Loading...
03.18.93FROM THE LAND DEV COORDI A I OR March S, 1993 .,rl' Y., TO: Planning and Zoning Cowissi,on SUBJECT: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Thursday, March 18, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, Sanford. Florida AGENDA 1. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use to approve a preliminary. subdivision establishing minimum Parcel areas, minimum parcel width at building lines and minimum yards for property located at the northeast corner of S.R. 46A and Oregon Avenue in an MR -1, Multiple Family Residential Zoning District. Owner: Babcock Company Representative: Sam Katanich, Haaling Locklin Associates 2. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 2501 French Avenue and 2502 Laurel Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of a Walgreens Drug Store. Owner: Calogero & Carmela Baio & Carlo's original Italian Restaurant /Jerry C. Evans, agent Representative: Al Carpenter, Conklin, Porter & Holmes 3. Hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 1209 Palmetto Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of a change of use of a non conforming structure for retail sales. Owner /representative: Dorothy Mings 4. Consider a conceptual site plan for a Walgreens Drug Store located at 2501 French Avenue in a GC -2 General Commercial Zoning District. Owner: Calogero & Carmela Baio & Carlo's Original Italian Restaurant /Jerry C. Evans, agent Representative: Alan R. Carpenter 5. Consider a site plan for the Vintage Cottage, a retail sales use, located at 1209 Palmetto Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District. Owner /representative: Dorothy Mings 6. Any other business from floor or Commission Members. 7. Approval of Minutes. 8. Reports from Staff. 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 /she 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 hours in advance of the meeting. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1993 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT Joe Dennison Helen Stairs Ben Dyal Mike Davis John LeRoy Leon Brooks Tom Speer MEMBERS ABSENT: Cathryn welch Cynthia Holt - Miller OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development William Reischmann, City Attorney Bettie Sonnenberg, Land Development coordinator Russ Gibson, Planning Technician The Chairman 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 to approve a preliminary subdivision establishing minimum parcel areas, minimum parcel width at building lines and minimum yards for property located at the northeast corner of S.R. 4 GA and Oregon Avenue in an MR -1, Multiple Family Residential Zoning District. Owner: Babcock Company; representative: Sam Katanich, Harling Locklin Associates. Mr. Dennison explained the rules of procedure for a public hearing. Hugh Harling and Joan Randolph, Harling Locklin & Associates, retained by Sam Katanich of Maronda Homes, were present for representation. Mr. Harling stated that the land is zoned multi- family residential and would allow up to 10 units per acre. Originally it was owned by Babcock and weyerhouser Corp. which had planned to develop at 8 units per acre. Maronda Homes is a single family budder who desires to develop 50 x 110 lots. The density shown on this plan is at 3.85 dwelling units per acre which is 1/3 of what is allowable. The other thing of which the public is generally concerned is the level, quality, or the size of the structures. Mr. Harling stated that Mr. Katanich is building in Chase Groves and has a model center there. The basic intent is to take the same products and build here. The smallest house in the model center is 1300 square feet and the largest is a 2 story about 1500 square feet. The selling price is averaging between $85 - 90,000. The lowest selling price would be in the neighborhood of $75,000. The intent is to build a quality community where the value would continued to be protected by the potential residents as well as by those who live in this area. There is also an engineering concern in that this project outfalls into a closed drainage basin. It requires that the developer hold a 96 hour storm. Mr. Harling stated that they had traced out the basin above the 100 year outfall. There is an outfall that goes to Smith Canal. Elevations were shot on existing homes in Mayfair that are already below this elevation. The City's lift station is also below this elevation. As part of the development, Mr. Harling stated that they feel they can upgrade this elevation and raise the elevation to above what the projected 100 year flood plain is. iviI N UTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1933 PAGE 2 Mr. Harling stated that they had met with the Public Works Director and went over all things which were submitted and he will be furnishing a map to the Public Works Director with all elevations on it. It is their intent that the drainage system be improved rather than degredated, after the project is completed. Mr. Harling requested that the Commission look at the aerial so that he could show them exactly where the site is. He stated that it is located on 46A which is badly scarred and has a deep cut through it. It will require a certain amount of fill. The property was used at one time as a gun range. There are a lot of trees and vegetation on the site. Mr. Harling stated that he had given Staff an Alternate A and an Alternate B design. Staff had requested no entrance onto 46A because Staff did not thinK City and County codes could be met. Alternate A allows an entrance on CR 46A 600+ feet of distance between Oregon and the entrance. Alternate B would basically correspond with what Staff had requested. Mr. Harling stated they are respectfully requesting Alternate A because they feel it is a better design, but that Alternate B is acceptable to his clients. The other thing that should be noted is that the retention is located adjacent to the overhead transmission lines. A north /south corridor is through the center of the project from the center of the first cul -de -sac and all the way to the north. This is a telephone easement with cable approximately 4' deep, carrying a tremendous number of lines and services for the area. Mr. Harling stated that this line will be in an easement area where there will be no lots. This area will allow no fencing and be kept separate, but will allow pedestrian circulation. Mr. Davis asked about the drainage outf all on Oregon Ave. Mr. Harling stated that when Kaywood built Oregon Avenue the catch basin is located at the low point between Lots 21 and 20. Oregon Avenue drainage comes to that point then goes into Kaywood and then after filling up, treatment storage is performed. When it exits into a Swale. sots 59 and 60 are 15' wider so that there may be a 30' easement in order that the water be piped to the outf all. Mr. Dennison asked Mr. Harling why has he asked for a waiver of the City's requirements on the for lot widths, dimensions and so forth. Mr. Dennison asked for input as to the reasoning for the waiver. Mr. Harling stated that the lot widths within the multi - family zoning district are designed for multi - family buildings. Mr. Harling stated that what they are essentially requesting is a single family lot size, single family setbacks. The width of the lot would be 50 with a 5' setback on each side of the lot. The lot would then be 110' deep. There would be standard front and rear yard setbacks. There would' be only 1/3 of the number of residential units on this property of what could be a townhouse or a multi family configuration. Mr. Dennison asked about the request for a variance of the wall for landscaping. Mr. Harling stated that they would go ahead with the masonry wall on 46A. This particular tract of property is very heavily treed most of the way along Oregon. He stated that they are requesting to be allowed to use a buffer area that, if an area was not heavily treed, they would enhance with additional trees. They would put in a shadow box type fence as opposed to a masonry wall. Mr. Harling stated that provisions would be included in the property owner's documents that the homeowner's association would maintain the wall and the fence on both sides. Mr. Speer asked Mr. Marder what is a standard lot size. Mr. Marder stated that it depends on what is