Loading...
08.19.93FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR August 12, 1993--�� / T: Planning and Zoning Commission S UBJECT: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, 7:00 P.M,, Thursday, August 1, 1993, in the City C ommission Chambers, City Fall, Sanford, Florida AGENDA 11 M old a Pu blic Hearing t o consider a req uest for are Am endment to th Planned Development Project Plan for Seminole Towne Center for the purpose of signage, for property located at the southeast quadrant of Interstate 4 and State R oad 4, in a Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Seminole Towne Center Limited Partnership Repre sentative: Tom Sc hneider 2 , Any other business from floor or Commission Members* 3, Reports from Staff. Approval of Minutes. ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC. If a person decides to appeal a decision made with respect to any matter considemed at the above neding 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 assistanm to participate in any of these proveedings should contact the personnel of e ADA Coordinator at 330 -5626 48 hours in advance of the moeting. 1 , - I• F " L i i i =' = y t 1 1 J ' i FROM THE COORDINATOR August 16, ""QN-D] 1993 DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning commission, P . I . , Thursday, August 19, 1993, in the City Commission chambers, City-Hall, Sanford, Florida ADDS MUM TO THE AGENDA 11 Hale a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 519 Park Avenue in an SR -1, Single Family Dwelling Residential Zoning District for the purpose of a church complex with a sanctuary, sunday school and fellowship hall. Owner: First Baptist Church of Sanford Representative: Pastor Floyd Blare Consider the request for a waiver to allow barbed wire and chain link fencing for security purposes in a front yard building setbac3 for Dixon's Automotive Repair, an automobile and truck repair service, located at 1109 Sanford Avenue in GC-2. General Commercial Zoning District. Owner: Mary F. Reel Representative: George A. Dixon ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC. If a person decides to appeal a decision made with r+egect to any matter considered at the above meeting or hearing, he may need a verbatim record of the proceedings including tk testimony and evidence, which record is not provided by the City of Sanford. (FS 286.0105. Persons with disabilftks needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact the personnel offike ADA Coordinator at 330-5626 8 hours in advance of the meeting. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1993 7 :00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS MEMERS PRESENT: Joe Dennison Helen Stairs Cathryn Welch Cynthia Holt-Miller Leon Brooks John LeRoy MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Speer Ben Dyal Mike Davis OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Bettie Sonnenberg, Land Development Coordinator Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary 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 an Amendment to the Planned Development Project Plan for Seminole Towne Center for the purpose of signage , for property located at the southeast quadrant of Interstate 4 and State Road 46, in a Planned Development Zoning District. Owner: Seminole Towne Center Limited Partnership representative: Tom Schneider, Tom Schneider, Melvin Simon & Associates, P. O. Box 7033, Indianapolis, In., stated that he has three different requests concerning the signage at Seminole Towne Center Null, Mr. Schneider explained that the first request, north and south entry signs, detached monument signs. The monument signs will be read from both sides and will be 48 square feet. The center entry sign is to be built directly into the wall (berm). The single, center entry sign is approximately 180 square feet. The total square footage for all three signs off Towne Center Blvd. will be 276 square feet. Mr. Schneider stated that the second type of sign being requested, are the subdivision signs at the north and south ends of Towne Center Blvd. The sign at the north end of Towne Center Blvd. will be within the right -of -way. The proposed subdivision signs are approximately 40 square feet in surface area and 15 feet in height. Mr. Schneider stated that the next signs are directional signs to be located at the three entrance drives assisting customers in finding major department stores. The signs will be approximately 48 square feet. He explained that shoppers will enter off of Towne Center Blvd. at either of the three access roads. The signs will direct the gray to each of the 6 major department stores from the 'I T " Mr. Schneider noted that the Mall is in compliance with the size of the monument and berm signs; the number of signs is the reason for the variance request. Mr. Schneider stated that the sign which has been installed, is a leasing sign. He requested that they be allowed to illuminated this sign when utilities are available to this area. He stated that this sign is only read from the Interstate and sits back off the road quite a bit. This sign is a temporary sign and will come down once the ball is open. Mrs. Sonnenberg explained that when the City was approached with permission for a real estate sign, the City Manager did not have any problems with the sign being lighted, if it was approved by this Board. