Loading...
04.04.91MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1991 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAFERS MEMBERS PRESENT Jerry Johnson Cathryn Welch Tom Speer Joe Dennison Ben Dyal Leon Brooks Helen Stairs MEMBERS ABSENT: Eddie Keith John LeRoy OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Marder, City Planner Bettie Sonnenberg, Land Development Coordinator Bill Simmons, City Manager Lon Howell, City Commissioner The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Dennison. The first item on the Agenda was a Public Hearing to consider a Conditional Use request for property located at 606 Park Avenue in a SR -1, Single Family Residential Zoning District for a non- conforming structure, 6 unit apartment building. Owner: United Mortgage Company; representative: Helen Stairs. Ms. Stairs excused herself from the Commission and stated that she is the broker of record representing the owner and prospective buyer. Ms. Stairs stated that this property was constructed to be used as a 6 unit apartment building consisting of 1- bedroom and 1- bath each. Ms. Stairs stated that she had met with the City Commission and the Historic Trust and that they are in agreement with the concept. Ms. Stairs explained that the City Commission, in their endeavor to update the area, has ruled that if the structure is vacant for 6- months it would revert to single family. The structure has been vacant for 15 to 16- months but it is in extremely good structural condition. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1991 PAGE 2 Ms. Welch asked if the client had agreed with all conditions and if he would agree with a non - transferable condition, if sold. Also, Ms. Welch asked what is the difference between a conditional use and spot zoning. Ms. Stairs stated that the conditions would go with the property. One advantage is that the developer has great experience. The City Attorney has stated that the stipulations or conditions would stay with the property not with the ownership. He had lived across the street years ago. Mr. Speer asked how would the developer handle the parking and what would be done for 6 additional parking spaces needed when there are only 3- parking spaces. He stated that two units on Oak Avenue were required to put parking on -site. Ms. Stairs stated that the parking would be addressed on the site -plan. Mr. Speer stated that this structure has a 0 -lot line and that the alley could not be used to park cars. Mr. Marder stated that the conditional use recognizes that this is a non - conforming structure and therefore could not meet all requirements. Mr. Marder suggested that a developer's agreement would state exactly what the conditions are if the Commission decided to approve. Mr. Speer asked if 4 -units could be considered for this structure. Ms. Stairs stated that the prospective buyer would not buy for 4- units. Mr. Speer stated that 1- bedroom apartments will not rent and that it would be better with 4 larger units that would rent. Mr. Speer stated that this use would not help the City. This structure was built in 1927. In the 1930's when everyone had one or no cars. People would walk to church, schools and to employment. Mr. Speer stated that since the 1960's the area has been degraded and that he would like to see the area not encourage any more 1- bedroom units. He would encourage a better apartment house with a kept exterior. Ms. Stairs noted that this would be better than a vacant lot. Ms. Stairs noted that the prospective buyer is taking the biggest risk. Mr. Speer asked if it would be more feasible to consider a duplex. Mr. Marder stated that this building is in Code Enforcement Board process and is in imminent danger of being torn down. Mr. Speet noted it would be a clean vacant lot with the possibility of a single family home being constructed. Mr. Marder noted that this is in the Historic District where there is not a lot of new structures being built. This structure contributes to the historical designation and its removal would subtract from the value of the area. Pockets lead to negative not positive effects. Mr. Speer generally agreed with Mr. Marder's comments but noted that specifically in front of the building it was a parking lot for junk cars with the hoods up, etc. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1991 PAGE 3 Ms. Stairs stated that she agrees with the City Attorney's opinion that conditions placed would go with the property, that she agrees with Mr. Marder's comments, and that $50,000 in renovations is not very much for six units compared to a single family residence. Mr. Johnson stated that he has concerns relative to the grave injustice done when the City allowed the Magnolia- Palmetto -Park Avenue area to become today. He asked how would $350 /month correspond to the weekly fees next door. Experience came up with these fees and Ms. Stairs felt he would get it. Mr. Brooks noted that the Commission did not want to discourage anyone from coming in and upgrading the neighborhood and commented that the developer would do what is necessary to get his money out of it. Sue Olinger, 910 Elm Avenue, board member speaking on behalf of the Trust, stated that they had spent a lot of time reviewing the project. She noted that the Trust agrees with the project and recommends requiring a one -year lease for tenants. She stated that the problems come from daily or weekly rentals and where some one is not policing the structure. As long as there is someone on- site, there should be no problems with rentals. Ms. Olinger stated that the Trust definitely supports the renovation as long as the developer agrees with the conditions. Jamie Meeks, 621 Park Avenue, stated that she owns the property next to the two rental units across the street. She bought with the understanding that everything would remain single family. She would like to see the historic building preserved but agrees with Mr. Speer that 6 -units is too much. The unit next door has 4 to 6 cars usually with two in front of the house. The conditions proposed to go with this conditional use are pretty specific and a one year lease is very important. Otherwise, people move in and out in the middle of the night. Ms. Meeks stated that basically she was not opposed. Mr. Brooks moved on approval with the stipulations as listed in the memorandum from City Staff. Mr. Dyal seconded. Mr. Dennison, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Dyal in favor. Mr. Speer, Ms. Welch, and Mr. Johnson opposed. Motion tied, therefore did not pass. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the Site Plan for the First Assemblies of God Church, a church use, located at 911 Palmetto Avenue in a GC -2, General Commercial Zoning District. Owner: First Spanish Assemblies Church of God; representative: Pastor Augusto Avila. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1991 PAGE 4 Pastor Avila, 2791 Richmond Avenue, was present for representation. Mr. Speer moved on approval subject to Staff's recommendations. Mr. Dyal seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of recommending the draft Development Agreement Ordinance to the City Commission. Mr. Marder stated that he is researching this with the State and other local government agencies as to how they handle Development Agreements. He has run into some confusion and cannot get a determination from the Department of Community Affairs. Mr. Marder suggested that the Commission table this item until he could come back with some type of determination on how to proceed. He stated that there is no differentiation between small and large properties. Mr. Marder noted that he needed more time to clarify. Mr. Dyal moved to table. Mr. Brooks seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Dyal moved to approve the minutes as circulated. Seconded by Mr. Brooks. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Dyal stated that he has mixed emotions regarding the conditional use request. He stated that the building was created for this purpose and that it would be better than a vacant lot. He would like to see 4 -units in this structure but would probably lose the buyer. With the cost of remodeling, the buyer could not get the value out of it. He stated that this may seem cruel and callous, but the property would be improved, and it might or might not go through foreclosure. Ms. Stairs said the present owners will not go to any further expense to save the building. Mr. Speer stated 915 Park Avenue has 5 -units (3 in front and 2 in back). All units have a one -year lease with a $200 security deposit. The joke is the one -year lease and the $200 security deposit with a $295 monthly rental fee. A single girl, with one child may move in. At first, there are two people, then two families. It is a bad situation between 9th and 10th Streets on Park Avenue and between 6th and 7th Streets. We have to stand up to our Zoning Regulations. We cannot make any exceptions. Ms. Welch stated that she is torn with the project. This is a wonderful building and shows flexibility from the Historic Society. Mr. Johnson stated that his biggest concern was that he didn't know of any married couple with less than 2- automobiles. Therefore, the structure would need 12- parking spaces. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1991 PAGE 5 Mr. Speer stated that it is a problem when people are trying to upgrade their property in the area, knowing that three apartment buildings next to them are a problem. Regarding the apartments in close proximity, there could be 36- units, possibly 72 -cars in the immediate area, with 2 -cars broken down. Mr. Speer noted that he was disappointed when the street lights were taken down. Ms. Stairs stated that she truly believes in this project or else she would not have put herself on the line. She does not want to see the building torn down and she believes in Duany. Chairman Dennison made note that we all care for Sanford. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M. oe nnison, Chairman &. .. 1Mti FROM THE SANFORD CITY PLANNER March 26, 1991 TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Planning Recommendations for Meeting of April 4, 1991 S TAIRS - Request conditional use approval to . permit the use of a non - conforming structure for six apartments located at 606 Park Avenue in an SR -1, Single Family Residential Zone. 1. Site is Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential and includes a two -story building that appears to have been designed and utilized for apartments. The building was boarded up at the time of inspection. The City has condemned the building as part of its code enforcement process. 2. Site is adjacent to various nonconforming multiple family dwellings and several single family dwellings in an SR -1, Single Family Residential Zoning District 3. The site and surrounding area are part of a nationally recognized and designated Historic Residential District. in contrast to the recently completed guidelines prepared for the Downtown Commercial District, the City has not implemented similar guidelines for property in the Historic Residential District. The building located on the site is considered to be a "contributing structure" to the Residential Historic District. 4. in 1983 the City of Sanford rezoned the site and surrounding area from a multiple family residential zone to a single family residential zone. The basic intent of the rezoning was to halt the uncontrolled conversion and modification of large homes into multiple family dwellings and boarding houses and to protect, encourage and strengthen single family housing and related rehabilitation in the area. 5. Recommend conditional approval of the request to establish six dwelling units at 606 Park Avenue based on similarity of proposed use with immediately adjacent uses and original design and purpose of the building in question. Recommend that the following conditions and stipulations be placed on this approval for the reasons noted. Planning Recommendations for April 4, 1991 Page 2 a. Review of all wlenior renovation activities by the Q& of Sanford Historic Preseoffl on Board to insure that historic architectural character and compatibility with the neighborhood is maintained. Such review, comments and recommendations shall be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission orior to site Alan approval pnless otherwise agreed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The national Historic District designation provides the City with the basis to condition development approval in a manner that provides appropriate historic preservation considerations. It should be recognized that the Historic Preservation Board does not have formal regulatory authority in the Residential Historic District. Therefore, this condition recommends that the Historic Preservation Board refer comments or recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration during site plan review. b. Lease agreeme between the tenant and landlord shall be required and shall be for a period of of least one year. In addition. lease agreements shall prohibit subleasing. reguire a secUft de oslt and Igec& one ' famii ' per unit. It is generally recognized that high quality rental properties are an asset to the neighborhood and community as a whole. Conversely, the 1983 rezoning to SR -1 was aimed at curtailing the proliferation of transient lodging facilities in the area. The requirement for lease agreements is justified in order to provide greater assurance that the neighborhood will be populated by a more stable population. C. Full Site Plan Approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall include Enhanced Landscape. Historic Preservation Recommendations and Buffer Considerations - Buffering and screening requirements are particularly important in built up areas such as the Residential Historic Area. The City's Land Development Regulations specifically provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with the ability to require additional landscaping, buffering and screening requirements beyond the minimum code requirements. d. Within three months of conditio use permit approval by the Plannin And Zoning Commission, the owner shall have submitted renovation 121ans. includino but not limited to a site plan, to the QW. Within one year of this conditional use permit approval, the owner shall have completed at least fifty percent of the approved renovations. If these timeframes are not met the conditional use permit shall expire provided however, that the Planning and Zonina Commission has the authority to grant extensions at the request of the owner.