being done. He stated that if it wasn't a question of changing the actual size, they could have a 6000 square foot lot. The typical lot in Mayfair Meadows is 40' wide. There are a lot of 50' wide lots in the City. Mr. Marder stated that the City has developed the conditional use process in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan so that a developer would have to provide a very specific plan. MINUTES PLAITING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1993 PAGE 3 Mr. Davis asked if any improvements are contemplated for the Oregon Ave. intersection. Mr. Harling stated that they are looking at county plans for widening. They would like the entrance to be at a median. If there is not a median at the 600 mark, then they would automatically go to Alternate B. The preliminary plans show a median at Oregon and with this there would be left turns, tapers, etc. Mr. Davis asked if these improvements would be done prior to 46A improvements. Mr. Harling stated that they would absolutely have to do a left turn on Oregon or at the entrance. There was no one else present in the audience to speak in favor of this request. There was approximately 80 people in the audience in opposition. W . R. Schrader, Vice President of Homeowner's Association for Mayfair Meadows, 114 Lamplighter Drive, stated that his concern is the drainage. He feels the only place drainage could go would be to Mayfair Meadows' retention area. He stated that they could not handle any more drainage. Mr. Dennison asked who is responsible for maintaining the pop -off. Mr. Schrader stated that it was designed by the city. It was suppose to pop -over a berm, then run and onto the property north of Mayfair Meadows. The drainage does this but there is no place for it to go when it gets there. Another concern is the amenities, are there any? Mayfair has a pool. The subdivision and apartments dwellers across the street come down to use their pool. May Shoemaker, developer of Maywood, presented to the Board a petition signed by local residents. He read and presented the petition into the record. Mr. Shoemaker stated that he did not know that this property was zoned multi family until the request came up. Mr. shoemaker stated that he does not think that the multi family zoning should go less than the single family residences as far as lot size, setbacks, etc. in this particular situation. Mr. Shoemaker stated that he has always believed that we need a 150 double frontage lot. The request is for 110 lots. When 46A is widened, a resident could shake hands with an 18 wheeler. Mr. Shoemaker stated that he was not against the development per se, but that he and the people in the audience as well as those who signed the petition are wanting something done to make sure that the homes will be of equal value, if not more, than what is in the area. Mr. Speer asked Mr. Shoemaker the sizes of lots in Maywood. Mr. Shoemaker stated that these 28 dots are at 60' for the villas, which are a carry over from Mayfair villas. Phase 2 and Phase 3 are 90 100 lots with some at 125 The smallest lots in Kaywood are 60 lots which are the minority of the whole development. The price range is in the $80's for the smallest lots. Harold Chapman of Kaywood stated that consideration should be given to setting expectations high because Sanford has suffered for years because of low expectations. Julian Ford stated that his primary concern is with traffic. The proposed Mall will add to the traffic. Patrick Stenstrom, 110 Kaywood Drive, stated that he is concerned with the requested 50 lots. He stated that past experiences have shown that developers said they would keep homes within a certain price range, and mentioned Heathrow. A developer will lower prices if homes cannot be sold. If lot sizes are kept up, that will help keep the price of homes up. Mr. Stenstrom asked if a traffic study had been done for the impacts to 46A as well as Oregon Avenue. If a study has been done, Mr. Stenstrom requested a copy. Mr. Marder stated that Oregon Avenue, a two lane road, has enough capacity to handle quite a bit more traffic than Kaywood or this proposed development. A two lane road has enough capacity to handle 10,000 trips easily. Mrs. Stairs wanted clarification on the likening of the new subdivision to Mayfair Subdivision and if the prices and MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING of MARCH 18, 1993 PAGE 4 configurations in Mayfair have diminished the values of the homes in Kaywood, why would this do so when Mayfair did not. Mr. Stenstrom stated that it is the proximity to Kaywood. If the lot sizes are kept up and the development costs are kept up, this make homes stag in the $90,000 price range. That is what they want to do. Mr. Speer asked Mr. Stenstrom if he felt that the wall between Kaywood and Lake Mary Hills protected the value of the homes in Lake Mary Hills. Mr. Stenstrom stated that it will not be a wall but rather a wooden fence and he estimated that his homes would take a 10% depreciation. Mr. Speer commented that there are 113 lots based on 50 -feet as shown. Would it be acceptable with 60- foot lots? Mr. Stenstrom stated that it would be acceptable and would be approved. Mr. Speer asked if he would rather have this piece of property developed at 60 lots as proposed to an apartment house complex. Mr. Stenstrom stated "yes, that there is something worse than having 60' lot homes ". Chuck Johnson, 102 Kaywood, said the wall at the Hills of Lake Mary protects Kaywood from them as well as us from them. Mary Prokoseh, 117 Wood Ridge Trail, stated that she is in favor of everything that has been said here tonight and that she is not in favor of a conditional use. She stated that she did not know that this property was zoned multi - family. Ms. Prokoseh stated that she is definitely against the 50' lots. Tammy Haynes, 124 Wood Ridge Trail, stated that the 50' lots should not be allowed. There is a drainage problem in the area. Nis. Haynes stated that she feels that when the new homes and roads are put it, there will be a disastrous situation because of the drainage. The City will have to pay and the millage rate and appraisal value will go up. The lots will be an eyesore. Walter Hamilton, 2402 Oregon Avenue, stated that smaller lots are not the way to improve a neighborhood. There will be a traffic problem which carries noise. A 60' lot should be maintained. If you take down the trees, Kaywood is 6 higher and will look into the back yards. Ray Bertrand, President of Mayfair Meadows Homeowners Association, stated that the Homeowner's request is that the Commission vote against this plan. Mr. Marder stated that several standards noted in the Zoning Ordinance for consideration of this type of request are: 1) requires space between vehicular access points and intersecting street rights -of -way in excess of those generally required by the Ordinance may be required for a Conditional Use, and location of all vehicular. access points may be specified by the Planning and Zoning Commission,, The Commission has the power and authority to specify where the access to this subdivision is to be. 2) the Planning and Zoning commission may require that the premises be permanently buffered from adjoining and contiguous property by a specific visual screen when necessary to separate the Conditional Use from surrounding uses and may specify the location and nature of such visual screen. That the Commission has the ability to specify is provided for in the standards for conditional Use Approval. Mr. Marder stated that the recommendation regarding the access as well as the wall was a unanimous recommendation on the part of City staff. Staff also contacted the Seminole County Development Review Department, in charge of reviewing development accessing County streets. Staff always provide the County with a copy of the plan and believes that the county's recommendations with regard to the access point, will be similar to City Staff's. Mr. Dennison asked that the finding be made a part of the record. Matt Haynes, 124 Wood Ridge Trail, stated that he is worried by the price and value. He asked that the living area square footage be placed in the deed restrictions. Mrs. Stairs stated that deed MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1993 PAGE 5 restrictions can