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING of AUGUST 19, 1993 PA(-,F 7 There was no one else present to speak in favor of or against the request. Mrs. Stairs moved on approval based on staff's recommendations and that approval be given for the temporary real estate sign to be lighted until the Mall is completed. Seconded by Mrs. welch. All in favor. Motion carried, on the Addendum to the Agenda was a Public Dearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located. at 519 Park Avenue in an SR -1, Single Family Dwelling Residential Zoning District for the purpose of a church complex with a sanctuary, sunday school and fellowship hall. owner: First Baptist Church of Sanford; representative: Pastor Floyd Blake. Cindy McGinnis of Schweizer Architects was present for representation. She stated that they are requesting zero setbacks on Park Avenue in order to connect the walkway of the new buildings to the existing buildings. She stated that it is not their intention to cut down the oak Trees, but that the trees would have to be trimmed. Ms. McGinnis stated that they are also requesting zero setbacks on the alley side of the property. The alley will continue to be used as a right --of -way. She stated that the size of the sanctuary is the reason that zero lot lines are being requested on the north side of the building. Ms. McGinnis stated that they are requesting a height variance noting the three existing buildings and the adjacent churches exceed the 35' maximum. Ms. McGinnis stated that this is a paved site. The only other property large enough to construct a sanctuary is directly across the street. She stated that they would like to preserve the trees on that site. She stated that they will protect the two trees located between the street and the sidewalk in front of the church by having an arborist come in to determine how much the trees would have to be cut back. Mr. LeRoy asked how many services are presently being held. Rev Blake, Pastor, stated that during the summer they have one morning service. In the fall, usually there are two morning services, one evening services and one service on Wednesday. Mr. LeRoy asked the seating capacity of the new sanctuary. Rev. Blake stated that it is approximately 950 to 970. He stated that the most that they have had at the two services at any one time is 525. Mrs. Stairs stated that the Church has done demographics as to what the future will bring to Sanford. She stated that growth is presumed to be here in 5 to 6 years. Rev. Blake stated that one thing the Church wanted to do was to build a building that would add some value to the community. He stated that they are trying to pull all of the buildings together. The Church's intent is to bring as many people to the downtown area as possible. Mr. Brooks moved to approve the setback requirements of the church, including a zero foot setback on E. 4th Street, a zero foot setback on the alley, a building height of 42 feet, and the maximum lot coverage to exceed the 35 feet limitation. Seconded by Mr. LeRoy. Mr. LeRoy stated that he would like for Schweizer company to look at the north side of the building on the end. He stated that it is • solid mass about which he has concerns. Ms. McGinnis stated that • planter is planned for the area in front. Mr. LeRoy stated that he would like to see more detail added to make it look more residential. Mr. Brooks stated that a church is suppose to be different and not suppose to look like a house. Mrs. Stairs stated that the Church has come up with a design that would be most functional. Steve Lawrence, parishioner, stated that the construction will be done in phases. The northwest end is intended to be office space with windows. All in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING of AUGUST 19, 1993 PAGE 3 The next item on the Addendum to the Agenda was the consideration of the request for a waiver to allow barbed wire and chain link fencing for security purposes in a front yard building setback for Dixon's Automotive Repair, an automobile and truck repair service, located at 1109 Sanford Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District. owner: Mary F. Reel; representative: George A Dixon. David Sharp, 1355 Pine Way, was present for representation. He stated that the request is to be able to park automobiles in front, inside a secure area. He stated that Mr. Dixon would like to extend the fencing to the property line to open up the front for cars to be driven in. He explained that if a buffer is allowed, people would park in the buffer area instead of pulling inside. Mr. Dennison asked if this is the property line or an easement. Mr. Marder stated that the property line goes to the sidewalk. Ms. Holt - Miller asked if the fencing would go to the back property line also. Mr. Sharp stated "yes ". Ms. Holt - Miller stated that she does not want the front to become a storage area. Mr. Sharp stated that the intentions are to have a gate on the front and back. Barbed wire will go on top of the chain link fence. The fence will be 6' and the barbed wire will extend the fence to 7 1 . Mrs. Stairs stated that if the applicant is allowed to put up a chain link fence she could go along with that; but that she is totally against the barbed wire. She stated that the applicant needs a buffer area with landscaping. Mr. Brooks asked if the applicant could abide by the LDR Regulations and still put up a fence. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated "no ", not without Planning and Zoning approval. Mrs. Stairs asked what is the setback on the corner of Sanford Ave. and 3rd Street. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated 5 Mrs. Stairs suggested that the Board require enough setback to have some landscaping. Mr. Sharp stated that the biggest problem is when people pull up in the buffer area. He stated that Mr. Dixon is spending $2500 to secure this building. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that the Engineering Department had no objection to a single gate since patrons will be coming in on the driveway and parking over onto the side. The entire front of the building is paved. Mr. Brooks stated that he does not see the necessity for two gates. Mrs. Stairs made a motion to approve with the requirements that there be a 5 foot setback on Sanford Avenue, that just one 16 foot gate be on the Sanford Avenue side, with the omission of barbed wire. Seconded by Mr. Brooks. Mr. Sharp explained that there is a problem with theft and that the barbed wire would be a deterrent. He stated that he has no problems with the setback. In opposition to the motion Mrs. Welch, Ms. Holt- - Miller, and Mr. Dennison. Motion failed for a tie vote. Nis. Holt - Miller made a motion to approve the proposal with the 5' setback, one gate as recommended by staff, a chain link fence with barbed wire. Motion failed for lack of second. Mr. Brooks stated that he was tired of people using security as a legitimate excuse to place an ugly eyesore, such as a chain link fence with barbed wire to any area. He stated that the this was a police matter and that the police should be usled. Mr. Brooks stated that he does not buy barbed wire as a deterrent to crime. Mr. Sharp stated that Mr. Dixon was not trying to put up an ugly eyesore. Ms. Holt - Miller stated thatishe does not want the building sitting empty. She stated that people landscape and don't keep it up. If the man has an honest and thriving business and is trying to make a go at it, then we need to help him, if it is reasonable request in securing his business. She stated that if theft would eat him up he would then move away. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1993 PAGE 4 Mr. LeRoy asked if the Board would be receptive to having 8 of chain link fence in the front of his building. Mrs. Welch moved to deny the request based on chain link not being a deterrent and the barbed wire. Motion died for lack of second. Mrs. Stairs moved to approve the 5' setback, with landscaping as required by staff, one date 16' wide, and a G' fence and no barbed wire. seconded by Mr. Brooks. opposed to the motion was Mrs. Welch and Ms. Holt- Miller. Motion carried. Mr. LeRoy stated that the appliance store on 1st Street has two ( 2 ) signs and asked if Mrs. Sonnenberg would check on this. Mr. LeRoy also requested that Mrs. Sonnenberg check on the truck that was parked in the Dollar Store parking lot because it has now moved to SR 46. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that she has given this to Code Enforcement but has not heard anything from them yet. Mrs. Stairs reported that the Mainstreet presentation will be held this coming Tuesday and that three would be chosen. Mrs. Stairs moved to approve the minutes as circulated. Seconded by Mr. LeRoy. C 11 Co'e Chairman I From the Director of Planning and Development July 27, 1993 TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Recommendations for Meeting of August 19, 1993 TOM SCHNEIDER /MELVIN SIMON AND ASSOCIATES - Request to amend PD, Planned Development Master Plan for Seminole Towne Center to establish special sign regulations in a Planned Development Zoning District for property Zoned PD, Seminole Properties Planned Development generally located in the southeast quadrant of Interstate 4 and State Road 46. 1. The Site is Zoned PD, Planned Development pursuant to the Seminole Properties Planned Development Project Master Plan. The site is basically vacant at the present time. Several nonconforming billboards and a single family dwelling are located on the site. 2. The applicant has submitted the following materials: a. Revised Master Plan - Explanatory Text: To Incorporate Signage Locations and Criteria Into the Approved Master Plan for the Development - Two pages. b. Seminole Towne Center - Revised Master Plan - 7 -20 -93 - One page. C. Attachment A, Type "A ", Monument Sign, Type "B ", Berm Sign, Type "C ", Subdivision Sign and Type "D ", Directional Sign - Three pages. d. Attachment B, Subdivision Sign "C" Location Plan @ SR 46 and Towne Center Blvd. - One page. e. Attachment C, Proposed Sign Criteria for Individual Uses on Tracts 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, Seminole Towne Center - Three pages. 3. The section of the Land Development Regulations applicable to this request is included in SCHEDULE K, SIGN REGULATIONS, Section I., Planned Development Projects as follows: "Signs identifying uses located within approved planned development projects shall be subject to the same requirements as for all other signs unless otherwise and specifically provided for by the Planning and Zoning Commission in its action approving a planned development project as applicable. Such action by the Planning and Zoning Commission may provide for either more stringent or less stringent sign restrictions, depending on the particular situation involved." This provision provides the Planning and Zoning Commission with the authority to recommend alternative sign requirements and standards for PD, Planned Development Zoning Districts. 4. Sign Types A and B, Monument and Berm Signs, respectively, are considered to be detached signs to be located at the three entrance roads to the mall from Towne Center Boulevard. The two Monument Signs are approximately 48 square feet each for a total of almost 100 square feet. The area of the single proposed Berm Sign is stated as approximately 180 square feet. As such, the proposed detached signs would total less that 300 square feet of sign surface area with only one side rather than the usual two sides being visible. The City's regulations provide for up to 650 square feet of signage for buildings of 300,000 square feet or greater which would include the mall at 1,250,000 square feet. The City's "normal" regulations would permit up to two detached signs, the second by conditional use permit for developments with more than one street frontage. The applicant points out that the entrances are 2,800 feet apart. 