Boulevard in a PD, Planned Development Zoning District. owner: Faison Capital Development /Toys "R" Us, lessee; representative: Jerry orf, CASCO. Ray Migliorelli, of New Jersey, was present for representation. Mr. Dyal moved for approval as presented. Seconded by Mr. Stagner. . All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Dyal asked for an explanation as to what happened with the garage apartment. Mr. Stogner stated that he is concerned with the Historic District. He stated that it will be nice while she is there but if she moves or if she dies then what happens. Mr. Dyal stated that if the Commission had put a time limit on the conditional use and the owner sells it tomorrow, something could be done if a problem occurs. Mr. Dyal stated that the Historic District does what it wants, to do and how it wants to do it. He stated that it is the buddy system. Mr. Stogner stated this Commission needs to be consistent. He stated that how he votes will be in line with what the city recommends. It was asked if the chain link fence behind the County Services Building was permitted through the City. Mr. Marder explained that the City does. not permit the County. The County notifies the City of any intentions to do any work and the City reviews site plans of any projects that the County proposes but the City does not permit Seminole County projects. Mrs. Holt - Miller moved to approve the Minutes as circulated. Seconded by Mr. Dyal. All in favor. Motion carried. Helen Stairs, Acting Chairperson From the Director of Planning and Development February 9, 1995 TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Staff Recommendations for Meeting of February 16, 1995 RODRIQUEZ /AMIR - Request conditional use permit to establish a two - family dwelling for property Zoned RC -1, Restricted Commercial located at 1801 Maple Avenue. 1. Site includes an existing residential building that appears to have had several additions over a period of time. The Seminole County Property Appraiser's records reflect a two family residence with shared electric and water heater - 1 meter. The City has never permitted a two family dwelling in this location. The site is Zoned RC -1, Restricted Commercial and includes over 14,000 square feet of land. 2. Various single family dwellings are located along Maple Avenue. A two - family dwelling is located opposite the site at 1902 Maple Avenue in an SR -1, Single Family Residential Zone. 3. Several buildings south of site appear to be of mixed use, i.e., residential and commercial, within the RC -1 Zone. 4. A convenience store, a middle school and various other businesses are located adjacent to site in a GC -2, General Commercial Zone. 5. Recommend approval of conditional use permit to establish a two - family dwelling based on similar use already established in the immediate area, the existing mixed use character and the condition that the following standards shall be met: 1. All general requirements of the Land Development Regulations shall be met; 2. The parcel shall meet minimum requirements for a two - family dwelling; 3. All buildings and structures shall be located an adequate distance from all parcel lines; and, 4. There shall be no signage on the site. FLORIDA FINE HOMES/NEVELEFF - Request conditional use permit to construct stormwater facilities below grade within a secondary wellfield protection area for property Zoned PD, Planned Development located on the west side of Upsala Road. Site is basically vacant at the present time and includes approximately 50 acres. Site is planned for single family residential development pursuant to a Planning Recommendations - Page 1 preliminary subdivision plan that has been submitted to the City and in undergoing staff review at the date of this writing. 2. Regarding wellfield protection, the site and surrounding area are included in a secondary wellfield protection zone associated with the City's No. 1 Wellfield at Oregon Avenue which includes five active potable water wells. Open drainage cuts below the seasonal high water table are permitted by conditional use within secondary protection zones. The site is separated from the wellfield by a wetland area of approximately 30 acres. Various residential subdivisions are already located in the immediate area. A portion of the above - mentioned wetlands includes a open water area /drainage pond that serves as stormwater retention for the adjacent development. 3. Recommend approval of the conditional use request to construct below ground drainage ponds and related facilities with a secondary wellfield protection zone based on separation of such facilities from the wellfield, similar facilities already located within the secondary protection zone that have not cause wellfield protection problems and the condition that the following standards shall be met: 1. All general requirements of the Land Development Regulations shall be met; 2. All lots and parcels shall meet minimum requirements, including those set forth in the Indian Trace Planned Development Master Plan; 3. All buildings and structures shall be located an adequate distance from all parcel lines; and, 4. Proposed signage of the development shall be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission if deemed necessary by City staff. WOODWARD - Request conditional use permit to establish a two - family dwelling for property Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential located at 1120 Palmetto Avenue. 1. Site is Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential and includes a principal dwelling and what appears to be an accessory residential structure. The principal building is noted as a "contributing structure" in the Sanford Historic Survey of 1990. 2. Various single family dwellings are immediately adjacent to site. A principal dwelling with a garage apartment is located on the south side of 12th Street on Lot 6. Based on observation, the garage apartment appears to be occupied; the electric meter was active. Also, a structure that appears to be a four unit apartment building and another structure that appears to be a two - family dwelling are located on the block south of the site. 3. In 1983 the City implemented a policy to reestablish and strengthen single family uses in an area generally identified as the Downtown Residential Historic Area. Prior to 1983 the neighborhood was Zoned for multiple family residential uses. During that time, many single family dwellings were converted into rooming houses, boarding houses, apartments and various Planning Recommendations - Page 2 short -term occupancy establishments. In general, the widespread conversion of large, old homes to short -term occupancy and rental housing was viewed as detrimental to the character and stability of the neighborhood. Many of the conversions