specify a minimum square footage to be built in a subdivision. Mr. Reischmann stated that most common deed restrictions are on minimum square footage. He also stated that case law has created a test in determining whether this can be approved. In a case called Schneider, the court has ruled that the initial burden is upon the applicant in that they have the obligation to show that their request complies with the procedural requirements of the zoning codes, specifically with regards to the conditional use part of the zoning code, i.e. section 3.7 of the code. Those are the specific requirements that this applicant has to meet in order to meet the first of the two part test to shift the burden. The second is that the use sought, the density or intensity of this use which has to be consistent with the Comp Plan. Mr. Reischmann stated that his understanding of the staff's report is that this proposed use is consistent with the Camp Plan. If the applicant has met this two part test, the law sags that there is a presumption created, that the applicant is entitled to use of his property in the manner in which he seeks, unless the government agency, opposing this application, proves by clear and convincing evidence that a specifically stated public necessity requires a specified more restricted use. This Board, is required to find that there exists a specified public necessity, proven by clear and convincing evidence, that would require a more restrictive use. In doing so, it has to weigh the nature of evidence that was presented. Then there has to be a finding of fact. Mr. Brooks asked that in looking at Staff's recommendations, if the Commission is being asked to consider if this is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and if we have the necessary data to prove that the overflow of traffic would be a basis for denial of this use. Mr. Reischmann stated that this is absolutely right. Mr. Marder stated that his recommendation to.deny was based upon the plan dated March I. The recommendations stated further that he recommended approval based on an access changed to Oregon. The issue regarding the lot size basically falls within the proper density permitted on this site, based on the density in the Comp Plan and the zoning. He also considered the adjacent 40' wide lots that are already located within the immediate area. Mr. Speer asked, if the ruling of the testimony of the expert, Mr. Stenstrom, that the value of the lots in the neighborhood would be reduced by a value of 20 %, is not sufficient evidence and does it not make a finding that we could not approve this particular plan. Mrs. stairs stated that she was not convinced- that this was the case. If more findings are needed then she suggested tabling until the Commission can look at valuations. Mr. Speer stated that this may not be an issue. Mr. Reischmann stated that given the Comp. Plan and the factors that are listed for consideration of the Conditional Use, is the issue of the impact of surrounding property values a factor that we can support and consider at all? There has to be clear, competent evidence of the allegation that this development will decrease the surrounding property values in order to be considered. Mr. Reischmann stated that in the Code there are some standards for consideration of dimensional variances. One is that the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this ordinance and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public interest and welfare. Mr. Marder stated that this request is not technically a dimensional variance but rather a conditional use to establish certain minimum dimensional requirements for the development within the zoning classification. Mr. Reischmann stated that the applicant has applied for a conditional use and the application also requests to permit 5500 square foot minimum lot areas. The Conditional Use request pertains to the Land Development Code Schedule O -Area and Dimensional Regulations, which requires a minimum lot of 6000 square feet. This is from a letter from Joan Randolph of Darling Locklin. Mr. Marder stated that the variance would be with regards to the Oregon Avenue right-of-way MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1993 PAGE 6 dedication which is in a different schedule, schedule I -Base Building Lines and Designated Right -of -Way Requirements. Mr. Marder stated that they are asking for a variance but it states waiver on the notes on the plan. This. is what he would term as the dimensional variance. Mr. Davis asked if we were discussing a lot width with a variance. Mr. Marder stated we are not. The typical dimensional variance for a lot width would be a situation in which the existing building lot width was not sufficient to provide for the minimum required for a single family house or a non - conforming lot of record. Mr. Marder stated that basically the developer is requesting this type of a dimensional requirement as part of the preliminary Subdivision plat process in conjunction With a conditional use. It is really not associated with ghat he would call a variance. Mr. Reischmann asked that when a conditional use permit is applied for as opposed to a variance for dimensional standards, is it part of the process of the conditional use to decrease standard size lots. Mr. Marder stated that it would not be a decrease but rather establishing your own Standards within the density. Mr. Reischmann asked if this applicant should have also submitted an application for a dimensional variance. Mr. Marder stated no. Mr. Reischmann read the standards into the record: 1. For a preliminary subdivision plan, the proposed preliminary subdivision plan is consistent with all political goals, objectives, policies and standards in the City of Sanford's Comprehensive Plan. He asked Mr. Marder if this is the case. Mr. Marder stated "yes ". 2. The proposed preliminary subdivision plan meets or exceeds all applicable minimum standards and requirements as set forth in this ordinance. Mr. Reischmann asked Mr. Marder if there would be inconsistencies in the reduction of square footage. Mr. Marder stated "no, because of the density." Mr. Marder stated that it meets the basic intent and purpose of the zoning classification the way it is set up. 3. The environmental impact of the proposed preliminary subdivision plan be compatible with existing and anticipated land use in the immediate neighborhood and that said plan will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public's interest, safety and welfare. He asked Mr. Marder how this factor related to this particular application. Mr. Marder stated that the proposal is similar to the uses in the immediate area that have already been established. It is basically the same type of development that is already located in the immediate area. Mr. Reischmann stated that the Board has heard the opinions from both sides and the public. The Board has the responsibility of determining whether or not this preliminary subdivision plan meets or does not meet Standard no. 3. 4. Adequate facilities and services necessary to serve the development associated with the proposed subdivision will be available and in place at the time of impact of the developmental phase thereof. 5. Traffic circulation and related impacts are based on the requirements contained in Schedule Q. Mr. Reischmann asked Mr. Marder if these factors were considered. Mr. Marder stated "yes." Mr. Dennison asked if the drainage questions that have been proposed and the elevations stated meet requirements. Mr. Marder stated that prior to the final approval of the engineering plan process of this development, that all of the drainage issues will be resolved otherwise the construction plans will not be approved and a site development permit will not be issued. Mr. Marder also stated that the Water Management District, plays an integral role in determining this type of development. There is a more advanced system of checks and balances now than were in place at the time of Mayfair Meadows development. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Marder if his recommendations would be somewhat different with Alternate A and B vs. the plan that the Board originally received. Mr. Marder stated that he would take into account Alternate B. even though he or City Staff has not reviewed it. Mr. Marder stated that he more generally favors this layout. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1993 PAGE 7 Mr. Harling stated that regarding real estate values, he has lived in the area for 25 years. In general, residential detached single family does not effect the value of adjacent property. If you look at a 50' wide lot vs. a 60' wide lot configuration and look across a wall, all you will see are 4 more roof lines. Mr. Harling stated that the traffic impact would be approximately 1100 trips per day, approximately 11 of road capacity of Oregon Avenue. If other developments in the immediate area are the same size in an order of magnitude, then you would be looking at about 30% of the capacity of the road being utilized. From the drainage standpoint,' Mr. Harling stated that Comprehensive Plan requirements and the requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management District will be met for a closed basin. This requires that a 4 day storm be held, on the site before releasing any water. The other thing that Mr. Harling will personally commit to is that they will continue to work with the City to provide a positive outfall although that positive outfall will be above the 100 year flood elevation presently designated. Mr. Harling stated that he would like to be able to commit a minimum square footage of 1250, but he can't because he did not know the exact dimensions. He stated that he absolutely knows that it will not be less than 1200. He stated that he would commit to the Board tonight that they would put a 1200 foot minimum square foot in the deed restriction. Mr. Harling stated that it is their intent that this will be a high quality development. It will be a development of quality people, and they will carry their share of the tax load. Mr. Harling stated that he has a great deal of respect for Kay Shoemaker and his subdivision. All double frontage lots are at a depth of 12 5 ' . The minimum square footage is 6,250' on those particular lots. Mr. Harling stated that he thinks they have done a good job and requested the commission's approval. He stated that they would continue to work with the neighborhood to resolve any problems they perceive or that they have. Mr. Dennison asked how the buffering would be done. Mr. Harling stated that what they have proposed is a masonry wall on 46A and a wooden fence on Oregon Avenue. Mr. Harling also stated that if it was the desire of the Board to have the fence an Oregon Avenue masonry, then Mr. Harling will accept this. Mr. Harling feels that there will be a heavier loss of vegetation along Oregon Avenue due to the footer required for a masonry wall. The cost to the developer between wood and masonry is a few dollars per foot. Mr. Speer stated that in Alternate B, there is a loss of a lot on Oregon Avenue in order to have the entrance on Oregon Avenue. Mr. Speer asked if all the lots on Oregon Avenue could be 60' lots, having them comparable in size and dimension to the Kaywood lots and having those homes face the west towards Kaywood, and have the backyards on Street B. There would not be any homes backed up to Kaywood, but rather they would front Kaywood. Mr. Harling stated that what would happen is that they would end up with quite a few individual driveways on Oregon Avenue which is a collector road. This might not initially be a problem but it would become a serious transportation problem in the future. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Harling if Alternate A is the preferred entrance. Mr. Harling stated "yes." Mr. Dennison asked if it was against DOT standards to have the entrance this close to Oregon Avenue. Mr. Harling stated that 660' is the standard. They are proposing 625 to 630 This entrance was moved from the original plan to keep from having any traffic impact on Oregon and to basically reserve Oregon for subdivisions further north and for Kaywood. Questions from the audience included if Mr. Harling was a licensed real estate appraiser that he could tell what effect this construction would have on existing homes. Mr. Dennison explained that Mr. Harling was representing the developer. Another question MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 1$, 1993 PAGE S was in terms of drainage. The gentlemen stated that he lives in Mayfair Meadows and that the retention pond is in his back yard. He stated that he hopes the City does its home work as to drainage and asked how could someone assume with that much construction, it will not burden the drainage. Mr. Dennison explained that Mr. Harling had stated that they will be complying with all requirements of the St. Johns River water Management District and the Land Development Regulations. Ms. Haynes, when asked by the Chairman, stated that t concrete wall on Oregon Avenue with 60' lots would be acceptable. Mr. Shoemaker stated that he had been Chairman of the Seminole County Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that the Board was necessary because, back in those days, they did not have the staff and the legal people available. Mr. Shoemaker stated that he felt the City did not need the Board if Staff and the Attorney were going to decide. He stated that the Board is to serve the public the best that it can and do what is right and practical. Mr. Shoemaker stated that he is not fighting Mr. Harling and that the public is not asking for anything unreasonable. Mr. Shoemaker stated that consideration should be given to what has been discussed and that the drainage comes later. Mr. Shoemaker stated that he does not agree with Mr. Marder and that he feels he is wrong in the interpretation of the Codes. Mr. Leroy asked Mr. Harling regarding the lots that face Oregon Avenue, ghat would the effect be if those lots were made 60 in width. Mr. Harling stated that if you took lots 9 through 65 and made all of those 60' wide, there would be a loss of 4 lots. Mr. Harling stated that they did not try 60' in width; they worked only with 50 Mr. Davis asked if 60' lots could be entertained. Mr. Harling stated that his client is on vacation and he would be hesitant to make a decision on this. Mr. Harling stated that he would commit to concur to make the lots that have frontage on Oregon 60 In making this adjustment a lass of 3 lots will occur. Mr. Brooks noted that Mr. Harling is representing a client, and asked if he could make commitments for the owner. Mr. Harling stated that he represents Mr. San Katanich and that he has the authority to make minor adjustments. These changes represent a lot of dollars. If 60' lots will satisfy everyone, he will commit to them. Mr. Harling stated that they would like to go with Alternate A. Mr. Dennison stated that Mr. shoemakers' remarks were made in all sincerity and should be considered. Mr. Reischmann stated that the motion needs to have an approval, approval with change, or denial. If it is approved with changes then it needs to stipulate the changes. The motion needs to have specific findings of fact establishing the basis for either the approval, approval with modifications, or denial, keeping in mind the factors, whether or not this application complies with procedural requirements and whether the use sought is consistent with the density and intensity with the Camp Plan. Mr. Speer made a motion to approve the request for adoption of this site plan on the basis that the developer will comply with his proposed Alternate Ar that all of the lots that are numbered 9 through 65 bordering Oregon Avenue will be made 60 6,000 square feet, that there be a concrete block or masonry wall that will be maintained by the homeowners association; that there be no entrance from the development to Oregon Avenue; and that there is sufficient finding of the testimony of Staff and the applicant to support this motion. Seconded by Mr. LeRoy. Mr. LeRoy moved to amend the notion to include a deed restriction that the minimum house size be 1200 square feet. Mr. Davis seconded the amendment. Mr. Dyal and Mrs. Stairs apposed to the amendment. All others in favor. Amendment carried. Mr. Dyal and Mrs. Stairs apposed to the motion as amended. All others in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1993 PAGE 9 The next item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Dimensional Variance for