5. Sign Type C, Subdivision Signs are proposed to be located at the north and south ends of Towne Center Boulevard. The sign on the north end will be located in right -of -way donated to the City by the applicant. The sign on the south end will be located on land that is part of the Seminole Town Center Planned Development Project. The City Commission has customarily approved the placement of subdivision signs in right -of -way for various residential and nonresidential subdivisions such as Brynhaven and North Star. Such signs are maintained by the developer or property owners. Nonresidential subdivision signs are typically up to 32 square feet in surface area and up to 6 feet in height above grade. The proposed mall subdivision signs are approximately 40 square feet in surface area and 15 feet in height. The applicant justifies the proposed signs based on large traffic volumes and the need to provide more visibility for large volumes of "periodic visitors" who need to be directed to the shopping center. 6. Sign Type D, Direction Signs are to be located at the foot of three entrance drives to allow customers to find major department stores. The signs will be approximately 48 square feet. The City's regulations provide for Directing or Instructing Signs of up to 2 square feet. The applicant states that it would be "impossible to identify all anchor tenants in readable text on a two square foot sign." 7. Proposed Sign Criteria for Individual Uses on Tracts 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, Seminole Towne Center have already been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 3, 1993 as a variance and are incorporated into this request in order to provide comprehensiveness to sign requirements. 8. Recommend approval of all requests based on information presented by the applicant, the above findings which reflects similar approvals for subdivision Planning Recommendations, July 27, 1993, Page 2 signs and general reasonableness of proposed signage considering the large scale of the development. Planning Recommendations, July 27, 1993, Page 3 FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR August 16, 1993 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Recommendation for Meeting of August 19, 1993 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF SANFORD - Request for a dimensional variance for property located at the 500 block of Park Avenue in a SR -1 zoning district for the purpose of an expansion of a church complex, (sanctuary, education building and fellowship hall). 1 . Site is zoned SR -1, Single- family Dwelling Residential, lying between Park Avenue and Palmetto Avenue, and 4th Street and 5th Street. The southwest quarter includes a 3 -story sanctuary and a 2 -story fellowship hall /office brick buildings connected by a stairwell. The east half of the northeast quarter has an existing 3 -story education building. A fenced play area is on part of the southeast quarter and the balance of the site is paved for parking. An alley runs north /south, bisecting the parcel. 2. The main sanctuary has a zero (0) foot setback on 5th Street and a six (6) t foot front setback with an overhang encroachment on Park Avenue. The sunday school building has fifteen (1 5) feet setbacks on 4th St. and on Palmetto Avenue with eight (8) t foot covered walk ways on the second and third floors. 3. There are four (4) large, live oaks in the parkway on Park Av. ranging in diameter from thirty - two (32) inches to fifty (50) inches. Two trees have canopies that extend over the to -be- developed portion of the property thirty (30) feet. The other two trees have been trimmed through the years so that their canopies have been directed away from from the existing sanctuary. Based on the plans submitted August 3rd, it appears that the two northerly oaks will be removed. 4. The alley contains main water, vacuum sewer and storm lines for the City as well as other private utility lines. 5. The adjacent property to the north (First United Methodist Church) has a zero (0) foot setback for the education building and a two (2) foot setback for the main building. Both buildings are built to the alley. The vacant property to the west is owned by First Baptist and presently is being used for overflow parking. The property adjacent to the south consists of a parking lot for an apartment and a single - family residence. Property to the east has two residences, the church's youth building and two parking lots. 6. The Historic Preservation Board, in a courtesy review on August 5th, stated that the proposed setbacks were appropriate in traditional, downtown areas. 7. Recommend the following based on the findings above: a. Grant a fifteen (151 minimum setback on Park Avenue (rather that the requested zero (0) foot setback), in order to prevent the removal of the two northerly specimen live oak trees on Park Avenue. A written analysis and recommendation regarding the trees to be submitted from a certified arborist before approving final setbacks per site plan review. b. Approve a zero (0) foot setback on E. 4th St. It would be compatible with the properties across the street. c. Grant a zero (0) foot setback on the alley only if a foundation plan for the building were submitted showing that it would not encroach into the alley. d. Approve a building height of forty-two (42) feet. The existing on -site buildings and the adjacent churches, exceed the thirty -five (35) foot maximum. e, Approve the maximum lot coverage because the majority of structures in the area exceed the thirty -five (35) percent lot coverage.