were being accomplished without compliance with building code requirements. Also, the increased concentration of transient population fostered by short -term rental housing appeared to contribute to deteriorating conditions in the neighborhood. The already old buildings were not physically equipped to accommodate the increased use associated with multiple occupancy and as a result, an increasing number of old buildings were becoming deteriorated or simply run down. It should be noted that the Downtown Residential Historic Area was planned and developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's prior to the automobile. Therefore the buildings, even those that were originally planned for multiple occupancy, did not envision the space necessary to adequately accommodate the automobile. In general most of the older buildings treat the automobile as an afterthought and do not devote sufficient area for off - street parking facilities. Increased density caused by the conversion of buildings to multiple family use exacerbated an already tight on- street parking situation. In 1983 the City rezoned the area to SR -1, Single Family Residential. Property owners were allowed to "grandfather" their multiple family residential uses as well as bring their buildings into compliance with building and zoning codes to the extent feasible. Since 1983, the City's policy has continued to be directed at strengthening, maintaining and encouraging single family residential uses in the area. At various times, the City Commission has seen fit to review circumstances pertaining to specific properties and take action based on unique, block -by -block conditions that characterize the area. Further, in December, 1993 the City adopted architectural standards to regulate and preserve the historic architecture located in the area. The site is included within the regulated area. While those regulations, also known as the Old Sanford Regulations or Duany Code, do not include land use provisions, they do generally reflect the City's commitment to reestablish the area's original character. 4. On May 7, 1987 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a conditional use request to establish a two - family dwelling at 112 0 Palmetto Avenue (the Site ). Minutes of that meeting cite "other garage apartments in the area... there would be no congestion because they would have access through the alley." The motion was unanimous and there was no opposition. The conditional use expired because the old zoning ordinance provided that conditional uses expire if not activated within six months. A notation in the Building Department's property records shows that the owner agreed that the property was single family usage in 1985. 5. On December 5, 1991 the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a request for conditional use approval to establish a two - family dwelling in an SR -1, Single Family Residential Zoning District located on Magnolia Avenue between Tenth Street and Eleventh Street. The site included a one - family dwelling and Planning Recommendations - Page 3 an accessory building on approximately 8,775 square feet. The above - mentioned 1983 rezoning from multiple family residential to SR -1, Single Family Residential Zoning based on the City's policy to reestablish and encourage one - family dwellings in the area was cited in staff's findings and recommendation. 6. In a case involving 400 Palmetto Avenue, the City denied a conditional use request to establish a two - family dwelling. The case was appealed to the City Commission and was denied. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed the City Commission's decision through the Fifth District Court of Appeal in 1993. Amongst other findings cited, the City noted the history and policy of considering each property on an individual basis as well as the policy to reestablish single family uses in the effected neighborhood. 7. Recommend denial of the conditional use request to establish a two - family dwelling based on the City's policy to reestablish single family uses in the Downtown Residential Historic Area and the reemerging single family residential character of the immediate area at the present time. SIMON PROPERTY GROUP /SCHNEIDER - Request a dimensional variance to establish attached and detached signage that differs from permitted signage regulations for property located in the Seminole Properties Planned Development at the southeast quadrant of Interstate 4 and State Road 46. 1. Site is vacant at the present time and is part of the Seminole Properties Planned Development. The majority of the planned development site is under construction as a regional shopping center. The applicant proposes that the site be developed as a cinema. 2. The applicant specifically requests the following: a) Increased sign surface area for the entire site - up to 901 square feet proposed, 525 square feet permitted; b) Increased height of detached sign - 30 feet proposed, 25 feet permitted; c) Increased size of detached sign - 351 square feet proposed, 100 feet permitted. 3. The applicant's justification for the dimensional variance(s) is summarized as follows: a) The site was configured in anticipation of condemnation for a proposed interchange with 1 -4 and the proposed expressway, i.e., it is much smaller. Otherwise the site's dimensions would have been greater and would have allowed approximately 1,000 square feet of sign surface area. b) The detached sign must be large enough to include ten movies, with visibility from 1 -4 and location of reader board above parked cars and vans. Planning Recommendations - Page 4 c) The theater is unique in its size and location as related to the Florida Department of Transportation's anticipated condemnation for expressway interchange right -of -way, the large number of planned movie screens 0 0) and the site's visibility from an interstate highway. 4. Recommend approval of the requested dimensional variance as set forth by the applicant based on: 1) special conditions and circumstances peculiar to the land, i.e., its relationship to 1 -4 and a proposed interchange; 2) the circumstances did not result from the negligence of the applicant; 3) granting the variance will not confer special privileges based on similar variances and special sign standards provided for in PD, Planned Development Zoning; 4) a liter interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would work unnecessary hardship on the applicant; 5) the variance appears to be minimal in terms of necessary and reasonable visibility of the structures upon the land; and 6) the variance will be in harmony with the area involved, i.e., a large scale regional shopping center, and would not otherwise be detrimental to the public interest or welfare. Planning Recommendations - Page 5