property located at 2501 French Avenue and 2502 Laurel Avenue in a GC -2. General Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of a Walgreens Drug Store. Owner: Calogero & Carmela Baia & Carlo's Original Italian Restaurant /Jerry C. Evans, agent; representative: Al Carpenter, Conklin, Porter & Holmes. Al Carpenter, Conklin, Porter, and Holmes Engineers, Bret Boyd, Jerry Evans, WEB, were present for representation. It was acknowledged that Mr. Davis could not vote on this request due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Carpenter stated that they will be saving the three large oak trees on the property. What is shown on the site is what Walgreens need for a free standing store (there are approximately 200 throughout the state). The building will face 17 -92. He stated that they are proposing access from 17 -92 at the southwest portion of the site. They have submitted the plan to DOT and have received comments from them. A previous plan showed access from SR 46. DoT did not think this was a wise place for access and did not approve it. Also, they are proposing access off of Laurel. Mr. Carpenter stated that the building is 14,120 square feet. The required parking spaces are 76 with 60 proposed on the site. Mr. Carpenter stated that they are proposing to vacate a portion of the alley. They are working with the utility companies because of service lines. The sewer is proposed to be relocated. Easement dedication will be given to the City for maintenance. This will all be worked through with the site plan process. Mr. Carpenter entered into the record renderings showing the front of the building. The drive through window will be for prescriptions only. The canopy will not extend to the road. It will be 500' larger than the present Lake Mary store. Mr. Dyal stated that what we are talking about right now is the dimensional variance and not the site plan, but on Item #4 we will be discussing the conceptual site plan. Mr. Dyal asked, what a conceptual site plan is and how it binds this Board to any further actions. Mr. Marder stated that this is a dimensional variance. Mr. Marder stated that he was not sure what a conceptual site plan is. Mrs. Sonnenberg stated that this is a site plan and the applicant had asked to see if approval could be given on the location, etc. They will have to come back with a final site and engineering plan. Mr. Speer questioned the sign. He stated that there is a beautiful tree there and there is no reason to block it by an ugly sign. Mr. Carpenter stated that the existing sign will be removed. The City Code allows a 50 square foot sign with an additional 25 square feet. A double frontage lot may have 2 signs. Walgreens has a standard sign that is 130 square feet and would like to use it. Mr. Speer suggested that Walgreens put a nice logo on the building because it would be much more attractive to the eye and would identify the location. This would identify the location better than a double sign because of traffic and people looking at the red lights. Bret Boyd stated that the significance of the sign is all wrapped up into this new concept which Walgreens is doing. It is an added convenience. The top portion of the sign is about 88 square feet and just has the Walgreens name on it. The bottom portion of the sign is a manual reader board, not electronic. Mr. Boyd stated that Walgreens plan to employ approximately 30 to 35 employees with an employment expense of around $400,000 to 500,000 per year. Mr. Reischmann stated that the findings would have to be a part of the motion; i.e. 1. are there special circumstance statements, such as saving the three oak trees; 2. did these special circumstances cause any hardships or negligence; 3. will this variance grant MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1993 PAGE 10 the applicant special privileges that have been denied to others in the same zoning district; 4. would the literal interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance deprive the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Mr. Speer stated that there is a commercial building on the property now that enjoys the present use of all set backs, zonings, and requirements and that the applicant is making his own hardship if he tears down the building. Mr. Speer stated that the land has an economic use right now. It may be only worth $200 or $500 a month, but it has an economic use as a commercial building; therefore it is not a hardship. If they tear the building down, and the City says save those two oaks, he would say that the applicant is creating his own hardship. Mr. Reischmann stated that no. 5 Mould be that the minimum variance shall make possible reasonable use of the land; 6. grant of these variances will be in harmony with the general intent of the purpose of the ordinance and that the grant will not injurious to the area involved. Mr. Speer moved for approval of the request for a dimensional variance based on testimony and the evidence presented with the findings as presented. Seconded by Mr. Brooks. In opposition to the motion was Mr. LeRoy, Mr. Dyal, and Mrs. Stairs. Motion failed to pass. Opposition was based on the sign. Mr. LeRoy stated that his problem is with the sign and asked if there is a smaller sign which Walgreens could use. Mrs. Stairs moved to approve the original application with one exception, that would be to decrease their proposed increase for the sign to 98 seconded by Mr. LeRoy. All in favor. Motion carried. The neat item on the Agenda was to consider a site plan for Walgreens Drug store, located at 2501 French Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District. Mrs. Stairs moved on approval of the site plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. LeRoy. All in favor. Lotion 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 1209 Palmetto Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District, for the purpose of a change of use for a nonconforming structure for retail sales. Dottie Mings, 1209 Palmetto Avenue was present for representation. Mrs. Stairs stated that she would like to go on record that she was the selling agent on this transaction and that she will not be participating in the voting on this public hearing. Ms. Mings stated that she would like to operate a retail shop selling floral gifts and antiques. She stated that she has been doing business since October. The occupational license was given as a home occupation. She stated that she is open 4 days a week from 10 - 5. Ms. Mings stated that at the grand opening there was a large amount of traffic but that there is no more than a garage sale now. There is off - street parking from the alley. There is one parking space in the driveway and one on the street. Most people usually come in one car at any one time. Ms. Mings stated that she also makes flower arrangements to take to the flea market. Mr. Brooks asked if her house is big enough to do this type of work. She stated "yes ". Ms. Mings wants a free standing sign, not attached as recommended. She is asking for a waiver of the parking surface to use mulch parking vs. paving because of a flooding problem. A letter from 1210 Palmetto Avenue recommended approval of the request. MINUTES PLANNING NND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1993 PAGE 11 Ms. Mings stated that she is requesting a temporary waiver of the installation of shrubs along the property and stated that the handicap ramps and doors will be her first priority. She stated that a 6 month extension for planting would be acceptable. Mr. Davis moved on approval of the Conditional Use for retail sales based on staff's recommendations and findings and including a recommendation that mulch parking be approved, with the postponement of the installation of a type one or two buffer for a period of six months. Seconded by Mr. LeRoy. Mr. Dal in apposition. Motion carried. Mr. Dyal moved to approve the. minutes as circulated. Seconded by Mr. LeRoy. All in favor. Motion carried. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. De icon, Chairman FORM SB MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, M UNICtPAL AND OTHER LOCAL" PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME- 1 -IRSI' NAME NAME ADDRESS MIA CITY C' UN'C1' Gb'/� /I✓O DATE ON WHICH }O�YL CAL`CURREi) NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL. LUIw+1r, INN ION. AU AFL UJK t.WM M I I I Lf *t - .1 7'HE HOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. Au - H RITY. OR M M[771EE ON W HICH I SE IS A U NIT OF ( :( 'I'rY COUNTY ` OTHER l.CWA1 AGENCY CY NAME of POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: I� MY POSITION IS. I - ELECTIVE � APPOINTIVE INFO MU FILE FORM BB This form is ford use by any person serving at the county, city or other Iocal level of government on an appointed or elected board, c ouncil, comma lion, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non- advisory bodies who arc presented with a voting c ri ict of 'interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; altinough the use of this 'P articular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required b ► law. p Your re s p onsibilities under the laur when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict . of interest will ifary g reatly depending on whether Y ou hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing 't he form. INSTRUCTIONS S FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION IMM43 FLORIDA STATUTES L.,CTED OFFICE: A person holding .electi a count, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. E ach local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he i retained. In either case., you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VO TE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to t he assembly the nature o f your imerest in the measure on which you are abstaining from votin an 1 I'T'I SIN 15 DAYS "E R THE VOTE 0 CCU R S by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form its the minutes. A OFFICERS: person holding appointive c urdy, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingl y voting on a measure which inures to the special gain o a principal (other t han a government ag by w hom he is retained. person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision b oral or written communicanon, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO M AKE A NY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHI THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: `'ou should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for cording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the foam in the minutes. • A copy of the form should be provided imi nediately to the other members of the argen F. • The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. L IF YOU MA KE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: * You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. q You should complete the form and file is within 15 da y s after the vote occurs with the person re ponsible for recording the minutes ` of the meeting, who should incorp the form in the minutes. D ISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST L , hereby disclose that n 0 1 a A measure 'came or will come before my agency whic (ch one) inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom i am retained. (b) The measure b j e my agency and the mature of my interest in the measure is as follows: S7-.0?X �,,:c � 4.&:� �e.r�i` � /Jury, /mac. �,gs Tif� �C.ciirr� � Fd ' E�v,� D s�iS ��a�� 2 Date Filed /_.. .-9 Signature rrt NO TICE: U D R PROVISIONS OF F STATUTES 1 1.17 1 8 , A FAI TO MAKE ANY R U 1 EI• DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUN FOR AND MAY E PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWI IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL O SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION,, REDUCTION I N SALARY, REPRIMAND, O A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5 ,0G0. FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR BOUNTY, MUNICH PAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS E IL LAST NAME —F` RST NAME—MIDDLE PVAME 6 k n n V 'LING ADDRESS 20f) jr-in . . . S 4( BATH, ON N'HlCli vUl'h OCCL11titEU couKn• , -n"[nv1'e NA F BOARD. COUN IL, � MM1 1LYN. AU I r1 KI I I I s% {PrV1r"1TT F f,ol IfIn n 1 6() I F I IHE HOARD, COUNCIL. CbM MI SION - AUTH(3 Y. OR COM MITTE.L O � WHICH H I SERVL IS A UNIT CAE. V( r y COUNTY ()THE J.0CA1 AGENCY Z - L k LITIC' L UB ]S : 0 0-a. MY P05I1 I ELEC'TIV'E PPOIt! W HO MUST FILE FORM &B This form is for use by any person serving a t the count y, city, or other local level of gover nment on an appointed or elected board, council commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under ection ll . l 3. Florida Statutes. The requiremcnt f this law are mandatory; althou the use of this particular form is not required by lamp, you .are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. . Your responsibilities il ' under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict . of interest will itary greatly depending on you ou ]gold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form . before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION ' 1 . 43, FLORIDA STATUTE ELECTED] OFFICERS: person holding elective count y, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whoa he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: P R IOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKE b y publicly stating to the assembly the - nawre of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and XI I TH I N 15 DAYS AFTER TIDE V OTE 0CCU RS by completirig and - filing th is. form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form . ,in the.. minutes. . r APPOINTED OFFICERS: p erson hold appointive c only, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingl y voting on a measure which inures to th sp- : .cial gain of a principal (other than a government agency) b y whom he is retained. A person Molding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in .a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making an y attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the of ficer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE CE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHI THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before ma king an attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. • A copy of the foram should be providcd immediately to the other members of the agenc y. * form should be read publicly at the meeting p rior to consideration of the matter in' which you have a conflict of interest. ""j) I L) V . 111A IF NFOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: * 1'ou ,should disclose orally the nature of your confji t in the measure before participating. fete the f rm and file it within 1 days f` after the vote occurs with the person re pon ibis r recording the mina►_.. ' ou should corn � } of tote meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. D ISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST _ 1 F 1 , hereby disclose that on a measure carne or will core before my agency 4 - -rhich c -eck one inured 10 my special private gain* or lured to the special Bair, of bar whom I am retained. P h The measure before my agency and the mature o my interest in the measure is as follows: Mf-. jew/. D e /xx ,-75 le 1.11 0 - 5,?Ie 0 1"w 7 ' - -I.' A n/6z"If rt f � : a Filed y na[ ur - NO TICE: CINDER PRO O F FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 A FAILURE TO MAi.E. ANY F E UI EI: D I SCLOSL RE CONSTITUTES 0 RO UN DS FOR AND MA Y B E PCB N ISH ED BY ONE OR M 0 RE OF THE Fe 1dLOWI N : IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR S USPENSION - FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOY iE1 T, DEMOTION, IN AL E S , 1 EP1 .IMAN1 , I VIL PE �ALTN" NOT TO EXCEED S5,OW. Mcdch I �, I qq 5 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Kaywood and the city of Sanford, hereby voice our opposition to the request of Maronda Homes for a variance in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan for the land across Oregon Avenue from Kaywood subdivision to allow 50 foot wide lots and a reduction in lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet, said request to be heard by the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission on March 18 1993, on the grounds that said request will reduce the value of the houses located in Kaywood by increasing the population density resulting in increased vehicular traffic and damage to the environment and is contrary to the best interests of all the citizens of the city of Sanford. X/ O G/ jG Kc�tJOC c �r 've k l �2 )(h-Ywdon Dr. So.,, PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Kaywood and the City of Sanford, hereby voice our opposition to the request of Maronda Homes for a variance in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan for the land across Oregon Avenue from Kaywood subdivision to allow 50 foot wide lots and a reduction in lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet, said request to be heard by the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission on March ls, 1993, on the grounds that said request will reduce the value of the houses located in Kaywood by increasing the population density resulting in increased vehicular traffic and damage to the environment and is contrary to the best interests - ity of Sanford. I J-� 10 6 Ka-iuw P Ll , , 3 z77 j v CL , . a 3 2.71 / 7 7 I71 2771 12-7 / D--P- - �S' az 7 7 i 77 i �, ,, , I-in IQN We, the undersigned residents of Kaywood and the City of Sanford, hereby voice our opposition to the request of Maronda Homes for a variance in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan for the land across Oregon Avenue from Kaywood subdivision to allow 50 foot wide lots and a reduction in lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet, said request to be heard by the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission on March 18 1993, on the grounds that said request will reduce the value of the houses located in Kaywood by increasing the population density resulting in increased vehicular traffic and damage to the environment and is contrary to the best interests of all the citizens of the City of SagiordA - rVW -WX > a MI NOR 0 0 i f .O PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Xaywood and the City of Sanford, hereby voice our apposition to the request of Maronda Homes for a variance in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan for the land across Oregon Avenue from Kaywood subdivision to allow 50 foot wide lots and a reduction in lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet, said request to be heard by the City of Sanford planning and Zoning Commission on March 18, 1993, on the grounds that said request will reduce the value of the houses located in Kaywood by increasing the population density resulting in increased vehicular traffic and damage to the environment and is contrary to the best interests 125 Qu�-�L r�<doe Cr IBS Qu1�01 a +-A, a •.! it • I _ • f i i PETIT'IU1V We, the undersigned residents of Kaywood and the City of Sanford, hereby voice our opposition to the request of Maronda Tomes for a variance in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan for the land across Oregon Avenue from Kaywood subdivision to allow 50 foot wide lots and a reduction in lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet, said request to be heard by the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning commission on March 18, 1993, on the grounds that said request will reduce the value of the houses located in Kaywood by increasing the population density resulting in increased vehicular traffic and damage to the environment and is contrary to the best interests of all the citizens of the city of Sanford. &u� k c k9tx t7 (2-4 i)r� - I`)"] L f � M ir 1 i 1+ MIN �� '�� L 4 4, PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Kaywood and the City of Sanford, hereby voice our opposition to the request of Maronda Homes for a variance in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan for the land across Oregon Avenue from Kaywood subdivision to allow 50 foot wide lots and a reduction in lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet, said request to be heard by the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission on March 18, 1993, on the grounds that said request will reduce the value of the houses located in Kaywood by increasing the population density resulting in increased vehicular traffic and damage to the environment and is contrary to the best interests of all the citizens of the City of Sanford. I L T, I4N We, the undersigned residents of Kaywood and the City of Sanford, hereby voice our opposition to the request of Maronda Homes for a variance in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan for the land across Oregon Avenue from Kaywood subdivision to allow 50 foot wide lots and a reduction in lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet, said request to be heard by the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission on March ls, 1993, on the grounds that said request will reduce the value of the houses located in Kaywood by increasing the population density resulting in increased vehicular traffic and damage to the environment and is contrary to the best interests of all the citizens of the City of Sanford. rim COQ � PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Kaywood and the City of Sanford, hereby voice our opposition to the request of Maronda Homes for a variance in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan for the land across Oregon Avenue from Kaywood subdivision to allow 50 foot wide lots and a reduction in lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet, said request to be heard by the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission on March 18, 1993, on the grounds that said request will reduce the value of the houses located in Kaywood by increasing the population density resulting in increased vehicular traffic and damage to the environment and is contrary to the best interests of all the citizens of the City of Sanford. FA IL MAN .� . 3 W oes Inc do., 134 kn:j Wc00 131 Ko—j ica c 0 n . PETITION We, the undersigned Sanford, hereby voice ou Homes for a variance in subdivision plan for the subdivision to allow 50 residents of Kaywood and the City of r opposition to the request of Maronda conjunction with a preliminary land across Oregon Avenue from Kaywood foot wide lots and a reduction in lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet, said request to be heard by the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission on March 18, 1993, on the grounds that said request will reduce the value of the houses located in Kaywood by increasing the population density resulting in increased vehicular traffic and damage to the environment and is contrary to the best interests of all the citizens of the City of Sanford. n f , 77,` �y12'611 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Kaywood and the City of Sanford, hereby voice our opposition to the request of Maronda Homes for a variance in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan for the land across Oregon Avenue from Kaywood subdivision to allow 50 foot wide lots and a reduction in lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet, said request to be heard by the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission on March 18, 1993, on the grounds that said request will reduce the value of the houses located in Kaywood by increasing the population density resulting in increased vehicular traffic and damage to the environment and is contrary to the best interests of all the citizens of the City of Sanford. 11 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Kaywood and the City of Sanford, hereby voice our opposition to the request of Maronda Homes for a variance in conjunction with a preliminary subdivision plan for the land across Oregon Avenue from Kaywood subdivision to allow 50 foot wide lots and a reduction in lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet, said request to be heard by the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission on March 18, 1993, on the grounds that said request will reduce the value of the houses located in Kaywood by increasing the population density resulting in increased vehicular traffic and damage to the environment and is contrary to the best interests of all the citizens of the City of Sanford. c- —�To n s� �c - v nr► From the Director of Planning and Development March 11, 1993 TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Recommendations for Meeting of April 19, 1993 MARONDA HOMES C/O HARLING, LOCKLIN & ASSOCIATES - Request conditional use approval to approval a preliminary subdivision plan with certain minimum lot sizes for property zoned MR -1, Multiple Family Residential located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West 25th Street /C.R. 46A and Oregon Avenue. 1. Site is Zoned MR -1, Multiple Family Residential which permits a density of 8 dwelling units per acre. site is basically vacant at the present time. 2. This review is based on the proposed preliminary subdivision entitled Mayfair Subdivision received March 1, 1993. That plan reflects a 113 lot subdivision on 29.35 acres for a gross density of 3.85 dwelling units per acre. As such, the proposed density complies with both the Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Residential - 10. (10 D.U.'s /Acre) and the present zoning, MR -1. 3. Subject to additional information regarding drainage and transportation, adequate facilities and services appear to be available to the site including water, sewer, and transportation. 4. Adjacent uses include the Mayfair Meadows subdivision Zoned MR -1, Multiple Family Residential which includes detached and attached single family dwellings. The detached dwellings are located on lots that are generally 40 feet in width and approximately 115 feet in depth. On the west side of Oregon Avenue the Kaywood subdivision includes various single family dwellings, the closest of which are Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential. Lots 48, 49, 50 and 51 were split into six homesites with typical lot widths of sixty feet. 5. The site fronts on two streets, County Road 46A which is classified as a minor arterial, and Oregon Avenue which is classified as a minor collector. The proposed subdivision proposes a sole access point on County Road 46A. Seminole County's capital improvement plans anticipate that CR 46A will be a four -lane roadway with median openings. The use of a median in this section would be precluded if the proposed access is developed. The County's standards call for 660 feet between median openings on all arterial roadways. As such, the proposed access to the development is too close to Oregon Avenue. It should also be recognized that an 1 -4 Interchange at 46A is anticipated within 5 years which will greatly increase traffic volumes and speeds which justifies the anticipated improvements noted above. In similarity to the proposed development, the adjacent subdivision to the west, Kaywood, also fronts both CR 46A and Oregon Avenue. Kaywood has access points on Oregon Avenue only. The City's Plans Review Committee unanimously recommends denial of any direct vehicular access to the development from CR 46A because: a. Alternate access from Oregon Avenue is available; b. Limiting access on arterial roadways in order to maintain a high level of service standard is desirable and supported by policies in the comprehensive plan; C. The precedence for such an access limitation is already established by the adjacent development; d. Traffic congestion on the busier roadway, CR 46A, will occur which could be mitigated by access only on Oregon Avenue. Further, the Seminole County Development Review staffer in charge of traffic anticipated denial of the 46A access due to arterial function of the roadway, the anticipated design of improvements to the roadway and reasons similar to those mentioned above. 6. The development proposes a 10 foot landscaped buffer adjacent to CR 46A and a 5 foot landscape buffer adjacent to Oregon Avenue. Other similarly designed developments in the immediate area utilize a wall or fence to separate dwelling units from County Road 46A. The City's Plans Review Committee recommends that a masonry wall with a minimum height of 6 feet be utilized to separate residential uses from the street instead of the landscaped buffer. 7. While the overall land use is consistent with the comprehensive plan and it is assumed that additional information will support a conclusion that adequate facilities and services will be available upon the impact of the development, recommend denial of the conditional use request to approve a preliminary subdivision plan for Mayfair Subdivision based on the reasons and findings stated above regarding the undesirable and unnecessary traffic circulation plan which proposes sole vehicular access to the development from County Road 46A. A recommendation to approve the proposed development would include the following conditions: a. Sole vehicular access to the site shall line up with Kaywood Drive on Oregon Avenue. b. A masonry wall with a minimum height of six feet shall buffer dwelling units adjacent to Oregon Avenue and County Road 46A. Planning Recommendations, March 11, 1993, Page 2 WEB PROPERTIES - WALGREENS DRUG STORE - Request dimensional variances (per attachment dated March 4, 1993) to permit a convenience /drug store for property Zoned GC -2, General Commercial located at the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 17 & 92 /French Avenue and State Road 46/25th Street. 1. Site is Zoned GC -2, General Commercial and includes a vacant restaurant building and a single family dwelling. An alley runs through the middle of the site in a north /south direction. 2. Adjacent uses include various retail sales and services, a vacant restaurant and a gasoline service station within a GC -2 Zone. 3. This review is based on a Preliminary Site Plan received on March 11, 1993. The plan reflects a building located on the northerly portion of the site in a manner that provides for saving three large live oak trees on the southerly portion of the site. This overall configuration was the result of discussions with the developer and the City's Plans Review Committee. In general, City staff recommended that, due to the unique specimen oak trees on the site and the desirability of retaining same, the building and parking could be designed in a manner that would require dimensional variances of building setbacks. A previous site plan that reflected the removal of the oak trees would have required dimensional variances for parking space size and setbacks. 4. Subject to additional information regarding drainage and transportation, adequate facilities and services appear to be available to the site including water, sewer, and transportation. 5. The applicant is proposing to increase the size of a free - standing (detached) sign from 75 feet to 130 feet. Because the site has two street frontages, the applicant could request two signs as a conditional use. Several free - standing signs in the immediate location of site appear to be larger than 75 square feet. 6. Recommend approval of requested dimensional variances for front yard setback, loading space in parking drive lane, parking space size reduction to 9' x 18', number of parking spaces, landscape buffer requirements from 10 to 5 feet and increase free - standing sign square footage to 130 feet. This recommendation is based on the desire of the City to preserve native vegetation as noted above and the similarity of the proposed development with existing development already located in the area. DOROTHY MINGS - Request conditional use approval to permit retail sales in a nonconforming structure located in a GC -2, General Commercial Zone located at 1209 Palmetto Avenue. 1. Site includes a single family dwelling located on the east site of Palmetto Avenue between 12th and 13th Streets. 2. Various single family dwellings are located in vicinity of site in SR -1, Single Planning Recommendations, March 11, 1993, Page 3 Family Residential Zones and GC -2 Zones. The site is also adjacent to a restaurant /catering business fronting 13th Street and Sanford Avenue. 3. The uses fronting Palmetto Avenue are basically residential in nature. 4. Recommend that the request for conditional use for conducting retail sales be approved with the following conditions: a. Because of the residential character of uses facing Palmetto Avenue, signage shall be limited to one attached sign that shall be no larger than 2' x 3'. b. Any expansion of the building greater than 100 square feet shall be subject to conditional use approval. C. Should the retail sales use of the property discontinue for a period of six months or more, such use shall not be reestablished unless in conformity with the Land Development Regulations. Planning Recommendations, March 11, 1993, Page 4